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) |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 11:24:01 -
[481] - Quote
There seems a bit of a conflict between the - ultimately planned (?) - conversion of outposts into XL structures and the 'freeport' part of the new entosis link mechanism.
Is that going to be addressed? |
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:00:19 -
[482] - Quote
Some thoughts to mix in..... Style and Preference, Visual and Personal Interest
I'm sure that many of us enjoy our empire-themed control towers, if only for appearance and imagined fealty, just like our ships. So, isn't it possible that current control towers could be 'reprocessed' (redesigned) for use into the new system?
I think it would be really nice if they could still serve as general-purpose base-type structures; maybe no special bonuses for scanning or manufacturing or research but still capable of several common activities, and maybe ship-like bonuses to certain offensive and defensive systems that we can choose from (and maybe not, because seeing lasers and missiles coming out of a minmatar tower would look pretty badass) ..... And even if we can't see a continuation of our current control towers, having empire-styled equivalents to proposed structures would really REALLY be nice.
As cool as the general sci-fi look of those new structures is, we have a lot of cool sci-fi style in the existing ships and structures in EVE based on the empires! This glorious stylization and variety is really part of what makes EVE look so COOL.
Fuel Block Thoughts
Having empire-typed structures would also give purpose to having the four types of fuel blocks, keeping the fuels market varied and interesting. Maybe add as some suggest a new generic(?) fuel block type that uses all of the isotopes equally and the new non-empire-typed structures could use that.
OR MAYBE (idea just struck me!) one type of [probably mandatory] module for larger structures could be a "Power Plant" that uses one of the four (or five) fuel block types to supply power to the structure ... for example: Amarr Power Plant I can be loaded as a module with charge type 'Amarr Fuel Block' and uses said fuel to supply power to the structure (because electricity in the wire doesn't care whether it was generated from coal or a wind turbine, right?) aaand as a module it could possibly have meta and T2 variants that have properties such as having a larger fuel capacity or slghtly reduced fuel consumption .... and maybe also size variants to apply to different sizes of structures.
Think about it? :3
Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
|
Ragnar Snowed
Trantor Investment Bakeor
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:28:31 -
[483] - Quote
Hello,
I would like to propose an idea for "Fate of stored items on structure destruction"
Why didn't use an insure mecanism ? like my house burn, I've got an insurance contract for my stuff in it.
For the "Moored ships would however become vulnerable and up for grabs by anyone" does insurance contract function if the ship is stolen ?
thanks |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
925
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:53:13 -
[484] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
More "some" than "reasonable".
That aside I'm looking forward to more news. Sounds promising.
Remove insurance.
This thread is the reason, why CCP should stop advertising any aspect of EVE PvE
|
Felter Echerie
SL33P3R C3LL
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:54:08 -
[485] - Quote
as a wh resident i'm really excited about the new possibilities of having a whole plethora of structures to choose from. i like the idea of having wh markets and overall more things to do in space. i gotta ask... can we choose if our structures will appear in overview? because you'd want a market to appear in overview, but not so much your mining station. how's that gonna be balanced; I'd also like to see some sort of mechanich that makes it easier for setting up freeport stations in dangerous space; mainly markets. because it can drive all sorts of interesting emergent gameplay; even more if it's acessible enough to new players to roam these places; also... can we have concord protecting markets? so i can, for instance, have a market in my wh that's safe enough for anyone who's passing by to trade; and safe enough for us in the wh to be worth having something like that in our home system. i think we're lacking an incentive for cooperation in eve... i mean cooperation between neutrals and just people who are not enemies overall. i also think that this new structures could in some way tie in with the fps universe; even if it's in the way of eve items we have in cargo holds that correspond to spawn tickets in the fps world; so the assimetry would come in how many spawns each side has, and eve players would be responsible for the logistics of battles; transporting soldiers across the galaxy. making it difficult to defend areas far from empire... unless you have a structure to train dust soldiers... XD it'd be good to see separate entities cooperating for a common goal; without having to form an alliance or hold sov space... just making it worth while to cooperate to create content. capitals would fall into a mobile structure sort of role; but loosing completely the bridge capabilities in the process... but i dunno... maybe smaller ships could *dock* in capitals or something... that would make sense with the new sov system; since attackers could stage in a capital and it would fit the ship style better imo. but i digress... so that means we can make our own thera? i like the idea of whs having their own markets and empire like structures; because theyre constantly changing location; but i think that there has to be some safety incentive to make these markets lively, maybe some sort of commerce free pass; or some concord npcs that are strong enough to desincourage random ganks near such markets; but not strong enough to impede that sort of action... in a way the ones who live in that system would still be responsible for securing it, but i'd like to see it beeing safe enough to make the 2week old toon exploring in his\her heron feel confortable enough to dock and buy some probes and that sort of stuff. other than that, fanfest brought great news to all new eden cheers to all ccp pilots; hope i've provided helpful feedback o7 |
Felter Echerie
SL33P3R C3LL
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:55:34 -
[486] - Quote
Ragnar Snowed wrote:Hello,
I would like to propose an idea for "Fate of stored items on structure destruction"
Why didn't use an insure mecanism ? like my house burn, I've got an insurance contract for my stuff in it.
