If that’s the case, then i flushed a big pile of “content” down the toilet this morning (I know that was low brow, but i couldn’t resist)
And you just removed the smiley (which was meant to convey that I was joking) from what I said. I can only wonder as to what your motivation to do so was.
And people assuming that everyone has the same level of undertanding that they have is one of my pet peeves.
I guess there’s a reason lawyers and IT Professionals get paid so well though, right?
It might be, if people were dumb enough not to have eyes on their crap for a considerable time beforehand.
Now add spies into that. Basically we all see one another’s fleet pings. When we form a fleet, Horde knows, When TEST forms a fleet, we know, etc etc. And it’s not exactly difficult to find out what the fleet is for, either. And we all know that.
Which ‘mostly’ is the actual one there? Does this mostly tell you we’re all wrong or lying, or does it mostly tell you maybe CCP needs to iterate on the idea?
BTW? If CCP already needs to iterate on the idea, before implementation, that’s not ‘iterating’, that’s just ‘changing’ it.
So you think CCP’s lying, then?
And editors. 
That’s just because PL likes to find smaller or more disorganized groups that they can abuse, and then abuse them for the next… I dunno, how long have they been kicking BRAVE and CVA?
Promise, as soon as this current war’s over, PL’s back to farming BRAVE, too.
It’s not like CCP can say “We don’t want small groups pf casual players, we want big alliance PvP”. So instead, they make it hard as possible for small indy groups to survive
3 Likes
Apparently there are just enough structures in hi-sec as this seems to be designed to disadvantage the new players wanting to build new structures - I think in most cases the services the core provides are not integral to running an industrial structure.
What really stands out as unbalanced is the inability to remove it once the station is anchored with a service module running - This would provide equilibrium between old & new
Also - they should require fuel
I just used the quote function, lol.
Can’t do that, then you could use the same “Bounty Battery” to online multiple stations and the gankers wouldn’t be encouraged to attack it
all i know is brisc rubal is just another ■■■■■■■ shitty ass worthless politician
I was trying to find the old forum, but wasn’t he the guy involved in making ECM useless? The name is very familiar
1 Like
No, that’d be CCP. Brisc is just the CSM member who actually talked with other players on the forum when CCP decided to do it.
1 Like
Good point, for some reason CCP Falcon comes to mind, but that was a long time ago and i’m getting old
Well, i did notice that i got no reply from my post about an hour ago about players being able to manufacture “Bounty Batteries”, it would just change materials that could be sold, to materials consumed. Which would just eliminate eliminate the “logistical risk”
I have already bought several hi-sec structures, secure in the knowledge that CCP ignores the majority of player input and will launch this as is.
The structures I bought should bring a premium price just because they don’t have a built-in bounty.
You mean the ones no-one can tell don’t have a built-in bounty, so they’re just as likely to be targeted as any other?
My point was more about the strange bedfellows than their victims.
Like a corp of say 4 people bashing structures, and whenever they face resistance, a nulsec group seem to show-up and help them instead of shooting them. It’s just purely coincidental!
Puh-leeze!
1 Like
No, I mean the ones with public access that have no tether and have no refitting or repair facilities because they have no core fitted
or
The ones with private access that show no fitting or repair in the system structure info panel because they have no core fitted
But just because there may be some players that don’t know how to find this out - I may suggest to my buyers that including it in the name along with info on how to check if a core is fitted in the station bio would further help.
Edit : I think there is a way of allowing the public to take control of a station without access to fuel so they could do a manual check
But that ONLY applies to citadels that were anchored before Oct 13. Anything anchored after that will require a core to finish the anchoring process. According to the blog