Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
Imigo Montoya
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 09:28:00 -
[331] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote: You can always "Log off Safely", The issue with cloaky campers isn't that they have to chase children around the house, its that they log on in a safe place, and then "we" the rest of the people who live in that space have no clue if they are at a keyboard or not. And you, not being at your keyboard shouldn't provide a negative experience for players who are.
in short - its the "log on, safe up, and then **** off so I can go to work, or take a **** or wtf else the cloaky person does for 23 hrs, and keep the locals wondering if, i'm there or not.
Not if I'm active and engaging with people to provide said content I can't.
If there is somebody in your system that is afk, they're no threat to you. If they're at their keyboard, then they're not afk.
The same reasoning you're using also applies to people docked up in a sov station. Somebody can log on in a safe place (the station), and then "we" the rest of the people who live in (or visit) that space have no clue if they are at the keyboard or not. Should we advocate for a deployable structure that will kick people out of the station when used? Anybody who is at the keyboard can just dock up again, right?
To quote CCP Greyscale on nullsec from his 2014 GDC talk on crimewatch "choosing to live out here puts you in constant danger". If you think that having somebody who is not blue occupying the same system as you is a "negative experience", then perhaps nullsec isn't the right type of space for you to be in. |
Sequester Risalo
Significant Others
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 10:02:33 -
[332] - Quote
I very much like the new structure ideas. Especially since I (and probably many others) suggested some of those in the feedback query I filled out recently.
However I am not happy with the defense options for small corps. Sometimes one is away for several days on holidays or business trips with no opportunity to log in. Especially not for four hours every day.
Now in the old system I could be fairly certain that no one messes with a sufficiently armed POS. Now If I understand correctly all it takes is a trollceptor with an entosis link and the structure is gone upon return from holidays. Please tell me that I'm getting something wrong here.
Maybe the solution would be another kind of structure. We do have -manufacturing -research -market and office -mining -bservatory -administration
How about adding some kind of military structure with good defenses and ship assembly and repair services? |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
569
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 10:04:09 -
[333] - Quote
i would generally say that quoting CCP Greyscale as a support for your argument is definitely not the way to go, but i guess a broken clock is right twice a day... |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1894
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 10:34:02 -
[334] - Quote
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.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
908
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 11:05:09 -
[335] - Quote
This all looks universally awesome. My only confusion is that this all seems to imply that Outposts will obey the same rules as other structures, and therefore will become destroyable. Now, that is perfectly fine with me, and you look to have considered the loosing-stuff-in-station angle, but doesn't this contradict the new sov changes, since the station capture mechanics seem to be very contrary to a system edging towards making them destroyable? Are we misunderstanding things (as in, the loosing stored items is just for dealing with the replacements for POSes, and destroyable station are still off the table) or is the station rules in the sov update just a placeholder until this system can replace it? |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4198
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 11:06:53 -
[336] - Quote
Thalos Maedros wrote:Only problem with that system then would be players would then set up personal structures instead if they wanted to bypass the requirements you stated above. As CCP said they want it to have more possibilities for players, your idea is bringing it back to limitations Yes, except a) players would be limited to 0.5-0.7 systems and b) they'd require the requisite 1.0-3.0 Faction standing.
Oxide Ammar wrote:They will allow capital ships in hisec and reintroduce level 5 missions back to hisec, also they might introduce upper tier of incursions used only by capital ships....mark my words Wouldn't that be nice.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 11:28:07 -
[337] - Quote
Imigo Montoya wrote:"be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users" This is concerning. I have small children so I regularly have to go afk while playing, usually at short notice. This means that I need to be able to get assets safe if I'm out flying at all. PvE no longer holds any interest to me and I generally prefer shooting player controlled ships when I have the opportunity to actively engage with this game, so combine these things together and my gameplay experience of EVE would be best described as cloaky pew. My favourite activity is catching people coming through gates with my cloaky Sabre. That means I am generally on-grid with a system bottleneck structure, and already vulnerable to being decloaked due to where I have to be located to be ready to catch a potential target. If I need to go afk I'll warp off to a safe or perch and cloak up there. When I used to do PvE activities, it was generally in a place where I had a POS or station nearby that I could warp to and safe/dock up. That is still available to me, but that would mean I'd have to pursue PvE activities One of the things I really like about EVE is the emergent nature of it. Instead of providing pre-defined gameplay, EVE provides the tools and allows the player the ability to engineer the way they use them in a way that suits their own varied needs. In order for me to be able to play EVE at all, I need to be able to make it work within the RL constraints that I have. Being able to fit a cloak allows me to engage with the game and provide content for people that otherwise often wouldn't be there. Giving sov holders an "I see you" button removes that possibility. It also removes a whole lot of active intel gathering operations like getting a cloaked ship into hostile staging systems to watch their formups and fleet compositions, so seems rather OP. A more palatable effect would be increasing targeting or re-cloak delays. Ironically, cloaky ships are my favourite prey. They provide a difficult yet achievable challenge, and they are also not invulnerable simply because they have a cloak on them. I even wrote an entire article on the topic which I would like to bring to your attention. In summary, please don't undermine the foundations of the emergent sandbox that gives EVE its appeal.
