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

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…

1 Like

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.

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.

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.,.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

Yes the plan will be to limit the burst projectors to one of each per structure.

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.

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.

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

@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)?

1 Like

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.

I’ll pass these along to our UI folks and see what they think.

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).

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1 Like

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.

This kind of thing (essentially “small” Upwell structures) is something we are very interested in investigating in the future.


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: smile:


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.

1 Like

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.