none found
Play like a californian…forced to pack up and leave cuz of manditory oppression.
I don’t solo to start with, that’s not my issue here. I’m not even in a small unsupported corp - we can actually weather this via our corp plus alliance plus coalition.
If they want to stop solo operators running structures, that’s fine - require a minimum number of players in a corp before a structure can be deployed. Scale that number with the size of the structure. Simple. But that’s not the point here.
My issue with the patch isn’t solely (yep, I’d prefer not to choose between paying the ISK and having shiny new targets on our structures, or losing services that we rely on - I don’t see the point in an “all negative, no positive” proposition for anyone, myself included) self-serving - my issue is that I think it unfairly impacts on small groups/corps - it’s the proverbial “baby with the bathwater” or “using a nuke to kill an ant”. This isn’t the same as introducing new high-end content that only big groups can access - I have no qualms for that at all, it’s actually necessary in order to keep longer-term players involved (hence level caps gradually rising over time in many MMOs, otherwise players quit once they’ve “won the game”).
This has a disproportionate negative impact on people it’s not even targeted at (a dev outright said it’s at least partially to stop structure spam at the high end of town, “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.” is a clear indication of that), and certainly against the people who can least afford it. Will this stop the behaviour described in my quote - almost certainly not - those who can deploy structures haphazardly are already clearly not isk-constrained.
I am raising what I believe is a legitimate concern with the proposal, and have actually offered a variation as a solution.
As for using my ■■■■■■■ common sense - that’s exactly what I am doing. The solution presented doesn’t actually address the problem as described - it has a bunch of negative impacts, but no real positives that I can see.
3 Likes
That statement will be under another fundamental rule of quantum physics: if you turn your back to your audience they will be a superpostion of all allowed quantum states. if you look at them again, all will be frozen in one or other of the states and behave in the classic mechanics way. Therefore they must all be Schrödinger cats and you their herder and breaker of quantum behaviour 
.
I’m sorry, quantum physics behaves like a strange attractant and I simply couldn’t resist 
. The simple truth is that not even quantum physicists, to their own admission, understand quantum physics. They gave up trying to understand it, somewhere in the '50s.
It’s a pity. You two good people @Arrendis and @Anderson_Geten locked in that arm wrestle contest agree more with each other than you realize. But you’re locked in entanglement, with one upspin and one downspin, as quantum physics dictates, every time I turn to observe…
2 Likes
You know you are on the EVE forums when …
Quantum physics is being discussed
System: user Schrödinger_Cats has entered the room
4 Likes
How does removing structures for small groups only impacts everyone the same ?
This change (remove structures from small groups) is LESS fair than removing structures from HS.
No it does not.
The goal was not to propose a correct change, but to prove that CCP can make modifications that benefit more smaller groups than bigger groups.
I don’t claim people won’t adapt. I claim the whole “ALL changes will be beneficial for bigger groups” is BS… The example I gave is literally crafted for that only goal : if CCP made the cost of declaring wars scale enough with the members of the corp, then bigger corp would literally have to pay more, therefore to benefit less, from a war.
Even if you want to split it among its by the members : make that cost becomes 2^#members M isk to declare a war. one man corp will pay 2M isk, 10-man corp 2B, 20-man corp 2T, etc.
Here it’s OBVIOUS that bigger corps will have LESS benefit from the change than smaller corps, even if your share the cost among members.
It’s also obvious that this is a stupid change, but the point was not to propose a correct change but to prove CCP is NOT bound to make changes that benefit more the big groups. That was the only point, to debunk one of those stupid ideas.
Here the change is DIRECTLY giving a bounty of x00M on EACH structure. That’s ALL it is. It’s just giving an additional reward to people who are already in a position of being able to coerce the others.
That’s just complete retard BS.
