EVE General Discussion

I am not sure why you conclude this thread is a "baseless whine" when the OP is correct in observing that player-owned Upwell structures are indeed accumulating. You can question whether this is a problem at all, or that the trend will continue, but not even a year into the structures, and with only two of the many planned structures released, they are everywhere and more appear each week.

But I do agree with you they make no economic sense for a solo or small-time industrial group to deploy. The cost of them requires a significant amount of industrial output to make a profit, and because of how many there are and the competition that that will produce, it appears that renting an EC out to the public will never come close to being a profitable endeavour. CCP probably should take a clue from the fact that the player set tax rates of their structures immediately trend towards 0% or 0.01%/0.1% (the smallest unit allowed by the UI) that their structures are too safe (or not worthwhile to attack) to support an actual competitive ecosystem. Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't valuable for large industrialist and industry groups who seem to be embracing them for all their advantages over POSes.

That said, if I was implementing such a complex system into an existing game I too would err on the side of too much safety so players actually start using them. I would implement all the structures, see how the players are using them, and then start tweaking them (as well as the NPC stations) to make it worthwhile for players to build them, rent them and their services to each other, and destroy them, and if I really was CCP Black Pedro, implement a bunch of region/constellation/system-limited bonuses that could be fit to the structures for players to fight over. I don't see too much downside if that means over the next year they keep accumulating before some balance changes are made after all the structures are implemented, and we have data on how they perform, that makes it more worthwhile to shoot them and then we can have a grand old party burning all the undefended ones to the ground.

But yes, I too did the math and it makes no sense for me to deploy an EC to do the scale of industry I do these days. That is, of course, intended by CCP and a good thing for the game that there is not a 'one size fits all' solution (like the current highsec industry POSes). I can still build things in NPC stations or other people's ECs, and if I ever want to get serious about industry again there is now a motivation for me to band together with others and put something on the line to gain efficiencies. I like how building things now is again a bit of a challenge and there are multiple solutions depending on how you want to play the game, but cooperative and competitive play is again incentivized. Plus, there are always players who are bad at math, overestimate their ability to defend structures, or have some compulsion to have a space home that they will let me use for free or just peanuts while taking all the risk, and who will serve as targets if I am looking to create some content (although I just wish there was more reasons to do so).

Win-win-win it all is.

in regards to 1) to 3) and 5) I think it is too early to make a proper assessment, I am seeing more people prepared to attack them, I am noticing Raitaru's dying more in hisec then anywhere else. 6) I think that attacking a fully fit Citadel or EC is worthwhile.

4) I agree in principle, but I understand and accept CCP's reasons

7) I disagree, the cost of fully setup ones in relation to their survivability especially the Raitaru is actually quite expensive and I think the people who went into this have already realised this as I am starting to see fully researched BPO's coming out on contracts. I expect that the prices will stay high because the raw materials especially the rigs are an issue. P4 is staying static but I notice Salvage material keep going upwards in price, I think the demand is more related to Fortizars and Keepstars which make no sense in hisec apart from piggy backing on market hubs.

8) Agreed

9) Only if you own it, using another persons one is very risky aspecially with a long job.

10) Totally agree.

EDIT: I am hoping that these things will push hisec players to band together, this is something that all of us hope to see as this is where the conflict drivers and fun combat will come from. And this factor is also why calling for their defences to be increased is incorrect because it depends on people having real corps in hisec. So I have to slap myself on the wrist for my comments about their defences because I want to see more meaningful entities in hisec and these things hopefully willl drive that.

EDIT2: Black Pedro, yes I did go too far with calling it a baseless whine, that is too strong, I do however feel that it is too early to make such a judgement, good post by the way.

I think both camps can largely agree, that HS Citadels/ECs are not facilitating the kind of conflict/cooperation drivers that they could.

Furthermore, I think both camps agree that it is largely not worthwhile for most players to either place them or destroy them.

Yet HS Citadels/ECs continue to proliferate, vs a conservative estimate of 1% attrition across EVE, a substantial portion of which is in specific systems.

Ironically, its exactly in HS, with its peculiar mechanics, that such conflict/cooperation drivers would be needed most.
But its also in HS, due to those same peculiarities, that it is most difficult to implement an equitable solution.

---

Drac has presented that his observation from the market, is that players are beginning to realize that it is not worthwhile to place the cheaper stuctures, and that this will plateau the market, and not extend into ever increasing rates of these structures as a result of price dropping.

I do not dispute that observation, as I cba to research a rebuttal, and none has been offered by anyone else.
Though market analysis since the inception of these structures would be peripherally informative, we currently have no way to accurately count the actual extent of their proliferation as anchored structures in HS. (Unless some madman flies through every HS system counting them).

Hopefully, he is correct.
This, because the larger and more expensive the structure, the more conflict/cooperation it necessitates, per unit.
These larger, more expensive structures, thus provide more incentive for conflict/cooperative content, as localised drivers.

---

As I concluded in my previous post, the underlying issue, is in what incentives there are for conflict or cooperation as involved with these structures.

