Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 16:00:39 -
[271] - Quote
As I understand it, the old idea of sovereignty goes away completely. So no TCU stuff is required to anchor Outpost station or Infrastructure hub in null. The Territorial Claim Unit effect is merely icons on a map for purposes of EPeen challenge. Who knows NPC flagged sovereignty might well be up for grabs sometime after new system is debugged and proven.
In the meantime this means you can anchor all structures anywhere sovereignty-wise as far as I can tell. But the system security stuff may still restrict us for a while. While that is mostly side effect of Empire space -- note that proposed player station gear included stuff to raise system security. [/quote]
Okay, was hard to interperter from the dev blog CCP send out on sovereignty changes.
But would be great, if they all can be put up every where. [/quote]
Yeah the anchoring thing in this blog is more about reducing the total number of things that need to be anchored. As I read it you still anchor all these new structures. Even in Hi Sec. |
Noriko Mai
2103
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 16:20:53 -
[272] - Quote
What is a mockup?
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
A'Tolkar
Carlson's Raiders
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 16:43:22 -
[273] - Quote
Thank you for your sarcasm which adds nothing to the discussion. As for Capital Assembly Array, I am just wondering if there is another announcement coming down the pipe regarding capital ships in high-sec. And for the medium assembly array, is there a problem with me pointing out a possible mistake in a mockup? The whole point of the mockup is to convey how the new structure will work. What is wrong with asking for clarification when one data point contradicts with another one? If CCP wants to give us an idea on how things will work with mockups and someone notices something contradictory, I figure CCP would want to know in order to change it so they can present correct info. I don't know why you are so butt hurt by the question that you need to get sarcastic and imply that you are so much smarter. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 16:53:10 -
[274] - Quote
Pay careful attention to avoiding creating a permanent oligarchy, and some attention to making the oligarchy that has already formed more vulnerable to being overturned. If you get this wrong, it'll make it too easy for the "old money" in the game to continue dominating 0.0.
How will these structures be attacked? Will they all be subject to the new "entosis" mechanic, or will some of them require hit-point grinding (as with current POS)? The entosis mechanic (or something like it) will be preferable, increasing the opportunities for small entities to engage in creative destruction in the space of sovereigns who become complacent.
The intelligence networks replacing locator agents is good, but should only extend as far as the sovereign entity's borders. They should be able to tell the entity if a certain player is logged out or active within their borders, but should not extend game wide. Having them interfere with cloaking mechanics is a bad idea unless combined with eliminating local, and only if a significant lag (measured in minutes) is required to locate a cloaked ship. Watch lists should also be made permission based. Intelligence about things like supers logging on should have to be actively gathered, not given for free by the game mechanics.
Anything that allows a sov holder to rely on passive defenses, whether that's hit-points and timers, or scanners of some sort, is a bad thing. It makes it too easy for "old money" entities to control the entire map. Safety in sov space should be directly proportional to the active defense of the space.
|
Noriko Mai
2104
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 16:55:51 -
[275] - Quote
A'Tolkar wrote:Thank you for your sarcasm which adds nothing to the discussion. As for Capital Assembly Array, I am just wondering if there is another announcement coming down the pipe regarding capital ships in high-sec. And for the medium assembly array, is there a problem with me pointing out a possible mistake in a mockup? The whole point of the mockup is to convey how the new structure will work. What is wrong with asking for clarification when one data point contradicts with another one? If CCP wants to give us an idea on how things will work with mockups and someone notices something contradictory, I figure CCP would want to know in order to change it so they can present correct info. I don't know why you are so butt hurt by the question that you need to get sarcastic and imply that you are so much smarter. Puh, so may words to say so little... Let's say it this way: "This mockup shows how it may look"
Calm down a bit... relax, take deap breath.. maybe go for a walk. No need to be that aggressive on a sunday afternoon.
