|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
5485
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 11:48:23 -
[1] - Quote
A totally new system of structures in space is under development with plans to already release first parts in 2015. This will change the face of the game world and massively enhance the options for all players!
The new structure system will cover everything that can be deployed in space and should incorporate at least the following features: * Completely new fitting systems for structures (somewhat similar to ship fitting with slots) * Intuitive and easy to use UI * Meaningful structure progression system (think of a Interbus Identification System for structures and not only for ships) * Graphical enhancements and improved visuals (the biggest entities should be much larger than they are now) * Proper housing/storing of items and ships according to the structure size - from mooring to docking up * Destructible structures and a meaningful retrieval mechanic of items that have been in those structures when they got destroyed * Much easier and better management of structures * A proper transition plan to the new structures * Much expanded functionality and capabilities of structures (read the blog!)
We want to discuss those ideas in depth and on a high level with you before we continue.
Please read CCP Ytterbium's dev blog Back Into the Structure and come back with your opinions and feedback!
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3740
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:12:10 -
[2] - Quote
Hey guys,
Just quickly coming in here to say thanks for the feedback, we're hyped for those new structures as well. We'll have a detailed pass at your comments on Monday, and we'll also start creating threads in the Features & Ideas discussion part of the forum to gather more specific comments on each type of structure, or on individual features, like mooring.
We've also received a good chunk of awesome feedback from the round table at Fanfest, let's put all of that to use and work together to get your guys proper structures. |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1051
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:13:19 -
[3] - Quote
Cervix Thumper wrote:watching the twitch and reading this sounds kind of like a cash grab.
we have to purchase new material while the old become obsolete?
existing structures / purchases can't be upgraded or transitioned into the new system?
for those purchases that have already been made and not deployed.. players are S.O.L?
A transition period is nice but, all said and done, it seems like scrap the old and buy the new.
This was something missing from the blog but we discussed in our roundtable at Fanfest today. We will make sure you get some reasonable value back from your old structures and not just nerf them until they don't do anything. This includes the tower, modules and blueprints to build them.
We did a similar thing during the industry expansion.
Oh and for the wormholers, yes you will be able to anchor some (or maybe all of these structures). However there will be some activities / bonuses that remain tied to sovereignty. The exact details of this need to be discussed with the wormhole community to see what best fits their needs and play style.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1051
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:15:24 -
[4] - Quote
luobote kong wrote:CompleteFailure wrote:luobote kong wrote:In your slide you said one of the goals was that
"Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: ..."
Does this mean solo players will be able to do this or will the corp restriction remain? Try actually reading the dev blog: Quote: We donGÇÖt want to force the user to select which group they wish to use it for before deploying anymore. Instead, we want the user to make a conscious choice after it has been deployed, and decide if they want personal, corporation, alliance or public use. ThatGÇÖs right, we want those structures to be used for the wider audience, so if you wish to establish your own Market Hub somewhere, make it open to everyone and set your taxes to be shamelessly expensive go right ahead. In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use.
Erm.. I did. But what I haven't seen explicitly said is whether the user that deploys the structure can be a solo player or indeed can't be. Just seeking a clarification.
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.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1069
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:26:03 -
[5] - Quote
Tzar Sinak wrote: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.
Yes this was how we imagined the can ejection should work, at least the scanning part. It also lets us play with the timing on how long the can is safe. The big XL structures might have quite a long time period before the journal entry expires vs a small structure which only gives you a few days to try to recover your assets (for example).
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1069
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:57:42 -
[6] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:One important question.
Today one of the reason we attack other towers is loot (in WH piniata POS can have anything from few bill to 100 bil)
But we are now told that new system will somehow separate people assets from Struckture Fitting and only drop fitting???
My question is: will we still have loot from structures smaller than station?
This is a really good question. We need to carefully balance the reward for attackers vs the risk for people to actually put all their stuff in a structure and use it. Right now things are very binary, outposts you never lose anything and POSes you lose everything. We want to add more granularity and opportunity for it to go either way.
So a few points worth noting:
1) Structures should be destroyed more often than they currently do (easy thing to say for Outposts obviously) which means more opportunities for looting.
2) Creating a time limited ability for the owners to evac their stuff from a safe spot near the structure creates another opportunity for the aggressor to catch them in the act and collect more loot. This also balances quite nicely between a deep nullsec system being taken over vs a high security system.
b) We want to explore ideas for dropping "in progress" loot such as build materials from industry jobs, and other such things. Taking suggestions on this.
If there is a good chance of all of the stuff being destroyed when the structure goes down we will see far less people take that risk and so far less opportunities for people looking for loot in the first place.
