So, just as a thought: What if you couldn’t?
What if medium structures had a fuel capacity similar to a large POS?
3 Likes
Only the tutorial and the career agents are the NPE, after that newbies are free to do whatever they want in this game.
I agree that CCP should give the career agent missions some improvements, but the rest of the mission system isn’t part of the NPE.
And I surely would not recommend a newbie to go that path, as missions aren’t really EVEs selling point and NPC interactions - in my opinion - are rather boring.
I don’t think I said anything about solo players in my reply, was that something you are using to justify your position?
It is not so much the ability to afford them, it is the ability to afford the loss rate when this change applies.
As for NPC stations, ten jumps away I am afraid.
Freeports, no way, I barely trust my alliance mates with my clones.
But I have to say that the loss rate with these changes will be outside our means, and utterly pointless because defence is not an option.
3 Likes
Yeah, the thing CCP’s been consistently told about their NPE overhauls is 'this is great and all, but once it ends, newbies slam head-first into EVE, and that is what needs overhauling to improve retention.
Missions and the rest of the ‘here is what you do once you’re out of the NPE’ desperately need an overhaul.
3 Likes
Solved!
So reduce fuel bay
increase base cost of Astrahus to 1.5bn
Ah, those expensive clones at going to be at risk with that. Still better than losing that timer…
1 Like
That’s true, but I think most new players focus on missions. It’s what you do in most MMOs, so they assume it is what you are supposed to do here. It’s probably the most accessible content for somebody who doesn’t know what there is to do.
I don’t dispute that. That is, actually, in fact, the point, that the players pushed it until it broke. Sure, CCP made the same mistake AGAIN, like they’ve done multiple times now, but players anchored the structures, just like players mined all the ores, just like players built all the titans, just like players abused combat refitting in the age of cat carriers, or T3C’s before that, and over and over again.
I agree that CCP did stupid that allowed players to do it, but in this case, it was the players that caused the issue with monstrous citadel spam. CCP’s major offense in the citadel spam issue is not learning from their mistakes for the 15 years before that and making them all show up on overviews and able to be anchored so close together. Trust me, I’m not willing to cut CCP any more slack than is absolutely necessary, but I can’t blame them for players actions on this one, only their bad system that either allowed or did not account for players actions. The two are interlinked, absolutely, but unlike a deal where CCP takes an action that directly breaks something(or does so through inaction, looking at you faction warfare), like boot.ini, or nerfing out the nomadic mercenary life with jump fatigue - because players abused cynochaining, this one falls more in the domain of the players.
Still, trying to split or argue this distinction is about like trying to decide if a color is crimson, maroon, or burgundy. Ultimately, they’re all a shade of red and so close to as make little enough difference in the whole scheme of things.
This is yet another good solution to add to the list of what are we up to now, 20 or 30 possible OTHER ways to solve this than cutting an entire timer/phase out of these structures?
Man, imagine if we did a full re-work based on the best of the suggestions. That’d be something wouldn’t it.
2 Likes
You were talking about you personally being able to afford things, that’s why I mentioned the solo player thing. I don’t think anybody here is arguing that Astras are not cheap, other than you. If a small group of players is having trouble affording a 3 bil structure, they should likely not be in the structure game at all. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I have read all your arguments here about this “problem” and it is beyond me why you don’t advocate for the simplest solution then?
Step 1: Make the (empty) structure itself a lot more expensive. Like 3B for an M citadel at least. Lower the costs for rigs and fitting modules on the other hand. So people who just like to spam empty structures as an annoyance would have to pay a LOT more, people who actively use and live in these structures with all the service mods and rigs pay around the same. Maybe a bit more, but thats totally okay.
Step2: Make them cost more fuel for the basic online status, but lower the fuel requirements of each service module. So people who just spam empty structures require MORE fuel than now, people who actually use them require around the same or a bit more fuel than now, but thats totally okay.
Step3: Have their fuel bay lowered to an amount, that M-structures can be fueled for max. 30 days. Whover wants to spam 20 empty citadels then, has to haul a LOT of fuel each month. Whoever actually lives in such a citadel can easily do one fuelrun per month.
Step4: If you want only 1 Timer like with POSes - make them actually beefy like POSES. Automated defenses and shield that make sure the following points:
a) the Citadel can repel non-serious attempts entirely on it’s own by randomly firing, jamming, neuting, pointing. So any small group of less than 5 well fitted and tough ships (except marauders or caps maybe) won’t even try because they can’t fire much, can’t establish a logi chain and so on. (like a good fitted POS…)
b) a non serious force cannot bring down the shields in a reasonable amount of time. So like a small or medium POS, we talk about a two-digit-Million Hitpoints on shield here. So the bored roaming gang won’t just shoot 10 minutes, they would need HOURS. (like a good fitted POS…)
Voila’ problem solved, thank me later.
4 Likes
I mean, you can also rep POS’s. Even while fighting.
4 Likes
Hi again Brisc, I believe you may have missed Drac’s points.
That being not about affording, but sustaining repeated losses.
If your argument then becomes ‘if you can’t replace it, don’t drop it,’ then that misses another point he’s made, being, that small groups can afford to replace them, but not in perpetuity.
5 Likes
If the argument is ‘if you can’t replace it, don’t drop it’, then that would seem to go against @Brisc_Rubal’s argument that his position is about unused structures—the structures people will replace aren’t the ones they’re not using, after all.
2 Likes
I am still bemused at the point you are making, you are obviously working on the basis of moons in your sov space as being funded at the alliance level because it is the income for the alliance. But the smaller groups don’t work like that, the Athanors tend to be individually owned.
I don’t think 3.7bn for a properly fit Astrahus is cheap. You do, which is fair enough.
The changes will make it so many small groups will be unable to afford to replace their structures which are now throwaway structures with this change, thus forcing them out of the structure game, that was my point.
That was the point I was making.
Pretty much that too.
@Blood_Ivy I like what you suggested, far far better than what CCP want to do.
1 Like
Which neatly circles back around to my grievance about being, potentially, acceptable collateral damage.
Thank you. There would even be another option:
Make them 60.000m³ (repackaged). So you cannot bring in multiple in one hauler and you cannot use Blockaderunners. You have to use a DST and one run per M-Structure. It would be quite some effort for someone to really spam a foreign region just for the lulz. Probably so much (including the fuel and cores) that no one will do it any more). Problem entirely gone.
3 Likes
Corp-level, rather. I mean, I don’t know how INIT does it in Fountain, but just cruising through Delve will show that most moons are split among membercorps, and mined by members of each of those corps.
Corp level would make sense for the big blocs then, thanks for the correction, I have no idea how the main alliance funds itself from that. Tactical Supremacy used to charge for the moon in their space a rental fee.
We are pretty simple, if we mine someone’s moon we just give them 10% of the ore mined as a tax.
Where do you think Fawlty7 learned that? 
1 Like
All great suggestions.
The real ‘problem’ however is nullblocs can’t get enough F1 dudes to go through the armour timer (no killmail). The solution is to remove it. All the other talk is fluff.
3 Likes
I agree they are boring for sure, and probably burn out a lot of new players before the end of the game. They are however, one of the best ways to make isk in otherwise relatively low income parts of the game–ironically some of the same parts that we know at least some SOV players doesn’t appreciate as having limited income potential LS, NPC-Null. There are the same places where 4 billion for a medium structure isn’t cheap and what some Sov-null alliances might see as “roach hotels” are the palaces for many small groups that live there. The same places where battleships are primary combat ships and dread something to be coveted because they can’t be replaced with the never ended respawning of belts etc. It’s all amazingly frustrating to read the disconnect and perspective.