Assembly Hall

 
2 PagesPrevious page12
 

Upwell structures should consume "base" amounts of fuel or ISK

Author
Pandemic Legion
#21 - 2017-06-17 19:57:13 UTC
Winter Archipelago wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:

Citadel didn't replace POS, it replaced POS AND Outpost

Outpost never required fuel

...

Have you thought about the greater implications of fuel demand to keep these citadels running?



Outposts were also limited to one per system. Have you thought about the greater implications of allowing dozens and hundreds of Upwell structures per system without any way of reducing the god-awful method of removing them? Or, perhaps, having to have your meatshields pay to have a lot of structures around trade hubs and drawing in billions of ISK would be a bit too much for you.



Actually, I like it littered, makes it feel like people are there. I mean it is only high sec, low and null have barely anything comparable.

Personally I have 2 responses:
1. Raise install fees, both the floor (double) and the ramp significantly - that will reduce the urban sprawl
2. Wardec them and start shooting you candy ass *****
Freedom Among the Stars
#22 - 2017-06-17 20:04:15 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
mrjknyazev wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:
mrjknyazev wrote:
Make them consume stront in order to operate. With the removal of POS there will be a huge drop in stront demand that should be replaced by something.



the reaction jobs will require it


I doubt it will be big enough to replace the amounts needed for large POS.



I bet they are already working on making it close......

Also, POS only needs stront when it gets hit, it doesn't actually "Use" stront


I highly doubt it. Reactions should be profitable enough to be actually done, especially on low-level moon materials.
You say it like POS aren't being reinforced every day, even now with citadels everywhere.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#23 - 2017-06-17 22:49:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Kenneth Feld wrote:


Citadel didn't replace POS, it replaced POS AND Outpost

Outpost never required fuel

So, if it does require fuel and I litter HS and put 10 years of fuel in them, would that be ok with you?

What about if it has online modules, would that then no longer require extra fuel?

Have you thought about the greater implications of fuel demand to keep these citadels running?


1) The tether mechanic is most definitely there to replace the POS shield. CCP has said this themselves and it's quiet obvious, hell, it's the whole reason it exists in the first place. Last I checked when I undocked from a singular outpost in a null system I was able to be bumped and attacked once that undock timer wore off. I had no magical protection like we see now which is mimicking, you guessed it, a POS shield's protection. So yes, It needs to have an added cost to it for the holder. Tethering is far too powerful a mechanic to not have a cost to maintain, just like a POS shield did for a blank stick.

2) Sure, but If I had a say in the matter the fuel bays on these citadels wouldn't be able to hold nearly that ridiculous of a number to insure that the citadel was being actively used/fueled. Even if that's just someone logging in once a month to move fuel from their hanger to the fuel bay.

3) No modules still have their cost. Just because they are mimicking outposts and POSes doesn't mean the mechanics don't change. I'm not sure you've ever looked, but citadels already use far less fuel than an array of POSes ever did. And that's before I look at the fact that once those Refinery citadels are released we will be able to compact what once took a dozen or more reaction towers and merge it all down into a single Refinery. That is HUGE amount of fuel which will no longer be consumed.

4) I've been doing industry **** involving towers for a decade. So yes, of course I have considered this. Read points 1 2 and 3 maybe you'll start to understand. Unless an insanely high fuel usage is placed on these Moon reaction modules (if it's even a separate module) there will be an overabundance of fuel blocks not being used. Again, you have to look at modules fuel usage, the vast majority of them require very little fuel once they are up and running compared to the number of towers they have replaced.


Citadel spam is not healthy anywhere be it high, low, or null. The mechanics behind taking them out as well as the easy of anchoring them is simply overbearing for any attacker to try and evict, and far too easy and cheap for an attacker to abuse for the exact same reasons. Even ye'old POS sov was less cancerous than what we see now. At least then everyone was limited to the number of moons in system and you had to kill one to put down your forward staging tower. Now and attacker just need to spam a few systems with medium citadels and wait for one to anchor since it's unlikely anyone can hit them all at the same time before something finishes it's timer. Meanwhile a defender just needs to do the exact same to simply make the grind so exhaustive that the attackers just give up. None of which has any meaningful cost to an alliance of means to challenge sov in the first place.
Circle-Of-Two
#24 - 2017-06-17 23:18:27 UTC
Here is an idea that i am sure CCP will jump all over.. make them plex powered. 1 nuplex per day I am sure that there are loads of ejits that couldnt be bothers going to jita buing plex jc'ing back to the fort and transferrring the plex to the citedeals vault. massive boost in profits for ccp and sorts out the problem of offline city-deals

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#25 - 2017-06-17 23:52:11 UTC
Heres my 2 cents, i think they should use a consumable but not nessicarlily fuel blocks.


I think all citadels in 0.5 or higher should require a NPC seeded good. POS's had charters for example.

