Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Bwahahahahaha, So even easier pickings for wardec corps?
Since their weekly bill of billions now becomes a maximum of 700 million every 3 weeks......
And since they are significantly larger than you know, pretty much all the corps they attack, they also get relative immunity since citadel attacks in highsec are pure blob fests since the structures defences are worthless in highsec.

Your right that this has great implications for Wardecs in highsec, it means Merc corps can grief everyone, not just only those who they think they can get shiny kills from. And that is terrible.

It's not about one corp. Some of my best times in this game were assembling fleets to fight off a threat, turning hated enemies into conditional allies, to fight off another group. Right now there is zero impetus to actually try and band together to fight them, because there is nothing to actually fight. New Eden as a whole is a game of, don't be the biggest guy on the block as you will draw aggro from the rest of the cluster. If there was an impetus to actually unite, something to rally around, rather than the ephemeral, ethereal wardeccers who will just dock, you might actually see some different behaviors.

ISK is a terrible way to balance it - of this we can probably almost all agree. It should be balanced with, bite off as much as you can chew and no more, or suffer the consequences. It should be a game of wardeccing as many as you can get away with - as your blanket gets too big, so to does your risk.

Say I run a WarDec Co. I see some nullbear alliance that i think will feed me JFs. I dec them for free. I see another one, and similarly this happens again. Eventually, someone in one of the decced alliances sees all the wars I have made, and begins uniting the clans. Now there's a social component on part of the decced people to rally, and something to actually rally against, hence an actually game of when and who to dec.


Good. It's cheaper and stimulates the player economy more than sending ISK off into the nothingness.


Think of the stories that would unfold. Mercenaries would actually become more relevant - think of a small consortium of hisec bear companies hiring mercs to lead them vs a big war dec corp. The potential for interaction is HUGE, rather than just the doldrums of wardecs currently.

Err, I'm not sure what kind of drugs you're taking but the system you describe would make it so that the only logical way to run a wardec group would be to be as large as possible to mitigate the risk of a large group taking down your citadel. Being the biggest guy on the block would be the optimal way to function.

The potential for interesting interaction would be less than there is currently because there would not only be less opportunity for aggression, since declaring war at all would literally be impossible for the vast majority of highsec corps to actually declare a war and the few that would could have their ability to declare war shut off by anyone who can field a larger fleet than them.

Small scale wars between people over random occurrences that actually have meaning to the involved parties simply would not exist at all since those groups would simply not have the required equipment. They're already extremely rare since declaring any war almost inevitably results in a large mercenary allying in to it for free. Small merc entities would not exist because the second they declared a war a larger merc group would destroy their citadel, preventing them from declaring any more wars. The only groups that would exist are large scale merc groups that declare large numbers of wars.

It would be taking the very option of war away from the majority of players while encouraging the very worst trends in highsec PVP.

The only people who would stand to benefit from it at all would be large entities who aren't generally interested in highsec PVP, but can field large fleets and would like the ability to turn off other peoples ability to declare war on them.

Losing a billion isk citadel doesn't really punish wardeccers for losing. Heck, losing a citadel a week is probably far cheaper than 300 simultaneous wardecs. If that clause were not added, all that would happen is a net reduction in the effective ISK/week one pays. While that is also a good thing, everyone wins more when there's more of a game to play on both sides.

You can say 'actively mitigate' all you want, but the truth of the matter is that you have so many mechanics to lean on that there was never really all that much risk to begin with, and absolutely never a time when you are actually forced to commit to holding the field.

Give me a break. Lets see how much you know about hisec mechanics. Are you just parroting or can you actually list some that are exclusive to those that are the agressors?

If your issue is with not being forced to commit to holding the field then please allow us to use bubbles and capitals in hisec.

Whilst the rest of your post holds merit, this part was stupid. People are getting decced for their structures and have been for ages. Pocos have been switching hands everyday since they were introduced. And now with citadels people are fighting over the best market spots.

People have cottoned onto the fact that fighting over structures/objectives makes the most content, and it seems the null sec lot have cottoned onto how un-fun the game is when there is no way to strike back at an attackers assets and there is no reason to commit to a fight.

However with the way citadels work, attackers do have to commit as they cant just dock up unless they have rights. They can't engage off a citadel and then disengage to dock, they have to try and warp off if they aren't pointed. That on it's own goes a long way to solving the frustrations defenders have. Add to that how any wardec not over an objective is hard to maintain without watchlists (which I hope to god come back with observatories).

So having wardecs tied to a structure may not be necessary with what's coming. And i say that after making the thread in my sig.

Edit- i forgot to add, citadels defences are god damn beastly as well. And you can take as long as you want aligning out from them after undocking.

Eh, I don't think you give me a whole lot of credit here. I think I understand a wee bit here.

Part of getting fights in this game is convincing the opponent they should take the fight or that it is worth it. You would stand to have a lot less wardec evasion if there was something they could actually attack and fight back at. Fighting hub campers with near perfect intel and the ability to dock up is about as engaging as dealing with cloaky campers. As it is, I don't blame people who evade wardecs: there is almost zero opportunity for it to turn into a good fight if the deccers play their cards right.

Yes attacking structures during a dec is risky - excellent, working as intended. This means it shouldn't be asking much for deccers to defend one for a few hours a week, in exchange for 100% free wardecs. An actual engaging way to end the war means people will have a lot more interesting in fighting back.

I've seen EVE University burn down PIRAT's poco empire, over a year ago I got to be part of an attempt to take over a Highsec island which led to the locals all banding together to fight us... I'd love to see more wars like that happening. The thing is, Highsec doesn't usually work this way. There are a lot of people who just want to keep to themselves and not engage in these kinds of things and will simply dock up or sit in an NPC corporation to avoid wars. I don't necessarily blame them either.

As was also pointed out, the proposed cost structure strongly favours further consolidation of Highsec wardeccers to mitigate the costs of setting up these wars. As soon as a war is lost, simply rollout a new corporation and start all over. Want to really **** people off? Set up those Citadels in the far corners of Highsec and make the defenders spend half the week looking for your citadel (if they even want to bother) while you continue to rake in the oblivious folks auto piloting through the trade pipes. Why even defend your citadel as an aggressor if you can cover your costs in loot from being at war with everyone not in an NPC corporation? How many times will a defender need to dumpster a wardec corp's citadel before they get tired of it because they just set up a new one far far away the next day?

Why should they be punished at all for losing? The whole point of this game is to try to attack each other, and build/gather stuff to facilitate those attacks. Why should people be dissuaded from trying?

And certainly it would punish a small, few-man corporation that dared to attack you. A billion+ ISK is a lot to ask of many small groups just to play the game. Perhaps the solution is scaling sizes of structures. Maybe a relatively cheaper Observatory Array could be used to declare war on one or a few other corps for use by smaller and non-professional corps, while corps that want to declare dozens of wars at a time like today's mercenary groups would need a Citadel.

You should not be able to earn complete safety for winning a fight. That stifles escalation and retaliation. Besides, it is completely unenforceable as if a group wants to pursue a continued campaign against you, they will just hop to another corp with another Citadel and resume attacking you and everyone else.