EVE Information Portal

Indeed. If you remove loot drops and allow them to be taken down after a war is declared there is no reason left to attack them. You would not be able to attack them for profit, and allowing a corp to evade a war by taking down the structure means you cannot even use them to force a fight.

The fact that they can be placed anywhere even removes the niche conflict they might drive over limited/valuable moons.

What is the point of adding something to the sandbox that other players can only interact with by shooting a entosis beam at for no reason or reward? I mean it is nice they are easier to destroy if left undefended than the current POSes, but why would anyone bother spending the time in the first place attacking them?

This isn't going to drive much, if any, player-driven conflict if added this way. They need to drop something, even if it is just some valuable fittings, and removing them should not be an option in the case of a war. Or at least the attackers should get a chance at one vulnerability window to reinforce the structure before it can be taken down so that users of this structure actually have to show up to at least one fight.

Or better yet, remove CONCORD protection from them completely like the other small deployables so that wardecs are not necessary. Attackers would just go suspect. That would drive more player conflict and get us closer to CCP Seagull's vision where everything is destroyable.

This could make the structures too easy to randomly troll though. I think it would be better to have a cool down period greayer than 24 hours on structures where systems are gracefully shut down for unanchoring. All non-combat services would be taken offline during this period but defensive modules would be unnaffected to allow for fights.

I run one man corporation to keep up custom offices in null sec. Can I do that too in new structure system? It is this Entosis Link system that scares me. It sounds like Entosis Link makes it too easy to capture structures. Old custom offices needed quite large amount of firepower to destroy. Also new structures don't have automatic defences.

Sorry for the re-post from another thread, but CCP Darwin suggested I post this here to get some answers and generate a discussion. Thus, here I am!!

Here's what I posted earlier in a GD thread:


TL;DR - Will the new citadels/structures/whateverthef***they'llbecalled be easy to tear down as a last-resort security measure to protect one's structures in the face of ridiculous odds against an unbeatable threat after a tiny 1-3 man corp has been wardecced?

Of course you should be able to. But no details.

One thing I'm finding unclear about these threads is the broader design goals in empire. Are the devs seeking to just replace structures but leave the status quo regarding risk/reward alone? This would be a safer design strategy in my opinion.

The only thing CCP has said about war decs is that you will have to be in a non-starter corp so that they can be attacked in high sec. Though I'm curious how the aggression ideas above would pan out.

Changing to destructible stations (Citadels) that includes risk of losing player assets is the best way to ensure no-one has more than absolutely necessary in a given location.

Npc stations would be used for storage of assets and player owned structures would be used for; well I'm not sure what, aside from staging, they would be useful for. (xLarge Citadel will be a very costly staging point, at least they will be reusable)

No-one would manufacture in them on any large scale, kills off CCP's goal of self sufficiency. What manufacturer wants to be risking his or her inventory?

Markets would all be centralized around npc hubs, to remove risk of loss of inventory.

Few players would store large amounts of assets in a place that can be destroyed and drops their assets as loot. Or for that matter simply drops it in a can somewhere in the system. Not every player wants to have to buy and fly a freighter to pick up assets should their Citadel be destroyed. So keeping as few assets as possible in them will become the norm, for all but the largest groups.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
CCP is moving ahead with "everything destructible" and has to be very cautious about the cost to players and groups of "everything destructible".
One guaranteed outcome; the gap between the have's and have not's will grow wider. From the proposed cost structure in the blog, large established groups grow stronger while everyone else live out of npc stations.

Not many groups have a few billion isk to put into a structure that can be easily destroyed. The difference between a few hundred million to set up a medium or large pos and the cost of setting up a Citadel (where each module will end up costing more than the structure it is on) to do the same job will limit use.

To all those people saying that the new destroyed structures should drop everything, or even a percentage, think about what people store in POSs now. They store the bare minimum to meet their needs, or they are sloppy. I believe that CCP thinks those loss mechanics are holding back production in null, so they have decided to create a mechanic that partially mitigates that type of loss by having the stuff drop at a secret place in system. I think they are hoping this will entice more people to produce in null, though I have serious doubts that it will work.

It sounds like CCP wants to swap the old loot drops with structure module drops. They did say that some modules would be worth much more than the structures in some cases. So to everyone crying out for loot drops, just chill out until we're told the worth of the things that will drop will be. This is Eve, where griefers is always a top priority.

This reminds me of what I posted two months ago in the sovereignty thread:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5613421#post5613421

I posted this over in the main thread, but I am curious to see people's thoughts specifically as it relates to the issues associated with destroying things via Entosis.

One of the things that has bothered me the most about the proposed sovereignty system is that it allows small, non-committal entities to destroy valuable things without committing very much of their own to the fight. With destructible stations coming SoonTM, this is particularly troubling. In light of that, I suggest the following compromise.

In the proposed system, f I go into your system and run my Entosis link on your I-Hub and you do not stop me by chasing me away or blowing up my ship, it generates the standard timers as proposed by Fozzie. Forty-eight hours later, we have the multi-node Entosis capture point battles (or you blue ball me). If I win, I keep my stuff.

Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures."

Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction."

For the first 24 hours after the successful capture event, only the successful attacker can claim the structure - they can do so by activating an Entosis link on it (does not have to complete a cycle). As soon as the successful attacker tags the structure by activating an Entosis link, the structure becomes invulnerable until the next prime time for that alliance (at which point, the Entosis game can begin anew). The captured structure retains the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s]. If the successful attacker does not claim the structure within 24 hours, then the vulnerable structure may be captured when any alliance/corporation runs one Entosis cycle on it, at any time (no prime time window).

Upon completion of a successful capture event, a vulnerable structure may be stolen when any player scoops the structure into the cargo hold of his ship. Structures too large to fit into a ship cannot be stolen. Once scooped, the structure loses the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].

Upon completion of a successful capture event, a vulnerable structure can be destroyed at any time, provided someone is willing to shoot at it long enough or bring enough [big] ships to do the job quickly. While there are no reinforcement timers, the structures all have a significant amount of hit points. In the event of destruction, the structure loss mail will belong to the last alliance/corporation to own the structure.

I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you?

Advantages over the current proposal:
1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space.
2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure.
3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures.
4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction.
5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters.

I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal.

I think there is a lot more to be concerned with aside from how assets are stowed at time of destruction of an alliances home.

The main one being, who aside from the large existing groups will be left after a few months of being stomped by those large groups. Not everyone as CCP seem to think, wants to belong to a giant coalition or a mega alliance and the lager these groups are able to grow, the less content there will be for everyone.

Smart players and groups aren't going to keep investing billions of isk into citadels only to have them burnt down by bored coalitions and mega alliances.

So far the hinted at cost of fitting out citadels is likely to preclude many groups from owning them while there is such an imbalance of risk vs reward. Turn a pos that costs a few hundred mil now, into a citadel that could cost you a few billion, is going to be a big turnoff to many potential owners.

The biggest hurdle faced by anyone, including CCP to creating content and a place in sov nul for new groups is the existing established groups. If citadels aren't done right, they will only add to the height of the hurdle.