Siege Green - Structure Updates Now Avaialble for Testing

[Arrendis]

Is there a list of things that might trip the automated system that could be linked, so folks can avoid it?

[Tau_Cabalander]

@Tien_Tien

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).

Right now there are basically 2 rigs for everything in industry: time and cost. A rig that did both could be reserved for XL.

Now then there is research and manufacturing.

• Research has 4 essential (time) and 4 optional (cost). Each 4 could be combined into one or two rigs (ME + TE, and copy + invention).

• Manufacturing is the real problem. There is just too many rigs x2 (material and time).

A Sotiyo has a good all-around bonus, but is stupid expensive to rig so that is rarely done. And then there are the punishing system indicies.

Rigs were supposed to replace outpost upgrades, hence the high cost, but the weakness of all Upwell compared to a formerly indestructible outpost, makes the investment far less worthwhile.

[ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode]

Not if it flags it as spam. Which more often then not is what happens. When that occurs, it will autoflag and hide the post until someone can review it. The best advice I can really give is to follow the rules and everything will be fine.

[Arrendis]

Ah well. Worth a shot!

[Tien_Tien]

@Tau_Cabalander

Right now there are basically 2 rigs for everything in industry: time and cost.

Raitarus have a rig for ME of small ships, TE of small ships; this is combined into 1 rig for azbels; and for the sotiyo a rig encompassing all ships is what you have. I believe it is so by design.

The industry rigs however could be turned into modules and the medium slots increased to 8. You would still need more ‘rigs’ (now mods) and thus have less available mid slots on the smaller cits if you want to go max production. But you would have the option to have 1 raitaru instead of 7. A similar approach could be applied to the reprocessing and reaction rigs of the athanors and the tataras.

[Tau_Cabalander]

@Tien_Tien

Raitarus have a rig for ME of small ships, TE of small ships; this is combined into 1 rig for azbels; and for the sotiyo a rig encompassing all ships is what you have. I believe it is so by design.

Yes, it is, but it is also structure spam by design.

CCP originally wanted players to build “cities in space”. It was players that killed that by complaining about cluttered overviews.

So the whole idea needs to be revisited and overhauled.

@Tien_Tien

The industry rigs however could be turned into modules and the medium slots increased to 8. You would still need more ‘rigs’ (now mods) and thus have less available mid slots on the smaller cits if you want to go max production. But you would have the option to have 1 raitaru instead of 7. A similar approach could be applied to the reprocessing and reaction rigs of the athanors and the tataras.

I could imagine doing it with service modules rather than fitting slots. That’s another area where rigs and anti-spam fall down, because then those service modules may need to be combined in functionality, or the services expanded.

[Kenrailae]

@Circumstantial_Evidence

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.

This is true, but it’d also be a valid strategy, same as if you put towers on ALL your moons so people couldn’t anchor them. It wouldn’t stop people from putting structures in nearby systems and trying to whittle one down, or else finding one in somebody’s space and trying to buy it or buy docking rights to it, etc. These things - no matter their likelihood - would all be valid strategic or else subversive strategies.

[Kenrailae]

This is hard to believe when often it’s people on the opposite side of a position as certain individuals who always seem to end up getting ‘automatically flagged’ by the system. It’s also a bit hard for me to buy personally because I know how easy it is for people to game the system, at least in the past, due to being adjacent to some people who were doing some pretty hard core super scamming and using the system to discredit/remove people who complained about their scamming on the forum several years back. I didn’t do it myself, but I’ve seen the system ‘in practice’ and it’s far, far from foolproof.

[zoom_in_0x]

Because now only need 2 fleets/20min to take down a medium structure not 3 fleets/60min.

Highsec structure all are vulnerble. Beacuse if the owner can form a 10 or more ships to combat it will not stay in highsec. If a one fail defense will lost the structure why should a small vulnerble
group risk a 6b fleet to save a 3b structure? I will move out all my stuff to npc station and remove core. It is a much wise solution than fleet combats. And will not have a structure anymore. Are you willing EVE no longer have new, fresh, small corporation anymore.

So it is much easier. You can go count how much structure down in highsec. It will 3 to 4 times more after your so call “slightly easier kill change”

[Vanislevagabond]

As an alliance member responsible for fitting and fueling 11 “Roach Motels” in 6 different systems they mean a lot to myself and my alliance. We followed the rules , anchored and fought for them in good faith.
Never did I complain about structure mechanics changes before with the exception of bomb launcher removal, ( WTS 11 Standup Guided Bomb Launcher 1’s + 500 Bombs). This change feels like a kick in the teeth but since we are too much trouble to remove unless our adversaries get bored it must be “For The Greater Good” . I appreciate others point of view and from this thread it appears many players appreciate both sides in this debate. Do as you must but I wish CCP could keep an open mind.
Please listen to us roaches!

[Cluster_Flac]

@ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode

Please don’t confuse an automated process that mistakes posts as spam as “ISD censure

I’m not the one who’s confused. My business isn’t hemoraging customers out the wazoo, CCP’s is. Maybe y’all should start wondering why before everyone is gone.

@ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode

unbiased

I heard that one before and it’s usually BS.

@ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode

If you think something is amiss, please get in touch with a member of CCL and we will assist as best we can

It’s ok, it’s not so important to me. There are other MMOs and other forums that don’t do what CCP and ISD do to players here.
You guys aren’t indispensable.

Now delete this post as you usually do with posts you don’t like.