It's a great discussion to debate though, exactly how much risk vs reward is fair considering both sides.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1069
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:00:34 -
[7] - Quote
Eduardo'o wrote:Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation
PS: great stuff
Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1069
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:42:05 -
[8] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Eduardo'o wrote:Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation
PS: great stuff Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example. Have some loot drop and some send to the nearest NPC station?
Yes returning to NPC stations may be another option for dealing with Outposts specifically.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3757
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:53:32 -
[9] - Quote
June Blindbird wrote:Starbase defence (with guns control) and flying ships inside the forcefield (because cannot dock) don't seem to have replacement since Mooring means no pilot inside and docking means ship spinning and no view of space.
What are the plans for these ?
Docking could also mean having the view centered on the structure you are at, and still allow you to view your immediate surroundings. We don't necessarily need to have NPC station hangar view for those. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3757
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:55:25 -
[10] - 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
We will find ways around this not to have the servers die and beg for mercy. Ejected containers could have extremely large capacity so one is enough for each owner, or that you at least don't have 100 container for each possible owner. Also remember, those will not appear until the owner warps to the planet bookmark (like Planetary Launches), so this will spread the spawning as well. |
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3761
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:59:24 -
[11] - Quote
xttz wrote:Have you decided how ownership will work on an ongoing basis?
For example, if we launch a new structure and set it for corporation/alliance use, can a spy with the appropriate roles then come along and set it for personal or public use? If set for public use who can change it back again; anyone?
How would unanchoring structures work? I'm especially thinking for structures where players and dock or moor ships.
Using a structure is not the same as managing or owning it.
Example:
I'm setting a Ship Assembly Array to be set to public, anyone can use it to build ships. However not everyone can tweak its ownership or status settings (like changing roles or permissions). Only the owners or the guys set with specific roles can do so.
Large structures with ship docked could require extra security, that's a good point you are making. Either have a long countdown period before unanchor (that everyone with enough roles can see in the corporation) or have a 2 man rule to unanchor the most valuable structures could help fixing this. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3761
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:02:27 -
[12] - Quote
Centurax wrote:Really excited about the proposed changes, really happy good work!! Some questions: How fuel will be used and which types used with which structure? The size of ships needed to deploy the XL Stations? edit: Will it be possible to transfer the new structures, in a similar way to POCO's? I think this direction is a vast improvement and I am looking forward to its development.
- Fuel blocks will most likely be the main resource for service modules to operate. No longer need Strontium for Reinforced period (or whatever capture system we end up with). Also no longer need fuel blocks just to keep the structure in space, if all goes according to plan. Bit early to say so far.
- We want XL structures to feel like a proper commitment (they're taking over Outpost gameplay after all), so it'll most likely be a large ship and most likely not a small frigate.
- Structure transfer was brought up during the Fanfest round table, we don't see any reason why not so far. Do you have any reason why we should not allow structure transfer?
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3763
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:10:42 -
[13] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Three things I'm worried about:
1. What is my extensive pos blueprint collection going to be good for?
2. The datacore thing. I don't really see the point. Why do you think it needs change?
3. How am I supposed to deal with the fact that a french accent is going to trigger a sizeable nerdboner for the foreseeable future?
Don't **** this up please, the implications on many other game systems are massive
- As mentioned by CCP Nullarbor somewhere in this thread, we need to plan for proper reimbursement for existing Starbase structures, blueprints and various assets tied to the stuff we already have. Outpost and their upgrades / improvements is going to be tricky though due to them changing hands so often.
- Ideally we would really like players to take over most NPC services in game as possible. EVE is a sandbox, and the further we can push this concept the more emergent gameplay occurs, which makes us happy.
- Ah yes, ze french accent nerdboner issues. Well the best way to deal with this is to start wearing a beret, let your armpit hair grow and wear very tight pants. That way when other french people talk and notice the nerdboner, they can say: "Is that a baguette in your pants or are you just really happy to see me"?
We'll do our best not to **** this up too much, which is why we're calling for your feedback early on guys . |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3763
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
Nyctef wrote:I love almost everything about these ideas -- good work! I can't wait to play around with some of these structures.
