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) |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3211
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 03:56:03 -
[211] - Quote
i assume the new structures will have access right and service fee customization options. For example standing based sell orders on market hubs, player set taxes etc.
Will you start with the old-new deployables like mobile depots and give us things like deploy-for-corp after all?
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Justa Hunni
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 04:15:09 -
[212] - Quote
Javani wrote:
I snippet from the Round Table:
1. ) The Hull sould not be limited to sec status / wh. only the rigs for specalistation. (no supers for wh ) 2. ) No AI would fire back. only player can fire back. currently they are looking for timezone and capture machanics at sov 5.0 3. ) L and XL will evently have simillar machanics like the new sov system 4. ) highsec etc. will be currently limited by usable rigs wich will be limiting the me/te boost etc. no size limit. also there will be a thukker rig for low sec capital producement. 5. ) If i heard it right. there will no race specific structures only meta or maybe t2 variations 6. ) They said the first set (assambly or sience or ... which is currently not selected) should hit TQ this year 7. ) After fan-fest good :) thanks
No AI defence? so much for small single TZ corps in wormholes. Can someone remind CCP that this is a game, not our occupation |
Justa Hunni
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 04:19:20 -
[213] - Quote
RainReaper wrote:Justa Hunni wrote:Nyctef wrote:
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
I really like the changes but I'm quoting above as I had a totally different understanding of what is being contemplated. Right now I can have my POS do almost anything I want it to do (within PG and CPU) but your new structures seem to be role dependent. Does this mean I'll have to have separate research, manufacturing and refining "arrays" within my WH system rather than a single or two POS with all the necessary current arrays (with all the extra fueling etc headaches that enforces)? isent it possible to just change the gear when you want it to do something else? you can store the things in the pos's storage right?
I was under the impression that with the different types of "arrays" which appear to be destined to replace POS, that they all seem very specialized (manufacturing, mining, research) and wasn't there something in the blog about "they can be fitted to do anything but not as well as the specialized ones" or words to that effect. Could you make a generalized small system C&C structure? |
Michael Ruckert
Hohere Kavallerie-Kommando
283
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 04:24:54 -
[214] - Quote
I think this sums up proposed structure changes.
http://imgur.com/5ygjD55
"No matter how well you perform there's always somebody of intelligent opinion who thinks it's lousy." - Laurence Olivier
|
Astecus
Astral Sanctuary - 4th Division
75
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 04:28:21 -
[215] - Quote
Will you be able to 'ship scan' these structures to see how they are fitted? |
FuriousPig
IronPig Sev3rance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 04:40:43 -
[216] - Quote
While these changes seem interesting & appealing, an obvious question springs to mind:
What is the impetus for Smaller Alliances/Corps to invest Billions in these Mega Structures if the Larger Alliances can drop in & destroy them on a whim? I am pretty sure that after this has happened a couple of times, no one will build them.
To think that this GÇÿSandcastle KickingGÇÖ wonGÇÖt occur frequently is na+»ve at best & the danger here is that 0.0 becomes bereft of appeal & content to smaller entities.
With the system as is, there is a drive to re-take your assets but if they are destroyed I would imagine the less wealthy Alliances will be thinking GÇÿWhatGÇÖs the point?GÇÖ bearing in mind the same thing can happen every week.
The only way around this would be to join these larger Alliances which is counter to the scenario CCP is hoping to achieve.
|
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1413
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 04:58:46 -
[217] - Quote
The bit on this during the Eve keynote was really kick ass. I got pretty stoked about it.
Reading the dev blog, however, there are 2 or 3 points of concern.
1. We are also considering giving those a tax advantage next to NPC stations (either by increasing NPC taxes or having tax reductions on the player-made variations).
Please don't nerf an existing system to make the new shinies feel shinier. This has happened a lot of times in Eve and it always adds a sour taste to what should have been a positive experience. Stick with tax reductions on the new stuff, not tax increases on the existing NPC stations.
