You on the other hand called me a "slime". I'd say that's an insult.

What a load of child responses on two pages.

These activities have as much to do with PvP as a high school shooting.

How you can say this

and this

In the same post without even a hint of irony or self awareness in mind boggling.
stfu before you get yourself in trouble.

My personal preference would be a mixture between the current system and the previous one.

Wherein corporations are restricted in the number of wars they can declare, but pay a much lower fee to declare war. This would incentivize smaller pvp groups and remove the pay-barrier that prevents groups of newer or less experienced players from forming highsec pvp corps. Alliances would remain unrestricted but would pay as much as they do now.

I'd also like to see the ally system opened up to work both ways, allowing the aggressor to bring in an ally if the defender does. This would present a risk of escalation that would disincentivize mercs hopping on to any war where they think the aggressor is easy kills and also facilitate big spiraling conflicts that would be super cool.

Both of those things put together should help to both break up larger groups by making corps actually competitive with alliances and lower the bar to entry for highsec pvp without nerfing anything.

"Alliances would remain unrestricted but would pay as much as they do now."

I used a very bad thing in an analogy to show how absurd the claim of "PvP" is related to to excessive hi-sec wardeccing is.
Analogy is something a 7th grader should be able to understand.
So instead of looking for insults where none exist you should be more worried about your comprehension abilities.
And telling people to stfu can definitely get YOU in trouble.

A couple of CODE carebears turn to personal abuse when in danger of being moved from their comfy perch. That's a lot of whining for those who claim to be "hi-sec savers".

Analogy is something a 7th grader should be able to understand.

Don't listen to Vimsy.

My personal preference would be a mixture between the current system and the previous one.

Wherein corporations are restricted in the number of wars they can declare, but pay a much lower fee to declare war. This would incentivize smaller pvp groups and remove the pay-barrier that prevents groups of newer or less experienced players from forming highsec pvp corps. Alliances would remain unrestricted but would pay as much as they do now.

I'd also like to see the ally system opened up to work both ways, allowing the aggressor to bring in an ally if the defender does. This would present a risk of escalation that would disincentivize mercs hopping on to any war where they think the aggressor is easy kills and also facilitate big spiraling conflicts that would be super cool.

Both of those things put together should help to both break up larger groups by making corps actually competitive with alliances and lower the bar to entry for highsec pvp without nerfing anything.

I agree, which makes it all the more funny how you keep misusing the concept.

Except that most of the hs merc corps are all in the same chat channel and work things out.

Conversely, I would advise every not to listen to you, since you've spent pretty much your whole posting history crying about how PvP doesn't have oppressive handcuffs and punitive mechanics attached to every aspect of it.

You're a disgrace.

It's not like I have 5+ years of experience as both an carebear defender and as a director in a highsec mercenary corp/alliance and been witness to several different iterations of the war declaration system or anything.

I wouldn't know anything about it.

Instead you should listen to people with no relevant experience who're openly disdainful of the fact that highsec PVP exists at all. Those are the people whose input about highsec PVP mechanics is valuable.

duuuuuuuuude you cant compare digital actions in an on-line role-play game to horrifically tragic irl violent actions twords children and expect to have 1) any respect left 2) anyone take you seriously or 3) posting privileges.

that analogy is soo far gone i don't even...

You're welcome to come to Nourvukaiken and 1v1 me whenever you want.

I think a 10 agressive acts limit would do wonders to normalize the current war dec system.

You get 10 active agressive acts. You can have 10 war decs that you initiate, 10 assists that you accept to help someone or you can slide the bar side to side for any combination that adds up to 10.

If you wardec an alliance that's 1 agressive act. If 20 corps leave that alliance you now have 21 active war decs, but only 1 agressive act (the fail cascade is passive).

If someone war decs you and you put out for assist and get 12 corps on your side that adds up to zero agressive acts for you, but the 12 assisting corps each get 1 boink for actively pushing the assist button.

In the current system war decs are totally meaningless. 100+ decs is just about cheap targets. There is no meaning behind them.

The problem is that high sec is missing a formal "limited war" mechanic.

Something like...

1: Right click on an anchored object in overview
2: Select "declare war over"
3: Pay CONCORD a fee based on the value of the anchored object * sphere of influence (grid, system, constellation).
4: After warm-up period, aggressor and defender legally have at it within the sphere of influence and nowhere else.
5: If the defender never shows, the aggressor is able to claim the asset freely.

Doing this gives the wardec a purpose and if conventional wars were made more expensive if the target corp was social only (no anchored assets in space) then this would possibly solve a large number of problems.

It would also allow a much smaller, casual corp to gather up the gumption to challenge a larger alliance for a piece of the pie, without getting shot like fish in a barrel in other parts of space. If an alliance has a dead stick in my part of space, they've moved out, and I want it, I should be able to declare war over just that dead stick. The alliance can decide if I'm worth it or not and I as the aggressor take the gamble that they're not going to want it. Instead of mindless spamming, strategy is introduced.

If the goal is player retention, then giving newer and smaller players the chance to actually gamble against a larger corporation for something then win or lose it by effort on that battlefield would go a lot farther than "ok, I see you on my overview, congratulations, we are at war."

Well that's why you increase the wardec fee for a corp with no assets in space or possibly make a social corp class which is much more expensive to wardec.

In nature, an object follows the path of least resistance. If given the choice of having to spend 1bln + to declare war on a bunch of guys with only mining barges to their names, or taking the contract on the war where the guy has already said he's going to be going after X tower in Y system during Z week, I'll take the second offer as there's a better chance of a fight.

Of course, if you're in a social group and have decided to talk smack against a larger entity, then the larger entity should be able to suck up the cost to lay the smack down, or just go out and gank you.

I'd just like to see it balanced.

Ahh, so: "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced."?

Are you a vimsy alt?

I'd just like to see it balanced.

Ahh, so: "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced."?