Quantum Cores - Updates begin 8 September

EVE Information Portal Dev Blogs
, ,
2313

I agree that will happen. Station owners can expect much more wardecs to come form all sides - small, medium and large groups. Primary reason for non PVP players to anchor station in space is to benefit their services. And this is impossible under war. The jobs are paused every time the armor is reinforced so no one will use it while the war is not over. So the station becomes just useless and expensive junk flying in space. It can’t provide services.

It can’t defend itself. It can provide very weak support (depending on fit comparable to single T1 cruiser up to T1 battleship) but only for few minutes until it runs out of capacitor.

Your station in Urlen is worth 1.3B ISK + fighters and I assume clone bay service is not critical for anything in your gameplay. This is different with industrialists who have their entire gameplay built around their location and structures.

For you If it gets attacked or not - it doesn’t matter and makes no impact. No gameplay will be disrupted or changed. Probably even better because it creates content of PVP opportunities. 1.3B ISK also shouldn’t be a blocking point.

But guaranteed reward of 600M ISK of core would probably change that calculation. Why not to spare 1-2 hours? 600M ISK + loot + 2B ISK killmail. Maybe enough just to erase it without giving any joy to owner.

The overhelming fleet will come just 3 times: first time when you are not at home, second time when you are not prepared, third time just to finish job. They apply damage cap for 20 mins and leave. No content for you, no PVP opportunities, no clone bay and 2B ISK less in assets.

Is it great game experience? Will you anchor another one just to have this repeated few weeks later?
Do you plan to buy the core for your station to test this scenario?

For me answers even from pure PVP standpoint for all above are “no”. For 2B ISK I can buy many ships and enjoy them instead frustrating experience of Upwell defense.

As the results stations will disappear. Weakest first. Strongest later. The population of targets will shrink so nothing will hide.

From my point of view:

  • The quantum core should follow regular loot rules.
  • Upwell stations should be able to receive remote assistance - repairs and capacitor transfer enabling defenders to undock some ships and attackers be ready to counter that.
  • Allies in same war should be able to repair each other.

That’s all. Let’s leave pathetic weapons of Upwell structures as they are, but at least make them useful piece of fleet which will not cap out after 5 minutes of 15 mins timer and then can only throw useless standup missiles.

Then even outnumbered group of defenders could participate in battle, apply some tactics, have chance to save their spacehouse. And for attackers it would bring the risk. Even if they don’t lose single ship they would risk losing much more time than planned because defenders showed up and fought for their property.

3 Likes
2314

Indeed.

But you are acting like this is a bad thing. This is the stated and clear goal of these changes.

CCP wants more active conflict around structures and for them to have more meaning/value. I get that if you want a structure for all the benefits without any of the conflict, then you might have an issue with this change, but I’m not sure there is much else to say otherwise.

So yes, it will make life for structure owners more challenging. You, me and CCP all agree on that. I guess all that remains is to see by how much it does, and how players adapt to the change.

2315

Because I see this as bad thing for the game and I don’t believe it will bring more active conflict around structures because there will be less reasons to have them in space, even for people who are capable to defend them, but simply don’t want to have their calendars full of timers.

Gameplay of small and medium wardec groups will also disappear quickly as their War HQs will be also farmed for quantum cores by bigger groups.

Of course this is my subjective feeling of consequences of these changes and I hope CCP knows better…

but…

CCP goal was stated to prevent “Deploying structures haphazardly to bait opponents is often seen by many as a good strategy, because razing them all down can be unsatisfying and laborious.” so for me this is bandaid for niche nullsec scenario where rich alliances spam timezone tanked Fortizars and Keepstars in enemy systems making it difficult then to clear.

In other areas of space I never saw structures “haphazardly deployed to bait opponents”. They always served some purpose - be it industry complex, shelter in wormhole, war hq or even ganker’s perch. Changes to low power and abandonment states cleared the space from unmaintained leftovers of initial spam.

And speaking for highsec - razing them down is not laborious at all, for group who does it as profession. This was discussed in this thread already many times by multiple people.

And last thought around “never undock or anchor anything you can’t afford to lose” principle which I believe will prevent people from anchoring stuff.

If I undock and lose ship I can analyse my mistakes and try to be better next time.
If I anchor structure and it explodes there is no “try to be better next time”.

There are no better structure fits or better skills which could prevent that. If the structure is anchored again then it will die exactly as previous one. So the only wining move is not to play.

3 Likes
2316

Sooooo many posts and too many Trolls

This hole Quantum Core thing is so bad Iam having a hard time understanding How obvise smart people Can come up with something like this :frowning:

Are you under the false assumption that structures in HS and structures outside HS are the same ? because they are not
Are you trying to fix NS structure problems Without any idea How this will effect HS ? because thats what it looks like

CCP Rattati`s post can almost be disregarded in its entirety Except for the statement that they forgot about wormholes again

  • Nullsec alliances will now have to distribute Quantum Cores across space from the NPC station where they bought them. A new risk for them - Theres no risk in jumping to a cyno (if they even bother to buy them They might just take them)

  • More destruction of Citadels will mean more demand for industrialists - This statement is simply wrong
    (Do you really think people will get new structures when they lose the one`s they have because you put a huge bullseye on their back ?)

