The CSM 13 Winter Summit Minutes are out

[Proteus_Onzo]

@Litsea_Reticulata

WTH? New mechanics with new interfaces are bad. Takes more dev time, more qa, more testing, longer delays.

Only requires one interface and one mechanic.
“Buy Wardec Immunity? Yes/No”.

You arent making sense, again.
You say new mechanics and interfaces are bad.
How then would Social Corps be implemented, without new mechanics and interface?
/facepalm x4…

@Litsea_Reticulata

Making the war declaration system fair is a different task to creating a mechanism for social corporations.

If its fair that it costs 50mil to wardec a Player Corp, its fair to pay 50mil to not be wardecced.
Social Corp mechanic would take more work, and achieves nothing except a Player owned NPC Corp with a name and logo. Thats it.

Wardec Immunity Fee idea means Player Corps can continue doing what they want, as long as they pay the same isk to CONCORD for wardec immunity as it would cost someone else to wardec them. Its fair and square, and lets them continue ingame as a Player Corp.

@Litsea_Reticulata

This proposal would make structures invulnerable. Do you think CCP is really going to go for that?

As I explained above, it really makes no difference, or harm to the game, how many structures there are in HS.

It does the opposite. They are good for the game in HS.

1. New players want their own space home. This is QOL, fulfilling and retains them.
2. The competition of Citadel markets creates more economic opportunity.
3. Whether there are 1, 10, 100 or 1000 Citadels in an HS system does not mean you own the system. You cant own it. Its HS.
4. Every HS system has a NPC station anyways, even if you are locked out of all Citadels there.
5. Structures are stationary. They compete with other structures via offered rates, services offered, buy/sell orders and allowed access.

[Arrendis]

Still waiting…

[Proteus_Onzo]

@Arrendis

Still waiting…

What for?

[Arrendis]

@Proteus_Onzo

What for?

@Arrendis

So: Rather than set up a straw man to argue against a claim I haven’t made, kindly address the one I have .

Specifically:

@Arrendis

The operative qualifier there was ‘ per person ’. Let’s look at the numbers you’ve been tossing about: 200 v 10, 50 million.

The 200-man corp paying 50 million is effectively 250k from the pocket of each pilot.
The 10-man corp paying 50 million is effectively 5 million from the pocket of each pilot.

The corp with 1/20th of the pilot count is, per person , paying 20 times the amount that the larger group is paying per person .

To expand on this thought: This means that just by existing as a wardec corporation, I’m in a position to, effectively, hurt their bottom line. I am the embodiment of ‘nice corp you’ve got here, it’d be a shame if anything were to happen to it’ with which CONCORD would be extorting money from them.

The game needs more ISK sinks. Those sinks need to come at the expense of the richest players, not the ones just scraping by in HS.

Under your model, the smaller corp is paying more, per pilot, to avoid a war than the larger corp is paying to wardec them.

[gnshadowninja]

@Proteus_Onzo

A 10man Player Corp of mostly PvE players, will never be able to defend their structure against for example PIRAT, no matter what they do, or how they prepare, unless somekind of wardec immunity system is put in place.

Yet you expect the same 10 man corp to form up and attack a war structure defended by PIRAT. Okey dokey!

@Proteus_Onzo

How is a new 10member Player Corp going to be able to afford to pay a group to defend them against PIRAT?

They can’t because no one would take it on.

@Faylee_Freir

That’s your opinion

Unfortunately he has alot of them, alot which contradict each other as well. He is so far in he can’t even remember where the entrance to the hole was.

[Annah_Tsero]

@Dracvlad

OK Dum Dum whatever you say, if it makes you feel important, looks like you burnt another posting alt…

Keep assuming and digging that hole lmao

All those salty edits are so cute.
you’re so triggered by your paranoia of me being Dom than you stop being coherent in your posts and go straight to ad-hominem

[Proteus_Onzo]

@Arrendis

Under your model, the smaller corp is paying more, per pilot, to avoid a war than the larger corp is paying to wardec them.

Thats a problem in the wardec cost system, which allows larger Corps to declare on smaller ones for peanuts.

I did answer this above, but I will re-iterate.

