Siege Green - Structure Updates Now Avaialble for Testing

[Arrendis]

@Tien_Tien

The real ‘problem’ however is nullblocs can’t get enough F1 dudes to go through the armour timer (no killmail).

Feythabolis disagrees.

[Plato_Idari]

I’ve been thinking about why there isnt this problem in high-sec.
There are many groups like this, but as an example there is an organization in high-sec that appears to mostly move around high-sec looking for undefended structures and war decing the owners. They appear to have a fairly standard Drek fleet which is almost certainly just two or three people multi-boxing that they use to knock over medium structures. Some quick math suggests that they make more than enough doing this to plex the accounts. It would also appear to be sufficiently fun for them to keep doing it for years.

Why can’t the big null blocks do the same thing? So many easy targets in one system would be a gold mine!

Perhaps the income of doing so is so much less than what line members can make on their own that they’re not willing to do so?
Perhaps they’re not willing to risk the fleet to a drop or gank defending the structure?

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Blood_Ivy

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…)

This is the “simplest solution?”

Really?

I think the simplest solution is what Aurora has already put out. This one is convoluted, includes a bunch of extra changes specific to these kinds of structures that shouldn’t apply anywhere else, includes changes to the blueprints to increase costs, and does nothing about existing structures for at least the first two steps and the 4th one makes these things way more powerful than they should have any reason to be and that’s the exact opposite of what needs to happen with citadels, which is why they’re getting nerfed in the first place.

@Lauralite_Anne_Brezia

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.

Dracvlad seems to think they’re too expensive as it is. If you’re worried about sustained losses, then drop a larger structure that’s more defensible and gets three timers. At some point, the cost will be the same.

@Arrendis

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.

It doesn’t, because I think “if you can’t replace it, don’t drop it” is a fundamental thing that every group should be considering when they decide to get into the structure game.

@Blood_Ivy

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.

This still does nothing to deal with the problem of existing structures.

You guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels here.

[Blood_Ivy]

@Tien_Tien

The real ‘problem’ however is nullblocs can’t get enough F1 dudes to go through the armour timer (no killmail).

I believe the “real problem” is that these systems are so little populated that no one really notices or cares if there are unknown m-structures anchoring. As far as I am informed there is a 24h-anchoring-timer at least (and longer if there is a higher activity-index) and at the end of this timer there is a time window in which the structure can be destroyed without any reinforce modi. Correct me if I am wrong, please.

So the “solution” would be to goddamn check your own space at least once a day and send a response team within 24h to any attempts to online a structure in your space. Shouldn’t be that hard for an alliance that wants to “own space” to have actually people living there that could drop a message to ally HQ “hey guys, there is an unknown astrahus anchoring at xy-1234, coming out of anchortimer in 5 hours!!!”. Or is it?

[Arrendis]

@Brisc_Rubal

This still does nothing to deal with the problem of existing structures.

You guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels here.

I notice you leave out the ‘just give them a limited fuel capacity’ in your list of ‘doesn’t address existing structures’. Because that seems pretty simple, and would quickly force existing, unused structures into Abandoned, while structures that are getting actively tended would stay fueled.

Sure, it’d mean more work for bigger groups with lots of medium structures, but that’s the whole point of a large group, isn’t it? Larger groups means more people among whom the work can be divided so it’s never truly onerous.

[Lauralite_Anne_Brezia]

@Brisc_Rubal

If you’re worried about sustained losses, then drop a larger structure that’s more defensible and gets three timers. At some point, the cost will be the same.

So your saying we should just accept a catch 22 exacerbated by these changes. ‘You can’t sustain multiple losses over time, so get a larger, bigger investment, and the cost sustained is the same/similar’ but at the same time also makes us(metaphorical us, as in smaller groups generally) a more appetizing target to be punched down on because ‘oh you’re a threat now! ■■■■ you for trying!’

[Plato_Idari]

Again people will pay concord for the privilege of traveling 20 jumps through high-sec just to knock over one medium structure.

What additional incentive do we need to give null sec to get people to behave the same way?

[Tien_Tien]

@Blood_Ivy

As far as I am informed there is a 24h-anchoring-timer at least (and longer if there is a higher activity-index) and at the end of this timer there is a time window in which the structure can be destroyed without any reinforce modi […] So the “solution” would be to goddamn check your own space at least once a day and send a response team within 24h to any attempts to online a structure in your space.

You’re suggesting this to the alliance that invented the concept of ‘denying content’.

Removing the timer it is!

[Kenrailae]

I think the point is to not kneejerk react and wreck several classes of players out of the game because there are too many structures right now, and instead devise a more moderated approach that will see them decline, but still leave them viable for the people who are actually using them.

[Arrendis]

@Tien_Tien

You’re suggesting this to the alliance that invented the concept of ‘denying content’.

