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) |
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
318
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 08:39:11 -
[241] - Quote
You left in the powerpoint misspelling underlines for starbases.
When is all I want to know. |
Aivo Dresden
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
417
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 08:57:14 -
[242] - Quote
Just some concerns. These questions are all based on the pilot living in a wormhole environment.
- Storage modules. I couldn't see any modules or structures specifically for storage (aside from the living quarters). - Observatory arrays: Block system wide D-Scan. How will this work in Wormholes? This is pretty big. - Gates: Affect WH spawning behaviour. Please elaborate. - No loot after wrecking the structure. This seems a bit in contrast with risk vs. reward ideas we have and is completely contrary to the current system. |
Jaden Soniel
Almalexia Inc.
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 09:00:58 -
[243] - Quote
wow... just... wow... |
Nalha Saldana
Shattered Void Test Alliance Please Ignore
886
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 09:11:15 -
[244] - Quote
2 things popped up because it was weird:
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structure_ISIS5-01.png No reinforcement on a medium sized building? Seems unfairly risky.
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structure_ISIS5-02.png No medium sized research lab? What happened to single player use of all roles? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1968
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 09:11:34 -
[245] - Quote
Aivo Dresden wrote:Just some concerns. These questions are all based on the pilot living in a wormhole environment.
- Storage modules. I couldn't see any modules or structures specifically for storage (aside from the living quarters). - Observatory arrays: Block system wide D-Scan. How will this work in Wormholes? This is pretty big. - Gates: Affect WH spawning behaviour. Please elaborate. - No loot after wrecking the structure. This seems a bit in contrast with risk vs. reward ideas we have and is completely contrary to the current system. All storage is central to the structure, base amount TBD. XL structures have infinite storage planned, implication in the presentation was cargo expanders will increase storage on those structures with finite storage. Rigs/Services may also be available to do so. |
Redbull Spai
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 09:29:29 -
[246] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:STANDINGS
First of all, I am more than a bit happy with what I have read so far. That being said, I still think CCP got it wrong when it eroded standings with empire factons as a requirement to anchor semi-permanent structures in empire space.
I get that you wanted to reduce the barriers for change, but I hope you seize this opportunity to revisit that. Here is what I propose:
Standings (corporate) are not a barrier to anchor in empire. However, standings with the empire where semi permanent strutures (L & XL) are calculated based on current (today) methods.
(yadda)
You kinda killed standings as a consideration for choice last time you had a chance. Please be more kind this time
Standings should be a mechanic purely for mission runners. Mission running should not be a barrier to placing structures. Empire alliance standings have one purpose and one purpose only - to annoy FC's when he tries to fly his fleet through Amaar space and an 8 year old veteran complains he cant because in his first month as a newbie he accepted too many Minmatar level fours before realising you should NEVER accept missions against empire factions if you intend joining a PVP alliance in the future........ |
Joanna RB
Twenty Questions RAZOR Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 09:41:25 -
[247] - 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
With this, are you implying multiple structures on one grid? As in, if you really want to protect your staging station, you can anchor six deathstars around it? |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
731
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 10:12:33 -
[248] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Again just to repeat, no differences for hisec, CCP hang tough on that, its important.
The key thing here is that people have something large that they need to defend, but making it so they lose everything and the disparity between the ability of industrial corps and hisec war dec corps means that no one will do anything in hisec if you have differing drops because CONCORD runs around, when they have not been bribed to look away of course.
Do the same thing for the stations in hisec as you do every where else, if people want to loot the stuff then they need to hunt the people who try to recover their stuff and they need to keep that war dec going as long as they need to. People will have to sit camping those in null sec, low sec and WH space, they need to do the same in hisec and they need to continue to pay the bribe to allow them to shoot people during that period.
If people are not able to do that then you need to look at yourselves, are you special just because you war dec people in hisec, I think not... This is true. A large corp who wants to invest in a large structure should have some protection to encourage corp stability and growth. Conversely, a small corp who wants some improved industry stats should have risk if they let their structure run out of fuel.
Of course people can drop corp making it impossible to grab peoples personal stuff, but perhaps the access of the items in corp hangers should be what you can only access being in the corp, that should do what you want? But if you want that loot you have to camp the station remains just as they would do elsewhere, why should you be different and the additional cost is in extended war dec fees and the same effort as elsewhere.
