COME ON CCP
Pull the damage caps on abandoned structures.
3 Likes
Except when sending stuff to npc station is easy: you can either do courier contracts (see ‘haulers channel’ and red frog freight) or send everything to asset safety from your asset overview.
Yeah, because I am sitting 24/7 at the computer constantly watching if someone is not bashing … sorry, but timers exist for a reason.
Uhmm… one service module requires only 60-70M isk worth of fuel for a month. It is far from expensive. If 70M/month is expensive for you then you shouldn’t have anchored structure to begin with.
Actually quite a few of hisec players will agree as well - this is good change.
1 Like
Part of me is i don’t agree with asset safety change, maybe a compromise would be to use the loot drop 50/50 chance of dropping or asset safety
Damage cap i don’t see the point in this, its abandoned no fuel no power just let us remove it from space
No Tethering - i like this change but i don’t think it goes far enough i’d like to see tethering removed for low power structrues too or better yet make tethering a service mod if need be add a service slot for it. as some above want a cheep mod for citadels why not make it this and say 1 fuel block a cycle and 72 for the start up
1 Like
Have you guys considered putting in a window where structures are capturable? I always thought it would be interesting to give attackers the option of either destroying or capturing intact the structures they assault: perhaps applying a mechanic like this to abandoned structures would be an interesting way to test the waters?
In a perfect world, sov would go back to being contested by the sword while Entosis Links could be re-purposed as tools for capturing incapacitated structures.
3 Likes
That’s been covered. Read the whole thread. Now I know why some people who post here get nasty when they have to repeat them selves.
4 Likes
Wasn’t the asset safety introduced to encourage the usage of player owned markets and structures?
Now market owners like ICY can destroy their own structures within a few days to collect 50% of the assets (PLEX, Skill Injectors, …). And I guess there will not even be a notification to the asset owners. No more summer holidays if you want to keep your assets. Or don’t use any public structures. Is this really intended?
1 Like
… is this kid for real?
4 Likes
This will have minimal effect on nullsec wars. None is going keep a hostile Keepstar around in their new space for months or more likely years in the hope that it will go abandoned. Sure you might get some random crap from some astrahuses but not anything worth fighting a war for.
Now if you can get a spy into position to transfer said Keepstar at the right moment it’s a different thing altogether but that’s not going to happen very often.
Will loot cans in highsec flag you as suspect if you are the war dec corp? Asking for a friend.
Uhmm… that would be pointless. They get % of each transaction performed - why blow themselves up? Also you think that people wouldn’t notice that suddenly many of their market orders are down? It takes 7 days for citadel to go abandoned - plenty of time to notice such a thing happening.
No. Why would they?
Being too lazy to read through all of the replies, if someone hasn’t already mentioned it, why couldn’t there be a mechanic where we could take over the structure?
I don’t mean like dock up and “it’s mine now”, but maybe something along the lines of how structures in null could be taken over in the past.
That would give players something to strive for, and owners a reason not to abandon their stations.
anyway, just a thought
o/
A.S.
1 Like
This is a great change and one we’ve been asking for something similar since Citadels were first discussed!
Next step is to reduce the cap on the fuel bay itself and create a burn rate penalty on structures within a system with a hostile ADM. This way you create a second avenue of attack both during and after a war has taken place. You reduce the defenders ADM reducing the burn rate on your own offensive structures, and increase their burn rate allowing you to more easily take out their structures should you actually take and use the system yourself.
After that is all said and done, you need to re-implement anchoring restrictions/requirements to prevent any future structure spam from taking place.
And my pipe dream…
Once that has been done we can have a serious discussion about passive and active defensive systems, the problems of offensive application, and changing mechanics all around turning the largest of them into true fortresses to be besieged and strategically placed.