  • We made changes to Wardecs fairly recently, and if Highsec wardecing becomes oppressive, based on data, not anecdotes, we would certainly want to act
    What do you mean if ? You can already see this since you added abandoned state And now your is putting a bounty on every structure in eve Seriously what do you think is going to happen ?

  • Dont forget there are losses on the Attackers side as well - Sorry But thats not how things work in HS small / single char corp`s have no chance at all

  • We are giving players choices - You might like to think you are But your really not What you have been doing lately is NOT giving players choices…

  • Existing structures that are not injected with Quantum Cores do not become hyper vulnerable trash - Well with tethering, fitting and repairs gone they can still be use for a couple of things But in general they are just that - hyper vulnerable trash

So lets take the cheapest structure in the game (Raitaru) it cost 449kk atm
The Quantum Core`s for it will cost 800kk (1.249B)

A wardec costs 100kk and they have a guaranteed 800kk drop

So now every structure will have a bullseye on it

And i have not even mentioned the moon miners and the owner of those structures that got screwed over when you removed all the normal minerals from the moons and now they are getting screwed over again…

Who ever came up with this change deserves toilet cleaning duties @ ccp for at least 6 months

K

4 Likes
2317

And has nothing to do with the core mechanic. The per-player value of the ISK reward provided by getting the core is negligible under this model so it can’t possibly be the motivation for the attack. And the killboard value + tears + extortion opportunity already existed to motivate the attack before this change, so adding the core changes nothing.

Because against the kind of corp that deserves to own a structure your expected reward per player for those 1-2 hours is less than just farming some highsec level 4 missions. The only way the 600 million ISK changes anything is if the defender is too helpless to fight off even a solo player, and those people don’t deserve to own structures.

I doubt it. Stations owned by war corps only exist to enable the war. They’ll just drop unfitted basic stations at minimum cost and if someone blows it up, well, that’s just part of the cost of declaring a war.

A single character corp is a solo player, not a corp. And why should a solo player have access to something that is supposed to be a collaborative effort by a group of players?

So now every structure will have a bullseye on it

Only if your corp doesn’t deserve to have it. If you can put up any defense fleet at all that 800 million ISK guaranteed drop becomes such a pathetic amount per player in the attacking fleet that nobody is going to bother with it.

Do you really think people will get new structures when they lose the one`s they have because you put a huge bullseye on their back ?

I do. Obviously the helpless perma-victims that don’t deserve success will ragequit and go back to AFK farming out of NPC stations, but the corps that deserve to own structures will meet the challenge and refuse to accept defeat.

1 Like
2318

Part 1 they’ve probably achieved.

Part 2 they haven’t. Lack of other structures in highsec doesn’t actually increase their value and defending is a cost to the owner that reduces effective value, especially since any not 24/7 Corp will only meaningfully form for the hull timer due to players simply not being available for the armour timer.

This means that they have reduced the effective value of a structure without compensating elsewhere. And is why there has been such a negative reaction.

2319

I’m going to anchor another 1-2 structures and once they die I will not replace them.

Whoever came up with this simply does not understand the concept of expected value and how structure bashers operate in their game. It’s embarrassing really.

Why would anyone ever anchor a 9.5B Tatara, for example, except under a sov umbrella? You’d have to reprocess 400B worth of ore before it dies just to break even over an Athanor. Even now you have to reprocess 250B. For an average r32 moon that yields say 4B a month, that’s over 5 years of mining with the current prices!

CCPlease don’t let this go live. Nothing good will come of this.

4 Likes
2320

Good question. Perhaps the answer you’re looking for is that the higher-tier structures are meant to be used by the groups that can protect them.

1 Like
2321

Why are you using a Tatara for just 1 moon?
It should be used for an entire system or an entire constellation of mining, funnelling from moon mining athanors since I don’t remember it making a difference in size of field, and hauling the ore 1 or 2 jumps to the Tatara as required then refining in a single place. Now instead of one moon you have 50 or 60 going into it.
Of course yes, this scale of operation is really only viable in Sov Null for a variety of reasons. But it’s not so much the sov umbrella.

2322

Yes it does.

This is a competitive game. If I own the only structure in an area, I can charge more for its use. If my group spends the time and effort to maintain and defend our structure, we have a competitive advantage over our competitors who were unable or unwilling to defend a structure. Structures will have more value in this situation than a structure everyone owns because they are so safe and cheap to make the cost-benefit of any other player trying to destroying is so poor.

