Player Features and Ideas Discussion

...Which would completely gut every wardec group in one fell swoop.

I have the exact same idea but with out the pretentious bull **** and whining about what's 'fair' and 'sporting' in an open sandbox.

You shouldn't. One of the basic design goals of war declarations is that they should be available to everybody.

We're talking about an astrahaus here though

Like, world's cheapest structure that requires literally no fuel just to exist. But fine, okay, lets call it a "command post" and make anchoring it part of the wardec process or whatever and give it to your for the 50 mil if you don't have existing structures.

To be super clear I don't care about professional deccers versus industry corps. I care more about wars having objectives that allow participants on either side to definitively win by force rather than by surrender or diplomacy. I don't think wardec groups need to be curtailed or countered. I think that entities of all size should have undockable stake in a formal military declaration of hostility.

So that both sides have an undeniable opportunity to beat the other in to submission.

Currently, that simply doesn't exist.

If a war is so lopsided that the defender can simply embarass the other, and WANTS to do so... there should absolutely be a mechanism for that side to respond to a wardec with a swift teeth kicking do they can get on with their lives in stead of having to swat guerilla remnants for the rest of the week.

Currently all of the control over cessation of hostilities rests with the agressor. The defenders should absolutely have a mechanism to beat the **** out of them and end the war on their terms as well. Static assets in space are the simplest way to do that.

As the defender, you generally have no interest in seeing any given war play out for an extended period of time, but you have no mechanism to end it early that doesn't require the attacker to basically give up, or force you to essentially become the aggressor for an extended period. That's a broken system. Unless you're spending every waking moment blowing up the agressor's ships they have literally zero incentive to stop the war. its already paid for, and chances are if you're declaring, you've packed up your assets before doing so, or are already using an alt corp specifically tailored to not risk those assets.

They're far more likely to just let it play out the week to spite you if you're winning, or force you by virtue of simply existing to pony up your own 50 mil just to dec their assets.

People SHOULD be able to bribe concord to shoot other people for whatever reason they want. People should also be able to respond to a wardec in a swift and decisive manner and end it early by force if equipped to do so. Simply declaring war causes a disruption in assets and plans for the defender no matter what. The defender should absolutely have an opportunity to disrupt the attacker without being forced in to a war bill and meta-intel just to end a fight they didn't start in the first place.


If you come to my neighborhood with a can of gasoline to burn down my house it doesn't make a lick of sense that the only response is to stay in the house and wait for you to run out of gas a week later while I buy fire extinguishers and don't go to work.

Giving the defender something to attack is giving the defender the ability to just punch that guy in the face, take his gas can, and light him on fire with it.

So what happens if I, as a lone wardeccer, were to wardec a large 75 man corporation? Who are very active and often form fleets to hunt me down.

Under the current system, I can evade those fleets, while using guerilla tactics to pinpoint strike stragglers and individuals who aren't paying attention. However, if a structure were to be implemented like that, it would completely destroy my chances to even be effectice since they can assault in en-masse and overwhelm me.

I'm curious, how is this different to the PvP folks telling non-PvP solo players that they should duck it up and get friends?

There's a difference between PvPing in guerilla style warfare and getting kills, and not PvPing at all because the hostiles outnumber you. That said, nerfing the little guy in PvP will only have the same effect as raising the prices on wardecs did. It will force them into larger groups which will be completely unmanageable for indy corps, compared to a single wardeccer that they might be able to fight off.

Actually (and factually I might add), the larger groups only became popular after the current day mechanics were instituted. The large groups are an outcome of allowing allies AND lower flat fees. Before these mechanics there were no large Merc groups in HS. The high prices made large merc groups impossible to feed, so they didn't exist. Low fees allow mass decs for large groups of player to farm HS with alts. The farming is casual, so an alt can log in and out on a whim, where fulfilling a contract took time and dedication and was not conducive to alt play.

Before the mechanics changed Repo Industries was one of the biggest merc outfits in HS and we had 100 members with probably 50 or so actives. Our limit on decs was 7 based on cost and ability to fulfill the contract.

After the mechanics changed - mass decs and large outfits became the cost effective way to go.

Your argument that higher fees would limit the little guy is only true in respect to the ability to mass dec and turn a profit. Back in the day the little guys had a blast taking on bigger fish. Magic Preacher was one of the best in this aspect of the game. Feel free to ask him if he used to have a lot of FUN under the old mechanics.

Really - ask him.

Honestly, if we had the structure mechanic, assuming that deccing hands you a free structure that does nothing but sit in space waiting to be shot, basically a small pos preloaded with fuel that can't anchor any modules, we wouldn't need the ally system in the first place. Attackers magicing up allies would have to convince those allies to pay their own dec fees, and each one would have its own crap to defend. Defenders couldn't magic up suprise allies in the middle of the war without doing the same thing.

The ally system is a band aid on an already broken mechanic, an attempt to balance things between defender and attacker. I'm suggesting actually just balancing attacker and defender by ensuring both have something mission critical to shoot at and defend, and simply giving them that for free to anchor if they don't have pre-existing assets in place.

This is healthy for mercs (a single target that can actually be tracked via KM and create a single-point-of-contention target for contract completion)

It's healthy for attackers (if you are agressing just to blow up ships, you are under no obligation to blow up defending assets to end your own war early)

It's healthy for defenders (if you want to end an attacker's reign of terror, they can't just dock up when you go hunting)

its equitable for all entity sizes (If anchoring this structure is free for the cost of the war, no size entity pays any additional costs, but entities with real assets that cost ISK have the same built in advantages/risks as current)

It's even healthy for the intel meta (finding out where someone anchored the structure isn't free intel, which creates meta-jobs)

The only opposition I can see making sense here is people who want to start wars and reserve the right to dock up if they're getting their **** pushed in. And no. I think if you're willing to start a fight, you should have an obligation to actually fight if the people you're attacking want to respond to it. Currently, asset-holding defenders are forced in 24.7 vulnerability to war targets while attackers aren't. Turning everyone in to an asset-holding defender for the purposes of war levels the playing field, creates fights, and increases the market share for mercs since there now exist the option objectives based rather than time based contracts for both assault and defensive clients.

I just can't think of a much better way to create that sort of objective imperative. What are the other options? ISK value destroyed? Still prioritizes the people with less assets in space. Some kind of kill count system? Seems like hell to balance/too easy to game.

I mean I'm trying real hard to address the issues with wars without using structures as a basis and I can't come up with anything. I'd love to hear some alternate solutions that don't totally screw over deccers or defenders and create a more equitable system in which pilots at war are more encouraged to shoot each other.