# Dev blog: Upwell 2.0 - Structures Changes Coming On February 13th! **URL:** \ **Category:** Dev Blogs\ **Tags:** official, devblog\ **Created:** [January 18, 2018, 5:34pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885 "2018-01-18T17:34:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Elena\_L\_Kho](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/elena_l_kho/32/50045_2.png) [@Elena\_L\_Kho](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Elena_L_Kho)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 10:27pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/164 "2018-01-19T22:27:04Z")
youd need the fortizar anyway to get the Chimera in a sub c6 hole anyway… since caps born in sub c5s have to stay in the hole they are in… But i see where you are going with this… ---
**Author:** ![Rowells](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/rowells/32/141343_2.png) [@Rowells](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Rowells)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 10:30pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/165 "2018-01-19T22:30:07Z")
I see your point. Does the decommission restart as normal after a the repair timer is finished? Either way, it would be a problem in all areas of space. ---
**Author:** ![Sgt\_Ocker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sgt_ocker/32/270881_2.png) [@Sgt\_Ocker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sgt_Ocker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 10:44pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/166 "2018-01-19T22:44:46Z")
> Rowells > In short, I believe that phenomena generators are much more appropriate in achieving the stated goals of the Upwell combat rebalance: They are indeed if one of the goals is to make upwell structures harder to destroy. Allowing structures to further take over the role of ships (titans with phenom gens, supers with burst projectors) on grid would be such a great idea - I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already. Oh wait it is, too late… Structures should have minimal affect on the outcome of any engagement - You want Phenom Gen effects, bring a titan, you want burst projector effects bring a couple of supers. Reduce lock ranges on structures to the maximum (with boosts) of the largest subcapital ship. If a group wants to counter sniping Phoenix’s, drop something on them don’t just let a structure say - Nope you can’t do that cause I can lock, neut and scram you out to nearly double your maximum range. ---
**Author:** ![Sgt\_Ocker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sgt_ocker/32/270881_2.png) [@Sgt\_Ocker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sgt_Ocker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 10:52pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/167 "2018-01-19T22:52:05Z")
Ahh ok, so highsec is getting the goo that isn’t worth mining due to oversupply. This of course will have a roll on effect of increasing supply, further reducing sale prices. Good plan.,. ---
**Author:** ![Fish\_Hunter](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/fish_hunter/32/248430_2.png) [@Fish\_Hunter](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Fish_Hunter)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2018, 11:32pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/168 "2018-01-19T23:32:30Z")
CCP is missing the mark here, what they need to do is double or triple the yield from at least the ubiquitous ores, not just make the ore more common. ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:05am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/169 "2018-01-20T00:05:02Z")
> [@Dirk\_Stetille](#): > > @CCP_Falcon @CCP_Fozzie Can you confirm whether the Standup Shadow BPCs will be exclusive to LP stores, or will it be included into incursion loot drop tables? The Standup Shadow BPCs will only come from the LP store, but one of the required materials to build a Standup Shadow will be a normal Shadow. The BPC sold from the LP store will be quite cheap since it’s essentially just an “upgrade package” for the normal Shadows which will continue to come from the incursion drops. ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:10am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/170 "2018-01-20T00:10:56Z")
> [@Rowells](#): > > Is there a limit to number of superweapons or duplicate types on Fitting? Yes the plan will be to limit the burst projectors to one of each per structure. > [@Rowells](#): > > In regards to scramblers and webs, and also considering the new superweapons as well, I feel like these modules could still use a bit of toning down. They are one of the major factors that influence viability of different doctrines from being used on grid or engaging the structure. I feel it might be beneficial if the scram was changed to a disruptor, and the deactivation delay of the disruptors and webs was reduced to 30 seconds instead of 60. Depending on the limitations of the superweapons, this could still lead to scenarios where mobility and extraction capability are hampered to a very high degree. I’ll have to double check some numbers on the superweapons, but I think that the combination of the superweapons, disruption/webbing fighters, and the standup scram/web is just a lot to deal with at once. It is definitely possible that the tackle modules will need to be toned down a bit further from the current proposed stats. One option we’re considering is simply increasing the reactivation delay a bit more (potentially to 1.5 or 2 minutes) but we’re interested in seeing some more feedback before making a decision on that. ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:14am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/171 "2018-01-20T00:14:21Z")
> [@Inquisitor\_Lucious](#): > > “To improve the balance around using carriers from within tether range of structures, launching fighters is now considered an aggressive action for the tethering system. This means that any carrier or supercarrier with fighters under its control will automatically break tether and remain untethered until it either recalls or abandons the fighters (or those fighters are destroyed in combat)” > > Maybe I’m being overly cynical here, but this change just seems to a direct response to a mechanic that has been picked up and used by the dreaded goonies, afterall the ability to launch fighters and fighter bombers with out breaking tether has been a part of the citadels since they were first introduced and only now is it being changed. What about drones though? Is launching drones not also an aggressive act? The only real difference from my point of view is scale. I can understand how you might think that considering the coincidental timing, but I assure you that this change has been planned since before the recent 9-4 fight. It has nothing to do with any specific alliances. ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:15am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/172 "2018-01-20T00:15:58Z")
