These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

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

Author
Voddick
AFK
#1 - 2017-06-15 18:37:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Voddick
Please post all feedback in the new forums: https://meta.eveonline.com/t/upwell-structures-should-consume-base-amounts-of-fuel-or-isk/4019



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.



Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/6hteak/support_needed_upwell_structures_should_consume/
T4lon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2017-06-17 13:36:41 UTC  |  Edited by: T4lon
No, not fuel. ISK.

Have the isk put into a 'holding' UI element for each structure, like fuel, and when that ISK runs out, the same thing happens as if regular fuel ran out.

This way you get poopy spammed and forgotten structures removed easier, and you get a huge ISK sink added to the game.

2nd edit: this should also really be over in Player Features and Ideashttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=270
Voddick
AFK
#3 - 2017-06-17 13:55:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Voddick
I don't typically use the forums a lot, so is the assembly hall still where the CSM brings player suggestions to CCP?

OR

Does CCP pull directly from the "Player Features and Ideas?"
xvdfhn
Little Red Riding Hole
W.A.S. Alliance - Weapons Armor or Shield
#4 - 2017-06-17 14:18:38 UTC  |  Edited by: xvdfhn
T4lon wrote:
No, not fuel. ISK.

Have the isk put into a 'holding' UI element for each structure, like fuel, and when that ISK runs out, the same thing happens as if regular fuel ran out.

This way you get poopy spammed and forgotten structures removed easier, and you get a huge ISK sink added to the game.

2nd edit: this should also really be over in Player Features and Ideashttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=270



cross posting from reddit:
Quote:

there are fuel in the game already that would be cancelled with the "soon" to be removal of POS´s. By changing Citadels to be able use all fuel-blocks you can have these resources stay ingame easy. If you want an isk sink you could remove the bpo and only let npc´s sell bpc´s. This way it´s allot of change while leaving old ingame stuff allive (mats not pos).
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#5 - 2017-06-17 15:25:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
100% behind this. I always felt it was ridiculous that an unfueled POS drops it's shield yet an unfueled citadel keeps tethering.

I like your idea about the index, I had mentioned something similar a while back but it constellation based and each M/L/XL citadel contributed a different amount to that index. Basically making two keepstars/satiyos in the same constellation max out the index, where as it would have taken 10 Astrahus/Raitaru. Something that effects fuel usage is better than my arbitrary hard cap but can be used to accomplish the same.

Something has to be done to stop the citadel spam. That's for damn sure.

EDIT : Since you edited your original post. I'm not really for the isk cost as a factor, we have that already with sov mechanics. I am in agreement with it increasing fuel usage. Isk sinks are needed - but citadels are not the way to go about it. It's targeting the wrong people. This whole thing started more as a cost to run citadel idea to discourage citadel spam. The whole isk sink idea is unrelated.
Voddick
AFK
#6 - 2017-06-17 15:51:47 UTC
Yes...larger structures, more impact on the index. +1
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Asteria Concord.
#7 - 2017-06-17 16:26:35 UTC
Should the structures consume a base amount of fuel? No, no they should not. They should however require an isk fee for operating.

With the removal of poses approaching, the cost of fuel itself should actually remain about the same. Think about it, with poses gone, all the operations that are currently still run in a pos will need to be moved to a citadel, which means more citadels consuming the fuel. As has been highlighted by CCP as of late, there's a **** TON of raw isk in the game and getting added every hour. We used to have clone grades as a large isk sink, but with their death(good riddance) several years ago, we haven't had any real isk sinks. Because of this, there's a lot more raw money in the game trading hands, and in some cases just sitting in people's wallets in stupid high quantities. The game needs an isk sink, and we need one badly.

Instead of additional fuel, have Concord charge an isk fee, call it an operating license or something. This fee should be based on citadel size/class and location; the higher the sec status, or the bigger the structure, then the higher the fee. Set it up like office rentals, you can either manually pay it or have it set to auto bill, with both options payable from either personal wallets or corp ones. If the bill goes unpaid, then your license from concord expires and all your workers go home and leave the citadel on automatic. When left running in automatic mode, you can still dock and refit but, you cant repair, you cant tether, and you have no timers. This way, just as is with poses, if they are left unattended and unpaid, then they can be easily removed. In addition, i put forth that any citadel that is left in such an abandoned state, should follow wh mechanics and drop all of it's contents as loot. Doing this would give people a reason to both pay attention to their citadels, as well as provide and incentive for people to hunt and kill abandoned ones.
Logan Jakal
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#8 - 2017-06-17 16:44:49 UTC
Although I am 100% behind this idea, I think that the problem wouldn't be to apply it, but rather to apply it NOW. People have dropped a fuckton of citadels making it look problematic in my opinion to do this now, it should have been done at the beginning, when Citadels were released.