2 Likes
You hit the nail on the head. The first part of your statement will be a likely outcome of the QC introduction. The second part of your statement points at a situation that has amazed me since coming back to the game: the amount of HS structures with all sorts of powerful capabilities up to moon mining, something impossible with the starbases (sticks/towers) before Upwell.
As I posted yesterday, there are inherent design flaws deeply embedded in the Upwell system. One of them was the choice not to have Small structures that resemble the starbases but to shoot straight for the medium Upwell structures, another flaw was to enbable Tom, Dick and Harry to have at least a medium Upwell structure. The third was to allow them to be deployed virtually anywhere.
Now for the juicy part. The devblog pertaining to the QC’s doesn’t mention any of this. It talks about structure “spam” but puts it in the context of (what we players call) tactical actions: “Deploying structures haphazardly to bait opponents is often seen by many as a good strategy” (last paragraph Consequences and Stakes). The word haphazardly points at a new flaw, one of biased reasoning. The only structures that are really spammed are the deployable tiny ones, that are of no real consequence, not Upwells.
Again, I expect this will prove to be a “fix” for a non-existing problem of “structure spam” (I never got an answer why simple deployment anywhere was called spam), with dire consequences to small groups, especially in hisec, with or without pushing people into the arms of the large blocs, affecting market prices, playability and enjoyment of relative freedom in the sancbox, even social fabric within the game (small group viability).
I am in no way convinced that there is a problem of structure spam.
I would, however, tend to agree with structure proliferation after they (ccp) made the deliberate choice in 2015-16 that allowed, by comparison, structures more advantageous than starbases in hisec space.
If this “fix” is an attempt to get rid of at least a large portion of those Upwell structures in hisec (which I think is the more realistic purpose and certainly a likely outcome), then they’re concealing it because it would create an outcry.
And I haven’t even mentioned the fact that if players are not allowed to construct those new QC’s via bp’s it’s just a double isk sink … Somehow this feels like us paying double for a regrettable design mistake made years ago.
1 Like
Another example that would not “benefit more larger groups than smaller ones” : give the possibility to use your alts inventory instead of NEEDING to make a corp. THEN industrialists CAN actually join a corp without being stolen their BPO packs.
But yeah CCP is not interested by fixing their own system, rather go ■■■■ people because “they did not fuel their structure” or “because they don’t want to join a bigger group”.
As I already wrote, I am not actually advocating against HS structures. I am saying, the patch is WORSE than removing HS structures.
If I had to choose between this patch and the plain removal of HS structure, I’d say remove HS structures. Also remove wars at the same time since they become irrelevant.
(but I don’t have to choose and maybe I’m wrong, I did not give it much thought since that was not the crux of my point)
I agree there, as it would fix quite a few things. But they let the cat out of the bag 4.5 years ago and to revert it now in one fell blow would be bad for ccp’s business. This all feels a bit too much like a choice between “voluntary departure” and “forced layoffs”.
And however much I love this game, its devs, its publisher, I do have to say to ccp, if you insist on calling this a measure that will affect nullsec structure related gameplay, try playing your own game, join one of the groups that matter when it comes to structure deployment and bashing, and learn from the best …
1 Like
@CCP_Dopamine I have heard from so many small high-sec corps now and they are very afraid that this will destroy their gameplay. Many have already unsubbed. Since the big war-dec corps will now have a huge incentive to knock down all their structures without them being able to do anything about it.
Counter arguments I’ve heard
They can hire mercenaries?
Yes, but to hire a mercenary army of 30+ people a few times per month will cost many billions and being at war all the time will not be a gameplay that most high sec corps would want to engage in. So they would rather quit.
Why can’t they just use NPC structures?
There is huge pride and joy in building and managing your own structure and setting it up the way you want it. So it’s technically not about the isk, it’s much more about the building aspect that’s gone.
One of the absolute best things about EVE is that it’s a game that welcomes so many different playstyles and I think that this patch although well intentioned for low and nullsec will have a huge negative effect on high sec gameplay.