2. As such our plan is to:
Progressively cut functionalities from existing structures. This would match new structures arrival that provide an overlapping gameplay. For instance, deploying the new Assembly Arrays would cause existing Starbases and Outposts to lose their manufacturing bonuses at first, then their manufacturing capability. Give ample time for players to evacuate their assets from existing structures and adapt to the changes.
I notice it wasn't mentioned in the dev blog, but you should also give full reimbursement for the value of those existing structures that will be made obselete and removed, as a minimum. Don't shortchange people.
3. Service modules possibilities: Research ME, research TE, copy, Tech II invention, Tech III invention and datacore spawning. We want those new structures to ultimately replace our existing Datacore system GÇô one way of doing so would be to have Datacore caches spawn near the Research Laboratory that refill at various intervals. Those caches could be set to be looted by anyone, but with a specific tax set up by the structure owners.
So the research teams are working hard and recording their findings on datacores, and what? The janitor is dumping them out the window by the bucket-full? I know I'm being harsh here, but my point is, try to find a way to do this so that it's believable from an in-game, in-character perspective. When in-game mechanics require meta-gaming concepts to make sense, it really takes something away from a game. I'm not a roleplayer. Damned far from it. But breaking immersion is bad. The mechanics should all make sense from a in-game perspective. (I might mention here, that's one of the weak points of the current military and industrial upgrades. Zero effort was put into writing a fitting description for any of them. You don't have to be that clever to pull it off, either, is the thing. It's freaking easy to do, but instead they have meta-gaming-style descriptions on the show info. I just haven't seen that in the other games I've played. It's a very low standard of quality that is a stark contrast to most of the rest of what's in Eve.)
Other than that, this stuff looks pretty damned awesome. I'll repeat what I said in another thread this morning, Eve just keeps getting better and better!
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
Richecko
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 04:58:55 -
[218] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Structures will "work" for me when I can issue courier contracts with POCOs or similar infrastructure as begin and end points, allowing me to manage my PI infrastructure in Metropolis while I'm busy grinding standings in Devoid.
+1 |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
443
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 04:59:28 -
[219] - Quote
If you plan on getting rid of outposts even very far down the road then I will be moving any non-essential stuff out of null. I won't leave null but I will definitely lower my foot print. This includes stuff that I stock pile and my market stuff. I'll be using null just for making isk everything else will get moved to high sec.
The station experience that you get with null sec outposts where you have a place that you know your stuff will always be safe at it one of the factors that drives null. Removing that safety net will be a negative from a mental aspect. Even if it does not introduce that much more risk it will be perceived as much more risk.
I think perceived risk = lowered activity. |
EX Winet
EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:05:38 -
[220] - Quote
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. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4166
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:07:24 -
[221] - Quote
I couldn't help but thinking back to this when they showed the Mooring Structure. Attack on Scorpion Shipyards
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises The Marmite Collective
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:09:07 -
[222] - Quote
Absolutely Amazing! THIS needs to happen! Surprised you guys didn't propose a "Fleet" platform to act as defensive way points for fleets.
Overall, looks awesome! Love to concept, can't wait to hear more details as they are developed!
=ƒÿè
eëÆWhomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my AutocannonseëÆ eÉà
|
Richecko
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:20:24 -
[223] - Quote
Grimmash wrote:You can't wardec an NPC corp, so how would you get at the bigger structures in any reasonable way?
I do not think this challenge is beyond the creativity of the CCP Game Designers and the community to propose, iterate, invent and implement a mechanism so that it is an equal amount of work for an aggressor to place a structure at risk of displacement independent of the corp the player chooses to exist in. The aggressor should, of course, also have a non-trival penalty for failure and inconveniencing the defender.
Maybe it's as simple as wardec'ing the structure - not the corp or individual that owns it or an extension of the duel mechanic or some variation on ganking (because NPC players might want to ransack a structure independent of who owns it too).