For the "Moored ships would however become vulnerable and up for grabs by anyone" does insurance contract function if the ship is stolen ?
thanks +1 to insurance
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3811
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:52:46 -
[487] - 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. |
|
grumpychops
Non Nobis
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:52:52 -
[488] - Quote
xttz wrote: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.
CCP, I think the idea xttz listed above should be looked at by your working group. It retains the entosis mechanism that you guys like so much, but it also provides a compromise to allow supers a role.
This will also give the players a chance to evaluate the worth of the decisions and give CCP feedback on the preferences and how they affect the game- instead of being tied to one mechanic.
This will also allow supers to retain a role, at least until the working group figures out what their purpose will be. |
grumpychops
Non Nobis
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:08:20 -
[489] - Quote
This may equally belong in the mooring ideas thread, but I'll put it here for now.
The new structures cause issues for 2 ships in particular, the Rorqual and the Titan.
This is because both ships have roles that were previously made feasible with POS shields (bridging and sieging).
The new structure mechanics appear to tip the risk/reward assessment away from these roles being feasible (see the 400+ comments above for explanations)
Solution: Add a mobile shield structure.
- While the structure has a shield effect for visual purposes, the structure uses a mooring mechanic. - This mechanic limits the number of ships allowed to simultaneously use the structure. - This allows the server to properly log its use.
- The structure could use the current mechanics based on size for the other structures.
- The shields could be online and offlined. When online, the structure's fuel consumption peaks drastically. Perhaps providing only 4-6 hours of continuous shield use.
- Shields must be offline to refuel.
- Structure may be online only in space where you own Sov.
- You have no ability to activate active modules or project DPS from the structure.
- Modules like the Industrial Core and the Jump Portal Generator to function. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3811
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:09:47 -
[490] - 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. |
|
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1185
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:18:52 -
[491] - Quote
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: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 Maybe you need to "tear down" your outpost over time to get the resources? Might be a new use for the salvaging skill. Every successful cycle, you have a chance of getting something. Would make for a lot opportunity for fights and ninja salvagers :)
Actually, within the database, there are salvage items (wrecked PI items iirc) for destroyed structures. I imagine these will be used for structure rigs.
As a proud owner of edit: almost every rig BPO in the game, I'm looking forward to expanding my collection.
Wait a tick... does this mean we will be able to pew pew all those abandoned POSes and maybe take some moons?
Or does CCP have a plan to deal with all the abandoned POSes that have lain dormant for more than a certain period of time? This seems like an excellent opportunity to do some much needed spring cleaning.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
FistyMcBumBardier
TURN LEFT The Camel Empire
105
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:21:49 -
[492] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Hacking abandoned structures along with hackable bubbles would be a great use of the hacking minigame |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
736
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:33:14 -
[493] - Quote
Soldarius wrote: Actually, within the database, there are salvage items (wrecked PI items iirc) for destroyed structures. I imagine these will be used for structure rigs.
