CCP:
Its really seriously getting out of hand. I remember when these were announced, and I remember thinking that not banning them from Jita was a bad idea.
I ALSO RECALL a time where intentionally creating lag was a ban-able offense. The proliferation of structures in Jita creates a metric crapton of lag.
TL;DR time to ban mobile structures in Jita
I concur. If they canât put an upwell structure in Jita or any of the 4 hubs, they shouldnât be allowed to put mobile depotâs either. Lag City at 4-4 if you devs didnât already know about it.
Iâm on this Iâm going to have to disagree for a number of reasons:
Canât you already remove mobile depots by shooting them?
Good point. I forgot to mention that. It is not a criminal offense to do so - so no CONCORD intervention 
Devilâs advocate here
Concordokken no, but the flip side is the suspect timer that you do get for shooting it, plus the reinforcement timer is ridiculously long as well.
Between the suspect timer, the 2 days reinforcement, plus the easy way of full shielding it by repacking, and the fact itâs all at jita, you couldnât possibly âjust shoot themâ without being cloaked as a new one is being fielded plus getting it below 25% in health in less than a minute in order to destroy it without the reinforcement timer.
@CCP_Aurora will you look at the mechanics of the depot or at least do something about the spamming of them?
You are wrong. Server lag is a problem, and structure spam provides zero practical benefit to anyone. Removing them entirely from the system with the worst server load sensitivity in the entire game is an obvious solution.
You can spam as much as you like on a planet or moon where no one sees that garbage but on stations the lag inducing rubbish has no place.
What a weak argument. Once these dumb propaganda structures or your Upwell structures (that would also incentivize people to move that garbage off of gates so that people can spam the grid with their ads) are in game, the mobile depot spam can finally be removed.
It does not. You can PVP just fine. Grinding through hundreds of Mobile Depots is not PVP. And if you need suspect baiting to PVP you can just steal something from a wreck or can that your alt dropped or from a wreck on grid. MDs are not necessary for that purpose.
That objective is wishful thinking. The reality of the situation is that Jitaâs special status is a direct result of practical server load concerns. Short of massive and expensive hardware investments removing those special rules means making Jita much more prone to sever failures, so the restrictions are the lesser of the two evils as long as players insist on keeping Jitaâs population at its present level.
This is false. Programmatically speaking, their contribution to server lag is insignificant. There is no evidence to back up this claim because no evidence exists because the claim is false. Admittedly it might contribute to client lag, but I donât consider this a reason to address mobile depot spam. There are PVE sites and ore belts and player battlefields more complex than the mobile depot spam at Jita - are we going to cap the celestial entities on grid there, too, just to ease up on client lag? Are we going to limit how many drones can be deployed on grid at once to limit client lag? As with any other game where there are a lot of objects on scene and performance is struggling, you need to get better hardware or downgrade your quality settings to compensate. Thatâs the nature of the beast.
There is neither a need for nor a way to enforce a policy that states âyou can only deploy a mobile structure if it has a functional purpose and you intend to use it for what it is intended to be used forâ. The fact of the matter is that they do serve a purpose: advertisements, creativity, warp-to points (!!!), actual functional use for PVP purposes in front of stations (!!!), etc.
Before mobile depots, players could anchor cargo containers. So weâd see that kind of spam as a replacement. And if they canât do that, expect to see a bunch of Corvette wrecks instead.
You still havenât made an objective case as to why they are a problem. A minor population of players expressing the opinion that âtheyâre annoyingâ doesnât make for a good argument. It wasnât hard to come up with reasons why having so many Upwell POSes all over the place was objectively a problem that the upcoming patch is going to help address, but there are few if any reasons to suggest mobile depot spam is a objectively a problem.
Doesnât solve the arguably non-existent problem but introduces a new one: a single player can monopolize all those 100 depots and prevent others from fielding them
Yeah it is, because the reinforcement timer makes this impractical (especially if someone else deploys a new one shortly after one is destroyed before you get to field yours) and because it is unfair if there exist more non-combat pilots who want to use them but are unable to fight over them such as explorers
No, itâs not. Nobody here can deny it is a long-standing cultural phenomenon that is unique to EVE. I am not saying this is a reason to keep it, but saying that it is âdumbâ is an opinion not necessarily shared by the majority (it probably isnât), and saying that it is a âproblemâ is something nobody has made an objective or solid case for.