CCP want to make fuel used for activities such as manufacturing and research etc., which is great, what stops me from running a POS at the moment is the waste of time and effort refuelling the damn thing. I hope CCP continue with this approach because I just cannot be bothered to go to the effort to fuel something it so it can sit in space. So your comment on refuel is not correct in terms of their current suggestion, just letting you know that.
One of the most important things for hisec is that this will be a reason for corps to defend, they have something that is worth something to them, this is going to make hisec a lot more fun, and people calling for limitations for hisec are missing the point.
You might be aware of the current use of mechanics by certain gankers in hisec, they have a person in a noob ship who drops into a fleet hanger and then that is moved to a freighter. CCP cannot adjust that mechanic because it will make the fleet ship vulnerable to being ganked and would be used as such. People that have been shooting gankers have accepted this, the question I have for you is would you accept this based on people using this to gather their loot so you cannot stop them. Note that this is the type of issue that people have to accept in games, mechanics can be used for an advantage, it says a lot when people moan when it affects them and it will, because you can be damn sure that should my corp lose a station I will use this to get my stuff. But if people who use this to get loot that they should be shot for then start moaning because they cannot shoot people using this in reverse then I just have to hold my hands in the air and run around squawking like a deranged chicken.
People just have to accept certain issues with mechanics based on TZ / RL and of course exploit limitations, so people need to cut CCP some slack on this, for example that use of loot scooping I mentioned it but accepted it in other threads, my only issue with Hyperdunking was its use to kill offline modules on POS's that had run out of fuel, because that required a war dec, but still at the end of the say, its acceptable to me, they deserve to lose that stuff for not keeping their POS fuelled.
NB I know that the last two paragraphs could be taken by some as off topic, but its an appeal to people looking at this to try to look at these changes in an impartial way, not focus on the advantage or disadvantages to to their own gameplay.
Ella's Snack bar
|
Thales
Foo Jung Daan AL3XAND3R.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 10:24:35 -
[249] - Quote
Tremendous amount of good stuff here, just one thought, if one chooses to set up a public access "port" please make it so that if one owns one, one can set it to destroy anyone camping the structure. Station camping would be the death of an independent trading station, as it drives away customers, one needs to be able to set such behaviour to kill on sight. One also needs to be able to block or eject any asshat causing problems.
A real life station manager would simply kick them out of the nearest airlock. without a ship or spacesuit. And depending on how annoyed he was, riddle the corpse with bullets. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
223
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 10:37:01 -
[250] - Quote
So, for sake of argument, say someone put in a few Titan BPO's to go from ME9 to 10 about 6 weeks ago
That takes approx 2 years
Now, what happens if the time frame to convert from pos to this new thing happens and you give me time to move all my stuff etc
BUT - assume the changeover is in 18 months
I still have 6 months left on my ME job?
I can't stop it, it cost several billion just to install the job, it costs a few hundred mil a month to keep the POS fueled, I don't plan to give up that investment
I don't want to lost 300 bil in BPO's either
Is there a plan to convert jobs in progress that are so long it is already too late to do anything about them? |
|
Akii
The Shell Subsidary Home Front Coalition
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 10:48:38 -
[251] - Quote
The current issues I face running posGÇÖs for manufacturing and research is that I have felt the need to run a small corp within an alliance rather than be part of a large corp:
Risks of using industry pos in a large corp vs running your own small corp
Unless you are in the upper echelons of the corp your assets are at risk as they are generally:
GÇóAccessible by other members of the corp, materials and blueprints can be stolen GÇóJobs can be stopped during production GÇóIf you are removed from a corp your assets are stuck.
Anyone doing a decent amount of industry in a corp they donGÇÖt control must be insane.
Current solution: Make an alt corp for industry, all the risks are your own and you have total control, friendship is at the alliance level. Arising issues: Game play becomes more isolated.
Improvements GÇô Individual asset control
Each structure with storage should have at least 2 main compartments:
GÇóAn individual compartment for the accessing player which can be shared with whomever the individual decides. Only the individual or those that are selected for access should be able to remove items from here. GÇóA corp compartment that can be shared by all members GÇóThe ability for corps to generate new hangers and assign to whom they deem fit. GÇóThe corp should have the ability to eject any compartments at will (using the mechanisms for structure destruction i.e. a container appears in random space accessible only by the individual) GÇóIf a job is stopped materials should be returned thereby preventing asset loss but still impacting time and profits
Hopefully if the asset protection is in place so that risk is solely down to the individual placing their assets there would be more sharing of structures for industry.
|
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated Forged of Fire
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 10:49:46 -
[252] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Initial reply to the Dev blog/snippets from Fanfest.
