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

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Nevyn_Auscent

The game never was as harsh as you are claiming it was.

How harsh am I claiming it was?

@Nevyn_Auscent

And no, pointing at WH situation does not provide any examples that apply to anywhere else.

Perhaps you can come up with a different interpretation (that makes sense), but it’s just data. Wanting to just ignore it and say it isn’t relevant…it’s just factual information.

The one difference between Upwell structures in wormholes and k-space is the lack of asset safety. With lower population, there is higher destruction. That is just what the data shows. It doesn’t matter that it’s j-space. It’s just the difference between regions with asset safety and the one area without.

Different interpretation sure. If you have one, no problems. But just dismissing it because it doesn’t fit with your own preconceived idea, therefore not relevant… not so much. But if you have a different interpretation, I’m all ears. Nothing I have been able to think of seems to be validated by the data.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Scipio_Artelius

Perhaps you can come up with a different interpretation (that makes sense), but it’s just data. Wanting to just ignore it and say it isn’t relevant…it’s just factual information.

Correlation != Causation.
Yes, more Citadels got destroyed in WH’s than elsewhere.
Of course, more Refineries got destroyed in low sec than anywhere else. So obviously we should apply low sec rules everywhere!
And if you sum all the types of Upwell structures then more got destroyed in Null.
And if we include POS as well then WH’s are only about 30% ahead of Highsec even. And a mere 50% of Null.

So… The numbers simply don’t match your claim that lack of asset safety makes people kill Upwell structures more.
It’s far more likely that differences like the ability to project massive capital fleets for timers make attacking Citadels in Null far more of a risk and something that isn’t done just for LoL’s, while WH Citadels can be raided fairly easily relatively.
There is also the question of the HK campaign to evict anyone who is a threat to them from the C6’s, which likely lead to more citadel deaths than a standard time sample would have.

The person here leaping to conclusions based on the data is you, you seized the single number that supports your argument and have ignored all the numbers counter to that.

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Nevyn_Auscent

Correlation != Causation.

Oh god.

No it isn’t. Yet without correlation, causation can’t exist at all.

I have thought of several possible explanations, yet each time I try to validate them, they get eliminated.

But the standard (and dismissive) correlation != causation is a way of ignoring the possibility all together that the correlation actually is related to the causation.

So what alternative interpretation do you have, since causation has to be there, even if it is different to what I’ve been able to narrow it down to.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Scipio_Artelius

So what alternative interpretation do you have, since causation has to be there, even if it is different to what I’ve been able to narrow it down to.

You mean other than the two other potential reasons for the difference in data that I already listed.
And the rest of the structure death figures that don’t support your claim either.

I mean sure, it’s not a bad hypothesis for an experiment. But taking the different types of structures you have 1 structure out of 4 that even correlates with your hypothesis.
And when you sum total numbers you end up with no strong indicators at all towards your hypothesis.

So, as far as doing it as a decent scientific analysis says, your hypothesis at the very least has no good support, and at worst is mostly disproved. Of course given how hard it is to prove a negative it can never be totally disproved. But the numbers you posted don’t support your conclusion.

[Rivr_Luzade]

@Scipio_Artelius

The figures don’t lie. They are what they are. Far lower population of characters with higher destruction rates (and overall much more deadly than any other area of space on a per character basis).

The figures only tell one part of the story: Big groups in W-space have an even easier task at destroying other group’s assets than elsewhere to maintain control of the space. If no-AS was such a conflict driver, more people would live there, especially since you can earn a lot more money in that space than anywhere else.

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Nevyn_Auscent

Of course, more Refineries got destroyed in low sec than anywhere else. So obviously we should apply low sec rules everywhere!

No. This would be stupid. That can be and has been eliminated through the historical loss of POS in lowsec, since conflict over valuable moons has been a driver for years.

I’ll dig out the data.

@Nevyn_Auscent

And if you sum all the types of Upwell structures then more got destroyed in Null.

