I did wonder if POS could still be used for manufacture. Giving up on a structure and moving manufacturing to an NPC station instead would still work for me. Just not be as much fun. But, my “locals” are asteroid stations and the consequent loss in ore processing there would most def not compensate for giving up on structures due to cores.
The problem with this model (real or hypothetical) is that CCP would need a target to be met, for both number of cores they would like to see fitted and then % of those cores they would like to see recycled each month. This in order to make money. They would have an idea how many structures are still standing, post Fortress, but would have little clue as to how many will still be standing by January. Or what the actual retrenchment rate will be after that. Your suspicion might be sound, but it would be a really uncertain revenue model for them to pursue.
But its still isk rolling that wouldnt have been rolling before hand.
That said, cores arent sinking any isk, so its hard for me to say that this is a longer term PLEX generating plan. I just never bought the “we are doing this cos tactical/strategic structure spam” reason.
This is the same problem I have. Because of my HS-centric focus (for structures at least), and that of a lot of posts on this thread, I literally cannot see what the issue is.
During Fortress, my system got cleared out. Leaving me as the last one standing; other than multi-POS. Post the nerf of HS moon mining, my closest systems saw additional structure reduction. And now, immediately post-core, both my local moon and ice mining systems have again undergone structure reduction. So, exactly where this spamming is … and why it was necessary to also introduce the solution across HS … I’ve no idea.
But if the choice is to bring one fleet with 10 logi, or two fleets with ten logi each, how are the defenders worse off by increasing their dps?
Is it easier or harder to break/volley through enemy reps with 20 dps ships or 40?
Tell me what defenders are losing by working together?
What happened years ago wasn’t just combining logi wings. And it doesn’t have to be just that today.
You’re harping on at me, but you are being deliberately obtuse.
It’s not just your time to waste. It’s time wasted for everyone in your corp. It’s time wasted for everyone that wardecs you.
By putting up structures you are declaring to the game ‘i am ready for a higher form of gameplay. I am ready for wardecs’. Players are joining your group or squaring off against your group based on that expectation.
If your policy is to not do anything and just let structures die, then you are wasting everyones time. Not just your own.
Structures are designed to create conflict. They should create conflict. They were also too many.
Yes. This is the whole point. This is exactly what CCP wanted it to do.
This still applies.
Build away.
My frustration is directed at people whining that they can’t enjoy structures without conflict.
I never complained about that. My point was simply that the core ads a guaranteed conflict now to small groups starting out or wanting to start out and that this might hurt the game in the long run. again it might not and we will have to wait and see. I never said that there should be no conflict if you in high sec.
I also pointed out that with the size of my Corp we have chosen to not want conflict and simply pulled down our structures because of this and that at 500 + people size it could mean smaller groups will do the same.
Granted this helps high sec remove structures and works as intended but my worry is really about the small group of friends wanting to try the game out. Building your sandcastle in some remote system could get you away from the wardecs for a time while you figure it out. this kind of kills it as I am sure wardec corps will be monitoring any new structures going up to get paid.
That’s precisely the point. This is PvP. Why should I make it easy and/ or enjoyable for you, the aggressor?
Y & N. The N being I am prepared for the risk of wardecs. But I will then participate in them, or not, as I see fit. As is only right & proper behavior for a sandbox.
Again, Y & N. The Y is I am delighted to hear that my non-aggression policy might potentially upset any would-be aggressor. Including by way of wasting their time. The N is, how could that possibly be a waste of my time, to annoy &/ or otherwise frustrate an attacker?
That might be your opinion. That might even be CCP’s intent. That doesn’t mean that I have to actually accept that, and use them that way. And if that means my taking a quality-of-life hit to avoid deploying a core, in order to reduce the risk of conflict, then that’s exactly what I’ll do.
Now that I can appreciate.
And PS, your points about time wasted for corp members might be more relevant, but I excised them simply because I am a sole operator. Which is also why I choose a passive (aggressive) response to conflict. After all, if I was prepared to hire a mercenary defense fleet then I might as well just build/ join a “proper” corp in the first place and have them do it cheaper. I just wanted to see if EvE can be played solo. Including the use of structures.
You have an obligation to defend your assets in space. That’s just how the game works. You don’t have to fulfill those obligations and can accept the consequences (Boom!), or you can avoid those obligations in the first place and not deploy a structure, but that is the intended trade-off for their significant benefits.
This is wrong.
As was said your core-less structures will remain active and mostly functional. All that will happen is that grandfathered structures without cores will lose tethering, repair and ship fitting functions.
How is a completely consensual invitation to more conflict possibly a bad thing?
Can do so without owning their own structures.
They can join somone who does or use public structures.
This is the mind set you all need to get your head around. Structures are a higher form of gameplay. It is a declaration to the game that you are open to war.
If you are ‘trying the game’ or not open to conflict you shouldn’t be thinking about owning a structure.
You don’t. But CCP should.
This is absolutely fine. As the aggressor can get paid for their time if you don’t show.
But neither getting paid nor the chance of content meant conflict (the whole purpose of structures) was not happening.
It’s a waste of game time/effort as a whole.
Structure bashes with no conflict does not make for an engaging game. Structures that no one wants to defend have no meaning.
This change reduces meaningless structures and/or puts more stakes in the game. Provides incentive for attacking structures (something badly needed).
That’s a tricky definition for the concept of obligation. However, in the specific context of hisec, I don’t believe it actually applies to structures anyway.
Nothing can happen to my structure in space, unsolicited. This is in contrast to any ship, capsule, mtu or mobile depot which can be splashed or reinforced at whim. You tho do have an obligation to wardec me first, before hitting a structure. This gives me 24h to clear the decks then make like a rabbit.
