Explain it in more detail, please. How will it affect the existing corporations such as Marmite & Co.? How do you define rational? How do you expect the wardeccers to respond to it? …
Thats up to Marmite. Per my inverse wardec cost, it wont be worthwhile wardeccing small Corps, but with their Omega member count they wont be much restricted.
Aside from etymology, in context of EVE, Id define it as a system that is balanced.
I expect the result will be complex and favor breaking apart into smaller Corps, to engage smaller Corps. Inversely, also smaller Corps to engage bigger ones. The net result is largely the same, per the inversely scaling wardec cost alao in my proposal.
Mass wardeccers wont like this, but there are perks in the proposal, such as the purchasable temporary watchlist.
Its a package deal. Some things hurt, some are sugar.
They are meant to work together, not isolated or separate.
So not only do you not care what happens to the successful PvP alliances, but you punish them for being successful. Nor will the number of wars change much, but the wars will continue and players will continue to prey on others. Your proposal will not change this (nor should it), but it will be remembered as an ineffective and unnecessary change, and as such become detrimental to the whole of the game.
You think of balance when you downsize corporations, but the sizes are a result of player choices and not of a mechanical nature. The players’ choices should not be influenced, or you devalue their choices, and when choices matter less then I don’t need to tell you what this means, or do I?
You need to start realizing that unlimited wardecs is a great feature to have. It is not a sickness, which needs curing.
If you want more wardec cap, get more Omega members.
Its not a difficult quotient.
1- 10 Omegas is 10 declared wardecs.
For every 10 beyond that, you get another 5.
Inversely, the smaller the Corp you target in Omegas, the more you pay.
Inversely, again the smaller your Corp in Omegas, the cheaper to wardec a larger Corp,
CCP killed High Sec PvP with the suicide ganking mechanism. Now instead of war dec corporations PvP alts will suicide gank ships to make their ISK that they then fly around war decing smaller corporations that can’t protect themselves. If the targeted corporation can’t be war dec’d the ganker simply switches to their gank alts to get the kill.
2 Likes
This is the single largest impediment to rationalizing HS PvP.
Big words in a single sentence explains what again?
oh thats why weve had soooooooooooooooooooooooo many threads about warspamming then right?
thats why this thread is over a thousand posts.
this isnt a gank thread, if you really want to whinge about that, start one.
Why do you want to take away more ISKs from successful corporations? And why do you not want to take away more ISKs from the unsuccessful ones?
Winning wars is not only about destroying ships, but it’s also about attracting players and recruiting them. Your proposal counters this. You turn success into an uphill fight against an ISK sink. Nobody wants to fight such a fight. It patronizes players, tries to uniform corp sizes, and overall makes PvP more boring.
1 Like
Nice monocle.
How much did that cost you again?
the implication here being that i make my isk through ganking is it?
I think you have misunderstood.
It would be cheaper for smaller corps to wardecc larger ones.
Because you need to have measures in place in the game to prevent snowballing.
We’ve seen the end result of the current EVE ecosystem in Serenity, and we are seeing it here in Tranquility. The number of ‘successful’ corporations and alliances is dropping and they are concentrating in ever bigger groups that then have fewer competitors.
There should be both a pull to attract players and a push to be a small corporation or alliance. Otherwise the game stagnates over time into huge power blocs that don’t want to do anything because they risk so much.
2 Likes
this guy gets it
Gankers are pilots who can’t make it in Low or Null PvP on a constant day to day basis and still decry themselves as being Elite PvPer’s.
1 Like
answer the question or go away dryson
Answer the question to why you can’t PvP in Null where there are no rules?
1 Like
again answer the question or go away dryson
No, I got that. I’m asking why. Why should the more successful corporations pay more? And why should the weaker ones pay less? Why should it not be the other way around?
because a corp with more manpower , by virtue , has more potential to defend itself.
this is one of the few points most of us agree on.
why is it cheeper for goons to dec eve uni than the other way round?
edit: why should it be , rather , is the point hes trying to make
1 Like