So costs less than any of their usual ships when talking about wardec corps.
And they only have to kill 1 structure per time they lose their structure to break even. Given the usual kill ratio of these corps they are going to be miles ahead on cores.
Incorrect since they are guaranteed to lose 600 million every time they pick up the structure.
- Pretty sure cores drop when a structure is unanchored. If they donât see point 2 anyway as that will become more true.
- Just how often do you think wardec corps pick up their structures again, they put them up and leave them till someone blows them up.
- As long as they loot one core from a war before they lose their core they have broken even compared to now. If they loot 2 cores they are ahead. Given they normally have like a 20 to 1 ratio runningâŚ
2 Likes
Ok? Whatâs your point. Like I said, the war corps will just eat the occasional 1.2 billion ISK as the cost of declaring war. And, as pointed out, they are very likely to make a net profit by killing opposing structures and harvesting the cores.
As far as I can see, itâs just how CCP is going to subsidize getting PVPerâs to start harassing industrial corps again.
1 Like
And this is a bad thing?
Tbh its this insistence on compartmentalisation that makes this thing seem worse than it is.
I mean, Im still unsubbed cos of it, but not for ridiculously weak reasons like that.
If I understand you, this compartmentalization is what I would point to as the bane of my Eve existence. Iâve recently decided to hang my hat, and I have a long list of factors that contributed to that decision, but the industry/pvp playerbase split is perhaps the longest standing issue.
CCP released a long while ago that theyâd collected data that showed corporations who had war declared on them saw a decrease in activity, and that activity did not return to normal after the war ended. The solution was to protect players from wars using structures as the new gateway instead of the creation of a corporation. This beginning has been iterated on now to include structures as requirements to declare war as well.
Increasing the cost to declare war, whether by hiking the flat fee CONCORD charges or by requiring more expensive assets, raises the lower boundary on who can afford to start a fight. I donât see how I can interpret it as accomplishing anything but eliminating the most easily defeated foes. Eliminating the most easily defeated foes is going to shift the balance of victory to the persons who remain able to declare war, and against those who have war declared on them.
Thus, we end up in a cycle where wars are seen as a problem, a fix is implemented that removes the ability of the next easiest set of foes to fight affordably, and the prospect of someone winning a war declared against them is again decreased. People are psychologically conditioned over time to be war averse by the gameâs mechanics and ever growing notoriety.
In my experience as a PvE/Industrial player, wars were manageable. They were not convenient, but simply being at war did not shut me down completely. If there was no war target in the system, there was no reason not to do what I wanted. Going to Dodixie could wait a week, or I could ask someone I knew to buy me something, if I wanted it that bad. Someone declaring war doesnât need a structure to have âskin in the gameâ because without putting a craft of some kind on the field they canât shoot you.
CCP, and nerds in general, deal with this in data obsessed terms and overlook the systemic root causes that make players feel the way they do. Imagine if, to play battlefield, you had to farm up a bunch of stuff your opponents will get if they win first. Then imagine after that there were patch notes that read âWe see people donât like losing, so weâve increased the cost of being able to fight.â The higher the costs, the less of a PvP game this is. Eve claims to be a PvP centric game, so I find these price hikes ridiculous no matter who thinks theyâre benefitting.
I wanted an all rounder sort of good guy and girl new player friendly group. I didnât want to start fights, and I wanted to be friendly to all who would be friendly. I also wanted to be able to survive, not necessarily win, when the gauntlet is thrown down. While I believe I can survive, it is hard to convince anyone that this kind of playstyle is practical. I have to concede, it really isnât. You have to give up war immunity, you have to fly with people who wonât necessarily know how to fight, and you canât collect resources in eleventeen barges, and orca, and a freighter on your alt army while you munch pizza and watch netflix. I do not enjoy âpracticalâ gameplay, though. Iâd rather muddle my way through uncertain, dynamic situations that are instigated by real people.
CCP did a good job of bringing blob warfare to highsec using an NPC faction as a backdrop, but thatâs not the kind of player to player interaction thatâs interesting to me. We donât know what or who weâre fighting for in the end. âI fought for the Triglavians and all I got was this lousy t-shirtâ seems highly probable to be a meme once CCP distributes those costumes. I want real people fighting for their own goals, and thatâs harder to find at the small scale I appreciate than it has ever been.
