Dev blog: Upwell 2.0 - Structures Changes Coming On February 13th!

There has to be some reason to justify change other than “because it suits my gameplay”.

But I’ve tried to come up with other explanations and when I’ve tried to validate them, they don’t stand up to the scrutiny so much. The lack of asset safety isn’t the total driver of conflict around structures in j-space, but all the data (not just above), supports the effect that no asset safety is a driver of conflict.

The ability to get loot and not just a kill, does motivate some people.

But don’t worry. CCP aren’t showing any sign of removing asset safety. I’ll still argue for it though, since for me, a more destructive EVE would be a good thing.

That it wouldn’t be for others is fine and my position isn’t likely to influence CCP at all, but I’ll still try to find data that actually validates what I’m writing, rather than just “I think therefore it is” my way through threads.

But CCP look on people who play and pay ))
And 4% in Wormhole dont care CCP ))


Was any consideration given to adding more clone slots.
Would it be considered in the future?

Astrahus functions the same,
Fortizar can have 2 clones,
Keepstar could have 3 clones belonging to one character in the clone bay with three separate “vats” where you see what it’s implants are and can give it a specific name like “industry clone” or “cap pilot”

So a small gets 1, medium gets 2, large gets 2, and XL gets 3.
(Or large and XL both get 3)



"Can give it a specific name like “industry clone” or “cap pilot”"
That already work - Right click on clone -> Set Name.

About + clone bay, I am think better setup module T2 ( Clone bay ) and get more clone. Maybe that will be easy for coding.

In some cases that would definitely be true, however in this case, the reality is that it’s rarely ever used. We’ve had these modules for over a year, and in that time 15 ships have died with a PGen, 2 were haulers, 13 were titans, and only 3 titans actually had the module fitted. Now, either PGens do not show up on killmails, or the modules have never been successfully used in combat, since there don’t appear to be any losses mentioning them at a glance on zkill.

That’s also ignoring the fact (that I already mentioned) that many of those possible attribute affects do not currently have modules that perform that function remotely.

This also doesn’t take into account any restrictions that a citadel version of this module might have. For example, I can already fit remote repairs and cap transfers on practically all classes of ships. Does this mean that we see RR fleets constantly in order to reduce the number of logistics on field? Hardly.

There is so much room for balance adjustment in a system like this, that there can still be plenty of reasons to bring your own, should they be valuable.

The idea that only a single class of ships should have exclusive rights to a function is not universal. There are some cases where a specific ship is absolutely needed to perform a task. But there are also numerous cases where multiple ships perform the same or similar task and still get used in different ratios due to other factors.

It’s not like titans and supers are used for anything other than their PGens and Burst Projectors. Surely the enemy sees that our citadel has a PGen on it, clearly they would never want to bring their own (not that they appear to do to any significant degree anyway).

If I have to keep saying “has reasonable counterplay” to get the message through, I will. Shooting those modules was the counterplay. There are a number of options available and even more possibilities of restrictions on a potential Standup PGen to enable counterplay. If shooting everything were the only solution to all of EVE’s problems, it would be quite a boring dps graph simulator.

I could be wrong on this, but I’m pretty sure RF’d POSes can still shoot back. The only things that go offline are modules requiring COU. If the related CPU-using modules on structures is tackle modules and such, that’s totally fine with me. Turn off the tackle and let the successful fleet leave.

I’m sure you’ve missed it, but if you read back and consider your previous arguments, I’m sure you’ll see he irony in trying to use that here. Please tell me I won’t have to break this down to its most minuscule levels.

250km is not the range of everything else. It’s 300km for everything but carriers and supercarriers. The reason an extended range is needed is because how support can be chained. Would it make sense if logi could rep friendly ships from inside a POS forcefield or still tethered? It wouldn’t. If the defenders aren’t allowed to hide a portion of their fleet behind an odd mechanic during a fight, why should the attackers get this benefit?

If you want a prime example of mechanics that were changed to force the support into being a part of the fight, just look at the old Command Link mechanics and the way burst projectors work now. There would be no point in forcing them on grid, where hostiles can directly affect them. That’s why you can’t hide them in POSes or off grid anymore. He same applies to carriers and sky net (yet still somewhat contradicted by the extended ranges they have now).

Not every offensive module reaches out that far. And if you’re that uninformed, the fact that weapons and fighters can reach out that far I literally the smallest problem. We already have doctrines that reach out past 250km and the damage is truly pitiful. We literally use paper-ranked sniper ravens to RF structures that far away. The only real issue I’ve ever seen anyone run into from there is a defensive fleet, or a doomsday. To which they found an extremely clever way of working around and adding some utility to the fleet.

