I'm worried about highsec game play because of the comment that structure wrecks would only be looted by the owner. You absolutely need to ensure that highsec structures can be destroyed and looted. Otherwise you remove the only risk of the current system which is wardecs.

There is a lot of game play around people searching out unfuelled or at least undefended towers, deccing and destroying for the loot. It would be a shame for this to go away because it is one of the only significant risk elements of high sec industry.

Please make it so that:

1. Defences power down without fuel to make AFK and lack of planning have consequence. This could be done by having a shield/defence module which consumes fuel blocks.
2. Highsec structure wrecks can be looted by the legitimate aggressor (or anyone for a suspect flag).

Initial reply to the Dev blog/snippets from Fanfest.

Awesome concept work, would like to see a lot more fill in of the structure list in the medium size as well for small high sec corps to use, as currently most of them seem directed towards Null.

Please consider:

If the owner of containers that are injected into space (as a result of structure destruction) does not retrieve them WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME, these containers should become scannable and hackable. This will provide additional and logical game play. The destroyed structure will become a beacon of possible loots to be had for explores as we travel from system to system.

I hope you are not considering to bring this into WHs

To bad all war are based around griefing.

This is not griefing. It introduces consequence for lack of planning, lack of foresight or laziness. It introduces excellent and profitable gameplay for whoever can be bothered to go out and find good prospects and is willing to risk their own assets in war decs.

This is not true. I do it a lot, purely for profit. Searching out offline or undefended highsec towers, trying to figure out how capable the corp is of mounting a defence, waiting for the 24 hour period before being able to attack and anticipating the shields going back up before the countdown is complete, killing the structures and waiting for the drops, often in the context of war targets in local or surrounding systems (often from other corps). This is all great content.

It is not difficult to defend against this sort of thing. For target selection, towers fall into two categories: offline and online. If offline with anchored research, industrial, CHA, PHA, SMA etc then it is immediately war decced. If online, a large tower will rule it out for me because the grind is too much of a deterrent. A small or medium tower with ANY defences at all is also ruled out because there are easier targets out there.

This is not griefing. It introduces consequence for lack of planning, lack of foresight or laziness. It introduces excellent and profitable gameplay for whoever can be bothered to go out and find good prospects and is willing to risk their own assets in war decs.

I hope they aren't planning on bringing this to EVE period.

D-scan is vital for players finding each other.

While the overall direction you are going in is good, I think pretty much every suggestion for "Observatory arrays" so far is horrible.

Blocking star map filters (namely the data of contextual player activity they provide) and blocking D-scan is a really bad idea.
In a game built around the vastness of (mostly empty) space, we need tools that encourage people to find each other and give us the tools and mechanics to do so.

H. Advertisement Centers

Structures mainly aimed toward propaganda spreading.

Service module possibilities: ...show how big your e-peen is...

Rigs possibilities: Anything affecting whatGÇÖs above.

Finally. It's been a LONG wait.

Still, I see many details that need to be hashed out, possibly in play testing.


in no particular order:

a. weapons and AI using them are vital to larger structures -- as others point out, being present to defend a structure 24/7 kills game play. With Entosis taking only minutes to, at most, a few hours to make something vulnerable, continuous defense would be required. In my experience [I've been in EVE since very near the beginning], that'll kill motivation to build up anything because it's too easy for the aggressors to succeed.

b. consider making the nub of structures upgradable in size. Start at MDepot size and functionality, add upgrades to increase size and change functionality.

c. there is no reason that the smallest size need have any weapons capability, nor AI -- let those functions be added as the structure grows, and quite possibly in increments.

d. deathstars have a purpose and use. 8 weapons is nothing to a deathstar -- some easily have 30 or more online all at once.

e. deathstars are why we have dreads. let's not kill the dreads for lack of something to do.

f. AI should target any ship trying to use entosis first ... basic defense principle.

g. starbase gunners are important and useful -- however, the number of weapons/modules each can control needs to be doubled to make them more in line with ships.

h. outposts do not currently have weapons -- i'm for adding them. Maybe we change the mechanic so that entosis can't be used until all weapons have been disabled -- thus creating another reason to keep dreads and carriers around [since carriers could rep the weapons if they seize military control of the space].


whoops -- all that time allows atm -- I'll be back with more later.

These upgrades are very expensive and are part of outposts, which seem to be being phased out in the new system. Will these upgrades be refunded?

To bad all war are based around griefing.

It also does not remove risk if you can't loot it. As the 'stations' themselves are assets at significant risk and cost their victims. Your desired mechanics will just lead to the classic dec dodging continuing and people pulling down assets and staying docked for a week. The proposed mechanics are actually more likely to leave things in space for you to shoot at.

Finally. It's been a LONG wait.

Still, I see many details that need to be hashed out, possibly in play testing.


in no particular order:

a. weapons and AI using them are vital to larger structures -- as others point out, being present to defend a structure 24/7 kills game play. With Entosis taking only minutes to, at most, a few hours to make something vulnerable, continuous defense would be required. In my experience [I've been in EVE since very near the beginning], that'll kill motivation to build up anything because it's too easy for the aggressors to succeed.

b. consider making the nub of structures upgradable in size. Start at MDepot size and functionality, add upgrades to increase size and change functionality.

c. there is no reason that the smallest size need have any weapons capability, nor AI -- let those functions be added as the structure grows, and quite possibly in increments.

d. deathstars have a purpose and use. 8 weapons is nothing to a deathstar -- some easily have 30 or more online all at once.

e. deathstars are why we have dreads. let's not kill the dreads for lack of something to do.

f. AI should target any ship trying to use entosis first ... basic defense principle.

g. starbase gunners are important and useful -- however, the number of weapons/modules each can control needs to be doubled to make them more in line with ships.

h. outposts do not currently have weapons -- i'm for adding them. Maybe we change the mechanic so that entosis can't be used until all weapons have been disabled -- thus creating another reason to keep dreads and carriers around [since carriers could rep the weapons if they seize military control of the space].


whoops -- all that time allows atm -- I'll be back with more later.

d. deathstars have a purpose and use. 8 weapons is nothing to a deathstar -- some easily have 30 or more online all at once.

It seems to me that there is not enough room for asshatry. Either you are moored to the structure or docked - either way you are 100% safe unless the structure is destroyed - which for larger structures is likely to be rare and for the smaller pos like structures will still take a considerable fleet. There should be room for people to make dumb decisions and for activities such as bumping from forcefields - the game design should not promote near perfect safety.

Also the pos redesign seems lacking - Right now - there is some thought put into pos design, e.g. guns on the bottom or top or balanced all around? This leads to strategic decisions as to how to attack pos - for instance you can attck from the top and be out of range of the guns on the bottom, etc.... Now the Pos is just being turned into just another red + to shoot. So all of the strategic decisions are being removed with nothing new added - seems to be just a needless dumbing down.

Finally structure management should not be too perfect - there should be room for corp theft.

Also personal housing - needs to be limited in both numbers that can be anchored and the locations where they can be placed. It is already difficult enough to find folk in a system - if there is unlimited housing which can be placed anywhere - it will be impossible to locate folk.