3 Thing you would like to see changed in Eve Online

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.

Isn’t a coreless structure more appealing? Because if they pop it they will get a loot piñata?

Why would they?

There’s 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 mean–discourage zerging). And, limit the number of alliances / corporations that can be set to ‘blue’ --make ‘blue’ status cost something either in ISK, resources, or just flat out cap it. Fozzy sov could use a facelift too perhaps–but that would be 4 things, so whatever.

ROFL. So punish people for playing together in an MMO.

Nice :smiley:

3 Likes
  1. Ability for insta destroy anything I want with a click, including Keepstars
  2. All other people’s ISK
  3. Infinite omega time in infinite accounts for me only

I’d 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 → fire race everyone’s been doing for eons. I really don’t look at it as “punishing people for playing together” so much as I think it’s about diversifying the game’s combat mechanics.

N+1 has been a rule of war since war began.

Find more peeps than them. Or cry about it more :smiley:

Well, I’m in a huge alliance so I’m on the side with the bros personally so I’m 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 it’s always been that way doesn’t mean that it’s the best way, I think that’s a bit of a strawman personally but whatever.

It is the best way. There isn’t an army on this entire planet that would willingly try to make things “fair” for their opponent. That is utterly foolish…

1 Like

So then field less peeps :smiley:

1 Like

Maybe they should group up

True, need more population first though–only so many apples in the basket.

No, but smaller tactical squads will always fare better against massive, unorganized hordes–hence the debuff idea.

1 Like

I will cancel subscription immediately. I’m 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 don’t know why you think the group that can put 1000 pilots with logi wings onto the grid is somehow unorganized.