So structures are anchored and structures fall all the time. However we have a new dynamic now with adandoned structure state that allows the spoils of war go to the victor.
I would like to see a method developed so that a structure could be starved of fuel. I will give an example why later.
I was thinking that if you increaseed the size of a fuel block by a factor of 50 and also the time they last by 50 and the construction requirements by 50. So ISK neutral. The bigger fuel blocks would mean that only large ships can run fuel to a station. So if a system was blockaded correctly the stations in it would starve of fuel. Then the station is toppled and the prevailing victor get all the loot.
This would be a considerable acheivement considering the time frame needed to blockade a system but the increase in fuel block size would mean that the blockade only has to shoot indie ships. I would also make it that capital ships cannot carry fuel blocks so that a cyno cannot be called and fuel jumped in.
i appreciate my idea is a bit rough around the edges but there must be considerable scope for suggestions from the users of this forum to make this viable.
Now to my examples:
A Red structure appears over night and is intended as a staging post. You mobilise your forces and secure the system. After many days of holding the system the structure goes into abandoned and then you destroy it and get any ships etc that drop.
I am not suggesting it should be easy to do. I am suggesting we should have the ability with organisation and determination to do so.
Abandoned state was a solution to a problem. You make no compelling argument for more low-risk loot piƱatas.
I donāt think youāve even thought your idea through. If structures can be forced into abandoned state, then thereāll be no loot in them anyway. People arenāt gonna leave their stuff in there, theyāll asset safety all their stuff out before the structure even goes into low power.
The only reason you got a loot piƱata phase right now is that the players are inactive. For a powered structure thatās not gonna be true. Itāll certainly be a dwindling population.
Also you can do this right now. Declare war and pop the ships carrying the fuel. Having fuel mechanics changed just so that you can abuse them is the dumbest thing Iāve read today. You just want more stuff basically handed to you for little effort on your part. How about no?
This does not solve a problem or enhance gameplay. It actually makes gameplay less enjoyable. Active groups will continue to fuel structures regardless of the above changes and would destroy siphons (which CONCORD would not permit in HS). You want to see structures go down more readily? Bash the structure, powered or not.
Mobile Fuel Siphons - Must be deployed within the tether range of a station. Cannot be deployed in High Security space (wardec mechanics on an aggressive anchored object would be too difficult). No reinforcement cycle, like a MTU. Slowly drains fuel from the structure and makes it available to the deployed like an MTU. Diminishing returns on multiple siphons in range.
The upwell owner receives an Evemail notification after the first cycle of drain. Why? Because third party ESI tools would be able to detect abnormal fuel loss, so no point putting the added stress on ESI pulls.
Except itās nearly impossible to actually siege in Eve. 24/7 coverage of all gates to the stationās system with infallible cloaking detection to stop blockade runners would be required. Basically impossible outside of a massive block in a concerted effort and even then incredibly difficult.
This is an MMO. The whole point is that goals such as this should be accomplished only with collaborative effort. You might be able to knock over a Raitaru with a lone Battlecruiser but past that you need strength in numbers and that should not change. Mechanics should not change to accommodate lone wolves and players operating in treehouse corps when this is an MMO. Iām not saying players should have to join large groups or join alliances, but players and corps for any size should network and make friends and make allies outside of alliance-mechanics. Garner strength in numbers to bash POSes.
Siphons should compensate for failure or unwillingness to collaborate with others.
Same applies here. Gate camps, AFK cloaks + local intel, etc can be countered through collaborative effort.
This is not a problem. This is the way it should be. This should not change.
Firstly my suggestion is nothing to do with hisec structures. I was aiming my thoughts at null sec.
Secondly yes conventional methods of blowing up structures is something that is done to death.
I am merely suggesting that there could be another way of doing it and one that enables you to get all the loot out of the station.
Finally for the āNope I do not want any changesā gang. You do not have to use the new mechanisms suggested here as after all it is a sandbox. I am just going for new ways to bring down stations and get the loot. Open your eyes fools. Change is good!
I do warmly welcome suggestions to help what I said had rough edges of an idea. I would love to explore the mechanics of allowing a proper siege of a system as well. Yes this would involve large numbers.
This has nothing to do with resisting change. It has to do with whether or not your idea solves a problem or enhances gameplay - in this case, not only does it do neither, but it actually poses a detriment to gameplay.
Not all change is good. If you read my forum posts, Iām one of the most highly progressive regulars on here - I am constantly advocating for change and willing to break metas, but only in ways that make sense. Your āyou donāt like my idea because you donāt like changeā argument is unwarranted and is a poor defense against your idea. We attack your idea because it is weak, not because we resist change.
It doesnāt. At the end of the day, you still have to bash the structure. A siphon as proposed does not destroy the structure. At best it will shutdown services and turn a structure into āabandonedā after weekā¦assuming the owning corp do sweet FA about it.
As I did suggest I am open to suggestions to round the idea.
The goal of forcing a structure into abandoned is not a bad goal as it does have obvious benefits to those who accomplish it.
I agree it needs to be difficult but i also think there needs to be a route to enable this to happen rather than inactive corps.
So I encourage all who read this to help me formulate a way of achieving this?
Firstly bashing a structure because you want rid can result in little reward. If you could get hold of the loot inside this would force the defenders to defend it and incentivise the attackers to attack it.
So how about this then:
Normal station bashing procedure 1 Take off the shields then get timer.
Normal station bashing procedure 2 Take off the Armour then get timer.
Normal station bashing procedure 3 Take the structure to a certain level then place a syphon as mentioned. This process could take x amount of time.
New timer is then made where the station goes into abandoned for a period and that is when you can pop the station to get the goodies.
So there is a choice now halfway through Procedure 3. Do we continue and destroy or deploy the syphon and go form for a new timer and then go for the loot. An increase in risk for the attackers as well as reward.
The notion that a siphon can be used to bring a structure into abandoned state is fairly absurd. As I already pointed out, virtually any active group is going to keep their structured fueled no matter what, and virtually any inactive group is going to let their structure decay into abandoned anyway, so a siphon doesnāt change these facts.
This is not an idea that needs improvement, this is an idea that needs to be shelved.