I misspoke and I am at fault for that, so a clarification is in order: what I meant to say is that it inhibits the kinds of PVP opportunities that being adjacent to a mobile depot while PVPing provides (even if you exclude suspect baiting). Thatâs the kind of PVP opportunity youâre taking away from being in front of stations for no good reason.
CCPâs last two eco patches and ongoing resource distribution efforts are effective measures at weaning players off NPCs onto Upwell POSes and from presently high-population/activity systems and regions onto lower-population/activity systems and regions. CCP isnât stopping there either.
This is not true (at best this is a secondary reason). There are various reasons why systems get special status. Discussing tradehubs specifically: they have special status because, due to emergent player behavior over time, they have 1, insanely high activity and 2. they are of critical importance to EVEâs economy and the health of the game overall. Permitting legacy CT âstickâ POSes or Upwell POSes in those systems would make it easy for a major power to control those systems system and exert disproportionate influence over 1. EVEâs economy and 2. traffic through those systems (through wardecs and suicide ganks).
Consider the following:
@Geo_Eclipse_Oksaras Iâm honestly surprised you specifically are making a direct appeal to CCP when there isnât even community consensus on this. This is probably the minority complaining, and there likely isnât an objective reason to address this to begin with.
Reading just this topic, the minority is your opinion that they are not an issue. Maybe you need to learn what minority means?
Good. Conflict potential increased in a meaningful way by introducing scarcity. What more can you possibly ask for?
What? Explorers anchor their depots on safe spots so that people donât find them so easily. What kind of argument is that even?
Thatâs still misspoken because the kind of PVP that MDs enable is easily enabled by the older can stealing. What other PVP opportunities are there? Please be less vague.
In essence: You are the minority and you have yet to come up with a convincing argument why the spam should stay ingame.
and why is serverlag in a High Security System such a Problem ? you just Need 20-30 sec to undock and now ? ist not low sec or nullsec where ppl kill you if you undock from a Station. And yes, i know there is some ganking at this Station but ist not a Server Problem until ppl lern how to fly and fill their Cargos correctly to not die at ganks.
Fun fact: you donât have to begin EVERY post with a red circle. It doesnât make your case any stronger.
Increased conflict is good, but not through â â â â â â â â mechanics.
(my turn!)
Docking in stations can be dangerous; docking at mobile depots can be less dangerous. Quickly warp to, stash your â â â â at least before you are destroyed. And in PVP it is not uncommon to depot and survive those 60 seconds for it to anchor to stash your â â â â before you are destroyed. It is not uncommon to refit in space to more appropriate weaponry.
Cans donât offer fitting service, donât have reinforcement, and if I remember correctly (not logged into the game to check) they donât last as long in space.
You have no argument to remove them either. Should things automatically change just because there is no argument for them to stay just because one or two people post something on the forums saying they should change? Iâd love to see this pitched to CSM and CCP⌠see how seriously they take this 
You are wrong. Client lag is also a problem.
There are PVE sites and ore belts and player battlefields more complex than the mobile depot spam at Jita - are we going to cap the celestial entities on grid there, too, just to ease up on client lag?
Sounds like a good idea. All of that stuff is just decorative, if it is causing client or server lag then it can be reduced. In fact, CCP has done this in the past to deal with environments that were causing problems.
Are we going to limit how many drones can be deployed on grid at once to limit client lag?
Sure. In fact, CCP already did this when they changed the drone interfacing skill to be 20% damage per level instead of +1 drone per level, giving drone ships the same DPS with fewer drones in space to cause lag. Of course, unlike removing structure spam this would be a major balance change so it would have to be carefully considered if CCP decides it is necessary.
There is neither a need for nor a way to enforce a policy that states âyou can only deploy a mobile structure if it has a functional purpose and you intend to use it for what it is intended to be used forâ.
And there is no need for such a policy. Simply making it impossible to deploy them in Jita would solve this particular problem.
