In other words if you pay $1 for something and they change the metrics to say what you bought for a dollar is now only worth 50 cents that is the problem.
I just had a great idea. Give the stations a basic fuel consumption based on their size. If they have fuel, then defenses and basic services work. If the have no fuel, all you can do is dock and undock, and maybe change ships. All basic services are off line, including defenses. Yes, people could just stuff 6 months of fuel in it, but that could be a substantial cash lay out. And just to make the PvP group happy, make the fuel survive 100%
I always found the abbreviation âIANALâ humorous.
Easier solution would be either grandfather them in or give them the ability to take out the rigs. Fine if you want to force smaller player owned alliances to take down their structures and make big blocks bigger, but it shouldnt âCOSTâ to do it
I donât think that addresses the intended goals.
Of course, neither does CCPâs proposal.
Pretty sure the EULA states all in game items are worth precisely zero or as close as makes no odds
The problem with the eula is when you tie RMT transactions to in game money now you have a slippery legal slope regardless of what you do.
Pretty sure it makes it clear what you get for your money.
But hey, if youve read it recently, go for it.
Im just daft and assume companies write documents in such a way as to be fairly airtight in their region of jurisdiction
Are you a lawyer or some sort of paralegal? If that is actually an option? You have my attention. Iâm not sure how a lawsuit would work for a world wide game that is based in Iceland. However that might be thing that stops CCP from doing whatever the PKerâs want at the expense of other paying customers
Nah when you go across international borders its NEVER air tight. Trust me when i say there would be a legal case. Its already been made against other companies under similar circumstances.
And those suits have been settled out of court only because the companies donât want the TOS/EULAâs enforceability to be challenged. In this case, where they can show clear community disagreement, I have no doubt they wonât even need to settle.
No, it does not address intended goals, since their intended goals are to get rid of small independent, casual groups and force them to quit or join a bigger group
Not only do they have a clear community disagreement, but things like PLEXâs and Skill Extractors show a clear path from real money to in game money
Because why?
There is always community disagreement those cases settled because they didnât want it challenged because then EVERYONE would ask for money.
Well, in highsec the aggressor also has to put up an ante.
But regardless, the corporation that deploys the structure, gets the benefit of the structure, so they have to put up the ante. They are the big blind here.
This is like Eve 101. Reward comes with risk. It make little sense (and is poor game design) for an aggressor to have to ante up to attack it when they arenât benefiting from the structure. Why would they ever attack? However, if they want to benefit from a structure, they have to put up their own structure and the appropriate ante.
Donât want to put up an ante and open yourself up for a fight over it? Then donât. Structures are not absolutely necessary to play Eve. However, I have no doubt that most structures will still be deployed because of their strong benefits and thus the mandatory ante will serve as a useful, if perhaps a little crude, conflict driver.
I can understand that when ever there is a change, not everyone is happy, but in this case, it clearly benefits one group and penalizes another, at the penalized groups expense. Mind you Iâm a tech, not a legal person
Using âRisk vs Rewardâ is a very weak argument. The aggressor rarely takes a risk, they only attack when success is practically assured. So risk to the attacker is minimal, and the reward, no matter how insignificant is almost all reward
I think I see where they are going with new mechanic.
-Once CCP has this feature implemented, they can limit the number of new cores available from the NPC markets or adjust the cost if needed.
-Then they can remove the 100% drop rate and the coreâs invulnerable state. Collect all those salty tears down the line as alliances have to fight for the remaining cores to online new Keepstars. Everyone rage quits just before the devs retire.
The wardec cost is a pittance compared to just the core cost, though, isnât it?