Quantum Cores - Updates begin 8 September

The largest structures, the ones that are 10% the price, are structures that are generally not spammed and are also already enticing targets, so there’s less of a need to incentivize their destruction.

You mean, get jump freighter in NPC station and jump to cyno? Very risky…

If citadel spam don’t generate enough demand. Destruction will never do (learn your own game please).

No ISK sink. Nice.

Wardec is not a issue. If you don’t want wardec you simply create holding corp. Issue is that every small group and single players (where are small strictures???) has zero chances when someone want to kick their castle for guaranteed loot. With this change, if you aren’t part of big group you simply can’t own any structure anywhere.

7 Likes

@Brisc_Rubal @CCP_Rattati
Cavalry has arrived bois.

Love how Safezoners all over the place are in rage again.

Ill just go back to using the old POS at least you have none of the bull crap that comes with it

5 Likes

Null sec is in War… they have to feed on …feed on other players contributions… They dont need to buy these cores even… all they need to do is… farm them from structures in high sec with their big fire power… there is no small indy corp can stand in front of it… New Eden is not safe place yes… its Big Aliances feeding ground … their game play is hailed. respected and supported…CSM done well . Weak has deserve no respect in eve… they must be scattered and join the stonger ones. Thats also cost many small unique corp cultures destroyed and ASSIMILATED by big ones… if they refuse they can leave the game… that doesnt matter… Lot of new players running into eve online atm … As long as CCP can achieve to hold those new players… they are bigger source of money than old and self sufficient eve players…
This all about Power ! and there is no good intention for the behalf of community in this thing

1 Like

Hey, some of us wanted to ninja salvage it! :::high fives concord:::

Nah, seriously though… someone in a NPSI anti-trig fleet I was in the other day accidentally locked and shot one of my wrecks and got concorded, that was… silly and picard facepalmy but… predictable.

I’ve seen at least three nightmares who were cap chaining in incursions get concorded due to shooting their cap buddies over the past 5 years I’ve been incursioning off and on, so… this one was at least a BIT different! ;D

1 Like

NO.
More destruction means more destruction, period.

People won’t get another one when their structure is destroyed in a war they had no way to win.

You are just giving free money to bashers. That’s ALL you are doing, not increasing the use of structures. So no, there won’t be MORE need for structures, on the opposite you are nerfing them to the point only people with enough money to wast or people in them (big corps with F1 monkeys who don’t value their game time or 10s of accounts) will be able to put them.

The ONLY way to defend a structure is to make it not worth shooting it(scorched earth). Learn your own game. If the attackers gain more than they spend for the time bashing, doing another activity, then it’s not worth attacking the structure. And now you are forcing people to put loot in the structures.

You are killing your own game with mechanism that only support the bigger ones. “join a mega corp or get ■■■■■■” is what this patch is about.

17 Likes

If they are that concerned about attackers getting paid for their efforts, why not save little guys some ISK and just remove Asset Safety, like in WH’s

1 Like

CCP please reconsider these changes. This imposes huge barriers to entry for smaller groups or alliances that already have to consistently fight to defend their assets without also a further incentive for the attackers to continually bash their assets.

This is something no one asked for and will only affect the groups who already struggle to afford to maintain and protect their infrastructure from the null blobs.

3 Likes

I agree. The system cost taxes will go up since there will be less industry structures. I use public industry structures all the time. I just hope that the ones that I use don’t disappear.

Also, there are services that structures provide that are not available in NPC stations, like compressing ore, etc. that will be absent from a lot of systems.

Lol fair dos, it IS one of those things thats a hilarious landmine when it happens to others, and just dumb when it happens to to oneself.

That’s trash.
Not having the protection layers make them trash. The removal of service is useless.

A MORE FAIR patch would be, to forbid ALL structures in HS. Just prevent anchoring structures in HS, and allow people to remove the rigs, and increase the fuel cost by a factor of 2 every week after a month.

I’m not advocating against structure. I’m telling you how ■■■■ that patch is.

1 Like

Having it be somewhat tedious and unprofitable for attackers is the only “force multiplier” that makes the citadel system so successful now because if solo player A wants to go and anchor off a worthless moon, nobody is going to go and destroy his sandcastle. Because it’s not worth anything! And a waste of time!

The funny thing is, CCP is actually destroying long term gameplay for a short burst of pvp activity. Once the initial mass extinction of citadels takes place, there will be less miners and industrialists in space.

These quantum cores are so poorly thought out it hurts.

4 Likes

Less people will be anchoring structures. Means less structures been sold. - check
Less structures sold means less demand for planetary interaction. - (omega only) check
Less planetary interaction, means less passive income from poco’s. -check.

All this is good, as the only thing that made this game interesting for me was omega.
I can now stop subbing and just play occasionly as an alpha. Means I’ll have more money in my pocket. Good job CCP

8 Likes

So the need to get an industrial/hauler in during it’s anchoring vulnerability window and the ability to intercept that ship and kill the structure while it is still in hull is nothing?
Gotcha.
At least try to make sense.

Adjusting the masses of the cores makes them far less vulnerable when anchoring, since a smaller faster hauler can be used. I think this needs a serious think about if you want to reduce this vulnerability just for the sake of a few keepstars, or if you should instead offer a fair compensation to those alliances affected in WH’s for their keepstars and keep that vulnerability.

No it’s not.

We already have data that for profit wardeccing does & will occur in massive organised fashion.
What more data do we need? Waiting till high sec structures are the province of only 2 or 3 corps + the mega null coalitions?
Structures do not make a meaningful force multiplier currently, they do not give fleet boosts, they do not fit remote reps, these things (plus more slots on smaller structures, just with grid restrictions) might make them actually force multipliers. Right now they are just +1 Battleship, maybe +2.
This makes them easy kills as long as you outnumber the defender fleet in highsec because you get none of the fancy modules that make them actually defendable in null. And you get almost none of the benefits since the rig bonuses are so small despite that heightened risk because of weaker defences.

1 Like

Good idea

Oh yeah, and totally forgot to note that anyone on the CSM ofc had advance warning, so their groups are already ready to weather it.

As usual.

4 Likes

Who is feeling more safe tho? LARGE ALLIANCES THAT HAVE A LOT OF WEAPONS.

That will profit large alliances and not small entities.
Large ones will trash the solo structures and get the cores some poor guy had to fork ISK for.

Basically, if you would want to have structure in future, you will have to get into some big entity where they already have them, so you dont really need it yourself in effect. BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE THEM.

Many citadels will become unanchored now, and sold, before they are destroyed or ISK for a TROJAN CORE have to be forked out.

2 Likes

why ? :slight_smile: i mean its well known reality both RL and EVE… Hope you see the analogy there… im not talking about "market purpose citadels " there

1 Like