Brisc is in The Initiative.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Arrendis

I notice you leave out the ‘just give them a limited fuel capacity’ in your list of ‘doesn’t address existing structures’. Because that seems pretty simple, and would quickly force existing, unused structures into Abandoned, while structures that are getting actively tended would stay fueled.

Sure, it’d mean more work for bigger groups with lots of medium structures, but that’s the whole point of a large group, isn’t it? Larger groups means more people among whom the work can be divided so it’s never truly onerous.

I’m fine with that change.

[Dracvlad]

@Lauralite_Anne_Brezia

So your saying we should just accept a catch 22 exacerbated by these changes. ‘You can’t sustain multiple losses over time, so get a larger, bigger investment, and the cost sustained is the same/similar’ but at the same time also makes us(metaphorical us, as in smaller groups generally) a more appetizing target to be punched down on because ‘oh you’re a threat now! ■■■■ you for trying!’

Absolutely that.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Lauralite_Anne_Brezia

So your saying we should just accept a catch 22 exacerbated by these changes. ‘You can’t sustain multiple losses over time, so get a larger, bigger investment, and the cost sustained is the same/similar’ but at the same time also makes us(metaphorical us, as in smaller groups generally) a more appetizing target to be punched down on because ‘oh you’re a threat now! ■■■■ you for trying!’

You’ve said this a few times, but I don’t know how realistic it is. If you don’t have a cap fleet, then just having a Fortizar isn’t going to make you guys a “threat.” It’s just a Fort. If it costs more and that means you’re more likely to defend it, than that’s a good thing - that’s part of the issue here, where stuff is so small and cheap that its not worth defending so folks just don’t. Plus you get all the benefits of the larger structure, it’s increased capabilities and defense, and you get three timers. Yes, it’s more expensive, but that’s because Fortizars are actually priced properly.

[Tien_Tien]

Tbqh after giving it a good thought over the past week or so at this point I am probably more in favour for something like this happening just to see the reactions afterwards.

This thread has had a few readers but nowhere as close as a significant fraction of the player population, nor do I believe the opinions here are good representation of what players would think immediately before or after the change rolling. I don’t follow podcasts either so idk whether this has been discussed elsewhere. It will be interesting, for sure.

[Lauralite_Anne_Brezia]

@Brisc_Rubal

Fortizar isn’t going to make you guys a “threat.” It’s just a Fort.

To you, perhaps, but its not so much about if its true or not, and more about the justifications people will use to punch downward.

Examples to give, SNUFF and SC., among others. SNUFF in particular don’t care if you’re actually threat, but they’ll sure as hell use it as an excuse to punch you in the 'nads with their fleet, changing it from ‘lol I’m bored, lets RF these guys’ to 'HEY! They’re actually trying! ■■■■ ‘em.’

[Arrendis]

@Brisc_Rubal

I’m fine with that change.

Ok! So it seems we have a simple change that would achieve the objective without ruining the gameplay of small groups, then?

@CCP_Aurora—Would this somehow fail to achieve CCP’s goals? What are CCP’s goals beyond ‘a balanced place in the ecosystem’, and what would a balanced place look like? Is it just ‘we’re not getting nullbloc FCs complaining on r/eve’, or is there some criteria we can look to achieve?

[Blood_Ivy]

Problem with that suggestion of him:

The moment we drop a Fortizar in our little hole there is a BIG FAT glowing sign to all the eviction specialists out there “LOOK THERE COULD BE CAPS! LOOK THERE IS LOTS OF LOOT!” (and even if not, a nice 10b Killmail).

The one thing that protects us, our ‘invisibility’ and ‘insignificance’ is gone instantly and our Forti will not live long enough to even pay for itself. Anyone who really tries to understand other’s points of view could see that with ease.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Lauralite_Anne_Brezia

To you, perhaps, but its not so much about if its true or not, and more about the justifications people will use to punch downward.

Examples to give, SNUFF and SC., among others. SNUFF in particular don’t care if you’re actually threat, but they’ll sure as hell use it as an excuse to punch you in the 'nads with their fleet, changing it from ‘lol I’m bored, lets RF these guys’ to 'HEY! They’re actually trying! ■■■■ ‘em.’

And they don’t do that if you’ve got a system full of Astras and athanors and an operating moon mining set up?

[Arrendis]

@Tien_Tien

This thread has had a few readers but nowhere as close as a significant fraction of the player population

That’s because, according to CCP’s metrics, the vast majority of EVE players never bother to engage with the community at all. :shrug: So when there are changes they don’t like, they don’t complain ahead of time because they’re not aware of them, and they don’t complain afterwards because there’s really nothing they feel they can accomplish… they just leave.

[Arrendis]

@Blood_Ivy

The moment we drop a Fortizar in our little hole there is a BIG FAT glowing sign to all the eviction specialists out there “LOOK THERE COULD BE CAPS! LOOK THERE IS LOTS OF LOOT!” (and even if not, a nice 10b Killmail).

Honestly, as soon as there’s a fort in LS/NS, most groups assume there are caps, because why else would you need a fort?