If CCP wants everything to be able to be blown up, they will find a way. |
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2670
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:38:50 -
[224] - Quote
Work in Progress.
I appreciate the 'fixable' points or issues some of you see coming up. Taking notes for when we get down to brass tacks.
Me, I picture a set of structures in a spidertank configuration wondering how hard to break it will be.
m
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1967
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:45:12 -
[225] - Quote
Richecko wrote: I do not think this challenge is beyond the creativity of the CCP Game Designers and the community to propose, iterate, invent and implement a mechanism so that it is an equal amount of work for an aggressor to place a structure at risk of displacement independent of the corp the player chooses to exist in. The aggressor should, of course, also have a non-trival penalty for failure and inconveniencing the defender.
Maybe it's as simple as wardec'ing the structure - not the corp or individual that owns it or an extension of the duel mechanic or some variation on ganking (because NPC players might want to ransack a structure independent of who owns it too).
If CCP wants everything to be able to be blown up, they will find a way.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that NPC corp members will not be able to use larger structures just like at present. They will likely be limited to the 'small' only structures that shooting only makes you go suspect on. Rather than POS's which generate concord reactions if you shoot without a wardec. |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra Gallente Federation
218
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:55:34 -
[226] - Quote
Instead of forcing players to anchor multiple individual structures to provide basic functions......Will the new fitted structures also come with the capability to have Bastion Modules fit to them to increase a certain critical area?
I still want to know about the space between solar systems that is obviously prime for raider outposts and other fun things to be found that would not be considered W-Space but K.1 - Space that would only be accessible with certain ships that would have to build a warp gate between two points into and out of the system once the points had been scanned down.
....^.... New...E....d..en.....^.... ^ Our ^ .....arrival...<.... H^.......s=c^........m^ |
Richecko
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 06:15:09 -
[227] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: I think it's a pretty safe bet that NPC corp members will not be able to use larger structures just like at present. They will likely be limited to the 'small' only structures that shooting only makes you go suspect on. Rather than POS's which generate concord reactions if you shoot without a wardec.
The current system is actually not consistent about the "size" of the item in space. It's actually beyond dumb now that shooting an empty small can (used for advertising for example) that costs 10,000 ISK generates a concord response requiring ~2hrs of suicide ganking and like 10 ships of loss to remove, drop in about 2 points in security standing, and a 30day killright if it's owned by an NPC corp owner (because you can't wardec the NPC corp) and shooting a MTU that costs several million ISK doesn't. If my tiny super cheap can is protected by concord why shouldn't everything more expensive I anchor be?
That scenario can also go on the "should it really work this way?" list as the team looks at anchorable items.
If structures in space are reviewed, the Giant Secure Container (at 3900m3 capacity) could also use big brothers scaling up to say 250,000m3 like the EFC can do because items like the MTU are too small for activities like Ice or Gas mining. The anchored can should hold multiple shiploads to save you flights back to station or POS.
It'd be a big step forward in equality if NPC corp members (or player corp members w/o corp POS admin permissions) could own and use the successor to the small and medium POS on a personal basis in the new system (and have a way to use it solo or share with friends/alts/public) even if large and XL structures require ownership by entities subject to the current wardec mechanics. |
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R Astraeaus
71
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 06:20:49 -
[228] - 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 ?
While I am very excited at the concepts, I am worried about the above... How all of this will affect Wormhole space... WSpace in not Null...
(1) Will we get the XL 'POSes'? IE dockable Outposts in WSpace??
(2) Why oh why are you considering removing the Forcefield?
It is one of the most enjoyable things about POSlife... unlike the poor sots in Stations and Outposts we have a huge 360 deg WINDOW... Please, fukking PLEASe don't take that away from us... Hell make the damn thing WORK right FFS.
Instead of shooting THROUGH the FF how about all weaponsfire impacts the FF itself??? Or are we in Anoikis going to have to deal with the Entosis module to?? If yes, WHY??? We do not hold Sov and we don't want it! FFS PLEASE do not make us play that silly game!!!!
