well the idea is simple let us upgrade our citadels/ec´s/ rafinerys to the next size level with the materials it would cost to build the next size strukture. of cause it sould not be instand (24h timer or more and a 30 day cooldown to the the next update) and the rigs will be removed and/or destroyed.
this is just a rough idea , but it would open up options and options are allways a win in a sandbox.
If you have the materials to build the next size structure, why not just do so and either sell the old one where it is or decommission it (loss of rigs)?
The anchoring and decommissioning processes each provide an opportunity for other players to blow it up - or steal it once unanchored. Any upgrade process would need to offer an equivalent opportunity.
as sayed options.
also as an exemple: say i have a citadel on a point in space that i like and dont want to abbandon it, and after awhile have the isk and/or the materials and would love to have the bigger station.
Sounds like you should have waited and invested in the larger one from the get go. You made the choice to start with the smaller one and now must live with the logistical consequences (and fiscal if rigged) of your choice. Welcome to eve
the consiquence is it gets more expansive . since you allread have to build lets say a raitaru and than add the materials for a Azbel. but i am shure many ppl would be intrestet in that option .
just because its an option it does not have to be the optimal or efficent.
That’s why you test things like this out for free on the test server before you spend untold billions on the game server for something you end up not liking…
Eh, knowing two years down the road that your 10 man corp is actually going to succeed and become a 1000 man corp is a bit unreasonable to expect.
An ‘upgrade’ option that used an actual intact structure of the next size, plus a bit extra in costs, a long timer (in the terms of weeks at least) and ‘destroys’ the smaller structure wouldn’t be a terrible thing.
It would have to cost more than the difference between the two, but QoL for a 1000 peoples bookmarks for example.
The game should be friendly to long term, as in over years, evolution of corps.
its more than just QOL when it effects gameplay
with this i can put down an aust with little risk then upgrade it to a keepstar.
the idea was that it does not go directly to the largest but to the next bigest than a long cooldown (30days as an exemple) than to the next biggest and keep in mind it allways should use up the materials as it would to build the station you upgrade to.
that is still me just needing to put down a fort something far less risky than a keep
well guess while the upgrade is comencing the station could also be destroyable or has a longer window for 2 weeks to attack i am sure ccp could think of something.
Hence why I said it should cost more than just deploying a keepstar to begin with.
I’m not agreeing with Ops proposed costs, just with the basic principle that this being possible isn’t a bad idea.
And it should be a visible process that takes significantly longer than just anchoring a keepstar. So everyone who would know you are dropping a keepstar in the first place can see that you are upgrading to one.
Yes it has the advantage of more than one vulnerability cycle but just pause it any time it’s on an armour or hull timer.
The rigs would get ruined anyway since they are size specific. So I’m not seeing where the less risk is with my cost maths as opposed to the ops.
Shouldn’t all structures take a long time to establish? 
At least larger ones.
either its so expensive small/med sized groups cant afford it or its more than worth it for a large group that doesn’t want to broadcast.
Uh, I see neither of those things being true here.
You are jumping to extremes here.
How does it avoid broadcasting if the structure is clearly labelled as upgrading? And if it takes longer than anchoring would.
How is it unaffordable if it’s say, 20% more.
It could still be worth it to avoid the disruption of everyone having to move to the new structure, and relocate everyone’s bookmarks. But it avoids it being a no brainer since it does come with a different opportunity cost that way.
well my guess is that most small /med groups will be ok with a fortizar even with my initial cost idea, i mean the cost of a astrahus + the cost of a fortizar (inmaterials) + cost (mats)for upgradeing to a keepstar too. its a bit much for most groups i know of.
Making an upgraded structure cost the full amount in minerals to build when it is being built off of an existing base frame makes no sense.
Usually the purpose for buying a down graded option for economic reasons and upgrading the initial investment to a better one is the cheepest option.
Buy an old run down house for dirt cheep, gut it, refurbish it turn around and sell it for profit.
Buy an old truck, strip the old chipped paint and rust, weld on a few reinforcement bars, add a few layers of sealant then a few layers of primer then paint, a few dives in a junk yard and you are looking spiffy!
No, it’s normally the more expensive option.
Because in the real world you have to include the value of peoples time as well in your budget to get the true cost of things.
The things you are looking at are peoples income, instead of working for an hourly wage they do a fix up job and sell it.
That doesn’t make it cheaper.
Minerals you mine are not free.
Then you are doing it wrong.
Yes, and if you do it right it ends up cheaper.
Unless the situation dictates that it is not.
You have to be in bad straights for that to happen.
or more likely
Incompetent
Unresourceful
Unimaginative
or just plane lazy.
Ya, it works both to make money or to get a cheep house.
Can go either way.
No, it costs time, so why would you wast so much of it building something new when you could just modify or upgrade what you already have?
well this is not real life. and the cost was to prevent spamming of medium struktures. gamewise it should be cheeper/faster to build a new fortizar/azbel and so on than to update it. as sayed befor it should be an option not the most efficent way.