Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 53 post(s) |
Scott Ormands
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:28:28 -
[61] - Quote
few questions.
1. Larges; if we cant dock caps in them then how will we keep them in WH space especially since it seems that XL's are going to replace stations and hence wont really be allowed in HW's, plus they are supposed to be very expensive.
2. Vulnerability window; how will that work in WH space where we cant claim SOV to boost our indicies to reduce our vulberability timer.
3. Will the office, cloning, and market functions work in WH space.
4. How will these structures accommodate or replace the current practice in WH's to have Squad POS's with members of each POS having a specific corp hanger division assigned to them and their alts.
EX. 10 members are living in a WH, each with multiple alts, there are two towers with 5 members assigned to each with secret passwords to restrict access to those assigned. In tower 1 Scott is assigned division 5 and the other members are assigned the remainder. Scott has 4 alts and each of them have the same hanger division assigned allowing for easy consolidation of modules and items such as PI and minerals/Ore. Will this functionality be preserved?
5. How will ship storage be maintained, will it be similar to the current SMA mechanics or will it be more like stations with hangers divided restricted to each character. Maybe a combination of each allow you the option to set up shared hangers?
Thanks |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1170
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:29:09 -
[62] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Thanatos Marathon wrote:First, I have to say I am super excited about the path structures are taking!
The impression I get is that the defenses will have the option to be managed by a player to operate? Is that correct? If a player does interact with the defenses will they take standings loss for shooting something like they would if they were in a normal ship?
Example: AoE weapon is activated by myself with a mix of enemy and friendly ships/drones nearby (friendlies forgot to ball up, undocked, etc). Will my standings be absolutely torched? Unlike existing Starbases, you won't need multiple guys to operate the weapons. Those structures will be like ships, so you will only need one guy to control them all. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be reworked into something else or refunded when Starbases are removed. Regarding standings, this would in essence be the same situatin than launching a bomb into a pack of friendlies . Those are AoE weapons, be careful where you shoot them. The lack of automated defenses is disconcerting specifically as it relates to wormhole space and smaller corporations trying to build up or start out in low-class wormhole space. Wormhole space has unique challenges related to system access that are not present in k-space. There is no option to med clone to your home system, cyno behind an enemy gate camp, or otherwise return to your structure if you are podded out from your wormhole. A small number of aggressors can effectively block out an equally small corporation from being able to effectively access their system after a minor skirmish of opportunity. And given that the aggressor need only bring small ships to reinforce structures, the lack of any kind of automated defense to discourage such griefing behavior is very concerning. These possibilities could essential force smaller entities to "bunker down" during their vulnerability window daily to avoid being locked out and to defend against a minuscule attacking force. I strongly believe that these structures need to have some level of automatic, even if marginally ineffective to deter casual reinforcement in wormhole space where defenders are at a distinct geographical disadvantage due to how wormhole space operates.
We have been discussing the idea of a module that recruits pirate spawns to defend against people entosis linking your structure, but ultimately how customizable the timezone mechanics are will be the key here.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:30:11 -
[63] - Quote
Vacant Glare wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Are these things intended to have offices and markets? I'm sort of puzzled by what looks like a deathstar pos replacement being in the 'old' office/market category and trying to wrap my head around what exactly this is going to do. This will be the most easily defended structure, and have bonuses to office capacity and market functionality. The intention is this is the best place to put all your stuff, hence it has the most fortress like appearance. How can it be the best place to put your market trade stuff if it can be destroyed. No marketeer is going to have 10's of billions in assets in a structure that can blow up while there on vacation I think I recall either in the last fanfest or in a blog that your stuff will not be destroyed if the structure is destroyed. Your personal containers will be jettisoned out into space and only you or I suppose authorized players will be able to pick it up. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1170
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:32:18 -
[64] - Quote
Vacant Glare wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Are these things intended to have offices and markets? I'm sort of puzzled by what looks like a deathstar pos replacement being in the 'old' office/market category and trying to wrap my head around what exactly this is going to do. This will be the most easily defended structure, and have bonuses to office capacity and market functionality. The intention is this is the best place to put all your stuff, hence it has the most fortress like appearance. How can it be the best place to put your market trade stuff if it can be destroyed. No marketeer is going to have 10's of billions in assets in a structure that can blow up while there on vacation
We have yet to release a lot of details about this, but there will be an element of asset safety so you don't lose everything when it explodes.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
507
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:32:43 -
[65] - Quote
Very excited to see this replace my old POS in WH, so here are some WH related (but also some general) questions about those new structures:
- Can I anchor them anywhere (appart from some proximity restrictions). Does it have to be moons or can I put them at any spot in space. Can I have more than one on one grid?
