Upgrade Structures Cost Vs Bigger Fittings

Hello, everyone!

Lets talk about unlocking more fittings for structures base on upgrades to the structures. The idea would be just like needing a core, you would need to buy upgrades in order to have a max out fitting for your structures and could end up with 8 / 8 / 8 fittings.

Cost vs risk for the structures. What do you think?

1 Like

You’d just end up with an even more expensive dead structure, especially in high sec…

4 Likes

Seems fine.

the Op is just trying to justify or add to his idea in the CSM Assembly part of the forum for moons that produce only ICE instead of moon ore.

Maybe a rig that adds slots ? Sacrifice a rig slot for more high/low/middle slots ?

2 Likes

Ships also do not get upgrades to get more module slots.

If you want more slots, get a bigger hull.

“But a Keepstar is expensive!”

Yes, why would you get the amount of slots of a Keepstar for the price of an Astrahus?

Compare it to ships: You don’t get an 8/8/8 layout for a small frigate either, you need to pay extra for a big ship for that.

1 Like

Ships can warp and move on grid. Are you saying structures should also warp and move ?

My post was move there for some reason no clue why? For ice moons topic.

TBH not a bad idea. I would like to see more weapons be adding to stru.

Because more slots dose not break the game and should be welcomed tbh! So we get more slots to defend the stru? Won’t matter really like somone has already point out just makes it a expensive stru :slight_smile:

False comparison.

We’re not talking about the warp capabilities of structures, but their number of modules, which is a characteristic shared by both ships and structures, unlike warping.

All that having 8 module slots would mean is that your one-man-corp Raitaru will last about 5 minutes longer than it normally would have…

3 Likes

And you pretend that what hold true for ships should hold true for structures.
So warping should, too.

You missed my point. My point was that your comparison makes no sense. Saying “X does not do it so nobody should” is stupid.
This is an argument that makes no sense. You decide on arbitrary limits on where your rule should apply. It’s just “I don’t like it” under a disguise of logic.

The idea was not that ship can have more slots with rigs. The point was, to give more slots to structures with rigs.
And what about giving more slots to ships with rigs ? I don’t care. That’s not the topic, so far.

Please go bother someone else! Thanks!

1 Like

Please stop pretending to do logic if you can’t accept your “logic” to be criticized.

True that. Structures are so ridiculously weak, they need a complete overhaul instead of some bandaid fix and minor tweaks. Automated defenses during the off-hours at least, to make it impossible to simply reinforce them with a handfull of semi-afk throwaway alts.

(Most) structures really, really suck. I can’t believe how much they’ve stagnated since their original introduction many years ago.

But I guess we know where development has gone… (cough) Vanguard … (hack, gasp) Frontier.

I’ll give this a +1 for at least suggesting any kind of improvement and a -10 for CCP who will almost certainly ignore it.

1 Like

While my idea is not ideal its just that a dream in pipeline hoping for change!

Trust me when I say they don’t ignore ideas. They took ideas of remote boosts on capital ships which give everyone benefits from as I took the idea from super carriors and how they where able to hit big area targets with webs and other things which hurt the target ships. Area of effects post of mine.

That’s good. I think that most players would agree that structures need some sort of update. Just a question of what would make them more viable/interesting.