A simple “yes” would have sufficed.
Can’t type a simple “yes” on the forums. Not enough characters.
1 Like
I appreciate you hearing me out on this topic. I’ll drop it.
Seriously, this is your answer to “there won’t be many small groups with structures left and gameplay styles will die”?
And in my opinion, you should not expect the game to be balanced around something that works on the 5000 level but is broken at the 50 level either.
A game where there are a handful of groups each size 5000 is worse than a game with a hundred times more groups, some of which are small.
7 Likes
I don’t believe what you’re saying is true in the first place, but if it is true, then this is the alternative.
I disagree. If it works at the 5000 person level, that means the game is working for the majority of players. But this is inherently subjective. I played EVE off and on for ten years in small groups and it never kept my attention. It wasn’t until I got into a big group that I started playing every day. The idea that one playstyle is “better” or another playstyle makes the game “worse” is nonsense. There’s room for everything in EVE, and this change is not going to destroy every small group in existence. These groups existed before citadels and they’ll exist after this change.
Only if you assume the number of groups remains the same. A group of thousand has more players that a group of hundred, but twenty groups of hundred has more than both.
Of course, if you drive away 15 of those 20, the big group is again a majority. But the game will be less for the loss of variety.
We agree, obviously, that it would be best if changes did not break any play. For any size of a group.
3 Likes
I think the problem that is causing the level of disscussion mostly is how can citadels be still viable in all areas of space but not so easily be used and maintained in null to the degree they become a problem .
My suggestion as a possible solution would be attach a 'surplus fuel bay ’ that gets depleted to a significant degree everytime the station reinforces .
Meaning setting up and maintaining stations that are easily attacked but difficult to destroy becomes a much larger logistical and cost problem in null but maintains the balance in wh, low and high sec .
In that null seccers can discousge spam by simply reinfocing sheilds at a significant cost to the ‘spammer’ over many stations but they maintain there current functionality in other space areas were spam isnt the problem
/edit i also think this surplus bay should be seperate from the main fuel bay again costing the defender time and effort everytime they are attacked in that someone needs to visit the station and redistribute the fuel each time it reinforces. Perhaps even have seperate bays for each reinforcment timer because of this .
2 Likes
So Keepstars online is coming… got it
Just remove medium structures since they dont serve ANY purpose and are just liabilities
Also I can’t afford Fortizar, when is CCP selling Forts on the store?
5 Likes
Quit being a poor. So many ways to make isk in game and with little effort.
#NoPoors
2 Likes
So with your logic if you cannot afford to replace a Fortizar every week then you should give up playing, does CCP think that?
3 Likes
If you lose a Fortizar every week I think you need to reconsider your position in the eve universe and change your game play or allies. Obviously you are doing something wrong if you are stupid enough to lose a Fortizar a week.
Though, I am sure people who build Fortizars would love for that to happen.
That is what I just asked you, you just repeated the question back at me with a pitiful insult. Obviously you want less people in the game and CCP seems to want the same thing?
The Goons lost a large number of Foritzers in a short period under invasion, should they all give in?
1 Like
Come on, Drac. Nobody wants fewer people in the game. If this drives players out of the game, then they should revisit it. But I doubt that’s going to happen.
No, you asked me if I thought CCP thinks people should lose a Fortizar every week. I am not CCP so I cannot speak for them. I stated that if you are stupid enough to lose said Fortizar every week then you need to reevaluate your position in eve because you are obviously doing something wrong.
Goons can easily afford to lose plenty of structures 
I am discussing smaller groups who can afford a fortizar, but not multiple. If you are a small group and you are constantly losing your structures then you need to reevaluate your position.
I have seen so many nerfs of small groups play that I have a genuine feeling that this is the case.
So that was a needless insult, because people lose Fortizars under invasion, nothing to do with stupid.
So you retracted your comment about being stupid to lose a Fortzar every week, make up your mind. Or are you saying it is stupid to be in a small group? Not really sure what you are trying to say here?