So my idea is this, make all citadels in 0.5 or higher require the "Upwell Reinforcement & Invulerabilty Core"

its an NPC seeded good, there will be no blueprint released. It will be seeded in all 4 Empires as well as concord / DED stations.

Id like it to cost about 100 to 150 mill a month(atleast for medium structures, i would like 250-300 for large ones), Citadels consume units 24 per day

Citadels with it in the fuel bay and being actively consumed will work exactly like they do now, they have vulnerability windows, Reinforcement works and a war dec is required to attack the structure.

But if you don't have them in the bay the following happens:

1. Citadel becomes permanently vulnerable
2. People attacking your citadel only get the suspect timer, allowing anyone to attack your citadel without the use of a war dec.
3. Reinforcement systems are offline.

If the citadel gets attacked while in this state the fuel bay is locked until the citadels self repair system completes its 15 minute timer (this stops people from waiting until they are attacked before putting the goods in it)


This change does a few things
1. Allows the destruction of abandoned citadels without taking a week to do so and gives other people the ability to attack the Aggressors, creating content.
2. Makes corporations and players have upkeep on the structure if they wish to have the structure be around long.
3. Put's a decent sized isk sink back into the game.



I think these structures are fine currently in low sec as they are not spammed anywhere near as much and are killed very regularly.

Now in 0.0 i feel some changes could be made, not from the fuel or the commodities side but from the Reinforcement timer and vulerability window side.


Heres what i propose. Citadels controlled by the alliance who holds the IHUB work and function like they do now. If an IHUB where to die, they should still function like they do now.

Say your taking a region and the enemy as citadels placed all over, you kill off all the IHUBs and TCU's and put your own down and you start holding the space and living in it.

I think that Vulnerability timers should be increased and Reinforcement timers Decreased as the Strategic level of the system increases. So at Strategic level 0, nothing has changed. Strategic levels 1 - 5 increase the vulnerability timers of all hostile citadels by 4 hours per level. This would mean that by level 5 pretty much every structure would be vulnerable 24/7.

Same for RF timers, each level of Strategic would decrease that. Say 1.2 days per level with armor, shield remains 24 hours.

Meaning that in a level 5 system a hostile citadel would have no armor timer and just the 24 hour shield timer.



Pandemic Legion
#26 - 2017-06-18 00:59:07 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
[quote=Kenneth Feld]


4) I've been doing industry **** involving towers for a decade. So yes, of course I have considered this. Read points 1 2 and 3 maybe you'll start to understand. Unless an insanely high fuel usage is placed on these Moon reaction modules (if it's even a separate module) there will be an overabundance of fuel blocks not being used. Again, you have to look at modules fuel usage, the vast majority of them require very little fuel once they are up and running compared to the number of towers they have replaced.




No such thing, fuel and stront will be part of the materials for reactions, the longer the reaction the more fuel, so it will be proportional to your reaction, not to the structure
#27 - 2017-06-18 01:25:21 UTC
I like the index idea as an added ISK sink, but the game still needs personal sinks for wealthy players.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#28 - 2017-06-18 01:33:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Kenneth Feld wrote:

No such thing, fuel and stront will be part of the materials for reactions, the longer the reaction the more fuel, so it will be proportional to your reaction, not to the structure


Quote:
The existing reactions will be converted to new blueprints that enable the reaction process in the new system, and new reactions will include small amounts of ice products in each run to compensate for the lower number of starbase towers needed for advanced industry.


Number, not length, but I knew what you were trying to say at least. However, that's part of the problem, even idle towers still consumed fuel if they weren't being actively used/reacting (an idiot forgets to fill/online the silos - I've never done this ever ever). This new plan by CCP is basically just consuming fuel only when needed, which would be akin to offlining a stick each time your reaction finished then onlining as soon as you've filled and onlined the silos. Basically lowering waste thus reducing fuel usage.

I digress, the problem is we don't know what these are likely to actually include nor amounts, we are all just making assumptions until data is released. All we can do is base our assumptions off what we have seen to date. Which is that they have been lowering the rate at which these consume fuel compared to their predecessors. So while we know they are adding ice products, we can predict it will likely be under the current consumption rate. All this still overlooks the fact that fuel blocks also take PI. Different PI than what is actually used in the manufacturing of these structures (which is a one off for each structures, not a consumed commodity).

After all is said and done we will very likely have excess materials after these changes are pushed through when what we need is more consumables and isk dumps. Adding a low fuel usage to tethering will not be the end of the world, but it will work towards adding to material consumption as well as bring some amount of balance to a very powerful mechanic.
#29 - 2017-06-18 02:13:54 UTC
1.) why should you care what happens in Highsec, you want to live in null then be there.
2.) why should highsec be your dumping ground for content?

Screw you nullseccrs, why dont you get off your lazy bums and go have a war or something, a serious war instead of crying about stuff.

Most of the High end litter of Citadels is from the first waves of building craze with them, followed......by yep you guessed it Nullsec and Wormhole warlords overbuilding the crap here.

Highsec should not be more vunerable to you just because you cant fight each other, STFU, HTFU, and go back out there and stay there and do something about your own home instead of trying to muck things up just so you can ROFLSTOMP Highsec because you are "bored".

No, we do not need this.
Pandemic Legion
#30 - 2017-06-18 10:40:35 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:

No such thing, fuel and stront will be part of the materials for reactions, the longer the reaction the more fuel, so it will be proportional to your reaction, not to the structure


Quote:
The existing reactions will be converted to new blueprints that enable the reaction process in the new system, and new reactions will include small amounts of ice products in each run to compensate for the lower number of starbase towers needed for advanced industry.


Number, not length, but I knew what you were trying to say at least. However, that's part of the problem, even idle towers still consumed fuel if they weren't being actively used/reacting (an idiot forgets to fill/online the silos - I've never done this ever ever). This new plan by CCP is basically just consuming fuel only when needed, which would be akin to offlining a stick each time your reaction finished then onlining as soon as you've filled and onlined the silos. Basically lowering waste thus reducing fuel usage.

I digress, the problem is we don't know what these are likely to actually include nor amounts, we are all just making assumptions until data is released. All we can do is base our assumptions off what we have seen to date. Which is that they have been lowering the rate at which these consume fuel compared to their predecessors. So while we know they are adding ice products, we can predict it will likely be under the current consumption rate. All this still overlooks the fact that fuel blocks also take PI. Different PI than what is actually used in the manufacturing of these structures (which is a one off for each structures, not a consumed commodity).

After all is said and done we will very likely have excess materials after these changes are pushed through when what we need is more consumables and isk dumps. Adding a low fuel usage to tethering will not be the end of the world, but it will work towards adding to material consumption as well as bring some amount of balance to a very powerful mechanic.



Reading is hard - re read the sentence you quoted - small amount per RUN

each RUN takes more TIME, therefore more fuel/ice

Did i really need to explain that to you?

As far as towers, you will be able to do 100's of towers worth of reactions in a single drilling platform, so that is why they are adding fuel/ice to each reaction BPO

I do have a very good idea of what and how much, i am not CSM or anything like that, but have participated with CCP on these discussion for the past 2 years.
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2017-06-18 11:10:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Geanos
The best way to have an isk sink and also something that needs to be transported at a citadel as a fuel would be the creation of something like "maintenance boxes" sold by the NPC (Upwell). Also you should have a 6 month max storage capacity for those "maintenance boxes". When there are no "maintenance boxes" present in the structure, the citadel starts malfunctioning.

- Why sold by the NPC? Because items sold like that act like an ISK sink.
- Why something that needs to be transported at the citadel? Active play, prevent spam trolling of structures (especially in null-sec) and provide a way to determine if the structure is abandoned or not (and make it easier to clean up abandoned structures).

As a side thought, the removal of NPC sold items required to build stuff was not an inspired decision, they where a good isk sink.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#32 - 2017-06-18 23:07:03 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:


Reading is hard - re read the sentence you quoted - small amount per RUN

each RUN takes more TIME, therefore more fuel/ice

Did i really need to explain that to you?

As far as towers, you will be able to do 100's of towers worth of reactions in a single drilling platform, so that is why they are adding fuel/ice to each reaction BPO

I do have a very good idea of what and how much, i am not CSM or anything like that, but have participated with CCP on these discussion for the past 2 years.


Apparently reading is hard, you never said per run. You specifically said the longer reactions, which is why I said I knew you were meaning to say (number of runs put in) then quoted CCP to clarify for others, not you. The way you stated it made it sound like it was going to consume fuel as you ran reactions separate from the normal build cost. So again, yes, they are adding ICE products -not fuel- to the material cost for the reaction blueprints.

What I am saying is this will likely be less than what we currently see in fuel usage (there is no wasted fuel being consumed when not reacting outside of what minimal usage they put on the service module) in addition to the fact that we have leftover PI not being used by these new reaction prints which were used in the making of fuel blocks. You skipped over that, so I suppose reading is harder than either of us thought.

We all have our sources for information, and so far all that's been said is ice products, nothing about PI nor actual numbers of ice products or even if it's remaining the same ratios as current reactions. Nothing specific at all, so if you do know you might want to tell CCP. It may speed them along since you know more than them about these changes apparently.
Evictus.
#33 - 2017-06-19 12:48:22 UTC
I love this idea for the simple fact that there are just way too many structures in highsec, and it clutters my overview when flying through.

I think either fuel or isk requirements are fine. Fuel requirements are more lore-friendly in terms of how things work?

ExDominion | Nullsec Corporation | Website | Forums | Established Nov. 2015 |

#34 - 2017-06-20 16:43:53 UTC
2 PagesPrevious page12
Forum Jump