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
Grimmash
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:08:06 -
[276] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Richecko wrote:Grimmash wrote:You can't wardec an NPC corp, so how would you get at the bigger structures in any reasonable way? I do not think this challenge is beyond the creativity of the CCP Game Designers and the community to propose, iterate, invent and implement a mechanism so that it is an equal amount of work for an aggressor to place a structure at risk of displacement independent of the corp the player chooses to exist in. The aggressor should, of course, also have a non-trival penalty for failure and inconveniencing the defender. Maybe it's as simple as wardec'ing the structure - not the corp or individual that owns it or an extension of the duel mechanic or some variation on ganking (because NPC players might want to ransack a structure independent of who owns it too). If CCP wants everything to be able to be blown up, they will find a way. So if you wardec the structure then it would only be logical that the structure and the owner are the only two who can shoot the war targets. Or are you proposing that NPC corps schould be subjected to wardecs, you know, to become more equal and stuff.
I think this falls under "not enough info" from one of my previous posts. If there becomes a way to dec individuals or individual structures, then that solves the risk v reward problem nicely. But that is not what we ahve now. My point was if the current wardec mechanics stand, then we either don't know enough about the new structures to meaningfully get into the nitty gritty, or we need additional info on upcoming corp mechanics changes, and we need more info on how entosis will shake out.
I would love to see individuals be able to anchor and use stuff anywhere, in a way that does not encourage people to go solo. Like I said, I like all these changes, at a big picture level, but I need a lot more detail on a lot of mechanics to really decide if they are good or bad, better or worse, etc... I'm pointing out weird scenarios I can see when trying to theorycraft how the proposed changes will mesh with current mechanics.
I do hate current wardec mechanics, but that is a whole separate issue :). Not for how they affect me, but for how they work in HS. The whole risk v reward for wardecs is a really weird topic, and I don't think it has been meaningfully addressed in anyway. But where I live, I care a lot more about how the entosis v structure grind aspect plays out. |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
208
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:41:57 -
[277] - Quote
Redbull Spai wrote:Patri Andari wrote:STANDINGS
First of all, I am more than a bit happy with what I have read so far. That being said, I still think CCP got it wrong when it eroded standings with empire factons as a requirement to anchor semi-permanent structures in empire space.
I get that you wanted to reduce the barriers for change, but I hope you seize this opportunity to revisit that. Here is what I propose:
Standings (corporate) are not a barrier to anchor in empire. However, standings with the empire where semi permanent strutures (L & XL) are calculated based on current (today) methods.
(yadda)
You kinda killed standings as a consideration for choice last time you had a chance. Please be more kind this time
Standings should be a mechanic purely for mission runners. Mission running should not be a barrier to placing structures. Empire alliance standings have one purpose and one purpose only - to annoy FC's when he tries to fly his fleet through Amaar space and an 8 year old veteran complains he cant because in his first month as a newbie he accepted too many Minmatar level fours before realising you should NEVER accept missions against empire factions if you intend joining a PVP alliance in the future........
Wonder if you read the part about adding agents to null sec? I doubt your problems in this area will improve once all the raters opt to run missions instead because guess what will happen then....STANDINGS!
Also, I understand that changes have different effects depending on your playstyle. I do hope the Devs are not bending their ear only to one group of players.
Any way, good stuff coming.
Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words.
Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions.
Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character.
And character is everything. - author unknown
|
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R Astraeaus
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:45:13 -
[278] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:TurAmarth ElRandir wrote: I disagree... the Entosis module is all about Sov and only about Sov. No Sov in WSpace... no Entosis mechanic needed in WSpace. We don't want it, we don't need it, period.
And taking away our widow is just mean and short sighted... =\
You still keep your window, just take over piloting the station quickly, or ask the guy who is. It's not 'quite' as good, I agree, and we can hope that the code for piloting the station allows anyone 'docked' to observe their grid in all areas of space as an ideal solution. But weighed up against all the other benefits that are planned I'll take that slight downside, and yes I have done some POS living even if not as much as you probably have. I agree the Entosis is about Sov also, just.... CCP are trying to develop consistent and clear mechanics. And it's not that if behaviour changes on security status or area of space. So.... it's a question of which need over-rides, or how to adjust entosis while keeping it clear in other area's of space. I'm mainly high sec living now due to limited play time and I'm also totally not keen on someone being able to use an entosis link on a 20 man corp anywhere in a four hour time period and wreck stuff as a result. Since no way a small high sec, low sec or WH corp is going to be able to cover time periods like Null alliances will be able to. So I want a method that allows me to clearly defend in a realistic fashion also.
