This adds a game play element of both piracy and defortification of forward operating posts in your territory. Currently a structure can be anchored, staged with ships, and fueled for months on end. You can not give a rats a** about the structure except a final timer that your blob with 400 pilots in your optimal timezone. Even then if it falls you get all your staging assets back with a minor fee.
This proposed gameplay additional allows a group to harass the structure, and while easy to defend against, forces the station controlling faction to actively defend their asset. No one is proposing that the siphon drain a station quickly, just a pseudo “set it and forget it” station has the ability to be drained slowly if the entity isn’t paying proper attention.
This adds destruction into the game on both sides, punishes a static situation, and opens up new methods of warfare.
@Archer_en_Tilavine Who ever said this would accommodate lone wolves or small corps? My proposition is a very dangerous situation for the deploying entity and likely won’t bare fruit as long as the controlling entity is paying attention. Just using MTU prices (which these should be considerably more expensive) you would have to steal ~350+ fuel blocks to be profitable.
To note, not sure what Eve you are living in, but afk cloaks are generally impossible to counter. Hotdroppers yes, afk cloaks, no. Preventing a fueler from getting in a system would require you to have active bubblers 24/7 on all gates in a system with active decloakers or piles of trash around the gate. Even then a single lucky cloaker with a cyno getting through a gate means the station is fueled for months.
You can harass a structure without this mechanic. You don’t need a siphon to harass a structure - what you need is to either grow some balls and attack it when it is low powered or full powered, and/or recruit more allies to help you bash it. That’s it. That’s all it takes.
No, this is absurd logic. If they were active enough to defend it then they would be active enough to fuel it.
Not they’re not
So what? BASH THE STATION WHEN IT IS FULL/LOW POWERED
The key thing here is that the Abandoned state was designed to solve a specific problem - abandoned citadel spam all over the game. Dropping asset safety appears to have been intended to encourage people to bash the abandoned structures. We’ll not go into the impact on inactive players here.
Forcing a structure into an abandoned state so you can steal its resources is not what the Forsaken Fortress patch is intended to address, and requesting additional game changes to expand its scope is not only unnecessary but also counterproductive - we don’t WANT there to be abandoned structures. Any active corp that sees it is at risk of having its station forced to Abandoned is going to Asset Safety everything out anyway, so you won’t have loot pinatas and just get a shorter destruction cycle on the structure when it hits abandoned - which is very little payout for a lot of effort.
I think the lnclusion of the syphon and the timeline I laid out for timers would be a wonderful addition.
Brun has clearly never bashed stations or let stations die because they are not worth defending.
This adds spice to the battle. If the station is empty then it will fall normally. If it is a forward operatiing base it will now have to be defended vigoursly.
Also what about those pirates who war dec everything. Would be nice to take down their stations and get their loot and ships.
Day before yesterday I destroyed an abandoned station and over 200 ships fell out of it. If you cannot see the benefit of 200 ships falling in loot then I really do struggle to see what you do in the game. This is not an attack or trolling you but it would appear that your method of playing the game is not like mine and never will be so we would have to agree to disagree. However I know there are pilots who post on this forum would love to see 200 ships or so drop out of a station that they forced into abandoned.
By your answers either you are a bad actor or don’t actually play in an area with SOV warfare. As the OP said, this is directed toward null space, not highsec. Most stations are timezone tanked so simply “BASH THE STRUCTURE GROW SOME BALLS” means you end up with a fight outside outside of your timezone, protected by 200 munnins thanks to a convenient timer, and if you succeed you there is no real consequence for the defender thanks to asset safety.
Finally we have a mechanic that removes the ability to just drop a station and basically forget about it till you need a safe spot or need to defend a timer. It’s intended purpose is clear, remove clutter. However, it has the capability of being used as a tactical tool.
If you can’t do it, don’t do it? You don’t HAVE to take down the structure… it’s not going to inhibit your gameplay… Maybe leave it up? Or bash another? If garnering numbers/growing balls is too difficult, do something else?
Oh, and let’s not forget this part:
Because we all know a group with 200 Munnins can’t manage to fuel a structure. It’s so damn hard to smuggle fuel when you can afford 200 Munnins. Cynos are hard, WH chains are hard, breaking through gate camps is hard, smuggling enough fuel to trigger a single service module cycle to keep it low powered over abandoned is hard. Even if less than those 200 munnins each brought 1 block each, they’d have enough fuel to prevent it from going abandoned.
I play in WH space where we don’t get asset safety anyway. Neither do the folks we evict.
I don’t care that you enjoy loot. That alone isn’t justification to give players a way to force the abandoned state. Abandoned happens because of neglect and was implemented to affect a specific change that it has now achieved.
Here we have the crux of the argument. If they can muster 200 munnins on a reinforcement timer they can do it on a siphoning notice. Your suggestion doesn’t achieve its goal unless you ignore the very player behaviour you’re using to try and justify the need for it.
I am referring to abandoned structures not as a mechanics state, but as a literal ‘no longer cared for’ object.
The state is being apply to eliminate the literal objects that nobody is managing.
Nobody wants unused structure spam. Forsaken Fortress resolves unused structure spam. Forsaken Fortress has thus done its job, and applying its mechanics to active structures doesn’t benefit anyone - because as previously outlined, Asset Safety can be triggered on actively managed structures by the owner. Warnings also go out to the asset owners of the low power state, so they can trigger asset safety themselves, too. Which means adding all this additional mechanic that is unrelated to the whole reason Forsake Fortress was launched doesn’t actually deliver loot.
You think this idea is about exposing abandoned structures faster. It isn’t.
It’s another way to attack structures. A one that takes longer but yields more loot. And you all know there are players out there that want more loot from structures.
And with this post you are admitting that all you want is loot, not a better way to fight structures.
Your issue, then, isn’t with needing to force an abandoned state - you just want Asset Satefy gone. That doesn’t need an entirely new set of game mechanics - just join the petition to get rid of Asset Safety.
I disagree with the entire notion - forcing an abandoned state on an active structure is counter to the design principals. This is a discussion forum, and I have the right (and obligation, from a player advocacy perspective) to voice my opinion on the negative value this feature would deliver. This would be a waste of development resources because it doesn’t solve any problems or enhance any gameplay.
Pretty much what this whole thread has really been about. If you can seriously suggest an anchorable that just turns off asset safety then you can’t even begin to claim that you’re interested in the health or the balance of game mechanics.
