|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
518
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:26:30 -
[1] - Quote
Have you defined 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. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
523
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:21:50 -
[2] - Quote
Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.
By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even stealing effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
525
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:21:36 -
[3] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:on POS's .. it seems odd that you can't get into the POS forcefield yet you can still damage the structure itself? surely if we are shooting the forcefield then shouldn't the range be determined by proximity to the forcefield rather than the tower?
and the forcefield should have the majority of the HP not the tower. would make sense if you have too shoot the forcefield than even a frigate should be able too fire at it and it should have HP itself. If only you'd posted this in 2004 when it was still relevant. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
539
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:01:05 -
[4] - Quote
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. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
539
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:09:55 -
[5] - Quote
xttz wrote:Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.
By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even conquering effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good.
Quoting myself because I'd love to hear what the devs are thinking on this. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
539
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:14:53 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
There needs to be a degree of automation otherwise fitting weaponry because pointless in many situations, especially for personal structures. Are players expected to be around 23/7 to defend them?
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
555
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:53:43 -
[7] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Querns wrote:Yeah, even an individual like myself, who considers himself to be superior to all other thought leaders in Eve: Online, defers to xttz's expertise in the area of sovereignty and POS. I have done a fair amount of reading and never heard of him. I just thought he was new to the game due to him wanting structure grinding when there has been scores of people listing why it is bad. His post just had a new bro feel to it. I meant no harm. I would love to read up on his expertise on the subject of structures and sovereignty. Please mail and or list some links. I'm always eager to learn. Apologies to xttz.
Uh yeah I may have been around here for a little while.
Structure grinding is bad when it's mandatory and/or abused. This was the issue with Dominion sov, as the effort required to remove hostile structures was the same in every situation, regardless how much the space is used or what was invested in it. This in turn creates a barrier for entry into null-sec; you have to be able to inflict obscene amounts of damage which in turn means caps and supercaps.
The flipside of this is that key enemy structures should require an element of risk to take out. Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. This is a fantastic avenue for content, with defenders setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
564
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 08:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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. Can we finally know what are those "issues with forcefield"?
It's built on very old legacy code that's very hard to maintain. Forcefields also weren't written with any of the modern EVE features in mind, and this has lead to all kinds of exploits over the years which have been 'fixed' with various inelegant hacks.
However the most important issue is that GMs have no accurate way to tell from the logs if a ship is within a forcefield or not. That makes them a nightmare for exploit / reimbursment matters. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
565
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 10:20:55 -
[9] - Quote
Isengrimus wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:One thing I would be interested to see is a mechanic by which undefended structues can be captured intact by an invader, rather than having to blow everything up and start from zero when taking territory. Generally in real-world warfare you only engage in general destruction if your conquest is being fought over, and walking in unopposed to plant your flag doesn't usually involve destroying everything in sight in the process. Any thoughts? That's a valid point when you have in mind the Entosis link mechanics. Some people claim it is addressed in the Devblog, but I fail to see it - how will these two mechanics interact? Should we assume (or even better, can some DEV confirm it) that L and XL structures will be either conquerable or destructible only after the full Entosis capture event for tjhem is won? So the winner can decide whether they flip the XL structure (say, Administrative Outpost), or start to blow it up? If it is so, then your point about capturing intact structures should be easily addressed. Or is the Entosis Link only a temporary solution? My concern is that if not coordinated with the new Fozziesov ssytem, the destrcutible structures will, at the end of the day, lead us to the point where we are now - i.e. who brings a bigger blob, wins.
With so much in flux right now, this is an opportunity for a fundamental rethink. What if there were multiple options to handle structures, each with different benefits. Consider this:
- An Entosis Link is still used as currently proposed to contest and deactivate a structure. Once deactivated, a new owner is free to establish their own claim to a system by deploying a new structure. The old structure could potentially be reactivated via Entosis, but in the case of sov structures it would only be if the new owner's claim has been disrupted first.
- These disabled structures could be salvaged, with some form of advantage for the former owner (perhaps it takes 50% longer for an enemy to salvage the structure). This allows an opportunity to recover investment in upgrades. If not salvaged within a certain time (perhaps a month), they would eventually degrade and collapse.
- Alternatively, a structure can be destroyed by applying sufficient damage to it once deactivated. This is a more permanent solution that involves more risk for an attacker, but can be useful in denying an opponent a chance to recover.
- Finally there's the capture option. Rather than deploying a new structure an attacker could elect to conquer a disabled structure, although obviously this would involve the most risk as they'd be trying to acquire an established location. This could potentially be a new role to help reinvent a ship class. What if Supercarriers became Motherships again, only now they are troop carriers specialised for boarding operations and conquering structures? The size and level of upgrade investment in a structure would dictate how long was needed to take it over.
This leaves all sorts of different avenues for content. Invaders can operate a 'scorched earth' policy, simply purging an area of any activity before moving on. They could set traps, shutting down structures and waiting for the owners to return and restore or salvage them. Then of course we have the traditional approach of invading space to conquer it, which makes heavily upgraded territory a prime target. |
|
|
|