No, if you don't keep the window then getting into a ship, or asking someone to move over so you can look out the one small window or undocking just to see what's going on outside is simply stupid. That humans have forgotten how to make windows 23,000 yeas in the future is simply personally unacceptable to me. The POS FF give us (1) an amazing 'window' AND (2) Forcefields are a std of almost ALL SF, and just FYI, I have been ingame over 4 years, I have lived in POSes for at least 3.5 years of that time.
I have no issue whatsoever with what CCP is attempting with POS & Structure changes, it needs doing, badly. But while I appreciate consistency, please keep in mind IRL we have different equipment for different environments... you don't setup and ingloo in the Bahamas and you wouldn't try to live in a grass hut in Antarctica. Even forts built in polar climates are basically different from forts built in equatorial climes... and so it should be in EVE also. WSpace is not Empire space and, having lived in botth I can tell you from experience, it is NOT Nullsec no matter what the number at the top left says... it is inherently DIFFERENT and those differences must be taken into account or you end up forcing unbalanced and unpleasant gameplay on players.
You have given me my second strongest argument for keeping the FF and not havinf the Entosis Link work on POSes in WSpace... "...no way a small high sec, low sec or WH corp is going to be able to cover time periods like Null alliances will be able to."
We are NOT Sov holders... we do NOT need Sov mechanics in WSpace... just make a variant of the Std POS and the XL POS that are balanced towards the gameplay that is inherent in Anoikis.
Not that I expect this, when CCP decided to change Scanning they really screwed us in Anoikis... I am pretty sure this will be the same.
TurAmarth ElRandir
Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro
and Unrepentant Blogger
Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)=
http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/
|
grumpychops
Non Nobis
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:47:05 -
[279] - Quote
BPO/Structure replacement
First, I would like to say that these changes seem very interesting and could be a great thing for the game. Although, these are very broad ideas, I am a fan.
My main points of concern are the BPOs and Structures that currently exist in game. As developers, IGÇÖm sure you have noticed that it is very difficult to make everybody happy with regards to reimbursing defunct items. Industrialists put a lot of their valuable game time and ISK into researching these items. Simply reimbursing NPC price is a slight to the value of player effort. I would not suggest some formula to increase the ISK reward based on ME/TE levels. What I suggest is to simply give us the equivalent of what we have.
This is what I propose:
-Develop a matrix that establishes the equivalency of legacy items to new items. (Example: Large Amarr POS = Large assembly platform, Minmatar Outpost BPO = XL assembly array structure BPO, CSAA BPO = Cap ship construction rig BPO) - On the introduction of new structures and the beginning of Grace Period 1, convert all items and BPOs that are located in a station into the new equivalent. -Have all conversions retain the same ME/TE level of the previous item. -At the end of Grace period 2A, run the conversion one last time. (This will give a chance for items located in space during Grace Period 1 to be swapped out and returned to station so production cycles are not disrupted.
This format should (I think) make players who have invested a significant time into researching large structures to 10/20 happy, and increase consensus on the changes. It will also allow CCP to demonstrate that they value the effort that players put into these items. |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:55:30 -
[280] - Quote
The big problem you have when you start to look at "personal" structures, is the motivation of people to defend it vs the ease of destroying it.
In the current system a POS can be a personal structure, if it's in a cop that's controlled by one player. This is extremely common for things like reactions. Of course a POS takes a fair amount of EHP to grind through and reaction POS's are typically going to be the last target during a invasion. This means that individual should have time to get their stuff out before it even gets reinforced. The bigger risk is player fatigue (real not jumpaids) and losing billions because they didn't fuel their towers and everything went offline.
If you are thinking about applying the entosis mechanic to all structure in the new system, you really need to think about how this applies to "personal" structures. For one thing a constellation wide event for some dudes reactors, caused by someone shining a laser on it for ten minutes, is kind of silly. Go the other route and making it just shining a lazor and no individual would risk it.