I get it - if you are an industrialist singly focused on your spreadsheet, this is a stick whacking you upside the head. Your personal situation is changing, and for the worse as you have to either give up structures, or spend effort/resources on securing them from a likely increase in attacks by small-group pirates essentially, looking to take your token. But top level, this makes structures more meaningful and increases gameplay around them. It also is intended to increase gameplay around them by increasing their worth exploded or to replace. Or it least that is the idea.

So it’s fine to tell CCP that you don’t like your game being made harder but they’re going to read that and think, “that’s right mate, that’s what we are going for!” and move on to the next post. They have deemed structure deployment too easy and cheap. The people posting here can’t know the future, so just trying to over-exaggerate the intended outcome to scare CCP is wasting everyone’s time. CCP clearly wants less structures so the remaining ones have more meaning, and more fights over them, and they came up with these numbers and this system after carefully looking at everything. And yes, if the result is no structures thus no fights, they will deem this a failure because this outcome obviously isn’t the goal and will change something.

They could have misjudged, but I think you will have to wait for the change and the effects until you can make a case that further adjustment is needed to CCP. Right now this thread is just full of various intensities of whining, scaremongering and guesses of what will happen.

1 Like
2323

Sure… Except you can’t. Because the margins between your structure and an NPC station are so small in highsec that as soon as you charge anything that matters, NPC stations are cheaper.
Again this effect you are referring to requires CCP to buff high sec station bonuses.

And at no point have I argued against this change happening. I get why they want it and agree it achieves that objective. What I am saying is that if they want people to still put stations up who actually know what they are doing (Because there will always be enough clueless people putting them up for the first time to keep at least some around), then CCP need to put some kind of carrot out there. It could be in the form of increasing their effectiveness at supporting a defending fleet via Command Bursts & Remote Reps. It could be via increased bonuses. But there needs to be something to make them really worth fighting for in Highsec.

2324

I wouldn’t be surprised if a whole rebalance of the tax/fee system is on the table. You are right, there isn’t all lot of space for public structures to live and some of the fee formulas are borderline broken. If they do work on this, I’d expect NPC station costs to go up, exactly as they did for the market taxes/fees, to make more space for player-owned market hubs. And also maybe buffs to bonuses will be part of that, or at least nerfs to NPC station efficiency.

The ecosystem team promised big changes are coming, so us industrialists of Eve should expect even bigger changes and upheavals to our business plans in the next 6-12 months. It actually is promising to be a great time to be a small, agile operator able to pivot and change direction on a dime.

2325

That reminded me that not some long time ago there were player-owned market hubs emerging everywhere. Now all of them are gone and markets are “nullsec-owned”: Tranquility Trading Consortium and IChooseYou…. I expect same will happen soon to public player-owned industry services…

1 Like
2326

The “Victim’s” could pay half to a quarter of the amount to have people defend them and wipe out the attacking force, which will make the offensive side think twice the next time. If the isk goes up so does other opportunities.

The universe will always find a balance, if it hurts the smaller guys too much ccp will change something else that brings it back.

2327

Completely true, but you can just take it down and sell it then. Probably make a profit on that and not even pay income tax.

If CCP made it cheaper, you would be upset that you paid more. If it gets more expensive, also upset. If no change, the game can’t progress Then you also get upset. CCP literally can’t win.

2328

Maybe because some of us represent about 30% of Eve’s Economy? Oh, and, by the way, it’s solo players, not the big alliances, who managed most of the ‘firsts’ in Eve that didn’t involve trashing a hundred trillion isk in ships. CCP kept raising the bar, until finally they came up with Titans as something so absurd that a solo player with enough time and isk couldn’t realistically build one.

Usually.

Something that CCP has never forgiven us for.

See, first it was supposed to be battleships that were Impossible to build solo. Then POS. Then Caps. Remember high sec caps? Not sure if the Veldnaught is still out there someplace.

The thing is that players get pissed off when Devs punish playstyles they don’t like. It’s a battle EvE has been struggling with for years and years, and, somehow, they never seem to learn this basic lesson.

2 Likes
2329

Sorry but you are wrong, above another player Tau Cabalander detailed the cost of mercs in this thread and it way above the amount you suggested. The player you responded to has actual experience of defending against war deckers too, just like me.

Yes, that will likely happen at some point, but they did take I think three years to adjust the tank of mining barges and exhumers after removing the ROF penalty from destroyers, so don’t hold your breath on it. Though I do believe that CCP are better at analysing their data now.

2330

LOL yeah thats how it works :+1:

2331

Unlikely most of these groups don’t like targets that shoot back. There idea of pvp is seal clubbing

3 Likes
2332

Perhaps the bounty afforded by the Quantum Core is not enough to apply risk for larger groups

  • The Raitaru cost model should be be applied to the Tatara (and others), so the Tatara core should be about twice its cost, say 11 billion.

After all, using your logic, if a group cannot afford this extra cost then they are not a big enough group to own one.

2 Likes