Don’t think you’ve read my suggests here or on my CSM thread then.
Nobody cares.
If there are relevant parts, post them here.
We are dealing only with what you have posted here.
If you re-read what I said I am saying that I am not against having to defend a structure if I were to require one.
Wat?
This clearly states you dont want to have to defend a structure as an aggressor, and that is not posturing when you say so…
Thats why I asked “Why not?” and explained my question.
Wtf, man.
Can you please get your story straight for once instead of this weird backpedalling?
It’s obvious you don’t know how to read. Let me be clear. I will defend a structure if I have to have one to declare war on other groups.
Is this clear enough for you?
Ok, but that is opposite of what you said earlier.
Good, then its settled that you have no issue with defending a wardec structure as an aggressor, as it is the source of the wardecs you have issued.
Cool.
Glad that is settled now on your part.
The exact specifics of the wardec structure such as cost, upgrades, vuln windows or total EHP, placement, proximity, location, whether its one or multiple structures, and how many wardecs it/theycan issue and at what cost vs whom, are the next matter.
Arrendis suggested a ISK incentive to encourage players that avoid a war, to return afterwards.
That can be implemented as the first stage of a 3+ stage process I outlined earlier.
Will be set by CCP, so your insistence that anyone talking about this have all the answers right here rather than just a general idea is a spammy joke, and shows you are just trying to bury the topic in pedantic spam.
2 Likes
Ofc.
Not by you or others with suggestions that are so ill thought out and obviously agenda based they are knocked over by a feather and disregarded outright.
Correcting someone or pointing out the fatal flaws in what they post, is not pedantic.
Your post above contributed nothing. Just a spammy attempt at insulting.
You mean all those suggestions that you haven’t come up with a single valid argument against. Literally the only thing you’ve come up with was the alt corp declaration flaw, which I’d already pointed out multiple posts before you.
All the rest of your ‘arguments’ have been utter paranoia and showing a lack of understanding of current game mechanics since they have all been possible already.
As for being pedantic. Asking people to spell out every single detail including numbers as to what they expect to see then picking on the slightest part of it that you feel is inconsistent. yeah that’s pedantic.
1 Like
Like where I pointed out that if a wardecced corp gets better ore and mission rewards, it will lead to “fake”, inert wardecs by an alt corp to pump the income of the defender?
You have a very short, and selective, memory.
Almost like you have an agenda and dont want to call out crap, when its shown to be crap.
Funny, pretty sure thats what you and some others did, when demanding/expecting a series of changes should he 100% efficient and perfect, which they dont.
Now try actually reading the very next sentence. And thank you for proving my point about how pedantic you are being here. When you literally don’t even read me listing exactly that. Or worse, you read it and try and pretend it doesn’t exist in order to score points.
Nice edit.
Faylee already conceded and agreed.
Whats your issue now as relevant to the issues being discussed here as based on the CSM Summit minutes?
What edit. It shows if a post has been edited. Like you just edited your previous reply, oh and this post.
You are literally lying now about things in order to score points.
As for Faylee “Conceding” to you… Man you are sure self absorbed to claim credit for that one.
As for relevance to the CSM minutes, it’s perfectly relevant to call you out for trying to bury peoples discussions and comments in pure pedantry which has now devolved to outright lying.
1 Like
There is a few minutes you can edit before it shows the notification.
Thats what you did.
I am not, nor are there any points to be scored.
Not to me. To the issue being discussed and his position on it.
I will be ignoring your posts, as you are clearly a troll, with an agenda, and no interest in discussing the actual issues raised in the CSM Summit minutes, which is the topic here.
Make up your mind.
I can’t be a troll, have an agenda, and have no interest in discussing any of this (Which given I’ve been discussing this is yet another outright lie from you).
But really, you just contradicted yourself here. If I have an agenda, which I’m very certain you are wrong on the agenda you are claiming I have, then I can’t be a troll or disinterested in discussing things, because I’m trying to promote my agenda.
So yeah…
Couldnt agree more. Been saying that for years.
They can already do this by being in an NPC corp. A corp will not make it that much better.
On the Social or Civilian Corp suggestion, this is how it will play out.
Lets say I’m CEO of a NS Corp with 1000+members, many of whom have alts in HS:
-
I will create an un-wardeccable HS Social Corp subsidiary, with leadership of my choice.
-
That leadership will only accept HS alts of my NS Corp or Alliances members.
-
I will instruct all HS player alt Corps to open access to this Social Corp, and give them favorable rates to their structures.
-
I will instruct all Corp members, whether in Mother Corp, or in Social or Player Corp in HS on mains or alts, to trade and operate only in our subsidiaries structures.
-
I will instruct, fund and subsidize all HS based combat capable alts in our HS subsidiary Player Corps to wardec and explode all competing structures and ships by other HS entities, to muscle them out.
-
I will tell Red Frog and other HS transport Corps to piss off, by handling all our logistics and material transport and material acquisition through our own Player Corp structures and unwardeccable Social Corp network via internal contracts.
-
I will encourage the leadership and recruiters of my NS based HS Social Corp to incentivize all members of NPC or small HS Player Corps to join our Social Corp instead, so we can get their materials/products sold in our structures, and reduce HS competition on those commodities.
-
In about 6-12 months, I will completely control our pipeline to HS markets from NS and back, and will have forced out any small HS Player Corps as either insignificant, or their structures and ships destroyed.
-
Join our Social Corp, with access to our structures with good rates, or our alt Player Corp or Suicide Ganking military arm will crush your Player Corp structure and your ships, and you can log off and never return.
-
Eventually, once competition along pipeline and in places of interests has been eradicated, we can start recruiting the Social Corp players into our Player Corp subsidiaries, or the mother Corp back in NS.
This is what will happen, should Social Corps be introduced as people have described it here.
NOT to do the above, would be remiss by NS Player Corp leadership.
The above is smart, and utterly clear as how to exploit the new Social Corp system.
Malcanis’ Law is invoked here.
A Social Corp system will utterly obliterate new and weak HS Player AND Social Corps, because it allows for the NS big Corps to infiltrate, strong arm and obliterate them.
Bookmark this post, and tell me this isnt exactly what happens if Social Corps are implemented as people have tried to shoehorn them in above.