Other than those issue I don't see a lot here I am not on board with...
CCP, please keep Wormhole Space in mind while you look at POSes.... we are NOT Sov null, we don't want to be don't please don't make us play their game.
TurAmarth ElRandir
Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro
and Unrepentant Blogger
Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)=
http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1967
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 06:25:51 -
[229] - Quote
They said 'POS Gunners' will be replaced by 'Piloting' the station. So you will be able to look around the whole grid it's on and control all it's modules (Wonder if stations will get local reps). Just as if you were flying your ship on the grid, but instead being a whole 100km station!
As for Entosis module, yea, it becomes a lot more problematic in all the non null spaces, where alliances are a lot lot smaller if that mechanic still exists elsewhere. But also becomes weird if only null stations get entosis'ed while everyone else gets shot. |
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R Astraeaus
71
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 06:39:55 -
[230] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:They said 'POS Gunners' will be replaced by 'Piloting' the station. So you will be able to look around the whole grid it's on and control all it's modules (Wonder if stations will get local reps). Just as if you were flying your ship on the grid, but instead being a whole 100km station!
As for Entosis module, yea, it becomes a lot more problematic in all the non null spaces, where alliances are a lot lot smaller if that mechanic still exists elsewhere. But also becomes weird if only null stations get entosis'ed while everyone else gets shot.
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... =\
TurAmarth ElRandir
Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro
and Unrepentant Blogger
Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)=
http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1967
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 07:12:32 -
[231] - Quote
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 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. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
581
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 07:14:58 -
[232] - Quote
Off-the-top-of-my-head suggestions:
1) Nothing should ever be "invulnerable" at any time in the game. Massive number of hit points - ok. Massive automated counterattack defensive weapons - ok. But, everything still should be destructible, even if it takes 20 Titans with DD to do it.
2) Any game mechanics based on RL time zones should be avoided. They do nothing but restrict game play and encourage players to interact only with players in their own time zones.
3) Force fields and reinforcement timers are long outdated mechanics. Please get rid of them.
4) High-sec structures are *not* actually safer than structures anywhere else, due to the relatively low cost of wardecs. POCOs, for example, are regularly destroyed in high-sec. In fact, any high-sec structure of significant value is probably at greater risk than it would be in alliance-protected null-sec. |
Byson1
Origin Unlimited Natural Selection Initiative
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 07:18:07 -
[233] - Quote
I think this is all very interesting. Few points:
1. Look at who is calling for what. The griefers want their griefing to be bounteous when greifing the carebears, the carebears want to keep their stuff they worked long hrs for - safe. The time it takes to build up these items, if lost too easily, will break the backs of those who labor. Fighting greifers is all good but keep it balanced. Basically look at the time input. If the time you put into something doesn't equal the reward. People will quit. Simple and true. Yes there should be risk and that balance is what you need to find.
2. So you are going to shut down all nullsec manufacturing while transitioning, have you even considered how this will effect people?
3. This could be cool. Given history though is to push out a product without thorough testing with problems.. hence where we are now. Let this be on sisi for several months, let everyone have ample time to test it before implementing.
4. I lost billions in the last indi improvement in bp research, i expect to loose more. Standard for the course.
5. You are making it harder and harder for small alliances to live out in null sec. Give cap ships the ability to squash small griefers. Capitals need to be addressed before or at least the same time so we know what to expect -at least.
|
Hicksimus
Xion Limited Resonance.
563
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 07:26:29 -
[234] - Quote
Cool, but will we be able to walk inside them?
Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you?
Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
581
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 07:37:30 -
[235] - Quote
Aryth wrote:With the newest system introduced last year, a great many alliances invested trillions in improvements. Are stations going to be rebated/refunded/changed when they are phased out of the industrial process? Hmm... I think that the standard CCP answer to this type of question is:
"Players have already gotten value from their investment in the current mechanics, so we will not be reimbursing anyone, due to any upcoming changes."