- Can I use market functionality in WH?
- Can I store ships and items inside just like in stations? Will those be in "corporate" hangar or will I get access to personal hangar like in stations.
- What about access to corp assets? Will it work like current (or similar to) corp hangar mechanics in stations?
- How will vulnerability window work for WH? We dont have system upgrades to reduce our window of vulnerability
- Will citadel be able to shot without anyone piloting the guns?
- Will there be fuell requirement. And if yes how will it work when structure go offile in terms of destroying it with entosis link? Today if I forgot to fuell my pos and some start to shoot it it will give me still some time to log back, fuell and online it (risking being killed ofc). How this will work with entosis link and offline structures?
- Will there be a way for attacker to know how many people are inside structure docked and in what ships? (i.e. warping to a pos and assessing defense forces)
- When docked will I be able to see space or will I have some sort of station intertior? (HINT: We want to be able to see our surrounding, even if optionally)
- WHEN????!!!!
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
7588
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:33:22 -
[66] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Thanatos Marathon wrote:First, I have to say I am super excited about the path structures are taking!
The impression I get is that the defenses will have the option to be managed by a player to operate? Is that correct? If a player does interact with the defenses will they take standings loss for shooting something like they would if they were in a normal ship?
Example: AoE weapon is activated by myself with a mix of enemy and friendly ships/drones nearby (friendlies forgot to ball up, undocked, etc). Will my standings be absolutely torched? Unlike existing Starbases, you won't need multiple guys to operate the weapons. Those structures will be like ships, so you will only need one guy to control them all. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be reworked into something else or refunded when Starbases are removed. Regarding standings, this would in essence be the same situatin than launching a bomb into a pack of friendlies . Those are AoE weapons, be careful where you shoot them. The lack of automated defenses is disconcerting specifically as it relates to wormhole space and smaller corporations trying to build up or start out in low-class wormhole space. Wormhole space has unique challenges related to system access that are not present in k-space. There is no option to med clone to your home system, cyno behind an enemy gate camp, or otherwise return to your structure if you are podded out from your wormhole. A small number of aggressors can effectively block out an equally small corporation from being able to effectively access their system after a minor skirmish of opportunity. And given that the aggressor need only bring small ships to reinforce structures, the lack of any kind of automated defense to discourage such griefing behavior is very concerning. These possibilities could essential force smaller entities to "bunker down" during their vulnerability window daily to avoid being locked out and to defend against a minuscule attacking force. I strongly believe that these structures need to have some level of automatic, even if marginally ineffective to deter casual reinforcement in wormhole space where defenders are at a distinct geographical disadvantage due to how wormhole space operates.
They could just let us jump clone into wormholes at long last?
Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
459
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:33:31 -
[67] - Quote
BadAssMcKill wrote:I feel like you should have gone with shooting instead of entosis to maybe give dreads a use or something like that
I'm not sure you understand the entire purpose and premise of the structure/e-link overhaul.
Suffice to say, if they had made this choice, they would have no work to do, because it already exists. |
Scott Ormands
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:35:00 -
[68] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Obil Que wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Thanatos Marathon wrote:First, I have to say I am super excited about the path structures are taking!
The impression I get is that the defenses will have the option to be managed by a player to operate? Is that correct? If a player does interact with the defenses will they take standings loss for shooting something like they would if they were in a normal ship?
