Yeah, ok, so they are not isk sinks, but still they are bounties on small groups of people who don’t wanna get stomped by P I R A T E v 1.2
yeah they changed it, yesterday it stated 50KM3 all good now
This is a great suggestion. You’d never have an old car that needs to be retrofitted with a new component just to make it drivable after you’d had it for some time.
I’m part of a small 5 man corp with our own Astrahus in HS that we keep permanently fuelled, fire up the industry on it for a few days each month to build our own ammo etc and have our clones installed there.
Being forced now to pay more than the value of the structure itself for a new “essential” component that has not existed or been “essential” for the past 12 months that the structure has been anchored will simply result in us saying screw it and taking down our little hut in space.
Why not roll out a mk2 version of each structure? Mk 1’s not already deployed by 8th Sept are automatically updated to mk2’s and existing mk1’s already in space from when update is announced are left alone?? Any mk1 structure unanchored after mk2 is introduced then it automatically becomes a mk2.
2 Likes
That’s an assertion…and a convenient one for you.
Show me a situation where it’s not true.
CCP will continue to stomp small groups and foster a “blame the victim” attitudes (as they have done for years), until it costs them RL money, then they will address gankers and other rules exploiters…but not before then
2 Likes
The core issue of that is that the old starbase POSs are old structure technology that (according to what i was able to understand from CCP’s explanation to introduce Upwells) was starting to become difficult to manage and maintain.
Technical reasons aside, the gameplay reasons why starbases are different is that they can be effectively removed in one single engagement. Unlike Upwells. Until this update hits.
There had been a couple threads on the forums involving fantasizing and theorizing that the fact that the Upwell lineup starts from ‘medium’ leaves space to ‘small’ structures to act as an effective bridge in cost and functionality between the old anchor-based starbases and the newer module-based Upwells.
Indeed, if the risks need to be increased and with it the rewards, considerations for a lower-risk and lower-reward alternative could be in order.
2 Likes
There’s no situation where you would accept the argument. So why bother?
Have a nice day.
ccp flat out hates small groups,ls/fw, and wh. hell look at csm it just mega blocs special intrest groups
1 Like
If you can come up with a situation where it’s not true, where I can’t immediately show just how the larger group still does better, I will definitely accept it.
But you can’t. Because in all of human history, it hasn’t happened.
Thats because one doesnt exist in this game.
As a small group person I understand this which is why my methods and goals adapt.
If you are neither small group or large then wha…oh
Oh I see
You have my Mickey Dolenzes
Switzerland?
What about them?
Compare them with France for example? Though you start to get subjective on what is better of course.
Switzerland has better Banks then France. Average salary is higher and the people are subjectively happier.
Another assertion…
Have a nice day
You make a valid point, much like the Porpoise vs the Orca, not as effective, but much cheaper
I dont think that word means what you think it means
Unless you dont want facts in responses?
You mean compare two countries that are both part of the same larger socio-economic organization as if they’re not interdependent entities? That doesn’t actually sound like a small group vs a large group, that sounds like ‘two parts of the same group’.
Pretty sure it does. You asserted a conclusion. You have no willingness to question your conclusion.
Done here.
No, that’s wrong. Wardec being paid per number of person in the corp (and locking the corp acceptance after declaring a war) would actually make smaller groups bear less negative impact.
1 Like