Quantum Cores - Updates begin 8 September

[Salt_Foambreaker]

Quantum Cores is just a lame idea to make up for the core design mistake of Asset Safety which removed too much risk.

I’d rather have no Asset Safety on my structure than this, at least that way each corp controls what they are willing to risk which is how EVE is supposed to be played. Also that means you never know what will drop. A pre-priced drop is just dumb.

These devs are sandbox amateurs, we are nearing a point where they will have ■■■■■■ EVE up so bad that even a new “real” dev team couldn’t fix it.

[Arrendis]

This doesn’t impact Asset Safety.

[Salt_Foambreaker]

*whoosh*

[Flanidia]

@CCP_Rattati

Player made Quantum Cores do not have the desired effect as they will be industrialized and built on site with no added logistics risk. Nullsec alliances will now have to distribute Quantum Cores across space from the NPC station where they bought them. A new risk for them.

Nope. Not a material risk…at least they don’t see it as such

@CCP_Rattati

More destruction of Citadels will mean more demand for industrialists

Not when they are not replaced. And I’d guess in hi sec and j space the majority of them will not be…which also affects fuel, etc, etc, etc.

@CCP_Rattati

We made changes to Wardecs fairly recently, and if Highsec wardeccing becomes oppressive, based on data, not anecdotes, we would certainly want to act

Define “oppressive based on data” please.

@CCP_Rattati

We are giving players choices, do you fortify with structures that will fall into enemy hands at a cost to you and a benefit to them, or do you forego tethering/ship repairs&fitting because that was not your intent and purpose of the structure

Only true for current structures…new ones won’t have this choice.

[Arrendis]

No, I get that you’re equating the ‘now there’s a reward’ with ‘because Asset Safety kept it from being profitable’, but let’s face it, Cits replaced Outposts, which never dropped anything, anyway. All this talk about replacing towers? I dunno, we’re still seeing towers out there.

But towers wouldn’t repair you. Towers wouldn’t let you buy insurance, or swap clones around, etc etc etc. Towers reinforce once, not twice. These things aren’t towers, and they’re not being used as if they were only towers. So when you’re evaluating them, comparing them to ‘the tower dropped loot’ is just silly. They’re spammable Outposts that blow up, and Outposts never dropped loot.

[Flanidia]

@Brisc_Rubal

I do not think we have enough information to really speculate about what the long term implications for gameplay and the economy are here. If you held a gun to my head and demanded I take a guess, I’d say they’ll probably be negligible.

You mean like this one?

[Arrendis]

@Flanidia

Not a material risk

The risk he’s envisioning is to the logistician, the hauler who has to schlep the core out there… but they already had to do that with the fitting. So it’s not a new risk, and it’s not an appreciable increase in risk, either.

[Flanidia]

Completely agree.

[Salt_Foambreaker]

Having Asset Safety, a design mistake, CREATED the problem they are trying to solve.

[Arrendis]

I mean like this one, which Dunk linked up-thread.

tl;dr: They are burning down the house to kill the spider.

The change will cause corp & alliance logistics team headaches, leading to some consolidation of structures in a familiar form of “weaponized inconvenience” that we have seen with Ansiblex relocation and Abandoned structure states. People like me who do this kind of work will complain, but much like the other changes, the job will get done and the organized groups will continue on unscathed.

I’m not against change or some version of the Quantum Cores, but the proposed implementation is unlikely to create the results expected by the Dev Team.

Personally, I’d rather spend alliance ISK on blowing ships up rather than on paying a retroactive tax on maintaining the status quo as most larger groups will do.

The change will lead to fewer structures in space and further incentivize players to concentrate in space and travel less. Again, the optimal strategy will be to join larger groups for better protection from attack.

As we have seen with other major changes intended to create conditions for conflict, this will likely fail to do so as well. Scarity has failed to create conflict. Nerfs to supers and capitals have put fewer targets in space, reducing the ability of “hunters” to find prey, continuing to reduce people fighting in space. Mining has moved in dramatic fashion to minimal risk High Sec space.

