EVE Information Portal

My understanding was that the vulnerabilty windo would increase with tower use not decrease otherwise single players/small corps would be written out.

I plan to convert over to the new structures once they come out, so much of my stored inventory of POS things I have already sold off.

But how, exactly, they plan to handle the modules and towers once they remove them is a good question. Will some become collectors items like the System scanning array or mines? Will CCP just remove them from your inventory and refund the value of it back to you? Maybe allow them to be recycled at 100% of their building cost if they do not confiscate them?

All things to be hashed over... but with no immediate rush since the phase in of the new structures will overlap the phase out of the old ones.

Doesn't really matter what the vulnerability window is, the structure needs to defend itself on AI, because expecting people to log on at a very specific time just to babysit their structure 'in case' is a step back to the old days of alarm clock skill queues. As well as a step back from our current POS which do have AI defence (Though it's much better when player targeted).

People should be free to play as and when suits them. Not on a strict schedule.

Agreed. A solo player should not be locked out because they are a solo player and cannot always be available or online at the same time of day everyday. Likewise, no one should feel like a slave to the game. So lets look at a few options here:

1 - vulnerability based on corp size: As there are more players (not characters) in a corp, the more reasonable an increase in vulnerability both daily and minute by minute becomes. Some of that could be tied to the corporation level last applied by the CEO. A solo player with a couple of accounts could successfully manage a couple of Citadels and expect to defend them on a predictable level.

The problem with this is that it can be gamed easily: A large group creates a small corp to manage hundreds of POSes. The only people in the corp are those interacting with the structure to fuel it (think: moon mining operation). Thus a large group can severly limit the vulnerability window of a structure by having the entire corp managed by a small number of players/Alts in it. All they have to do is monitor the alerts and call for help in X system should it fall under attack. All the defender has to do is pilot ECM ships to the location or even join the corp under attack for the time to man the guns.

2 - Vulnerability based on usage. The main issue with usage based increases to vulnerability is that it can backfire against the smaller entities more than the larger entities. Given some people might take a few days off of EVE to travel about, they might increase their activity prior to those days to set up jobs, order defenses, fuel the structure, etc. The result is that they could effectively increase the vulnerability window to include the time they had planned to be away from the game.

This can be gamed by larger entities - especially ones where the usage is specialized such as in moon mining, by simply having the structures in a single corp and only visiting to fuel them. Meanwhile the small guy, the one this mechanic is meant to help, is instead hurt by it.

3 - Vulnerability based on number of structures. The vulnerability window is set by the number of Medium and Large Structures a corporation has anchored. A solo player can reasonably expect to defend one or two. A small corp with a dozen players or so can defend more, but in each case, the increase of structures in space increases the vulnerability of all the structures, by day and time.

Personally, I prefer the last option since it is least likely to be successfully gamed and falls in better with what people can reasonably expect to defend. An actual solo player will be using one or two structures on a regular basis and while a larger group could create many smaller corps to manage their moon mining and thus try to avoid having too many vulnerability windows: that is a heck of a lot of corporations to keep track of. Not to mention the sheer number of alts you would have to have. I think this last option best benefits and rewards the groups based on their size without punishing them for using it while it limits gaming by making the process more and more complicated and costly to manage.

No, they are not the same.

#1 depends on the number of people in a corp
#3 depends on the number of structures anchored.

BIG difference.

edit: and no, I don't think they are tied to Sov mechanics like XL.

For sov, wasn't talking about you. But I guess I am now. They want XL able to be put in high sec, so that means not sov dependent.

I don't think we want a mechanic that discourages people from being in large corporations. Your suggestion would mean that larger corporations would spend more time being forced to PvP than smaller ones.

So what of HS Citadels? How do they work....

Does a HS Citadel become all RISK and must be guarded by active players 23/7?

Too many grey area right now IMHO. We need to know the mechanics in all security (High/Low/NULL/WH) not just what it does for SOV.

Honestly I could give two f'lying f's who it effects CFC or Imperium what ever they wish to be call this week!

I don't get this "leaving out the solo player" when it comes to vulnerability windows. If I put up a POS by myself as it stands, it can be attacked ANYTIME, come out of reinforced ANYTIME depending on when its hit. And you got 1 chance to save it afterwards, or it dies

New changes makes it so much easier for the solo player. Only vuln at a time of your choosing, comes out in the time area of your choosing, and you have multiple chances to save it.

As for non automated defenses, current smalls can be reinforced in a decent amount of time by a single person. Even if defended, mods are easily incapped by drones, and orbiting at 200. Which means constantly trying to rep up your mods, or buy more, and haul them, and set them up constantly. And guess what? There's not a damn thing that can be done about it if you aren't there to defend it.

Now your mods are safe, if you get reinforced I would assume your mods would be available for the next round. No hauling, no repairing, less bullshit. And even if you aren't there for the first time they hit, or the second, you still have a third. And if you don't show up for three, then welcome to Eve, don't drop a citadel if you can't be bothered defending it.


Also, if it hasn't been suggested, or isn't in the plans, give each size its own base timer for being captured. Large and XL should take much more time to cap than a small, which gives people time to respond to defend larger more valuable ones

I'm quite interested in this topic. It would be very easy to greatly unbalance highsec risk by removing the incentive to attack highsec structures (ie loot pinatas without fuel or defences). It would be sad to see this happen.