At least, I recall something like this being said by CCP last year when industrialists with large investment in BPO ME/PE research time lost their very-slight-margin competitive advantages due to the change to the ME10/TE20 system, without getting any form of reimbursement whatsoever.
And, earlier, when CCP added the ore bays to the mining ships, but didn't reimburse for, nor offer to non-destructively remove, the expensive cargo expander rigs that most miners had fitted to their ships.
So, are you asking for "special consideration" for the null-sec alliances? ;)
Just for the record, I'm 100% ok with "special consideration" (even for the Goons... lol). I think that CCP unnecessarily loses a good chunk of player subs, whenever they make these sorts of changes, without reimbursing players' for time/effort spent with the replaced mechanics. |
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 07:40:38 -
[236] - Quote
For the Administrative Hubs it would add an interesting dynamic if we could have both NPC agents, and Player agent missions |
Proton Stars
OREfull
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 07:52:29 -
[237] - Quote
First thoughts:
1: will you be refunding all sp spent on capitals?
2: will you be refunding the ships themselves?
3: can you also set up a but back scheme for dedicated cap pilots?
4: how do you expect anyone to get to the top level station with no method of safely storing enough ships to defend a constellation that long?
5: why have you build a game around one module, the entosis link; where is the diversity or need for a fleet to do multiple things rather than take one cookie cutter fleet to roll a region?
6: blobbing is going to be essential in defence and attack. Given this, the increase in structure count and now possibly thousands of cans.. How will tidi effect a defenders ability to move around a const, getting to defend points when attackers can approach that const free of lag?
7: why have you almost tripled the amount of logistics work an alliance needs to do? We all hate this high level of logistics.
8: given massive increase in cost, how many months of grind would it take an alliance to break even?
9: how do corporations find themselves now? 50%+ tax?
10: how does any of this improve personal player wealth higher than that of level 5 missions or incursions?
11: what will happen to npc space, now considered by many as the best space.
12: how will wormhole capacity size limit the upgrade speed of a wormhole? And if at all will this be by design?
13: why have you taken away the ability to blow stuff up, to compete to be top damage, to train your skills more than the next guy to make sure your dps is best dps
14: why are mooring rigs so damn flimsy? No one will park a cap at them, ever.
15: can we dock titans yet please? We need somewhere to put them whilst trying to get a refund :p
16: given the increase in volitility how will newbros find their way to 0.0?
17: do you expect plex prices to crash?
18. Do you expect alt numbers to crash?
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1747
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 07:55:17 -
[238] - Quote
Gorongo Frostfyr wrote:Last step removing 98% of the npc stations? Don't think so
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
865
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 08:00:43 -
[239] - Quote
Richecko wrote:Grimmash wrote:You can't wardec an NPC corp, so how would you get at the bigger structures in any reasonable way? I do not think this challenge is beyond the creativity of the CCP Game Designers and the community to propose, iterate, invent and implement a mechanism so that it is an equal amount of work for an aggressor to place a structure at risk of displacement independent of the corp the player chooses to exist in. The aggressor should, of course, also have a non-trival penalty for failure and inconveniencing the defender. Maybe it's as simple as wardec'ing the structure - not the corp or individual that owns it or an extension of the duel mechanic or some variation on ganking (because NPC players might want to ransack a structure independent of who owns it too). If CCP wants everything to be able to be blown up, they will find a way. So if you wardec the structure then it would only be logical that the structure and the owner are the only two who can shoot the war targets. Or are you proposing that NPC corps schould be subjected to wardecs, you know, to become more equal and stuff.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 08:13:56 -
[240] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Work in Progress.
I appreciate the 'fixable' points or issues some of you see coming up. Taking notes for when we get down to brass tacks.
Me, I picture a set of structures in a spidertank configuration wondering how hard to break it will be.
m
I guess ECM could break that spider-tanking? So we'll have a use for our supers! \o/
CEO Svea Rike
|
|
|
|
|
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 |