Or this one from Brisc:

@Brisc_Rubal

Again, let me be clear - I am not sold on these changes at all. The more I read and the more I hear from people the less I like them.

[Arrendis]

Apparently, the problem they’re trying to solve is offensive structure spam during nullsec wars. Asset Safety has absolutely nothing to do with those structures, as we normally don’t actually run around stuffing ships into them.

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. The incentive and reward for attacking structures will be increased and the chance of both sides showing up to fight is also increased.

Increased incentive to attack structures is an afterthought.

[Flanidia]

Not sold on and not a big deal is hardly an indictment of changes.

But nice of you to defend you friends…that’s a good thing.

[Flanidia]

And Dunk is no longer on the CSM. Brice is the only CSM member who has posted

[Arrendis]

He’s not saying it’s not a big deal. He just said he doesn’t think the ‘worst-case’ scenarios would come to pass. They usually don’t. Believe me, Brisc tends to view any change and the impact it has on EVE’s players as a big deal. But he’s a lawyer, and a politician. If you ever see alarmist or panicking statements from him, or something more emphatic than ‘Really? Come on, guys’, that means there is something akin to a literal planet-killing asteroid less than a week out. The dude’s just that chill.

He didn’t even get visibly upset when he was drunk on Open Comms the weekend after CCP screwed up and banned him from the game because Penif trolled Killah with ‘Brisc leaked’ nonsense.

[Flanidia]

Well negligible is a word that has meaning. Perhaps he didn’t mean it to mean what it says in the dictionary. I have no idea. I can only take his words for what they are.

You could be right but I have no reason to believe that you are based on what he has written in this thread.

[Arrendis]

Well, you also need to take into account that he said ‘the more I read…’, meaning he hadn’t (and probably still hasn’t) made up his mind yet, and his opinion on this is still subject to influence by rational, well-articulated analysis from other players in this thread. Because again: that’s who he is. That’s his whole gig, and how he puts food on the table: listening to people, figuring out their concerns, and then trying to make things work for them.

[Flanidia]

I appreciate the perspective. You know him and i do not so I should give you (and him) the benefit of the doubt.

But, even if he were to decide this was a big deal, I don’t think CCP is going to change their mind on this. Their summary halfway up the thread shows they aren’t in listening mode but in defense mode.

At least we agree this is going to fail to meet their stated objectives and make things worse at the same time (unless you are a high sec station basher of course).

Take care and fly safe

[Arrendis]

@Flanidia

But, even if he were to decide this was a big deal, I don’t think CCP is going to change their mind on this. Their summary halfway up the thread shows they aren’t in listening mode but in defense mode.

They’re still a month out from requiring these on the newest structures. They have time to figure out how to implement. There’s a week, still, before the MacGuffins even go on the market.

[Flanidia]

@Arrendis

They’re still a month out from requiring these on the newest structures. They have time to figure out how to implement. There’s a week, still, before the MacGuffins even go on the market.

I’m not saying they couldn’t reverse course. I’m saying they show no inclination toward doing so.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Flanidia

But, even if he were to decide this was a big deal, I don’t think CCP is going to change their mind on this. Their summary halfway up the thread shows they aren’t in listening mode but in defense mode.

One of the things I’ve come to see lately is a bigger push for data and metrics based decision making from CCP. I do expect they’ll fix the wormhole volume issue, but I expect the rest of this will go through as it is, and CCP will monitor what the adoption rate is, etc. If it’s not what they wanted, or what they expected to happen doesn’t happen, then I can see them making changes down the road.

Arrendis is right - I don’t tend to alarm easily, and as with most changes, even with this kind of impact, I don’t think it’s the end of the world. The EVE player base is resilient, and they adapt quickly. I expect that will happen here, just like it has with previous “big impact” changes.