Why, yes, i am. My great great grandfather married a T-rex and had many children.
1 Like
And I thought your relatives were just fueling my car. 
Ye its got real boring tbh, and the new npc stuff is basically the same â â â â under a new label; another complex with some different rats.
It isnât. There is no armour timer. only hull timer.
I mean, it says something when you resort to lying abd insults to try and make your argument.
Itâs not about how easy it is to kick over the sand castles - itâs the fact that they provide free services without the need for fuel.
Donât worry about the no armor thing, shut off the tether. Then after a month turn off fitting, repair, insurance etc and then the ability to put things âintoâ corporate storage - then they will get fuel.
The point is no one has answered the âwhyâ. They bring up POS out of fuel, but upwell canât be picked up as easily as POS could.
There has to be a balance, if picking it up destroys massive value in rigs, then it shouldnât need to be picked up because you want to mothball it for a month or two.
As such, if you want them to get no timers, it has to move to being easier and cheaper to pick up also.
im ok with tether and repair but, BUT, they should only be on fueled citadels⌠probably should have a module or rig for it tbvfh
The whole thing with the current state of structures is. There are thousands of structures that have just been taking up space for years. They never get fuel put in them, many donât even have modules fitted - They are nothing more than space junk.
Sure if you want to mothball a structure for a month - FUEL IT FOR A MONTH.
Your whole argument is based on the cost of structure rigs and yes they are expensive but that is part of owning a structure.
When you put a structure in space you know it is at risk of becoming a loss mail. If you park a 3 bil isk ship in space and leave it there unattended it will likely die, the same should apply to undefended low power structures - Leave it in space unattended for too long - It dies.
That isnât mothballing it. Thatâs leaving it running.
Comparing it to a ship is silly, ships can be docked, ships can be logged off.
POS could be docked effectively also.
Upwell structures can not effectively be docked, therefore they should be treated differently, or changed so they can be docked.
what structure could you dock pos at?
I mean ive stolen a few unanchoring ones so i must assume many people didnt know this?!
Any structure that you could dock the industrial you picked your POS up with in a few of hours at no direct isk loss.
Yes yes, baring the millisecond spam of grab cargo when it unanchored, which is sillyâŚ
But itâs quite simple you could pack a POS up easily at no loss, so any dead stick POS were clearly abandoned or a trap.
âMothballingâ isnât a feature and shouldnât be. If it is low power for more than 30 days it should lose ALL timers, damage caps and war dec requirement - It is by all accounts abandoned, the cost of rigs and fittings should be irrelevant. [If the owners canât afford or choose not to fuel a structure for an extended time they donât deserve it]
The fact the owners have decided to leave it as space junk is all that should be taken into account.
I know you will never agree, just the same as you canât come up with a decent reason they should be allowed to just sit in space offering free tethering and docking.
Maybe a change to the way âmothballedâ structures are handled could do something towards breaking the ever lasting stagnancy that plagues the game.
Ah yes, the old âAll the logical reasons you have listed about balancing pros and cons arenât good enough but Iâm not even putting a single argument forward other than this is the way I want it to beâ argument.
Truly amazing, how could logic possibly compete with someone spamming âbecause I say soâ repeatedly.
How about a reduced fuel requirement to low power for more than a month?
What âpros and consâ did you argue - All you said was the cost of rigs they should be able to mothball for as long as they want for free with no risk.
I gave a valid reason for my argument - Structure spam.
You did not address this, you only insist players should be able to build a structure and then have it sit safely in space forever.
Donât try to throw your lack of a decent argument onto me. My argument is based on getting some activity into the game and clearing out abandoned structures.
What is yourâs again?
Why yes, wardecs with no armour timer is no riskâŚ
If you had bothered reading what I wrote rather than just screaming the structure spam meme again and again you would have seen I was proposing a trade off, which would give attackers of a decent structure more reward since rigs donât reward attackers, while allowing someone who actually wants to mothball a structure to actually remove it, and for abandoned structures to then be easily attachable since it is clear they are abandoned, not deliberately taken off line.
Which addresses the (undefined) claims of structure spam even better than simply allowing people to shoot structures, since people will also take them down, while also addressing the owners issues.
So small/er groups who donât own a structure canât participate - Ok, only groups large enough to own structures can participate in structure fights - Seems balanced and a great way to address the thousands of low power structures littering highsec - Why not restrict game play to a few.
What is a âdecent structureâ?
Should only âdecent structuresâ be removed?
How do you see an abandoned structure giving rewards to those who wait up to a week to kill it?
What about all the Astraâs and other structures about the place with no rigs or modules that have been there for years because nobody wants to spend a week waiting for a (now even more random) timer to kill them.
Having done it a few times - Taking down a structure is not much harder than taking down a pos. The possibility of it being stolen is not an issue as far as game mechanics go - Theft, ganking, dying to NPCâs, etc is part of daily game play, why should a structure be any different to the risk of having a 30 bil JF ganked or a rookie losing a 10 mil T1 ceptor to NPCâs.
I own a JF that travels between nul and high - It is too risky flying through highsec so i want CCP to give me added protection so I donât have to risk losing it. No ganking allowed within 5 jumps of Jita will do.,.
What about my Rorqual - I donât belong to a group with a Super Umbrella, so CCP should give me more protection so the risk of losing it is less.
See where this is headed?
I and thousands of other players fly ships every day that are worth far more than many of the abandoned structures littering highsec - Should we get extra protection because we donât like the risk of losing them?
2 Likes
You do get extra protection.
Concord. Docking.
You are suggesting that structures get even less protection than you do.
However⌠since you are clearly being dishonest in your arguments like normal, Iâm going to leave you to your screaming. Have fun.
Iâm afraid you just a fool - Iâd suggest you find a 6 year old to read my post to you as you just donât seem to grasp simple English.
If your structure is low power you should have 7 days to put fuel in it or you can wipe it out with 1 attack. And a fuel email should go to everyone with rights to the corp saying in 7 days the fuel will run out and it will cause it for a round 3 on the first attack.
Leave the rest so defenders that want to have structures have a chance to save them. You already made them useless to try and hold someone on grid with that nerf. Lots of small corps have a couple of people. It should be a capital ship on grid not what it is now.
2 Likes