AI MUST fire back; Can't stress this enough, if a player fits weapons to their structure they should always fire at attackers. Otherwise it's a 24/7 job to defend a structure, not a game.
Aren't these structures tied into the new Sovereignty system - if so your structure is only vulnerable to attack during the active window of 4 hours which you set.
There is still an issue for small corporations that may not have active bodies available to defend structures in every 4 hour window 365 days a year - so I would still like an AI system.
|
Equinox Ying
Frontier Rebellion
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 10:54:06 -
[253] - Quote
Do EEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!!!!! |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
7110
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 11:08:23 -
[254] - Quote
Structures that touch cloaking looks like a suspiciously dangerous idea to me.
with that said, it's time to activate hype drive \/
this makes me harder than a block of ice!
Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
|
Oxide Ammar
189
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 11:40:11 -
[255] - Quote
I'm really excited about all this and I can't wait to test the new POSes but I have some remarks I hope you can take into consideration:
1- We need to rely on AI while defending POSes with an option to man the guns if I'm online, as someone stated this is game not full time job. This is will kill small Corps who like to own POS.
2- I like the fuel blocks usage based on the current activity (research / manufacturing / turrets online ) which will save a lot but on the other hand this might dump the prices of ice more since the introduction of the Jump Fatigue.
3- We need drone bay with size similar of supers that can launch drones, fighters or bombers to defend itself with the ability to Skynet these drones to corp defender but they have to stay on grid of the POS.
4- If you wanna get rid of one man Corps you need to simplify roles in way to protect corp members assets and give them the freedom to do their own activity without risking their stuff.
5- You need to solve Rorqual problems before you introduce these new structures, Rorqual was relying on boosting mining fleets inside POS shields, with this system how you are going to work it out ??
6- You need to kill market hubs if you want to introduce player own markets, players to feel attached to their system they are living in. We need to stop taking 20 jumps to reach market hub to save 5 mill ISK on module.
7- Drilling platforms are anchored next to POSes or they are movable to asteroid / ice belts ? What is the Rorqual from all of this ?
8- Gates functions are totally overpowered and w/e benefits you are getting from it favors the nullsec alliances over small pvp roaming fleets.
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
222
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 11:41:34 -
[256] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Cervix Thumper wrote:watching the twitch and reading this sounds kind of like a cash grab.
we have to purchase new material while the old become obsolete?
existing structures / purchases can't be upgraded or transitioned into the new system?
for those purchases that have already been made and not deployed.. players are S.O.L?
A transition period is nice but, all said and done, it seems like scrap the old and buy the new.
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. Oh and for the wormholers, yes you will be able to anchor some (or maybe all of these structures). However there will be some activities / bonuses that remain tied to sovereignty. The exact details of this need to be discussed with the wormhole community to see what best fits their needs and play style.
You shouldn't do a reimbursement plan based on the supposed ISK value of structures like you did with the data interfaces that were removed from industry. We and probably a lot of other people were severely short-changed on the reimbursement values for those interfaces.
I would suggest a reimbursement of all the materials needed to actually construct the structures so all the planetary interaction derived materials and everything else in the case of outposts.
Another thought. It would be nice to have racial types kept for the POSes and outposts.
" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. "-áRick.
" Find out what ? "-áAbraham.
" They're screwing with the wrong people. "-áRick.
Season four.-á-á ' The Walking Dead. ' .
|
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
222
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 11:50:15 -
[257] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:I'm really excited about all this and I can't wait to test the new POSes but I have some remarks I hope you can take into consideration:
1- We need to rely on AI while defending POSes with an option to man the guns if I'm online, as someone stated this is game not full time job. This is will kill small Corps who like to own POS.
2- I like the fuel blocks usage based on the current activity (research / manufacturing / turrets online ) which will save a lot but on the other hand this might dump the prices of ice more since the introduction of the Jump Fatigue.
