CCP killed highsec PvP


(Whitehound) #1153

So that’s then a limitation based on the size of a corporation.


(Salvos Rhoska) #1154

Its not a limitation. Its just the cost of punching up, or down, in proportion to the size in Omegas of the declarer and the target.

The wardec cap is separate, and based in how many Omegas are members.


(Whitehound) #1155

It’s what the word limitation means.


(Salvos Rhoska) #1156

Cost is not a limitation. If you dont have the isk to punch down on a smaller target, then form a sub-Corp taskforce to that purpose with sufficiently few Omegas to reduce the cost of its wardec in proportion to the target.

I already said this above, twice.
Are you reading/comprehending?
Or is this a stupid tactic to make me look like Im repeating myself.


(Whitehound) #1157

Yes, it is when you don’t have the ISKs.

Can you please stop acting so stupid? It’s insane how much you’ve been trolling me here so far.


(Remiel Pollard) #1158

download%20(1)


(Salvos Rhoska) #1159

Wardec is not free.
If you dont have the isk, you cant wardec.

My proposal does not change that, it simply makes it proportional to size in Omegas of declarer and target.

Proportionally, it will be cheaper for smaller Corps to punch up, than larger Corps to punch down. This is rational as they take more risk as smaller and have less resources at hand.

As Ive stated four times now, larger Corps can form a sub-Corp taskforce of roughly equivalent Omega count to the target (or smaller), to get a more equitable wardec cost, if they are that strained for isk.

How you manage to finance your wardec is up to you.


(Whitehound) #1160

It is a limitation. Cost is the limiting factor. Reducing the size of a corporation is the a consequence of the limitation, making it a limitation of corporation sizes.

Your proposal limits players in growing their corporations and through the proposed limitations forces them to wage war only against larger corporations.

War in high-sec is used as a means to recruit players by force. It isn’t just about ship explosions. You then declare war on a smaller corporation to drive out the weak players and absorb the strong ones.

Your proposal undermines this and I bet all you’re thinking of is to make wars somehow fair because of numbers.


(Salvos Rhoska) #1161

It places no limitation on Corp size, or Corp acitivity.

Infact larger Corp is encouraged as it increases the wardec cap.

As to cost, larger Corps can form smaller taskforce Corps to declare on smaller Corps, at less cost, if its an issue for them.

Smaller Corps dont have access to more members, and will be encouraged ti punch up at larger Corps as a target rich provider, at costs they can handle given their small size/income.

Equity and explosions are thus improved.


(Whitehound) #1162

Yes, it does. I’ve just explained it and you said it yourself,


(Salvos Rhoska) #1163

This is getting retarded.
Are you baiting me or being willfully ignorant?


(Whitehound) #1164

No. I think you’re skipping over details.

Say, when you suggested that a corporation shall create a sub-corporation, then where do the players for the sub-corporation come from if not from your own corporation? They will have to come from your corporation and thus your corporation shrinks.


(Salvos Rhoska) #1165
  1. In my proposal, <10 Omega member Corps have 10 wardec cap. Thus that subdivision, if formed off a large Corp becomes equitable in terms of wardec costs for aggressing smaller Corps than the main Corp can. Finance/profit/supplies can be handled between officers of the main and sub-Corp.

  2. You dont have to form a sub-Corp. You can sink your own wardec cap on any target you want, as cheaper in isk vs bigger and expensive vs smaller.

  3. You can provoke/manipulate your desired target into attacking you, if you wish. That way your cap isnt reduced, and you pay nothing.


(Whitehound) #1166

I got this all the first time, Salvos.

You’re out to limit corporations in their choice of whom to declare war against depending on corporation size.

The current limitation, which we already have, only limits the number of active wardecs. It doesn’t hinder corporations from growing and using wars as a means to fill their ranks. You’r only corrupting the current meta of high-sec wars based on the ill-perceived idea that wars somehow must be fair and corporations shouldn’t pick on smaller ones. Only wars aren’t fair, Salvos.

Your proposal is only attractive to the weak. As soon as the weak get stronger will they hate it. It becomes a limitation for any corporation that’s being successful.


(Salvos Rhoska) #1167

My proposal package, in specific regard to wardec cap/cost (there is more in the package) is fair and equitable.

  1. Big Corps have more wardec cap, and can form sub-Corp taskforces for cheaper wardecs on smaller targets (or not).

  2. Smaller Corps have less wardec cap, but can cost efficiently punch upwards at larger Corps.


(Whitehound) #1168

That’s the problem. War isn’t fair, it’s harsh.


(Salvos Rhoska) #1169

You are conflating, again.

In my proposal, if a larger Corp wants to steamroll a smaller one, they can still do so, just they will pay more in the process.

“Fair” in the context of my proposal, is equity is retained for all. Everyone loses and gains, in proportion.


(Whitehound) #1170

It doesn’t suit warfare. Maybe if it was a tournament.


(Salvos Rhoska) #1171

Still conflating.

Nothing in my proposal prevents a larger Corp from obliterating a smaller one, either with the full force of the main Corps, or via a sub-Corp(s) at cheaper wardec cost and their own wardec cap.

The “unfairness” of grossly greater force is not impaired.


(Whitehound) #1172

Actually it does as we’ve already talked about how it creates a limitation, and that’s just not “nothing”.