So you are claiming that “Stations are already way too cheap. Deal with it.” is a valid argument?
Seems rather dismissive to me, but maybe that’s just me.
1 Like
Of course it is. You objected to the risk and cost faced by the station owner, I countered with the claim that station owners already benefit from a severe balance issue and have no right to complain that the balance issue is being partially addressed. You can disagree with the claim but it is absurd to whine that it is somehow invalid.
1 Like
“Deal with it” will never win you a debate. Sure, if you want to high-five your teammates after delivering that stinger, go right ahead.
If cost of the structures is the issue at the core of your argument, then increasing material costs works on future structures, and increasing fuel material costs works on all existing and future structures, along with increased rewards as drops.
I could see even adding intact rigs and all modules to the drops, even with 100% drop-rate.
2 Likes
Why use a limited solution when you can simultaneously increase content by making the extra cost a PvP target?
As you’ve already established “it’s doomed”, then it is doubtful there will be any significant increase in content in the long-term as others come to your same realization, an abandon the idea entirely.
As others have also noted in this thread, many are already either un-anchoring or cancelling plans to anchor, so no content from those either.
I think at best one could hope for is content-neutral, but will in all probability lead to less content opportunities.
1 Like
That’s not what I said.
Your station is doomed if you are targeted by an overwhelming force that doesn’t care about profit and just wants you dead. But in this case the core mechanic is irrelevant and it can not be used as an argument against cores.
Your station is content if you are targeted by a small enough group that the financial incentive matters, the sort of group that a legitimate station owner should be able to fight off.
There will always be content because you can’t know if a station is properly defended or owned by useless perma-victims (and therefore easy ISK) until you attack it.
As others have also noted in this thread, many are already either un-anchoring or cancelling plans to anchor, so no content from those either.
No content, sure, but those stations were already zero-content wastes of space. And now at least their helpless perma-victim owners no longer get the reward of owning a station.
So its ego (superiority) and vindictiveness now. Really getting desperate there 
Fine. I understand your position can see where you stand on the issue.
2 Likes
The problem here Merin is sometimes these are the same group.
Joe from EvilWarDecCorp spots your structure and asks Bob to come bash it with him. You turn up to defend against their 6 ships since they have alts, and they call for reinforcements in corp chat while keeping the timer near enough paused. 15 minutes later there are now 30 EvilWarDecCorp members in local killing your fleet and your structure since they get KM’s for it.
That’s where the idea that it’s only an increase in risk vs small groups breaks down, because big groups will wardec you just for a couple of members to shoot you sometimes.
1 Like
It’s just basic game design: achievements only have value if they are difficult. If every random person can have a station with minimal effort then owning a station is a meaningless accomplishment. If owning a station is difficult and requires constant effort in its defense then the people who do own stations have an achievement to be proud of. The people taking down their stations because they are unwilling or unable to invest effort in accomplishing something lose their meaningless participation trophies, the smart and ambitious players see the value of their accomplishment increase.
Sure, that happens. But once 30 players get involved the per-player reward from the core becomes negligible. That overwhelming force was going to show up and destroy your station whether or not CCP implemented the core mechanic, so it can’t be used as an argument against cores.
The only scenario where the core mechanic drives a change in behavior is where the attacking group (including any potential escalation) is small enough that the per-player reward is enough to matter, and that’s a level of threat that anyone who deserves to have a station should be able to handle.
But the wardec only happened because the core existed, for the first two to get the prize. Therefore the station destruction is directly caused by the core in this example. And it is reflective on current gameplay. As such the cores do add extra risk & change behaviour, Because Joe & Bob wanted the loot from the core, and without it would EvilWarDecCorp never have wardecced you
Now, I’m not arguing against the cores, I can understand where CCP want to add in extra risk and gameplay surrounding structures.
But I do feel that that increased risk caused by scenario’s like the above needs recognising by CCP and compensated for either by highsec bonuses getting closer to null bonuses, or by stations getting additional factors to help them defend such as command links.
Increased Risk, Increased Reward.
Still requires increased group play to defend it to get that reward.
And that’s where I disagree: if only Joe and Bob want a war then EvilWarDecCorp isn’t going to show up for a fight. The decision to escalate requires a substantial number of members who are in it for killmails and/or tears, not ISK, and that means they’re going to declare a war as soon as one of their members identifies a potential target that they are capable of killing. And they’re probably going to show up from the beginning, not decline the opportunity to get on the structure killmail until Joe and Bob invite them in.
Now there is a reasoned, well presented argument. Gold star 
Should have lead with that.
Can’t see anything in there I disagree with, so point to you. Though I did note that increasing content had no part in there, I’ll let that point slide and assume it was a given.
I do wonder what goals will be worth aspiring to for industrialists and those that now find structure ownership out-of-reach or untenable, and also the chilling effect it has on industry, as CCP has also designed a system where co-operative industry is punished, and structures a necessity.