Example: AoE weapon is activated by myself with a mix of enemy and friendly ships/drones nearby (friendlies forgot to ball up, undocked, etc). Will my standings be absolutely torched? Unlike existing Starbases, you won't need multiple guys to operate the weapons. Those structures will be like ships, so you will only need one guy to control them all. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be reworked into something else or refunded when Starbases are removed. Regarding standings, this would in essence be the same situatin than launching a bomb into a pack of friendlies . Those are AoE weapons, be careful where you shoot them. The lack of automated defenses is disconcerting specifically as it relates to wormhole space and smaller corporations trying to build up or start out in low-class wormhole space. Wormhole space has unique challenges related to system access that are not present in k-space. There is no option to med clone to your home system, cyno behind an enemy gate camp, or otherwise return to your structure if you are podded out from your wormhole. A small number of aggressors can effectively block out an equally small corporation from being able to effectively access their system after a minor skirmish of opportunity. And given that the aggressor need only bring small ships to reinforce structures, the lack of any kind of automated defense to discourage such griefing behavior is very concerning. These possibilities could essential force smaller entities to "bunker down" during their vulnerability window daily to avoid being locked out and to defend against a minuscule attacking force. I strongly believe that these structures need to have some level of automatic, even if marginally ineffective to deter casual reinforcement in wormhole space where defenders are at a distinct geographical disadvantage due to how wormhole space operates. We have been discussing the idea of a module that recruits pirate spawns to defend against people entosis linking your structure, but ultimately how customizable the timezone mechanics are will be the key here.
But how would that work in WH space. If I can recruit Sleepless guardians to defend me I'm going to call it now and predict people farming off of an alt's defended tower.
|
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
306
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:36:43 -
[69] - Quote
I like those designs a lot.
Would it be possible to have multiple designs for structures, so players can choose which one they want and make different systems have a different look to them, instead of seeing the same structure everywhere?
Baddest poster ever
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3289
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:37:26 -
[70] - Quote
will it be configurable if it should appear on the overview or not? One main purpose of it is the functionality as trade hub. And i guess there will be many of those structures around. Things like docking rights, availability of the trade module and visibility of the structure itself must be somehow communicated to the players.
Standing based visibility on the overview? Please don't make us open show info every time.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
447
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:37:40 -
[71] - Quote
Will they require fuel? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:38:48 -
[72] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:I like those designs a lot.
Would it be possible to have multiple designs for structures, so players can choose which one they want and make different systems have a different look to them, instead of seeing the same structure everywhere?
That is sort of the point with the different classes, each size and each class will be a different hull like ships.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3289
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:40:07 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
We have been discussing the idea of a module that recruits pirate spawns to defend against people entosis linking your structure, but ultimately how customizable the timezone mechanics are will be the key here.
a module which ejects a corpse every now and then to bait drifters :P
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:40:14 -
[74] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:will it be configurable if it should appear on the overview or not? One main purpose of it is the functionality as trade hub. And i guess there will be many of those structures around. Things like docking rights, availability of the trade module and visibility of the structure itself must be somehow communicated to the players.
Standing based visibility on the overview? Please don't make us open show info every time.
I would like to show them on the overview if you have access to them yes. We'll have to see if that is at all possible though.
Otherwise a structure browser would provide that functionality.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6205
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:40:19 -
[75] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Looks good - in particular seems to sooth some of the concerns over Supercapital security (especially if docking gets the go-ahead), and some of those weapon systems sound damn good (in particular the aoe missiles, point defences, and structure doomsdays).
I agree that it seems a little odd that these are being touted as the "market/office structure" given that it feels more like a military staging base, but I'll trust you know what you are doing there.
In all, and encouraging start. Which is probably why they are calling them Citadels instead now.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:40:53 -
[76] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:Will they require fuel? For the X-Large station I heard Amarr stations will require capsuleer corpses. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:41:04 -
[77] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:Will they require fuel?
Yes but the amount of fuel will depend on the fittings, and they will remain online without fuel (the services will go offline though).
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
154
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:41:41 -
[78] - Quote
Upkeep costs?
Which functions are built into the hull, and which functions are provided by fitting modules and rigs?
Anchoring restrictions concerning "deep" safes (incursion and mission bookmarks - they still can be more than 15AU off the nearest celestial). |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3902
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:45:08 -
[79] - Quote
Scott Ormands wrote:few questions.
1. Larges; if we cant dock caps in them then how will we keep them in WH space especially since it seems that XL's are going to replace stations and hence wont really be allowed in HW's, plus they are supposed to be very expensive.
2. Vulnerability window; how will that work in WH space where we cant claim SOV to boost our indicies to reduce our vulberability timer.
3. Will the office, cloning, and market functions work in WH space.
4. How will these structures accommodate or replace the current practice in WH's to have Squad POS's with members of each POS having a specific corp hanger division assigned to them and their alts.
EX. 10 members are living in a WH, each with multiple alts, there are two towers with 5 members assigned to each with secret passwords to restrict access to those assigned. In tower 1 Scott is assigned division 5 and the other members are assigned the remainder. Scott has 4 alts and each of them have the same hanger division assigned allowing for easy consolidation of modules and items such as PI and minerals/Ore. Will this functionality be preserved?
5. How will ship storage be maintained, will it be similar to the current SMA mechanics or will it be more like stations with hangers divided restricted to each character. Maybe a combination of each allow you the option to set up shared hangers?
Thanks
- You would still have the invulnerability link, but yes, you are right, that's one of the arguments in favor to allow capitals in the Large Citadels.
- What we are thinking so far is to have high-sec and W-space have higher indices that null-sec by default. So they will be naturally less vulnerable there. We are also thinking about modules, rigs and gameplay options to affect the vulnerability window, but at a price.
- It depends on which kind of gameplay we want to have in W-space. So far, office and market functions look fine, cloning does not. Again, not set in stone at this point.
- Sounds so complicated. How about we give you guys personal hangers instead, just like in NPC stations / outposts? And then, if you don't want people to dock in a specific structure you can set restrictions to do so.
- See above
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:45:15 -
[80] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Upkeep costs?
Which functions are built into the hull, and which functions are provided by fitting modules and rigs?
Anchoring restrictions concerning "deep" safes (incursion and mission bookmarks - they still can be more than 15AU off the nearest celestial).
Storage, security and fitting service will be on the hull. Corp offices, market, industry, clones etc will all be modules that have to be added and fueled.
We are considering showing all structures on the on board scanner / sensor overlay allowing you to either warp directly to them or atleast show you that structures are anchored in system so you can probe them down.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
Darirol
FEROX AQUILA
11
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:46:01 -
[81] - Quote
what about courier contracts?
1. you can start and deliver courier contracts only from / to stations, does it work with those new things too?
2. freighter are capital sized. jumpfreighter and rorqual even more. are we supposed to stock the medium and large one with 50k m3 haulers?
3.how does the game mechanic react if there are courier contracts up and the destination "station" got destroyed / unanchored?
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1173
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:48:54 -
[82] - Quote
Darirol wrote:what about courier contracts?
1. you can start and deliver courier contracts only from / to stations, does it work with those new things too?
2. freighter are capital sized. jumpfreighter and rorqual even more. are we supposed to stock the medium and large one with 50k m3 haulers?
3.how does the game mechanic react if there are courier contracts up and the destination "station" got destroyed / unanchored?
Couriers are a good question, and we don't have detailed answers for this yet.
If / when we do they will be a service module that you can add to access contracts. On destruction I imagine the contracts will be treated with the same asset safety mechanics as your inventory.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Centurax
Dracos Dozen Unsettled.
65
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:50:17 -
[83] - Quote
Nice work really excited about the new structures and the weapons :)
Will the structure be conquerable or is it kill only, was not too clear on that?
Also what kind of personalization will these structures have, so can you put Corp/Alliance logo holograms on them in the first version or that planned later also will there be skins similar to the ships planned for them? |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1724
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:50:54 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Vacant Glare wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Are these things intended to have offices and markets? I'm sort of puzzled by what looks like a deathstar pos replacement being in the 'old' office/market category and trying to wrap my head around what exactly this is going to do. This will be the most easily defended structure, and have bonuses to office capacity and market functionality. The intention is this is the best place to put all your stuff, hence it has the most fortress like appearance. How can it be the best place to put your market trade stuff if it can be destroyed. No marketeer is going to have 10's of billions in assets in a structure that can blow up while there on vacation We have yet to release a lot of details about this, but there will be an element of asset safety so you don't lose everything when it explodes.
Reuse the impounding code that already exists. All your stuff back but some nasty tax. Like 25% of Est value.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6205
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:51:20 -
[85] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Papa Django wrote:Is there a limitation to the distance between 2 structures and the distance between a sov structure and theses new structures ? There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp / stations, to avoid having space where structure defenses overlap or have them hidden inside landmarks or other anomaly sites. I have to say I was hoping that the concept of linking structures had not been dropped, that creating structure "cities" or "encampments" in space would be possible.
Basically, yes, restrictions on anchoring too close to other structures UNLESS you link them together. Each individual component would have so many hard points (depending on size) which could be used either for weapons OR as the necessary connection points.
