Stopping structure spam is as simple as restricting them to moons like POSes were.
OP and all is ban evasion alts are working on a world record for most new posts with stupid ideas.
3 Likes
I thought on a world record of most topics forcibly closed by ISD.
1 Like
I believe Erotica 1 and Dyson have claimed that record.
The really stupid/annoying part is with all the crap he’s posting, it uses up all my “that’s spam” flags, and I have to wait 20mins - 24hrs before I can “do that action again”.
Yet there seems to be no limit to inane topics posted…
Won’t someone think of the children!!!
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
If this is the case then @Noori_Naarian’s idea is even worse than I initially thought. This change would mean that major power alliances that have hundreds of active people and thousands of alt characters can easily afford the fuel costs with the construction of fuel blocks locally.
For smaller and individual corporations, the upkeep simply adds another extra cost to do nothing but keep it alive for 15 days. This problem will become more apparent for mid sized groups of casual players who are trying to expand into nullsec or wormhole space, if they don’t have a lucky one that can provide either the in-system resources or reliable logistics to constantly bring in more fuel.
Almost none of the bonuses that are in his original post even matter for the purpose of a structure that will die 15 days after bring unfueled, so I don’t see why they are even there.
Overall, it seems like this thread was create with an ulterior purpose of suggesting an idea that would ultimately result with the death of thousands of anchored structure while disguising itself with random “bonuses” that aren’t even really useful.
To go back to some of his original suggestions, things like a 5% taxes reduction isn’t really a benefit if a corporation already sets their taxes below 5%. And if they do, now the structures doesn’t receive any taxes, so it becomes more difficult to collect the taxes necessary to fuel the structure, thus leading to it’s death sooner.
This leads to people being required to spend their in personal wealth to fuel the structure, instead of the corporation’s wealth (which could be used for things like Ship Replacement Programs, or expanding and building additional structures, and more) which ultimately defeats the point of dropping taxes in the first place.
Instead of being negative, why dont you just say “what about the null alliances, and their alts and large populations”.
We would reverse the charge structure, and instead of making fuel cost based on modules, make it based on the amount of people that dock in it in a period of time (a day). this would require some creative coding, however with lots of conditions which may be overly complex.
Another option we may look at is, that the station themselves are what hold sov. You lose it, you lose the sov, but then we get into the whole blob thing.
I think you misunderstood me.
My point of “5 % tax reduction, is to reduce the tax on the station they set to “home” by 5%”. This means if the station sets it to 5%, the players gain a reduction of 5% (so 0% Tax; down to a cap of 0% (not going negative).
at the end of the day, its coming out of someones wallet, and if its coming out of a personals wallet, over a corp, its a good change because the person should not be able to have a station to start with.
other wise, we should swap over and remove the corporate requirement out right, and let solo players build them.
Because, am I apologize, I made the assumption that you had thought about this suggestion carefully and taken it into consideration. As it seems like you have not, I’ll keep this in mind for the next time.
But this is not how the game works. Why are you suggesting all of these extra changes? The stations do not determine what sov is being held.
I don’t see how this has any relevance to the whole underlying issue stopping Citadel spam. Currently, people can already only have 1 Home. How does adding tax reduction in a Home station (which, again, people can already only have one of) reduce citadel spam?
I still do not see how this stops Citadel spam though. Maybe it’ll prevent the handful of lone pilots from doing so, but other major groups, especially Nullsec alliances, are still more than capable of spamming them.
na, i totally thought of it in depth, it seems you are not happy with the alliances “spamming” - 500m a month stations as a solution to stopping them from doing it.
Are you trying to kill their wallet or balance the stations?
they are just loose comments bro, not everything is “part of the solution” its just chatter bout “potential ideas”. When we have idea’s we do “rapid prototyping”.
The only way top forcefully stop spam is to apply a “hard cap”.
500m a month is really nothing though. I can make that in a little over an hour and my entire alliance makes significantly more combined. So if your plan is to price gate something like structures, it doesn’t really work.
Maybe if the ideas were well founded to begin with, but it seems like you have not thought about it much at all. These are very simple concerns that you should have already considered.
This is yet another “suggestion” that is not related to anything you have mentioned in your opening post. I don’t see how this connects to any of the bonuses you are suggesting above and I really believe you’re just throwing random ideas around because, again, you have not thought about this enough.
That depends on who you are talking to. Remember, the changes cannot be just for end game players.
It might be better to set the fuel system based on how many access it. For example
X amount of fuel a day for the null
X amount more for the rigs
X amount more for the number of unique characters docked.
provide what
I mean, yes, it does matter. But the point I am making is that your suggestions will disproportionately impact the people not responsible for the structure spam worse.
Again, I don’t believe you have thought about this enough because you are not actually addressing structure spam, you are just making it more difficult for smaller groups to grow.
It should not be economically possible for 1 man corps to spam structures. Since this will never change until you fix corps themselves, you will never fix the 1 man corps. Thus the best option is to make it economically not an option for 1 mans to run stations
Hence, 500m a month.
How many 1 man corporations are currently spamming structures? Why do you believe the issue of structure spam originates from 1 man corporations? Where is your data, your statistics, your evidence to support this?
Speculation, dont have access to that information, but i’d imagine there are a lot of 1-10 man alt corps (hundreds, if not thousands)
People use it to farm isk. the other day i came to the realization “what if goons dropped stations on all that high sec moons”
Its a scary thought to think about. It’s potentially abusive, and if i had it my way i’d cap allies and war decs to 3, right along side stations at 3.
Why would the industry have server metrics on eve?
Im busy coding atm, will come back in a bit my heads not in this convo to much but im sure there is something laying around i can thin of
off head though, it’s probably largely due to retention.
Ah, so you don’t actually have any data that would support your claim.
Please explain to me how people “use [structures] to farm ISK”. Because this seems like a fundamental flaw in your understanding of how most of these structures are used.
And what if they are dropped on all High Sec moons? What are you worried will happen?
I don’t need “industry” metrics. I want to see your data that you’ve collected in and about EVE Online.
Where are you even getting this from?
All of your responses so far show an incredible lack of knowledge or foresight. And you’ve even admitted that you’re basing all of this off “speculation”, without even providing reasons for what your speculation would be worth trusting.
This is a horrible and poorly fleshed out idea that you should really take back to the drawing board and reconsider.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.