No, they gave quite a bit to attackers. Change to vulnerability, removal of void bombs, needing of scrams and webs, high and low power States, if it weren’t for the 5-minute fitting window and GTFO module, this was an overall beneficial proposal to attackers. It’s not a full paradigm shift, but it’s getting there.

No counter? Surely you didn’t read vague suggestions on possible methods to approach the module and literally could not think of a single counter.

1 Like

So there will be no “legal” way to dissuade miners from an NPC corp harvesting a player-corp created asteroid field? No granting access to said field by corp/alliance membership or negotiated standings? That seems to discourage group membership and community participation, while I thought your stated aim was the opposite…

Contrary to the standard asteroid belts, these “moon fields” are explicitly owned, in the game mechanics at least – how else would you know which corp’s Mining Ledger to apply results to? So it would appear possible(*) to include similar mechanics as those for looting other people’s wrecks: giving the ninja-miner a flag and the “owning” Corporation an opportunity to respond (or not).

A reinforcement of actions having consequences, a push to community involvement, an opportunity for hi-sec PVP (including baiting by the ninja!), making ninja-mining more exciting than just sitting in another asteroid belt pressing buttons… Why wouldn’t you include such a mechanic?

_* Yeah, I know – famous last words from someone outside the development process :slight_smile: _

1 Like

The refinery sees someone mine stuff, then writes it down.

The issue with going suspect for stealing ore is that you’re mining under the protection of an athanor. There’s always stupid people, but for the most part people would just use the ath rather than risk any real fleet.

Has there or would there be any way to make a ship cannot tether if it is not fueled?

Funnily enough the PvP goes both ways here. The owning corporation also can’t drop their miners to an NPC corp if they get a war dec, to have them mine the field with impunity and only have to worry about the structure. They have to expose their miners to the war dec or let the field rot (or be ninja mined possibly even by the corp that war decced them during the defenders quiet hours).

So ownership of the fields actually fills the need of giving war decs more teeth as well, while also benefiting the owning corporation in the ability to defend the field. This is good for all parties as it makes more things worth fighting for for both sides, and value at risk.


Question about unachoring time?
Any change in this patch?

Astrahus - 48 Hours
Fortizar - 72 Hours
Keepstap - 144 Hours

I am think 7 days too much for little structure…


No – the refinery sees someone mine some stuff from its asteroid field and writes it down while it ignores the fields of other refineries, belts, anomalies etc in the rest of the system. So there is already a concept of “ownership”, it’s a matter of whether it can, and should, be applied.

1 Like

I actually disagree with this change and for good reason - In the old system we had pos’s that shot at targets themselves, albeit randomized but they had the automatic feature. Citadels cost a lot more with a lot more at stake for the defender and we actually have to be present in order to fire any weapons. I think the attackers are getting a ride of all these changes, and yes some changes i absolutely welcome… but some are just killing the game for smaller individuals.

I have been in the larger alliances and i have been in smaller corps in lowsec… These changes are for the bigger alliances, not the small guy. Yes Eve is one of those games where we capitalize on death, but when you make it harder for the attacker, they come up with new and inventive ways to kill you. I don’t think that these changes are creating a balance between attacker and defender… they are creating an imbalance by allowing attackers to attack and get what they want. The current system of poses do the following:

Land on grid… and depending on ship type (cloaked/uncloaked) you will be warp scrammed/attacked and killed.

Citadels: Attackers land on grid - if you’re offline and have nobody who can defend - nothing happens. If you are online - I have a cooldown on keeping somebody on grid? what the actual hell? No…

Here’s why i like the current system of this mechanic - You only get kept there for as long as the structure is vulnerable or until you reinforce it to the next cycle - then you can leave especially if you have a superior force.

Don’t even get me started on the 24hr constant vulnerability… I didn’t invest billions in structures to have you make it easier to kill them… And not only that - it can’t defend it self, for that price tag? and i can put a POS up for half the price and it can handle itself.

