Aren’t they? Their potential for future growth is definitely impacted, and the more decentralized a group like ours is, the more some of our people go looking to screw with ‘little guys’. As it is, we tend to not go screw with the little guys.
Overall, I’d say in the long run, they’re gonna be impacted too, yeah. Keep in mind, I never said we were talking about the immediate effect of changes CCP can make. And that’s not me trying to dodge or evade anything, either—you demonstrated w/Brisc that you’re reading things in that simply weren’t said, and then insisting that your inference has to be taken as the only correct one, even if the author had no such intentions in mind.
OFF-TOPIC: Also, whoever is going through and spamming my notifications by pushing messages on incredibly old threads from 1-2 likes to over 100, kindly smeg off. It’s a single click to dismiss all 75 of the sudden notifications I got, so you’re wasting more of your time than mine.
I still think it is absurd, next time you do this define what you mean by better, and properly define the groups. Like many Americans you have no idea of the major difference in Europe between the different peoples.
The only reason I would ever include nullsec entities in this discussion is to point out that it was done to stop certain behaviour in nullsec. However my point is that it is making hisec way more fragile and ultimately less interesting. From my perspective hisec has been utterly screwed by the last three changes to structures all based on the needs of nullsec balance.
My POV is simply this, if CCP can adjust the rigs to give more benefits on the same rig and the same structure for nullsec then can do the same in other areas. This one nullsec size approach to structures results in hisec which is a completely different area of the game getting screwed and ruined.
And throwing that ridiculous Malcannis law around anytime you can gets tiring.
But if you are Italian your ignorance on the major differences between European states surprises me, to stick them all in one socio economic group like that when I defined Switzerland as better than France surprises me greatly. Anyway massively off topic…
Still waiting on CCP to release the other half of this blog that explains why it is better for me and my group to accept the increased risk on our citadels and not just relocate to Perimeter and Iyen-Oursta to avoid the hassle that comes with this announcement.
Your going to have to offer me some kind of benefit or home field advantage in order to make me want to buy these proposed cores, otherwise its just more economic to use TTT resources and have my group mothball our citadels until its worth it to bring them back out.
I’d offer a picture of my Italian birth certificate, but we’ve already had people talking up Fox News, so that’d just get… trippy.
Anyway, yes, this will screw highsec. And I don’t see it, in the long run, really making any difference in null. I mean, a 30B ISK payout? Between the 1000+ players who go after a Keepstar? So that’s what, a payday of 30M ISK each? @wheeeeeee! Such incentive, y’know?
There had to have been better ways to achieve whatever CCP’s goals are. @CCP_Fozzie keeps telling us they want bloodier fights. @CCP_Rattati said this is… uhm… giving players choices? Like, he didn’t actually say what the purpose of this is. He did say it’s definitely NOT an ISK sink, because it’s all buying/selling at the same price… so I guess structure spam? But for the most part, null structures are there because someone has a use for them. All the low-power ones got blowed up already.
I guess he thought this was somehow adding ‘risk’ to the logisticians for null? I mean… it’s not like they don’t have to bring haulers with the structure’s fits out there already, so this doesn’t actually add ‘a new risk’.
Mostly… it seems like they’re adding this just to make something more complex when it really doesn’t need to be, and they’re telling themselves this will cause all sorts of incentive to shoot structures, when… yeah, no. Bringing an extra hauler along to structure bashes… Meh? Nobody’s bringing an extra JF unless they’re already in control of the space. A DST for a potential 4B ISK payday? Maybe… just as likely they’ll just blow up the wreck to deny the owners the chance to recover the core. Again, depends on who actually controls the field, and how solidly.
All in all… I dunno, like I said: it seems like more complexity for the sake of complexity, and that’s… that’s bad.
Thanks for the clarifications. I admit I’m stumped on what exactly CCP is trying to accomplish, then. The only concrete statement I have seen from CCP that explains exactly what problem they are trying to address is this one, from the blog:
It should mean something every time you place a structure and every time you destroy one. At the moment, that isn’t always the case. 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. By placing an ante in the core of every structure in space, the amount of structure spam will be reduced.
If it seems that strategic/bait structure spam is not going to be prevented by this change, then what is the definitive problem that CCP is trying to solve with this change?
I don’t mean this in a dick-ish way. I’m legitimately confused as to the goal. I thought I understood what CCP was going for from the original blog post, but that does not appear to be the case. I don’t want to be confused about a change this major.
Is this the definitive problem CCP is trying to solve? Structures aren’t blowing up enough? If it is, that’s fine, I just want it to be clear. And if it is the definitive problem CCP is addressing, can we get more details? Which structures aren’t blowing up enough? Is there a target level of destruction CCP has for null, low, high, and J space? Do they have a desired lifespan for any given structure by size/purpose? Can they share those targets with us, and how far away we are from those targets? Is CCP just aiming for an overall level of churn no matter how hard you work, or is the intent more that player agency is insufficient currently in determining these values? Does CCP have specific expectations for how safe/unsafe structures should be for solo vs. small vs. large vs. bloc sized groups?
You may be 100% right about what CCP thinks this will do.
But trollceptors couldn’t possibly have ever been a thing, either, you know? (CCP isn’t always so hot at actually understanding what will happen, as opposed to what they want to happen).
5 man corp doing 30 canes a month? Holy crap, no miracle they would be in trouble.
If cores manage to make this poor blokes not setting up a structure, its actually helping them a lot because they don’t waste the few bucks they got on it.
Is this how all these safezoner corps are on average?
Agreed looking at this from a business standpoint I see no reason to take on more cost/risk without a reward or bonus. For my group its not about being a snowflake and having a sandcastle its about what is economic and cost effective.
We setup citadels because we could configure the rigging the way we wanted and avoid taxes it was also convenient for us to be next to our desired trade hub. Sure we have had to fight a few wars in order to keep what we have but we never had a legit target on our backs.
I just need CCP to give me a reason to buy the cores / take on the risk and not to reconsolidate and relocate our business.
You get to keep your structures operating. Is that reason enough for you kids?
Good?
Cool, let’s give a monopoly of these Cores to the huge nullsec alliances that have trillions of ore stockpiled since “Rorquals gone wild” back in 2016.
Well that’s the thing; @Brisc_Rubal mentioned that he does NOT think that is the primary goal for this change either. So I’m just left confused because that suggests the goal I derived from the blog is not the same goal that the CSM is hearing.
Sorry to feature creep, but @CCP_Fozzie and @CCP_Rattati… What you might be looking for could be helped with something like the following.
BPCs for these things from the mentioned Corps. 5 runs with appropriate values.
Instead of thinking 1 core, think 4 Types and multiple units in each structure. So say the Keepstar needs the Citadel type cores, and it needs 1000 units, and they are all 500m3 in size. When you build a structure you actually now need some meaningful hauls to turn the bugger on. When the things die its not just a ninja item for someone like CableUta to swoop in and steal but more like a Murder of Crows carrion fest. 100 cans with 10 cores in each.
Make the Cores recycle into 2 types of items 50% is the source materials on The BPC, and the rest is something like Nuclear Waste that is bought up by NPCs.
With this you get granularity and many of the same issues addressed.
And Please for the love of god to counter the incentive to kill mom and pop shops, think about finally fixing fueling based on activity and going back to limited industry slots and queues.
Now, to be fair, this is just my opinion and Arrendis’s opinions, we don’t know for sure that this won’t reduce structure spam. We won’t know until after it’s been implemented. I just don’t think it will.
What this does do is provide a guaranteed payout to whoever destroys a structure, and that has value. One of the biggest complaints about the structure grind is that other than a killmail and maybe some salvage, there’s no financial benefit to doing it, so it is just busy work in the minds of many players.
Structures were far, far, too cheap and safe that the original design idea of renting out station services as gameplay was dead-on-arrivial. The market was such people were just giving away free access, and the rates people were charging were basically the minimum increment the UI would allow. The market determined their services were valueless as any Tom, Dick or Harry could deploy their private Upwell.
Now, with more cost and risk, there might actually be a real market for Upwell services. Already fees were trendng up after the last Upwell balance passes, but maybe with another push, being a space landlord offering public services will be lucrative enough to be viable. Probably, the cost indices also need a tweak making it more punitive to pile into the same system/structure, but we are at least moving towards a functioning services market.
Overall, nice work CCP. We’ll see how this works out in practice, but glad to see ‘putting some skin in the game’ is something that goes beyond nerfing wardecs. I do feel this probably means any cheaper FLEX structures you have on your roadmap maybe should be prioritized to fill the gap left by your jacking up of the costs here for a basic deployable structure, but otherwise you keep showing us you are serious about reinvigorating the competitive game.