I think this is the tricky balance. If anything a personal structure needs to be more secure because the only person who losses if it gets destroyed is the individual. But as we've seen in EVE, groups are more than willing to cause an individual pain. On top of that how do you apply a timezone mechanic to an individual structure. You have to defend your structure during individual primetime? That's really silly.
Look at things like mobile depots too. You can't leave a mobile depot in an area with any sort of traffic without it getting rf'd. The hep is just way to low. Sure you can drop in a safe spot no problem and as it is right now people won't scan them down. But if it's known that mining platforms could contain billions in reaction materials, those will be scanned down even if they are in safe spots.
I'm curious how this "space city" idea will play in here.
Also there does not seem to be any sort of structure dedicated as a weapons platform. Without this whatever structure has the best slot layout will just become a de facto weapons platform. |
|
Jezra Tanaka
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:57:50 -
[281] - Quote
I personally like the current anchoring mechanic. the way this is described makes me think that the new structures will be overly vulnerable because you are limited to 8 defenses. some places you need a deathstar with 12 Large pulse lasers and an array of supporting equipment just for defense, and only online the production modules you actually need at the moment.
in others you can leave just a little E-War up and be mostly fine as long as you check on it.
Point is that POS need to be more flexible then this model shows.
I do like the idea they fielded of having reppers on a structure. I can see the use of having a triage pos, but I'd rather that exist under current mechanics similar to the use of guns/E-war. |
Parmenionas
New Eden Times News and Media Agency
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 18:07:44 -
[282] - Quote
What does it have to do with POS and structures?
The Old GUI was surpossed to be obsolete in accordance with modern day standards for SciFi Games. The new one is just a polished version. But what does this line have to do with POS and structures?
Everything.
I saw a new idea pool that seems splendid and to complement it i saw the old good fitting screen. I must addmit that this screen is very straightforward and nice but long in line for an overhaul. When you implement a new feature or improve about an old one i excpect to see the UI to follow up as well.
I undestrund that in its simplicity the overview is great for combat because it is immediate and straightworward and hard to improve upon. But to deploy structures we need time. It is an immense adittion to the game and the player enviroment and it deserves to be completed with a methodologie that complements this addition and a UI that might change the way we see EVE. Right clicks in space is not the way to go here.
Finaly i shall add that for the new POS system i excpect finaly to some degree a WIS with a plan. Like walking up to a holodeck like room where we can address the works been done. This i see as a gentle push to help old aditions that are collecting dust.
This is a Sci Fi Game. As a matter of fact it might be the best that ever has been. But if we want it to be arround for some more years or even decates it will have to raise the bar to new levels. Otherwise the best game that has been will become a..... has been.
ps
Great work on the Valkyrie on the vid i saw you uploadet recently. Now you see why we EVE players complain for years over the proportions and perspective problems. This is how EVE should look, and if not in space at least the ship previews. Fly safe and keep delivering.
ps^2 Hugs to all the devs, no hard feelings here! |
Parmenionas
New Eden Times News and Media Agency
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 18:15:01 -
[283] - Quote
Chribba wrote:Very interesting, I foresee a major logistics effort to replace all structures though, if I understood it correctly we would have to replace them with the new things?
Also looking forward on more details about the mooring system, the radius things and of course if this might mean we will be seeing supercaps for sale on the market.
Imagining an outpost gets destroyed, and all the content and stuff gets ejected into space for the owner to scoop within the time, could a massive amount of canisters affect lag or similar with many thousands of new objects in space?
/c
It would make sense for the canisters and content to autopropel to a nearby station or outpost, probably predefined by the owners.
On another note though why not hve the preverbial npc haulers we see undock overtimes fly in, scoope the stuff and deliver with a small reward. After all we still need a ISK Sink, and that seems to make sense. |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
95
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 18:37:14 -
[284] - Quote
Please add killmails for Mobile Warp Disruptor structures. |
Kiela Paine
Lithium Industries
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 18:38:59 -
[285] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5602373#post5602373
Here's my feedback |
Escpage
Naquadria
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 19:01:55 -
[286] - Quote
I think it is a very good start. Structures have been missing the modular mechanics, happy to see that a rework is being considered. |
Noriko Mai
2104
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 19:03:59 -
[287] - Quote
While you remove the placing cross, can you please add something to align the structure as we like while placing them. Would be cool to have the planet behind your station while undocking and such things.
