Just hide the posts that disturb CCP’s rosy glasses, right?
WOW… Just WOW.
This isn’t a forum, it’s a sales pitch.
Point is, that an Azbel is a way more attractive target, dropping a 3B core guaranteed and generating a MUCH higher killmail. So it renders the only way of defense for small corps (which is “being unseen, unimportant and unlucrative for the big guys to play with”) pretty much useless.
It also is a way higher investment for the small corp, nearly tripling the initial costs and even more the costs for rigs later on. Such a structure will therefore a) have a MUCH higher attraction to enemies and b) a WAY longer period to even pay off. Both combined is a drastic setback for smaller corps. For what goal exactly? To make the removal of M-structures a bit more convenient for larger alliances which are too lazy to prevent them from ninja-anchoring in their space in the first place?
3 Likes
I don’t think CCP’s actually allowed to put users on ignore, as it would impair moderation.
1 Like
Never lived in null but can someone outline what exactly ’ structure spam ’ means .
Why do people do it ?
What does it do that is so terrible ?
Any other information you think is relevant …
Thanks
@Brisc_Rubal add a shield defence to your list.
Structure spam can mean a bunch of things.
It can mean ‘people just dropping structures all over the system because they can and @wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee! I want to have my own thing!’ for example.
The meaning I most commonly associate it with in nullsec warfare is 'we will come in and simultaneously drop 5-15 medium structures in 1-3 hostile systems. This means the defenders have to try to kill them all within 15 minutes. If they fail to do that, then in (depending on ADMs) either 24h or 7d, they need to come back and try to kill them all when they come out of their anchoring timer… meaning all of the ones that survived that first 15 minute timer get another 15 minute timer.
How many locations can you attack at once? Remember: the attacker (who is defending these structures) only needs to successfully get one onlined and cored, and then they have someplace to tether up their fleets, dock their fleets, etc, as a forward emplacement.
It’s a favored tactic of some former bloc leaders who may or may not just be regular line members in other blocs after losing the biggest war in EVE’s history in disgrace.
The sense in which I think it’s being used here is far closer to the former ‘there’s just these damned structures all over the damned place, owned by people who aren’t using them anymore, or aren’t playing anymore, and they’re cluttering up my overview because the damned things are freakin’ freeports’ meaning.
5 Likes
No you don’t understand my post because it wasn’t aimed at members.
ISD hides/holds posts BEFORE they are published so that they can suppress the views they don’t like.
It just happened a few moments ago.
It’s ok. I didn’t expect more from this sensure team. They are proving my point.
Anyway, I just logged back in to reply to you. I like your posts. Respect.
ISD, sorry for the disturbance. I’m leaving now.
I would think that the ‘abandoned’ state of structures deals with that issue already (which removes all timers), which means it’s much more likely that any problematic structure spam people mention these days is not that kind of structure spam.
Except for the way I can drop 10 years of fuel into an Astra on day 1… I mean, ‘they stay fueled’ is part and parcel of Brisc’s complaint, you know?
3 Likes
Yeah a totally easy solution for this was named in the topic multiple times:
→ Change the fuel bay of M structures to an amount that can only last 30days. Problem solved.
Same for the other issue with spamming offensive structures from hostiles who want to establish an infiltration base:
→ Change the initial costs of the structure itself so “wasting structures” is a LOT more expensive for the “attacker”.
→ Change the repackaged volume, so hauling them in is a LOT more difficult for the attacker.
→ Increase the initial vulnerability window to more than 15minutes so it is a LOT easier for the defenders to pick them off on their anchoring timer.
Again, Problem solved.
There is simply no need to remove one timer, which would hurt smaller groups significantly. Or if you really want it, make them so tough that any attacker needs serious force on the first attack to even bring the shields down. Which means powerful automated defenses and a lot more shields. It is already a joke that “modern” Upwell Structures are by far weaker than an “old” well-armed POS.
5 Likes
I know, I was one of the people suggesting it. I’m simply pointing out to @Gerard_Amatin why the abandoned mechanic doesn’t currently take care of the problem.
1 Like
Also another ‘solution’ in the comments above was the invul being reworked to give resists and dreads being given ‘polarized’ (maybe not necessarily such i.e. so they don’t get their tank shredded) guns to hit through said resists. This also comes with them having to decide what types of guns to fit and how to deploy etc. That would affect null, low and high class wormhole space.
Or limiting the number of structures per system. Hard cap or via ihub upgrades or upkeep modifier based on structures in proximity (system/constellation/region wide).
Or create new modules for extra timers that require extra fuel. Maybe these mods can be fit only in specific space?
However, again, in my opinion this is an invented issue and not an actual one. Pretty much like AFK cloaking which becomes a psychological problem if you have local and can see the enemy. The combined neuroticism of the null hive mind however has come to the point of getting CSM ‘address’ it. Which I don’t believe is healthy for the game in the long run.
A hard cap means the defender can drop up to that limit of friendly structures, and never have to deal with a hostile structure popping up in that system.
I get the feeling you’ve never anchored an Azbel, nor lost one. I have.
I have pretty deep pockets, but almost 6x more the cost for an Azbel is not what I’d consider “cheap”.
Can’t even compare medium T2 rigs with large T2 rigs, since large are insanely priced. You won’t find them on the market.
An Azbel is also a much more juicy target with a 3b guaranteed payday, and will attract more unwanted attention.
2 Likes
I never put more than 90 days in anyway.
I did find POS a bit limiting at around 27 days (I think).
Maybe 45 days then.
2 Likes
A 45 to 60 day fuel limit sounds cool. That lets casual players be casual.
1 Like
Well from my industry point of view, for larger structures:
-
System indices must go, as they punish community building.
-
Rig material requirements must be reduced to sane levels.
-
Engineering Complexes and rig bonuses must be changed so that one doesn’t need multiple structures. It takes about 7 rigged Raitaru to cover all the bases (been there, done that, twice), and they will have larger bonuses than an Azbel.
-
Engineering Complexes and Refineries need to have defences equivalent to Citadels.
3 Likes
To elaborate on my own post …
When living in a C5, we had to wait for a random D792 or M555 (I think, it has been a while) to move a freighter through. We’d move PI and Sleeper stuff out, then fuel, ammo, etc., back in.
On average, we got about one of those random wormholes once a month.
When living in a C2, it was trivial with a hisec static.
With a C3, the goal was usually to find a C2, and go through it. However, C3 with a lowsec static were also popular with us to get stuff in and out.
C4 were more of a mixed bag. Back in the day they were less accessible though. We really liked to do sites in them for that reason, but not live in them. Our second C2 we lived in had a C4 static.
Maybe either more rig slots for the indy cits with more calibration or the rig bonuses could be moved to mid (or low) slot modules while increasing number of said slots (also giving a choice between industrial capabilities or having a full rack of jams for example).
Please don’t confuse an automated process that mistakes posts as spam as “ISD censure”. That is not how we operate, as CCL has a strict unbiased view to maintain our position as rules enforcers. If you think something is amiss, please get in touch with a member of CCL and we will assist as best we can. Thank you.
Back to topic.
5 Likes