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) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
5485
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 11:48:23 -
[1] - Quote
A totally new system of structures in space is under development with plans to already release first parts in 2015. This will change the face of the game world and massively enhance the options for all players!
The new structure system will cover everything that can be deployed in space and should incorporate at least the following features: * Completely new fitting systems for structures (somewhat similar to ship fitting with slots) * Intuitive and easy to use UI * Meaningful structure progression system (think of a Interbus Identification System for structures and not only for ships) * Graphical enhancements and improved visuals (the biggest entities should be much larger than they are now) * Proper housing/storing of items and ships according to the structure size - from mooring to docking up * Destructible structures and a meaningful retrieval mechanic of items that have been in those structures when they got destroyed * Much easier and better management of structures * A proper transition plan to the new structures * Much expanded functionality and capabilities of structures (read the blog!)
We want to discuss those ideas in depth and on a high level with you before we continue.
Please read CCP Ytterbium's dev blog Back Into the Structure and come back with your opinions and feedback!
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager
|
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1248
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:05:18 -
[2] - Quote
God this concept looks cool!
EDIT: I am most curious how frozen corpses will be tied into advertising.
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Delekon
Honestly We didnt know Unsettled.
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:07:11 -
[3] - Quote
Do we get them in whspace too?
Can we get at least 1 before summer so activity stays high? |
Omega Tron
Amarr Mining Inc
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:11:12 -
[4] - Quote
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.
CCP's sand box is EVE Online. The sand is owned by CCP. We pay them a monthly fee to throw the sand at each other. That is all that is here, so move along. Nothing more to be seen.
|
Princess Cherista
State War Academy Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:12:13 -
[5] - Quote
Can you just remove the ESS since nobody uses it anymore because its too much of a hassle, it doesnt generate any fights or meaningful gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1466
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:12:21 -
[6] - Quote
The scope of this devblog is so massive... we are nearly besides ourselves thinking of the possibilities. One thing is for certain -- this type of gameplay is extremely interesting; it's what we've wanted for years, but didn't really think was possible to bring about. We have high expectations for this new system.
Something that occurred to us immediately:
* Currently outpost upgrades are responsible for affording the manufacturing/research/reprocessing advantages that nullsec currently enjoys. These upgrades are very expensive and are part of outposts, which seem to be being phased out in the new system. Will these upgrades be refunded? They are purchased directly from NPC sell orders, so there is no risk of manufacturing materials being flooded into the game.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1705
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:12:53 -
[7] - Quote
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?
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Walextheone
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
112
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:18:42 -
[8] - Quote
Princess Cherista wrote:Can you just remove the ESS since nobody uses it anymore because its too much of a hassle, it doesnt generate any fights or meaningful gameplay.
I don't know man. We roam nullsec every day and we manage to get some fights from it. It could be tweaked but it still seems to deliver. |
June Blindbird
Flying Blacksmiths
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:21:07 -
[9] - Quote
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 ? |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
14126
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:23:20 -
[10] - Quote
Very interesting, I foresee a major logistics effort to replace all structures though, if I understood it correctly we would have to replace them with the new things?
Also looking forward on more details about the mooring system, the radius things and of course if this might mean we will be seeing supercaps for sale on the market.
Imagining an outpost gets destroyed, and all the content and stuff gets ejected into space for the owner to scoop within the time, could a massive amount of canisters affect lag or similar with many thousands of new objects in space?
/c
GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà
Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'
Twitter @Chribba
|
|
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
518
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:26:30 -
[11] - Quote
Have you defined how ownership will work on an ongoing basis?
For example, if we launch a new structure and set it for corporation/alliance use, can a spy with the appropriate roles then come along and set it for personal or public use? If set for public use who can change it back again; anyone?
How would unanchoring structures work? I'm especially thinking for structures where players and dock or moor ships. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:29:14 -
[12] - Quote
Chribba wrote: Imagining an outpost gets destroyed, and all the content and stuff gets ejected into space for the owner to scoop within the time, could a massive amount of canisters affect lag or similar with many thousands of new objects in space?
/c
Most likely, it'd work like escalations do currently -- your assets don't actually exist in space until you go into the system while having an entry in your journal.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Centurax
Dracos Dozen Unsettled.
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:33:05 -
[13] - Quote
Really excited about the proposed changes, really happy good work!!
Main concerns are:
How fuel will be used and which types used with which structure?
The size of ships needed to deploy the XL Stations?
I think this direction is a vast improvement and I am looking forward to its development. |
JTK Fotheringham
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:33:09 -
[14] - Quote
WH space needs - at the very minimum - ship and stuff storage, and some sort of manufacturing.
