E. Observatory arrays
... act as solar system wide D-scan blockers ...

I watched the TWITCH channel presentations about these new structures and their designs and functions. The one thought I had was that it seems that there is a trend to over analyze how these will be used. My suggestion is to push out on SISI and let it be tested for an extended period of time.

I have a few questions.

5. Are we going to have a variation for each faction say minmatar mining, caldari mining, amarr mining? Or will it kind of be based on the outpost model for variations.

I very much agree with this, not only for adjusting balance (which will be an issue now similar to ships because of fitting modules) but because I imagine POSes and outposts get A LOT of industry usage across New Eden as a whole, so any bad bugs or poor design of the capabilities of assembly arrays, research labs, and drilling platforms when they go live could have a strong effect on the economy, at least in the short term.

Having seen the UI Modernization Panel, I know SiSi is intended for next-release features only, so if you could get Duality available to us as soon as prototypes are available would be super-awesome!

My own comments and suggestions:

I support the idea of Admin Hubs replacing TCUs, especially if you could absorb iHubs into them, too. I know with Sov 5.0 you guys want Sov and iHub benefits able to be separately controlled, but I think that the more consolidated the administrative systems of a null-sec system is, the better (this isn't coming from someone involved in managing a sov-holding alliance, but I'd imagine those people would agree). Plus it seems strange that you could have separate owners of the TCU and the iHub, meaning the supposed "owners" of the system could have no way of upgrading their own space, but yet the iHub indices control the rate of capture for the TCU.

I am however a little concerned with the idea of Office/Market Hubs replacing POCOs. If they have docking/mooring capabilities, assuming the POCO functionality would be usable while docked, this will reduce the danger of warping to a fixed, universally-accesable point in the system to import/export PI materials. Whether or not the POCO functionality would be accessible from the inside of the Office/Market Hub, if the Hub had any sort of production service installed (possibly regardless of structure bonuses, depending on how large of a bonus the Assembly Arrays will get), you'd have a similar effect: players would stay inside to use the Hub as a one-stop shop for picking up PI materials and using them in traditional station-based industry. At best you could undock, pick up PI materials, dock back up, produce a higher-tier good (likely buying other components through the market service), and then sell the new product on the market. At worst you could stay docked/moored while doing this, perfectly safe the entire time. While no serious industrialist will advocate for being vulnerable to ganking, and I have no idea how common ganking at POCOs actually is, making industrialists too safe will take away some degree of gameplay opportunities and in any case, risk, which is a fundamental aspect of EVE gameplay as a whole. If Market Hubs are merged with POCOs it should be done in such a way to retain some risk for those people who will use them primarily as POCOs.

EDIT: Also want to voice my support for service-based fuel consumption over time, I think this will definitely help out smaller, less well-financed characters/groups who want to use these structures.



^Same question, and I am in favor of a prime-time window of some length (or whatever new system CCP may decide on after looking at the timezone survey responses) for any structure that interacts with Entosis Links, seeing as we already get reinforcement timers for current POS, POCOs, even Mobile Depots.

Third, docking/mooring, jump clone services, and possibly even ship repair services at structures deployed in wormhole space should be taken into account.

I'd go one further and ask - could use the new 'SKIN' tech on these structures?

Also interested to know - what about exisiting outposts, assuming they will be removed once the new structures are in a decent state? If/when the go is there going to be a reimbursement and if so who gets it - the original builders or the current holders or someone else?

I think getting rid of the force field could be supplemented with just making it smaller. maybe instead if you made it half a sphere that covers the bottom or top of a structure. this would still allow bridging in a similar mechanic as we know now. and would make supercapital pilots happy as they would not have to worry about a massive bounce every time they tried to warp safe to log off. warping into the field and then slow-boating to a mooring station would be pretty cool and allow for weapons timer cool downs and give time to cap up. you could even make the shield a module that must be fitted and would take up a large amount of available cpu or power grid then you would cover your risk vs reward aspect.

"#6 Fate of stored items on structure destruction
This is again a hot topic that needs to be addressed. We are currently discussing the following options:

Wreck: when a structure is destroyed, it could leave behind a non-destructible wreck. This wreck houses all the items the structure possessed at its destruction, and only the respectful owners could salvage them back. Players docked inside the structure would still remain docked inside the wreck (and still be invulnerable to attack), but will be unable to do so again should they choose to undock. Moored ships would however become vulnerable and up for grabs by anyone.


Containers: when a structure is destroyed, all assets are moved into special containers. A container exists for each individual that stored items in the structure, as well as corporation entities and are spread around planets. When this happens, an entry would appear on the owner journal giving a warp-in point to go to. Please note such containers would not be destructible at all, and could not be scanned until the rightful owner comes to retrieve his or her loot. The duration at which those entries would stay remains entirely dependent to the structure type and player condition when it was destroyed (logged off, account lapsed etcGǪ). Player docked inside the structure would be spread around the solar system, while moored ships would become vulnerable and up for grabs. "


As someone who lives and stores his items in Null I find this mechanic stupid... I'm sorry and I live in the playground everyone loves to shoot in... But if a group took the time, got the members together, brought the big toys out, played with all these new mechanics... I should NOT have a safe passage to get my ****. It should be open to all like if any Starbase structure died. IF you are going to make something destroyable.. add RISK to the game.. ADD IT.

You want to see Balls to the walls fights then make them occur. People are going to group up for these fights if they CAN'T get those items back in safety. If all these new structures are going to be larger versions of the starbases, treat them the same. If I form 500-1000 people or an some Super cap Monster group of 100-200 people. Those people should be rewarded for showing up to the fights and winning it. Not giving safe passage and specific player access only cans. Loot show goto the Victor or the brave can raider. Who snuck in as it exploded.

Either Bring Risk as you describe... or don't.

I imagine the new system will probably coincide with the removal of off-grid boosting and boosting from within POS shields. If a ship was docked up at a POS it wouldn't be able to be piloted and running links etc after all. Plus with null-sec being made fully self-sufficient there has to be a negative to go with the increased positives.