Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
|

CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1051

|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:13:19 -
[1] - 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 -
[2] - 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 -
[3] - 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 -
[4] - 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 -
[5] - 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 -
[6] - 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 Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1071

|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:23 -
[7] - 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 Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1071

|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:19:09 -
[8] - 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 Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1076

|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:23:58 -
[9] - 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 Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1078

|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:47:03 -
[10] - 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 -
[11] - 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 -
[12] - 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 Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1079

|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:08:24 -
[13] - 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 -
[14] - 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
|
|
|
|