So how far do you want to go with this grouping thing? I know you are American, but Switzerland is not part of the EU.
All of Nullsec perhaps?
This is massively off topic, but funny.
1 Like
You havent provided an alternative and I hold my in game experiences as my evidence, not to mention deductive reasoning.
What do you offer in argument?
Skill training for corp managementâŚhigher for larger corpsâŚ
Nothing. You asserted something does not exist, since you canât prove it itâs an assertion.
Therefore there is no argument to have against someone who asserts his conclusions.
A person cannot do anything but assert a conclusion, thats basic grammar.
You cannot âsuggestâ a conclusion.
But neither do I have a reason to not be of that conclusion when no evidence contrry is being put forward.
Provide the evidence and wow by the magic of science I can re-evaluate
deduce it ?
Deduction is not a form of expression
yes it is.
Back to topic : the initial assertion was that whatever change CCP pushes, it will favor the big group and weaken the small groups.
That assertion is not backed by anything so yes it can be false and relying on something potentially false to make deduction is a nonsense . âfrom false you can deduce anythingâ.
Itâs a basic of logic, your argument is weaker than your initial premises. Here the premises are just assertion, so the argument is just void.
eyeroll
No, because the wardec cost is only partly ISK-based. Thereâs also the cost in activity and effort, and the smaller group needs to put in more of that per-person. Being smaller, theyâre more likely to be on their own, unless theyâre limiting their activity to when the bulk of their group is available, which means theyâre more impacted, either by windows of inactivity, or increased risk of being ganged up on.
Groups independently responding to the same challenges. And Switzerlandâs not part of the EU, but the Swiss economyâs built in large part on the international banking system, which also includes the French banking system. Similarly, things like CERN are major international efforts with a lot of money flowing into Switzerland, and they have significantly reduced need for military spending due to the Congress of Viennaâs formalizing a status of âPerpetual Neutralityâ, basically establishing that Switzerland was, is, and will be neutral in all wars, so nobodyâs allowed to invade the tiny mountain country that would take a lot of effort to invade anyway.
So⌠Switzerland, a country built on international agreement from all of Europe, funded by money from all over the world⌠thatâs your example of a âsmall groupâ? Kinda seems, again, like a smaller, but very much integrated, part of a larger group.
Except itâs not, because if you want to get larger than a certain threshold, itâs easier to just go ahead and form an alliance, letting your org continue to grow by gasp using more people to train the required skills. Easier for the bigger number of people, again.
Close but not quite.
In those threads it was reasoned that in order for a âSmallâ Upwell to fit in the lineup proportionally, the price would still be kind of high (still higher than a fully fitted starbase was), but the limitations necessary to not make preferable over the bigger Upwells (namely, just an Astra) would make it next to useless, since a single one of the medium Upwells (regardless of type) can easily provide the same functions of a full fitted starbase, with an arguably higher efficiency and effectiveness relative to their cost, especially once you take into account maintenance costs (fuel, namely) vs the potential profits and the ease of defense (if you are able to defend it).
What you are saying is completely irrelevant to what you asserted at first, which was that any CHANGE from CCP would benefit MORE big groups than small ones.
I gave you a counter example, that is enough to prove that your assertion is wrong, and now you are claiming itâs wrong for a reason that is totally irrelevant to the topic.
1 Like
We can invent numerous changes that would hurt large corps that CCP could implement. For example an escalating monthly head tax to belong to a corporation or alliance.
Ok, one last question from meâŚ
Will structures without cores still have shield/armor/hull timers or not?
no timers only hull
And they are 100% of time vulnerable? If so, that means one smaller corp in hs could lose all their structures over night?
Ok, I misunderstood what you were highlighting there. So: If CCP were to change the wardec costs so that the cost was directly proportional to the number of people in corp/alliance, then you have to look at things like âok, how much do smaller groups make vs larger groups?â
Do 1000 solo players make the same amount of ISK as a 1000-player group? Or does the group make more money, overall and per-person, because they can coordinate efforts, specialize in their tasks, reduce waste in things like competing with one another and losing ships? If the larger group does make more money per person (by the way? They do) then the larger group is more able to absorb the increased ISK cost of declaring war.
Incidentally, making it more expensive for larger groups to declare war, and more expensive to declare war on smaller groups? Definitely a change worth pursuing, but the larger groups would still be able to adapt better. The smaller groupsâ adaptation would be to stop being wardec corps.
CCP may have shot itâs self in the foot. POSâs may make a comeback. easier to put up.
Easier to take down. not as specialised as structures. Can have refining arrays and labs ETC on the same pos. And no quantum cores.
Until CCP makes it impossible to anchor them.
No I donât.
Your blabbering is just irrelevant.
Your assertion, that any CHANGE made by CCP MUST benefit more the big groups than the small ones, is just WRONG.
Again, CHANGE, BENEFIT. I donât care about the comparison of the groups NOW, Iâm talking about the difference of benefit from a change between BIG and SMALL groups. Anything else is irrelevant.