CCPâs last two eco patches and ongoing resource distribution efforts are effective measures at weaning players off NPCs onto Upwell POSes and from presently high-population/activity systems and regions onto lower-population/activity systems and regions. CCP isnât stopping there either.
Thatâs nice. We can reconsider the question of Jitaâs special rules when its population drops to the level of a normal system. So far this has not happened, so Jita remains a special case.
This is not true (at best this is a secondary reason).
Nope. You are 100% wrong about this. CCP was very clear about their reasons when they imposed the Jita special rules and it was about server stability, period. The Jita hardware couldnât handle the normal market hub activity on top of major fleet battles, giving the defender in a major POS fight effective invulnerability as no enemy could assemble a sufficiently large attack fleet without bringing down the server and ending the battle. Itâs the same reason they removed all missions/mining/etc from Jita, so that the extra PvE activity would not be added to market hub load that was already close to the hardware limits.
And if you had been playing at the time you would know this, having experienced Jita lag and instability even under the best of circumstances.
(And note that TiDi did not exist at the time and Jita already has its own private server so it wasnât possible to add more resources.)
Because lag makes the game frustrating and causes people to stop playing? Because there is in fact PvP in highsec and people who are flying 100% correctly and would avoid a gank under normal circumstances are dying through no fault of their own? I find it really hard to believe that I have to explain such basic concepts to you.
I literally, unambiguously said that. I explained that in great detail. Everything I said was explaining client lag.
Stuff was was merely decorated and not-player generated, sure, but weâre talking about things that are both functional and player generated.
Slippery slope detected. There already exists a failure to provide objective reasons to removing MD spam (saying there arenât objective reasons to keep them does not qualify). This is taking things too far. The present drone and fighter squadron cap is quite reasonable at the moment. Clients (where the lag truly occurs) donât need to render the drone models - only the space brackets (2D UI widgets) need to be rendered (if displayed at all per Overview settings)
This I 100% agree with - but I do not believe mobile depot spam should be addressed in general or per special status restrictions in Jita/tradehubs specifically.
Hence the reasons are stated in the context of the present and not in the past.
We are talking about decorative elements here. Structure spam isnât done because it has a practical function outside of trying to lag gank targets into losing their invulnerability timer, itâs purely an aesthetic and/or trolling thing. Nobody launches 500 mobile depots on a single grid because they intend to use them for refitting their ship or storing items.
Slippery slope detected.
How is it a slipperly slope when CCP has, as I pointed out, already done exactly that thing for lag reasons?
This I 100% agree with - but I do not believe mobile depot spam should be addressed in general or per special status restrictions in Jita/tradehubs specifically.
Yes, I get that you donât care about things that normal people find to be a problem. In the real world lag is an issue and if a low-value thing like structure spam is causing lag then it should be removed.
You cannot dock at a mobile depot.
That is not inhibited because your safe depot is offgrid from a station so that it is safe in the first place.
A depot dies while it anchors when you are in that kind of situation on a grid. And if it does not, you are at a safe spot where the restrictions do not apply.
None of this is in any way inhibited since you do this on an off-grid spot so that you have a chance to anchor the depot and change fittings in the first place. No one anchors a depot on a station grid to change fittings.
My argument is removal of spam, removal of intentional lag creation, removal of unncessary clutter while not inhibiting any conflict potential, or even increase the conflict potential with limited slots per grid. I have a pretty solid case for their removal from station/gate grids or at least the severe limitation of their numbers on grid.
You, on the other hand, have nothing but nostalgia and vague claims about inhibited PVP.
Your turn. Come up with something that speaks for the MD spam.
As for the red dot: Make me. Make CCP to give me a turn off option for this utter nonsense and I will stop posting red dots. They are just there to tell you that you have a new message. If you donât want to see them, turn them off. 
Sorry, I meant warping to 
. And sometimes you want to be as close to the station as possible - so you can actually dock and use the MD as a failsafe if you canât (ie. there are campers)
You are out of line, young man! @tutucox_Khamsi show this mother â â â â â â what happens when you mess with the speech policeâŚ