I also have kids and often leave the screen due to IRL-events, often initiated by said kids, or by my wife in the middle of super-imortant-space-ship-fleets dualboxing litterally billions of ISK in the form of a Supercarrier and a Carrier, which is much much worse than a 55 M ISK dictor tbh... ;-).
So I know the feeling!
But you and I already have a plethora of available options today, and even more when the new intel-structures come!
* Cloak in a safespot. THere IS a risk that the enemy will use a "decloaking-function" JUST as you are away for 16 minutes from your screen. But then again, there is a large chance they won't! How do THEY know you ARE actually AFK and not alertly looking for combat probes if you get decloaked?! Huh!? For an alert "AFK-cloaker" that is actually on-screen, it would be a small task to see the decloak, detect the combat probes and just warp off to a new safe and cloak up again looong before they warp into your current safespot.
* Safe-logoff which is possible if you do not have any timers preventing log off. This takes 30s, which probably would be rather safe to run off and save a crying kid, or demanding wife-initiated-task. Still a small chance they decloak AND combat probe you out JUST as you run off, but really....not a problem!
* Leave the system and cloak up in another system nearby, where they do not have the necessary intel-structures up. Cloak up on a safe in a system where there is no intel-structures, and you are TRULY safe. AFAIK the "anti-AFK-cloaking-function" will also be limited in number of uses (cool-down-timer?) and will depend on an available intel-structures and possibly sov-updates for this (?). So keep an alt in a cloaky in a non-structure-system nearby, and you can fly in that one, and go AFK during the cooldown if you want to troll the people more ;-)
* And finally, the risk of loosing a cloaky dictor worth about 55 M ISK should not really be a problem for you - you might aswell loose it in pvp and "**** happens" in EVE as in IRL. This is called "risk" and the reward is that you have a possibility to kill much more valuable ships like deep-space-transports or whatever. Same goes for cloaky Stealth Bombers AFK cloaking systems day out and day in without any active input from the player - they are very cheap compared to what you hunt with them. Loosing a Supercarrier and a carrier currently worth about 35 B ISK would be much worse, but I won't complain when that risk materilize due to IRL-stuff (it has, many times!). That's how this game works!
I think this "decloaking-function" is a good id+¬a that will make it a bit harder for people to play EVE-online passively. Play it actively, or log off. And the new function will not mean anything and will be easy to counter for players that ARE active. If you happen to be AFK with "legimit reasons" and get killed in the process - well, tough luck, **** happens! I dont think it will reduce the number of cloaky campers significantly either, and when they log on and cloak up, you KNOW they are not AFk so the effect of them beeing in system will only be higher! They will shut down ratting and other activities much more efficiently!
CEO Svea Rike
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 11:34:15 -
[338] - 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?
If no one is protecting them, you could just entosis them on your own with one ship and easily take control or blow them up in the entosis-process I guess (whatever will be the outcome of entosising structures?)
CEO Svea Rike
|
Gempei
Marvinovi pratele Nulli Secunda
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 11:47:50 -
[339] - Quote
davet517 wrote:...How will these structures be attacked? Will they all be subject to the new "entosis" mechanic, or will some of them require hit-point grinding (as with current POS)? first attribute for every structure - damage / entosis
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
908
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:17:57 -
[340] - Quote
Further thoughts, particularly regarding the highsec-applications of this.
- Given that "ability to deploy POSes" and "corp hangers" are some of the very few benefits accorded a player corporation (and in discussions about "social corporations" these ares nearly close to the only remaining benefit if social corporations are non-wardeccable), and it stated in the dev-blog that solo players would be allowed to deploy these structures, surely this removes the last benefits of player-run corporations, making NPC corps or social corps the default common-sense option for the highsec player. Has this been considered, and if so, what will be done to make player corps a viable option to wardec-immune alternatives?