[Khalid_DeCroix]

Relatively “small” gang player here who is occasionally responsible for defending structures from much larger/richer entities. The greatest defense smaller entities have is the tedium of blowing up the structures. If these structures are too easy to remove, small groups can be forced out quite quickly.

Any large structure we anchor is basically like owning the X-Men mansion. It will get blown up at some point as soon as someone is angry/annoyed with us enough to do so. The big groups love going after big structures with big toys that small groups find difficult to fight. So with these proposed changes, the idea that we will begin anchoring MORE forts/azbels, etc is nonsense. Much like whoever keeps insuring Xavier’s mansion, we’d be crazy to do so. This is the same bizarre logic where “scarcity breeds conflict.” Like somehow we’ll just magic up the isk to anchor bigger stations for some random null bloc to go after.

It’s very possible after these changes that small, independent groups will slowly be forced out of space with the cumulative nerf after nerf after nerf of the upwell stations. Certainly the appeal of using such stations at all is rapidly diminishing as are subscriber counts. But I’m totally sure making it easier for blocs to bully smaller groups will fix that. /s

If player created stations are such a burden on the nullbears, or whomever, perhaps CCP in their graciousness should return us to the stations of yore wherein stations were conquered and not blown up. This certainly seems to be the end game the blocs are lobbying for, effectively if not literally.

[Oskar_Milde]

I feel like the issue at hand (too many dead medium structures floating about the place) has had a really effective solution proposed (make the fuel bay small enough that only 1-2 months of fuel can fit in it) that achieves the desired result (much easier removal of unused medium structures) without any of the negative consequences (killing off small groups from several areas of space).

Obviously this doesn’t give a “big mechanics change” headline for CCP, so maybe there are some other elements that could be worked in. But I really feel like this thread has produced a solution that almost everyone can get behind that actually helps address the problem initially set out. Which is pretty damned rare.

[Rowley_Birkin]

@Brisc_Rubal

Because medium structures are too cheap, they’re spammed and spammable, they provide much bigger benefits than a POS, they can be placed anywhere, and they’re cheap enough they can be treated like they are disposable and they’re cheap enough that they often aren’t worth clearing out unless there’s nothing else to do.

This not the case in Highsec.

This suggests to me that a different mechanic needs to be considered, namely the different game-play roles that these structures have in the different regions of space. Clearly the current universe-wide mechanics are not satisfactory. What is working nice in HS is clearly working poorly (annoyingly?) in NS. A solution that would be a nice QoL change for NS is probably going to be a nightmare in WH. I don’t think the medium structures as they stand can be used across the entire universe without someone getting a poor deal.

Maybe there is a place for sec-limited structures (HS, LS, NS, WH) that accommodate each regions nuances, foibles, and idiosyncrasies?

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Arrendis

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?

Fair enough, the abandoned state can only do it’s purpose if structure fuel is limited.

[Thotamon]

Yeah i did buy an azbel + fit a while back with the core it landed at 16b or so, the fort fit i made up not counting fuel or core is 25.4b, not a small amount, so add core and fuel and you are likely passing 30b, i did add some industry stuff to it but those service modules are not that expensive, but they do add to the fuel cost.

[Professor_Alphane]

I think also something that needs to be considered in the equation is risk versus reward at the corporate level .

People are suggesting for others just to upscale to large structures , unfortunately in high sec , where i live , this might not be a financially viable option . Not because of the initial cost but because of the ongoing cost compared to the profit collected in taxes . It already is a long term investment for a corporation to invest in a station . The income minus the outgoings for fuel dont leave a very large margin and a return on investment may already be months possibly years away . This is the ‘cost’ that people dont seem to be considering , the initial station cost is only one part in the invrstment of owning a station .

[Arrendis]

@Oskar_Milde

the issue at hand

honestly, at this point, the issue at hand is that we don’t know the issue at hand.

We don’t know what CCP’s actual goals for this change are, only what Brisc’s reasons for supporting it have been. And just because he’d be fine with a simpler solution that doesn’t horribly gimp smaller groups just trying to survive doesn’t mean CCP even cares.

Honestly, I’m pretty disheartened by the lack of response to the simple question of ‘what are CCP’s goals for this?’ and ‘what does a balanced place in the ecosystem look like?’ from @CCP_Aurora, and sincerely hope she just hasn’t had the time to check back in here during work hours.

Either way, we can’t really say the proposed solution addresses the problem initially set out… because the problem itself wasn’t set out. We’re groping in the dark here.

[Tien_Tien]

@Arrendis

Honestly, I’m pretty disheartened by the lack of response to the simple question of ‘what are CCP’s goals for this?’ and ‘what does a balanced place in the ecosystem look like?’ from @CCP_Aurora, and sincerely hope she just hasn’t had the time to check back in here during work hours.

I will say again, to me this whole ‘issue’ of structure spamming seems invented (for reasons stated above). Which (evident from the posts so far) is not a definition we even put the same meaning in. This however seems why the thread is getting aggressive support from the side of null blocs.

The citadels need balancing in the industry direction, as @Tau_Cabalander pointed out. The only thing removing a timer would accomplish is royally screw over small guys by tilting the scales much in favour of the attacker.

I am also curious what exactly is the idea and/or logic behind the current proposal (I am calling it such as no date has been given out when it is happening, or, hopefully, if) from CCP, so I would like to politely ask @CCP_Aurora to enlighten us.

[Forum_Alternate]

@Arrendis

We don’t know what CCP’s actual goals for this change are

MOAR DESTRUCTION! More destruction means more players replacing/buying stuff in market AND PLEX if they need to do so.
Destruction brings money to CCP. It’s as simple as that.