What you posted, is exactly what Ive been suggesting when I said, repeatedly, the wardec costs are ass-backwards and need inverting.
Your numbers/brackets are an example, but the principal that it should be more expensive to wardec a smaller Player Corp than a larger one, are what I have meant all along.
Currently, a Corp like PIRAT can wardec the hell out of 160 smaller Corps, and pay only 50mil per dec if they have less than 50 members.
If wardec costs are “fixed” like you proposed and I suggested, a Social Corp or Wardec Immunity Fee may not even be necessary thereafter.
But, at the same time, if wardec costs are inverted like that… welcome to Structure Spam Online, where 1-man corps drop unassailable structures ALL OVER highsec.
Hell, I’ll get GSOL to hand me a keepstar, and I’ll put it up in Perimeter in a 1-man corp. See who’ll pay a trillion isk to kill it with subcaps when they can get wardec’d for less than that.
Ive explained above how thats not a problem, several times.
It really doesnt matter how many structures there are in HS in any negative sense, and instead just improves HS economic opportunity and retention of players, as I explained earlier.
I know its unconventional thinking, but its sound.
Even if there are 99 other Citadels in a system, and you place yours, its yours and your Corps Home, and you can compete on the market for services, access and buy/sell orders there, to bring you business, just like the other 99.
We are talking about HS structures, not LS/NS/WH.
You cant own the space or markets in HS, no matter how many Citadels you place.
It does matter. If there were 99 structures in one system as you’ve described then the user interface would simply become hard to manage. It would also be a sign of a failed game design, when players can have this many destructible structures, but nobody actually cares for their destruction any more. Structure bashes are already being disliked and if we had as many as 99 per system then not even those who do care for their destruction would find any meaning in doing so. Therefore does it need to have some kind of limitation to keep the game-play around structures meaningful.
Its meaningful elsewhere, just not in HS, cos its meaningless how many structures there are in HS system.
As was indicated earlier, structure ownership of target can also be reduced from wardec cost, which infact would be rational and advised, considering otherwise a single 1 Player Corp can hold an entire Alliances HS structure network, to whom he allows them access with preferential rates, against otherwise exorbitant wardec cost against them. (Arrendis’ example numbers where 10bil to declare on a <10man Player Corp)
Well, the good news is that you think like CCP, as in claiming that breathtaking dumb design flaws turning ideas into DOA crap are “features”, but it would be more honest if you just said that you don’t want social corporations to exist at all. Who in his sane mind would hire a unknown player who might awox the whole corporation the second after he gets accepted?
“Hi Bob, welcome to the corp”
"Hi guys. BTW, let me shoot your in the face…
(pew pew pew)
…and here’s a wardec from my buddies at PIRAT. Have a nice day"
And I’ve explained to you that your opinion is not in-line with the feelings of the majority of EVE players who have weighed in on the issue of structure spam. People don’t want to see a thousand citadels on their overview in highsec systems. An unwieldy and opaque interface where players cannot find their destination structure or gate easily is also bad for retention, as it introduces (or aggravates) difficulty in navigating the game interface.
Quite simply those who know they can trust the new member.
Or lets turns this around… Why would you recruit a random, unknown player into your corporation if not purely out of greed, wanting to have more members than others, and the wish to become a warfare corporation?
Realistically, if you want to be a social corporation will you have to establish a trust among your members, or you’re just not social and you’re really just trying to buy the label of being social, when you don’t have a clue and might even be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
In the worst case would you have to expel the offending member, since he is untrustworthy and misbehaved, and for whatever damage or problems he caused in EVE will your social corporation be open to war for a week.
This seems just fair to me. If you don’t put a challenge in place then you’ll likely will see a large number of social corporations, that aren’t actually social, but anti-social and are being used for ganking, pod killing, can flipping, remote repping, and all the things which would make you a war target for others.
No, it isn’t. When in null-sec for example an alliances can plaster 100 structures into a single system then it only becomes harder for anyone trying to take over the space.
But not only will the spam lead to players setting up tons of backup structures, they will in fact begin to make pattern in space, or label them all the same, etc. … the usual nonsense you get from boredom. This we don’t need.
Don’t just wish or hope for it to be meaningful, but include it into your ideas and actually make it so.
I’m putting it out there as an idea of what could be done to give players who want limitations for social corporations something they can be happy with. This has also been a concern of some, including myself.
The idea of paid immunity by the way is bad. It supports those who have the ISKs more than those who don’t obviously (rich vs. poor). A flat tax such as the NPC corp tax is already a cost factor for having immunity. It only isn’t paid in advance and so doesn’t benefit the rich more than the poor. The cost factor introduced by a flat tax also scales with the number of members. The immunity fee isn’t very original.
Even if you place 1000 Keepstars in an HS system, and I place only one Astrahus, but mine has better buy/sell orders than all of your 1000 Keepstars offer, which you paid insane amounts of isk to get, the buyers/sellers will still come to my Astrahus and ignore your 1000 Keepstars, completely.
And I will be rolling in profit, whereas you are 1000 Keepstars worth in isk in a deficit hole.
Do you begin to understand now how it doesnt matter how many Citadels you have in a HS system?
Just makes me laugh at you for how pointless your insane expense to place them in one HS system is, when I can still beat you just by offering better buy/sell orders from one cheap Citadel.
Of course you laugh. You’re not being serious and your own examples are a joke. That’s what we’ve been telling you. Your examples are useless when they lack practical relevance and are only good for a joke.
