You try and war dec someone like Omega and friends they are a holding corp, it’s really down to the people making the holding corp and how they are using it.
currently making a list of holding corps and people associated with it.
1 Like
The arrival of Blackflag, Wrecking Machine, or any other such group is something players need to factor in before, not after, they place their station.
Is that not what he’s saying? That having to factor that in means small corps don’t put down structures which puts a dampener on them.
The introduction of cores that drop and can be bought by NPCs made it so that even outside of contract merc corps had a financial incentive to take down structures belonging to groups with the least ability to defend them. It’s good for the people taking down structures, not so good for growing corps wanting to deploy their own assets.
any one have a list of abondend ones?
Well, firstly there is no shortage of them. I’ve been involved in 70 or so station destructions in 6 months. There’s still thousands of them out there.
How about seeing it the other way round…and wondering why people who cannot defend their structures are putting them up in the first place. I mean, Eve is a space shoot-em-up game. Why would the ’ don’t undock what you cannot afford to lose ’ not apply every bit as much to player stations ?
Though I have the ISK for it, I would not dream of putting up a player station just with some 10 man corp precisely because I know that groups like Blackflag and Wrecking Machine exist. I’d wait for the corp to reach a level where a good defence could be put up…not least because the ensuing battle would be fun ! In fact my own experience is that usually when bashing a station we want there to be defence so as to provide some content.
As for ‘financial incentive’…bear in mind that the loot will end up being divided between a fleet or 30 or so.
1 Like
lol he wont otherwise it will shatter his delusion when he sees what actually happens.
OK.
Because they are playing a sandbox game and want to create something, most likely. Not everything in the game needs to be about punishing people for not fighting.
For transparency on my position however, I think citadels are inherently bad and should not have been implemented at all as they were always going to be way more beneficial to existing power groups.
It’s really not.
Sure, and so you choose not to. And many other people also choose not to. And the end result is less activity n the game. I’m not sure why you’re acting like less activity is a good thing.
Which pretty much requires membership of a major alliance.
The loot goes into a central pot for SRP, war payments and director/FC payouts for most of these groups. And the people running them do everything they possibly can to ensure that any structure they take down offers the least resistance so it’s as cheap as possible to do. I doubt you actually get a split of the loot when you show up, you’re just free DPS and they’ll replace your ship in the rare occasion ships are lost.
I don’t know of any wardec group where the regular DPS get paid for each operation but if that’s what happens in yours, sign me up.
1 Like
Well, I agree with most of what you say, but I haven’t heard a good solution to the problem that in an open multiplayer world of course stronger guys will be able to stomp weaker guys. And we don’t even talk about the ability to take over basically any lucrative content any time, if nessessary with an army of alts.
2 Likes
Yeah, I don’t know what the solution is either. I think it broadly comes down to incentivizing even competition and disincentivizing unbalanced competition.
With citadels, CCP was just trying to solve the problem of space junk. So they created an ISK sink where you buy a core that has to sit in a structure from NPCs, then an ISK faucet for people who steal it to sell it back to NPCs. The outcome of those wasn’t to get rid of space junk though, it gave an incentive to wardec groups to actively target structure owners with the least ability to defend themselves. So small groups of players who would otherwise be active and engaged in the game get their assets smashed and lose interest.
A better solution would have been to just have structures have a reasonable cost just to stay in space, then have structures impounded. That way small but active corps could still feel like they are building something and there wouldn’t be the financial incentives to crush them for no reason other than the core.
Well, I wasn’t specifically aimed at structures, Citadels are the combination of some of the worst design decisons ever made in the game, true. One could argue the blueprint for these designs were made by the biggest power blocs to make sure they have the easiest way to stomp any competition. Like the mafia writing the laws against fraud, extortion and drug trafficking.
But anyway, even before Citadels anyone knew that any structure that looked valuable would be razed sooner or later by a blob of some big entity and unless you could batphone someone even bigger, the structure was doomed, that isn’t something new. At least it was common sense 2009 when I joined this game.
Just HighSec was an exception, because you needed a wardec and couldn’t bring caps, which made it possible that you could just take down any POS before the war became active or at least evac everything of value and let the attacker face a BrickStar of more than 100 million EHP full of Jammers, Damps and Hardeners, which was a real pain to take down for no loot at all. That wasn’t exactly balanced either, because why grant corps in highsec such a big advantage which the residents of Low and 0.0 never had?
1 Like
removed many off topic, agree to disagree, be constructive:
1. Specifically restricted conduct.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
- Trolling
- Flaming
- Ranting
- Personal Attacks
- Harassment
- Doxxing
- Racism & Discrimination
- Hate Speech
- Sexism
- Spamming
- Bumping
- Off-Topic Posting
- Pyramid Quoting
- Rumor Mongering
- New Player Bashing
- Impersonation
- Advertising
3. Post constructively.
Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online if it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.
** New Player Bashing*
What if a brand new Capsuleer anchors a structure.
When does this not count or fall under New Player Bashing?
A new player, as defined by Lucas Kell, is someone that has been playing for more than 10 years, has over 6 bil isk in wallet, and looses their blingy 3 bil+ isk marauder and/or 3bil+ freighter in highsec to a gank/gate gank.
Everyone else is an experienced player.
Especially Alpha clones. That’s why they aren’t allowed to set safeties to red in high sec. They were too OP.
I define an experienced player as “any player that jumped out of their starter system.”
Once a noob jumps out of their safe space hidey hole, they are free game and subject to pvp, consensual or not. It is EvE after all.
4 Likes
That is simply not true. As always, you are telling someone who actually does stuff how it is done. I have been involved in the destruction of 80 or so POS and you’ve tagged on at the tail end of just one, and you are telling me how its done ? Bizarre !
There’s no reason for directors to go looking for the ‘cheapest’, least resistance, structures to bash…because the ships doing the bashing are seldom lost. I have not lost a single ship during highsec structure bashing, even during the period when I only had the skills to fly squishies, and even when we’ve been up against 100 man corps with well defended structures.
Thus there is very little ‘cost’ associated with the exercise anyway. The main reason being that sufficient logi is always brought along, and applying for logi help when needed is emphasised regularly.
Unlike you, I actually do this stuff on a regular basis…so I don’t need lecturing on it.
1 Like
Aren’t backseat drivers the best?
1 Like
If CCP really wanted to protect genuine noobs, then instead of nerfing any threat to them they’d place more emphasis on noobs being aware of the protected systems. I get the impression most noobs are oblivious.
1 Like
Most noobs are. And the problem arises from a lack of communication from CCP.
It should be explicitly stated in the tutorial that there is no such thing as a safe space in EvE. And it should list out the dangers of high sec, including suicide ganking and the inevitable result of autopiloting.
How hard would that be?
2 Likes
Yep…the advert should really be ’ Eve Online, a glorious open universe where you can do what you…KABOOM ! ’
1 Like