> [@Querns](#): > > Will the new Standup Warp Scrambler continue to have a 250km maximum range? We’re currently leaning towards leaving the scram range alone and tweaking other aspects to balance it, but we’re open to potentially making changes. ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:18am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/173 "2018-01-20T00:18:57Z")
> [@hawkeye\_al](#): > > While the structure is in the 24 hour vulnerable status, will it be able to scram/point throughout that time? Or only once it is attacked? The scram and web will be active at all times, which is why we are currently planning on reducing their power significantly through the reactivation delay. ---
**Author:** ![Tzar\_Sinak](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/tzar_sinak/32/39415_2.png) [@Tzar\_Sinak](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Tzar_Sinak)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:27am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/174 "2018-01-20T00:27:36Z")
@CCP_Fozzie et al A question from my stream today: Regarding moon mining in 0.5 space, when I rat the loot within a wreck belongs to me. Anyone taking the loot within a wreck gets a suspect timer. If I make an asteroid field from my moon chunk will ninja miners become suspect for removal of the ore (loot) from the rocks (wrecks)? ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:28am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/175 "2018-01-20T00:28:40Z")
> [@Rainus\_Max](#): > > The targeting range increase is nice but doesn’t really help deal with carriers and supers that are parked up to 5000km away and fighters orbit outside of the point defence range. The ability to project damage across extremely long distances is fairly key to the gameplay role of carrier and supercarriers, although we are reducing the power of that tactic somewhat through the new change that blocks tether while fighters are controlled in space. Adding other anti-fighter functions to structures may be worth exploring in the future but players also have the option of combating the hostile fighters with their own ships and fighters. > [@Rainus\_Max](#): > > - It would be nice if I could copy/paste or export the data stored in the structure browser to the clipboard > - Some filters in the “my structures” browser would be useful (type, location, services etc) > - Can we get the moon goos listed against each refinery in the my structures (maybe restrict to directors/CEO) > - Can we have the ability to see the fitting of a citadel remotely (with sufficient access rights of course) I’ll pass these along to our UI folks and see what they think. > [@Rainus\_Max](#): > > - Can you open up the citadel fuel/item hangers so I don’t have to take control to access We actually added a change last August that allows any character with structure gunner access to place fuel into the fuel bay (but not take). > [@Rainus\_Max](#): > > - Can we get an alert when a structure is dropped in our sov space like the old POS system? > - Can the 15min anchoring/onlining window be increased if you are dropping the structure in hostile space Potentially, but to be completely honest we are hesitant to add too many hooks between these systems and the sov system. The structure system should be able to stand alone, which would also make it more reasonable for the remaining functions of the sov system to be either phased out or moved over to structures in the future. > [@Rainus\_Max](#): > > - could we have a Citadel item hanger - storage of spare mods, I’d prefer not to have potentially dozens of corp hangers just to store a couple of launchers. This idea was brought up at the CSM summit as well, and we liked the idea and made a note to look into it further. No promises though. ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:32am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/176 "2018-01-20T00:32:40Z")
> [@Nyjil\_Lizaru](#): > > First reinforcement cycles last for between 22 and 50 hours, > > “No night off for you! Back in the hole, Slave! Who said you could have a life!” > > TIL, CCP really is as bad as people say… sigh I can definitely understand your desire for more warning, but we need to balance the needs of both attackers and defenders as best we can. Keep in mind that although the first reinforcement can exit on any day with short notice, the final stand will always be on a day of the week selected by you so that you can plan to be able to attend. The honest truth is that we’re never going to be able to make both attackers and defenders 100% happy with any system, all we can do is work towards a balance of their interests. ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:35am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/177 "2018-01-20T00:35:31Z")
> [@Querns](#): > > Regarding highsec (0.5) and wormhole moon mining – what minerals are going to be added? I’m assuming it’s R4s and maybe R8s. Primarily +15% variations of the standard ores and Ubiquitous Moon Ores (R4s) however we are keeping the option open of adding very small volumes of other ores randomly in the mix. ---
**Author:** ![Rowells](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/rowells/32/141343_2.png) [@Rowells](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Rowells)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:36am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/178 "2018-01-20T00:36:58Z")
> [@Sgt\_Ocker](#): > > Allowing structures to further take over the role of ships (titans with phenom gens, supers with burst projectors) on grid would be such a great idea That’s an oddly specific example. You can clearly understand the limitations inherent in putting a similar module on a structure vs a ship. Also, since we’re being specific, half of those attributes aren’t even something that one ship can modify on another. So no current roles for those. Also, restricting a specific mechanic to a specific class of ships simply because “it’s gonna take over its role” is fairly narrow-minded when you consider how many different roles and abilities have been passed on to different ships with different purposes. Balance health aside, adding more than a single option to do a task in different ways and combinations is exactly the kind of flavor that makes ships interesting. > [@Sgt\_Ocker](#): > > Structures should have minimal affect on the outcome of any engagement. I geuss that depends on your view. POSes