CCP also hinted on the recent Twitch feed that more pain is to come, and specifically mentioned weaponizing indices further (my words, based upon the comment of indices meant to replace slot limits, which were a very ‘painful’ thing).
The goal of becoming strong enough for structure ownership to be viable. It isn’t off limits permanently, it just requires you to work for it instead of being given it as a participation trophy.
the chilling effect it has on industry
Remember that a chilling effect on some industry players is a boost in profit to others. Supply vs. demand is a thing, if production decreases then the remaining industry players see greater profits and that increase in profit provides additional incentives for more people to get involved in production. In fact, given the low profit margins on industry as it exists now, this chilling effect is probably a good thing.
That of course overlooks that denying a portion of the player-base their desired game-play is unlikely to lead to their continued retention and subscription growth in those activities.
It is a very risky gambit in an environment where there are so many alternatives vying for the same gaming-dollar. CCP going all-in that new PvP subscriptions will save the game sometime in the future, while alienating current industry customers. Of course, CCP has never understood the industry player-base, so I guess it shouldn’t come as any surprise.
Which is again a buff for the industry players who remain. It’s a negative for CCP’s income, but realistically a lot of the people who quit are going to quit anyway when they encounter some other form of adversity. Pandering to risk-averse farmers who won’t play a game that requires effort is not a winning strategy.
I’m reminded of the old joke of the passenger airplane encountering engine trouble.
After the first engine quits, the captain assures the passengers not to worry, they can still reach the destination safely, however the flight will be 20 minutes longer.
After the second engine quits, the captain assures the passengers not to worry, they can still reach the destination safely, however the flight will be 45 minutes longer.
After the third engine quits, the captain nervously tells the passengers not to worry, they are diverting to an alternate airport, however it will add at least 3 hours boarding a new airplane to reach their destination.
One passenger turns to another and says, “I hope that last engine doesn’t quit, or we’ll be up here all day.”
A further negative to CCP’s income can’t be a good sign to their investors.
1 Like
Depends on their level of independence, and how much gameplay quality you’re willing to sacrifice in the pursuit of profit. And let’s not forget that if maximizing income is the most important priority the best thing for CCP to do would be to turn EVE into a F2P cash shop game, utterly destroying the game we know and love so they can extract as much cash as possible from the whales before the whole thing collapses and CCP shovels out the next F2P cash shop game to replace it.
Be careful what you wish for…
Without the core they would earn 300M ISK in loot which makes the income per player even worse? Are they stupid and should do L4 missions or mine veldspar in highsec to get better pay?
No. They are not stupid. The business model is simple:
-
Wardec and “pay us 5B ISK so your structure will be not destroyed”.
-
If victim pays - congratulations, just found great milk cow. Go back any time when ISK is needed, or when some boredom strikes. Structure will not fly away.
-
If the victim doesn’t pay - destroy it which PVE-like activity, costs just 1 hour of gameplay in total (3 x 20 minutes session) and add few B ISK to alliance killboard completly risk free. The attacking fleet will not arrive with anything which can’t tank structure plus anything defenders can put on grid.
-
If victim undocks “cheap of T1 cruisers” as you suggested - even better - more green on killboard, more tears, more punishment for victim for not paying.
-
If victim pays few B ISK to “other mercs” to show on timer and “defend” then it is even better milk cow because timers can be created any time every other day. “Other mercs” are your friends so their victims will contact to you for “protection”. In long run everyone will earn their share.
-
If victim mobilise real force (friends, allies, own people but from other timezones, and scarry people from lawless areas) which could have some chance to kill at least single ship of attacking fleet and make killboard red then just don’t show up on timer, let them go, create timer day after or extend wardec for next week. Structure will not fly away. Allies will.
-
Rinse and repeat.
Don’t forget old tricks like:
Netural brick tanked DST or Orca always present on grid full of capacitor boosters for fleet to counter any neuts the structure has.
Jumping corps just before hull timer that allies can not engage attackers at all.
And just in case neutral bowhead to hide blingy ships… just in case someone decide to give “good fight”.
In same time - defenders need to spare one pilot to man structure weapons (because they didn’t learn yet they are useless and pathetic) and need to field n+1 fleet to counter attackers fleet, their tank, their logi reps while their own allies in same war can’t repair each other because of highsec war assistance mechanics.
1 Like
And the Q-Cores barely change that. All of this does or can exist under the current rules.
The large groups attacking stations in highsec are either running protection rackets, or are being paid by someone to remove their competition. This change does essentially nothing to change that ecosystem.
This may create a new niche of aggressors looking for loot as their primary rewards but the nature of this PvP token means these groups will have to stay small and choose only the weakest of targets to make a living at it. There should be a better chance of more balanced and interesting fights around structures at this scale.
1 Like