The popularity of games like Minecraft should tell us a lot about how much people love to mine and build their own stuff in games. I do agree that there should be risk involved in expansion, even for high sec but I think that the risk should somehow be connected to the expansion. Meaning, the more you expand the more risk you voluntarily take on. At this moment, a guy owning just one Raitaru will take on as much risk as a bigger high sec corp that owns 10 in terms of quantum core drop chance.
7 Likes
You can do whatever you want till you encounter someone who thinks otherwise how your gameplay experience should look like.
Sandbox EvE in nutshell.
1 Like
Why didn’t CCP just do as they did with pos’s. Limited anchor points. I.E. moons
and starbase charters. The need to mission and gain Loyality points, or buy them from the market cut down on spam.
Limited number per system made it too easy to lock down a system with POS. You had to break one of theirs before you could bring your own in etc.
Charters weren’t the worst idea but only impacted on Empire space, the worst ‘spam’ is in Null, not Empire space.
And CCP couldn’t come up with a better idea than this. What about storms damaging/removing structures. What about the trigs blowing a few up.
So instead of a player controlled mechanic that introduces new tactics & gameplay around structures… you want it to be a pure RNG gamble as to when your structure blows up that you can’t influence?
And you have the audacity to call CCP’s idea bad…
1 Like
With “quantum cores” CCP is making a precedense.
Precedense of artificially “adjusting” PLAYER DRIVEN MARKET prices of something that they feel like is not priced correctly. What will be next ?
We are playing EvE Online, sandbox, space mmorpg or “The Price is Right” ? (oh wait apparently it is not right)
It is amazing to me the things that people will quibble over.
In principle i like the idea of power cores “quantum cores” it fits well in the game narrative i believe they should be the same size eg 1 core rod is 5000 m3 and costs 200 mil isk each station power core requires different number of rods to activate the power core this fixes wormhole over-sites and makes shipping options this also allows ccp to easily move the posts of cost by changing + / - number of cors or cost easly as powered stations are powered it only effects future on-lining
i dont believe they should drop this is the un-healthy thing about the idea
the reson is
1 deploy station
2 station is at an initial abandoned state till it has an active power core
3 station power core active goes into power cycle and 15 min timer starts and needs an activly fueled module to stop it going low-power
4 when a station goes low-power it has those restrictions
5 at x time it hits abandoned state the core dies and station becomes little more than a docking box modules and bays locked the only thing to bring out of state is re-powering by filling the power-core with rods restarting a 15 min timer
this would go some way to stopping station spam and create an isk sink that the game desperately needs and will effect every one equally
with 100% cores dropping i just see core farming high-sec small corps as the main feature October to January as they install cores
“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”
-Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law
3 Likes
Um no. That’s how you kill a game even faster. For better or worse CCP made a game that was THEIR vision, and ppl may say it’s dying, or dead (which they have said now for over a decade) yet EVE still manages to be one of the longest running MMO’s in history.
2 Likes
So when wardec corps were mass deccing and had been for a while, that gameplay shouldn’t have been taken away from them?
What about the players that liked to AWOX?
Canflipping?
Old moon mining?
Hyperdunk?
Hellcats?
Taking away gameplay that is detrimental to the wider health of the game is something that has to be done. Get over it.
Small groups are already ‘locked’ out of several areas of the game in the same way. Any small group must accept that using big tools comes with big risk. If they are not willing to mitigate that risk by joining other people then that is their choice.
So you’re saying make structures even more expensive?
But it does via the market. It does whenever you use tech 2 gear or use a structure.
There is no opt-out button. So if you don’t prepare for it, that’s your choice.
That’s sweet but this isn’t minecraft.
It’s not your sandbox. Its not their sandbox. That’s the speech of entitlement.
It’s our sandbox. A full time pvp sandbox. You can build a sandcastle and i can kick it over.
Trouble was, building was too easy and kicking was not worth it.
2 Likes