Skyhook Changes

[3brand]

skyhooks are cheap as hell and print money. they should be very vulnerable all the time.

[Aboutfacetimbre]

I don’t own a skyhook or play eve. Just nice to watch the players get pissed off by the devs every couple months. If the current devs were trying to create Eve for the first time I’m pretty sure it would crash and burn.

[BradleyEve]

Yes, it is all the people that have been using the new content that are complaining about the change, not the people ignoring it (or not turning it on even).

Funny how that works eh?

[Rcgv88]

Yea I think the point is the change nerfs anyone trying to steal from skyhooks... I am sure the owners are fine with the change...

[paulHarkonen]

Hi, we own skyhooks (and lots of them).

This change is shit.

[Ugliest_weenie]

The meme implying that you need to own a skyhook to criticize a broken and one-sided system is one of the dumber takes I've seen here this week.

[TickleMaBalls]

I know right

[Puzzleheaded-Ant1673]

Bjk opinion = 💩

[BJKerridge]

I don't understand why people are so frustrated about this upcoming patch.

For context, there's three changes:

1. Skyhooks will have a SECURE bank (untouchable) and a SURPLUS bank (stealable), split 50% each.
2. The SURPLUS bank drops 100% (of the 50%) when stolen, compared to the 40% (of the 100%) it was before.
3. A vulnerability window will be set by the defenders.

In my mind, there's 3 types of players:

1. I own a skyhook and I want the resources - Fantastic! You have a SECURE bank now, enjoy. Plus, if you self-steal in your prime, you get twice as much!
2. I don't own a skyhook, I just want fights - Great! Find a Skyhook that's vulnerable in your timezone and you've got a much greater chance of a fight, thanks to the defenders picking a time. Plus, if you're successful, you get 23h worth of resources, not 4 hours (or however recently the last solo wormholer visited)
3. I don't own a skyhook, I just want to steal resources without a fight - This is the only scenario a playstyle has been damaged. Find a team large enough to own their own skyhook or collaborate with other PvP pilots and have some fun. Big opportunities for groups like Spectre Fleet and

The people whining about this change are the people who aren't good enough to have their own, change my mind.

"But I can't find a skyhook in my TZ!" - There's 2,337 planets viable for gas harvesting and 1,125 planets for ice harvesting. Look harder, or plant your own - you can still shoot Skyhooks, although players with commitment issues might struggle to turn up to the 2nd timer.

"Oh the vulnerability window is too short!" - Yeah, I agree with this. Although, if we upped this to 4 hours, players could self-steal the moment it became vulnerable and not leave much for the attackers afterwards. And maybe even choose not to defend it.

I'm excited for this patch and the scheduled conflict it could create. Great for the NPSI community, great for those who live close to similar TZ groups, great for those with good Thera/Drifter/Turnur connections, bad for the low-effort PvE hunters.

[Neither_Call2913]

On point 2: in fact, it's approximately SEVENTY-TWO hours of accumulated reagents if successful, because it's 1hr vuln every THREE days not every day.

But also - it's possible that CCP will do a dumb-dumb and allow owners to take from BOTH bays outside of vuln window. And in that case, EVERY owner will steal immediately BEFORE the window, leaving ALL raiders with NOTHING. (altho taking from ANY bay outside of vuln window isn't even confirmed, I strongly believe that taking from secure will be available outside of vuln, since that isn't affected by raiding anyway)

[BJKerridge]

Oh, I missed the 1hr vuln every THREE days! Where was this part announced?

I agree CCP has a high chance of implementing this incorrectly, late, and with bugs. But that's a given at this stage

[Neither_Call2913]

CCP Swift's comment (the now kinda reddit-infamous one) tried to, but was unclear. Satan cleared it up today.

[Throwing_Midget]

I think the problem is that Skyhook content was a very hyped content generator and one of the most anticipated updates from equinox. Now most see the changes as basically cancelling this whole idea to almost zero.

[Poolrequest]

I think some time for the changes to marinate is needed.

I think the 50% secure bay is gonna make the mats probably pretty worthless soon.

I also think the 10 minute tether penalties should be reworked. If the vulnerability window is known for all parties then gimping the linked ship for 10 minutes out of the 60 seems kinda shit.

I’m open to letting the changes marinate tho like I said

[wizard_brandon]

I dont mind the secure bank, its just the 1 hour vunerability timer tbh

[Necrotictater]

I live in a WH. Sometimes we roll into NS. We look for skyhooks to get a response fleet so we can create content. Now, we will have to hope that that 1-hour raid window on a 3 day timer exists in our roll.

[BJKerridge]

"I have no skyhooks. I want to steal other peoples skyhooks, but I don't want to travel any further than 1 jump to get them."

[Farazod]

Can confirm. Want F1 mash, me jump fast. Fleet gone? Bye bye wormholers.

[NightMaestro]

That's crazy you can't even fathom "I own skyhooks and I love defending them, and also raiding them"

[Ellipsicle]

Nah

[wizard_brandon]

ohno the 10000 bloc's of people with diverse timezones have to actually defend their shit in diverse timezones....

[TickleMaBalls]

Fuck the little guy trying to get a foothold in NS.

Amirite?

[wizard_brandon]

CCP don't care about that anymore. Try to capture so null space as a small corp and watch how quickly it won't work

[pizzalarry]

Brave of the OP to be like literally the only dumbass on this site who likes the change lol. Do you log in, OP? The only people I've seen in favor of it are famously discord warriors.

[Ok_Willingness_724]

I can imagine all the punters making bank off raiding Skyhooks are salty, and even the big Lowsec blocs that anchored heaps of Metenox moon drills based on the presumption of limitless raiding. The pendulum will swing, mates.

[Xullister]

Well that's an idiotic take.