These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A few 'corrections' to current structure mechanics

Author
TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2017-06-07 16:08:28 UTC
Structures are great, but as a full replacement for POS' I think they need a couple of changes to make the gameplay more interesting. In short a structure should lose a number of strategic benefits when there is no fuel in the structure. In addition just having a structure online should consume fuel. POS' consume fuel, so why not structures?

Structures should use a minimal amount of fuel on their own, but fuel non the less. Say 1 per hour for med, 2 per hour for large and 4 per hour for extra large.

Proposed ideas, when there is no fuel in the structure:


  1. Tether doesn't work, period.
  2. Shield reinforcement timer is skipped completely.
  3. Weapon systems go offline
  4. Damage cap is removed/increased


Adding fuel to the fuel bay would instantly bring everything back online, with the exception of the shield timer if the structure is already being attacked (and this in the repair cycle) at that moment.

Not only would this make owning a structure a little bit more of an (time) investment, it would make it much easier to destroy structures that are abandoned or otherwise left unattended. In addition this almost perfectly mirrors the way POS' currently work. If a POS is without fuel weapons go offline, shield goes offline and you can't safely sit around the stick.

A mere 600m structure should not provide the advantages it does if you can't even be committed to keeping it online.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#2 - 2017-06-07 18:12:26 UTC
I agree that an unfueled structure in empire or nullsec should be penalized. I would like it to behave identically to wormhole structures - two 24 hour timers and no asset safety. It would give people incentive to cleanup abandoned structures. They could burn a bit of fuel to "keep the lights on" if no service modules are online. An unfueled structure should be obvious - no lights!
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#3 - 2017-06-07 18:16:40 UTC
I could get behind the OP's idea.

It would certainly help clean up the massive structure spam, and it would definitely make cleanup after a sov fight easier.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2017-06-07 18:41:23 UTC
Part of the issue CCP will have with "no asset safety" is how it's always been a marketing point for them that if you came back after you had left for however long, you always had a way to get your stuff back by jumping through arbitrary number of hoops unless it was in a WH. Removing asset safety kills this.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#5 - 2017-06-07 19:06:40 UTC
yes

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#6 - 2017-06-07 19:53:18 UTC
If the structure isn't manned, there are no weapons anyway.
If it's not manned it's almost certainly not defended, damage cap is irrelevant.
Tether applies to everyone using the structure, not just the owner, so now you are penalising people who have no say in it's fueling, ditto shield timer.

Basically, if the owners aren't maintaining a structure, it's not a big deal to blow it up anyway. And they are not meant to be POS 2.0. They are meant to fill the same basic roles but differently.
You seem to be off searching for a problem for this solution.
Kassimila
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#7 - 2017-06-07 20:21:28 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
If the structure isn't manned, there are no weapons anyway.
If it's not manned it's almost certainly not defended, damage cap is irrelevant.
Tether applies to everyone using the structure, not just the owner, so now you are penalising people who have no say in it's fueling, ditto shield timer.

Basically, if the owners aren't maintaining a structure, it's not a big deal to blow it up anyway. And they are not meant to be POS 2.0. They are meant to fill the same basic roles but differently.
You seem to be off searching for a problem for this solution.


What? They are in fact POS 2.0. They are replacing POS's, they should have a base fuel cost on them.
Cade Windstalker
#8 - 2017-06-07 20:23:38 UTC
A few problems with this.

First, the cost of structures and modules is based around them not requiring fuel. With a POS you pay for fuel over time, with a Citadel you pay a lot more up front but get the basics without using fuel.

Second, adding any significant kind of fuel consumption to the economy has the potential to spike fuel prices which are already fairly high, by historical standards.

Third, this mostly hurts smaller entities rather than medium and large ones. Citadels don't have any sort of cargo restriction so the problem of logistics basically doesn't exist, you can stock enough fuel to run the Citadel for months at a time easily. This means that this mostly only inconveniences smaller groups and makes a few people feel good about Citadels costing money over time.

For reference for half the cost of an Astrahus you could, under this proposed cost scheme, keep one running for a little over 2 and a half years. So if CCP added something like this in exchange for taking some off the build costs it would basically do nothing except spike fuel prices.

If the goal is to make Citadels easier to kill when not in use there are better ways. It's not like they're particularly hard to kill now compared to a POS, they just have annoyingly long reinforce times.
Cade Windstalker
#9 - 2017-06-07 20:24:25 UTC
Kassimila wrote:
What? They are in fact POS 2.0. They are replacing POS's, they should have a base fuel cost on them.


They're also replacing Outposts, which have no Fuel costs. Does that mean they should or shouldn't have fuel cost? BlinkPirate
TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2017-06-07 23:34:54 UTC  |  Edited by: TigerXtrm
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Part of the issue CCP will have with "no asset safety" is how it's always been a marketing point for them that if you came back after you had left for however long, you always had a way to get your stuff back by jumping through arbitrary number of hoops unless it was in a WH. Removing asset safety kills this.


No one is talking about removing asset safety Straight

Quote:
You seem to be off searching for a problem for this solution.


The biggest problem, in my mind anyway, is that the medium structures especially are too easy to throw around, even for smaller entities. A Raitaru costs only 600m and provides all the comforts of a present day station, including tethering. And ask anyone who's been involved in this, even taking down a Raitaru is annoying to do because of the timer bullshit. Another 'problem' is that cheap structures make movement of capitals way too easy, though admittedly this already being looked into by CCP in the form of tether restrictions after using a jump drive.

In any case it is my personal belief that there should be some commitment to owning a structure. It shouldn't be something you just throw down and forget about until you happen to need it as a safe spot one day. And again, this is especially true for the medium structures. Large and up are pretty much commitments for their price alone. But a 600m structure is nothing, even for small corps. Hell, even most solo players can sneeze and have enough money for one.

Point is, the basic functions of any structure (docking, asset safety, tether, fitting, insurance) are incredibly powerful in terms of gameplay for a one-off investment of only 600m. To me it doesn't make sense that such powerful tools come essentially for free for unlimited time without any serious responsibility or further commitment on the owner's part.

Quote:
They're also replacing Outposts, which have no Fuel costs. Does that mean they should or shouldn't have fuel cost?


If you want to get technical, the mediums replace POS' and the large replace Outposts. So apply this plan only to mediums, problem solved.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2017-06-08 02:51:16 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Part of the issue CCP will have with "no asset safety" is how it's always been a marketing point for them that if you came back after you had left for however long, you always had a way to get your stuff back by jumping through arbitrary number of hoops unless it was in a WH. Removing asset safety kills this.


No one is talking about removing asset safety Straight



Post number 2 does. I probably should have quoted... My bad.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#12 - 2017-06-08 04:28:13 UTC
I'm fine with it being easier to kill, but tethering and asset safety should stay.

What about a lack of fuel making citadels vulnerable 24/7 rather than working on timer and no repair timers.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Lugh Crow-Slave
#13 - 2017-06-08 20:39:37 UTC
one of the great things about these was that you did not have to keep fuel in them. i would much rather a small tax that if unpayed marks the structure as derelict and puts it as always vulnerable
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
#14 - 2017-06-08 21:29:22 UTC
If you could capture vulnerable a structure would good too. Maybe a modified entosis Link or delpoyable.

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Asset Confiscation Officer
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2017-06-09 20:39:34 UTC
I dont think things like citadels, etc should operate at all without consuming fuel all the time.

It makes no sense that a structure would be able to magically defend itself without using some kind of fuel source to keep itself running, i know a lot of structures dont use fuel that you could argue that they should but this is a topic about certain types of structures so i restrict my discussion to them alone.