Yes, but what’s a “small” structure - would a Keepstar or Fortizar be excluded? Or are we just talking about medium/POS structures? And how would this work in wormhole space?
POS’ always need a moon, don’t touch that system.
For M-Structures you should also need an anchoring spot on a moon, shared with the ones for POS.
For L-Structures you should need an anchoring spot at a planet, limiting them to like 6-12 per system.
For XL-Structures you should need an anchoring spot near a star, limiting them to exactly 1 per system.
That gives each system a fixed limit how many structures you can use there, different systems would have different strategical value. If the spots are full, you would have to fight for one first. If the system has a very small amount of planets and moons, it’s easier to “block” all of them, but it also limits your potential of setting up industry/defenses. Spots close to an important gate might be more valuable than those at the backyard, especially close to trade routes in HS/LS. Decisions to make, decisions that matter, conflicts might arise over valuable systems or spots. Unlimited anchoring spots are just stupid, they take away strategical value and don’t force the players to make choices and live with them.It was a bad design decision from the beginning.
3 Likes
^ Sounds good. Can we buff the defense on Citadels to bring them more in line with those in POS?
‘We’ can’t. CCP could. If they realize that the current design only favors big groups and huge blue-trains.
I agree that M/L/XL makes no sense when there is no S.
I do suspect that CCP intentionally left the S out because they eventually wanted to replace POS with S size structures.
2 Likes
I think in some stream they said they planned a player-owned FOB thingy where you could dock, store some stuff, repair and refit, but have no service slots. No weaponry, only 1 timer. But, since the Astrahus is so weak and cheap, they probably think it isn’t needed since you can simply use an Astra for it 
3 Likes
I was thinking to force to choose between small structure for defense/prod, structure for moon mining, or POS.
Tatara should still be anchorable at a moon to mine.
I fear it would be too limiting. But I guess still better than what we have now.
What about allowing sotyio on planets too ?
and of course XL can’t be anchored in HS.
Actually I think HS and C1/C2 would be only small, LS and C3/C4 S+M, while only NS and C5/C6 being the only place with the biggest structures.
Boring.
Then you cannot get a ballsy move where one group places their Keepstar right next to a hostile Keepstar, which happened in Catch earlier this summer.
It would be too easy and boring to prevent hostiles from anchoring stuff in your system if you can ‘fill all the available slots’ that way.
If the ADMs of a system are high enough, the only way a hostile force can anchor a structure as beachhead is if the structure is L or XL in size. If the defenders can fill all the system slots with L and XL structures, there’s no practical way to invade a region.
I’d love to see such a player-owned FOB one day.
Even though an Astrahus is weak and cheap, it’s still a much bigger commitment with core and long anchoring time than a POS, so I feel like a short term yet very limited FOB could be a better option to replace the POS.
I thought this was what super carriers’ cloning module were designed for ?
Nah, I don’t agree. You can’t have everything and the need to fight for a beachhead spot in an initial battle for every invasion is - for me - worth a lot more than the once-every-few-years maybe happening ‘ballsy move’, that - lets be honest - only happens if the invader knows he is by far superior anyway. Because no one that isn’t 100% certain he wins drops a Keepstar into a hostile area. Doesn’t mean he is right with his bet, but mistakes happen.
Not all enemy systems will be a 100% blocked, so there will always be entry ways to start such an invasion with a structure drop. I mean, this system was in place for over a decade with POSes and it worked. There is no reason to think it wouldn’t work with Upwell Structures. The point is, claiming and holding space isn’t that easy, especially when thinking about a healthy universe where not everyone is blue to half of the other existing groups. Defenders need strong defensive boni. Forcing an enemy to successfully storm at least one keep without having an own one already built up for backup is by far more realistic and interesting. Compare with the real world history battles, no one could just “build a fortress” in a country he planned to invade. He had to conquer the fortifications one by one and THEN he could turn them into his own spots for reinforing the invasion.
First, even to fill up all XL and L spots in a REGION this way would be an insane investment and probably require years of holding that space. Second: Not every space is Nullsec. But especially nullsec where you invest more ISK and time in developing your space should have benefits in securing it. So it’s totally fine not to have the option for an M-spot there any more and the need to fight for an L-spot. Third: It shouldn’t be easy to invade a fully fortified region. Any plan to do that should require a LOT more effort than “drop a station and bring EVERYONE there!!!”. Thats the typical “we roll over everything with numbers” approach, and sorry, I would like to turn the game away from this. I want tactical gameplay, proper planning, the need for scouting out the target region for weak spots, attacking on different locations to test resistance and tire the defenders. Making an invasion a campaign that is meant to take weeks and months. Raze M-structures first to clear moons to drop Large Towers. While fights your distractions, put pressure on different L ones. Until you win one of the fights and can drop your own. It should be difficult. Thats - in my book - the exact opposite of “boring”.
It depends.
People will always go for efficiency, because at corp level you can’t have luxury to do things for fun.
This may mean that small corps are totally unable to attack medium ones, as only bigger corps could have a shot at attacking another one.
Which would lead to blue balling and stagnation.
IMO there should be a difference between ability to disrupt, to defend, and to conquer.
NONE of them should be expensive. If you want fights, those fights must be affordable. Instead, they should be limited by another factor, like projection. I think in that regard, CCP has started changing its stance with new moon attack and upwell jump.
Disrupting should be easily doable, without a significant loss on nay side. Maybe make infrastructures more resilient (more layer and more HP), but losing more services as they enter reinforce mode ?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.