I fly or anchor what I can afford to lose and take the risk of that loss as being the price of doing business. In fact, as a side point, I never insure my ships. Never have done. For me, this concept of self-insurance also applies to structures. There is no obligation involved (using any definition), tho this is drifting into the realm of semantics a little.
We wanted to use structures to enjoy conflict, and this new feature stopped us dead in our tracks.
I had spent a long time talking my colleagues into going for it, I donated some structures and structure modules, etc. and then wham, a large chunk of additional cost on structures that we knew we were going to lose.
It was not so much the added cost that killed it in terms of this, but the fact that by its very nature with the war HQ we would not be able to do what we wanted before Blackflag. removed it for the 100% certain ISK bonanza. For indy we had already realised that Raitaru’s and Athanors in hisec were not worth using.
Of course we would have met Blackflag. at some point, they are not exactly fans of ours due to some fun kills we got on them in and around Otela and one of us killing small tackle sitting at zero on the gate without moving in Niarja and expressing contempt with the lame camping there, but this makes it a hell of a lot more likely. For hisec this change was not necessary, period.
It is not needed for hisec as many systems no longer have any structures in them and they were getting removed anyway. And it misses the boat completely for nullsec. The best solution is to make the core enable tethering and external repair. Then done dusted, for me that would be a great change. Why are CCP so damn stupid?
That’s totally cool. You’ve accept the risks of attack and the consequences of evading the fight. A totally legit strategy.
But I will point out this is exactly the strategy CCP is trying to make less optimal with this change. They are forcing you to accept bigger risks and larger consequences for declining a fight in order to enjoy the benefits of that structure, while at the same time increasing the incentive of the other guy to go to the trouble of declaring that war and grinding through your timers.
Sure, like most circular arguments here on the forums this is largely semantics. Play as you want and keep having fun.
The total risk of living in operating in lowsec or nullsec is not just related to the risk of the structure. There is the added risk of moving around and operating CONCORD-free space that needs to be compensated for.
That’s not to say changes might be necessary to compensate for this change - I would support making structure more useful in highsec if they became very rare because people did not see enough value in them for the risk - but overall there should probably always be a reward premium for using them in more dangerous space to balance out the increased risk of just moving around and the lack of need for a wardec.
Sorry BP, usually Im right with you, but I have to disagree (and not just on the use of the word “force”). The consequences are no different than they were; investment loss, and as everyone who has been arguing that people complaining should HTFU have said, its not that big an investment (I agreewith that, what I disagree with is that an abitrary hike is a good thing though).
Now, in my opinion Im not sure it even is that much ofan incentive, unless 600m split however many ways is worth the time to bash. Up till this, my and by the sounds of it Lily’s greatest enemies regarding our stations was opportunity deccers. Im not sure this token isk increase will actually cause many who would bash a fuelled station to increase, but I may be wrong.
All the decs my stations have had though since I started using them only came in on unfuelled stations, and evapourated into no-shows when I put fuel in em.
It wasnt me refusing to engage, they refused to show up.
OFC, I write off anything I stick in the ground that takes me more than a few hours at best to pick up again.
I was with your response, right up until the last bit.
Time & effort in-game is mine to use as I see fit. We will have to agree to disagree on this bit.
We can agree that ensuring the game is engaging overall is the role of CCP. If they choose to try and promote that by fiddling with structure bashing, then that is just the way it is going to be.
However, you will just have to remain frustrated by people like me whose subsequent playing style will be to deliberately not engage. Just as our way of trying to frustrate any attempts at PvP against us.
As to the last part however, that’s codswallop. Of course my structures have meaning. To me. The fact that I have no intention of defending them is neither here nor there. It just means that my equation for time/ cost/ benefit is different to yours. If you don’t find it engaging to bash undefended structures, then don’t bash them.
I am being facetious, obviously, especially as I have to accept that you and @Black_Pedro simply see this as a balancing change. One which aims to increase the risk for players who enjoy owning stations that we can’t (or won’t) defend - how absolutely dare we do such a thing!
The consequences are higher. And there is a larger reward.
I agree with you, I don’t think it much less of a change than many people here are claiming. I don’t think it will change very much at all, but I also don’t know. Maybe this small nudge is sufficient to make people value and fight over structures more. Or maybe nothing will change and people will still toss out disposable structures writing off the cost, and only the same number of content creators will go after them.
What will happen isn’t clear, but I still maintain this is CCP’s intention - to both increase your cost having no intention to defend and increase the incentive someone will show up to impose those consequences on you.
Well then Id personally be more concerned with addressing why the actually stated goal is not dealt with this change at all, and why they havent stated this (what you have said and I can accept) in the first place.
And for better or worse, an overall reduction in stations results in less opportunities, not more.
Opinion: If evasion of destruction is against the principles of the game, why are there Blockade Runners?
But is that a correct comparison, I would compare by occupied and active systems. You seem to talk about the risk side here but ignore the reward side completely?
In my view the risk is higher in hisec at this point for the owner as blapping a structure is not risky at all, do that in lowsec , or nullsec and people will jump you.
Hell we were jumping people doing that in Otela and got a very nice Vargur kill. Sometimes you don’t think things through.
The risk of blapping structures in hisec is lower than anywhere else, so why do they get the same reward then?
Actually it would be rather great if all hisec entities give up on structures due to this leaving only certain nullsec entities with them and then allow anyone to shoot structures in hisec but make them go suspect. Would you support that? As I expect it is not worth having a structure to do indy at this point no skin off my nose on this.
