Road to Fanfest - Structure Updates

Feature Previews & Feedback Balance and Mechanics
, ,
1

Greetings Capsuleers!

As you may have read in today’s blog post - we’re making a slew of changes to the combat power of structures with the goal of allowing for more variety of fleet compositions in structure contests. This is just the opening salvo of a larger overhaul of how structures fit into the ecosystem of New Eden - and I look forward to talking to you all more about the next steps in the process at fanfest!

Here are the specifics for the changes you can find now on Singularity:

Standup Point Defense Battery

  • Now requires ammunition to fire. You can find this new ammunition under the name of “Standup Flak Rounds I” on Singularity (name may be subject to change)
    • Damage per cycle reduced by 50% (250 damage of each type from 500)
    • Requires 200 rounds per cycle to fire
    • Reload time of 180s (new)
  • T1 has a capacity of 3000m3 (3 cycles before reloading). T2 has a capacity of 5000m3 (5 cycles).

The PDS was very limiting in terms of the ships that were allowed to exist on grid with it. These changes are aimed at improving the survivability of smaller ships on grid during structure contests, and creating windows of opportunity for them during reloads, while keeping the PDS useful for doing tasks such as clearing bubbles for coordinated defense fleets.

Standup Guided Bomb Launcher

  • T1 capacity reduced to 300m3 (holds 3 bombs rather than 10). T2 capacity reduced to 400m3.
  • Reload time increased to 60s (was 10 seconds)
  • Bomb radius reduced to 20km (was 30km)
  • Can only be fit to L and XL structures

The structure bombs were particularly effective in limiting the types of fleets which were able to successfully contest an armed structure, particularly for battleship which were most impacted by them due to their larger signature radius and slow speeds. This change will shift structure bombs into being more akin to tactical bursts of damage, rather than continuous pressure against fleets.

Standup Missile Launchers

  • Standup XL Cruise missile damage reduced by 50%
  • Standup Super-Heavy Torpedo damage reduced by 30%
  • All standup missile velocity increased by 50%

These changes are particularly aimed at reducing the damage a structure can deal to larger ships, which are generally a larger commitment on the part of the attacker. This will hopefully make it a bit more reasonable for attackers to consider putting small numbers of capital ships on grid.

Increasing the missile velocity allows the missiles to retain some use in being more likely to reach subcapital targets before they warp off.

Standup Arcing Vorton Projector

  • No longer capable of being activated against subcapital ships

This was primarily being used as a means of removing enemy fleet commanders, and with relatively little counterplay besides bringing extra ships for them to jump into after this happened. While this weapon can still bounce to subcapital targets, it needs to be fired at a capital ship to do so. This change should cement this terrifying weapon as being for anticapital defense.

Please use this thread to share feedback of your thoughts on these changes!

~CCP Aurora

12 Likes
2

p-o-double-g-e-r-s

1 Like
3

wtf I love ccp now

now just limit cyno jammers to 1 per system and this will be a convincing win for eve

4 Likes
4

Don’t forget the link!

5

I find myself… legitimately angry at most of these changes.

The astrahus is already essentially useless against most solo capitals, and of course as are the other mediums.

The bomb launcher did probably need the tone down, but seems a bit more than was needed

alright… XL missiles. This… doesn’t really do anything but make it harder for smaller groups to try to hit back against low effort eviction attempts in lowsec, this change was probably targetted at making nullsec defenses harder, but knock on effects will be felt, and probably have more impact in places that it was not focused on, than the intended effect area. Alright so… raitaru and athanor, never really expected to be able to stand up against that sure, but astrahus already are… well, barely worth having, and couldn’t even contest a solo dread when fitted in anti-capital configured. This just throws the balance even further in favor of those that already have stockpiles of large materials @CCP_Aurora .

as for the PD network, it makes sense that it’d be toned down, and the ammo req doesn’t bother me too much

I think this set of changes needs a much greater amount of consideration, before going forward.

4 Likes
6

Citadels have been content deniers for far too long, and I’m happy to have had a chance to work with Aurora and the rest of her team on this. This doesn’t represent all the changes I’d like to see, but it hits a lot of them. The end goal, in my view, is to make structures a force multiplier, but not a content denier, and not something that makes fleet fights on the same grid impossible.

9 Likes
7

The change will not touch null at all we have caps of our own.

And basicli all structures work as support already.

CCP basicli want structures to die to dreads cause dreads are now expensive.

Im already told many times that structure cost is to low. Problem iznt strucutre power but its cost make it more expensive and you get rid off all the cluther.

and before you start crying that you barely can afford the 1B astralhus then please go and learn the game. You can easili make several bill a day you just have to try and dont worry NO NO LIFE IS REQUIRED.

We are totali lay back corp and most of the memebers make 250+m isk /h easi they do it when ever they want by many ways… We are so lazy that we even try to go as far as posible whit out farming at all.

8

pretty much my point.

1 Like
12

This is just a bunch of BS stations in the game should be able to kill off small fleets. they don’t need a nerf they need a buff. You are just catering to big alliances and screwing over smaller alliances. The big alliances don’t need this nurt they can already deal with the stations. The small alliances are the ones that need help so they can defend off attackers and not just get walked over in their systems. Plz be realistic these station are big and should pack more of a punch. Stop nerfing everything so it is easier to kill give the smaller alliances more of a chance instead of taking it away you have already nerfed way to much and it seams like you only want big alliances to be in the game great way to kill a game just look at the other server where 1 alliance owned it all how did that work out for you?

9 Likes
16

I agree we don’t need to be nerfing the station im in a big alliance and we can kill them they need a buff not a nerf plz stop listening to the ones saying to nerf them because they don’t know what they are talking about

2 Likes
17

can we please increase the damage cap, at least on large and XL structures by 25-50%?

And get increased fuel consumption for at least moon drills and clone bays?

18

A keepstar should never be killed by a sub cap fleet it should take a capital fleet if your their with sub caps you deserve to get killed bring the right ships. Keepstars are meant to be powerful and need big toys to kill it

2 Likes
20

I agree with you we dont need thing easier we need them more challenging right now its not hard to kill a station. Stop nerfing everything to appease the few.Plz do more research before you do changes like this that just makes the game worse.

3 Likes
25

Keepstars are absolute cancer. They are not easy to kill with anything and they can store unlimited force inside of them with zero risk. Nothing other than undefended keepstars may be killed exclusively with subcaps following this change, but will bring in more subcaps to fights instead of the cancer of fighter balls.

29

I sorry i don’t understand how you think its a content denier. Lots of them die and create fight by others putting them down close to people so they have to form a fleet to remove it. Their is no structure in game that can’t be removed. I’ve killed a lot of stations and in my option they are not that strong. Are you trying to nerf them enough so 1 ship can kill them is that your goal??

3 Likes
30

you can read the description of what is in the notes, nothing in them changes anything about their killability

31

All in all good changes, hoping it makes popping structures easier in the future.

32

I can accept the damage nerfs, ONLY if you remove the silly auto-unlock with structure points, webs, and painters.

33

I think you are confusing the capital aspects with subcapital aspects of structures. PDSs were bad for keeping capitals locked down when committed to a structure grid. Their anti-cap weapons can also 3 shot most capitals. With these changes people can’t park subcapital fleet-repping FAXes on structures without risk now.

Now what needs to be addressed is the severely lacking subcapital defense structures are plagued with. A single bomber can reinforce most all small structures solo. I can, and have done so a number of times, multibox a 11 man fleet against fortizars. Additionally stealthbombers should not be able to ‘blink’ or have something to counter said ‘blinking’ strategy. I think something like below could work, albeit needs to be finely tuned as this is just a shower thought:

  • Extra Large Structure Role Bonus: Multi-role launchers get + 100% damage, + 30% tracking. Electronic Warfare modules gets + 60% cycle time. Neutralizer modules get + 30% to neutralizing amount. Electronic modules get + 300% effectiveness.
  • Large Structure Role Bonus: Multi-role launchers get + 50% damage, + 15% tracking. Electronic Warfare modules gets + 30% cycle time. Neutralizer modules get + 20% to neutralizing amount. Electronic modules get + 200% effectiveness.
  • Small Structure Role Bonus: Multi-role launchers get + 25% damage, + 7.5% tracking. Electronic Warfare modules gets + 15% cycle time. Neutralizer modules get + 10% to neutralizing amount. Electronic modules get + 100% effectiveness.

In addition the PDS should be given a secondary option of “anti-drone ammunition” but I’m not sure how that could be programmed without utilizing a lot of dev time.

2 Likes
34

My goal is to make sure that they aren’t denying fights, providing ways to easily and cheaply force fleets off grid without any kind of other response. One guy in a structure should not be able to stop a determined force from reffing it. Structures should be fought over by fleets, not one guy in the gunner chair vs. a fleet.

3 Likes