I mostly still play for the awesome PvP content that I seem to be able to find each and every day.
Then I look at forums like this or r/eve and scratch my head at all the doom and gloom from forum-bears like yourself.
4 Likes
Making billions of ISK building weapons near Jita. Business is good still having fun. Sometimes i am doing some NPSI.
1 Like
How do they mitigate anything?
Holding corps are still the go to.
That also wasnt the fallacious reasoning used by CCP to justify the awful things.
I have limited playtime these days so Iâm gonna be running around HiSec shooting all those structures being held by 1 man corps. You know, so I can steal the cores and stuff.
3 Likes
Which is great if you do steal the cores (teaches them for buying into the stupid things), but I regularly still get 2-3 decs a quarter by one man deccers who dont get that a coreless station is just a waste of ammo to shoot.
TBH I donât even know what the core does, I just know I can sell them.
2 Likes
Because before cores, there was literally no reason to wardec a holding corporation since youâd get nothing out of it; no ships to hunt, and nothing to get from destroying the station (which wouldnât be defended because the loss is very minor).
Now they either have to defend it (and are compelled to do so because of the additional sunk cost), which means fewer holding corporations, or you can actually make money from destroying the station. Just look at your next reply:
Youâre not a target precisely because your station doesnât have a core.
What do you think would happen if your station did have a core, and there isnât much of a combat history for you/your members to deter potential aggressors?
Youâre right that holding corporations still exist. But now theyâre a considerably smaller issue than before.
1 Like
But⌠I get routinely targetted?
But only by the toothless.
I got it a lot more by those who wanted to follow through before cores existed. Ofc back then I never owned less than 3 Structures.
So, while I still dont really see it from you persepective, it did do what CCP claimed, and reduced âstructure spamâ, because CCP didnt approve of me using 3+ structures for my own use.
It was never about structure spam; thatâs just what CCP said.
The real reason for the change was to compensate for the lack of â â â â blowing up in the game after CCP tied wars to structure requirements and war activity dropped to less than a tenth of what it was before that.
So reduce potential targets by a factor of (in my case) 66% increases destruction?
Are there figures to support this? Are more structures regularly destroyed now that there is less of them?
And lets not forget that they rot away naturally now, meaning abandoned structures are more unlikely to be destroyed by player activity.
Can you explain please
I didnât say that their plan was wholly successful (or even totally rational).
The gain in destruction was a temporary period, and now weâre at a new baseline of less structures overall.
However, at least now players donât get the dual benefit of owning a structure and was evasion so easily. So while the destruction effect is negligible, at least thereâs more equity now.
Ramonaâs station doesnât have a core, as such the attackers wouldnât get anything by destroying the station (aside from some fuel/ammo, but attackers assume that those drops will be minimal). If the station did have a core, the attackers would get 600-800 million just by destroying a low-tier station.
1 Like
This is the basis of my reaction against cores. Its ass, and they either lied about why, or it didnt achieve the actual goal.
I dont see how, isk cost is not a factor that limits very much, as any Imperium person will tell you.
It achieved one of the two goals.
Of course the best thing to do would be to not tie wars to structures, keeping them as they were until 2016. Then cores wouldnât be necessary, and structure spam could be addressed through the decay mechanic alone.
Maybe for you. But Iâve personally observed over the handful of wars Iâve conducted since early last year (and as an observer while sitting inside high-sec corporations) that the costs are considered to be at least moderate if not considerable by the average player.
No, they are for me, its why I cant afford to use them.
But they arent for real players.
They also make it impossible for me to even consider taking down a structure. So really, Im just waiting for soneone to take my last one out, then I can properly consider quitting.
âRealâ players (i.e. the null-sec minority) donât keep a whole lot of structures in high-sec. Most structures in high-sec are owned by average high-sec bear corporations.
Youâre predicating your gameplay on the ownership of structures?
If you canât defend them, then donât own them, and use someone elseâs. Alternatively, you can learn how to defend your structures. You can also bring in friends for defense, or hire other players to help you. Even having just four or five combat characters on the field, along with manned station defenses, is usually enough to deter most attacks, which almost always cap out at a force of around ten or so (but usually much fewer) because itâs not worthwhile to split core profits between many players.
Id regard SICO as real players. They certainly have enough stations.
I had a great career as a Structure Estate Agent, yes.
Then cores came.
Who said I couldnt? Im talking about cores. I had no trouble defending my multiple structures. Players didnt take those away.
CCP did when the cost of setting one up or moving it doubled.
Are you pretending not to know that SICO uses Linknet holding corps? The thing that cores was supposed, according to your previous post, to limit?
Actually you are right, it wouldnt. Before it was free (no core) now its the cost of a core.
I donât know what the story is behind that, but Iâm sure that their stations get their fair share of hits?
How so?