Can you please confirm such structures will be useable in WH space before these changes drop? If that's not made clear, I foresee a time of great rage. |
Rabhin Usha
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:34:27 -
[15] - Quote
With these changes, what is happening to the BPOs that we have invested in for POS and other structures? They are not cheap and researching them is quite the investment. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1751
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:36:43 -
[16] - Quote
Three things I'm worried about:
1. What is my extensive pos blueprint collection going to be good for?
2. The datacore thing. I don't really see the point. Why do you think it needs change?
3. How am I supposed to deal with the fact that a french accent is going to trigger a sizeable nerdboner for the foreseeable future?
Don't **** this up please, the implications on many other game systems are massive
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
hackerus
Great White North Productions Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:42:40 -
[17] - Quote
Im posting this on one of my indy toons cause they are the one affected.
I have 30 carriers on market and 10 in build. Most of them I cant fly. Ive also got 33 million m3 in my hanger
How exactly do I rescue the carriers I have built that are up for sale and 33 million m3 in cargo from a container?
Are indy toons goign to need to fly what they built to rescue it? Why would I build in zero if im going from not risking losing my minerals and stuff for sale if the station is captured to being totally screwed.
Are you trying to prevent people building in zero to encourage it? |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
20647
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:42:49 -
[18] - Quote
I am liking what I'm seeing, and for the first time ever am getting genuinely interested in the POSsibilities!
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Vote Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10!
|
Amber Kurvora
216
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:49:10 -
[19] - Quote
Making POS UI's match ship fitting is a brilliant idea, making it a lot of a head scratch for newbies to set them up. I'd like to see more information come out about the arrays, and pray to Bob that they don't make it harder to scoot around Null for us independent types. |
VonKolroth
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:50:05 -
[20] - Quote
It's,.. full of structures.
Sent from my Gallente Erabus Titan on -FA- SRP
|
|
Nicola Romanoff
Quantum Innovations Limited
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:51:25 -
[21] - Quote
wow, this looks awesome. gimme gimme gimme
|
ShesAForumAlt
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:53:36 -
[22] - Quote
Querns wrote:* Currently outpost upgrades are responsible for affording the manufacturing/research/reprocessing advantages that nullsec currently enjoys. These upgrades are very expensive and are part of outposts, which seem to be being phased out in the new system. Will these upgrades be refunded? They are purchased directly from NPC sell orders, so there is no risk of manufacturing materials being flooded into the game.
We really do need to know what is going to happen with these as soon as CCP has concrete plans, simply due to the cost and scale of these investments for smaller entities. If a group is spending months to complete them, only to have them turn off a few weeks after they finish because the new structures come out and all that money is wasted, that's a problem.
If you could someway resolve the uncertainty quickly regarding these upgrades CCP, that would be very appreciated. I'm not saying you have to explain exactly what you are going to do, but at least make a statement that current Outpost owners will be compensated for their upgrades would be nice. That way people can keep going along as we have as we wait for these new structures to start appearing.
Either way - these plans look amazing, and I'm quite excited to see how these pan out. This is exactly the direction EVE needs to head.
This is totally my main.-á
|
calaretu
Honestly We didnt know Unsettled.
266
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:54:29 -
[23] - Quote
looking forward to test on sisi I guess
~Bringer of happiness
http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/
.ORLY is recruiting
|
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
7519
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:56:47 -
[24] - Quote
Echoing the thoughts of other wormholers, I definitely hope that we get access to these new structures and they aren't limited only to sov null. If I invest in the biggest structures, I'd like to be able to build them in my wormhole.
Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
|
Nyctef
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
101
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:57:36 -
[25] - Quote
I love almost everything about these ideas -- good work! I can't wait to play around with some of these structures.
That said, I have a few reservations based on what's been presented so far:
With some of the examples for assembly arrays or research laboratories, there aren't entries listed for the smaller sizes. Is this a deliberate decision at the moment? I think it would be a good idea to have small, affordable entry-level structures for people who are just starting out
At least with the examples presented so far, it feels like most of the fitting options are to do with combat capabilities -- I think it would be cool to have more industrial upgrades for some of the other structures (things like more research slots or mining yield bonuses come to mind)
The biggest problem for me is service slots. It feels really weird to change the role of a structure by adding something to it - like changing a frigate into a hauler by adding a module. It sounds like the intent is to have one-size-fits all structures, and to discourage stacking several structures in the same area. I'd love to go in the opposite direction - separating out structure roles into individual structures that players could arrange in their own way and fly around would add a lot in terms of customisability and immersion. Undocking from a mooring structure and heading over to the insurance structure would feel a lot more like being a space pilot rather than just pressing buttons in a station services menu. I also think making structures smaller and more focussed would make them more flexible and easier to iterate on individually in the future.
tl;dr being able to put together a small town of individual structures would make me feel more like I'm building a home rather than just renting someone else's |
Igor Nappi
Perkone Caldari State
110
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 15:58:35 -
[26] - Quote
Is CCP actually seriously considering adding NPC security forces in 0.0?
Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
|
Greygal
Redemption Road Affirmative.
409
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:03:04 -
[27] - Quote
Loving the potential of this, just can't wait to see more details!!
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Aren Tivianne
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:07:08 -
[28] - Quote
Will our existing structures be replaced by the new structures when they are implemented or will we be compensated for the old structures when they are removed from the game?
Will there be faction structures equal to faction POS? |
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:07:14 -
[29] - Quote
a upgraded outpost in null sec will become a upgraded outpost even after new system deployed?
|
Mysor McGuinness
Capital Fusion. Circle-Of-Two
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:09:40 -
[30] - Quote
Very much looking forward to this, stuctures and all that comes with it has been one of eve its biggest issues, atleast for me..
The way the game is going get a big thumb up, however, with eve being known for players taking breaks how would you think returning players would feel if after a while (some players take LOOOONG breaks) their assets they had in an outpost are all gone!? There should be a solution to this for long time away players.
Also with no more forcefields and mooring basicly showing your enemies what is on the sturcture, wouldnt that make supers and titans less of an extra wildcard and a very predictable thing in which case hostiles can always see where you have them and how many? A place where Titans and supers can log off and not be seen (and not talking about logging unsafe and cloacked) would be more then fair I guess, seeing these players put a lot of time and effort into getting their ships
Except for those to points I see a million things I like! |
|
Pseudo Ucksth
Camellia Void Cartographics Spacetime Manifold
210
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:14:32 -
[31] - Quote
I was involved in helping the develop the vision for the "flogging a dead horse" modular pos initiative back in 2006, and have been lobbying heavily for a pos revamp since early 2005 when we realized that after a few months, they were getting tedious to set up. Heh. If I had known then how many more pos I'd have to deal with over the next decade I might have quit right then, but CCP had a bad habit of teasing us who were involved in sov/pos logistics that a change was coming, so we just dealt with it.
I've spent nearly ten years lobbying for these changes, and now that they are coming I'm not sure how to feel about it. It's a lot to digest, especially since I had long past been the point of accepting pretty much any tiny revision to pos mechanics. I just hope that CCP doesn't get too ambitious too quickly, and doesn't forget how hard it could potentially be to recycle the galaxy's backbone now that how logistics is done has drastically changed for everyone outside of empire. I'm not asking for a magical automatic upgrade button or anything like that, but consider the relaxation of anchoring limitations one of the first things you roll out with any new structures.
Anyways. It's nice to see something that should have happened years ago finally happening. All that's left now is corp and alliance management. |
darkneko
Black Cat mining Inc.
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:15:16 -
[32] - Quote
will these structures be limited to just the moons? It sounds like they won't all be. |
Samsara Toldya
Academy of Contradictory Behaviour
264
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:18:09 -
[33] - Quote
Would be a shame if someone is having a very long research queue running... say a carrier BPO ME 9 to 10. Transition won't be several month I guess.
WIP can hardly be discussed. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structure_ISIS5-01.png as an example say: 0 Service Slots available for the M assembly array. So you won't be able to produce anything in it.
Plus: A new skill for every size needed. Yay... lots of them... yay-¦
Anchoring "spots" will be removed - multiple Market and Office Hubs (with POCO service) at a single planet?
Please don't forget an option to exclude player market hubs when creating a ranged buy order. Don't want to collect things sold to me from 12588 different player market hubs in Perimeter.
No racial towers - no racial fuel?
Vulnerable to entosis links... would entosis trigger CONCORD when used without a wardec in highsec? Will there be a 4h prime-time, too?
Really like the concept - but much more details needed for a discussion.
Yeah, what will happen to the existing tower/array/defense BPOs will be interesting. |
Natasha Aylet
Fir'shan Industries
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:27:48 -
[34] - Quote
While there is a lot not to like about the current way POS's work, I actually quite like that anchoring things is only limited by CPU and Power. It means that there is almost infinite variety with regards to POS configurations.
Moving to High, Low, Mid and Utility slots will pull out some of the variety to structure configurations. Every structure will logically have all types of modules fitted, which means that things like dickstars, dullstars and other min/max configurations will go by the wayside.
Being able to fit modules onto the structure rather than anchoring them is a wonderful idea, but making the limiting factor CPU and Power still will allow for much more in the way of flexibility with regards to configurations. |
Fifth Blade
Velators at Dawn Project Wildfire
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:31:03 -
[35] - Quote
This is the single most significant set of changes to ever hit eve. This will change how people play more than anything else you have ever done.
