We’ve been discussing plans for these structures with the community ever since Fanfest 2015, where we outlined the long-term plan for what would eventually become Upwell structures.
Yeah I can still remember the vision CCP Segull presented at the 10 years anniversary where she had that epic speech:
“Think about all the opportunities for crafty capsuleers to make money and fame in this new era of colonization. Think about home, what that means to you. And then imagine what could lie beyond the known if only you could construct the right kind of stargatejump bridge replacement”
I would like to suggest a counter proposal to the planned Tenebrex Cyno Jammer Mechanics.
The planned mechanics around a maximum of 3 Cyno Jammers in a system and redundant structures seems both needlessly complex and non-intuitive. Rather than having 3 Cyno Jammers to a system I would recommend an alternative.
1 Cyno Jammer Anchored or Anchoring per system.
Cyno Jammer has significantly increased hit points over the current suggestion and higher damage cap leading to a similar time to reinforce but requiring much more significant force to reach the cap.
0.5h-24h Reinforce Cycle while reinforced the service module is offline.
Cycling an active entosis link (after warm up cycle) suppresses the Cyno Jammer by off lining the service module. When offline cynos can be lit in system.
The cyno can be re-onlined with the requisite 5 minute spool up as long as the structure is not reinforced.
Both for balance and consistency the cycle time to suppress the Jammer should be linked to the system defense index in line with current sov mechanics. (I imagine a time around 10 minutes total including warmup cycle at defense 6 with a T2 entosis link would be appropriate but this would be need to be balanced by better minds than mine.)
I think that this better achieves the game play goals using existing mechanics. You no longer have to destroy or reinforce the Jammer to access the system but must survive under fire of the citadel and defensive forces to incapacitate. This provides a similar challenge to the attacker as under the initial proposal but doesn’t require a game of whack-a-mole. The attacker still has the choice to reinforce the structure if they want to but would need to bring in heavier forces to do so in a reasonable time frame.
Having all of the iHub upgrades cost increase is definitely moving away from the plan of wanting smaller alliances to own space. This change will not affect big established alliances with old money from before the moon mining changes as they will have plenty of ISK stocked away, but will definitely not encourage smaller alliances to take a few systems and put some iHub upgrades in place. Sounds like another dumb idea from CCP where they decided to not consult anyone at all, but instead just change it.
This change really shouldn’t affect small alliances that only hold a few systems that much. If your alliance can’t afford a billion or so isk per month to hold a constellation. Then they where already failing to use the space to begin with.
And if 1.5b for the super upgrade is gonna break the bank. Then your alliance isn’t ready for supers.
It does however affect the larger groups for a change. Because if you cram a large alliances super production into one system you will ■■■■ the industry index hard. So you need to spread out.
Sure 15 bil for 10 super systems is cheap for the large groups. But it still means they are going to be paying more. Which means a bigger isk sink.
Out of curiosity why are we allowing Capitals to use a new jump bridge that gives 0 fatigue, I remember the rage & madness of the C5 highway that you nerfed to the ground, cause people were whining that it was too easy to get from one end of the galaxy to the other, while this mechanic makes it 10 tmes easier while moving capitals, while the C5 highway only allowed for BC or smaller doctrines in high numbers.
Atleast add some level of fatigue to capitals using this mechanic.
6 of the GSM members are Goons, which have by far the largest capital and super capital fleet in EVE. 7 even, theoretically, because sort just accepted help from Goons as well.
You forget that the wh nerf was to cripple sov attackers, but the new gates are there to help the sov holders. This is all made with Goons and nullsec safety in mind, nothing else is relevant anymore.
So, we’re on this side of the pendulum’s arc, then? Where the CSM is solely responsible for the direction of game development. I’m sure that soon it will be a popularity contest good only for a “free trip to Iceland.”
Likewise, someone with bad intentions could say that even the last moment is used to favored Goons.
OFC this has nothing to do with reality, it’s for tin cap
If you can’t understand the difference between a 5LY bridge between two systems that can be drag bubbled, shot, or denied for 35 days by blowing up an ihub, and a web of connections that reduces any two areas in Eve to a matter of 4 or 5 warps and jumps, you may need to have your head examined.
More content?
We will see the Triglavian Ships from the four main factions as it was with the T3 ships ? Own design for each ? Own faction bonuses ?
Oh no no … We have the same stupid factions, from the beginning of 2015.
Our Triglavian will be another pirate faction with its own branch.
According to:
We are too lazy to draw different ships for each faction.
We are too lazy to invent a plot as the Fractions have developed and implemented the mysterious technology.
We are too lazy to leave the ships having Triglaviana as an NPC, and for the players to make individual developments from the Factions.
We will make the mobile EVE Online, than will spend energy on diversity in the game itself. CCP 2015 - 2018.
interesting way to balance things, have to wait and see what happens with it all but actually looks like some thought went into this so +1
Perhaps your wardec change may yeild the same in that it will be more than just whats been stated so far
I have to agree here. Seagull made it clear (or is it my own biased desire) that GATES would allow us to explore new systems.
The dev blog uses the term “Jump Gate” 18 times in reference to replacing Jump Bridges. “Jump Bridge” is used 3 times in reference to the existing functionality.
@CCP_Lebowski is the proposed Jump Gate (replacement for the Jump Bridge) what Seagull meant? Did I understand the intentions and unspoken messaging incorrectly?
7 even, theoretically, because sort just accepted help from Goons as well.