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
Lateris
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 19:06:19 -
[288] - Quote
I am so excited for this. From an environment design perspective how close can these structures be placed near moons or planets if its possible?
0/
|
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi
181
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 19:13:39 -
[289] - Quote
If you're going to remove Outpost construction (very bad idea in my opinion) and make them destructible then presumably there can reach a point where there are no more left in the game. So what does this mean for Walking in Stations? Has the entire WiS concept been abandoned by CCP? Two years ago Hilmar suggested we might hear something about it at last year's fanfest but instead we got some vague references to player-built gates.
I've always liked the idea of being able to walk around inside stations and feel it could provide a much needed new gameplay element to Eve which is becoming stale in its constant churning out of new ships and calling that new content. Certainly Eve's competition by way of Elite Dangerous and the forthcoming Star Citizen both have this feature. If WiS has not been abandoned then how do you square the idea of being able to walk around the inside of a structure with the risk of that structure being blown up with you in it? Have you even considered the ramifications of this if WiS is still something on the table?
Why not keep Outposts as the XL size Administration hub? Have you also considered that if you make the place where people store their stuff destructible, even if they're able to recover it if they control the grid, people will be more inclined to store their stuff in NPC stations thus you risk putting the final nail in the coffin of null sec sovereignty?
11 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
Arcos Vandymion
White Beast Inc.
97
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 19:16:20 -
[290] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote: EDIT: I am most curious how frozen corpses will be tied into advertising.
Soylent Green to go
Now available as well: The classic Soylent Orange as "To Go".
Special Limited time offer - obscure movie refference crossover taste. Soylent Clockwork - available in orange and green. |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
569
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 20:13:15 -
[291] - Quote
Jezra Tanaka wrote:I personally like the current anchoring mechanic. the way this is described makes me think that the new structures will be overly vulnerable because you are limited to 8 defenses. some places you need a deathstar with 12 Large pulse lasers and an array of supporting equipment just for defense, and only online the production modules you actually need at the moment.
in others you can leave just a little E-War up and be mostly fine as long as you check on it.
Point is that POS need to be more flexible then this model shows.
I do like the idea they fielded of having reppers on a structure. I can see the use of having a triage pos, but I'd rather that exist under current mechanics similar to the use of guns/E-war.
well the entire assortment of modules on the new structures will be completely new, not a redesign of the guns we have currently.
The guns we have currently have pretty much stayed exactly the same since they came out, and unfortunately ship power creep has occurred to the point that currently you do need 12 large pulses and dozens of mediums and small to aggressively defend an important asset. However i would imagine the new high slot guns for structures will have a significant improvement and increase in power to compensate for how lacklustre the current ones are.
plus i have to wonder that when those guns are destroyed, if they remove themselves from the high slot so it can be replaced by another gun from the structures armoury.
all 'what if's and presumptions so far but worthwhile discussing. |
Richecko
University of Caille Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 20:33:40 -
[292] - Quote
As long as we're also talking about making-up-new-stuff for structures...
An analog to the MTU and Mobile Depot that does compression would be a welcome addition to the game. You could stay out longer doing deep space mining particularly in mission or exploration sites, or in wormholes - especially ones that are limited to small or small & medium ships where you will never bring a Rorqual or Orca.
It's transport size should consider cargohold capacity of ships like the Venture, Prospect and Procurer, or if used in Null being pre-positiioned by an interceptor or covps ship like the Astero. It's ore hold size should consider how much Ore, Ice and Gas it could contain relative to the ore hold size of common mining ships. It's relationship to dscan, and whether it can be cloaked (perhaps for a period if fueled?) should also be considered.
Perhaps it's role should be combined with in-space storage for day-trippers. CCP want's us to live-in, explore and exploit deep space? Let's do it!