3- We need drone bay with size similar of supers that can launch drones, fighters or bombers to defend itself with the ability to Skynet these drones to corp defender but they have to stay on grid of the POS.
4- If you wanna get rid of one man Corps you need to simplify roles in way to protect corp members assets and give them the freedom to do their own activity without risking their stuff.
5- You need to solve Rorqual problems before you introduce these new structures, Rorqual was relying on boosting mining fleets inside POS shields, with this system how you are going to work it out ??
6- You need to kill market hubs if you want to introduce player own markets, players to feel attached to their system they are living in. We need to stop taking 20 jumps to reach market hub to save 5 mill ISK on module.
7- Drilling platforms are anchored next to POSes or they are movable to asteroid / ice belts ? What is the Rorqual from all of this ?
8- Gates functions are totally overpowered and w/e benefits you are getting from it favors the nullsec alliances over small pvp roaming fleets.
Regarding drilling platforms I got the impression the large deposits that require new structures to mine them will spawn within asteroid belts or maybe in anomalies. So the structure would be set up or be attached to the large deposit and would therefore not be attached to or form part of the POS system.
Regarding Rorqual I think the intention is to find a way to have it on-grid. So I expect off-grid boosting and boosting within POS shields will be eliminated at the time of changeover.
" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. "-áRick.
" Find out what ? "-áAbraham.
" They're screwing with the wrong people. "-áRick.
Season four.-á-á ' The Walking Dead. ' .
|
Gyges Skyeye
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 11:51:43 -
[258] - Quote
"Market and Office Hubs" wrote:GÇ£Finally, we are considering adding Interbus Shipping abilities, which could reduce logistic hassle for small volume of items to fit a ship, but at a specific cost:GÇ¥
This sentence got me thinking. Perhaps we could flush this functionality out into its own structure line. Logistics was always a hassle. With jump fatigue, it is now even more of a PITA.
I think itGÇÖs possible to lower the hassle of logistics from needing to own five accounts, and a jump freighter, and spare capital etc. In exchange we shift the importance of logistics towards what amounts to GÇÿprotect and defend your cyno chainGÇÖ. By doing so we can create an effective, engaging new set of structures with their own emergent gameplay; Transmission Systems, aka logistics with guns aka logistics without space aids. (Oh, we can probably find a consumptive use for stront too)
Lore Blurb; The massive event of the Caroline Star grabbed the attention of Capslueers across the cluster who struggled to assess its true meaning. To those scientists at Insert Lore Faction Here it meant one thing and one thing only, a practical validation of Insert crazed scientist hereGÇÖs theorem. In his time he was ridiculed then re-educated into an early retirement but we now see that he was correct. Instantaneous transmission of both information and energy across the entire cluster is possible. It was not long after the Caroline Star that the first prototypes for peaceful use of this newly validated capability were released to the market.
H. Transmissions Systems
Structures affecting the shipless transmission of goods. Structures package m3 into bandwidth for transmission. Structures consume tons of strontium at transmission source based on bandwidth quantity and transmission distance.
Service Module Possibilities: Bandwidth packager, bandwidth broadcast channel, bandwidth relay channel, bandwidth receiving channel, bandwidth unpacker.
Rigs Possibilities: Anything that alters m3 to bandwidth packaging rate, transmission distance, channel bandwidth rate, channel bandwidth strontium consumption, channel distance strontium consumption
Each minute of a transmission, a packet of bandwidth is sent. Items are sent sequentially and physically relocated in the minute their last packet is transmitted. When interrupted, the transmitted packet and will instead be scattered to any system in range downstream of the interruption. The disruptor will be given a journal entry with a warp-in point and inventory contained in the packet; the original owner will be left to scan the containers down should they wish to reclaim their wayward goods. When a transmission is started, strontium is consumed, and the transmission runs till completion unable to be stopped. Active transmissions create system and map indicators like cynos.
