Nope. It’s exactly what you say: a modest additional cost, and a modest incentive to PvP. The complaints are entirely from angry PvE-only players who treat any sort of disruption to their no-PvP existence as an unacceptable offense that will surely destroy EVE.
Two timers! Two!
Shield is not on a timer.
And I believe some of them only have one timer don’t they or did they scrap that idea? I’ve not had to actually defend a structure, just a few blue ball form ups.
Sorry, I meant you have to attack it 3 times, so 3 separate engagement commitments, assuming the structure is properly managed. And if it is properly managed, then you’re not getting any loot from it aside from a week’s worth of fuel and ammo. And the fitted modules drop, I guess? For a low-end station, odds are that they’ll be cheap. It’s just not worth it to pop a station right now unless you’re doing it out of principle.
I’m actually excited for this change. Gonna see if I can put a new crew together for wars.
FIFY…
People sweettalking and applauding ccp’s self destruction with the destruction of eve online obviously show to the world how less of a clue about what is happeing here those people actually have…
But again…it will be MY fault because i said it…
Dam will i be glad not seeing some of you in the future…
You are more salty than you should be if you were absolutely sure that i’m wrong…
And check the cut…not whole of your rant is seeable… 
Beside of that…typical standard fanboi reaction…nothing to see here.
Go away…
I don’t mind encouraging blowing up structures, but the implementation seems awfully blatant. It doesn’t make sense that whoever engineers the structures in game just added a “feature” of them being more expensive for no reason. It’s also kind of lame to rely on NPCs to make the cores.
I’d suggest that they be player crafted. Make them require some mats found only in the long-neglected low sec maybe.
And they should actually do something to make the story of why they exist make sense. Maybe they add the ability to fit a module that hosts L4 agents in the structures, or allow scanning from the structure, or something. Or they come in a lot of variants where one boosts missile dps, another improves resists, another improves manufacturing efficiency, some expensive faction versions, whatever. Like implants for your upwell structure. Or maybe they are necessary to support some crafting process related to the invasions. The premise that somehow the NPC engineers forgot how to make guns auto defend after POS’s, and then just realized that they now need some useless, expensive module to do what they did before without it, just seems pretty clumsy.
Throw the station owners something too so they aren’t only annoyed by the change.
2 Likes
Bad move CCP.
If you ruin the game for hundreds of small groups and corporations, you will have less subscriptions than citadels.
5 Likes
I like that idea. 
Have you considered a job at CCP? Please?
Sometimes we need to just handwave the IC side of things for the sake of the game. Balance changes like this are that sort of thing. Obsessing over ‘does it make sense IC’ is just silly and is what causes eternal power creep which invalidates everything not included in the creep. Not to mention power creep is one of the key theme park mechanics rather than sandbox mechanics.
I can understand the Change.
Because many of the players dropping an cheap Athanor / Raitaru somewhere and left it alone…
But …
would it make more sense to put a machanik in the system to take over the control of an Citadell ?
like in the old games, shoot it into 10% Hull and then you have the option to gain acess to the station if its abandoned ?
You’ve been saying “EV IS DYING OMG” for years now and it hasn’t been true, why should anyone take you seriously now? EVE worked just fine for years with only NPC stations available, so even if this results in the total inability to put down a station without being in a major alliance EVE will be just fine.
Dam will i be glad not seeing some of you in the future…
Please stop threatening to leave and do it.
1 Like
The trouble is - the wars you will be fighting to get the Quantum core drops will be against the newly anchored stations, which (except for the larger groups trying to establishing monopolies - and probably be too big for your war) will mostly belong to newer players.
There is a reason online game companies provide for a type of virtual ownership in game - psychologically it aids with player retention, a home to work out of for a small indy group has a unifying effect that cannot be replaced with paying others rent to use their services.
These players probably cannot defend their home, yet they buy one because they know its not worth that much and it’s low reward profile affords a little safety net- but they own it, it’s theirs.
This change means new players will have a little less ownership in the game, a little less investment to encourage them to stay.
6 Likes
they feel entitled to own assets beyond their capabilities just so they can feel like they own something.
You will need to provide evidence of that. All of my direct observation on the matter leads me to conclude that new players are not buying stations, mainly because they can’t really afford them. It seems that “new player” is used as a catch-all term for anyone doing industry in high-sec, and that reasoning is massively flawed.
Then they shouldn’t be investing in one. It seems like a harsh thing to say, but it’s simple, common sense. And if “it’s not worth that much,” then there’s no issue anyway. They can just keep buying citadels over and over again until they either learn to defend themselves and their assets, or move on to a different set of activities and aspirations.
What exactly do you want me to do? Do you want me to stop being a pirate?
1 Like
However, this lower retention will only apply to people who aren’t very well suited for EVE and probably won’t stay very long anyway.
Exactly - an investment in the game, an entitlement to ownership of something visible to others in the game, something to encourage them to continue to play - this is tried and tested game design mechanic.
and … Lets face it these were not assets beyond their capabilities as proven by the many solo/small groups that own structures but now a bounty has been placed upon them and their low value that was an effective defense for the undefendable has been taken away from them.
1 Like
You’re entitled to own it, but not to retain it. Retention has to be earned.
That’s not what “defense” means. When game mechanics are stacked so badly that it makes no practical sense for someone to perform a certain action against you, you haven’t “defended” anything. You were merely protected from it.
“Defending” is active, and “being protected from” is passive.
This logic actually hurts you more than you think it helps you.
If they can defend it then, they can defend it now. If you’re complaining that you are somehow unable to defend a structure because of this change, that’s your problem, and ultimately, suggests that you don’t deserve hold one.
Edit: also, where are all of these “new players”, who don’t even understand (or have the skills to start) corporations going around and anchoring structures willy nilly who will be hurt by this change? Seems to me a disingenuous attempt at a “think of the children!” type argument but with no evidence or support to back it up. 
1 Like
Of course making everyone a winner and pandering to their sense of accomplishment is one strategy to drive player engagement. It is used by most games, and even was the standard playbook for CCP when it came to designing Eve for the last few years.
But it isn’t the only one. CCP could also design and market a challenging, competitive game as they did for the first decade or so of Eve. Even if that is partly an illusion and they appeal to player’s desire to play a challenging game that doesn’t hand you everything on a platter, they could go after that part of the gaming market. And that does seem to be the tack they are taking now.
The game will be fine. Maybe CCP does need to release some cosmetic player housing to fill the gap created by this change for the conflict averse. Or maybe even the added cost won’t be enough to measurably increase the danger to stations that the owners have no intention of defending their structure. Only time will tell, but just because something works, doesn’t mean there are not alternate paths to success.
1 Like