Thus, it is rational to investigate the different incentives of aggressors, and defenders, as specific to HS peculiar space.

Aggressor:
-To cause loss to the target, as the cost of the structure and its structure specific equipment.
-To loot part of the value of that structure and its structure specific equipment.
-To destroy Jump Clones located there (which however can be evacuated during invulnerability windows).
-To abort current player industry processes, and apparently to cause assets involved in those to drop.
-To remove a structure competing on rates, with your own, so as to consolidate the market to use yours.
-For teh lols and tears.

Defender:
-To have your own home.
-To have control of access, trade rates, industry efficiency rates, and onsite storage to one or more of these.
-To benefit from the above by use by others (or your own corp members), including HQ rent and (apparently) sidestepping Jump Clone cool-down. (And tethering, arguably not so useful, but peculiar to these structures)
-The above as a distinction from operating out of a NPC station, where you do not control or benefit from the above.
-To benefit from 100% free and 100% safe Asset Safety.
-The above being no different than in an NPC station, except for its cost if destroyed to its owners, jump clones if not evacuated, and aborting/drop of current industry processes.

---

My conclusion from the above, when boiled down, is:
-Aggressors benefit from destroying the structure, if the value of result of that action is worth the effort.
-Defenders benefit from the structure, if their value exceed costs of placing, maintaining its functions and defending it.

Boiling that down even further, the dividing line between value to the aggressor, and value to the defender, as incentive, is ultimately vested in Asset Safety.

As long as Asset Safety is 100% free, and 100% safe:
-Owning defenders stand to lose only the structure and related equipment. Occupants stand only to lose Jump clones (which can be withdrawn), and industry processes and involved materials (which can be cancelled).
-Aggressors stand only to gain the value of dropped structure specific equipment, and a loss of that to an opponent.

As evidenced by a 1% attrition rate per month against a proliferation of HS Citadels/EC, this means the value of destroying them, is less than the value of building them.

This is deleterious, because if the Citadels/EC are not worth destroying, that also means there is no impetus for cooperation to defend them. Thus Citadels/EC do not comprise a conflict OR cooperation driver in HS.

I maintain, that HS especially needs an adjustment to Asset Safety, such that it is atleast 5% to recover stored assets.
This would also mean, practically, that players that wish to avoid that 5% recovery cost, must move their assets out.
Admittedly, this is a trivial matter on an NPC corp alt, but atleast it requires effort and time.

---

TLDR: To facilitate risk/cost vs profit, for both aggressor and defender, in HS Citadels/ECs, and to facilitate them as conflict/cooperation drivers, the 100% free and 100% safe Asset safety must be mitigated.

In the face of Citadel/EC proliferation vs a conservative 1% estimate of attrition across 1090 systems per month, it is clear that the system is not providing sufficient incentive for conflict, and as a result, cooperation to counteract it.

100% free and 100% safe Asset safety must remain exclusive to NPC stations, in HS in particular.
It should NOT be extended to player structures, whom have control of and profit from their own structures.
HS needs conflict drivers, and by extension, cooperation drivers.

The 100% free and 100% safe Asset safety system provides neither, as evidenced by 1% attrition vs an increasing proliferation of these structures., even though NP stations exist alongside.

100% free/safe Asset Safety is systemically impairing the function and potential of Citadels/EC as HS conflict/cooperation drivers.

DO you have the attrition rate of anything else in the game to put these numbers into perspective? You also have to take into account he fact that a higher installation base might trigger more destruction too. If there are 3k installed right now, more per day/week/months might get destroyed when there will be 6k. A 1% will still make the installed number plateau when the install rate flattens around 1%. Are we seeing a large increase in installation rate and can we expect it to continue to grow or will it slowdown as more stand in space? More data for CCP would be nice to form an opinion.

The same rules apply as always:
1. Don't be stupid.
2. Don't get people angry at you.
3. Expect that you will be stupid and get people angry at you.
4. Take steps to mitigate the risk to a level you can accept.

The biggest risk is whether the structure will complete its first repair cycle. This is just like on-lining a POS in hostile space, where all you can do is wait, and defend it, or take your chances and hope nobody notices.

As for Perimeter:
Exploit Notification – Generation Of Tech II BPOs From Destruction Of Citadels & Engineering Complexes

I don't think that the proliferating of Citadels is the real problem for most players, but the inability to manage them in one's overview.

At the moment we only have the option to add Citadels and/or ECs to the overview regardless of standings. When switched on, if you have docking rights, you see them system wide, otherwise only on grid.

What we need:

1. The ability to filter them based on standings.
2. The ability to filter them when ongrid seperately.
3. The ability to filter them when offgrid seperately.
4. An ongrid flag showing whether we have docking rights.
5. The ability to filter them based on available services.

... in a war zone.

The equivalent is your home coming under attack, and unless you defend it, it will be reduced to rubble.
That makes sense.
Asset Safety however means all the contents of your house are miraculously transported out for free.
That does not make sense.