Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Seriously, for Structures 2.0 to be at feature parity with the old system, I would very much appreciate it if we could get CCP clarification for how the following issues will be addressed:

• Price point. For the new structures to reach feature parity with starbases, you need to have a structure that does everything that could be done in a small POS in a package that costs roughly the same as a small POS, and the same is true of medium and large POSes as well. Now obviously there's things you can do with the new structures that could never be done with a POS: docking, cloning, tethering, markets, contracts, infinite hangar space. However, you can't scale up the price by too much or you put them beyond the reach of at least some individuals and corps who currently run starbases.


• Fuel consumption. Heavily related to price point, obviously, but the same principle applies - the fuel cost for what can be done in a POS should be the basis for the fuel cost of what you do in the new structures. By current calculations, depending on fitting, it can cost nearly as much per month to run a small engineering complex than it does to run a large POS. Again, there's not an exact equivalency because it has infinite manufacturing slots and functionality a POS doesn't, but again, if you can't find a solution to this, it's going to shut a lot of people out of private manufacturing.


• Scalability. Both of the above problems relate in some way to the loss of granularity in the way structures are configured. Starbases could have one manufacturing array or many, meaning you could customise your POS' manufacturing capacity based on what you needed. New structures, by comparison, have either zero or infinite slots, with the only granularity being the rigs and the cap/supercap manufacturing modules.


• Reconfigurability. Structure rigs, like normal rigs, inexplicably crumble to dust when you pull them out (it might be time to re-examine that entire mechanic, but I won't go into it here). This is a massive issue since a starbase can be reconfigured at no permanent cost - switch out the modules and you've got a totally different starbase. Obviously, new structures can be reconfigured instantaneously which is a distinct advantage over old starbase structures which had a lengthy anchoring and onlining process. However, there is a very significant permanent cost to reconfiguring new structures.


• Defensibility. This comes down to the fact that citadel defenses are very much weaker than starbases in general, but also more specifically that weapons do not scale. You get (a few) more slots for each size upgrade, but you're always using the same launchers. While I'm not advocating for a system whereby you can create an invincible doom fortress, deathstar POSes allowed smaller groups an equalising element in fights against larger groups. The low defensibility of engineering complexes is particularly worrisome. It also makes sense that economically vital structures have so little defense while citadels - which have little value other than as staging and power projection - have vast defense grids.

I look forward to CCP's address of these concerns.

Is this to do with the rumours of CCP selling bits of the game to new providers? I'm not opposed to new blood, as new blood is new ideas; I'm just being nosy is all.

The EVE platform is top notch. But new ideas are always handy. As long as the game survives I'm peachy :)

At the risk of going off topic, this rumor seems to have grown weird mutant legs. Nothing has ever been said about CCP "selling bits of the game", the various private companies and individuals that own bits of CCP (as a whole and entire company) are apparently considering offers to buy their stake in CCP.

CCP as a company has basically no say in any of this except possibly the option to buy up the held stake.



Just my .02 USD here.

While I think price point is a very valid concern, and I think structures should probably be expanded in a way that allows a lower price point for some feature, I don't think there's a need for a 100% match in functionality and configurability with POSes.

Specifically I like that fitting decisions on a Citadel matter more than on a POS both for Rigs and the regular fittings. IMO that gives CCP more freedom with their design and makes the game more interesting because now we don't have the possibility of spontaneously swapping things around between fights or even mid-fight.

I agree. Eventually under the old one-station-per-system rule, every sovereign nulsec system would have an unalterable and indestructible station in it. Then what? Stagnation.

Changing to a new destructible system that is not limited to one station per solar system is far superior. imo it is worth the additional work to make it happen.

Still waiting on Drilling Platforms though. I am very curious to see what CCP has planned for moon mining and reactions.

because all of 0.0 has way more than enough outposts for all your ship insurance and module repairing needs

How many months do you want from the last anchored outpost to when it is deleted. How many months does everyone else want. If they wait until feature parity then outright removal of the outposts will either be very soon, or delayed further than it needs to be.

I'm mostly indifferent about the phasing to Citadel/Complexes as it has most of the same features of POS and Outpost. There is one issue that does bother me though.

We already have Medium, Large, and Extra Large class structures. The price tag of the Medium is already leaps and bounds higher than any standard control tower. I enjoy the freedom to setup and take-down a tower in a single sit-down playing the game.

Why not introduce a "Small" size that is comparable? A structure that would be considered small wouldn't have much in the way of fittings and would fill the niche for solo, day trips, and small corps to various areas. You could even limit them to having just one service, no offence, and few other options. Just make it so it can be deployed and taken down within a day. Maybe you wouldn't even let anything actually dock that is battleship or larger as another balancing aspect?

Thanks for all the replies here,

I just want to clarify my statements on feature parity in the context of Structures, as I don't want anyone to feel like they've been mislead! When I'm speaking about feature parity I'm generally talking about the broad high-level functionality. Let me give you a few examples of what that means:

- Provide storage for individuals, corporations and alliances.
- Allow the insurance of ships
- Allow the manufacture of T3 ships
- Allow materials to be harvested from moons

These are all examples of functionality that we're looking to replicate. You will no doubt note that these types of high level functions make no mention of details such as cost, timescales or security, to name a few. While some of these things may be matched, these aren't what we are discussing when we say feature parity. Such details are often things that we need to be able to change for balancing purposes.

I hope this makes sense to everyone. We really appreciate the passion that people have for structures old and new, and we hope to provide exciting, engaging and balanced gameplay for all, even if it won't always precisely match the way things were.

Thanks again

I'll certainly try and make sure we're clear about this in future dev blogs, and I've linked to this on Twitter at least (I know that not exactly full coverage!). For now that will have to do.

Feel free to spread the word in any way you see fit, or link to this post when you see misunderstandings.

Someone can correct me if I'm hallucinating here but I believe there's already a Repair service that is attached to one of the already existing (as in, before this update) Service Rigs. I'm like 99.9% sure I've repaired things inside a Citadel before it just costs a small amount of ISK like in any other station.