I agree there probably wonât be much change, and I am not anticipating a concerted effort to take down the structures I have. The dubiousness that the change will have a meaningful positive effect concerns me when I also find it possible it will have a knock on negative effect.
I remember an Eve where war was fairly trivial to declare. When âbecause you were there and I had a few million isk to burnâ was a good enough reason to declare war.
I am a peaceful person. An industrialist, PvEer, carebear, or whatever people want to call me. I do not shoot players, nor do I have much interest in it. What I am interested in is seeing people do stuff for whatever reasons suit them. The higher the price tag we put on initiating a conflict, the less interesting conflicts we will have.
Most people appreciate their safety. I, too, will take advantage of whatever safety nets are provided, and I wonât present any prizes to my attackers I am not forced to. To do otherwise would be, to most, unreasonable. However, in the context of a game I also appreciate some unpredictability. I just donât appreciate this unpredictability when it comes to changing the gameâs systems as much as I appreciate it coming from other players who make their mark on the universe.
CCP is stifling small corporations, and it is the industrialists who complain. The real losers, though, are small groups of players who want to create content through highsec aggression. The players who arenât playing yet. Iâve heard it said that wardecs are endgame content, and I could not disagree more. Wardecs should be accessible to nearly everyone and a normal part of living in highsec. Having to pay for a structure, a core, and being vulnerable to losing that investment to however many allies could be hired to fight you is a prohibitive risk as things stand, in my opinion. This could change if cheaper structures are provided to act as war HQs in the future, I suppose, but I donât like the mechanic in general.
âI want to fight youâ should be all the reason a person needs to initiate a confrontation. Players get 24 hours notice and clearly marked enemies. That we are scurrying to find financial incentive to bash structures speaks to a deeper problem, and that is that being a content creator is too financially taxing to motivate a healthy variety of content creators to create content for other reasons. It is the reason that makes a conflict meaningful, not itâs financial cost. âI declared this system belongs to me, so I went to war with you.â is more interesting than âI am farming quantum cores to sell for isk.â
Again, I know some people donât want wars of any kind, and donât want people to have any rewards from declaring war. If thatâs you (as in the general âyouâ that applies to the reader, whomever it may be) then I simply say I disagree with that position and I will not bother to confront you on it. Iâm not pro small industry, though, and more pro small group. I like small groups of criminals as much as I like small groups of industrialists (from an out of game perspective), and these are the players Iâd like to see make a comeback in the future.
4 Likes
Yep. There are still too many structures in highsec.
Putting them up, defending them, making them pay is a great group activity.
If defending them is a great group activity then why are you opposed to a mechanic that provides more opportunities to do it?
Why strike when you can take advantage of the increase in prices caused by other people striking?
Complain all you want. Well all know youâre not going to do anything about it.
We wish you would. Thatâd be amazing for the game.
But we know you wonât.
1 Like
CCP is killing everything in High-sec
1 Like
Donât be a trollâŚ
I donât think people realize you donât need to put in a core if you do not do fitting/repair/tether. Who cares if all it is used for is only research/industrial or even War HQ.
You still have your shield/armor/structure timer if fueled and your modules still run.
1 Like
I would like to see how will CCP remove high-sec content from game and how would CCP force players to null-sec. Also how will CCP remove interesting contents those they added in recent years to let more and more players leave the game. Please force more players to null and make null more boring so that you can kill the game. Fighting, CCP!
Good point like I said donât know much about structures but thought there has to be a way, thxs for your time in answering and info
This is why my group has decided to give up on Raitaruâs and Athanors. At least an Astrahus can be made into a tough nut to crack, however you have to be able to put a fleet in. The Astrahus is a force multiplier and a half. So your comment on a POS defence applies to a properly fit Astrahus.
If you want to see a properly fit Astrahus go to Zkill and look at the Astrahus lost by WER4 a hisec war decker.
We have defended structures a number of times in hisec and killed a few too, the CODE Fortizar in Niarja was popped by us.
1 Like
As an Industrialist:
- Reliability - fueled and no random service outages.
- Security - early warning on wardecs and attacks putting assets at risk.
- Economy - indices in public systems would literally cost me billions.
- Efficiency - job completion in NPC stations is glacial.
- Convenience - can fit and locate to suit my needs.
- Trust - no concerns about being denied access at some point.
3 Likes
Iâm not sure what youâre responding to here, but itâs not what I wrote. At least not with any of the context attached from what you wrote.
When I said ârarely quite so binaryâ I was responding to your point about âperfectly safeâ and people never making screwups. True perfect safety is rare, and as you yourself said these timers are public knowledge. That is literally the perfect conditions for a login trap, and with the core system the hauler wonât have the advantage of tethering when they pop up next to the Citadel to stuff the core into it.
Plus if you do stage that trap then you can just about double the cost to the person who dropped the Citadel.
Mostly it tells me that either youâve all missed something (wouldnât be the first time) or youâre all trying to convince everyone this will have no effect for⌠some reason (also wouldnât be the first time), but mostly it suggests that if this really does have no effect then CCP are likely to iterate on it until it does have the desired effect.
Though really I think this is less intended to make you all hurt putting up all those Astraâs and more intended to make the people running around in 5-man bomber wings feel less bad about shooting them.
I mean⌠yes?
Like, thatâs exactly the current state of things right now. This doesnât change much.
Eve has always been fairly harsh, and people will run around kicking over sand castles for no reason. 600-800m ISK isnât even a ton of incentive for most people capable of doing this sort of thing.
Then by the same logic, you may feel entitled to hold sov space without having to put in the grind of keeping citadels from being anchored. With all those supers and titans available, whats the issue?
That feeling when you see The camel empire and go wait are they still around?
Iâm not sure I understand what youâre trying to say/ask here.
Basically, that you are making silly pronouncements.
Especially the idea that PvPers donât take part in PvE, when we have data from CCP that says they do.
Just want to add, that if this terrible idea indeed goes ahead. Tethering and repairs is OK to penalize, but removing fitting is just a dick move. You canât even refit the cargo expanders on a JF, like really?
Thatâs unimaginably bad for people who live in Outer Ring or anywhere where there are no NPC stations.
1 Like