Yes, the System Cost Index for industrial activities is a thing in every system.
I’ll agree with you the war system doesn’t succeed very well at generating content. It could be much, much better, and previous incarnations did seem to do better that the all-but-useless-to-generate-content version we have. But it does however succeed quite well at I guess its main purpose now - providing a system to fight over structures in highsec.
I’m all for re-implementing such a system. However, whatever that replacement system is won’t allow for 100% immune structures in highsec as you seem to be agitating for. If you really want there to be even a chance of someone listening to you, I suggest you propose ideas that do not allow for perfectly safe player-owned structures in this game. That is a non-starter.
Any change that would make structures immune to war, would be instantly abused by players who know the mechanics. When you remove the risk altogether, any drop in reward will be too small in comparison (unless you remove all rewards as well).
What is there to abuse if someone sets up a pos in highsec ?
Im open for dialog,really interested to know what this abuse could be.
Is nullsec so boring nowadays and has no advantage, that there would be abuse of a highsec pos ?
Let players toy around with stuff in highsec, nullsec should be for pvp.
Define “new player”. How long do you think you have to be playing the game before you are flagged to be open to war-dec and have your structures destroyed?
This is literally the case. In corp / alliance attributes there’s an entire line that supports this by saying “War not eligible” if they own no structures.
When dropping a structure it is reversing this and making them eligible in the process. This is a known mechanic and not something shrouded by mystery or intentionally misleading.
——
I’m not convinced that new players are making a habit of buying structures and pooping them down. Can anyone support this claim with data? Can you provide data that supports they are having their structures blown up?
Let’s assume they are doing so and the structures are being blown up. Good, then the mechanic is working as intended. Wardecs are now exclusively tied to both parties owning structures. If a new player wants to try out structures they can literally use any of the hundreds littered around Highsec. I’m sure they could get in nice with a structure owner and even get a ACL admin rights or something.
Is this difficult to understand?
Obviously the term “new player” is a state of mind that the user can choose to fluidly use as they please. I’m sure that some of these people that have been playing for years are just “new players” I assume we ought to coddle them.
CCP removed openly war deccing anyone you want because it was harming the game. They tied it to structure ownership instead, in a blanket manner, which means the players who own a simple small structure that is not claiming anything or competing for market access or high end refining will suffer the exact same penalty as those who do offer these competitive services.
And to top it all off, many of those who do get involved in the competitive side of structure ownership are in fact the ones who are circumventing the war mechanic by placing their structure in alt corps while their main corp or alliance reaps the rewards risk free.
Did you expect anything different? Changes are made, the consequences are learned over time. If there is further changes to consider, those are made. There is rarely ever a single change that is going to fix something as complex as the war system.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on ganking, bumping, loot stealing, and “unauthorized mining” of player’s moons, though I’m already quite sure what your answers would be…
You mean like the large groups who understand the metagame and keep their structures in alt corps while their main corp or alliance reaps the rewards risk free?
The only ones being penalized by the current system are players who don’t understand the how to circumvent the consequence, most of them probably newer players, and players who don’t want to get involved with using alt corps, prefer to use their main corp only.
The system was not broken. The issue was that idiot highsec perma-victims ignored the principles of how to succeed in EVE, mindlessly flew into Jita despite being at war, and never bothered to do anything to organize opposition against the aggressors. CCP massively overreacted to something that was not a problem and already had existing solutions that people should have been using.
As I said, small structures can’t run markets. Small structures cannot compete with larger structures refine efficiency, so even if they do offer an industrial service, it will only be basic and never the best.
If small structures are so inefficient and useless then why do you need one? Just don’t deploy one of these useless structures and you won’t be a legal war target.
The reality of course is that you don’t think they’re useless, you’re just making a dishonest argument in an attempt to get the benefits of structure ownership while retaining immunity to most PvP.
New players that don’t want to engage in war should look for crops that boast being “ineligible for war”.
Those exploits were fixed
Corp CEOs should be careful with who they make directors
There’s people crying “but think of the new players” and I want to know how they come to this stance. Is it an issue if one per player has experienced their structure being blown up? What about 20? 100?
This is why I asked about data. It can show where there are problems. Let’s not base all this off feelings.
I see from your previous post that my suggested change to allow corps to have small structures and remain non war eligible as long as they are not directly competing for terrirtory, moons or market services seems to have struck quite the chord with you.
I’m really not sure why it bothers you so much that you would call it insane, since you claim that PIRAT doesn’t really go after such corps anyway. It wouldn’t be because PIRAT does in fact go after these sort of corps a lot, would it?
There are a few ways to do this idea. But here’s the one I suggest:
Make all of the smallest structures non war eligible. They can’t fit markets anyway. Their refining ability is already limited, cannot compete with larger structures. If it’s an athanor, claiming a moon, it will make you war eligible. You can choose to use one as a war HQ, but then you will be war eligible.
Its up to CCP if they want to be another 15 years a niche game with the same players numbers, or if they follow WoW and at least 10 fold the player numbers.
Those defending highsec and wardec gankers are shooting themself in the foot.
Imagine 10 times the amount of player targets and 10 times the money making options in the game.
10 times more buddies for mining, pvp, trading, mission running etc.
Lets see if CCP wants to be the same in 15 years as in the last 15 years or if they want to grow.
If they dont evolve, who knows if the game still exists in 10 or 20 years.
This game is known for being challenging and also known for loosing lots of new players.
Whats the player drop off rate after playing this game a bit ? 99% ? Or just 90% ?
No. That’s not it. I just don’t believe in free lunches in Eve Online.
What about POCOs? I’d say those are extremely competitive. Structures can have use and value beyond their inability to fit market modules and perform tasks at less than optimal rates.
Yes because historically changes that CCP has made to create a theme park environment and diminish the sandbox has totally worked and brought in heaps of new players to bolster the player count.
Yes because these “WoW” elements are totally something that the majority of the community embrace.
Eve Online is a niche game. It’s different and for good purpose. What good is a couple million players if they are shrouded by protection and safe spaces around every corner. Why would I want it turned into something like that? Eve Online rewards those that thrive through conflict - no matter if you’re a pvp or pve minded player or a mixture of both.
