Thanks for the reply. All I’ll say is that it’s quite clearly not the end of your Eve world and it quite clearly will be the end of some people’s. Every change probably fills that condition but it would be nice if this had a hope in hell of accomplishing the stated objectives as an offset to the problems it’s going to cause
I’m somewhere in the middle. I doubt I’ll unsub over this change, certainly not before it goes live but it could blow up our corp and that would be a very sad thing for me for a lot of reasons that I don’t need to go into.
If, as you say, CCP is trying to be metric driven, it would be nice to know what metrics they actually care about other than subs. In this particular case, if the metric they care about is null sec spamming, I think we both know this is going to do nothing. If the metric they care about is large scale hi sec PVP, it’s very likely the same, at least after the first couple of weeks. If they care about the economy, they are likely making it worse, not better, at least from the perspective of industrialists.
Anyway, I appreciate your engagement in the thread. And I apologize for attacking you earlier. This is, in my view, a preposterously stupid change. I rarely post on the forums but this got me out of my chair. From my pov, it’s a pretty existential threat for my corp. Some will say that if that’s so we shouldn’t exist , but I think they need to hear from the people who they don’t think about every day.
Take care and fly safe. And good luck with any communications you have with the powers that be
@Darkholis_Virpio
I have spent the last couple of weeks monitoring the activities of local structure bashers. And then providing occasional janitorial services. The two most profitable clean-up jobs by far were in HS islands. The difficulty in later getting some of the loot to market eg fitted exhumers floating in space, etc is prob part of the reason these debris fields were left so intact in first place.
In contrast, at least a couple of structures, bashed by the same corp as involved in the above, dropped noting. In fact, if you look at actual “structure drop”, not general debris, I’m not sure that a single bash in the last couple of weeks ever dropped as much value as one of these new cores will now guarantee. Of course, these structures were almost certainly all abandoned, which is a very different exercise to bashing a fuelled structure. But it will still be real interesting to see if this guaranteed bounty alters the business model of existing abandoned-structure bashers. The betting seems to be that it will. The unknown is just who/ how many (more) will get bashed as a consequence.
Actually why not have this as an option for all structures, even new ones:
You should have that choice, I could live with that as long as I have the defences to defend the structure which is doing indy, so all defences and other options work. And it gives a reason to remove ganker ones that they tether from which was one hell of buff to ganking by the way.
You made a good point.
Most hisec indy players would forgo tethering, ship repairs and fitting rather than fork out so much ISK for one of these cores and making it a loot pinata. Or maybe CCP can make this option only possible in hisec seeing as the issue was nullsec
Well it stops it them being placed in nullsec as a base and jump station without the quantum core. One can argue that tethering is rather over powered. Though watching Capitals bumping around medium structures was rather funny, and people dropping fleet and safe logging before they left tether was always a fun race.
Let’s apply your own logic then. Perhaps you have no business claiming control over nullsec space if you can’t prevent or remove random structures from being anchored in your area. From THAT perspective, this patch is just caving to a particular group of players that don’t want to work to keep what they claim. If the game mechanics allow it, why should the game cater to you? Get a fleet going. Destroy the offending structures, spend the time and money to keep your space under your control. You have the numbers and the resources to do so. What’s the problem?
Considering the stated aim is to remove some nullsec structures. The idea some of them get blown up. doesn’t upset me one bit. The quantum cores idea that could damage hisec industry even more than it is does.
The problem with your reasoning is that you’re saying that you’re entitled to make wealth without restriction, and the PvPers are entitled to lose wealth without restriction. But that can’t work, since PvPers need to be able to make wealth in order to be able to lose it.
So you’d have two groups of players: one group that makes wealth and never loses it, and another that makes wealth and does lose it. How exactly is this fair? You have an obligation to contribute to EVE’s economy through exposure (not a guarantee, just exposure) to loss, just like everyone else.
We need to be careful here. It’s not an ISK sink because it does not take ISK out of the game forever. It does put it into stasis, but at any stage of your choosing, you can shut down your structure, take the quantum core back to the NPCs and get your ISK back.
IKR. Imagine actually caring about the differentiation between an NPC owned station and a player owned structure in terms of the services and capabilities, and then being sure to use the correct names for each so as to not confuse people.
Yep, gotta agree with this. Player bases always know what they want, rarely know what they need, and almost never know what’s good for them.
That doesn’t make the devs all-knowing, and doesn’t mean that the players don’t know when something’s pretty damned broken, but just pandering to player desires is a great way to enter a death-spiral. I’ve seen it happen over and over again in MMOs over the years, and one of the pleasing things about Eve is that it has not gone down that path.
It actually isn’t that bad now we’ve had a critical aspect explained.
If you have an existing structure and choose not to install a Quantum Core, all you lose is the tether/repair/fit services. You do NOT lose the existing shield/armor/hull reinforcement timers, you do not lose the ability to add/remove service modules or add/destroy rigs.
For systems with existing structures, you won’t be able to simply chose just any structure in a system for docking and fitting/repairing or tethering, you’ll have to be a little more judicial in your selection.
What’s more, given that it will be pretty easy to tell if a structure has a core in it or not by either looking at the structure browser or simply by docking to check (or watching others dock/undock to check), it will be obvious to a structure bounty hunter whether or not a structure is going to drop the 600m - 30b item or not. Those existing structures that don’t have a quantum core won’t be any bigger a target than they are now, and the loss of services is pretty minimal and manageable.
Any new structure needs a quantum core or it never comes online - it’ll actually be cheaper to deploy than a fitted/fuelled station, so it may be cheaper to spam than currently, but it will be able to be killed on a single bash - here’s an actual ISK sink for the game. A new structure with a core in it will cost ~double the current price to bring online, and will have the loot fairy target painted squarely on it, and so will require REAL defensive effort.
I still dislike the fact that structure owners are being asked to make a choice between reduced service for their existing structures or paying a lot of ISK up front AND putting a target on their backs, but at least they do not lose existing defensive capability if they choose not to pony up the ISK, and they do NOT end up as a bigger target than they are now.
Someone above said that CCP’s biggest issue with this was their comms - I think that’s actually a pretty good point. Clearer information (or a variation - “existing structures will need this droppable new module to run tether/repair/fitting services, all new stuctures will require it to even come online” would have set a very different tone for the discussion.
@CCP_Dopamine
Wow…
Way to make the structures accessible for the small groups CCP.
Which super ‘unbiased’ Designer who would ‘never abuse his position to further his own or his friends playstyle’ came up with or green-lit this super ‘non-biased’ idea?
Please note that I am not implying favouritism, doing so would be a violation of the EULA/ToS. Just saying that between all the CCP scandals and all the ‘in your face’ lies from all levels of the organisation(Hi Hilmar, greed is good my friend), it isn’t exactly trust of CCP that keeps me around.
Imagine you purchased a house(build a structure), refurnished it (put in rigs) and moved in (store ships in it), now the person who sold the house came out saying “Hey, you need to pay more money if you want to live in here!”
You said: " But I already paid for the house and spent money refurnishing it!"
He said: “If you don’t pay more, you house will be burned down, because of blablabla mechanism!”
It’s so incredible that CCP make this terrible decision without any compensation. If they insist in this new mechanism, I suggest every existing structure should be given a quantum core or player can unanchor and freely replace their existing structure rigs.
, but I think they need to hear from the people who they don’t think about every day.