those exist in-game and were a hack to undo the "whoops, you could reprocess npc cynojammers seeded at like 5m for like 80m in p4s and everyone just destroyed our new PI feature by reprocessing a billion" |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3190
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:37:02 -
[494] - Quote
xttz wrote: What if there were multiple options to handle structures, each with different benefits. This is something I'd be very interested in seeing. Before I started in Eve one of my games of choice was Total War, and I always enjoyed the idea that there was more than one method of taking control of territory - by bringing siege engines to the enemy walls, or blockading the hostile city to starve the defenders out, or sending saboteurs to weaken the defences, or simply engaging and defeating the occupants on the battlefield. It's something Eve would very much benefit from if there were multiple paths to victory.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1185
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:47:49 -
[495] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Soldarius wrote: Actually, within the database, there are salvage items (wrecked PI items iirc) for destroyed structures. I imagine these will be used for structure rigs.
those exist in-game and were a hack to undo the "whoops, you could reprocess npc cynojammers seeded at like 5m for like 80m in p4s and everyone just destroyed our new PI feature by reprocessing a billion"
Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Learned something new.
Scatim Helicon wrote:xttz wrote: What if there were multiple options to handle structures, each with different benefits. This is something I'd be very interested in seeing. Before I started in Eve one of my games of choice was Total War, and I always enjoyed the idea that there was more than one method of taking control of territory - by bringing siege engines to the enemy walls, or blockading the hostile city to starve the defenders out, or sending saboteurs to weaken the defences, or simply engaging and defeating the occupants on the battlefield. It's something Eve would very much benefit from if there were multiple paths to victory.
+1. Multiple paths to victory seems very in-concept for Eve-O.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2682
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 16:42:33 -
[496] - Quote
Removing dead sticks (abandoned pos's) is very high on my wish list
m
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Saturday Beerun
Lost Ark Enterprises
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 16:49:42 -
[497] - Quote
I can see current skills being useless and new ones required.Also small corps will get shafted by the expense of all the new gear needed.ccp will not reimburse all our old kit.Having our own place will disappear from the universe.
I Want The Black Vindicator Back
|
OverlordY
Interspan
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 16:56:57 -
[498] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Removing dead sticks (abandoned pos's) is very high on my wish list
m
Or just war dec them and kill it?
Anyway.
As a long term POS user, i feel the changes here will be "devastating" to small / med corps. These changes just seem to cater to 0.0 allys and sov holders. With no thought to the little guys.
I can't help but notice the total lack of a defensive / military structure similar to POS at the moment. I hope this is fixed with a near POS like new structure.
Over the years I have used POS as war staging areas, safe places to refit, ops bases, building and refining areas . Giving you a pretty safe place to operate from is "essential in eve" . In WH , and in high sec. The force field mechanic is pretty essential also.
I also get the impression that i am going to wake up one morning and see 4 people in noob ships taking my billion ISK structures. Seems like it's going to be way to easy too take the new stuff. It should be harder... |
Oma Lorche
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 17:20:45 -
[499] - Quote
I wouldn't like Idea of keeping assembly arrays separate from research laboratories. Especially now when BPs have to be on hangar floor. I understand that it would add risk to owners of multi-billion worth BPOs. But for us small scale industrialists its daily hassle of moving dozens of t2 BPCs. |
Lelira Cirim
The Graduates Forged of Fire
222
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 18:36:25 -
[500] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Can someone explain me what is the idea behind datacores magically emerge in those new structures? Cores can be found in exploration sites (datas) as far i can see it will end in even less profit after this proposal. Constant changes to loot value in exploration, after another, half of sites will be just covering in dust. What the point of keeping useless content in game? You can't rid of NPC activity completely. NPC empires are not lead by players and i hope they'll never be. Speaking purely from a lore standpoint, datacores are a "generated" item through research agents. When they're not working for capsuleers assumedly they (and many more planetside) work for the empires. One assumes that they end up as exploration loot from being leftover by pirate faction researchers. It makes lore sense that capsuleers could now purchase facilities capable of manufacturing datacores, and download the same information into them.
It is a case of giving capsuleers access to the same tools as NPCs, which is very much in line with the storyline goals of power shift, and I think your concerns are unfounded. I have a highsec toon working with 4 research agents at literally zero cost to me aside from the skill(book) requirements. This feature is about self-sufficiency, and will come with a cost that my toon doesn't spend.