--
Sleeper's having cloaked structures is interesting. How about adding that element for players somewhere in the game. Seems like a worthy technology to harvest from new wrecked ancient structures.
|
Dracnys
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 21:05:01 -
[293] - Quote
First of all: this sounds very promising and in my opinion this is the most significant change in years.
I have a number of issues with some of the plans (more like warnings)
1. Giving sov holders and large groups too much power. Especially the observatory and the gate modules look like they will allow holders to gain massive bonuses in their systems. Uncloak people, track any intruders with the player tracker, lower their ship's agility, make them decloak faster from gate jump and make them spawn further away to prevent running back. This can be alleviated if the services are easily disrupted. NPC security force sounds like a terrible idea, if you want that there's highsec.
2. As a trader I am very much against increasing tax in NPC stations. High taxes cripple the trading profession and make markets inefficient, which hurts not only resale traders but also every seller and buyer. Please don't make existing markets worse to aggressively push players to trade in the new structures. It's fine if they have less taxes or provide other benefits.
3. Manufacturing arrays granting ME bonuses is very dangerous. It can easily lead to a situation where someone who doesn't have access to large, upgraded structures worth billions can't compete even in entry level markets (T1 modules, ammo...). Simply because their production costs are higher. I had to tell rookie industrialists too often that there is no point in manufacturing anything before they have perfect blueprints and perfect skills (which is thankfully fixed). |
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2673
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 22:17:06 -
[294] - Quote
So much to take in, eh?
Yeah even a long wall of text cannot cover all of the fine details that will have to be hammered out.
I do worry about loss of stuff. Mainly for folks who are deployed or away for good reason (not just because they are bored of the game). If there was a chance that they could come back to a complete loss of their null assets then they would have to either move said assets out anytime they were at risk of being away OR account share (which is not allowed). Put yourself in their shoes and ask if this is something you would want to face. The only safety MIGHT be huge coalitions which MIGHT provide enough security and stability that you would have a decent chance of coming back to all your investments intact. something something blue doughnut. . . . obligatory Grrr
yeah, so it is something I keep very much to the forefront when we discuss this sort of thing.
Some people want to watch the world burn. Question is are there so many of them that they are unstoppable? I mean I like a fire as much as the next person but I would not burn my own house down just for shiggles. Some people would burn this game to the ground and then move on to some other complaining that Eve was just ash and Dust (514). Will you help them, stop them, or stand back and grab the makings for s'mores? Should everything be made indestructible;e for fear of their actions or should we put mechanisms in place to help keep the fires fun but not out of control?
A new CSM, CSMX is just in the process of signing in. Stay in contact with the people you think represent you, the ones you voted for. It is why we bloody well exist, afterall.
m
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Light Speedy
Twin Tech
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 22:46:32 -
[295] - Quote
OK so all sounds good CCP I just have 2 things that worry me.
1. - When the jump fatigue changes were announces their were 152,847 jillion zillion comments saying it was the end of the world and it was a real good thing for the game. This time however everyone is posting positive comments which worries me some.....
2. - This thing/question is more personal, my corp and I are a small group in wh space. We make it work there because we have a uber deathstar POS with absolute **** tons of defenses randomly placed all over the place outside the shields. We can only have so many online but if under attack could online more or online replacements for damaged ones. Basically any serious and organized group could take us down with a little effort we all know. But we survive by being a tough nut to crack and looking like a hot mess of a porcupine if attacked.
The new fitting thing looks easier and fun, but it sure seems to make a lot less intimidating a target to fit 6-8 weapons all in one place on a station, as opposed to 25-50 randomly placed guns batteries, and 20 or so e war batteries like we currently have. Also would we be out in space in some kind of safety at first like we currently are in our shield? Or would we be in our Station knowing we are under attack somehow but not in our ships?
We also do a lot of different industry things at our POS and have different things online and offline depending on whats going on at any given time. Would we able to do similar?
Those are basically my concerns. I suppose a final thought would be that stations and Outposts have always felt like a house/building in space, where living in a POS with all its flaws is kinda like camping/homesteading in space the way for a small group to have its own place. I like camping I hope it still has that feel. |
Eric Xallen
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 22:46:50 -
[296] - Quote
I'm a little concerned with the direction they're taking on the outposts. Coupled with the new sovereignty mechanics, a push to completely destructible industry items will be a heavy disincentive to null industry. Its been stated numerous times that CCP wants to encourage local manufacturing.
