Fair flaw. Perhaps a limit to personal hangar sizes, like the POS module used to have? X amount of space for free, with the cost of space per M^3 getting progressively higher?
That’s not impossible with all the triglavian stuff.
and now I’m distributing it all between brand new alpha clones!
another problem with the ‘charge for storage space’ is that the smaller groups that last a long time might tend to wind up with larger caches per member (which, let’s keep in mind, is how the costs are ultimately divided up, because that’s where the alliance’s money comes from) laying around in old places they used to live, but can’t really get to for easy logistics anymore. Those smaller groups tend not to have a dedicated logistics crew to handle evacuating alliance crap all over the place, so things get left behind.
That’s not say there aren’t groups that skew the data—GSF, for example, is notoriously infrastructure-happy, and so we have a lot of crap laying around ahead of time. But the general trend, I expect, is that smaller groups, as they age, accumulate piles of ‘stuff’ just laying around a lot more per capita than the bigger groups do.
That’s probably less true w/asset safety now, and WH groups almost certainly skew the numbers one way or the other when they get evicted (because everything drops, so no stockpiles end up laying around), but I suspect the trend holds, just the same. Larger groups’ ability to extract their stuff and re-use it later means they’re probably more efficient in managing what they’ve got.
Heh. It’d be funny. 
What reviews with the CSM are you even talking about @CCP_Rattati. From what I hear you guys didn’t even want their input on the entire mechanic. So please don’t spread lies like you actually took into account what the CSM told you this mechanic would do.
3 Likes
That is not grand fathering. That is called a grace period. Grand fathering would be to mark them if they are down by a certain date to not need a core period. Stop confusing grace period with grand fathering.
You say this will encourage smaller groups to war dec other smaller groups. What you have failed to realize is nullsec will decide to oppressively impose their will on every part of high sec for the luls. I know the group I am with is already planning a section of high sec space to implement oppressive suppression on for every structure available in high sec. There will be so many wars, the war dec corps won’t even be able to defend them all. You think 100M ISK will deter us from war deccing entire systems of corporations at one time. It won’t. We hope to make this so oppressive to where high sec because the new wasteland of player base. If players quit over this change, then we won’t care.
This change will not increase the number of onlining battles. People will just make sure to have a core before putting the structure down.
This only serves as a deterent for smaller groups, who I hope you realize will suffer under the oppressive powers of null sec. Null sec can afford 100M ISK / dec for structures in a system, and can afford it for weeks on ends with just around 10 ticks of ratting per week. Not a very good mechanic if you intend to help the little guy catch up to the big blocs.
No one is going to want to live near a big null bloc either without getting a NIP or NAP, or paying for a NIP or NAP.
3 Likes
I don’t think you understand how many structures the big null blocs own. The people who get payout from TTT might not see their wallets increase for a month or 2.
Oh I do as I am part of a big null bloc. The amount of ISK we will have to pay is high. But what happens to the game when no one can put a structure anywhere but a starting zone? You think anyone is going to want to play a game where all the small guys are bullied by the large blocs? Are you seriously trying to defend CCP with this absolutely horrific change?
3 Likes
That doesn’t track. Abandoned Citadels won’t create more demand because their owners aren’t around to re-buy them.
Close to 400m/hr isn’t a great return? In a T2 Frigate?
Can you tell me where you’ve hidden the money printer? >.>
That’s kinda down to the people involved. Those miners can hire mercs if they have enough money, and if they can’t fight and can’t hire someone who can then they should probably have considered whether or not they should have set up a Citadel…
The problem is that not all C5 wormhole connections can take a Freighter, which is the only thing that can haul a Keepstar’s Core. It’s not impossible to get a Freighter into a C5, but it can be headache inducing and fairly complicated.
Structures aren’t really ISK sinks. They don’t have an innate fee, and buying fuel from the market only “sinks” the transaction tax, which structures actually reduce.
Also nothing about these Cores is an ISK sink. At best it’s an ISK store because the value doesn’t really leave the economy unless the core is destroyed in a ship and doesn’t drop as loot.
I think they meant a change that has a hope in heck of actually happening…
Also even then the large group is likely far more able to pay any fees, like say the fee for just being a large corporation or Alliance, than a small corp.
Just because you have fond memories of how Eve was however many years back doesn’t mean it needs to stay that way, or go back to that direction.
Also Outposts didn’t blow up, they just changed hands, so that cost wasn’t really comparable even adjusting for inflation.
Large groups are generally better funded and resourced, and I do not believe that these changes impact them equally as a ratio against their capability than it does smaller groups. Yes, the larger groups probably have more structures deployed - but that generally means that they can more easily absorb simply taking some of them down. A mid-sized corp may have one Athanor, one Raitaru and one Fortizar to maximise the benefit to their mining/reprocessing, industry/research and market operation capabilities (there’s no one structure with the right bonuses to maximise all of these) - for them to have to shut down (or lose) even a single structure means they lose efficiency at best, at worst they lose literally billions of isk worth of investment that was made under the existing rules. Yes, rules can (and should) evolve - but this isn’t an evolution, it’s a revolution, and that’s too much.
You’re ignoring the ability of each group to absorb/counteract that cost increase.
This has to be relative. Larger groups exist and thrive because the game mechanics make them more effective (elsewise people wouldn’t form them), and their ability to absorb these costs at the high end (alliances with 1000+ members) will easily outdo the ability of 100-member corps/alliances.
Nailed it.
I’d love to see the per-player real-money income for CCP mapped against the size of the corp/alliance they’re in (and/or the location in space they spend most of their time - high/low/null/wh). I’d be incredibly surprised to see large alliances directly contributing (ie by buying plex with real-world currency, or paying for subscriptions) more ISK on a per-player basis than smaller groups/inviduals - because those larger groups tend to have access to activities that allow them to plex their accounts with ISK.
Don’t you think you should actually start the war you’re already in, first? Been noticing a shocking lack of Voltron fleets lately.
It’s already present on every NPC rat in the game. Seems to work just fine there…
Caleb was actually referencing the player-to-player bounty system, which causes massive amounts of additional system lag in large fights because it’s calculated in real-time, on the node, instead of being offloaded to a different processor cluster to collate, total, and payout all bounties every 20 minutes, like the NPC bounties are.
1 Like
Yes, it’s “Massively Multiplayer Online”, no doubt. Congratulations.
But it is NOT “Massively Multiplayer You Must Group Or Fail”. Because frankly, not everyone wants to group up with people with shitty holier-than-thou attitudes…
3 Likes
Indestructable, yes. Free, no.
Stations are not structures. They are stations. There’s no player choice in the services offered or the price of those services.
1 Like
This.
If grouping was required, you’d not be able to log in solo. You’d have to sit in a foyer, waiting for a group to form, before you were released into the game world.
That’s not the case, and thus, acting as an individual is absolutely a valid gameplay option - especially if said player is paying their monthly subscription.
3 Likes
That’s ok, I don’t want to group up with everyone, either!
1 Like
It will not continue to exist just as it has before - it changes. Key services are now no longer available.
I go back to the car analogy. Sure, the $50,000 five-seater car I bought two years ago is still physically able to seat five, and it can still do 0–100km/h in 5 seconds, and stop from 100km/h in 34m, etc etc - but the government has mandated that unless I buy a new $50,000 item for it (which I am guaranteed to have fall on the road in a crash, where someone else can pick it up and run away with it), I am only allowed to carry two people, and to carry more than this is to invite penalty of non-compliance. The car is the same, the utility value has reduced substantially.
Even if I maintain compliance - I now have a $100,000 investment required instead of the $50,000 investment I already made in good faith, and I stand to lose half of it through no real fault of my own (particularly as now trucks can effectively legally run red lights).
1 Like
#nokinkshaming
Jokes aside, its tragic that CCP is deciding that structures is a medium to big groups only barrier of entry. Its even more so when considering that structures are really not even i a good profitability place atm. Everything seems to be focused on bruteforcing and N+1 exclusions. They really dont need to help with designs that forster that behavior, as @Arrendis has pointed out rather well, its a natural emergent effect of almost anything.
To paraphrase the reactions from the code/pirat/miniluv party going on right now: " Thanks CCP, but we really didnt need this much help"
If you want to fix proliferation and spam a much better solution would have been to look at fuel, upkeep, and initial costs of structures. The low powered state design kinda did its job on that, so just turn the knob further. Regarding the conflict driver to motivate the destruction, it would be easier and more effective to tweak things like Rigs costs and make them always drop from structures.
There are aspects of the Cores idea that makes sense and a has potential, but its a rather flat and once only added strain. As @Dunk_Dinkle said its a retroactive tax on isk and logistics only. Once paid it has little to no effect except as a loot pinata on little guys.
I really hope CCP reads this thread and take on some of the comments and suggestions and go back to the drawing board. If they do so and announce a couple of the related and long needed changes/fizes to the game, we may end up with something that improves the game, instead of just bandaid damage it again.
2 Likes