That said, I have a few reservations based on what's been presented so far:
With some of the examples for assembly arrays or research laboratories, there aren't entries listed for the smaller sizes. Is this a deliberate decision at the moment? I think it would be a good idea to have small, affordable entry-level structures for people who are just starting out
At least with the examples presented so far, it feels like most of the fitting options are to do with combat capabilities -- I think it would be cool to have more industrial upgrades for some of the other structures (things like more research slots or mining yield bonuses come to mind)
The biggest problem for me is service slots. It feels really weird to change the role of a structure by adding something to it - like changing a frigate into a hauler by adding a module. It sounds like the intent is to have one-size-fits all structures, and to discourage stacking several structures in the same area. I'd love to go in the opposite direction - separating out structure roles into individual structures that players could arrange in their own way and fly around would add a lot in terms of customisability and immersion. Undocking from a mooring structure and heading over to the insurance structure would feel a lot more like being a space pilot rather than just pressing buttons in a station services menu. I also think making structures smaller and more focussed would make them more flexible and easier to iterate on individually in the future.
tl;dr being able to put together a small town of individual structures would make me feel more like I'm building a home rather than just renting someone else's
Those are good points, however we want to be careful with the structure spam. Having a design that requires you, the players, to have a **** ton of them spread in space essentially brings us back to Starbases. We do plan on having smaller, more affordable progression of structures if there is gameplay for it yes. So for instances, we could have an Assembly Array that is size M, with less fitting capabilities than L, but still giving you a glimpse of what's to come.
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1071
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:23 -
[15] - Quote
EX Winet wrote:So i have two simple questions
1 - There has been alot of talk coming out of the round table with regards to replacement or reimbursement for Towers/mods/structures/BPC, however nothing has been said about Stations. Will stations be replaced via isk or the new structures. Or as it seems is being hinted but not outright said, will they just become obsolete and thus destroyable leaving alliances out of pocket?
2 - There is really only one major benefit to Sov holding, reduced fuel bills. Will the new structures have this applied or did CCP just sneak it out without anyone actually being aware.
1. We need to have a long think about Outpost + Outpost Upgrade reimbursement, particularly because they have such a long history of investment form multiple previous owners. If you have any ideas on how to do this fairly please share your thoughts.
2. We want some functionality and bonuses to be limited to sov holding space to incentivise holding yes. In particular we are thinking of having rigs which modify their bonus depending on where the structure is deployed.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3764
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:18:31 -
[16] - Quote
Samsara Toldya wrote: No racial towers - no racial fuel?
- Racial fuel will most likely be spread among the various structures, or merged into one, not sure yet. Up to discussion, like everything else.
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1071
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:19:09 -
[17] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:Just a question.
Where will be the room for part time players with or within a corp?
With the current sov system and stations it is highly possible that your stuff is still accessible if you login next weekend. With the new sov system and destructible big containers it is highly possible that your stuff isn't accessible next weekend and blown up the week after. Therefore part time players can't have reasonable stuff in sov null anymore including any kind of industrial activity.
That is the reason for the proposed ejection mechanics which will keep your personal assets safe for a period of time for you to collect.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3766
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:28:25 -
[18] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:One thing that I would like to see is overview availability of structures BASED ON STANDINGS. As in, you can warp to a structure without having to scan it down or get a bookmark if its configured to allow you based on being in a corp/alliance or having standings. If you DONT have standings to see it from anywhere in system, you've gotta probe that **** down yourself or get a bookmark. AN EXAMPLE: I decide I want a base of operations for just me. I anchor a personal large "station thing" or whatever, and set it to personal use, and use personal standings to decide who can access it. Since I only have my alts set to personal +10, this new structure shows up on all their overviews anywhere they are in system, and lets them warp to, dock, moor supers/caps, and access everything in and on it. Nobody else in my alliance, corporation, or any other randoms can see this structure if they aren't on grid or running combat probes. That's the vision I'm seeing. I want that. Give that.
An interesting idea, thanks for that. We are considering to have some of the structures visible by default on the overview, especially if they take over Outpost role (so most likely the XL structures) but this has an intriguing take on it. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3766
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:32:51 -
[19] - Quote
Mnemonyss wrote:If the new structures are fittable, will they also have drone bays and allow for drones to be deployed when under attack?
We want them to be like ships, so if there is good gameplay behind it, there is no reason why they shouldn't use drones, or fighter / fighter-bombers at the largest sizes. We do not like gun automation though, so it's likely those will have to be manually controlled if they ever make it in, again, like ship drones. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3766
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:33:39 -
[20] - Quote
Kel'Taran wrote:So with the Large size structures (New POS) only being attackable via entosis (look at the pics in the blog attack method all says entosis) you have gone and taken away the primary use for dreads once new sov goes into effect and carriers have no more repping use either.