However the risk of losing a huge amount in Rearearch/Manufacturing assets (not just the blueprints, but the stock, etc, for a bonafide alliance level amount of throughput) when added to the ease of loss will highly discourage people from investing in nullsec industry. Many items take longer to research/build than the 48-96 hr Fozziesov flip/destroy window, and the m3 involved means evacuation even if its not opposed is a huge pain in the ass.
I think this direction is running at cross purposes with their stated goals on reducing Nullsec's reliance on Jita. |
Vladd Talltos
Air The Initiative.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 22:55:08 -
[297] - Quote
Have you considered adding a shield module that can be fitted to the structure? The POS shield has always made it possible to effectively use/deploy the Rorqual for single player/multi-player mining operations. Wtihout the POS shield to support the use of the deployed Rorqual, the previous changes to structures, and the recent changes to capital ship travel, the Rorqual will be completely useless. Even deployed with a large fleet, the Rorqual would become the target of choice and be destroyed quickly.
Are there any plans to make the Rorqual useful again?
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
333
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 22:59:54 -
[298] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Our current thinking is you cannot be in an NPC corp because you need to be able to declare war against the owner.
However we want people to be able to deploy personal use only towers from within any player corporation.
First of all I cannot freaking wait for these changes, very well done so far devs. I look forward to providing a lot more feedback in the testing phases as they will affect many parts of my current and future play styles A LOT. However, off the bat, I have a few questions:
1) I am a bit confused about the progression from mobile structures to larger structures. On the proposed changes, do mobile deployables like the mobile depot become structures like the M sized "depot platform" or are mobile deployables going to stay as distinct structures one does not upgrade or fit with modules? The naming for the depot is a bit confusing if mobile depots stay as S size personal structures.
2) In terms of the "attack method," can you explain a bit more about the use of the entosis link on L and XL structures? And what does "entosis + site" exactly mean? ---> Say, for example, I want to remove a POCO after the changes, when a POCO becomes a "office center" on a planet. First of all, will POCO/Office centers potentially have guns and other modules fitted?! So then I use the entosis link on it. What happens at the end of the timer, does control swap to my corporation or do I then have the opportunity to blow it up and place my own like the current system?
3) Can you say whether there will be any limits to the NUMBER of structures a player can have? Presumably corporations will be able to have as many office centers as they want, considering many corporations have lots of POCOs which will become office centers. However, does that mean a player/corporation/alliance can have as many of any structure of any size as they want??
4) Finally, for now, will players be able to use jump clones in wormholes using the new office centers???????? That would be HUGE. |
Emma Yassavi
Estel Arador Corp Services Estel Arador Capsuleer Services
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 00:04:11 -
[299] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote: 6- You need to kill market hubs if you want to introduce player own markets, players need to feel attached to their system they are living in. We need to stop taking 20 jumps to reach market hub to save 5 mill ISK on module.
This is silly. Market hubs are a natural occurrence in any market (look at New York, Chicago, Hong Kong, London etc). They're simply a way to reduce transaction costs and increase liquidity. Trying to "kill" market hubs would just make thing more expensive for everyone (you'd sell goods for less, buy them for more and volume would be down so not even market makers would be better off).
Possibly, and this is speculation, the existence of player-owned market hubs will create competition to the NCP market hubs simply because of reduced taxes (which act as a transaction cost). The main problem would be to make sure that people were able to transport goods to and from the system reasonably safely, which of course would be a logistically difficult, but potentially having THE market hub in your area of nullsec would be the most profitable thing you could do in the game. I don't know the numbers, but I'd imagine .1% of 10% of Jita's daily volume is still a lot a ISK. |
Noriko Mai
2106
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 01:18:44 -
[300] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:[..]I do worry about loss of stuff. Mainly for folks who are deployed or away for good reason (not just because they are bored of the game).[..] Being bored is a good and valid reason to leave for a while and it should not be treated differently!
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |