Very few players would argue that wardecs are fine as they are now, but until now, CCP has always been reluctant to change the system. The main issue is that it's hilariously biased in favour of the aggressor, who can prepare for the war and will always pick weak or industrial targets.

The defender gets just 24 hours' notice to get a plan together and warn its members of the threat and typically won't be in a position to fight back.

The new mercenary system will help even the odds, but it won't be that useful if the attacking corp can weasel its way out of the war by not paying the bill.

Comments???

Another major problem is that a small corp of alts can declare war on a legitimate corporation, and there's nothing the defender can do about it. As long as the war fee is paid each week, a handful of alts can disrupt a corporation or even a major alliance like

The article and it's ideas for Wardecs are terrible.

The worst part is the structure idea, making you have to defend a static location gives all the power to blobs and is yet another blow to small gangs and guerrilla warfare.

Very few players would argue that wardecs are fine as they are now, but until now, CCP has always been reluctant to change the system. The main issue is that it's hilariously biased in favour of the aggressor, who can prepare for the war and will always pick weak or industrial targets.

---

That is plainly wrong. With legal decshields any corp can shake off any war at any given time. It's currently simply not possible to take down a POS in highsec that is filled up with stront.

The defender gets just 24 hours' notice to get a plan together and warn its members of the threat and typically won't be in a position to fight back.

---

Any CEO has to have a plan what happens at war time before he presses the button to create the corp. If he starts to prepare for war when CONCORD sends a mail it's to late and that CEO should be driven out of business.

The new mercenary system will help even the odds, but it won't be that useful if the attacking corp can weasel its way out of the war by not paying the bill.

---

There is no reason why one can't declare a counter war when the wardec mail hits the inbox. That's even possible right now.

First off, I can see that this guy is a total carebear. Also, most of that article is complete rubbish and I can't help but notice total bias.

To start, I notice that he focuses on the attacking corps being able to 'weasel' their way out of a war should things go south, like not re-upping the war. 1) I would think this is good news for the corp that got wardec'd. I am pretty sure that in many cases they really don't want the fight but if they can scare off the dog then great. 2) I can't help but notice that the narrator conveniently left out Dec-shields but focuses on the dec'd corps being so helpless. A corp is only as helpless as they let themselves be. 3) He talks about Merc's not really being a boon as the wardec corp again can just weasel out of the situation. Again, I point to #1. Isn't this the goal, to get the monkey of your back?

Second, I find his comment about pvp corps being shell corps loaded with alts and how they will always pick weak or industrial targets to be complete bull. I am not an alt. My corp is not a shell corp. And we do not strictly go after weak targets. And I know my corp is not the only corp that works to these standards. In fact back when I was in Warsmith's we would regularly be hired as mercs to go after other grief corps. Simply put the Narrator is factually wrong here.

The above also coincides with point three, that these small shell corps have 0 risk when attacking larger corps. Again, a corp is only as helpless as it allows itself to be. If they decide to dock up and do nothing then that is their choice, just let it be known that there are tons of other options out there. And as I said, we are not always risk free. We may know how to fit a ship better than some corps and know how to use them, but numbers are still numbers, and if the larger corp that we're attacking suddenly decides to fight in numbers, there is very little we can do.

Another major problem is that a small corp of alts can declare war on a legitimate corporation, and there's nothing the defender can do about it.

Quite a terri-bad article.

Want attackers to commit to a war? Simple:

Declaring a war mutual by the defender, makes it impossible by the attacker to end the war, unless by formal surrender.

That, in combination with CCP's idea for a 'deserters' mark for people leaving a wardecced corp and the ease and lack of cost for adding allies, should fix the whole problem quite nicely. Don't forget that most wardeccers are e-peen warriors and such a mark would likely be a bigger blemish then a negative kill-board ratio.

Putting things like 'victory conditions' into a mechanic is simply asking for abuse and exploits. War objectives are something that resides squarely in the realm of meta-gaming and should never become some arbitrary 'objective'.

The only problem I see now with the upcoming wardec system is that it makes it almost too expensive to go after big alliances, and does very little to protect the smaller corporations.

Instead, divide the corporations and alliances in size-brackets with fixed war-fees for each bracket and cost-modifiers penalizing declaration of wars on a corporation outside your own size bracket.

The main issue is that it's hilariously biased in favour of the aggressor, who can prepare for the war and will always pick weak or industrial targets.

What reason does anyone have to do this? One can already fight back or just not undock and that will not change. Unless you are bringing other into the fight making it mutual doesn't provide any differences, and if you are bringing backup, that is exactly what mercenary corps are doing. So what are you getting at?

*snip* The other is that it reduces the viability of revenge by requiring mutuality to be declared within the first 24h.
*snip*

Is his sollution is a wired tournament mechanic? Or am I wrong?

wait... wat?

Are you saying that the new dec mechanic requires your opponent to AGREE to the war?

I really hope that's not true...

No. He is talking about the ability to make a war mutual, which is already part of the wardec system.

thats stupid though..
you : i declare war on derp
me: k
you: i killed your structure i win
me: k

I am getting at that the author is wrong assuming that an attacker can "weasel" out of a war by simply dropping the war.

You seam, as much as the author, not to know the purpose of wardecs. Players compete about recources, Corps compete about players and alliances compete about corps. The wardec system is meant to provide means to enforce that competition in highsec. An individual pilot is free to rebuilt after his former corp is driven out of business by dropping back into a NPC corp. Quite in contrast for a corp that should vanish when driven out of business. That's why co-operations are called that way. To refer to the cut-throat-competition that is described in great detail in the back story.

It's even in the name of the game: Everyone vs. Everyone.

Quite sad to see so many players that don't know the basics.

wardecs aren't for war right now which is the actual problem.

wait... wat?

Are you saying that the new dec mechanic requires your opponent to AGREE to the war?

I really hope that's not true...

wait... wat?

Are you saying that the new dec mechanic requires your opponent to AGREE to the war?

I really hope that's not true...

No, no, no, nothing that awful GÇö just something that's a bit silly. They're changing how you declare a war mutual (at least as of the last time it was mentioned). Right now, you can do it at any time, just to hammer the point home that the attacker picked the wrong target and now you're out for bloody vengeance. They've said that this will change so that you can only declare a war mutual during the first 24-hour wind-up period before the war actually goes active.

Most likely, this is due to the defender's ability to bring allies into the war, and they probably thought that it would be awfully mean if the defender could enlist half the galaxy and then, at the very last second and with all that backing secured, ensure that the original attacker cannot get out of it. This somewhat ties into Nyphur's complaint about corps GÇ£weaselingGÇ¥ out of their own failed wardecs.

However, since we are now being given a more fully-featured surrender mechanic, I simply don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to get revenge that way. Yes, they picked the wrong target, and yes, it turned out every corp north of HED-GP is now out to get themGǪ so what? Tough luck GÇö time to bite the bullet. Slink over to the defender's office, get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness. That sounds more like the way it should work.

What do you think real wars are like?

I'm genuinely curious.

No, he's saying that the defender can trap an attacker in to a war by making it mutual. This will stop the attacker dropping out of the war unless they explicitly surrender, rather than just being able to let the wardec lapse.

The problem is that the defending corp must make that mutual decision within the first 24 hour notification period, before the war has actually started