That's something that was also brought up during the Fanfest structure round table which needs to be taken care of, yes. |
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3767
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:53:56 -
[21] - Quote
Brain Gehirn wrote:Questions:
- How are you going to handle multiple structures affecting the same system wide effects? - How are you going to deal with the amount of structures in space that this is going to generate? (imagine systems near Jita.. the amount of structures on each) - Why the total removal of the shield forcefield? This is still better than mooring for supercaps unless you want they all to die at some point - What is the strategical benefit of this system over the old system in combat situations? - What is the limit of on grid structures? Otherwise we could just build a giant lag city of hell to protect ourselfs since there is no forcefield - How would you handle the pain that is going to be for players if we start to spam systems with little market hubs? Am I going to warp 20 times inside the same system to fit a ship? - Why a player will prefer the new system over outposts since his itens are (by far) better 'defended' inside outposts? Isnt this going to nerf nullsec A LOT instead of making people a little more happier?
- It is most likely only one structure will provide the system wide effect per solar system. Remember, those will be delivered through service modules, not the structure themselves, so we can tell the user another module of this type is already active and that needs to be taken care of (destroyed, disabled or whatever) before you can install yours. Those could also work with a large cooldown, so you cannot online another service module providing the same system wide effect while the other one is on cooldown. There are ways to solve this particular problem.
- We don't want to provide hard caps for structure, but we don't want everyone to anchor structures in the same solar system either. We will most likely have soft barriers, like fuel cost, or NPC taxes going up the more player structures there are within the same solar system for instance. Another way to do this is to have finite resources. For instance, only 20 caches of datacores could exist per solar system, so if you have 200 structures with this datacore service module installed not many of them are going to spawn anything.
- Forcefield mechanic has issues that we want to remove in the new system, if possible. The (super)capital issues are indeed something that needs to be discussed, a thread was created for that purpose there.
- Strategical benefit is simple: we want structure gameplay to involve players and not bore them to tears. To this end structures need to be a lot more enjoyable to use, which led us to have them fitted and used like ships (without movement).
- Yeah, there is going to be a limit, it depends what the range is going to be on the structure weapon themselves, since we would like to avoid structures shooting other structures (especially if they can only be taken down from the Entosis module). We also need the limit due to the rendering graphical toll on your computer, having too many of them will cause your GPU to melt while begging mercy.
- Market is a very important upgrade, and maybe not something that we are going to allow on the smaller structures. Remember, service modules will have CPU and PWG requirements, and those can be balanced to fit on specific sizes. On the same example, we are not going to allow Supercapital Ship Assembly capabilities on a small structure.
- That is why we need to make stored items relatively safe and give players a chance to defend their assets. The current issue we have is the over-proliferation of outposts - since they are not destructible there is less and less of a reason to build them in the first place. We want emergent content and to this end structures being destroyed really is something we feel attached to.
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3769
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:58:30 -
[22] - Quote
And by the way guys, proper discussion threads are now up in the Feature and Ideas subforum.
Feel free to comment there as it will be easier for everyone to filter the topics that way. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3769
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:01:27 -
[23] - Quote
Justa Hunni wrote:Nyctef wrote:
tl;dr being able to put together a small town of individual structures would make me feel more like I'm building a home rather than just renting someone else's
I really like the changes but I'm quoting above as I had a totally different understanding of what is being contemplated. Right now I can have my POS do almost anything I want it to do (within PG and CPU) but your new structures seem to be role dependent. Does this mean I'll have to have separate research, manufacturing and refining "arrays" within my WH system rather than a single or two POS with all the necessary current arrays (with all the extra fueling etc headaches that enforces)?
You could have the a single or two structures with what you need, but those will not be as effective as having them on the proper bonuses structures.
Example:
- If you have enough fittings, you could have a reprocessing, research ME and TE service modules on a Assembly Array structure
- However it will not be as effective as having the reprocessing module on the Drilling Platform, and the research ME and TE modules on the Research Laboratory.
Exact definition of "effective" is up to discussion at this point. I could be pure efficiency, reduced fitting costs, fuel costs, rig calibration costs etc...
EDIT: remember that rigs will be the main slots to provide specialization bonuses as well, and due to their limited nature, you will not be able to reach the same generalization you currently enjoy with a single Starbase indeed. As mentioned in the blog, we would like to allow you to specialize further in a specific field should you choose to. |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1076
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:23:58 -
[24] - Quote
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Cervix Thumper wrote:watching the twitch and reading this sounds kind of like a cash grab.
we have to purchase new material while the old become obsolete?
existing structures / purchases can't be upgraded or transitioned into the new system?
for those purchases that have already been made and not deployed.. players are S.O.L?
A transition period is nice but, all said and done, it seems like scrap the old and buy the new.