Plus the fact that the real issue with citadels in not really to desperately find ISK sinks like CCP wants, the real issues with citadels is the asset safety, perfect exemple is what happens in WHs when a citadel dies, the loot drops, and it should be the same for every citadel wherever in the game, it would create PvP content since it would be profitable to attack, creating ISK sinks via losses.
Tegho
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2017-06-17 16:46:20 UTC
Why not isk and fuel?

Also, hi sec POSes require charters; why do citadels not?
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Asteria Concord.
#10 - 2017-06-17 17:21:05 UTC
Tegho wrote:
Why not isk and fuel?

Also, hi sec POSes require charters; why do citadels not?



because they already use fuel? no need to make them use more. and charters are just a ****** way of making you pay some isk for the high sec usage, might as well drop the crap mechanic and just charge isk.
Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2017-06-17 17:25:37 UTC
As stated by Clerical_terrors on reddit:
Quote:
It's personal ISK that's increasing, not corporate owned ISK. This would really affects the private ISK reserves of smaller corps who have people paying the logistics bill out of their pocket. It would do nothing to people who are making tons of ISK in a large alliance.


Using isk would be a terrible idea. We don't need corporate isk sinks, we need personal isk sinks, and ones that are directed specifically at wealthy players.

Fuel is a good idea, the index is a decent idea.
Netan MalDoran
Reckless-Endangerment
Manifesto.
#12 - 2017-06-17 17:29:43 UTC
I would imagine that the ISK payment would not apply in WH space, as there is no theoretical NPC access from K-space which is why asset safety doesn't work. Makes a nice tradeoff for WH corps.

"Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was!

Falcon's truth

Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#13 - 2017-06-17 17:33:57 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
100% behind this. I always felt it was ridiculous that an unfueled POS drops it's shield yet an unfueled citadel keeps tethering.

.



Citadel didn't replace POS, it replaced POS AND Outpost

Outpost never required fuel

So, if it does require fuel and I litter HS and put 10 years of fuel in them, would that be ok with you?

What about if it has online modules, would that then no longer require extra fuel?

Have you thought about the greater implications of fuel demand to keep these citadels running?
mrjknyazev
MamenkinbI CbInki
#14 - 2017-06-17 17:50:15 UTC
Make them consume stront in order to operate. With the removal of POS there will be a huge drop in stront demand that should be replaced by something.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#15 - 2017-06-17 17:57:08 UTC
Voddick wrote:
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.





Have you thought about why citadels were made in the first place?

To have a home....

How many people lived out of a POS in high sec? NONE - why - cause they required fuel and you lost your **** when they blew up

Now, we have citadels, although you don't necessarily lose your ****, if someone forgets to fuel it one weekend and it gets blown up, why bother using them, just stay in a station

Oh crap, 2-3 years of development down the crapper cause you can't figure out how to fix your overview or use the structure browser. Boo Hoo hoo
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#16 - 2017-06-17 17:57:55 UTC
mrjknyazev wrote:
Make them consume stront in order to operate. With the removal of POS there will be a huge drop in stront demand that should be replaced by something.



the reaction jobs will require it
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#17 - 2017-06-17 18:27:44 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:

Citadel didn't replace POS, it replaced POS AND Outpost

Outpost never required fuel

...

Have you thought about the greater implications of fuel demand to keep these citadels running?



Outposts were also limited to one per system. Have you thought about the greater implications of allowing dozens and hundreds of Upwell structures per system without any way of reducing the god-awful method of removing them? Or, perhaps, having to have your meatshields pay to have a lot of structures around trade hubs and drawing in billions of ISK would be a bit too much for you.
Haile Korhal
Professional Amateurs
#18 - 2017-06-17 18:31:19 UTC
I prefer the idea of ISK being used rather than fuel. Let's keep fuel for services and use ISK to pay the workers and all the other base liners that keep the citadels operational. As other's have said, we need more ISK sinks and this would be great. Wormhole space is littered with long dead forgotten citadels. You think high-security space is bad? You've never been to wormhole space.

Egregious Spreadsheet Services - For Spreadsheets as a Service to businesses, corporations, and higher, look no further!

mrjknyazev
MamenkinbI CbInki
#19 - 2017-06-17 19:47:52 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:
mrjknyazev wrote:
Make them consume stront in order to operate. With the removal of POS there will be a huge drop in stront demand that should be replaced by something.



the reaction jobs will require it


I doubt it will be big enough to replace the amounts needed for large POS.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#20 - 2017-06-17 19:53:02 UTC
mrjknyazev wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:
mrjknyazev wrote:
Make them consume stront in order to operate. With the removal of POS there will be a huge drop in stront demand that should be replaced by something.



the reaction jobs will require it


I doubt it will be big enough to replace the amounts needed for large POS.



I bet they are already working on making it close......

Also, POS only needs stront when it gets hit, it doesn't actually "Use" stront
12Next page