Yes. Because you used the absolute everything in that statement. Which is not possible. So the fact that you told a lie, trying to lie made it a kind of “double lie” but inadvertently. But still a lie all the same.
2 Likes
I’m able to tell a lie, and the truth, at the same time.
That’s because you have magical princess powers!
1 Like
Love these changes, absolutely brilliant, now to put an end to high sec wars that greefs newly forming rookie corps just getting into structure ownership. SRS, should not be getting easy kills with NO RISK. Make non-consensual wars so they accumulate negative standing, limit how many automatic wins you give to SRS.
You do yet your view is not helping by labeling structure gankers as sociopaths or how you label it as anti social garbage.
Think - plan - action - do
One of my alts was in a 300 man corp that had no player owned stations, yet was expanding and doing well. So why does some 5 man corp need a player station ? And why should a structure be treated any differently to you leaving a battleship sitting there in space ?
Personally I would not put up a structure until I knew I had the resources to defend it, or could call in mercenaries or others to help.
3 Likes
Because a definitive expert who doesn’t play EvE said so.
All the < 50 man corps that are prospering without a player owned structure are just a figment of your imagination.
It would be a lot easier if you accepted the gaslighting and get in line with the truth.
4 Likes
Maybe that expert is actually playing on an industry alt that produces structures or structure components and this is just a scheme to increase profits. 
1 Like
It’s not about “need”. Noone has suggested they can’t exist without a citadel. But in a sandbox it’s a way to create something that small groups can rally around. Being forced to join a massive blob to own a citadel just creates the same broken dynamic that has consistently damaged the game over the years.
Why are you so adamant that only giant groups should be able to have anything of value in this game?
Why do you keep inserting straw men that I’ve never actually said ?
That’s the result of what you’ve said. You’re arguing in favour of an NPC-based mechanic that artificially adds value to citadels in order to make them attractive targets. All that does is guarantee that smaller groups will never be able to hold citadels and that only larger groups will be able to.
Before that mechanic were put in, everyone could put up a citadel, and sure, they’d still have to defend it if it were attacked, but it had no artificial value incentivizing massive wardec groups to take it down.
No it isn’t. Stop inventing what other people are saying. If you are going to say that I said something then directly quote what I have said…which is what honest people do…not some BS you just made up.
Did you see that @Altara_Zemara. It’s a guarantee! 100% without error. It will happen! It must happen! And without any evidence to!
That’s a better guarantee than any you will get from a used car dealer!
1 Like
That’s the result of what you’ve said. See my above post.
Nonsense. Stop inventing what others are saying. Or are you now so far into making stuff up that you know what I am saying better than I do ?
Seems like a good idea. So why don’t the small groups rally around it when they are attacked?
1 Like
I’m not inventing what you are saying. I’m pointing out the result of what you are saying. If you support NPC-based mechanics to artificially inflate the reward of taking down a structure then you encourage large groups to destroy the easiest targets to maximize rewards.
Before cores, the value for taking down a structure was based on the activities of the group that owned the structure. When cores were introduced, they added a PvE reward to structures and so wardec groups now farm citadels owned by small groups that are unable to defend them. You only support that mechanic because you are on the side that farms them and you’re risk averse.
Most small groups simply can’t form the amount of defense it would take to fend off these wardec groups, a lot of which are null-backed. So realistically the small groups have to merge into larger groups to stand a chance of holding structures. I’m opposed to the game being big blobs vs other big blobs by design.
I think these are fair points.
1 Like
That’s nothing to do with what I said. That’s you completely bulldozing what I said and substituting some other narrative…as you keep on doing.
What I did say…and which you completely rode over…was " So why does some 5 man corp need a player station ? "
Arguing that its ‘not about need’ is just you once again trying to bulldoze what everything is ‘about’. Your usual tactic…whenever challenged you simply decide things are not ‘about’ whatever you’ve been challenged with.
This sort of dishonest arguing is just tiresome.