Oh yes I totally agree
Which is why Im saying if you have a coreless structure and no warlosses, or at least a cheap structure and very few losses during war, most wars you would receive would be empty threats.
Isnāt a coreless structure more appealing? Because if they pop it they will get a loot piƱata?
Why would they?
Thereās no Core for them to get.
Because with a core everything in it gets asset safety no? But without the core it all just drops to be scooped, ships modules materials BPs etc.
Why would you store anything other than the materials you are actively using in a Structue in HS? Use a NPC station in the same system that cant be destoryed and just ship over what you need.
I mean the same reason people lose a lot of stuff would be my guess; convenience.
However you are right that would be the cautious move. Though is suppose each movement in HS is a chance for someone to scan/bump/gank you so there is a balance to it.
At the very least you would want the blueprints to always be in the station otherwise you are regularly moving very low volume high value cargo.
1 Like
Well you are only moving the BPs there to copy them if you arent doingit cheaply at a NPC Research Station or somethin, then back to storage so only BPCs would be on site for long.
$12 a month per account, a redesign on zerging mechanics. Having x# of blues on the field should create grid wide debuffs (whatever that might meanādiscourage zerging). And, limit the number of alliances / corporations that can be set to āblueā --make āblueā status cost something either in ISK, resources, or just flat out cap it. Fozzy sov could use a facelift too perhapsābut that would be 4 things, so whatever.
ROFL. So punish people for playing together in an MMO.
Nice 
3 Likes
- Ability for insta destroy anything I want with a click, including Keepstars
- All other peopleās ISK
- Infinite omega time in infinite accounts for me only
Iād more say balance smaller sized alliances and fleets to deal with massive epic zergs while likewise encouraging fleets to split forces and attack multiple targets simultaneously versus the current F1 ā fire race everyoneās been doing for eons. I really donāt look at it as āpunishing people for playing togetherā so much as I think itās about diversifying the gameās combat mechanics.
N+1 has been a rule of war since war began.
Find more peeps than them. Or cry about it more
Well, Iām in a huge alliance so Iām on the side with the bros personally so Iām not crying. But, for the sake of argument I do see smaller alliances and corps struggle all over constantly to counter 200 man+ blobs.
Just because itās always been that way doesnāt mean that itās the best way, I think thatās a bit of a strawman personally but whatever.
It is the best way. There isnāt an army on this entire planet that would willingly try to make things āfairā for their opponent. That is utterly foolishā¦
1 Like
So then field less peeps
1 Like
Maybe they should group up
True, need more population first thoughāonly so many apples in the basket.
No, but smaller tactical squads will always fare better against massive, unorganized hordesāhence the debuff idea.
1 Like
I will cancel subscription immediately. Iām not your target practice, dont drag me into your conflicts, its not my wars.
But how do they fare against massive, hyper organized hordes? I donāt know why you think the group that can put 1000 pilots with logi wings onto the grid is somehow unorganized.