- There was talk about NPC convoys to deliver small goods between stations. I am perfectly fine with this in principle, but what are the highsec implications? Current NPC convoys are freely shootable without a Concord intervention (I am not sure, I believe the faction police might respond, but I am unsure of this), will this be the case for these player-paid haulers? And if not, why not? Wouldn't this invalidate the player-operated hauler gameplay if NPC's are doing it cheaper and with Concord protection? And why should Concord intervene, since they do not intervene in any other combat between player and NPC?, |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1069
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:26:03 -
[341] - 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
|
|
Eduardo'o
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:50:42 -
[342] - Quote
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 |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
908
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:56:25 -
[343] - Quote
Another thought - although I love the idea of wrecks to get around the issue of loss of long-term storage, there is a potential (particularly if this is enabled too far down the size chain) of clutter. Particularly if this becomes enabled for POS-replacements, since POSes get shot up all the time, in short order (particularly on high-value moons) there could be a veritable wreck field around a moon of old, dead POSes. Now, to be fair, this might be kinda cool in its own way, but perhaps an option is needed for corps to be able to repair an old wreck in place of just laying down a new one. This should probably be only allowed for corps to repair their own wrecks (to avoid using this mechanic to lock-out people from their stuff by enclosing it in a new structure not of their corp), which would still mean some wreck fields will appear, but in areas where you have a couple of groups see-sawing control of an area, it will significantly reduce the clutter. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1069
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:57:42 -
[344] - 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 -
[345] - 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
|
|
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
536
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:06:27 -
[346] - Quote
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.
It's not just inactive accounts. I've got a ton of stuff all over New Eden, in various null stations. There's little chance of being able to go and get it all and it's something I didn't consider when doing it because the mechanics allowed it. Some of your new ideas are great, some need plenty of thinking applied because while you can set things to year 0, you need to consider those who've lived under the old mechanics for years and either help them move their stuff or not completely invalidate years of accumulated items which they assumed will be safe and retrievable at some stage.
|
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
536
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:11:48 -
[347] - Quote
I'm slightly concerned about the mooring and removing of pos shields in relation to supercaps. What happens with unsubbed supers? When moored can the pod leave and return, once left what happens to the super? What happens if you're moored and you lose the outpost while logged off? How many mooring points are there? Will you remove pos shields once the mooring is in place? I understand the need to tone down supers but they still need to be fun rather than a chore to own.
|
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:18:55 -
[348] - Quote
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? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1069
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:42:05 -
[349] - 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
|
|
Elana Apgar
DarkMatter-Industries Upholders
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:50:50 -
[350] - Quote
Silana Hurtini wrote:Quote:Text advertisement, billboard replacement, being used as gigantic monuments with no purpose (except to show how big your e-peen is by showing the statue of your glorious alliance leader). Could also involve frozen corpses somehow. I am not a woman, but I think that this type of language is not welcoming to them. Not that anybody who plays the game probably cares, but you'd hope the devs would at least.
I am a woman, and I have no problem with this. Most of the girls that play this game are used to hanging around with guys and used to how they talk.
Please don't talk for us gamer girls. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3757
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:53:32 -
[351] - 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. |
|
Elana Apgar
DarkMatter-Industries Upholders
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:53:51 -
[352] - 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
You know, you can create contracts anywhere in New Eden. So you can be in a wormhole and create a contract to sell your junk in a station that you can no longer access. You can also see about getting a logistics firm, like Black Frog, to move your stuff for you. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3757
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:55:25 -
[353] - 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. |
|
Elana Apgar
DarkMatter-Industries Upholders
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:55:51 -
[354] - Quote
Jennifer Maxwell wrote:Silana Hurtini wrote:Quote:Text advertisement, billboard replacement, being used as gigantic monuments with no purpose (except to show how big your e-peen is by showing the statue of your glorious alliance leader). Could also involve frozen corpses somehow. I am not a woman, but I think that this type of language is not welcoming to them. Not that anybody who plays the game probably cares, but you'd hope the devs would at least. As a woman, I really don't care in the slightest if people use "this type of language". As a matter of fact, I'd be kinda pissed if I knew the devs felt they had to censor themselves just because a few people, men or women, got their panties in a twist. You've got a right to be offended about things. But that doesn't mean that anyone else has to care if you're offended, and it sure as hell don't give you the right do be offended on anyone else's behalf, and especially not mine.
Amen. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3761
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:59:24 -
[355] - 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 -
[356] - 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 -
[357] - 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 . |
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:12:49 -
[358] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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).
Veri naise.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Noriko Mai
2110
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:13:16 -
[359] - Quote
I would like to see mooring being some kind of structure extension that can be build up to X times to extend slots. If a parking lot of a super market is full, we build a bigger/second parking lot, not a second super market.
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3763
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:00 -
[360] - 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |