Siege Green - Structure Updates Now Avaialble for Testing

There may be some out there I guess, though I fail to see the relevance to the concept overall:

That a focus on defensive capabilities is almost, necessarily, going to be emphasized more to the groups with more to lose from the changes as they have the most invested in it.

And that not all of those groups are going to care much about the attacking portion thereof, except insofar as evaluating their own defense


For my part, I’m having trouble seeing what issue there is that this is attempting to address. I may very well be wrong in my evaluation and there may be aspects I don’t know about, I can only speak based on what I can guess and see, and what we had of the original Citadel releases and statements around them about what tradeoffs were stated to have been made relative to POSs

And am frustrated at a request for feedback, without knowing what I’m supposed to be able to give feedback on, as the changes in a vacuum I don’t like. We get told we don’t need to justify things to you, we need to justify such to CCP…but we don’t even know what CCP sees as a problem to fix to be able to build an argument around.

I respect what you’re doing in engaging Brisc, and trying to talk people through it, even with the…typical degree/qualities of feedback in a major change thread being here. Please understand though that, from the perspective of the average person on the forums: you’re working with far more information than we are, and are a player representative. You very well could be collating this information to bring to CCP behind closed doors, but we don’t know that one way or another.

lol sorry thats utter nonsense. What do you think a small corp of casuals makes in a lowclass wh? We have like 5-6 active people in here, most of them barely make 500M a WEEK. Even if they give 10% of that to the corp to fund joint projects, it would take an eternity to fund a fully equipped fortizar which probably won’t last long after placing it. Hint: Thats why M-structures exist, a place for the little guy to live in. Except you want to screw that over.

I get the feeling more and more that you have absolutely no clue what small-corp-life means.

And don’t even try to tell me I am untruthful. I have not told a single wrong in this topic.

6 Likes

Right, right.

We should totally balance the way the game works on what is most convenient for a 5-6 person group of casual players living in a wormhole.

You are out of your mind, and the feeling of entitlement it takes to make this argument with a straight face is off the charts.

No one said so. You are, because you completely lack arguments in this topic, from the start.

All the dozens and dozens of concerns raised by multiple people in this toppic are by far more convincing and honest than anything coming from you or CCP. And you adressed none of them, just talking nonsense about “going offensive” or “preparing to fight”.

But maybe you have no clue what “balance” means. It means that there is as much weight on BOTH ends of the stick. And if one end of the stick is significantly smaller, it needs MORE attention, not less. This is the reason, why de-facto every civilized society protects the weaker minorites. Else balance is not achievable. What you propose is mobland. It makes the game worse.

4 Likes

Yes, they did. I suggested you get a fortizar, you claim you can’t afford it. Despite wormholes being one of, if not the most, lucrative areas in the game, you can’t afford it, because your 5-6 person group of casual players can’t generate that kind of money. So screw everybody else who wants this change because they want to clear these structures out faster given how cheap they are and how infrequently they generate anything more than an uncontested killmail in other areas of the game.

No, you want us to leave them alone just for you, and nothing I’ve said or CCP said is compelling simply because you don’t agree with it and it will make you change what you do. And the 10 people who agree with you and have been posting here over and over again are not indicative of the vast majority of people who play the game and who are excited about these changes.

You’re going to have to figure out how to deal with these changes, because I don’t see them changing. I did what I could to get an extra day for wormholers, but we’ve not seen any other motion, so I would assume these are going in the way they were outlined. And no amount of yelling at me is going to change that.

I have to say the few players get beneficial in this changes are nullsec bloc FCs and high sec core picker. NO ONE ELSE GET HAPPY. Shield donw = evade make the m structure completly useless.

So, between nullsec bloc FCs (and their line members) and highsec folks, you’ve got like 75% of the game.

Why don’t you understand that placing a fortizar makes the problem WORSE? It attracts the eviction corps like a fiery beacon. Why don’t you get that simple fact? And you just can’t fight them as small corp, you won’t even find allies against them.

Even IF we would finance one, we would WORSE our situation while depleting our wallets. A LOT!

Next thing is, you can’t compare C1/2/3 WH-Space to what the organized Corps get out of their C6/C5. Thats not even closely the same amount of ISK squeezed out of these holes.

We had arranged with the status quo and have in no way asked anyone or proposed anythign that would “screw everyone else over”. You big blocs have shown to be unable to deal with ninja-anchoring because you are to incompetent to watch and react in time if anyone tries. And are too lazy to come to another time when removing them. Thats FAR from being “screwed over”. “Screwing over” is what your proposed changes will do to others for your convenience. Don’t twist the roles here.

3 Likes

Ah

Then the daily content generated by these structures, the various states of play around them, is entirely invalid because there are a number of them that are inconvenient for “everybody else who wants this change.”

So screw everyone else who do not want this change because it can save you some time and effort to remove them, the content they get from them, though daily, is infrequent…or invalid altogether to satisfy the definition of infrequent.

…in a Sandbox game wherein playstyles and content types are supposed to be valid provided they don’t conflict with ToS

Ah, so the change is fundamentally not about Game Balance but one of preference and convenience? (if we even assume universal support in those groups which I’m guessing you lack data to support)

4 Likes

You can’t fight them with an astrahus, either. That’s the reality. You are relying solely on them being a pain in the ass to clear and not worth the money to survive. And maybe that helps you, but it shouldn’t at the expense of the rest of the game’s gameplay. Again, I don’t know why you’re demanding or expecting that game mechanics be designed around your small group of casual players. That’s not fair to the rest of the game.

These structures will still generate daily content. But, again, CCP has to do what’s in the best interests of the entire game, not what tiny groups of players who want to have structures that they don’t have to defend want. This is a sandbox game, yes, but that does not mean you can do whatever you want to do with nobody every impacting that gameplay. You want three timers, you need a large structure.