This was something missing from the blog but we discussed in our roundtable at Fanfest today. We will make sure you get some reasonable value back from your old structures and not just nerf them until they don't do anything. This includes the tower, modules and blueprints to build them. We did a similar thing during the industry expansion. Oh and for the wormholers, yes you will be able to anchor some (or maybe all of these structures). However there will be some activities / bonuses that remain tied to sovereignty. The exact details of this need to be discussed with the wormhole community to see what best fits their needs and play style. You shouldn't do a reimbursement plan based on the supposed ISK value of structures like you did with the data interfaces that were removed from industry. We and probably a lot of other people were severely short-changed on the reimbursement values for those interfaces. I would suggest a reimbursement of all the materials needed to actually construct the structures so all the planetary interaction derived materials and everything else in the case of outposts. Another thought. It would be nice to have racial types kept for the POSes and outposts.
Re reimbursement: this is an interesting idea, will discuss it with the team.
Re racial types: the new structures wont be following the standard racial variants ie Caldari, Gallente etc
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3772
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:31:28 -
[25] - Quote
EX Winet wrote: 2 - There is really only one major benefit to Sov holding, reduced fuel bills. Will the new structures have this applied or did CCP just sneak it out without anyone actually being aware.
- We could have Sov holding provide reduced fuel bills for service modules yes. Depends what we want to do with Sov, I need to talk about that one with Fozzieboy.
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3775
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:36:10 -
[26] - Quote
High-level concept work made to illustrate how a structure tree could evolve between sizes. Not final or representative of final attributes. |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1078
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:47:03 -
[27] - 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.
This picture is absolutely just a mockup. We don't have that level of detail to share with you yet. Sorry if that was misleading.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1079
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:57:46 -
[28] - Quote
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote: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.
The sov capture mechanics copied verbatim will have difficulty scaling downwards to small corps and solo players. We are waiting to see how all that discussion plays out before deciding what of that system makes sense for structures.
We are definitely aware of the fact that smaller groups have different defence requirements to large sov holding alliances.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1079
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:59:37 -
[29] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:EX Winet wrote: 2 - There is really only one major benefit to Sov holding, reduced fuel bills. Will the new structures have this applied or did CCP just sneak it out without anyone actually being aware.
- We could have Sov holding provide reduced fuel bills for service modules yes. Depends what we want to do with Sov, I need to talk about that one with Fozzieboy.
service modules need to be flat out better for sov owners. and we are not talking about fuel cost, we are talking about reward for the additional risk of putting something in low/null/wh vs putting something in highsec. reduced fuel cost is a drop in the ocean here. we need to talk about giving a much bigger advantage here. 10% ME for lowsec, 20-25% for nullsec before it's actually worth to build something in null/low for export.
We are proposing that rigs can receive bonuses that work better in nullsec / sov systems.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3776
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:04:33 -
[30] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. This picture is absolutely just a mockup. We don't have that level of detail to share with you yet. Sorry if that was misleading.
I beat you to that reply. Nice try though, kangarooboy |
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1079
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:08:24 -
[31] - 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.
1 weapon slot can mean 6 guns place at the end of each 3 dimensional axis. You should have 360 degree defences since you cannot move or spin around or arrange them at all.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1091
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:39:39 -
[32] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:And by the way guys, proper discussion threads are now up in the Feature and Ideas subforum. Feel free to comment there as it will be easier for everyone to filter the topics that way. I notice there is no "Structures: General" Thread. That is one for comments that cover all structures. Or should we use this thread for that?
Yep, use this thread for now.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3811
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:52:46 -
[33] - Quote
Zappity wrote:What about abandoned structures? Please take the opportunity to fix that flaw of POS design. They should be hackable or something to prevent the current clutter.
And I imagine the Observatory will have effects on Local?
Yeah good point, we need to figure out ways to remove abandoned structures. We had a few options in store for Control Towers, may be time to have a look and adapt them. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3811
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:09:47 -
[34] - Quote
xttz wrote:I may well have missed it, but there's something I have yet to see a clear answer for:
Currently one of the primary roles for starbases is as a strategic base. During invasions and longer-term skimishes they're often dropped as a staging location to support fleets in various ways. While most of the specific functions here do seem to be covered, the proposed structure roles list doesn't include an obvious analogue for a military base.
What are we expected to deploy for supporting members during a war in enemy territory? Offensive drilling platforms? Aggressive research labs? Hostile market hubs?
I can't be the only one who thinks that seems a bit silly.
Are you saying you don't like offensively drilling platform into other people faces? Which kind of madness is this?
More seriously, yes, military platforms are something we are considering. |
|
|
|
|