have been having effects on combat since basically the beginning. Probably one of the key factors in bringing dreads into the game. An actively gunned and properly designed POS was already fairly strong at determining an engagement in some circumstances. I would say it’s more important that the effects from a structure have some kind of counterplay or influence on how the battle plays out. That was probably one of the more important parts of POS mechanics; being able to shoot the modules was the most common method of counterplay involved. After all, actively gunning a structure is a very familiar activity to anyone who’s ever flown a ship before. > [@Sgt\_Ocker](#): > > Reduce lock ranges on structures to the maximum (with boosts) of the largest subcapital ship. That’s never been the case with POSes. I don’t see why any ship (or more accurately, any player) needs to have a perfectly safe perch to shoot from. It’s why fighters and carriers are such a sore spot for many, including myself. > [@Sgt\_Ocker](#): > > If a group wants to counter sniping Phoenix’s, drop something on them That argument also kinda works in reverse. If a group want to assault a citadel, it should be within range of it. And before you mention anything else, I’m aware of how terribly skewed combat against capitals is on citadels. That’s what needs to be changed. > [@Sgt\_Ocker](#): > > cause I can lock, neut and scram you out to nearly double your maximum range. You can lock, you can’t scram that far, and that neut is pretty deep in falloff. Hell, even with current citadels, lightly tanked sniping doctrines are fairly effective against citadels. That being said it takes some decent skill to not get chewed up by a subcap fleet. ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:37am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/179 "2018-01-20T00:37:00Z")
> [@Octanian](#): > > Just out of curiosity was there a reason for the decision to have it be armor that was skipped instead of shield already being depleted? Primarily to keep the state flow between reinforcements sane. It gets pretty messy if you try to skip shield and need to consider a service module coming online after the structure has taken some damage. ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:39am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/180 "2018-01-20T00:39:05Z")
> [@Petrified](#): > > Oh, and: are there any plans to bring a structure more robust than a mobile depot, can fit an unbonused service, maybe one or two modules, but most importantly can be anchored and unanchored in less than a few hours to support day trips in WHs and act as temporary bases of operation in other areas of space? This kind of thing (essentially “small” Upwell structures) is something we are very interested in investigating in the future. ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:43am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/181 "2018-01-20T00:43:14Z")
> [@Black\_Pedro](#): > > I see no mention of any mechanic to allow structure owners to defend their moon rock field in a 0.5 system from the anonymous NPC corp Skiff/Procurers that will be able to take the spawned ore with no risk. > > Are you concerned there is no reasonable method to defend the field or enforce any claim to the ore in highsec? > [@Tzar\_Sinak](#): > > A question from my stream today: > > Regarding moon mining in 0.5 space, when I rat the loot within a wreck belongs to me. Anyone taking the loot within a wreck gets a suspect timer. If I make an asteroid field from my moon chunk will ninja miners become suspect for removal of the ore (loot) from the rocks (wrecks)? At the end of the day asteroids in space are never explicitly “owned” by players. The highsec moon mining metagame is going to be quite different from other areas of space since it will not be trivial to monopolize the asteroids. The structure owner however does have control over the timing of the chunk detonation and access to logs of who mined from that field. Players could use those tools to encourage cooperation and provide a public service, or they could attempt to discourage other miners through suicide ganking and war decs. Seeing how EVE players react to this unpredictable social ecosystem is something we are looking forward to as always. 😄 smile: ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:45am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/182 "2018-01-20T00:45:44Z")
> [@Sgt\_Ocker](#): > > 4 hour window; > Did anyone consider the point, not everyone can have a defence fleet on standby for 4 hours at a time and what drawbacks it brings with it? > EG; It’s a weekday and your timer is set for 9pm (your local TZ). Two things can happen here that are bad. > 1; 4 hour window chooses 5pm as the exit timer. Many of your corp/alliance are still coming home from work. > 2; 4 hour window chooses 1am to exit. Many of your group has to work the next day (some people have lives outside Eve) so you are short on numbers for a defensive/attacking fleet. > 3; A 4 hour window has the potential to force players to be online outside their normal TZ/play time. A game isn’t fun if you have to choose between it and RL. > You’re giving a nice buff to large groups who can cover all TZ’s more thoroughly, while putting a major nerf on smaller groups. > **2 hour window would be more reasonable.** The currently planned window is actually 4 hours total: up to two hours in either direction from the center point. This means in your hypothetical 9pm setting you could experience reinforcement exits as early as 7pm or as late as 11pm, which I think matches what you are asking for. ---
**Author:** ![CCP\_Fozzie](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ccp_fozzie/32/476703_2.png) [@CCP\_Fozzie](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/CCP_Fozzie)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2018, 12:48am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885/183 "2018-01-20T00:48:54Z")
> [@Amra\_Ni-Yesta](#): > > I got a question. How will be the decomission in the futur ? How to make a decomission with a syteme like this, it is just impossible. This is an excellent question. Under the current proposal it would indeed be much easier for hostiles to disrupt the unanchoring of a structure. We discussed this a bit with the team today and we’ll be discussing it internally more after the weekend. If you have any suggestions that would help provide a balance between the owner and hostile forces we’d be interested to hear it in the meantime. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885.md?page=8) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/dev-blog-upwell-2-0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th/51885.md?page=10)