Off topic, exploration loot tables can be changed at the snap of a finger, once the decision is made that loot there is no longer valuable enough. I wouldn't worry about one specific item type becoming no more valuable than metal scraps. CCP can do whatever it wants to make loot tables a particular value for explorers, generally it's all very boring stuff except for BPCs, and they could work harder to choose more interesting loot.
-edit yay 500!
Do not actively tank my patience. || EVE University Wiki Team
|
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 19:12:23 -
[501] - Quote
Oma Lorche wrote:I wouldn't like Idea of keeping assembly arrays separate from research laboratories. Especially now when BPs have to be on hangar floor. I understand that it would add risk to owners of multi-billion worth BPOs. But for us small scale industrialists its daily hassle of moving dozens of t2 BPCs.
Hm, a solution would be to allow structures to share storage or at least route production outputs from one structure to another. Might for example require another low or mid slot "module" fittet, that then acts as transfer point. This way you can set up a dedicated invention structure next to a dedicated manufacturing platform (same grid or reasonably close?) and have all the invented T2 BPC2 automatically moved over. Thoughts on that? |
Joey DavidDrien
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 19:14:59 -
[502] - Quote
Lelira Cirim wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:Can someone explain me what is the idea behind datacores magically emerge in those new structures? Cores can be found in exploration sites (datas) as far i can see it will end in even less profit after this proposal. Constant changes to loot value in exploration, after another, half of sites will be just covering in dust. What the point of keeping useless content in game? You can't rid of NPC activity completely. NPC empires are not lead by players and i hope they'll never be. Speaking purely from a lore standpoint, datacores are a "generated" item through research agents. When they're not working for capsuleers assumedly they (and many more planetside) work for the empires. One assumes that they end up as exploration loot from being leftover by pirate faction researchers. It makes lore sense that capsuleers could now purchase facilities capable of manufacturing datacores, and download the same information into them. It is a case of giving capsuleers access to the same tools as NPCs, which is very much in line with the storyline goals of power shift, and I think your concerns are unfounded. I have a highsec toon working with 4 research agents at literally zero cost to me aside from the skill(book) requirements. This feature is about self-sufficiency, and will come with a cost that my toon doesn't spend. Off topic, exploration loot tables can be changed at the snap of a finger, once the decision is made that loot there is no longer valuable enough. I wouldn't worry about one specific item type becoming no more valuable than metal scraps. CCP can do whatever it wants to make loot tables a particular value for explorers, generally it's all very boring stuff except for BPCs, and they could work harder to choose more interesting loot. -edit yay 500!
Totally agree. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1397
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 20:29:34 -
[503] - Quote
While i like the concepts. I do have a major problem with your vision/delivery balance which i can paraphrase as;
'We want a system that is simple, accessible to everyone, effective, almost revolutionary and fun to use! To achieve this we have striven towards previously unseen levels of convolution and complication.'
Perhaps you are not explaining yourselves very well. |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 21:22:10 -
[504] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:The Tallman wrote:Anonymous Forumposter wrote:John McCreedy wrote:It's a common theme lately with them isn't it? Want to defend sov? Full time job. Want to defend your structures? Full time job. Want to defend your space? Full time job. Strangely enough, CCP, most of us already have full time jobs and those pay us real life money which we use to be your customers with. When we log on we want to play. We don't want to spend hours traveling or days sitting on our arses defending stuff, we want to mine or rat or blap stuff in the hour or two we have each evening. So do that then. No one is forcing you to hold high level assets. A POS isn't a high level asset. Anyway, CCP will feel it in their wallets if they screw this up and end up making owning/living in a POS a pain in the ass. A POS already is a PITA to own/live in, yet people are still subbed. Although the ones operating POS are a certain breed of masochist but whatever.
i dread the moments when i have to take a pos down or set one up. my whole day is gone once im finished. sadly i have to deal with it if i move home. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2549
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 21:28:09 -
[505] - Quote
Please tell me that whoever made the borderline criminal suggestion of NPC haulers was taken out to the back end of wormhole space, podded repeatedly by the rest of the team and then left to walk back to Iceland. The people who have been asking for that ridiculous "feature" are the same Eve-haters who said that "griefers" were driving off newbies.
