Yep. I have so far not fallen prey to it (jinx!)… mostly thanks to being green safety 24/7 unless A) trying to PVP in lowsec or B) trying to steal something in HS, in which case I go right back to green before docking up with my stolen loots. ;D
1 Like
@CCP_Rattati
Mister… do you even play this game or just “develop” it ?! Making a car and driving a car are two very different things.
Hard reality #1: NUll aliances have Jump freighters networks and established safe routes of distribution. There is little to no risk for them here.
You are WRONG. Existing citadels will be unanchored cause without q_cores they’ll be useless. With q_core they immedietly become target that is undefendable for solo/small corps. Very few if any new will be replaced (in HiSec).
YES! Or sold on the market ! Or printed, framed and put on the wall! Sandbox, player driven economy, supply/demand, player driven industry! Ring any bells ???
Oooohh I see. So you want to meddle with the big bois ha? Ok. So maybe, just maybe could you consider not steamrolling other things in the process ? If you want to make it more challenging for Null blocks, make changes to content that only is present only in Null, like capital ships. How about that? Every capital ship now needs ship specific quantum core sold in npc station in HiSec at arbitrary set $$.
There is much more CCP is overseeing here. But if you want to play only with your big boi friends in large null alliances than fine, have your fun.
5 Likes
Since you raise the point, could you confirm the CSM was ok in general with these changes and their final implementation? Or, alternatively, could some CSM members express what their views and feedback on it are/were, as far as their NDA allows?
P.S. Other than @Brisc_Rubal, who has been making some posts in this thread, that is.
4 Likes
Some Safezoner bear here being particularly salty, love it; not even knowing there’s caps in lowsec too. Please educate, then at least you can spread educated higher quality tears.
I read your point and you sound like a politician defending a a bad idea…Here we go,
- large corps/alliances will have minimal risk transporting cores
- When structures are getting popped as a source of income, demand will go down
- keeping the NPC prices the same, will put looted cores at a value between the Buyer and seller prices
- I don’t recall reading about any meaningful changes to Wardecs, so they are still just a hunting license
- You are not really giving players a choice, besides bounty their own station or unanchor it
- Forgetting Keepstars in ANY class WH shows just how poorly this was thought out
- In any update in the past where ship requirements change CCP always bumped player skills so a ship the flew yesterday, they could fly today, This time, they are saying Your station worked for the last couple years, but not tomorrow
9 Likes
What is even the point in this ?
Is it to make citadels more expensive ?
Modifying the BPO requirements would be faster… and it is not like you never did it : the Battleship production changes, 5 years ago I think. The price was multiplied by two. But instead of telling us beforehand, you can do it by surprise so to avoid any overproduction at the previous cost…
Is this to make citadels more subject to be destroyed, as they will loot something at all cases ?
This will promote the bashing of small corps structures in high-sec/low-sec, not the large ones in null-sec. Totally the contrary of what should be done. Did you seriously think about it ?
Seriously CCP, this is bad concept. Stop before destroying small entities any further, they DON’T need it.
6 Likes
Can I have Tritanium activation lotion ? I allways thought that this pesky Tritanium was too damn cheap! 100 ISK to lube up 1 Tritanium unit so it fits Indy slot better.
Also, I really think that catalysts are too cheap to can we have “catalyst quantum core” for 15mil isk ?
Those should be more expensive cause, you know, reasons.
Oh and don’t listed to those trolls crying about sandbox, player driven economy and free market. Those are just basic selling points and philosophy of this game for past 15+ years. Time to move on into bright future of CCP managed market.
1 Like
Time to move on into bright future of CCP managed market.
This won’t have any impact on the free market. The price of structures will still fluctuate. The point of the update isn’t to increase the price of structures, it’s to create an incentive for them to be blown up. It’s one more way to ensure that structures remain used and not turned into space trash that people have to grind through to remove. Killing a structure will always feel useful now, because there’s a guaranteed payday at the end of it.
Looks like we got some attention. CCP troll division striles back ! 
I haven’t really expressed my thoughts other than what I said on Trash Talk Tuesday last night.
I am still processing the changes and reading feedback.
1 Like
this is one of those ideas you face palm at and say wheres the wet kipper to beat seance in someone
QUANTUM CORES 100% drop different size for different stations this creates more problems than it solves once sold that’s it every one has them its self repeating rich get richer
eve needs isk sinks and shipping risk and rewards one size core brought at set price each station requiring a different number of cores to online if you want incentive mechanic then un-anchoring or destroying creates a component part for each core 4 to 5 parts = exchange 1 fresh core thats an extra reward and a healthy isk sink if its a revenue thing just sell the cores directly and be up front about it
If a structure is powered, the it is likely being used and not space trash or bait. The abandoned state was a good idea, i wondered why you just didn’t do that in Kicking Over Castles. This is nothing more that a means for big groups to stomp small groups for profit.
6 Likes
Not trying to imply anything about you or the CSM members in particular, but it sounds strange given the extensive reviews with the CSM cited by @CCP_Rattati.
2 Likes
There are two big issues with this change.
Yes, it makes things much harder for small groups and easier for large ones but I do think that’s CCP’s intent, whether stated or not. So arguments on that front are unlikely to matter and the name calling back and forth about whether that “playstyle” should be allowed are just normal forum noise.
What I don’t understand is why CCP wants to deflate the economy in significant ways. Once again, I don’t think they’ve thought this through. Sure, a bunch of isk will be eaten up in the short terms as people add cores to their structures…but what happens after that. A few things.
- Some structures get unanchored and put on the market (deflation)
- Some structures get blown up and not replaced (because corps decide it isn’t worth it).
- Once that happens fuel prices drop (because there are fewer structures).
And by the way, this won’t increase ship destruction (which is inflationary) hardly at all. Bashers don’t generally want fair fights, they want the loot from an unfair fight…nothing wrong with this but it doesn’t create real pvp destruction just structure bashing.
So this change is going to be massively deflationary over time to the Eve economy, the very opposite of what CCP says they are trying to do. Again, I suspect they haven’t thought through the second order consequences and we’ll be treated to a treatise on that at some point about a year from now.
3 Likes
I’m going to guess you either don’t own a station or you have a large force backing you. No, i don’t think it is a human right, but it would be nice if CCP would pry their lips off the asses of gankers and mega blocs for a change
5 Likes
And if they came with the idea of just having one type of core to fit all, you would have cried just how unfair that is because a small structure will drop a 500m core and a big one will too and small structures are easier to bash but drop same core as big ones and this is so bad on small corps because buh buh buh and all is so unfair bad CCP bad for solo guys with structures bad unsubscribe bad CCP.
NaCl so guut again.
CCP…
You know that players in HiSec also have wallets ?
We can vote with them.
5 Likes
Then don’t just talk, do.
you are doing stupid actions again. You will lose players again.
this is not new content. this is utopia. and you destroy the game