For too long we have been listening to the nullsec pvp’er and shafting the lowsec/WH/high-sec community in regards to new changes… I just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading TEST’s response to the changes on the GTFO change… I’m sorry, but if someone is putting down billions of isk they should be able to make it harder for you to take it down. This isn’t EASY-Kills online… work for your damn kills! But i also understand that it shouldn’t be easy for structure owners to just play god with the ships on grid… Penalties to using such a device should be imposed… but i don’t think it should be thrown out. Where i live in Lowsec we are dropped on by people with more outside wallet than sense… and its constant… we adapt and rebuild but we still get dropped on… they hold all the cards to whether our structures live or die… and openly admit it…

I don’t want that kind of gameplay - I want some sort of control, and recruiting and joining up with bigger forces has kept them at bay for now… but these changes work in their favour… as soon as Feb 13th comes… all my structures will be reinforced thanks to these changes. And there reason for doing so is to just get a fight… im sorry but who can drop 10+ BS’s with 4 supers and a cap fleet? I think its time to abandon pvp if your small group… i get more action in SOLO eve than i do with a group… And yes i could join the right group and be all powerful blopser… but why? that is not fun for me…

CCP it’s hard to cater to all audiences, you’re company that needs to make money so you listen to the people paying your Bacon bills… but seriously consider people who are not able to have the same luxury as alliances worth trillions.

Options like 24hr Vulnerability - Fine… allow point defences on M structures/ Athanors/Astrahus’s in Lowsec. And allow it to be automated along with Missles for its own defence… we cant be online all the time - Bigger groups can, smaller ones cant. And for those that say “well you shouldn’t have a structure if you cant defend it!” Sorry… but if i want a structure i will have one… it doesn’t make it fair that you get even more opportunity to kill it anytime you damn well please. I should still have security in the fact that it can defend itself for the investment put into it.

Scram/Web - No cooldown… you’re making it way too easy on attackers. POS mechanics from the old times would allow a gunner to hold a person there for as long as the structure was able to before reinforcement. Have the same on Structures - Simple.

GTFO Device - You mentioned allowing in hi-sec… please also allow in Lowsec. This device should come with restrictions of course like not being able to move Dreads in siege or FAX’s in triage. But anything subcap. also a cooldown of 10 minutes? That way we can still maintain presence on the field to attack a structure but also screw them over with no subcap. A lone dread will be discouraged from reinforcing a structure when you’re offline… and if it does… the automated guns should be able to give him the fight he seeks.

Onlining a Citadel: TEST are crying that they will get a fight out of a structure because we have 5 minutes to online one… stop bitching about your fight TEST… It’s a huge investment in one structure and since you have the manpower already to take one on, stop with your crying. We gave the attackers the ability to shoot before a structure is anchored… they cried they wanted more opportunity to attack… they got the 15 min after the structure was anchored/online… they still cried it wasn’t long enough… Sure let’s just change that to six hours and send it region wide notifications a structure is onlining in this system next to a planet - It will also invite you into a fleet and tell you ship types to use against it and give you the fit… Jesus christ.

PVP alliances are getting a run of it, especially with these new changes. I fully agree with the changes on Low power citadels… there is just so many of them littered everywhere, let’s give people the chance to remove them if they want.

People will say “But you have 100% safety with asset safety” Maybe so… but let’s be clear - The biggest asset is not safe. The biggest asset is being destroyed and i have to pay even more isk to have my assets that i put in the structure back. Moving my ■■■■ back to NPC stations - That was a fun couple months.

Sorry not sorry for long post…

Dispenser of Salt Est. 2005™



Hisec moons have always been seeded and probable. You just couldn’t mine them.

1 Like

Seeing as you can’t put a refinery within range of a belt, this is more inherent on placement than it tracking anything specific.

And YET this does not mean there is a correlation. Just because you can’t imagine something else does not mean your idea is the only one.
Just because NOBODY finds another explanation does NOT mean it is a correct explanation.
you are talking so much nonsense …

The only thing you have here is HINTS. ONCE you have a correlation, you can propose a causation ; and THEN you make experimentations with a rigorous protocol to prove that there is a causation. THAT is the only way to show a causation : make X move and show that when you only make X move, then Y moves to along the way.

Until then you only have correlations, which are present or not depending on the way you look at data. So many people do those mistakes.
You have to accept there are things you don’t know, you will never know, you are not able to know, and to accept there are thing that seem obvious to you and are actually false.

Pretty sure he’s referring to the belt CREATED by the refinery during moon mining.

Of course there is correlation. I think you meant causation.

Yes I know. I’m a scientist by profession, which is why I have tried validating several explanations.

So sure I might be talking nonsense, however I at least understand the terminology. But good forum warrioring though. Buzzwords (even used incorrectly), look so impressive.

oooopsy you’re right :smiley:

Yes I’m aware. My point is the refinery only cares about what’s in front of its face and counts it when it’s mined. There’s no reason to believe that there is some hidden tag in the database that says who “owns” an asteroid.