You can read what Aurora wrote about why they chose to do this. And if you don’t think that doing something that benefits the largest number of players is a good thing, I don’t know what else to tell you.

What about medium Freeports? Like a publicly used Raitaru for blueprint research. How will those players know that their assets are in danger of going to asset safety?

2 Likes

Oh well, then why have feedback topics at all? Seriously, the feedback of this topic was devastating. From the overwhelming majority of all posters. And the answer is “Yeah we are doing it anyway because we know we have the support from the nullsec FC and their grunts!!!”.

Then just be honest on the announcements and don’t talk about game balance and structure ecosystems and all that stuff, just say “We want to make the game even more easy for the big alliances and their FCs and thats why we make the homes of the smaller groups easier to destroy.”

That would be honest and straightforward.

5 Likes

See, I’d argue that is part of the problem… CCP has made a ton of great stuff to do that is neither of those things. Those other things tend to get the short end of the stick because fewer people play them, which makes them less fun to play, which makes fewer people do them… It’s a vicious cycle.

My view of EvE is that the fun of it mostly comes from doing new things. Going to see if I can make a go of mining in Pochven or trying to live out of an orca in NPC null or grinding ORE LP or whatever other ill-advised nonsense… None of those things are fun to do for 500 hours. All of them are a blast to try for 20 hours. And there are 1,000 things like that to choose from. That’s what makes EvE so amazing IMO.

To use your analogy, I am not convinced it is like null bloc is living in the whole mansion and small pvp-averse corps are only living in one room. I think it’s more like most everybody, including null bloc, is only living in one collection or another of a few rooms, and the way to make EvE cooler is to make more of the rooms attractive.

What I want CCP to do is not to optimize for any particular group or playstyle, I want them to optimize for variety. My dream announcement for Fanfest would be “we are introducing 3 new types of space and 5 more professions with their own skill trees” or something…

4 Likes

But something that is a Convenience for the majority of players is hardly the same as Game Balance

If this isn’t a question of game balance, of roles and interplay between those specific equipment roles, then there isn’t an argument that can be made to convince…there’s nothing to argue against, as it’s preference, not based on anything other than what a cross-section of the player base thinks they want…if we can even assume it was the Majority of the Players expressing preference or just a small subgroup thereof advocating for a change, and a smaller subgroup pushing through an additional change

Though, Scarcity was a hated change, it was, in the immediate term, negative for all players, definitely not one that players liked. But overall, it was designed to be positive for the Game Ecosystem. A change or feature doesn’t, into and of itself, have to be popular to be good, balanced, or healthy for the game state. Nor does a change or feature being popular necessarily make it good, balanced, or healthy for the game state.

I remain unconvinced this will be a good game balance change for the majority of players

These both cannot be true, they directly contradict each other.

It must therefore follow that you do not consider the daily content as valid, which inherently means that the change must not have taken into account the possibility. This supports the idea this was pushed through by a subgroup of players claiming to speak for a majority, who do not engage with or otherwise consider the content valid.

3 Likes

Yes, the negative posts from the same 10 people over and over again was totally devastating.

They took feedback and made changes based on the feedback. That they didn’t agree with your specific feedback but did agree with other people’s is the nature of how this stuff works.

That’s a good point - the in-game notification should being after the shield timer now.

They’re not contradictory at all, unless you want to be pedantic. They create some content, and they will continue to create some content. People will still try to defend these timers in some areas of space, and they’ll still generate killmails and timers in other areas of space. Whether this is “good” content or busy work depends on your point of view, but it’s not like suddenly no one is ever going to defend a medium structure again. The same reasons they’re defended now will still exist even after this change. I just don’t buy the argument that the people who successfully defended these on armor timers now will never again ever, ever never, ever ever be able to defend them on an armor timer after the change.

That’s fine, and I doubt even after the changes go through that you’ll be convinced. You don’t have to be convinced. Neither do I. The changes will come regardless, and what we all have to do is adapt to them.

Thanks for the response. I hope you’re able to raise that point with CCP and we’ll see another revision.

If this is true, then there is and was no point in having the thread in the first place

As you’ve as much as just said that feedback will not matter at this juncture to CCP or to you, one of the player representatives

Unless feedback will matter and you’re simply attempting to discourage and silence dissenting voices, which remains a possibility, especially based on the hostility in your responses

Two statements, both of frequency, cannot be true unless one considers the “daily content” invalid or “good” which is a subjective. No pedantry required…they both can’t evaluate to true without caveats.

You’re also assuming that the structure defense itself is the content I’m talking about, or the armor timer specifically…which kind of shows that you do not consider all forms of content as valid into and of itself.

6 Likes

I honestly don’t understand how you can say there was no point in having the thread in the first place when CCP literally just came today and noted they were making changes based on the feedback in the thread.

That they haven’t taken into account your feedback likely means they aren’t going to. But hey, maybe I’m wrong, and they’ll make additional changes. But, again, yelling at me and being pendantic is not going to change my mind nor is it likely to make me advocate for your position.

Of course they have caveats, you took them both out of the context they were made.

And yes, I view some forms of content as inherently better than others. A structure timer that generates a fight between fleets is, in my view, inherently superior to one that does not, for instance. But some people have no problems with uncontested timers and are perfectly happy just hitting anything (I have done that myself, and did it tonight, for instance). In the end, it’s still content, even if it’s not what I consider to be the kind we want to encourage more of.

If one assumes the content being referenced is entirely around the timers

well let’s examine their context in a bit fuller light

And

Even within their contextual nature, they are still contradictory without qualification or caveat, universals

What other content are you referring to in a discussion about whether medium structures should have two or three timers?