And if we include POS as well then WH’s are only about 30% ahead of Highsec even. And a mere 50% of Null.

Which is why one way of normalising the data includes the loss/% of population, to try to normalise around the number of people actually in each space.

WH space on a per capita basis comes out way in front.

However, you could also look at it on a per system basis and normalise that way.

That also increases the relative destruction in j-space compared to null, though the per capita basis, rather than the system basis accounts more for player activity.

You could also normalise based on the actual number of each structure type in each area of space and there j-space would increase in relative significance massivley, since there are overall fewer structures in j-space than there are in nullsec.

There’s lots of ways to attempt to dismiss the data, but there are also lots of ways to try to normalise the data and then decide how to test.

The thought experiments alone don’t work (as the history of the forums and all the reasons people claim for whatever personal issue they have shows). There has to be ways to validate them and the ones you posted “lets just apply lowsec history” doesn’t work. There is a specific and very logical reason, backed by historical data for POS destruction, why refineries in lowsec die at the highest rate.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

If you normalise the data on a per system count, watch low leap into the front. Given there are 3 times as many WH systems as low systems. And the number of actual low residents are quite possibly lower than WH’s also. But far harder to measure since you get all the overlap from Null & High who happen to log in low but don’t actually ‘live’ there.

The real number we need to even start to use your figures is the one we don’t have and can’t get. Which is the number of structures deployed vs the number destroyed.

Or we could simply acknowledge that WH’s are a different area of space with different rules and not attempt to point at a 15% or so difference as a reason to dramatically change the rules in 3 other areas of space.

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Rivr_Luzade

If no-AS was such a conflict driver, more people would live there, especially since you can earn a lot more money in that space than anywhere else.

I have an alt in W-Space and I make far more ISK in k-space these days. I wish more people did live in j-space, but the mechanics (no local, roaming holes, etc.) also keep people out of wormholes. Reasons to live in one space or another aren’t binary. It isn’t just “conflict level here versus conflict level there”. At least, I think people have far more reasons they consider for one space over another.

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Nevyn_Auscent

Or we could simply acknowledge that WH’s are a different area of space with different rules and not attempt to point at a 15% or so difference as a reason to dramatically change the rules in 3 other areas of space.

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.

[Tifida]

+1
But CCP look on people who play and pay ))
And 4% in Wormhole dont care CCP ))

[Matthias_Ancaladron]

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

Example:
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)

@CCP_Fozzie

[Tifida]

"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.

[Rowells]

@Sgt_Ocker

Putting them on Citadels reduces the need for “Ships on Grid”.

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.

@Sgt_Ocker

Why have titans and supers if a Citadel can do the same job…

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).

@Sgt_Ocker

In case you missed it, a Pos could be disabled by reffing offensive mods

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.

@Sgt_Ocker

From your example, once a pos is RF’d its only form of defence was ships on grid

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.

@Sgt_Ocker

just because something was doesn’t mean it should be.

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.

@Sgt_Ocker

What is the difference between a structure having a max range of 250k (the same as everything else in the game)

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).

@Sgt_Ocker

they will be able to use all offensive modules out to 400k

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.

@Sgt_Ocker

they want to “balance” attack vs defend but buff defend and give nothing to attackers…

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.

@Sgt_Ocker

Sooo, what we have now is - A nice buff to Structure defence and no counter for it.

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.

[Yoshi_Kanfar]

@CCP_Fozzie

At the end of the day asteroids in space are never explicitly “owned” by players… 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:

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 _

[Rowells]

@Yoshi_Kanfar

how else would you know which corp’s Mining Ledger to apply results to?

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

[Zoltan_Lazar]

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.

[Orion_Sa-Solo]

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

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Yoshi_Kanfar

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?

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.

[Tifida]

@CCP_Fozzie
Helo
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…

[Yoshi_Kanfar]

@Rowells

@Yoshi_Kanfar

how else would you know which corp’s Mining Ledger to apply results to?

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

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.