Currently, a 2000 man Corp can wardec a 10 man Corp for only 50mil.
Whereas, a 10 man Corp can wardec a 2000 man Corp for the insane price of 500mil.

So a 10 man Corp pays 100x more to declare on a 2000 man Corp, than it does the 2000 man Corp to wardec them.

Problem, yes?

That cost differential is even more pronounced if you consider it as cost per member, as you have been talking about.

In the Wardec Immunity Fee idea, this is somewhat sidestepped, such that small Corps can buy immunity at the same low rate as it would cost a 2000 man Corp to agress them.

If you think it should be even cheaper for a 10man Corp to buy wardec immunity, Im all ears.

[Proteus_Onzo]

@gnshadowninja

Yet you expect the same 10 man corp to form up and attack a war structure defended by PIRAT.

No. I expect them to pay the same rate for wardec immunity per week, as it would cost to wardec them, if they dont want wars.

And its not an expectation, its an opportunity.
They choose whether they do, or dont.
But the rate is fair, as its the same as it would cost to wardec them, for them to buy immunity.

[Faylee_Freir]

@CCP_Falcon can we get this thread moved to the Player Ideas and Features sub-forum? This thread reeks of bad ideas and belongs with the others.

[Proteus_Onzo]

@Faylee_Freir

@CCP_Falcon can we get this thread moved to the Player Ideas and Features sub-forum? This thread reeks of bad ideas and belongs with the others.

Its the official feedback thread on CSM Summit minutes.
Makes no sense to move it o PIF.

Discussion here has focused on whats in the minutes, as problems presented by CCP to CSM.
Especially wardecs and problems related to it.

[Nana_Skalski]

Now lets learn a simple trick. Everyone reading this please hold both hands up above head like this and now put them together like this.

Now spread them, and put them together back

And now again, but faster.

Lets do this people, everyone cheers for Social Corps!

[Arrendis]

And I will re-iterate as well: The fact that the current system is arguably worse does not make your proposed system fair or right.

You’ve proposed making it more expensive to wardec smaller corps than it is to wardec large alliances. My thought is: why not scale this up? Establish certain thresholds where the cost scale jumps. Declaring war on, for example, entities above 10,000 pilots (ie: Goonswarm, Pandemic Horde, TEST) might operate at one pricing level (given size, the % of alliance assets in CONCORD-patrolled space, etc), and within that group, be gradiated by relative size (so it costs CONDI more to dec Horde than it would for Horde to dec CONDI), but to declare war on an entity from 5,001-10,000 pilots has a baseline cost of double that. 1,001-5,000 pilots would be 5x the base cost (ie: the cost for the largest tier). So the table of cost factors looks like this:

10,001+ pilots: ‘Base’ cost[1]
5,001-10,000: Base x2
1,001-5,000: Base x5
500-1,000: Base x10
251-500: Base x50
101-250: Base x100
51-100: Base x1000
11-50: Base x5000
1-10: Base x10000

---

1. The base cost, obviously, modified by the size ratio of the two entities, % of assets in CONCORD-controlled space, % of pilots in the declaring corporation with poor (or even negative) security status, and so on can all impact these things. Wardecing a bunch of gankers, for example, should be cheaper than wardecing ‘pillars of the community’. And those CONCORD knows are shady operators should have to pay more than fine, upstanding people with a history of being on the right side of law and order.

[Proteus_Onzo]

@Arrendis

You’ve proposed making it more expensive to wardec smaller corps than it is to wardec large alliances. My thought is: why not scale this up? Establish certain thresholds where the cost scale jumps.

Sure.

But that doesnt change my suggestion that a Player Corp can buy wardec immunity, per week, at the same cost as it would cost to wardec them.

[Arrendis]

@Proteus_Onzo

But that doesnt change my suggestion that a Player Corp can buy wardec immunity, per week, at the same cost as it would to wardec them.

And that’s what I think is wrong with the idea. Reverse the scale.

[Proteus_Onzo]

@Arrendis

@Proteus_Onzo

But that doesnt change my suggestion that a Player Corp can buy wardec immunity, per week, at the same cost as it would to wardec them.

And that’s what I think is wrong with the idea. Reverse the scale.