Class: M Name: Transmission Relay Platform Attack Method: Entosis Attack Commitment: Short Cargo Capacity: None Housing Options: None Service Slots: 2 Required Skill: Transmission Platform Operation
Class: L Name: Transmission Broadcast Center Attack Method: Entosis Attack Commitment: Medium Cargo Capacity: Finite Housing Options: Anchor Service Slots: 2 Required Skill: Transmission Hub Operation
Class: XL Name: Transmission Receiving Headquarters Attack Method: Entosis + Site Attack Commitment: Long Cargo Capacity: Infinite Housing Options: Anchor - Docking Service Slots: 5 Required Skill: Transmission Headqarters Operation |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
270
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 12:36:44 -
[259] - Quote
Some thoughts:
Loving the scope of these changes. No real worries at the moment pending further discussion, I just hope we have a good selection of what we can use in wormholes. I also hope for the right balance between the entosis mechanics are pure damage. I don't get the decision behind stations not shooting back when controlled by NPCs.... I am puzzled by the idea that a loot within a dead station could only be collectable by the original owners, but I'll reserve major judgement on that to see where it will actually apply. I would imagine larger structures will be captured rather than destoyed just as they are now.
Some really odd complaints from some players in this thread. Bitching that unsubbed players will have no warning of losing there stuff? Really?!
Amount of guns on the new stations, concerns around firepower. No bonuses have been announced, no details at all, yet some are jumping to conclusions they won't be able to defend themselves. What's to say that each of those high slots isn't an array of weapons, with dreadlike dps?
Storing stuff at planets. I like this idea. Could tie in with PI mechanics for retreiving goods. Adding space elevators for this would be awesome :D
Interbus shipping, I like it. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
444
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 13:36:12 -
[260] - Quote
With every release you guys seem to me to be more and more out of touch not only with the game it's self but with basic patterns of human behavior and prove to not even understand the concept of motivating factors.
I think you've gotten too wound up in your marketing propaganda and are trying too hard to make this game what you advertise that it is like instead of making a game that is fun to play.
If you want variable and emergent behavior in null then you need to attract a wide range of player types. Currently there seems to be only one play style that you want to encourage in null and that is the player that likes to destroy everything and watch the universe burn. Unfortunately if you don't attract the type of player that likes to build things then there won't be much to destroy.
NRDS game play has proven to attract a wide variety of players and make space very active with small and medium gang combat. For that to work you need to give players not interested on Sov warfare a reason to want to come to null and you have to give sov holders a reason to want to attract them. I've posted ideas on how to do this elsewhere already and won't duplicate that here but chasing out people that are not only interested in shooting everything that moves is going to limit the percent of your player base that is willing to spend time in null.
Another factor that has the ability to increase the percentage of the player base willing to move to null or reduce it heavily is making basic operation easier so that you can spend more time doing emergent activities. Station like living environment with healthy local markets facilitate that.
I have stuff at outposts that are no longer under friendly control, some of that stuff has been there for several years. The thing that encourages me to build up stock piles in null sec outposts and stock the local markets is knowing that stuff will always be there. Even though you guys have said there will be a transition period just your announcing that outposts will eventually be removed and replaced by destructible structures means that I have to reduce my footprint in null space immediately. Not because the outposts are going away tomorrow but because if the outpost flips owner ship I no long have an indefinite length of time to recover my stuff.
I don't have access to the data that you guys do but I would imagine that if you take an honest look at the longer term results you will likely see that the jump changes made deep null less active and anything with in 5LY of high sec more active. Likewise I think just in announcing the intent of these changes you will see a slow trickle of non-essential assets out of null. In the long run that will mean reduced activity in null. Those are my predictions.
The gameplay that is encouraged by these changes is to have a high sec alt that keep all of your stuff and makes all of your isk and then have a PvP character that lives in null and that you give isk and stuff to for PvP purposes but the incentive to operate in null for any activity other than PvP is being reduced heavily. |
|
Gfy Trextron
Soul Takers
32
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 14:33:40 -
[261] - Quote
The structure changes are very exciting! And while some things remain unclear I wanted to give you some perspective from our small corps point of view.
WALL OF TEXT WARNING
Most of us have tried null sec at one time or another since CCP constantly pushes its players in that direction for whatever reason. We concluded that risk vs reward along with the hassle of distance and security of assets coupled with the complete destruction of independent identity, null was not for us.
