You could be right, they seem to remove more playable content, than they generate.
You seem to completely misunderstand: If the tax is on members of the alliance, letâs say the break-even point is 50 people in an alliance.
At that point, Goonswarm Federation, at 28,000 people, becomes 560 different alliances that all still coordinate via the same out of game systems we use now.
We adapt better. We take absolutely as much advantage of the system as we can.
Nope, I already said: Groups independently responding to the same challenges. Switzerland responds to challenges with pretty direct assistance from the rest of the world. Like, âhey, look, thereâs a World War. Should we build a massive number of tanks?â âNope, weâre neutral, and everyoneâs using us to hide their moneyâ.
Ok, lemme splain this in more concrete terms so maybe you get it:
Group A is 10 guys. They all do their own thing, on their own. Each one makes $2/day. They pay $1/day for gas (individually). Group A pays a total of $10/day for gas. This gives them $10/day disposable income.
Group B is 50 guys. They work together, and car pool. Because theyâre working cooperatively, each one makes $2.50/day. They car pool, so they wind up paying $0.80/day for fuel, each. Group B pays a total of $40/day for gas. They have $85/day disposable income.
Group B has 8.5x the discretionary resources of Group A, with whom they might be fighting.
When the price of fuel goes up to 110% of what it was, Group A now pays $11/day, and Group B pays $44/day. Group B pays more, and the increase is directly tied to how many people they have. Group A now has $9/day disposable income, and Group B has $81/day disposable income.
Group B now has 9x the discretionary resources of Group A. Group B is paying more, but their larger, more organized efforts mean that their relative position has improved over Group A. They have benefited. This is directly because the larger group allows them to minimize overall costs and maximize economic returns.
Not while weâre paying attention at least. But thatâs not because of the lack of a limit on structures, itâs because we have people whose job is specifically âsweep NPC delve for new structures, multiple times a dayâ.
3 Likes
And becoming 560 alliances raises your costâŚitâs harder.
As I asserted at the top, you are unwilling to reconsider your assertion. Thanks for providing quite a bit of evidence
No, you donât even read what I wrote and make up nonsense.
Bold statement on your end but hereâs a very simple example, very reminiscent of the current world situation : Local farming vs industrial farms. Fresh/local products vs mass produced/delocalized.
I wonât go into all the ethics about animal welfare, environemental impacts and the likes, but you should get the overall picture. Clearly, the small groups have a clear advantage here.
Another good example are small scale military operations. Letâs say you want a hot target dead without the locals noticing. You could send a whole group to do a squadâs jobâŚ
Possible. But the cost of Quantum Cores and the taxes of npc null donât necessarily have to be set in stone.
As a concept itâs pretty encouraging. But if itâs too difficult the numbers can be adjusted. And vice versa.
Sandbox or not isnât really related to this at all.
It raises our need for organization, but weâre already set up for it. Breaking up into smaller alliances was kinda the fallback plan from 2015-16.
Industrial farms produce more, with less immediate manpower. But they do require larger organizations (manufacturing, fuel, distribution, etc). Local farming tends to be more environmentally friendly, and requires more individual labor per person, but support fewer people.
1 Like
Industrial food production, soil erosion, high transport cost. harmful chemical use, and all your eggs in one basket.
individual food production fresher food, healther food, lower transport costs. food shortage due to unforseen mishap less likely.
Possible. But the cost of Quantum Cores and the taxes of npc null donât necessarily have to be set in stone.
As a concept itâs pretty encouraging. But if itâs too difficult the numbers can be adjusted. And vice versa.
Sandbox or not isnât really related to this at all.
Lack of meaning and no skin in the game.
There are corps out there that think so little of structures that they put them up, and when they are attacked, donât even try to defend them.
This is boring and suggests structures are too trivial.
Plus, this mechanic gives attackers a greater financial incentove to attack structures. Which was needed.
This is just entitled whining at this point. Iâve already explained it to you.
HTFU or GTFO.
Yeah that was already killed off. Nothing to lose here.
There is literally no small wardec corp here complaining about these changes.
Please find one.
There it is again.
Funny you claim to know that npc stations are not profitable yet you donât do industry or use citadels. Hmmmm
Well i DO industry and i DO have assets in citadels. And if they get attacked i may just have to lend a hand to defend them.
(life being breathed in to game)
Thatâs sweet, but itâs not minecraft. Itâs a pvp sandbox.
You are not entitled to play in a bubble. The game needs to have a competitive nature to work properly.
1 Like
This is burning down the house to kill the spider.
9 Likes
"Required for existing structures
The final phase for the rollout of Quantum Cores will see some basic services that all structures offer become disabled until a core is installed. Without a core installed, ship fitting, tethering, and ship/module repair services will be disabled. As soon as the core is installed into the structure, these services will become operational again. This phase is expected to go live in the December update."
In regards to this part, as I have 11 long term research jobs running in various hs stations, eg battleship bpoâs with over 77 days for each me/te to max. Will they still be able to run these jobs without a core, or will those services also be disabled? 
1 Like
Service modules will apparently be unaffected.
Active jobs should complete as expected, unless the structure loses armor.
1 Like
cheers 
Except thatâs not entirely true, is it? Local food production means if the mishap happens locally, youâre more likely to get wiped out. All your eggs are still in one basket, itâs just local. And industrial farming often is centralized, but doesnât have to be. Industrialized, decentralized farming is really the best way to protect against the âone unforeseen mishap kills me and my familyâ. Which, yâknow, is what we currently have.
Is it harder to manage 500 alliances or 1?
Easy questionâŚare you willing to answer?
Honestly, itâs not really much harder at all, given how much of the game is ACL-based now. Most of our organizational infrastructure doesnât actually use CCPâs stuff at all, but rather forums, Jabber, Discord, etc. Coalitions arenât supported by CCPâs code in any way, and thatâs what weâre already running. So the increased overhead from having a bunch of different alliances is pretty negligible.
Now, Iâm sure youâre going to say thatâs bull, and there are some things where itâd be less convenient. Corp hangars are handy, and defensive entosising would get considerably more annoying, but everyone else above the scale of 50 people would be dealing with that, too, so relative to the rest of the game, the overall increase in difficulty wouldnât really be that high. A rising flood swamps all boats, you know?
Which means itâs somewhat harder.
Game over.
Have a nice day.
Sure, but is it much harder for us than it is for a 100-man alliance that doesnât have all of the out-of-game tools that weâve developed? Remember, the point is that the larger group is negatively impacted less, and can adapt and benefit more, not that thereâs no negative impact.
Yes, I was pointing this out to the guy who was claiming false equivalence to a person making a criticism. Critical reading and context, friendsâŚ
What about a 10 person group that isnât impacted at all