You are missing the point. It’s not about ISK or efficiency. The point is that these changes make it a lot harder for newer players and smaller groups to archive their goal.
And this goal - the Citadel - which is by the way seen as a sign of dedication to the game by small groups - is now harder to archive and harder to keep alive. The erection of a permanent “home” is motivation for many of those groups. And it was since the beginning of eve!
And it’s damn hard, it always has been. You can get wardecced any time, it’s a struggle to fuel them or make your highsec moon mining pay out, but it’s something seen worth struggling for.
If you increase the chance of being wardecced by pirates, that get a guaranteed 600mil payout + some additional killmails, you step completely over the needs of new and casual players that just want to do some industry and build something.
It’s not about the cost of the structure, it’s about the probability to loose it, which is more devastating than any ISK loss.
@Brisc_Rubal Here, have a nice picture of my Highsec POS, the system that could replace structures for smaller groups or solo players but is already crippled and will vanish in the near future!
Everybody’s goals are different, as is everybody’s approach to the game. I don’t think this will make things insurmountably harder. It will make them harder, yes, but CCP has made it clear they want the game to be harder for everybody.
Well, then CCP better be ready to see their Q1 21 #s drop some. Lots of folks in highsec don’t want ‘harder’. They want ‘thing I can do when I’m tired from a long day of work and just want to tune the hell out for a while’.
But I expect when the cores actually go in and start getting used, you’ll see a whole mess of them. What’s really going to be fun is that new structures without cores will probably be safer, if all you want is a place to call home. No cloning, no services (can’t install that stuff until the core’s installed, after all), but the wardec groups know you’re not going to defend it, and it’s not going to pay out.
I don’t think that was ever part of the goal for this design. My point about making the game harder is a broader one than this patch. Most of the things they’ve been adding lately have been designed to shake up the meta, make it harder to do the things everybody had already been doing, be disruptive.
I can’t say I’m really a fan of all of those things, but that’s what it looks like they want.
i never trusted any one long before i started to play eve and ya this mess will not help any their changes to moon mining did nothing but drive prices for every thing through the roof and drive players to other games and this coming mess will do the same
@CCP_Dopamine
I don’t believe this will solves any problem. Though i think it might be a step in the right direction if updated. What needs to happen is that these need to be built by players. Sell 1 run BPC from the NPCs at the current cost you listed. If you like, you can keep the default buy orders by the NPCs (this should keep a relatively stable price). But then make the BPC include things like gas and ore that is dropping in price (this should increase the demand for those ores and gas). Also make it a long build time 30~45 days (this could prevent fort spam). Also don’t make the cores drop at a 100%. Maybe base it on it security status of system that the fort is in. For example 80% drop rate for null sec, 60% drop rate in low sec, high sec 0.5~0.6 make it 40% drop rate, and high sec 0.7~1 make 20% or 0% drop rate.
The distance to your market IS a cost. The additional time to produce items IS a cost.
Yes they are. Renters are just more money income. Do some NS before talking please.
Yes, some are better than other. But in the end they are just money income.
Irrelevant. Please stop begging questions.
No it’s not. It means that capitalism to be viable needs those laws.
What you are talking about is liberalism, not capitalism.
Capitalism without those protections does not exist, because it collapses.
And I literally wrote into parenthesis that the example was absurd, meaning it was WRITTEN that this was an example.
Also there was a “makes as sense as” which LITERALLY limits the scope of the comparison.
Harder is good—if it’s interesting. Problems to be figured out. Challenges that give that sweet dopamine rush when they’re overcome. But it’s got to be something engaging, something that isn’t just busy-work, and complexity for the sake of complexity.
Adding complexity for the sake of complexity is bad. The more you make your game onerous to play, the more people will make the decision to play a game that’s less busy-work, and more entertaining and interesting challenge.
And you know that, and I know you know that. I’m not so much telling you this, as making sure the point is clearly stated in this thread, where people like @ccp_rise, @ccp_rattati, @ccp_fozzie, and @ccp_dopamine can be reminded of that very, very basic principle of game design.
I just can’t find what CCPs goals are with this change. It all seems just wrong from my perspective. Increasing the material requirements for citadels could help for example and stabilize some dropping markets, too. I just don’t get why this “core” thing must exist in the first place.
So glad you read to the point where I mentioned that I build and sell ships in the Republic. Good Jorb.
Hi, I’m a director in the largest NS group in the game.
Please learn just what that logical fallacy actually means.
No, it doesn’t. It just produces oligarchy. We haven’t seen anything like it since the beginning of the 20th Century, but we’re starting to get close again.
None of which absolves you of the responsibility to be clear and understandable, or puts the onus on the reader to understand what you mean.
