Upwell Structures, and Corporate / Alliance Purpose

what if we look at changing the war eligibility system, and station system out right, while helping the economy, and also removing the spam.

What we can do is create “upgrades” to the station. For example, athanor upgrades to tataru, instead of being separate structures.

  • Stations will start in small forms, and get upgraded via a donation process.
  • We can significantly scale the costs for the upgrades
  • we can move the eligibility system to large structures (level 2) systems to be eligible for war.

If we make the donation process (ie resources committed to upgrading the system) extremely high, like that of the palatine structure, we would restore corporate sense of accomplishment, and will revitalize the interaction of corporate members.

1 Like

Could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by “upgraded via a donation process”?

Does that mean I can go to your ‘level 1’ structure, “donate” an upgrade and force it to become a ‘level 2’ structure, and thus force you to become War Dec eligible?

Corporation builds structure 1 hull.
Players donate x amount of isk in minerals.
corporate leaders collect minerals and ultimately, click “upgrade”.
after said time, structure ships from fortazar (large) to keep star (extra large)

Donate in this case could be simple the click a gui button and hit donate and then drop in the donation.

How will you guarantee that the “corporate leaders” will “ultimately, click ‘upgrade’” and not just run away with the minerals?

you make them donate to the structure, and not the player. the structure holds the donations. maybe if you kill it you can look those goodies giving structures risk to upgrade.

as long as the “structure” holds it, you should be good.

That’s a neat idea, but I have some concerns with that. What if the owner of the structure decides to block access and lock everyone out? For example, like you personally have done to your own corporation mates. https://pastebin.com/cDeZF2m5

They all chipped in to help build and anchor a structure, and then you decided to block access to all of them. And then threatened to kick them from your corporation.

How would you system prevent people like yourself from abusing these donations?


1 Like

Oh look, another whine about highsec PvP from a very predictable source. Sure, you can have your stations not count towards war eligibility but they’re going to have a 95% refining tax, repair rates 100000x higher than an NPC station, no market access, and no asset safety in case they somehow get destroyed.

Oh god that’s hilarious. I can’t believe I’m forced to give respect to the OP for a scam like that, and with such beautiful whining and crying by the victims…

question number uno what can a lvl one structure do and how do you remove structure with this system
lets say i have 2 corps a holding corp and merc corp i kill all other players station in system/region and my holding corp place lvl one hulls down now no one can use any of the moons in this system/region because i controle them what happen then

why complicate the suggestion with the useless “donation” mumbo/jambo?

I can assure you it could have gained more traction had you only suggested “upgradeable citadels”. But it would have got a well deserved criticism anyway because rigs are an important part of citadels and by introducing “upgrade” mechanic you reduce consumption/destruction that are integral part of economy.

Non-war-eligible player-owned structures are a definite no, because way too abusable (as pointed out in post above).

No, no way!!

No anchor risk to upgrade structures.
Immunity from war dec, that would make structure spam 100000x worse, what would we have to do suicide gank the small ones?

Bad bad bad.


Good question. The idea is that they ultimately do not make isk on level 1. As they increase, they become more efficent.

Maybe we can look at an unlock system, as opposed to isk-buying. For example, donate to unlock the rig upgrades. This should be more easily accessed by new corps. upgrades like rigs should have 1 slot per a level (total 3 levels).

from here we can also look at an efficiency system. For example, if your in high sec + 20% fuel consumption rate per day.
in low no modifier
null - 10%.


And thats why.

You havent actually answered the question. And you yourself realize this problem:

What happens when someone spams structures and takes all the moons in hisec? Not for use, but to just horde all the moons, and then sell them for a very large profit?

Thats why your idea is bad.

If only you came to the realization before you posted this nonsense.

  • Stations have higher costs.
  • Players can declare their station a home every 30 days.
  • Players obtain +10% Refine rate,-5% Tax, and - 10% Repair, and clone costs.
  • Stations obtain 0.25% reduction in fuel costs per a day, up to 30%
  • all fuel costs for stations increased by x2 of current values.

The purpose of this is to encourage corporations to not spam stations, make it less or not profitable to own stations, and encourage players to be part of a station move them out of “economic loss” and to “profitability”.

What kind of costs are you talking about? Mineral? Build costs? Planetary Commodities? Just saying a generic “higher cost” doesn’t really explain much.

Why do you believe this is necessary to prevent station spam? (I’m assuming you actually mean Upwell Structures, not actual Stations, because players cannot anchor those anymore)

Does this apply to all structure? What if we already set our Taxes, Repair, and Clone costs to 0 ISK?

You say “up to 30%.” How does it get “up to” that amount?

Why do you believe this is necessary? What about all of the structures that don’t have Services installed, and thus don’t consume Fuel?

Fuel costs.

All player-build stations (upwell, tatara, etc)


up to 60 people in a station. - 0.25% of 30% per a person. So 60 people will grant 30% reduction to daily fuel costs.

Why do you believe these changes are necessary to prevent spamming of structures, though? You didn’t answer that question.

The biggest mechanic to fight spam, is efficiency. Players are always included to it, thus, as a result they will avoid isk waste.

They drop stations to make lots of isk, so if by default the stations are not profitable, and require corp members/alliance to live there you will create a reduction in stations, and purpose to the corp, and benefiting the players.

Do you have support for this claim?

I would argue that this is wrong because if you take a look at systems like Perimeter and SV5-8N, and many others in the game, there are a great many structures that are anchored, but never actually used. A vast majority of the structures that are anchored are never utilized to begin with, so “efficiency” isn’t an issue.

In Detorid, Delve, Esoteria, Pure Blind, Tribute, and many other regions, you will often see unfueled and unserviced structures anchored by gates to act as safe perches to observe traffic coming through. These don’t have services, and thus don’t consume fuel, and so, yet again, “efficiency” is not even considered.

How does your system actually address actual structure spam?

People are always inclined to do the most efficient thing.

Cannot comment on those games, are the upkeeps significant, or are the values easily paid by 1 person? i think the point here is team effort.

A game mechanic that needs to be fixed. Stations should require full power to provide.

These spammed Citadels do not have a Service installed, and thus, they do not consume fuel. The result is that there is no upkeep. Are you aware of how structures work?

What do you mean by “full power” and “provide”? This sounds like you are proposing something different than addressing the structure spam.