Personally I’ve always liked the idea of “vulnerabilities” appearing on the XLs that could be destroyed by subcaps only and when destroyed allow for full capital damage application. Meanwhile the defender must actively rep these vulnerabilities to end a vulnerability period as well as restore anti-capital shielding. Say they appear at half health and ALL vulnerabilities must be kept at this level of higher to maintain anti-capital shielding. Once a percentage (or all) vulnerabilities are fully repaired the structure enters RF and resets to the initial timer. Note that this is simply an option, as the attacker could alternatively just use their subcaps to destroy the structure directly, but it would be race between that and the defender repairing all vulnerabilities.
Meanwhile weapon systems of the structure can be targeted and destroyed/repaired as a fight is ongoing as well as any passive resistance/weapon arrays placed around the structure. Ones that could be attacked and killed freely in or out of a vulnerability period and require usage of the structure’s CPU/PG such that they must choose between powerful active systems that can be repaired or dozens of weaker passive systems which are gone once they are destroyed.
Wall of meaningless text over!
Anyway, take from that what you will. This was a great step in the right direction CCP keep it up! I much prefer being able to praise your changes than constantly hating on them for seeming half baked.
Being to lazy to read means you will never know…
Ok, thanks. The example with ICY clearly wasn’t the best one, given the amount of income from broker fees. But if you own some smaller public structure, let’s say a Raitaru, and want to get rid of it, it would be a good option now to shut down everything, block access and destroy it with some alts after one week. Maybe you’re lucky and some people have stored a nice collection of BPOs and material in it.
I don’t think that 7 days is a lot time to notice that all services went down. What about holidays? And not everyone changes market orders every day.
That’s the spirit 
Death to Cap’s Glory to Subcaps!
You do realize that the majority of PLEX, injectors, and such available in those stations are put up by the owner of the station to create the impression of an active market and attract people to use the place, right?
1 Like
When it comes to the asset safety change, I really hope the 7 day-timer could be reconsidered. And I don’t say that to defend lazy players who can’t be arsed to keep their structures fueled. I say it because of the players who don’t have a structure.
I see several replies here arguing that one-man corps shouldn’t have a “right” to run structures if they can’t keep it fueled and defended. I guess that’s a fair point. But this change will hurt players who are using public structures as well, maybe more so.
As a structure owner (or as someone who wants to shoot said structure), the amount of time before a structure goes abandoned is less important. As many have pointed out, the owner can put many months of fuel in the structure. I still think 7 days is a bit harsh for them. Because sometimes, life happens. You get in an accident. You had to work an extra shift and didn’t have time to refuel before going on vacation. A global pandemic breaks out and prevents you from logging in.
But now, consider the players who can’t or don’t want to maintain their own structure. They have no way to know if a structure they want to use will run out of fuel tomorrow. That means logging in once a week or risk loosing asset safety. Sure, that’s probably not a problem for many, but for a more casual player, a week is nothing. I’m sometimes away for a couple weeks at a time because of work, or I might have two week-long trips back to back, with just a day to repack my bags in between.
Sure, I usually know in advance when I’ll be away, but that might just mean there will be a large portion of the year i have to move stuff away and not run industry jobs because I might loose asset safety while I’m away. Not to mention the extra hassle of moving stuff back and forth all the time could quickly become another thing to make EVE seem like a second job rather than something to relax with when you’re done working.
Have no problem with the rest of the changes, but really hope you can consider extending the time it takes before asset safety is lost. Or, perhaps add some way for visitors to know if a structure is low on fuel, though I’m sure that would come with it’s own problems.
1 Like
Those clearly aren’t the ones I was talking about, so I’m not sure why you’d bother to reply to something that clearly wasn’t the statement being made.
I already declared I hadn’t read all the posts, I got through the first 60 or 70 and wanted to see what the general complaints were, and there were relatively few, but the ones I did see were along those lines. So that was why I asked if I was missing something, or whether these were just people who wanted to see bad in everything.
Sometimes you are in such a hurry to debate against other people that you create arguments that aren’t even being made, I’ve noticed.
Any plans to send notifications if you have assets in a structure that becomes abandoned?
EDIT: While on the subject of removing reinforcement timers, please consider reworking mobile depots so they don’t get a reinforcement timer, or at least a much shorter one.