I have talked about reversing the scale many times earlier in this thread.
Its currently ass-backwards, which Ive pointed out many times.

Nonetheless, even if the wardec cost is rationalised as you propose, it should be possible for a Player Corp to buy wardec immunity at the same cost it would be to wardec them, even if those costs are changed.

Also, an upper limit on members to buy wardec immunity can be applied, so Player Corps that are already so big as to be able to defend themselves, can no longer buy immunity to wardecs.

[Whitehound]

Should social corps be considered, then I have a few suggestions on how to make these a bit challenging.

Any corporation can apply to become a social corporation, but will need to meet the following conditions. When these conditions are not met then it becomes a normal corporation until a new applications is made:

• No player structures can exist in space.
• All corporation members must have a security status of 0.0 or higher.
• No corporation member can have a kill right on them.
• No corporation member is allowed to receive a suspect flag or a criminal flag.

When any of these conditions are failed will a social corporation lose its social status, become a normal corporation and can be wardecced again. A new application can only be made after all conditions have been met and not before one week has passed.

I know people want to limit social corps by member count and other means, but a social corporation should really be limited based on social aspects and their members’ behaviour. The challenge of meeting the conditions will help to keep the total number of social corporations to a meaningful number and help to avoid an uncontrolled explosion of social corps.

[Proteus_Onzo]

@Whitehound

• No corporation member is allowed to receive a suspect flag or a criminal flag.

When any of these conditions are failed will a social corporation lose its social status

Wont work.

I can AWOX a Social Corp the minute Im into it, by firing at any ship, and drop them out of Social Corp status.

Nor did you explain what happens to the Social Corp members afterwards.
Do all default to NPC Corp?

Please, think before you post.

[Whitehound]

@Proteus_Onzo

Please, think before you post.

Don’t be rude. Of course they can be awoxed, but it’s part of the challenge of keeping the social status.

And no, they don’t fall back into an NPC corp. They simply become a normal corporation until they can meet the conditions again.

The point of these conditions is that one then cannot abuse a social corporation for ganking, remote repping, can flipping, etc… This makes their status a lot more tolerable to all of EVE and gives them a challenge to work on.

The larger a social corp gets the harder these conditions will become for the leadership, thereby making it a natural limitation of player numbers. It will simply depend on the skill of the whole corporation if they can grow as a social group of if they fail.

[Arrendis]

@Proteus_Onzo

I have talked about reversing the scale many times earlier in this thread.

:sigh: No, no, no… Reverse THAT scale. Lemme spell it out for you:

Base Cost to Wardec: (all costs per month, fees calculated and debited daily at DT) 1,000,000 ISK/mo
10,001+ pilots: 1,000,000
5,001-10,000: 2,000,000
1,001-5,000: 5,000,000
500-1,000: 10,000,000
251-500: 50,000,000
101-250: 100,000,000
51-100: 1,000,000,000
11-50: 5,000,000,000
1-10: 10,000,000,000

Cost for Immunity: (per month, calculated daily at DT)
1-10 pilots: 1,000,000
11-50: 2,000,000
51-100: 5,000,000
101-250: 10,000,000
251-500: 50,000,000
501-1,000: 100,000,000
1,001-5,000: 1,000,000,000
5,001-10,000: 5,000,000,000
10,000+: 10,000,000,000

Though I would suggest capping immunity (IF such a system were implemented) around the 51-100 level, or even accelerating the cost inflation by adding another 0 over 100 members, then another over 1,000, so the biggest orgs in the game would be paying a trillion ISK a month if they want to be immune.

I mean, the obvious dodge is just to break into smaller alliances, but that adds a layer of organizational effort, and I honestly think a trillion ISK is less of a price than another layer of bureaucracy at that size.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Arrendis

You are demanding that CCP and the CSM mention a specific context before it can be considered to be included in the scope of ‘all contexts’. It’s more likely, when people discuss issues in broad context, that they will specify exceptions , if they exist, rather than listing them all out.

This is correct. When we’re in these meetings we almost never discuss things based solely on areas of space. Structure spam is a problem everywhere - not just highsec or nullsec. It’s something that needs to be addressed across the game. No reason for us to highlight one or the other.