These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Idea: Upwell structures should consume "base" amounts of fuel or ISK

Author
Voddick
AFK
#1 - 2017-06-20 04:09:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Voddick
All discussion should now be moved to the new forums: https://meta.eveonline.com/t/upwell-structures-should-consume-base-amounts-of-fuel-or-isk/4019


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



It was suggested I post this here for feedback and support. Please vote (like) the issue in the Assembly Hall for the CSM to champion the idea.

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



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 will likely be required at some point to prevent HS from becoming literally clogged with structures. Also, 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.

People need wages. Your station needs to replace those dilithium crystals.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2 - 2017-06-20 04:46:04 UTC
Citadels etc were specifically intended to not use base fuel.
They aren't hard to clear since unlike POS they don't shoot automatically, only when manned.
Most systems have maybe 2 or 3 Citadels & EC's combined, it's only the rare ones like perimeter that have more.

So, why do you have structure owners and logistics pilots so much.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#3 - 2017-06-20 05:44:04 UTC
I really wouldn't be opposed to the idea of a *minimal* ongoing fuel consumption and I'm running three structures in the same system.

However. If the idea is simply to make structures go offline when not maintained, I'd suggest a variation where fuel already being consumed by service modules applies. So for instance, if you have a base consumption of 1 block/hour on a medium structure, which doesn't seem unreasonable, then the structure would either consume 1 block/hour OR it would consume whatever it takes to run its online service modules, whichever is greater.

That way you're not increasing the consumption on structures already in use, but you are allowing unused structures to slowly degrade if not maintained. That seems fair to me.

It would also be nice to get more than 24 hours notice on fuel running out. Just saying.
Voddick
AFK
#4 - 2017-06-20 16:42:59 UTC
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#5 - 2017-06-21 00:55:12 UTC
Voddick wrote:

You're not the boss of me.
Axure Abbacus
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2017-06-21 01:24:26 UTC
Upwell structures use the same reactor technology ships use which is why they don't need fuel blocks to keep the lights on.

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.

Voddick
AFK
#7 - 2017-06-21 04:26:03 UTC
Axure Abbacus wrote:
Upwell structures use the same reactor technology ships use which is why they don't need fuel blocks to keep the lights on.



This is actually not true. I'm not talking about capacitor or shields. I'm talking about those filthy non-capsuleers that work in our ships and stations. They don't do that for free, they have kids that need food and implants.

I guess what I'm saying is...if you don't support this idea then you hate children.

That's just sad. Please have a heart and do it for the children.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#8 - 2017-06-21 17:09:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Old Pervert
Voddick wrote:
I guess what I'm saying is...if you don't support this idea then you hate children.

That's just sad. Please have a heart and do it for the children.


You know... destroying citadels just got a little more satisfying.
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#9 - 2017-06-23 22:07:20 UTC
There is one aspect of your post which I disagree with. I don't believe that a lack of fuel should cause the fitted modules to be stripped from the structure. Instead fitted defensive and service modules should be should be brough offline... Such that once the fuel supply is restored they can simply be brought back online - rather than vanishing into thin air.

I do agree with the idea of a nominal fuel cost to keep defensive modules online and station tethering and invulnerability systems operaitonal. As long as it is small. 1 fuel block per day should be adequate.