We determined that our prime enjoyment derives from small gang pvp. And we enjoy our limited local reputation of being a threat. We attempted the alliance thing but drama (not from us) quickly ended the first one we joined and have not done so again, even though CCP pushes players in this direction in and out of game. (I am still irritated from our corp being omitted from attendance prizes at EVE Vegas because we were not in an alliance and brought enough people to qualify)
I am going to go as far as saying we GÇ£OWNGÇ¥ a popular low sec system through true occupancy. We dominate PVP during our prime time window, yes blobs can run us into the NPC station until their ADHD pushes them towards the next possible target. We have owned all of the systems POCOS since POCOS could be owned (Our system flag). Own all the moons worth owning and even rent moons and passage through our system. While we can access some powerful friends that help if needed, our stuff could be taken if the conquers wanted it bad enough. They would then have to deal with defending their stuff every day for the rest of time. Some of us have lived in this system for over 8 years, many of us for 6 years, and the corp as it is now for over 3 years. We may not be active during all time zones and others may call this system their home, but I do not think it can be disputed that we own this system.
Now to the point. Listed by topic.
1)System flags GÇô If the bigger blob comes in and puts up a structure to claim the system, it would kinda suck but be completely irrelevant (as long as NPC stations remain) to our main goal of constant PVP while still being allowed to go get a beer at any time. The likely hood of us being able or willing to fly all over the region to put some scanner on random sites is unlikely. So much effort and distraction from pvp during our limited prime time window. 2)Will it be required to GÇ£ownGÇ¥ the system to use the system structures that modify the system? Or use any other structures at all? If so then you are dooming us to the bigger blob who will be regulating our system from 10 jumps away just because they have 100 scrubs to do all those stupid sites 24/7 and blob us when needed. 3)Are titans going to be vulnerable while trying to bridge? If a titan will simply be able to be hic pointed when we need a bridge (we have no other bridges in low sec), then they will be next to useless for us. While we have a few titans, as of the time of this writing, donGÇÖt think any of us have ever shot a player with one. I have had mine for 3 years and it has never done anything but bridge. (This could be yet another push by CCP towards the blob) 4)Cost. With the recent jump range changes (best thing for low sec! Love the change) we have had additional POS cost to increase our bridge range capabilities (still less than before change) and have been operating at a loss every month. Now considering that we may need several more structures to perform all the tasks that can currently be done at a couple flexible POSGÇÖs, this could result in catastrophic financial failure. Doing any task at less than the optimal is often not worth doing (and another push towards the blob).
Currently, besides the protection of the shield, POSGÇÖs can perform any function at optimal efficiency. This may not include simultaneously, but allows 1 structure to do as needed by on and off lining. Minimal cost and equal efficiency to anyone else, barring null sec system advantages.
So what is it CCP wants? EVERYTHNG you do pushes us towards 0.0 and coalitions. The ability for small 10-20 real people corps to reasonably exist is a continuing struggle and these multiple structures could be a huge nail in our coffin if not careful. I could have made this post 10x longer but I am unsure if it would have gotten my point across any more.
In closing I would like to say that I am available for further non posting discussion (I hate posting, arguing with my children is about all the silliness I can handle.). CCP has a tunnel vision towards thinking bigger is better, yet the most successful game change in years was about limitations.
|
Memphis Baas
253
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 14:37:54 -
[262] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:If you want variable and emergent behavior in null then you need to attract a wide range of player types. Currently there seems to be only one play style that you want to encourage in null and that is the player that likes to destroy everything and watch the universe burn. Unfortunately if you don't attract the type of player that likes to build things then there won't be much to destroy.
NRDS game play has proven to attract a wide variety of players and make space very active with small and medium gang combat. For that to work you need to give players not interested on Sov warfare a reason to want to come to null and you have to give sov holders a reason to want to attract them. I've posted ideas on how to do this elsewhere already and won't duplicate that here but chasing out people that are not only interested in shooting everything that moves is going to limit the percent of your player base that is willing to spend time in null.
I think rather than attracting players to null, they're planning on changing high-sec and low-sec into null. Especially with the plan to allow the deploying of even the biggest structures in high-sec, and rigs or utility modules that change the sec status of the system. "You can anchor big structures in high-sec but won't be able to activate some sec-related modules. Oh but you can change the sec- rating of the system."
The change to structures seems to be motivated by the fact that they have a system that handles ships. With up to 8 H/M/L slots. So they're just going to make EVERYTHING a ship, simplify their code. And then, they're no longer looking at what we say, they're just analyzing the logs to see what we do, and what we do is we stay in high-sec no matter what they try, so they'll just make every space player-controlled (eventually). Motivation for going to null-sec: everywhere is null-sec. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
724
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 14:50:50 -
[263] - Quote
Given the changes to outpost upgrades in Crius, a lot of alliances (mine included) have spent a lot of isk on outpost upgrades. Could we get some clarity on if there's going to be any sort of reimbursement for those when they're removed? That's also important to know if we should bother doing any more upgrades, or just deep-six any future upgrade plans.