I think CCP should widen the scope of wardecs and decrease their cost to decrease the advantages of compartmentalization and make more varied membership in groups more attractive. I think more fighting would raise newbies to be healthier members of our community who wonât crumple at the first sign of confrontation. You canât change people overnight. This isnât something you can fix instantly with a mechanics change. CCP would have to reestablish their vision that Eve is a PvP game at its root, and especially in highsec, where our careers begin and our ideas are first formed. Triglavians work against this by virtue of being NPCs. Quantum cores work against this by stifling conflict with added risk.
Woo boy. What a ramble. At least itâs at the end of an obnoxiously long thread everyoneâs tired of so hardly anybody has a chance to read it. Apologies to whose who did read it!
5 Likes
The issue with this is that it was a solution to a nullsec problem which will end up screwing up hisec even more. Initially I looked at it from the indy side of things, but then the penny dropped that it was going to make the offensive wars that I had planned more expensive and risky.
At that point I realised that it was going to impact the one thing that I was trying to push with my alliance.
Was an excellent ramble, but you covered the issues pretty well, even though I support the idea of tying structures to wars I always suggested that a cap of three aggressive wars without structures per entity was a good idea. Of course the war deckers would create alt corps, but so what, it would dilute their main strength in any case when they have a massive advantage with logistics⌠As for wars against entities without structures the only thing that I contemplated was having some sort of indy calculator that assessed whether you were competing for resources in s system or even a constellation for resources and allowed a war dec within that area.
I am looking forward to logging in in May 2021 and having a look at how many structures are left in hisec and who owns them, I am also going to watch for people flagging a lack of war targets.
Back to lurking, but I wish you well.
2 Likes
I honestly hate this update, but only cause Iâm going to have to get more friends to protect citadels. Not really all that horrible.
I hate it because it does nothing to solve the problem of junk structures now. you have to put the core into the structure so the small ones already abandoned are still worth less to destroy then ammo used to destroy it.
This part should be a component on the bpo instead of another online part. It should be the same part for every structure, called upwell core, and should be 500m3. this doesnât double the medium and large structures that already drops billions in salvage alone. It does make small structures worth going after while not punishing people buy making them by an insane cost to keep their structure online.
1 Like
That doesnât place a hauler at risk and increase gameplay around anchoring though, which is part of the aim.
For the aims CCP has, theyâve done the right thing.
Howâs that? the core is still 100% and placed inside before it leaves where ever its built during the anchor. You looking for cheap frieghter kills with 250 million for a xl core in it?
Run through the core process in your head, see if you understand how this increases counterplay options. Sure, when dealing with the mega alliances and major strategic deployments this may not impact as they can have thousands in system to control the grid and gates safely, but they do more than major strategic deployments, and more people use structures than just them.
The new phoenix update allowing super carriers to have clone bays and ships circumvent this entire process.
Before youâd need a structure and ships inside a structure and had to anchor it and probably drove some content to prevent this from happening. This flys contrary of this update.
Wow⌠the mental gymnastics on these kids is almost impressive if it werenât for how bad their arguments are.
A supercarrier and a citadel arenât the same thing. Supers donât have timers, reinforcements, docking, tether, etc. Citadels exist in game and allow everyone on ACLs to use them regardless of whether there is someone logged in to pilot it like a Supercarrier does.
Allowing people to reship from hulls pulled out of capitals has ALWAYS been a thing, albeit clunky. The pilot could simply eject the assembled ships and pilots nearby could board the ejected ship. At best, this update is just bringing that feature to the spotlight. Itâs not a change that is intended to make supercarriers the same as a citadel.
Iâve never really understood the point of ship-based clone bays.
You can clone-jump to a clone bay only once, after the pilot has made an invitation to create a clone (tedious in any number), so no implants. You have to be docked in order to clone-jump.
About the only thing they are good for is moving people that donât already own a âsuitcaseâ capital, but a travel-ceptor is often as good.
Which⌠is why CCP are planning to change them to be more meaningful and more practical to use? Instead of tedious, clunky and horrific.
However thatâs a discussion for the Phoenix update thread.
Just looking at zkillboard, I see the purge is underway.
Prior to patch, nearly all the structures seem to have been offline, as no fuel was dropped / destroyed.
Post patch, though there are still offline structures being destroyed, there is a noticeable shift to ones with quantum cores.
It is quite impressive the fleets people are throwing at these âworthlessâ and ânot worth the timeâ structures, like fleets of Nightmares or Leshaks.
1 Like
howâs this lawsuit coming along btw?
1 Like