Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Maybe you should go back and read the point I made again. You seem to have misread it and diverted into something else all together unrelated.

As to structures dying not being important here, it absolutely is in relation to the proposal to allow Corps to opt out of Wardecs but still have all the access to functions of a Corp. That will make all of these structures immune, which was my point.

The random direction you went in isn't relevant to that and assumptions are pointless. Either validate your own point, or don't, but if you don't then it's worth nothing. It's just a preconceived idea supported with assumption, which is no support at all. It's not that hard to validate what you are saying, but it has nothing to do with the point I made above so not something I'm particularly interested in doing.

Can't argue with you on that one man; you're probably right.

I think its a dumb move on their part and I'll keep making my point too as long as this world exists.

Until then its going to be a slowly dying sausage fest.

We’ve been over this; lot of people here enjoy PVP, just not involuntary PVP.

Just look at the numbers Scipio posted: “70-80% of all wars end up with no loss at all
That means that 70-80% of the corps who are war deced avoid the war one way or another.

Add to that all the people who are in NPC corps, and you’ll realize that very few people want to play with you. Probably because you're harassing them.

So again, if I have a fortizar with 0.2% broker fee and someone else sets up a fortizar with 0.1% broker fee, how do I kill off my competition? Those features of hisec affect me, and I should be able to affect them back in turn. Unwardeccable and structures do not go together.

Perhaps your mind remembers what your fingers did not type.
So here is a re-post of the entire relevant portion of your post.

See section above in italics.
I did not mis-understand, and I did not divert into some unrelated area of discussion. In fact you are the one that took us down this path by posting numbers that prove a point no one in this topic has ever disputed, that point being that structures die during war decs.

The real question that needs to be answered is simply this.
Were those structures known to the aggressors before the dec was decared, or were they simply targets of opportunity discovered in the prosecution of the war?
Yes this is relevant to this discussion. If they were simply targets of opportunity discovered during the prosecution of the war then they were not a relevant factor in deciding to start the war and that gets back to my point. Structures are not a significant factor in the process of deciding which corps to war dec.


I do not see anywhere in the OP proposal where a corp would be allowed to have structures in high sec AND be immune to war decs. In fact the OP champions the addition of even more structures by making them a required part of declaring a war.
Ivy Axisur is the one that raised the possibility of having structures and still being immune to war dec. Given your basic attitude here this may surprise you but on this one point I agree. If you have a structure in space you are essentially inviting someone to war dec you and you best be ready and willing to defend it or lose it.


I am not going off in an irrelevant direction. You posted numbers, my post was in reference to those numbers ONLY.
91 structures out of more than 600 active wars in any given week does not make them a significant factor in the overall war dec situation. Because they are not a significant factor in the overall war dec situation does not mean they are completely irrelevant.

In the hopes of getting you unconfused let me give you my basic position on this.
I am not against war decs in high sec and I agree there are many valid reasons to war dec a group. In the face of declining participation in this game for LOL's or for padding kill boards are no longer valid reasons, see below on social corps.

Defenders need a victory condition that ends the war immediately once that condition is met.

The allies mechanic as we know it needs to go away it is broke as hell. It should be replaced with a real mercs market place where anyone can go to hire our merc friends and the relative size of aggressor versus defenders would be dealt with by using a sliding war dec fees structure. The larger the defenders in relation to the aggressors the lower the fees would be.

Now to social corps, I am in favor of these and they should be immune to war decs, in exchange for this immunity there would be some limitations.
No structures in high sec, because they would be easy for anyone to kill I would allow them in low sec.
Because of the increased NPC resources required to protect them the corp itself and everyone in it would be subject to a 10% tax paid to the NPC that controls the space they are headquartered in. This tax would apply to all sources of income throughout the entire game and it would include LP since they are in reality a source of income.
Still working over other restrictions but I am not sure they are needed, and yes the tax rate could be adjusted up or down by a bit, I am not a fan of the oft stated 30% or so taxes that is simply to high and to be honest it is unfair and may have unintended consequences on the markets.

I have some concerns about these becoming a haven for illegal activities and I admit that I am at a loss when it comes to dealing this this. One possibility would be an instant Concord response to any and all offensive actions taken against another player or players, corp members would be excluded from this.

Deleted. If original context can't be understood, then clarification is pointless.

Reading and comprehending it is critical to a useful discourse you might want to train up that skill sometime soon.
Because of quote limits and that I think this is a better way to handle this I will break with the norm and go this route.