Thanks! |
A'Tolkar
Carlson's Raiders
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 14:51:59 -
[264] - Quote
Capital Assembly Array in Algogille (0.8)???
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structuremgmt2-02.png
And the Medium Assembly Platform has ZERO service slots??? Typo there? Because otherwise you can't fit assembly arrays in the structure, which means no assembly at all. I think from the images, all other medium structures have TWO service slots. You may want to look into that.
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structure_ISIS5-01.png |
Zekora Rally
Negative Density
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 14:59:07 -
[265] - Quote
Akii wrote:The current issues I face running posGÇÖs for manufacturing and research is that I have felt the need to run a small corp within an alliance rather than be part of a large corp:
Risks of using industry pos in a large corp vs running your own small corp
Unless you are in the upper echelons of the corp your assets are at risk as they are generally:
GÇóAccessible by other members of the corp, materials and blueprints can be stolen GÇóJobs can be stopped during production GÇóIf you are removed from a corp your assets are stuck.
Anyone doing a decent amount of industry in a corp they donGÇÖt control must be insane.
Current solution: Make an alt corp for industry, all the risks are your own and you have total control, friendship is at the alliance level. Arising issues: Game play becomes more isolated.
Improvements GÇô Individual asset control
Each structure with storage should have at least 2 main compartments:
GÇóAn individual compartment for the accessing player which can be shared with whomever the individual decides. Only the individual or those that are selected for access should be able to remove items from here. GÇóA corp compartment that can be shared by all members GÇóThe ability for corps to generate new hangers and assign to whom they deem fit. GÇóThe corp should have the ability to eject any compartments at will (using the mechanisms for structure destruction i.e. a container appears in random space accessible only by the individual) GÇóIf a job is stopped materials should be returned thereby preventing asset loss but still impacting time and profits
Hopefully if the asset protection is in place so that risk is solely down to the individual placing their assets there would be more sharing of structures for industry.
Or we could get personal POSs that dont need roles to be anchored as long as one is in a player controlled corp. |
Lady Omanor
The Mining and Manufacturing Corporation The Imperial Union
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 15:02:09 -
[266] - Quote
I have some questions to the new structures
1) I don't hope your going to use old models for the new structures, as showing here
Example
because that would just be squeezing the lemon, if you want to reinvent do it the whole way through. I hope you have models like the greate pictures at the begining of each
2) It looks like you are taking away a lot of the things High-sec Corporations could do with a POS in High-sec, because most of the new structures has Entosis in Attack method and can there for only be use in space where you can hold sovereignty.
They are left with an Assembly Platform that can easily be shot into pieces, plus it can not be anchored, so does this mean, that no War-dec is needed, and Concord won't react, when it is attacked, The two others has Entosis in Attack method, so no use in High-sec.
Assembly Arrays
They can't do research anymore in their own structures, according to this, because the two structures has Entosis in Attack method
Research
And for the rest of the new structures that has damage in method can't be anchored either, so does this as stated earlier mean that no War-dec, no Concord intervention, when they are attacked ?
3) Does the changes to structures mean, that everyone has to be in null sec to be able to use structures in their Corporation ? Because how it looks now, it is not safe for a High-sec Corporation to put up a structure.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 15:09:25 -
[267] - Quote
Generally like the direction of structures presented.
But what about moving R&D agents etc out of Hi Sec into WH and Null? Locator agents are also obvious add-on. No reason Faction Mission agents (ambassadors) could not be installed as well.
You could add quarter slots for these NPCs assistant agents who could be hired on market or captured as loot. R&D agent for example.
Sure its a little like the Teams concept that got thrown out. Except not vague fuzzy, hard to figure out net effects, shared with everyone in system, and rather expensive for limited time effects. In general favoring discrete effects unlikely to be quickly wiped out by popularity linked NPC labor cost increases.
Instead I am saying NPC agents/assistants would affect only structure where they are installed. Installation into quarters slots similar to modules may or may not affect recurring operations costs for structure. But once installed agents remain on station until removed by owner or killed/looted in battle -- or perhaps until relevant standings drop too low especially in the case of faction agents.
