In which you can lose everything or not.
Going from being able to defend a structure BEFORE it was at risk of being destroyed is so much worse than what will be. Everyone who plays eve wants an all or nothing meta… (Of course I’m being sarcastic)
For attacker to destroy your structure, they need to do constant damage. If you can drive them off even one by one, they will lose the grid and lose the timer. Structures 30s point is plenty of time to activate mjd on your battleships and to move on top of the enemy and kill it.
Really? Since when did an MJD on a battleship reach 300 to 400K?
Or do you expect attackers to sit just at the right range for defenders to engage them.
There are sooo many things wrong with your simplistic reply - Just like others posting here who obviously don’t interact with structures other than to park in them and rely on others to look after them.
1 Like
Targets that are further than 150km away, you can easily warp to.
"…could we instead of scraping fun and useful things, just change the dps and neuts for Anti cap weapons down so that a Astrohus cant beat a dread by itself?
Are you saying it should be possible for a single Capital to go one on one with a structure and be able to win?
That only makes sense if either we can move and warp the structures same as Capitals or we can anchor structures within 1000 meters of each other so a fleet of structures can take on a fleet of capitals.
1 Like
Only if there is a wreaks or you have combat probes out
Consider Space Superiority fighters to defang carriers with.
Please define “easily”.
You can’t just warp to an enemy ship (unless it is somehow in your fleet), so unless you have a wreck or a bookmark at just the right place…
1 Like
Yep do that, use space superiority fighters - There’s nothing like adding more lag inducing crap to a system already in full TIDI.
1 Like
Now that structures have been nerfed for combat, TIDI just became a tactic and potential defensive weapon. So you make a great point and an excellent suggestion.
Thanks! 
1 Like
Actually it is a very old tactic. And one that has proven over and over to be anything but “excellent”.
But then “excellent” depends greatly on whether you like to play eve or manipulate its mechanics.
So is EvE a sandbox or not? Every change in mechanics necessitates adaptation especially for those disadvantaged by the change. When you put months of effort into building something you tend to be highly motivated to adapt improvise and overcome any way possible to preserve your effort.
When new game mechanics thwart your attacks you don’t wait for CCP to build the game your way, you employ a new strategy, right?
Of course that “adaptation” needs to include - Not playing Eve. Creating unplayable scenarios is always better than actually having a fight.
Sadly stories like this, will become the norm;
CCP can’t fix it - So maybe players need to look at how the game is played and adapt to a meta where just pumping more players into a system causes failure and disappointment for everyone involved.
This has been my thinking. Why can’t there be something in the system that gets the groups to spread out. Wasn’t the point of FOZZIE SOV to spread the fights out, but then we have new structures and everything is right back to BLOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Hmmm a max of 5 squads vs say 200 squads
Not to mention they’ll get shredded by hostile SS.
Any else excited for this patch like I am? Seems to be a lot of bitching in this thread, which is par for the course I suppose. When I joined in 2010 within 30days I was in a noob wh corp. Blind leading the blind is what it was. But it was fun. Everything was on the line. Pvp, pve, our home, anything could die at any moment, and ■■■■ did die. In my opinion it should be if structure is in low power once shields drop you lose everything and it explodes. Harden the ■■■■ up. I know right, “back in my day we walked to school 2 miles in the snow, uphill both ways!” NPC stations still exist. I’m looking forward to these changes.
2 Likes
Will there be r64`s in wh space? Right now on SISI you have r64 moons in wh space. Will the moon seeding be the same on the live server as it is on SISI now?Also will the hole class have any effect on the moons in it, higher the class, better the moons?
Only one thing for certain, the moon seeding on SISI will not be copied to live. The same rule applied with the original reset.
Actually numbers show that more and more people are just tired of being lied. This time, we were told citadels are a POS replacement. As usual ccp make you buy subscription and play and grind for months to get to something that looks nice and promising just to nerf it later and transform your work into easy prey for their favorites.
And they acknowledge it - hence the lack of any reply on this thread.
Thank you to everyone for the continuing conversation on this subject!
I want to ensure you all that we continue to read this thread, even if we aren’t replying to every point raised. While we may not make any more changes to the plan at this time based on the feedback in this thread and elsewhere, we will be closely monitoring the results of tomorrows patch on the Structure landscape over the coming months and reacting accordingly should things not progress in a way that aligns with the goals we have for this release.
Another thing that’s worth outlining is what we are talking about when we refer to Upwell Structures as a replacement to previous structure systems such as Player Owned Starbases and Outposts is what we mean by the concept of “Feature Parity”. For clarity, I’ll repost a comment I made on the old forums about this and the common misconceptions that arise from it:
When I’m speaking about feature parity I’m generally talking about the broad high-level functionality. Let me give you a few examples of what that means:
- Provide storage for individuals, corporations and alliances.
- Allow the insurance of ships
- Allow the manufacture of T3 ships
- Allow materials to be harvested from moons
These are all examples of functionality that we’re looking to replicate. You will no doubt note that these types of high level functions make no mention of details such as cost, timescales or security, to name a few. While some of these things may be matched, these aren’t what we are discussing when we say feature parity. Such details are often things that we need to be able to change for balancing purposes.
I hope this makes sense to everyone. We really appreciate the passion that people have for structures old and new, and we hope to provide exciting, engaging and balanced gameplay for all, even if it won’t always precisely match the way things were.
Please bear this in mind when discussing comparisons between the old and new systems. While I can categorically say that we are not trying to limit structure ownership to any size of player entity, small or large; changes are of course necessary to the structure systems to ensure that the system remains healthy.
Thanks again, and we look forward to seeing how players adapt to the various challenges posed by an updated Structure landscape. We have confidence that you’re more than capable!