So if you want to build a complex structure in a given area then you would need to sacrifice weapons hard points on each section to use as attachment points to the rest of the structure. This would also allow for free form structures to evolve according to need and player taste.
... but this is good too.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1074
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:51:40 -
[86] - Quote
How exactly do these defenses protect against a lone trollceptor if they don't auto-fire at all? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3902
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:51:41 -
[87] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Thank You CCP. Very excited to see this replace my old POS in WH, so here are some WH related (but also some general) questions about those new structures:
- Can I anchor them anywhere (appart from some proximity restrictions). Does it have to be moons or can I put them at any spot in space. Can I have more than one on one grid?
- Can I use market functionality in WH?
- Can I store ships and items inside just like in stations? Will those be in "corporate" hangar or will I get access to personal hangar like in stations.
- What about access to corp assets? Will it work like current (or similar to) corp hangar mechanics in stations?
- How will vulnerability window work for WH? We dont have system upgrades to reduce our window of vulnerability
- Will citadel be able to shot without anyone piloting the guns?
- Will there be fuell requirement. And if yes how will it work when structure go offile in terms of destroying it with entosis link? Today if I forgot to fuell my pos and some start to shoot it it will give me still some time to log back, fuell and online it (risking being killed ofc). How this will work with entosis link and offline structures?
- Will there be a way for attacker to know how many people are inside structure docked and in what ships? (i.e. warping to a pos and assessing defense forces)
- When docked will I be able to see space or will I have some sort of station intertior? (HINT: We want to be able to see our surrounding, even if optionally)
- X-L structures in WH?
- How will refitting work for structures? If I'm under attack or about to be attacked can I swap my guns or something? Will there be a delay before new setup will take effect?
- pls add some loot drop. Wormholeres dont attack poses for "production materials" and cant stay in system for weeks waititng for defenders to scoop loot
- WHEN????!!!!
I will answer the questions that don't overlap with my previous reply.
- So far, our plan is to have them anywhere yes, as long as proximity restrictions are respected.
- Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn.
- Fuel is so far only going to be needed to activate the service modules, those structure shouldn't use fuel on their own, please refer to our previous blog for more details.
- Not sure about being able to know docked people, may be part of scanning mechanics, but open to discussion.
- When docked you will see surrounding space.
- Yes, ideally we want all structure sizes and types everywhere. There may be gampeplay restrictions on them and / or their respective modules if needed however.
- Refitting will most likely drain capacitor (like on ships) so while you could do it in combat, this would not be advisable.
|
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1074
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:52:26 -
[88] - Quote
Aryth wrote: Reuse the impounding code that already exists. All your stuff back but some nasty tax. Like 25% of Est value.
god no, its buggy as all hell |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1173
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:52:40 -
[89] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Papa Django wrote:Is there a limitation to the distance between 2 structures and the distance between a sov structure and theses new structures ? There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp / stations, to avoid having space where structure defenses overlap or have them hidden inside landmarks or other anomaly sites. I have to say I was hoping that the concept of linking structures had not been dropped, that creating structure "cities" or "encampments" in space would be possible. Basically, yes, restrictions on anchoring too close to other structures UNLESS you link them together. Each individual component would have so many hard points (depending on size) which could be used either for weapons OR as the necessary connection points. So if you want to build a complex structure in a given area then you would need to sacrifice weapons hard points on each section to use as attachment points to the rest of the structure. This would also allow for free form structures to evolve according to need and player taste. ... but this is good too.
We are thinking at least 250km away from everything else in the game (warp in points, belts, gates, other structures etc), but otherwise you can anchor anywhere.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Vacant Glare
Ghost Recon Inc
11
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:53:03 -
[90] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Bienator II wrote:will it be configurable if it should appear on the overview or not? One main purpose of it is the functionality as trade hub. And i guess there will be many of those structures around. Things like docking rights, availability of the trade module and visibility of the structure itself must be somehow communicated to the players.
Standing based visibility on the overview? Please don't make us open show info every time. I would like to show them on the overview if you have access to them yes. We'll have to see if that is at all possible though. Otherwise a structure browser would provide that functionality. Would be nice if system owners could see these on the overview but for none blues then hacking the system navigation array (or similar) would turn off a hidden statement letting everyone know where they are.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |