I actually don’t mind them raising the barrier to entry for new entrants. I get that.
The problem is them retrospectively doing so. They’re increasing cost and risk for existing structure holders, with no potential additional reward for them.
Exactly. There is no upside to this, or counter play/argument/design.
If this had launched with a boost to utility and scale downwards it would have been interesting. Like if it had added limitations to industry slots back to structures with the queue design. Because that would mean the bigger guys would benefit from offloading smaller jobs to the smaller guys. Outsourcing would become a thing, and those affiliations would bring both collaboration and conflict.
Same if they had fixed the flat dumb fueling models, so that it would be in the interest of the bigger guys to let the “if I mine it its free” crowds pick up load from the industry pipes.
Mom and Pop Shops should be part of the ecosystem, and not crushed with this kinda of big boys protectionism / barrier of entry. It reminds me of how Big banks pulled up the ladder from the smaller banks, and effectively gobbled up ALL marketshares in banking.
For new structures, this is Incorrect. Any new structure cannot enter shield mode without the core - it will remain in the “online vulnerable” stage with hull HP only and can be destroyed in a single attack.
What’s not clear from the blog article is whether existing structures will maintain their existing timers or will also lose those.
“The final phase for the rollout of Quantum Cores will see some basic services that all structures offer become disabled until a core is installed. Without a core installed, ship fitting, tethering, and ship/module repair services will be disabled. As soon as the core is installed into the structure, these services will become operational again. This phase is expected to go live in the December update.”
There is nothing in that that mentions shield/armor timers either way. We can’t assume that they remain just because CCP didn’t mention them in the update - we know they’ve already neglected to consider Keepstars in lower level wormhole systems, so it’s not like they’re immune from forgetting things. Has someone from CCP said otherwise in this thread? I don’t recall reading it, but if they have, they need to go back and update that blog post, because you/they can’t in all seriousness expect people to troll this thread (of all things) to find an answer buried amongst the crap.
EDIT: Found it:
This is good. But this needs to be made clear in the post that spawned this thread. I think doing that will clear up a LOT of confusion…
I like the idea, but its kind of boring, and is all take and no give for a demographic of players, If you make the core an item we will call a token, an indy player buys the token from the NPC, and uses it to build the core. When the citidel drops it, it could be reprocessed back into a token that can be sold to the NPC.
Gives a chance for people to make a small amount of isk, increases the mobility of the token, and will add somthing in the game for players to do.
Actually, there would be fewer Raitaru in space if rigs were not so specific.
It takes about 8 Raitaru to cover all items. Look at the TTT ones for example.
Then all those Raitaru could also be eliminated, if the rigs for large and x-large structures were not insanely expensive. Most Sotiyo and Tatara never have rigs for this reason.
So with two simple changes to structure rigs, a lot of redundant structures could have been avoided.
3 Likes
Will never work using that analogy in an MMO.
The Hurricane is a perfect example of this, it was nerfed because it was too good and made basically everything else in it’s class pointless. Your argument says any built before the nerf should get to be too good still. That just will never happen, gameplay > reality.
If it fits in a jump freighter, it completely negates any “logistics risk”.
You can fit a whole bunch of Astrahaus and Raitaru cores in a JF, which seem to be the target of this whole debacle (offensive spam in nulsec).
From past experience being on the receiving end, most of these spam structures are deployed by blockade runners and occasionally deep space transports.
2 Likes
They have been goven access to them and using them for a while and most industry has moved out of npc stations. I personally think lockkng an area of gameplay from small groups os bad for health of the game.
Pushing them to make a loss in their activities or filttering more isk in the game back to large groups is bad for eve. The large groups are the ones sitting on the isk thag needs sinking.
Hiring a pvp corp will cost more than the structure. The merc corps will also be likely the ones killing them.
Plenty of people arent, pvp combat isnt a mandatory playstyle. I have no idea how to do pi well or invention, but the game doesnt force it on me.
I dont consider it a “fault”. Thats how they play in their sandbox.
We obviously arent going to agree so lets watch what happens, but i think sadly this will be a huge blow to small corps that doesnt incrsase any risk at all to large war dec corps that already face little threat and make plenty of isk
2 Likes
But not for wormholers, who are affected by these changes in the same way.
CCP:
One of the guiding principles for the market in EVE Online is to keep intact how closely it mirrors aspects of real-world economics and financial markets. These principles are held firmly in mind when moving forward with any changes to the in-game market.
Also CCP:
*Seeds new mandatory items at ridiculous cost that no player ever will be allowed to manufacture on his own ultimately wearing down on anybody except the group it is supposed to be targeting*
1 Like
Except WH’s aren’t.
WH Structures were already loot pinata’s. So this just adds a bit of cost, and also a bit of gain for driving off an attacker and killing their staging citadels. WH’s is probably the one area of space where this works pretty well, hole control to kill their structure in hull, loot if they get it up and you drive them off, and not much more incentive to kill your WH structure since it already had loot far more than the core.
What other structures that players have invested in are Athanors/Raitarus/Astrahus/Sotiyos/Keepstars/etc making worthless because these particular structures are overpowered by comparison?
Exactly. Give people an incentive (more flexibility) to move in the desired direction (reduced number of structures) rather than belting them with a stick (spend more isk, increase risk, no reward) because they played the game the way it was presented.
here’s a boulEVErsement.
join the dissEVErment from ccp.
prEVEnt rEVEnue and see how they like aggriEVEment.
persEVEre in your EVErsion.
rEVEl in rEVEnge.
you will EVEntually, why wait?
You missed the point.
If current structures got to stay as they are while new structures needed the core, current structures would have a massive advantage over new structures. This would be bad for the game.
I didn’t miss the point at all. And I didn’t say that either.
I don’t actually mind the change as a gameplay mechanic.
What I dislike is slapping people with an ISK charge for it. Were people asked to buy a new Hurricane once the “rebalance” came in, or pay a modification fee for it that dramatically increased their costs and thus the risk they took when they flew it? No. The change was made at no cost (other than the impact of the change itself) to the players who owned them. As a Hurricane owner, could I pay extra for it to return it to the same functionality it had before? No - the change was made, and that was it. Nobody got to go back and get the functionality back at ANY cost.
One of the two biggest issues I’ve seen with the idea as originally presented has been clarified, and that’s good (no change to timer mechanics if the structure is already online). But forcing players to double their investment in an existing structure just to maintain existing capability? That’s wrong.
How would I do it?
We know they can change the fitting capabilities of entities in the game - the Hurricane was given as an example here. We know they can make items drop or not upon entity destruction - we’ve seen the drop mechanics change several times (including making previously undroppable items drop).
I’d make this thing a rig (or rig-like thing, which goes in a dedicated new rig-like slot in a structure). I’d place one in every structure that exists as of $timedate (and require placement as per the defined rules for any structure deployed after $timedate), with the same “you can’t remove it without destroying it” mechanic as rigs have today (meaning that existing owners can’t pull it out for the ISK, I get the concept of not wanting to add new isk to the game without a cost, and this prevents malicious removal by spais), but with a chance (100%, 80%, 50%, whatever) to drop on structure destruction - much the same as they did with implants during the PvP “implant drop” event. This would provide the benefit to structure bashers that they’re looking for (provides reward) without the unreasonable upfront cost for those who simply wish to maintain the same capabilities as before - the latter is important because the current proposal has disproportionate effective (actual cost compared with ability to cover it) costs to small operaters as opposed to large corps/alliances/coalitions.
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
1 Like
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
How does removing structures for highsec but not lowsec/nullsec impact everyone the same?
You’re delusional.
1 Like
word, you can block the 4 idiots who type just to see their own words. They’ll never hear what anyone says anyway.
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)