Its not about the isk.
3 Likes
I wonder if those are also comprised of folks that spend more real money on PLEX for the game?
But, the bigger consolidation of power is a problem. We saw the consequences earlier when one of the big null-bloc CEOs felt he should be able to push CCP around. They pushed back, but if heâd had more ability to impact their subscription income, it would have gone worse for them.
Well, I can see that theyâre committed to this change, much like the Broker Relations mega-fee change, so weâll see how this pans out.
its raising difficulty for small groups to want to get into null sec and only makes the powerful more powerful. do you not understand that this is going to create a bigger issue down the road? or do you want there to only be like 2 alliances in null and nobody else to challenge them?
Just for advice, there are a couple of posters in the thread that are only here to troll. They donât care about the issue of the moment, they only want to stir up grief for amusement. Most of the rest of the posters here very much do understand what this change means, however.
have some foresight oh wait i forgot just like in real life corporations fail to see more than 3 months down the road.
I expect theyâll all be dead by the time this goes through.
the ones who troll and claim git gud are the ones who benefit from these changes its how it always goes. they dont care about a year down the road they care about the next quarter.
Which to be blunt, is IMO part of the problem when Citadels came out. The only way a 1 person corp has gotten away with it, is because CCP made them too safe, and as a result not worth the effort to attack.
Keep in mind, as I said a few posts up, Iâm coming from this as one of the âlittle guysâ My corp has never been more than maybe 20 pilots, and that was over like 3 actual people and all our alts.
Removed some off topic posts.
My issue is more HS. I think there should be a place in the game for small indy corps and running them out of npc stations just isnt profitable.
I couldnt care less about my hs structure, so my concerns arent for me but i already have spoken to people today who feel that this change will kill their growing corp of newer players.
I just think if these structures are all fueled and used, i dont see what the issue is that is trying to be fixed. I also think changes that disproportionately affect younger smaller corps more severely for the worse is poor for the state of the game.
The cost of these drops seems to high to me, for example 800mil drops from a 500mil raitaru seems mad. Maybe if it were smaller to dissuade larger groups from spending the time, but i think the payout as stands will mean high sec will be burned down.
3 Likes
i hope yall are realizing what domino effect this causes down the road⌠and were literally trying to tell you why this is a bad idea. if you want more isk sinks theres better ways. ever watched extra credits?
Youâre mistake here, is assuming that CCP gives a â â â â , nor do they remotely realize what they are doing anymore.
1 Like
Hi, Iâm a volunteer, not a member of CCP! Itâs my job to sort through the feedback and give it to CCP though.
CCP, why bother with implementing new in-game items ?
Just add few hundread milion ISK to every issued sell order of upwell structure.
You know⌠cause sandbox, free market and player driven economy.
As is mine. The original issue again is CCP made it too easy, which is a shame. And now they are trying to âFixâ it retroactively which iâm not a fan of.
Back in the day (for anyone too new to remember) in order to Anchor a POS in HS you needed
Anchoring skill at 1 or 3 depending on what modules you wanted to anchor
Have a corp at least a week old
have sufficiently high standings with the local faction
and an empty moon to anchor it at.
All of that for a meh station. It did some things better than an NPC station but felt more like a tent than a home. And there was no real asset safety.
Now you have structures that are overall just as cheap (once you fit out a POS) and require nothing to anchor anywhere you want in HS. That IMO was a fundamental flaw in their design.
a feed back would be suggesting the devs watch extra credits on gold sinks. and all this change does is make even bigger corps and alliances under the same banner vs many small ones. it makes small corps structures targets, this change really only helps the current war at most. that wont probably last by the time this is retroactive. this will reduce the amount of groups wanting to break into null and low and eventually become new threats to existing alliances, this is just making the powerful more powerful down the road. sure for the next few months it may look fine but this is a long term effect past 3 months.
This isnât much of an incentive for null blocs to come take your structures. They will be similarly inclined to curb stomp after this as they are now.
This changes forward base spamming and hi-sec spamming.
Like i said in my first post, this feature is easy to tweak in reaction to how players behave. But as a concept, its kills several birds with one stone.
What could possibly go wrongâŚ
So an interesting take, for anyone who doesnât listen to TIS. They were making a good case for how these will be a negative for the game.
The TLDR is that you will find (and this was largely in null) the big groups will just steamroll all the little guys, Collect the cores, and then they can use them to expand their own. Hadnât thought in those terms but yea, seems plausible.
2 Likes