Just big LOL and BS…
I am a new player, and my first question in my head after reading first lines was allready “how about small WHs”. Am i better on thinking than entire CCP? LOL.
Not masses Sir, VOLUMES…
So how do you explain PvP gankers that only attack when they are guaranteed a win?
1 Like
I own several of the medium sized structures. For better or for worse, I’m not anticipating much that will affect me other than the added expense.
One thing that has always irked me about structures is the disparity in the cost of the structure itself vs. the unrecoverable ‘upgrades’ that are installed in it. Combined with the rigid unanchoring restrictions, it means that taking a structure down willingly is both forfeiting the lion’s share of your investment and fairly annoying. They were made difficult to remove on purpose, and you can’t tell me that doesn’t contribute to structure spam.
I think this change does hurt new players of all stripes, not just carebear types. A structure is a requirement for wardecs, and installing a core is increasing the minimum cost to participate in this kind of gameplay, at least if you don’t want your War HQ to go down in any 15 minute period your victims can find your back turned. An increase in the minimum cost is also an increase in the strength and commitment of an opponent capable of fielding those assets and paying the costs.
Eve has essentially fueled a split in the eve community, in my opinion, with changes like this one, and all with the best of intentions. Small, disorganized criminals are priced out of providing content to modest industrial groups. Industrial groups seek protection against foes they perceive they can not defeat, criminals organize into more powerful groups to compensate, and industrialists seek even more protection.
I do not deny this will have some effect on structure spam. Perhaps it will go some length to make situations in null more bearable for established groups who are annoyed by structure spam. Maybe it’ll clean up highsec as well, for as much as that matters. Overall, though, I think it will exacerbate an underlying fundamental issue that divides the player base clean in twain. It will further perpetuate the core issue that made Triglavians seem necessary to liven up a stale universe.
5 Likes
I don’t think that Keepstars are a good example to use, because these are strategic level targets that have built in incentives to destroy (the prestige of doing it, the denial of a base for easy, large scale super and titan operations in an area) and there are a lot of deeper decisions made about whether to defend them. There really isn’t a reason, in my opinion, to create more incentives to kill Keepstars. But even a Keepstar with no defense fleet still has some teeth.
I think where the most value of these cores comes in is for the smaller structures.
Since you said you are new, I’ll sum up the last few years. CCP doesn’t care about small independent Indy corps, they only care about mega alliances and cowardly PvPers. Until they start losing substantial subscriptions and costing them RL money, it will remain that way. Feel free to step in CCP, but i can defend my position
3 Likes
Ok, well, there is literally no way that’s a reasonable claim. Remember: there were only ever going to be 1 to 4 titans in the game. Between the time Steve was built, and 2016, if CCP learned nothing else, they should have learned that if we can make something, we will make lots of them. Keep in mind, the Palatine Keepstar that hasn’t been made would literally take multiple years of all of the PI in the game, and even then, they felt the need to put in the artificial ‘there can only ever be 1 of these at a time’.
So clearly, they knew we’d build as many of these things as we can. There’s no way that wasn’t going to happen. To claim that they were intended to be singular entities when the first Keepstar went down less than a month after citadels went in is just ridiculous. Especially considering they cost less than 3 fitted titans, something the large alliances already had in numbers much higher than 3, four years ago.
It’s a group of 4. Any group of 4 can be made to look sexually suggestive, if that’s what you’re looking for. And no, the 1DQ structures on the T5Z gate aren’t what causes lag when you jump in. That is far more a function of the 1-2000+ people in there at all times doing market trading, fitting ships, refining minerals, jumping in and out, etc etc.
See those 11 Keepstars you’re complaining about? That wasn’t easy. And they had to do that because going the short-and-direct way would’ve meant one of the invading alliances wouldn’t have had a supercapital fleet by the time they got 3 systems along their route.
Just because large groups have the manpower, experience, and organization to make things look easy doesn’t mean they were easy.
You clearly don’t remember Dominion sov, where that limit existed, and so did the biggest, most pervasive stagnation in EVE’s history. Once there’s noplace to put a new structure, there weren’t really a lot of ways to invade, unless you had massively overwhelming power and nigh-infinite ISK to replace losses with. Otherwise, you’d just get capitals dropped on your head.
Exactly.
Thanks for sticking your neck out on the forums, btw. It’s really appreciated. +10
2 Likes
Why the topic change? 
(i know why, because its like these discussions always go. I pretty much got a flowchart here for that already. See “bring silly excuses instead…” in my last post. Strawmen are included there.)
I don’t really think this matters. The effect on long-term, “good intentioned” structures is, ultimately, not super relevant. The only question that really matters right now is, will this design change stop structure spam as a combat tactic in bloc-level warfare? Fundamentally that seems to be what CCP is trying to address and all this discussion on collateral damage and unintended consequences is irrelevant if it doesn’t actually accomplish that singular goal. There are ways to tweak the system to lessen the negative effects but that only matters if the mechanic is actually going to work to accomplish the primary goal.
I haven’t seen anyone familiar with bloc warfare clearly state whether they think this change will stop/prevent structure spam as a combat tactic. And really that is the ONLY question that matters at the moment.
Way to duck the question. Care to try again?
And as I said, that statement is at best misleading and at worst and outright lie.
1 Like
Yes
That’s not what I meant by “enticing.” What I mean by enticing is there is no need to incentivize killing a Keepstar. They are targets that people want to destroy already because of their strategic value and the prestige and propaganda impact of taking them down. And yes, people have randomly attacked Keepstars because they’re enticing - we had no strategic reason for killing Hard Knocks Keepstars in Rage other than they were there and people claimed it couldn’t be done.
In the TEST situation, that’s not spam - there was a strategic reason for them to place those Keepstars the way they placed them. Is a Fortizar chain from highsec to nullsec to create a jump freighter route spam? No - it’s part of the reason why these structures exist.
As for the Delve thing, I agree with you there, that’s spam. So in one system out of the tens of thousands of systems in New Eden over the last four years there’s been Keepstar spam. I think it’s fair to say that this falls within the realm of “generally not spammed.”
The only thing you continue demonstrating is that you’ve got an obsession with me that’s unhealthy.
Which is a one time cost and has zero impact on your long term game play.
It’s fascinating that you fail to comprehend that few people are complaining about the cost of the cores but rather the long term implications for gameplay and the economy.
But keep ignoring those if you like.
Everyone that PLAYS the game is, it’s like at work when the office makes new policies and then the workers wonder where they get such potent crack
I expect it will make it less likely that you’ll see people attempting to anchor a massive number of medium structures simultaneously in hostile space, but anything strategic? Anything that we were already going to defend on the anchoring timer? Well, we were already going to defend it. So we still will. And since we can use DSTs for Fortizar cores and stuff Astrahus-sized cores in a cloaky/nullified T3C… meh. I don’t see this reducing beach-head spam at all.
If cost is not going to impact overall play, why not give all existing structures a free Quantum Core that is already installed and make it 0% chance of dropping?
1 Like
I said last night on Trash Talk Tuesday that I didn’t think this change would stop or prevent structure spam as a combat tactic, but I also don’t believe that’s the primary consideration here. I think it’s part of it, but it’s the part that’s least likely to be realized.
Alternate solutions?
-
Make it to where only large structures can be placed in null / or low? (NPC Anti pollution like reactors)
-
Limit the total amount of and types of structures that an alliance or corp can anchor, (Force Strategic Placement)?
-
Add a rando npc story line service fee that taxes an alliance or corp, also increases as more citas are anchored in a system with sec status as a multiplier? (Isk Sink)
-
Limit the number of structures allowed in a system or that an alliance can anchor at one time? (Spam Prevention)
-
Increase NPC aggression towards systems with lots of citadels. (Force small Corps to fight off npcs instead of getting glassed by large corps).
-
Too many citadels cause local blackout from over taxing communications resources similar to the blackout from a year ago.
Any of these sound good?
1 Like
I never said cost wasn’t going to impact game play. Just that that cost was marginal rather than the game changing issue
… and there it is.
There ought to be a rule for that, right up there with Godwin’s.
For the record, I started in w-space about a month or so after coming to EVE (Feb 2009, several weeks before Apocrypha which brought us wormholes, and the tutorial). I remained there for nearly 3 years.
I also did about a 2 year stint in nulsec, as part of two major alliances, while on-the-side living in rental-nulsec with some industry alts. During wartime, I received a corp award for being #2 in fleet participation, and rose to the point where I occasionally was asked to lead the logi wing in major alliance fleets. I don’t enjoy PvP without any objective, but I’m enthusiastic about PvP for defense, strategic, or even just vendettas.
While in nulsec, I helped create and run a PI buy-back program for the corp, earning many billions for the corp wallet and members wallets too. I also out-of-pocket populated and kept full with many items, a corp free-for-all hangar, even adding a ratting carrier to it. I built countless ships including capitals, supercarriers, and titans, for members at-cost or free if they had the materials already.
Overlapping with that, and since, I also occupied lowsec, doing industry there for many years too. So there really isn’t anyplace left in EVE I’ve not spent significant time in.
Nulsec is very anti-industry and even openly hostile to industrialists. A significant part of that hostility is because of the ‘faux’ industrialists, that are actually just AFK miners grinding asteroids and not actually industrialists at all. Because of them industry is considered to be equivalent to ratting.
1 Like