1 Like
Nullsec groups “under invasion” can almost always replace any structure they lose. Nullsec alliances/coalitions have plenty of isk to replace lots of things.
Bud, I am in a small group. Live in lowsec. If we lost our fortizar and other structures then there is a good chance we are not going to throw up new ones in the exact same spot/area. Since we know that if they got blown up once in that spot, great chance it’ll happen again.
If you (a group) lose a structure then put up a new one in the same relative location and then lose it again and then replace it again and repeat that cycle then you are stupid and deserve to constantly lose your structures.
Okay. Since we’re apparently going to use selective quoting to read a sentence and then act like the following 4 sentences explaining it don’t exist, I’ll just quote myself back to you because this was already addressed in my first post.
I do take issue with this and have to disagree with it strongly, particularly because it treats balance changes as a zero sum game. I’m not saying “don’t make positive changes for the rest of the game.” Make positive changes for the rest of the game. Go ahead with this positive change even. But here is a thread to provide feedback, so people are saying “hey, this will be a major problem in this way. Is it possible to address it?” in the feedback thread. And that doesn’t mean don’t implement any change. Its just asking to find solutions to the side effects of this change if possible. That’s the whole point of a feedback thread. It is possible and reasonable to make tweaks to a planned change to make it playable for everyone.
There’s no reason smaller groups need to have a significantly tougher time with it, to the point that their entire playstyle has to be upended so that null life is a little more convenient. It can be designed and balanced so that both sides can thrive and benefit from the changes.
I mean, this is literally also addressed in the same quote of mine already linked above. “Can we maybe find a balance approach that achieves the goals without screwing these people over.” It has been said already.
Anyways, I’m happy to discuss balance issues and implementation, but none of the actual ideas I brought up have been addressed in any way so I’m going to refrain from cluttering the thread with senseless back and forth until they are.
5 Likes
It seems CCP agrees with your sentiment and are increasing prices 33% to reduce “poors”
#NoPoors -CCP Games 2022
1 Like
Meanwhile I had the opposite experience – the constant nagging and activity requirements started to burn me out, and it grealy reduced my enjoyment of the game.
You mention it is subjective, and then follow that up with “bigger is better from my experience, therefore what is good for the bigger group is better for the game at large”. If a choice has to be made on whether to spend more time thinking about a solution that addresses the ““problem”” in a way that doesn’t have a hugely one sided benefit to the larger groups compared to the small, then you clearly have no problem telling the smaller groups to get F***'d, after all, you had more enjoyment moving to the large group and so should they right? That alone summarizes most of the resentment toward you in this thread, they disagree, and you say “well I’m the CSM so what I say goes”.
Note still waiting for clear idea of what this ““problem”” is from CCP – no offense to the CSM, but a formal response from CCP is really needed to explain what the issue is, what CCP’s view of balance is, and only then can we as a community have a base to start discussing how well the “how” of addressing the issue and getting to balanced looks like.
It was POS’s that started a lot of this. From siphon units, keeping their fuel up, and being a “safe space” for supers and titans as those couldn’t be docked or stored (and then stolen when the POS shield goes down after being forgotten about) – there was a good amount of counter play for smaller groups against the large.
Citadels changed a lot of that. No more siphon units, no more super hijacking – those are safe in asset safety.
The small group counter play has ALREADY been removed with the introduction of citadels, and now this pushes things even further into making null blocs safer and more more able to punch down.
Needing a freighter to structure spam with fortizars, and the increased cost, won’t change the nullbloc vs nullbloc structure spam tactics of boring the other army to death in a stalemate. This change solely hurts the smaller groups for the benefit of the largest, who have already disproportionally benefited from the implementation of citadels.
5 Likes
That is a pretty strong and certain statement to make, are you sure about this?
Bud, isn’t that a beer?
So you don’t live in nullsec, hmmmm.
Is that region, constellation or even system?
So you are telling people not to defend their space and fight for it?
You just seem remarkably confused?