Ned Thomas wrote:EDIT: I am most curious how frozen corpses will be tied into advertising.
Corpses should be the power supply, using 1 every x time interval. You want a board you have to kill people. Failing that, you can buy bodies off other people, which would *ahem* breath life into the corpse market.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
Sabriz for CSM
|
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 21:29:17 -
[506] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:Oma Lorche wrote:I wouldn't like Idea of keeping assembly arrays separate from research laboratories. Especially now when BPs have to be on hangar floor. I understand that it would add risk to owners of multi-billion worth BPOs. But for us small scale industrialists its daily hassle of moving dozens of t2 BPCs. Hm, a solution would be to allow structures to share storage or at least route production outputs from one structure to another. Might for example require another low or mid slot "module" fittet, that then acts as transfer point. This way you can set up a dedicated invention structure next to a dedicated manufacturing platform (same grid or reasonably close?) and have all the invented T2 BPC2 automatically moved over. Thoughts on that?
Near the beginning they said (roughly) that they should be able to do anything, but give bonuses to the types of activities related to their nature. So, Assembly Arrays should be able to fit a science module, but that 'pos' won't have any bonuses to research beyond what the module does on its own.
Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
|
Sky Cloud Austrene
KISIN Enterprises
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 21:30:17 -
[507] - Quote
Not sure, if the Dev's just skimmed or ignored the first 12 or so pages of this thread because there is very little replay to points raised, but I still don't see an answer to these 3 questions;
1) I imagine these structures would still be required to have some sort of HP system tied to them, in order to be able to guage damage so they can be destroyed and also, so the defenders can repair them if they rebuff an attack. How would this work and how will it be different from a structure grind?
And
2) Currently Corp Mechanics, limit corp members from being able to operate/manage structures via the grantable role system, will this be changed in order to allow individuals to be able operate/manage these new structures?.
And
3) Why can't assets in destroyed stations just be transfered to an NPC station, in order to protect players who only play casually, instead of daily ? How will you avoid people exploiting the proposed jettison can system by utilising the hell camp senario ? I cant see any way you could reasonably stop that, given if, by chance the first time someone warps to a can to retrieve their stuff, & they get scanned down, bingo hostiles bookmark it & they then know where exactly to camp & wait for the person trying to get their stuff to come back, before not only killing them but also their stuff. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
237
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 21:31:43 -
[508] - Quote
Lelira Cirim wrote: Off topic, exploration loot tables can be changed at the snap of a finger, once the decision is made that loot there is no longer valuable enough. I wouldn't worry about one specific item type becoming no more valuable than metal scraps. CCP can do whatever it wants to make loot tables a particular value for explorers, generally it's all very boring stuff except for BPCs, and they could work harder to choose more interesting loot.
I have zero experience what to do with datacores , i provide them. Since there are still ppl who buys there is demand for them (low but still). Exploration loot changed in a snap of a finger? Prices are falling since odyssey, not just because more players are doing it, data sites becomes more and more flying trash in space. Last try to make them worth something only made them worse. It was done in shadow of making certain industry activity simpler. So no it's not a snap of a finger. Please don't try the lore thing. Relic sites, named after local pirates, full of colonization ships, with BPCs for currently using hulls, lore...contradiction chasing contradiction. I have no issiue with players build datacores unless they aren't build from air. Passive activities, dependant only on clone skills are bad.
Quote:'We want a system that is simple, accessible to everyone, effective, almost revolutionary and fun to use! To achieve this we have striven towards previously unseen levels of convolution and complication.' So they want simple or complicated system?
"...genre is a definition, the definition in itself must have boundaries, the boundaries act as barriers, and the barriers are like walls, like the walls of a prisonn++..."
The Good, The Bad and The Bantam
|
Tinkers
Pixie Hollow Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 22:58:15 -
[509] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
Not sure what the problem is...replace existing outpost with XL Structure with similar mods installed. Same with existing starbases, et.al. |
STush T
Viziam Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 23:37:12 -
[510] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Removing dead sticks (abandoned pos's) is very high on my wish list
m
I really thought that the new roaming drifter battleships with their doomsday weapons would take care of dead sticks. |
|
|
|
|
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 |