Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:'Structure Cost Scaling'
Otherwise known as onlining multiples of the same array to gain tax bonuses at POSes.
CCP devs seem unwilling to discuss or answer questions on this issue at the comments section of the original announcement and at the latest dev blog comments section. I have been directed here from the 'Blueprints' channel even though I don't think this is the ideal forum.
I and others feel that the proposed method of attaining additional tax bonuses at POSes by anchoring & onlining multiples of the exact same array at POSes is messy and a very bad method. CCP Greyscale still seems very confused as to how it will work in practise and doesn't think offlining the remaining arrays after the job is started is a problem, a pointless exercise, or an alleviation of the intended risk factor. No consideration has been given as to whether the additional arrays will, or can, be unanchored and removed after the job has been set up. In short it's a bodge job wrapped in a pretty bow of massive loopholes.
This idea is apparently being done to protect certain markets. I don't think the POS array or POS tower markets are going to suffer post Crius so there shouldn't be any worries about less arrays at towers or size of towers being deployed. Be sure there will be much more POS destruction with the possibility of expensive BPOs dropping and the disruption & destruction of others markets. This destruction will all have to be replaced.
A far better method would be to introduce new skillbook/s, maybe at 10x skill training if you so wish, to give tax bonuses on jobs at POSes. This lines up with current policy such as making refining/reprocessing something you have to spend significant time skilling into. A proper profession.
We're not replying because you're putting words into our mouths and making thinly-veiled insults, which is usually an indicator of an unproductive discussion waiting to happen.
The multi-structure bonus is still being worked through, we are intending to handle the online/offline issues in the coming weeks but we don't have a firm solution yet.
Your skillbook suggestion does not address the issue that this bonus is trying to resolve, namely that without it the optimal setup is one of each type of structures and a load of defenses, which is uninteresting.