Quantum Cores - Updates begin 8 September

You got that right i had a member join my corp steal all my corp assets because I wouldn’t give him pvp and he also get threatened by him out of game that he was going to blow all my stuff up and ddos me evertime i played the game and when I reported it they tel me to report to police so I ask a friend how to stop him a get him off my back he told me fight fire with fire told me how to do a thing called doxin did that he reported me and I get ban talk about one sided and protect the bully’s in this game

Funniest thing Ive read all week, tbqfh

Now that corps have to invest more isk in structures maybe some of the player structures need some reworking . All structures should be able to refit even if RF’D exception being armour plates and the athanor and rait should get a fighter tube. And if high sec moon mining becomes a thing again only pilots with blue standing or corp members should only be able to mine the rocks without going suspect…

2 Likes

In that case… we were paid to remove that structure from space by another industrialist that understand how having friends or paying for them works.

Otherwise we would not have bothered.

I am hoping that rivalries due to resource adjustments would revive the old “these rocks are mine attitude” of industrials of old and pay people to forcibly remove others from system. Weather it be through structure removal, or ganking or just bumping them away everytime they enter system.

1 Like

The minimum cost of dropping a station is about 1.2 billion and the core is not recoverable.

So costs less than any of their usual ships when talking about wardec corps.
And they only have to kill 1 structure per time they lose their structure to break even. Given the usual kill ratio of these corps they are going to be miles ahead on cores.

Incorrect since they are guaranteed to lose 600 million every time they pick up the structure.

  1. Pretty sure cores drop when a structure is unanchored. If they don’t see point 2 anyway as that will become more true.
  2. Just how often do you think wardec corps pick up their structures again, they put them up and leave them till someone blows them up.
  3. As long as they loot one core from a war before they lose their core they have broken even compared to now. If they loot 2 cores they are ahead. Given they normally have like a 20 to 1 ratio running…
2 Likes

Ok? What’s your point. Like I said, the war corps will just eat the occasional 1.2 billion ISK as the cost of declaring war. And, as pointed out, they are very likely to make a net profit by killing opposing structures and harvesting the cores.

As far as I can see, it’s just how CCP is going to subsidize getting PVPer’s to start harassing industrial corps again.

1 Like

And this is a bad thing?

Tbh its this insistence on compartmentalisation that makes this thing seem worse than it is.

I mean, Im still unsubbed cos of it, but not for ridiculously weak reasons like that.

If I understand you, this compartmentalization is what I would point to as the bane of my Eve existence. I’ve recently decided to hang my hat, and I have a long list of factors that contributed to that decision, but the industry/pvp playerbase split is perhaps the longest standing issue.

CCP released a long while ago that they’d collected data that showed corporations who had war declared on them saw a decrease in activity, and that activity did not return to normal after the war ended. The solution was to protect players from wars using structures as the new gateway instead of the creation of a corporation. This beginning has been iterated on now to include structures as requirements to declare war as well.

Increasing the cost to declare war, whether by hiking the flat fee CONCORD charges or by requiring more expensive assets, raises the lower boundary on who can afford to start a fight. I don’t see how I can interpret it as accomplishing anything but eliminating the most easily defeated foes. Eliminating the most easily defeated foes is going to shift the balance of victory to the persons who remain able to declare war, and against those who have war declared on them.

Thus, we end up in a cycle where wars are seen as a problem, a fix is implemented that removes the ability of the next easiest set of foes to fight affordably, and the prospect of someone winning a war declared against them is again decreased. People are psychologically conditioned over time to be war averse by the game’s mechanics and ever growing notoriety.

In my experience as a PvE/Industrial player, wars were manageable. They were not convenient, but simply being at war did not shut me down completely. If there was no war target in the system, there was no reason not to do what I wanted. Going to Dodixie could wait a week, or I could ask someone I knew to buy me something, if I wanted it that bad. Someone declaring war doesn’t need a structure to have ‘skin in the game’ because without putting a craft of some kind on the field they can’t shoot you.

CCP, and nerds in general, deal with this in data obsessed terms and overlook the systemic root causes that make players feel the way they do. Imagine if, to play battlefield, you had to farm up a bunch of stuff your opponents will get if they win first. Then imagine after that there were patch notes that read “We see people don’t like losing, so we’ve increased the cost of being able to fight.” The higher the costs, the less of a PvP game this is. Eve claims to be a PvP centric game, so I find these price hikes ridiculous no matter who thinks they’re benefitting.

I wanted an all rounder sort of good guy and girl new player friendly group. I didn’t want to start fights, and I wanted to be friendly to all who would be friendly. I also wanted to be able to survive, not necessarily win, when the gauntlet is thrown down. While I believe I can survive, it is hard to convince anyone that this kind of playstyle is practical. I have to concede, it really isn’t. You have to give up war immunity, you have to fly with people who won’t necessarily know how to fight, and you can’t collect resources in eleventeen barges, and orca, and a freighter on your alt army while you munch pizza and watch netflix. I do not enjoy ‘practical’ gameplay, though. I’d rather muddle my way through uncertain, dynamic situations that are instigated by real people.

CCP did a good job of bringing blob warfare to highsec using an NPC faction as a backdrop, but that’s not the kind of player to player interaction that’s interesting to me. We don’t know what or who we’re fighting for in the end. “I fought for the Triglavians and all I got was this lousy t-shirt” seems highly probable to be a meme once CCP distributes those costumes. I want real people fighting for their own goals, and that’s harder to find at the small scale I appreciate than it has ever been.

I think CCP should widen the scope of wardecs and decrease their cost to decrease the advantages of compartmentalization and make more varied membership in groups more attractive. I think more fighting would raise newbies to be healthier members of our community who won’t crumple at the first sign of confrontation. You can’t change people overnight. This isn’t something you can fix instantly with a mechanics change. CCP would have to reestablish their vision that Eve is a PvP game at its root, and especially in highsec, where our careers begin and our ideas are first formed. Triglavians work against this by virtue of being NPCs. Quantum cores work against this by stifling conflict with added risk.

Woo boy. What a ramble. At least it’s at the end of an obnoxiously long thread everyone’s tired of so hardly anybody has a chance to read it. Apologies to whose who did read it!

3 Likes

The issue with this is that it was a solution to a nullsec problem which will end up screwing up hisec even more. Initially I looked at it from the indy side of things, but then the penny dropped that it was going to make the offensive wars that I had planned more expensive and risky.

At that point I realised that it was going to impact the one thing that I was trying to push with my alliance.

Was an excellent ramble, but you covered the issues pretty well, even though I support the idea of tying structures to wars I always suggested that a cap of three aggressive wars without structures per entity was a good idea. Of course the war deckers would create alt corps, but so what, it would dilute their main strength in any case when they have a massive advantage with logistics… As for wars against entities without structures the only thing that I contemplated was having some sort of indy calculator that assessed whether you were competing for resources in s system or even a constellation for resources and allowed a war dec within that area.

I am looking forward to logging in in May 2021 and having a look at how many structures are left in hisec and who owns them, I am also going to watch for people flagging a lack of war targets.

Back to lurking, but I wish you well.

1 Like

I honestly hate this update, but only cause I’m going to have to get more friends to protect citadels. Not really all that horrible.

I hate it because it does nothing to solve the problem of junk structures now. you have to put the core into the structure so the small ones already abandoned are still worth less to destroy then ammo used to destroy it.
This part should be a component on the bpo instead of another online part. It should be the same part for every structure, called upwell core, and should be 500m3. this doesn’t double the medium and large structures that already drops billions in salvage alone. It does make small structures worth going after while not punishing people buy making them by an insane cost to keep their structure online.

1 Like

That doesn’t place a hauler at risk and increase gameplay around anchoring though, which is part of the aim.
For the aims CCP has, they’ve done the right thing.

How’s that? the core is still 100% and placed inside before it leaves where ever its built during the anchor. You looking for cheap frieghter kills with 250 million for a xl core in it?

Run through the core process in your head, see if you understand how this increases counterplay options. Sure, when dealing with the mega alliances and major strategic deployments this may not impact as they can have thousands in system to control the grid and gates safely, but they do more than major strategic deployments, and more people use structures than just them.

The new phoenix update allowing super carriers to have clone bays and ships circumvent this entire process.
Before you’d need a structure and ships inside a structure and had to anchor it and probably drove some content to prevent this from happening. This flys contrary of this update.