Upwell Structures Should Consume "Base" Amounts of Fuel or ISK

(Voddick) #1
  • Base Fuel Consumption Only
  • Base Fuel Consumption & ISK
  • ISK Consumption Only

0 voters

  • Flat Rate, Regardless of the Number of Structures Present
  • Indexed Rate, Similar to Industry or Research…The More Structures in a System, the Higher the Cost

0 voters

Simple: Structures should consume fuel regardless of fitted / online modules.

If the structure runs out of fuel, then the modules, teathering, and ALL invulnerability timers are lost. Thus you could remove a structure in a single sitting.

This is the mechanic currently in place for POS so it makes since.

Complex: Systems are given a “Station Index” and stations consume ISK to stay on-line…similar to industry or research indexes.

If a system only has one structure, then the index is low. If the system is crowded, then the index is high and the amount of ISK consumed by all stations increases.

Larger structures increase the index more than smaller structures.

Increased competition for the same skilled labor drives higher wages.

Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/6hteak/support_needed_upwell_structures_should_consume/

Old Forum Post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=522258

Edit: if you prefer the “no change” option, please reply to this thread with “no change.” This way we can track that data until the option can get added to the poll.

(Bum Shadow) #2

Sov ADMs would bring a discount for the holder the higher the ADM, and a cost increase for anyone not holding the current sov.

(Romano Funaila) #3

Don’t forget the anchoring fee to be able to anchor it in space

(Sam Spock) #4

I would also like to see some way to capture a structure or even just forcibly take over management but not own it.

(Tau Cabalander) #5

No poll option for keeping things the same :poop:

(Voddick) #6

I tried to add it, but modifying a poll is locked after 5 minutes. The info note says to contact a moderator, but I have no idea how to do that.

(Onslaughtor) #7

Or we could Not? Your poll lacks a no change option. Real talk though, the only changes I personally see needing change:
The bomb launcher being taken away from med sized structures.
Being able to use the entosis mod to turn off the damage reduction and double reinforcement to a single rf with a 24 hour clock.

Those two things and a a willingness to actually fight your opponent and structures become much more manageable.

(Chance Ravinne) #8

Even though I agree, it seems like a gross oversight to omit a “no change” option in the poll.

Anyway, even the smallest nominal fee would prevent clutter. It doesn’t have to even have an insane change (i.e. detonate structure), but killing just one timer or opening up vulnerability to 24/7 would certainly make things less tedious on the “cleanup” side.

(Nou Mene) #9

completely agree… is just a way to mark trash as space trash…
In a related but different note. What if these dead citadels could be captured by the use of entosis (instead of shooting)

(Voddick) #10

I think EVE is in need of ISK sinks and destruction rather than capture mechanics.

Not that your idea is bad, rather I think it’s more like outpost mechanics which most people would like to see the game get away from.

(Regan Rotineque) #11

I agree they should have some sort of base cost - you did not have the option of Fuel OR Isk - I would vote for that as well - you should not be able to have an online citadel/eng complex or refinery without gas in the tank or ISK to pay the bills.

Just like a tower offlines now - Citadels should offline as well and be vulnerable to be destroyed if they are not fueled or paid for

(Lukett MyDabb) #12

i think any changes that would increase the consumption of citadel fuel blocks is gonna just be sucker punching smaller entities and wormholers. It seems there’s a lot of people who provide nerfs that will only truthfully, hurt the weak. null alliances just make it their initiative to divert their vast resources to afford more fuel/ these “isk sinks.” but someone trying to get a corp with few resources into a wormhole may crap his pants hearing now it’s gonna require more grinding to keep the lights in that freshly anchored astrahus on. i was apart of a well established wormhole corp and without features like that still was a constant conversation on how to move fuel, how to buy fuel, how to make the attempt to manufacture it ourselves.

(Punky260) #13

I basically agree with the idea that citadels need to be “maintained” somehow - although this should be a very low effort thing.
I voted for the “fuel blocks” option as it kinda makes sense and would be the easiest to implement and encourage industry - if the effort is considered too high, the simple ISK pull (similar to sov structures) might be the better answer. Especially for smaller alliances. Would negate the effect totally for most other alliances though :confused:

What I don’t agree with is the following:

It makes sense to weaken the structure if it is not “base fueled” as this is the idea. But removing kinda ll it’s abilities sounds a bit too much. Don’t only compare them to POS, as they also replace stations. So we need to find a way in between. Having no shield(-timer) for example would be a big nerf, improve the situation but not f*** over the whole situation right now. Maybe also lose the ability to repair via tether (not the tether itself) and you have them weakend but still viable.
Keep in mind that placing a citadel to force a fight is intended and should always be possible - just not like it is right now. :wink:

(Anoron Secheh) #14

Should be able to use an entosis cycle to force vulnerable, or have vulnerable while it’s running.

(Mintaki) #15

I agree that a lot of these issues are valid and there might even be a need to adjust these costs, but I find that my largest concern is simply how many structures from any random entity that can go down anywhere at any time - I’m aware they can be contested through a fight for the online timer - but it doesn’t make sense to have 100s of structures in a system and avoids a mechanic that could make upwell structures much more interesting: limiting how many can go in a system.

(Petrified) #16

As an owner and builder of structures: A token cost to maintain is fine. It should be low but at least required. If it is higher than 5 blocks per hour, then the cost for service modules should be lowered by a relative amount based on how many service modules can be fitted.

Indexing won’t help unless it is a simply +1 for X amount of additional structures present because unless the base cost is very high, an indexed number won’t make a significant impact. Also, such an indexing scheme can be used to grief the smaller players whose isk supply or access to fuel is not as great.

If you want to get rid of the glut, CCP would be better off limiting the number of structures per system - especially in High Sec.

In terms of the consequences when fuel runs out: Loss of basic functions makes sense: no teathering, obviously any service modules will be offlined because there is no fuel anyways, defensive systems go offline, and invulnerability drops. The structure can still be docked in and offices accessed. There should still be a reinforce period after the shields go down giving the owner time to try and save the structure by adding fuel before the reinforce comes out.

One additional caveat should be added: when you get into structure, between 99% and 50%, the structure can be claimed by the corporation having delivered the most DPS. Fuel can be added and the repair cycle carries out - barring the structure continuing being shot.

The restriction on refitting weapons should be adjusted so that you can drag a different weapon over to replace one currently mounted (service modules and rigs should still be locked during reinforce periods but you should be able to swap out modules, add ammo, fuel, and more fighters) unless there is a weapons timer on the structure.

After all, these are not POSes, but different kind of structure. Parity in base functions but not parity in limitations: these are not improved POSes, but something new.

(Sabriz Adoudel) #17

I would strongly support a fee of one million ISK per week per structure in the system in highsec. Higher for larger structures. (Edit for clarity: if there’s 5 Raitarus and an Azbel in a system this means a 6m upkeep for each; possibly more for the Azbel).

It’s a small fee but one that discourages just crowding into one system.

(Anoron Secheh) #18

1mil a week is nothing, just one tick from a VNI or Ishtar in nullsec and it’s paid for.

(Nou Mene) #19

I get capture is not liked by many, I was just suggesting it for abandoned structures.
Destroying structures does not function as a ISK sink, it doesn’t change the amount of currency in the game. It actually has the same effect than a faucet, in the sense that you have less assets to trade and the same amount of currency, actually devalueting it.

(Voddick) #20

Not quite. The structure took industry slots (isk) to produce, that is a sink. Thus, when the structure is destroyed the finished good from that sink is destroyed, increasing demand for another one to be produced, thus creating another sink.

It’s cyclical.