"The loss of the citadel ends to declares war immediately in that region"
Clearly this indicates that the aggressor needs to have a structure in space to be able to declare a war.
It also clearly indicates that when / if the structure is destroyed then the war decs come to an end immediately.
But there is nothing here that would allow a corp to have structures in space AND be immune to a war dec.

"And can not be restarted their until a new HQ citadel has been built and a cool down of 7 days has passed."
Here the OP states that once your structure in space has been destroyed the war ends and you enter into a 7 day cooling off period. After that cooling off period you can place another structure and then re-war dec anyone you want.
Again I do not see anywhere here where it is possible to have a structure in space AND be immune to a war dec.
Further more during that 7 day period they are not immune to ALL war decs, they are only immune to being re-decced by the corp that owned the structure they successfully destroyed and to be honest if they beat you and your structure they deserve that 7 day break.

But we can simply use an alt corp and re-dec them immediately, why yes you could do that and I want to thank you for proving that your concern about them being immune to war dec is false.


This is your opinion and obviously it is not shared by others.
While I agree that the whole structures as a required part of a war dec has some problems to deal with and relative size of aggressor versus defenders is certainly one of them I still do not understand your resistance to the basic concept.
Structures in space offer many avenues to generate content and conflict between players.
Structures in space offer the possibility to add something that has been lacking in war decs forever, a way for the defender to actually WIN forcing the war to end immediately.

Explain to me, under your system, what prevents me from blowing up every single hisec POCO, opting out of wardecs, and owning all tax revenue from those planets forever.

Explain what would prevent me from simply owning all of the moons in any given system just because I was the first one to drop towers on them.

Moving forward, consider the next wave of structures, drilling platforms. Explain to me how your system wouldn't create sustainable, permanent, unremovable economic advantage just becuase someone showed up first.

You're under the assumption that only people that don't actually want to fight would use this feature.

That's false.

People that want to continue to beat on others without being beat on themselves would. I'd happily abuse this system to have a massive invincible ISK printing machine in hisec without also having to stage combat ships and jump clones there in case of a wardec. I could run the whole machine with one alt. I could use the money it generated to do whatever I felt like, including deccing anyone dumb enough to actually opt in to decs.

Until everyone smartened up and everyone opted out of decs.

This is why wardeccers don't keep their assets holding characters in the same corp as their wardeccers, why most people with hauling alts put them in NPC corps, and generally why your proposed "opt out" system wouldn't work.

It would be completely stupid to opt IN to wardeccing. Wardeccing is a system designed to enable agression so that you can't simply do whatever you want without consequences in hisec. it is literally a useless system if you can opt out of it and keep all the benefits of being in a player corp.

Okay, first there is no such thing as griefing in EvE. You're are getting attacked in a PvP zone on the PvP server while you are flying a PvP ship after you pressed the PvP flagging button called undock.
You asked for it. So no, highsec war is not about "griefing."

Second, increasing the cost of wars with structures and fees will always increase the size of wardec alliances. This is guaranteed.

Third, making it more difficult to find wartargets will always make blanket deccing, hub humping, and gate camping the more preferable M.O.

You want to stop this trend?
Lower the cost of wars.
Stop suggesting structure based mechanics.
Make wartargets easier to find and determine their online status.
The large alliances may not get smaller, but they'll stop getting bigger.

Not that any of that matters, because here's how you permanently defend against wardecs:
Disband your oversized, wardec magnet corp and have each member make a 1 man corp for tax purposes. Make a chat channel featuring your confederation's text-art logo in the motd. Place your confederation's text art logo in your corp's bio. Set eachother to blue. Base out of one of the ten thousand tax haven/freeport citadels. Go have some EvE.

Just so we're clear, there is -absolutely- such a thing as griefing in Eve Online and it has nothing to do with being attacked, losing assets, or being cut off from a certain region of space. It turns into griefing when the players themselves are directly being attacked as players inside and outside of the game. Unless we just forgot about the time when one particular member advocated the suicide of another player on a live stream, the time a group of scammers recorded a two hour long video of a player being harassed to the point of a near mental break, or when several people scratched out another player's name on the Eve Monument in Iceland, just to name a few off the top of my head.

In fact, the very idea of harassment was even discussed in an interview with CCP Seagull on Kotaku, in which she said: "But if it turns out it's a complete menace, we can then lock the ability for free players to shoot others in high security space. So they will be able to do that in low and null security space, but not in high security." Source

But that's all I'll say on the matter because it has little to do with the topic at hand.