Hmmm...small alliances might be eligible for NPC Empire military attache agent who can sometimes summon small NPC patrol (incursion level AI) or solo ace pilots (burners) to aid station defenses (attack group recently attacking station or assistance fleet). Obviously high faction standings would be required & some sort of trade deal where Empire faction gains more net ISK than ship losses. Alliance level diplomacy with NPC factions. Just an example of variety that installable structure agents could possibly address but not a requirement for idea to be implemented at any level. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3238
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 15:18:09 -
[268] - Quote
One thing I'm concerned with is the size progression. In many cases one size may be too small, and the next too large. It would be nice if we could get something in between. How to do this? Allow structures to connect to each other. That is, if I deploy one structure right beside another, the two automatically plug into each other.
In terms of capabilities, they would not be sharing slots, or grid, or CPU. They would share inventory. The sharing of inventory also allows for painless upgrading. For example:
My corp deploys a large structure. The corp continues to grow, and we decide it's time to move to an extra large. Currently what you would need to do is deploy the extra large at some other position in the solar system, then have everyone fly back and forth moving stuff. Before you can decommission the large structure, you need to wait for that last guy who never seems to log in at the right time.
Now if the two structures plugged into each other: There is no need to move anything. The hangar space is the sum total of the hangar space of the two structures. I add one, everyone's stuff occupies the new hangars. I decommission the other, the stuff is still in the hangar, which is now a bit smaller.
Even if a unified hangar space could not be done, and the two structures remain separate in every way except graphically and by proximity: Moving stuff would just consist of dragging it from one inventory window to another, from the hangar of the old structure into the hangar of the new. The old, smaller structure could be left in place until that last guy finally logs in and moves his stuff. (Although something needs to be done about the guy who has quit eve). It could also be left there indefinitely, becoming extra room, or a place for new members, or just as an old, dust area where the Fedos go to mate.
Anyway, that's the idea: Allow structure to plug together to allow a smooth progression up the size scale as needs grow, and to remove the pain of moving day.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 15:26:34 -
[269] - Quote
Lady Omanor wrote:I have some questions to the new structures
...
2) It looks like you are taking away a lot of the things High-sec Corporations could do with a POS in High-sec, because most of the new structures has Entosis in Attack method and can there for only be use in space where you can hold sovereignty.
They are left with an Assembly Platform that can easily be shot into pieces, plus it can not be anchored, so does this mean, that no War-dec is needed, and Concord won't react, when it is attacked, The two others has Entosis in Attack method, so no use in High-sec. ...
And for the rest of the new structures that has damage in method can't be anchored either, so does this as stated earlier mean that no War-dec, no Concord intervention, when they are attacked ?
3) Does the changes to structures mean, that everyone has to be in null sec to be able to use structures in their Corporation ? Because how it looks now, it is not safe for a High-sec Corporation to put up a structure.
As I understand it, the old idea of sovereignty goes away completely. So no TCU stuff is required to anchor Outpost station or Infrastructure hub in null. The Territorial Claim Unit effect is merely icons on a map for purposes of EPeen challenge. Who knows NPC flagged sovereignty might well be up for grabs sometime after new system is debugged and proven.
In the meantime this means you can anchor all structures anywhere sovereignty-wise as far as I can tell. But the system security stuff may still restrict us for a while. While that is mostly side effect of Empire space -- note that proposed player station gear included stuff to raise system security.
|
Lady Omanor
The Mining and Manufacturing Corporation The Imperial Union
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 15:38:42 -
[270] - Quote
[/quote]
As I understand it, the old idea of sovereignty goes away completely. So no TCU stuff is required to anchor Outpost station or Infrastructure hub in null. The Territorial Claim Unit effect is merely icons on a map for purposes of EPeen challenge. Who knows NPC flagged sovereignty might well be up for grabs sometime after new system is debugged and proven.
In the meantime this means you can anchor all structures anywhere sovereignty-wise as far as I can tell. But the system security stuff may still restrict us for a while. While that is mostly side effect of Empire space -- note that proposed player station gear included stuff to raise system security. [/quote]
Okay, was hard to interperter from the dev blog CCP send out on sovereignty changes.
But would be great, if they all can be put up every where.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |