By splitting your omegas into as many groups as necessary.
Why should alphas be forbidden from engaging in war if they want to without omegas. CCP have stated they want alphas to be able to engage in the game.
You want to talk about handing bull sec the keys. Forcing any alphas in their direction is a great way to do that.
Everyone? You mean everyone but the people leaving the game?
No, raising the tax rate in Jita 4-4 the same way other industry taxes is calculated would have an impact on the market, taxing POCO exports/imports at their market price instead of base price would have a impact on the market.
Removing super ratting would have a massive impact on the marketā¦
Oh, do you mean on the āMercenary and War Declaration Marketā?
Yeah, cry me a river.
What a ugly mechanic. āIām sorry, you do not have enough Omega players to maintain your current number of war declarations, please choose one to abandon in 24 hoursā ?
Consider also that structures can be easily timezone tanked.
1 Like
Says you? Many here accept social corporations will have the same NPC tax and no structure anchoring rights.
Who says those restrictions are going to be part of the solution? A social corporation should be as easy and as similar to a normal corporation, less coding, less q&a, less time before its live in the game.
Please, this wasnāt a solution 2000 posts ago, it already is an option and its shown in the data to not be working.
You missed the point that my 1 to 4 suggestions are short term fixes to stop the loss of players while CCP works out what to do. They are not intended to be long term, but modified versions could be used in the final fix.
They are a complication.
This is what I think will likely happen too, but I would still propose allowing a limited number of war decs per entity against entities that do not have structures.
I donāt like social corps as structure ownership is what many people want to do as part of their objectives to keep them in the game, the imbalance in hisec screws that one up totally. Social corps will impose a ceiling for hisec players and as such it is not a good enough solution for that reason. When I was playing around with indy I wanted to put up structures in hisec, but I realised it was just going to get blown up and that was it, I did not bother and went to nullsec instead.
Nullsec entities already do ganking to do that.
As I said this reduces the ability of the hisec players to compete, I might have said yes to your idea if you had not decided to impose a limitation on running level 4ās.
What ceiling.
you want a structure for your corp. Transition it to a full corp.
No one is saying only social corps in highsec. Itās an additional option to the current corp. Not the only one.
I refer you to the small corp that had all of itās structures demolished by CODE in short order. So what you are saying is that owning a structrure of any type in hisec is not possible unless you can defend it against CODE or PIRAT? Well there is the imbalance in terms of hisec.
1 Like
Or you have it outside their view orā¦ orā¦
basically yes. your structures are at risk and should be.
of course you should get equal benefits rather than nerfed structures for that risk but different issue
Strawman, I never said that structures should not be at risk. My 1. to 4. suggestions are temporary.
The problem I keep pointing out is that there is an imbalance in hisec, they are not defensible against the entities that are operating in hisec, one gorged on the loot from easily ganked freighters and the other heavily muscled due to botting in supers.
The risk is only reduced only by the war deckers finding structures boring or their failure to find out where they are.
1 Like
Why would a structure not be defensible? I think first you have to establish this as a fact before you go trying to design around the problem.
Edit. Maybe add up how many structures pirat have killed in the last week. If this is a serious issue it should be a reasonable portion of their active wars after all.
Could you explain the imbalance?
If a 1 man Corp drops a structure in Low Sec, how is this any more defensible than a High Sec one?
Seems pretty balanced in terms of structures for all Secs, no?
I understood. 3 of the 4 are unworkable because they make structures in highsec effectively impossible to explode.
How so? A social corp can turn into a real corp. They can take the step to make themselves at more risk if and when they are ready.
If they prefer to just mine together forever they can. If they decide they a ready, they can deploy an Athanor and open themselves to the risks and rewards that brings.
You know, structures can get blown up in nullsec as well. There is nothing especially different when it comes to structures between the two places. In nullsec, all that is different is that you are usually on a side with more people so you are safer.
A nullsec group, or even nullsec-sized group can equally protect structures in highsec (see: Perimeter).
So yes, you are are at more risk to larger groups in this game. If you deploy a structure in highsec by yourself, you are going to have a harder time defending than if you team up with thousands of other players. That is Eve though, not a problem with highsec wars. No matter what CCP does to wardecs, that is going to be a stark reality in an open-world PvP game.
No idea what you are trying to say here, in any case CCP can easily check how many successful defences of structures happen in hisec against the two groups I have mentioned and after that against lower tier war deckers.
The imbalance is that you have two entities in hisec, one gorged on easily gained freighter loot and the other that was made into a huge bear with massive muscles by bot super ratting. They are imbalanced against what exists in hisec. It is not difficult to see.
If I drop one in low sec and someone comes to shoot it, one of the biggest defences is that anyone can look at what is shooting it and go, ah I will have some of thatā¦, though some will join in shooting the structure. If it is the dominant lowsec entity that is shooting it then I could call in favours. But in hisec there are all the mechanisms for hisec preventing that.
Which is why I am referring to hisec and not lowsecā¦
It does not matter, the objective is to stop people giving up on the game, these are temp solutions until CCP can work out a better approach.
No one is able to get ready enough at this point to defeat PIRAT or CODE. So what you have is many parts of hisec being controlled by those two entities in terms of structures or market supply.
The rewards do not justify the risk.
Stop that, seriously, there is a heap of difference, I refer you to my answer above in this post to another player who made the same comment about lowsec.
The issue as I keep pointing out is that the defenders are too outclassed to even bother trying which is why the propaganda structure which controls the war dec is so key, it creates a strategic weakness that can be exploited. That is what is needed in hisec period. And that is the point I keep making.
1 Like
What prevents them leaving then, once they are warddecced, as they are leaving now?
The Social Corp idea just kicks the can down the street.
It doesnt address the wardec issue, at all.
Members of NPC Corps can already form private chats and fleet up together.
You dont need a Social Corp to just mine with your NPC Corp buddies, forever.
Eventually they will go Player Corp, and the same will happen to them then, as is happening to them now.
Wardecced.
Log out.
Never return.
Just like now.
They arent going to reform again as a Social Corps, which offers nothing except a Corp Tag, aside from what is already possible in NPC Corps.
Thats all the Social Corp idea grants.
You get a Corp tag.
Thats it.
Woopdidoo.
Do you see the problem?
The Social Corp idea is completely full of fail, delivers nothing except a Corp Tag that cant be done via NPC Corps, and does absolutely nothing to address the wardec mechanics issues nor attrition due to it.
1 Like
Fix both then.
Reduce botting by anomalies and mining changes, reduce ganking by rethinking freighters and ganking in high sec.
1 Like
If you have evidence of botting, please submit it to CCP. If you do not, please do not make unsubstantiated accusations.
1 Like
For a propaganda specialist you are remarkably uninformed, the details of PIRATās CEOās botting was detailed on Reddit and were discussed in detail on these forums in at least two threads, I suggest you go and educate yourself. CCP Falcon even stated in one of those threads that there are few rules applied to Eve and yet those breaking the few to gain an unfair advantage are especially bad. That was aimed at PIRATās CEO at the time.
So in trying to throw me a glib smart edgy reply you only made yourself look bad.
1 Like
Propaganda 101:
Never acknowledge or confirm, in anyway, that which is against your interests, even and especially if its true.
1 Like