Absolutely hit it out of the park. Well done. |
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Corus Conglomerate
183
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:31:44 -
[36] - Quote
"#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. |
Ijesz ToKolok
Shattered Stars Holding
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:36:04 -
[37] - Quote
Every bit of change seems quite interesting!
Two things that pop into mind that I'd like CCP to consider:
- Will it be possible to deploy such structures without corporate roles? Will structures be configurable as to who can take care of them or are those "privileges" still going to be based on corp roles?
- Second thing is of a shoutout: PUBLIC access and tradehub like features give me a nerdboner. Cannot stop thinking what enterprises I'll start.
My take: I'd prefer if it was a setting of the structure itself and not a role in the corporation, who can take care of the structure. (Configure, feed etc.) |
Peonza Chan
Gloryhole Initiative
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:40:28 -
[38] - Quote
Quote: E. Observatory arrays ... act as solar system wide D-scan blockers ...
I hope you are not considering to bring this into WHs |
Lienzo
Amanuensis
52
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:48:08 -
[39] - Quote
Two major concerns: Dependency and Environment
Dependency is the other side of the coin when considering power projection.
The main role of structures would seem to be to create occasion and incentive for engagement with other players. Some of them are stepping stones to strategic assets, like capital shipyards. If groups of players already have these end products, they generally are no longer tied to the structures that produced them. Consequently they aren't generally able to be coerced into combat environments not of their choosing. They can attack other groups at will, but can only be attacked if they elect so. Hence, the problem of super blobs isn't so much in themselves, but the lack of.. well presence and importune exigency. To rephrase, they don't need to defend a home port. This makes it difficult or impossible for the other party to retaliate, or to focus on hostile logistical support chains.
Structures need to be important to sourcing or installing vital war materiel, and not just on the replacement ships. Capital ship conflicts are less predicated on the replacement aspect typical of subcap conflicts, so instead should focus on accomplishing the same function between fights. Essentially, capital ship components need more maintenance and capital ship modules should need more charges. Only support structures should have the ability to do this maintenance, or to acquire, construct and install these charges.
Our second concern should be environments. Environments govern ecologies even as they are altered by the governed. We need to think about how players get to these structures, where they are and the environments in which the engagements they stimulate happen. Assuming there aren't going to be limitations on where they can be placed, it would make sense if structures actually influenced the grids on which they are placed. If, for example, they took individual features or aspects of perhaps deadspaces, and then imposed that state on the grid around them, then they could shape how conflicts are prosecuted in their vicinity. These effects could be far ranging, from changing warping rules, to limiting modules, or providing other terrain effects which either party can exploit to their own advantage.
Space and movement is already used in missions to control the amount of time to completion of an objective that is not dependent upon the amount of firepower brought to bear. This same mechanism can be used to achieve the same effect with player structures. It allows for fleet commanders of either side to choose the occasion and timing of commitment to conflicts even while on the battlefield. It also allows them to choose how to array forces. Shared limitations don't really limit any individual player if they expand the range of possibilities of how and where to attack or defend. |
Jason Bouchard
Occisio Unus Apparatus
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:48:24 -
[40] - Quote
Omega Tron wrote: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 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. |
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1107
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:49:12 -
[41] - Quote
Rigs will be the means to deliver on that vision, either by having different rigs which can only be used in separate security status areas, or by having rigs bonuses change depending on its parent hull location.
i think sec related bonuses or restrictions on rigs is rather odd and questionable way of buffing 0.0/lowsec. i think a size restriction is perhaps a simpler way of doing this.
high sec - L size limit 0.0/lowsec - can use XL and the hull bonuses should be the of the XL being bigger than the L should be the buff
OR maybe have special variations that are only usable in 0.0/lowsec.
on observatory structures, im assuming there for 0.0, but perhaps having NPC versions in high sec too take over from stations in regard for locator agents, thus in a war (assuming an alt isn't used) would involve some risk being in space too use them. also it would be nice too see more structures in high sec space in general especially as 0.0 will have the vast majority of them.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic, nerf sentries.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
124
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:50:20 -
[42] - Quote
So we get all of this on the next downtime right?
RIGHT?!
I neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed this in my life right now!!!
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with valid a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
1322
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:55:58 -
[43] - Quote
I have a few questions.
1. Wh deployment / sizes allowed. 2.. Defenses. Currently there are major deathstars protecting the larger investments, how will we protect our investments now with only 8 guns? Are there plans for mobile sentry structures or something like that? 3. What bonuses will the base platform give to defenses? looking at that test set up, it looks like fodder for a group of bombers. 4. High sec, low sec, null, and wh space. What will be allowed what wont be allowed? 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. 6. Can I has them now please? 7. How you doin?
Why Can't I have a picture signature.
Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
4717
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 16:58:58 -
[44] - Quote
Not so much worried about the transition of structures, as ONCE AGAIN losing billions of ISK countless amount of time researching structure BPO, and making copies.
CCP, please, I beg you, come up with a better way to transition BPO / BPC than just deleting them!
|
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
221
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:06:00 -
[45] - Quote
An enormous +1 from all of this from us. It sounds like corporation roles & permissions in conjunction with POS use will be fixed at the same time. So wonderful news. Possibility of outposts in high sec sounds like great fun. I love the corpse covered billboards idea as well. Will the 'heavy drilling' be available in all areas including high sec systems ?
The industry expansion made use of POSes for science and industry largely redundant - we alone have billions in POS infrastructure lying dormant in hangars. So if all this comes to pass I think it will make POSes viable again not just for industry but for other............'stuff' as well.
" 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. ' .
|
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:06:05 -
[46] - Quote
Obsidian Hawk wrote: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'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? |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
221
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:14:13 -
[47] - Quote
Jason Bouchard wrote:Omega Tron wrote: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 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. Samsara Toldya wrote: Vulnerable to entosis links... would entosis trigger CONCORD when used without a wardec in highsec? Will there be a 4h prime-time, too?
^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.
POCO themselves are always being destroyed but I doubt there is that much ambushing of haulers emptying POCOs.
The likes of Shadow Cartel etc are going to love this though as it will enable them to fully lockdown planets.
" 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. ' .
|
MuppetsSlayed
Great White North Productions Northern Associates.
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:14:46 -
[48] - Quote
I want to reiterate a point someone else mentioned.
A lot of indy characters build stuff they cant fly. In eve we have always had to run multi accounts to get anywhere.
With the new mechanics about destructable outposts, etc. How they hell do our indy toons loot what they cant fly?
Is there any thought beign put into the fact that most of us are two, three or four characters in game. And we need our "group" of characters to be able to loot our wreck cans.
Some thought needs to be put into how you allow a designated person, or your corp/alliance to help loot your stuff. Or you will be introducing a scenario where an indy toon in zero must be able to fly what they build or be at a disadvantage. This is somethign that I see favoring older toons with many years of skill points who are likely to be less specialised than younger characters. |
22000
Wraithguard. Dirt Nap Squad.
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:21:05 -
[49] - Quote
Wow Amazing |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
1322
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:24:23 -
[50] - Quote
Rainus Max wrote:Obsidian Hawk wrote: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'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 dont think outposts will be removed, if they are they will probably be converted to XL facilities free of charge, but hard to say with CCP. These guys are replacing pos towers, so there will be a need for an outpost still as is.
Why Can't I have a picture signature.
Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
|
|
Ethikos
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
49
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:27:25 -
[51] - Quote
First, I would like say that I am very, very excited about the direction CCP is taking with these structure concepts. My gaming background and favorite type of game prior to finding EvE was 4x Strategy Games such as Civilization. I have always looked at EvE as the greatest example of this type of game when viewed from the 10,000 Foot level.
Your organization / group being representative of the "player" in the classic 4x Strategy Game. You have individuals, resources, and abilities to utilize as you seek to accomplish your goals. The truly awesome part though, is that unlike 4x Games each "unit" or function is a real player or preformed by a real player. Thus adding in all the meta that makes EvE so addicting.
What has been missing in the past is the ability to truly develop your space. You can plant a structure or two, but you cant build up a system like you could build up a city or planet in a 4x Game. CCP is now working to give us that ability with what looks like some truly valuable bonuses / abilities that come from building up your system. In addition, it gives you a reason to truly care about a given system.
If you have decided to stage out of System "X" and spent the time to fully develop it, losing "X" should hurt. It should go beyond having to re-stage everyone out of a new system and all the fun that comes with moving massive amounts of people / ships. It should reflect the pain that comes from your losing a main city / base / planet in a 4x game. Conversely, the defense / manufacturing / etc bonuses for building up System "X" should justify all the effort invested and possible risk involved.
From what I could tell, that is the direction CCP is trying to go and I am very excited about it. I believe it will add in whole aspects of game play, both on the tactical and on the strategic level. Combine this with the new Sov Mechanics and I am very excited to see how EvE moves forward. Sorry for the wall of text, but believe something as deep and far reaching as these changes deserves it.
Station Destruction: I understand the need to reach a happy medium when looking at something as far reaching as Station Destruction. Personally I would like it work just like losing your ship does (random variable on what drops). However, I can very easily understand why that could be sub-optimal from a game design standpoint. CCP seems to be working on a happy medium by dividing between sub-caps and capitals / supers. Sub-caps safe while capitals / supers are up for grabs.
I would offer an option to take this a step further. You have a station and your basing out of it. It gets taken and destroyed. A wreck appears with all the sub-caps / stuff safely inside (caps and supers already up for grabs per current thoughts). A timer then starts on that wreck. You have say two weeks to get back there get some of your stuff out. At the end of two weeks, your other stuff is now up for grabs.
This could work with either the wreck or the stuff in orbit around planet idea. Frankly I like the idea of the stuff in orbit around planets more if the timer idea is accepted (station explosion threw stuff out into space). That way the conquerors have to put some effort into locking down the whole system and scanning down all the containers. While the defeated guys have some hope of getting their stuff back instead of having to converge on a single wreck.
Sniggwaffe (Waffles)
|
Adrian Dixon
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction -affliction-
161
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:31:04 -
[52] - Quote
To me this seems really exciting and well thought out. Some people already mentioned concerns over valuable researched blueprints of current structures. |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:32:57 -
[53] - Quote
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. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
222
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:40:53 -
[54] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote: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.
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.
" 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. ' .
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
238
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:42:31 -
[55] - Quote
With regards destruction of structures and what happens to assets;
Have you considered simply letting anyone salvage/loot from the wreck (going back to controlling the space around it), but in parallel, expanding the role of insurance, so players could pay a premium to provide some cover for assets stowed in the structure?
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Henry Montclaire
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
157
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:44:37 -
[56] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:"#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.
Something to consider though. If you allow the owners sole salvaging rights, they still need to evacuate those assets after the fact. So there is still risk, if the attacker maintains military dominance in the region they can ambush salvage convoys and wreak havoc. If the defenders manage to muster a successful defense fleet for their convoys and salvage without getting attacked they deserve to get those assets out safely.
Now instead of one all-or-nothing battle over a station, you have two! One to defend the station itself, and one over its salvage.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
893
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:45:12 -
[57] - Quote
As observed by others, there are a host of issues associated with the destructible stations, but the way you are implementing sounds like you are taking a step in the right direction.
With that said, if I have to take an extended break from Eve, for any reason, I guess I will be loading everything I own into an NPC station. Warping back to the same spot repeatedly to recover multiple capital ships and thousands of cubic meters worth of stuff is not going to end well if anyone competent is watching.
Personally, I would completely remove all existing outposts (refunding the costs to the current owners by giving them the egg for the new version). Then set up a one time transfer option per character for all assets located in a player outpost. This option would apply the first time the character logged in to the game under the new system. Upon logging in, they could designate one station (in low security or 0.0 space) to move all their stuff from all their outposts.
Such a massive reset would create an interesting "gold rush" or "Oklahoma Sooners" situation as players worked to reestablish a space empire.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
891
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:48:06 -
[58] - Quote
Very interesting read. Thank you. Many of these concepts are pretty well thought out so far. I really like the "Acquisition" section as it stands to make the structures useable by the "purchaser"; something that has been missing in wspace since forever.
I'm also very, very interesting to know more about the possible changes/effects these new structures will bring to information gathering/warfare/etc.
Thank you.
I'm right behind you
|
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:52:44 -
[59] - Quote
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:Cr Turist wrote: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. 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.
let me be a little more clear. i am saying it be used for bridging, getting safe, and organization. in no way should it be used for off-grid boosting. |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
845
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 17:57:50 -
[60] - Quote
One thing that I would like to see is overview availability of structures BASED ON STANDINGS. As in, you can warp to a structure without having to scan it down or get a bookmark if its configured to allow you based on being in a corp/alliance or having standings. If you DONT have standings to see it from anywhere in system, you've gotta probe that **** down yourself or get a bookmark. AN EXAMPLE: I decide I want a base of operations for just me. I anchor a personal large "station thing" or whatever, and set it to personal use, and use personal standings to decide who can access it. Since I only have my alts set to personal +10, this new structure shows up on all their overviews anywhere they are in system, and lets them warp to, dock, moor supers/caps, and access everything in and on it. Nobody else in my alliance, corporation, or any other randoms can see this structure if they aren't on grid or running combat probes. That's the vision I'm seeing. I want that. Give that.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
|
|
Hali-Marmora
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:04:32 -
[61] - Quote
What about worm hole space? |
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
116
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:09:29 -
[62] - Quote
Awesome stuff! The concept sounds really interesting and i think you are heading the right way.
The only thing i disagree with, is point 6. "Fate of stored items on structure destruction"
First of all, having the option between the "Wreck" and the "Container" method, i think the first one is far better. When destroyed, the structure breaks into several pieces, each becoming a lootable wreck. But, in my opinion, they should be lootable by everyone, not just the owners. This would be a great opportunity to provide potential for conflict and additional fighting.
Quote:Player docked inside the structure would be spread around the solar system Only players, that are currently online and docked? What about those players, who docked at that station and logged off?
Just off the top of my head, but i could imagine some kind of emergency eject from station. Before destruction the station ejects all docked active players in their currently boarded ships, to prevent them from certain death. If you are in a capsule your pod will be emergency evacuated and shot out in space to a random point in the system. Offline players logging in would also spawn in a random spot in system, but in their pods (actually not sure about this point )
Anyway, good job CCP and keep up the good work! |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3740
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:12:10 -
[63] - Quote
Hey guys,
Just quickly coming in here to say thanks for the feedback, we're hyped for those new structures as well. We'll have a detailed pass at your comments on Monday, and we'll also start creating threads in the Features & Ideas discussion part of the forum to gather more specific comments on each type of structure, or on individual features, like mooring.
We've also received a good chunk of awesome feedback from the round table at Fanfest, let's put all of that to use and work together to get your guys proper structures. |
|
Lord Battlestar
Faulcon de Lazy
210
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:13:38 -
[64] - Quote
Looks promising but I will wait before more information is out. This could go either way really easy.
I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
|
luobote kong
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:13:51 -
[65] - Quote
In your slide you said one of the goals was that
"Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: ..."
Does this mean solo players will be able to do this or will the corp restriction remain? |
Vol Arm'OOO
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
374
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:17:01 -
[66] - Quote
It seems to me that there is not enough room for asshatry. Either you are moored to the structure or docked - either way you are 100% safe unless the structure is destroyed - which for larger structures is likely to be rare and for the smaller pos like structures will still take a considerable fleet. There should be room for people to make dumb decisions and for activities such as bumping from forcefields - the game design should not promote near perfect safety.
Also the pos redesign seems lacking - Right now - there is some thought put into pos design, e.g. guns on the bottom or top or balanced all around? This leads to strategic decisions as to how to attack pos - for instance you can attck from the top and be out of range of the guns on the bottom, etc.... Now the Pos is just being turned into just another red + to shoot. So all of the strategic decisions are being removed with nothing new added - seems to be just a needless dumbing down.
Finally structure management should not be too perfect - there should be room for corp theft.
I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
|
Alain Colcer
Agiolet Security and Logistics
130
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:19:12 -
[67] - Quote
everything looks great!,
but please avoid using the word "rig" for a type of upgrade that fine tunes the behavior of the structure..
Instead try to make "crews", hired personnel that are assigned to a structure. And that way you have combat gunners, manufacturing specialists, enginner support, traders, scientists...etc....might finally give a use to all those "homeless" market items we have lying around. |
CompleteFailure
DAWGS Corp. Phoebe Freeport Republic
223
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:19:44 -
[68] - Quote
luobote kong wrote:In your slide you said one of the goals was that
"Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: ..."
Does this mean solo players will be able to do this or will the corp restriction remain?
Try actually reading the dev blog:
Quote: We donGÇÖt want to force the user to select which group they wish to use it for before deploying anymore. Instead, we want the user to make a conscious choice after it has been deployed, and decide if they want personal, corporation, alliance or public use. ThatGÇÖs right, we want those structures to be used for the wider audience, so if you wish to establish your own Market Hub somewhere, make it open to everyone and set your taxes to be shamelessly expensive go right ahead. In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use.
|
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
117
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:25:40 -
[69] - Quote
Obsidian Hawk wrote:Defenses. Currently there are major deathstars protecting the larger investments, how will we protect our investments now with only 8 guns? Well, at this point, you can't tell how powerfull or effective those guns will be. 8 might be plenty enough.
Drones could be an interesting approach too. A POS ejecting a swarm of drones
Alain Colcer wrote:but please avoid using the word "rig" for a type of upgrade that fine tunes the behavior of the structure..
Instead try to make "crews", hired personnel that are assigned to a structure. And that way you have combat gunners, manufacturing specialists, enginner support, traders, scientists...etc....might finally give a use to all those "homeless" market items we have lying around. That sounds like an interesting idea and i think might be worth to think about. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
727
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:26:27 -
[70] - Quote
Stick to your guns in terms of letting people put these things anywhere, including hisec, do not listen to people who do not want people to be able to put Administration HQ's in hisec. If I want to do that then why not... Why all this Grrr hisec?
I hope and expect that all these structures can be used in WH's, though of course wonders about NPC agents in WH stations, seems a bit odd, but no big beef on my part.
The destruction of stations is a tricky one, the realities of this along with the issues of time zone requiring TZ play cannot be ignored, we all like realism, but we have to accept that this is a game not RL. That being said there is of course risk management, you should only put into stations what you need, in reality that was always the case when you went to 0.0, though after a while bloat sets in... I like the suggestions that you have come out with here in terms of access to your stuff, but people have made a point in terms of ships that they have made but are not able to fly, but they will need to be in fleet with someone who can fly them and so easy to deal with. I think your suggestion works for me and is what I would define at just the right level of hand holding.
The changes will really open up the game, this is damn exciting and all credit to you CCP.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1754
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:28:19 -
[71] - Quote
one more thing:
do you really think it's a good idea to keep manufacturing and reprocessing separate ?
countless freighter runs are not exiting for anyone involved. period.
there really should be a way to move things from the best available reprocessing thing to the best available manufacturing thing without boring someone to death.
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
Mnemonyss
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:28:58 -
[72] - Quote
If the new structures are fittable, will they also have drone bays and allow for drones to be deployed when under attack? |
Kel'Taran
Lightfoot Pestisss and Blake Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:30:53 -
[73] - Quote
So with the Large size structures (New POS) only being attackable via entosis (look at the pics in the blog attack method all says entosis) you have gone and taken away the primary use for dreads once new sov goes into effect and carriers have no more repping use either.
|
Mnemonyss
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:32:36 -
[74] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:one more thing:
do you really think it's a good idea to keep manufacturing and reprocessing separate ?
countless freighter runs are not exiting for anyone involved. period.
there really should be a way to move things from the best available reprocessing thing to the best available manufacturing thing without boring someone to death.
I think it would be more beneficial to be able to manufacture and reprocess within close proximity or same station. Maybe not best available in one station as that might not be balanced enough, but at least give the option. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
239
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:38:28 -
[75] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote: Also the pos redesign seems lacking - Right now - there is some thought put into pos design, e.g. guns on the bottom or top or balanced all around? This leads to strategic decisions as to how to attack pos - for instance you can attck from the top and be out of range of the guns on the bottom, etc.... Now the Pos is just being turned into just another red + to shoot. So all of the strategic decisions are being removed with nothing new added - seems to be just a needless dumbing down.
Sadly it doesn't work like that; turret fire is calculated as though from the control tower, hence why blaster batteries are pointless.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:40:38 -
[76] - Quote
One of the great things about last year's changes to highsec POSes (dropping the standings requirement and the sec system restriction) was the quick and simple nomadic lifestyle made possible for otherwise cumbersome occupations like light manufacturing and mining groups.
Retain this so we continue to feel like all of Eve is at our disposal.
Otherwise, very exciting possibilities.
New Eden Mining Blog
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2064
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:43:58 -
[77] - Quote
Great stuff. Will be fun to test once it hits sisi
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Brain Gehirn
Reikoku Pandemic Legion
69
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:46:00 -
[78] - Quote
Questions:
- How are you going to handle multiple structures affecting the same system wide effects? - How are you going to deal with the amount of structures in space that this is going to generate? (imagine systems near Jita.. the amount of structures on each) - Why the total removal of the shield forcefield? This is still better than mooring for supercaps unless you want they all to die at some point - What is the strategical benefit of this system over the old system in combat situations? - What is the limit of on grid structures? Otherwise we could just build a giant lag city of hell to protect ourselfs since there is no forcefield - How would you handle the pain that is going to be for players if we start to spam systems with little market hubs? Am I going to warp 20 times inside the same system to fit a ship? - Why a player will prefer the new system over outposts since his itens are (by far) better 'defended' inside outposts? Isnt this going to nerf nullsec A LOT instead of making people a little more happier?
What is a signature?
|
Ix Method
Guilty Pleasures
425
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:48:25 -
[79] - Quote
I love you all for this.
Just wanted to say that.
Travelling at the speed of love.
|
Zuel Aaoiric
Obsidian Oracle
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:48:34 -
[80] - Quote
This is exciting news! I beg you, CCP to hear my plea. Let the deployment of these types of structures be done by "tug boats" or special mobility modules. This may sound crazy, but the idea that we could have these new structures as a galactic command ship with an independently functional manufacturing capacity and military hub as you migrate from space to space. The one thing Wormholes had the capacity to do was to open a universe of exploration. What it has become is a new dimension of the old world, which is traversed nearly as regularly - leaving no more room from exploration. Give us the chance to drift a bit. We don't need planets and solar systems... we can use comets and spacial anomalies to subsist with. Give us something to discover. Eve needs more game play and not just reworking of the old stuff. This may not be a complete idea but it has potential. Like it and make adjustments and expansions to the idea, but don't let it die! |
|
Ren Oren
ArchTech Logistics and Trading
79
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:50:25 -
[81] - Quote
hackerus wrote:Im posting this on one of my indy toons cause they are the one affected.
I have 30 carriers on market and 10 in build. Most of them I cant fly. Ive also got 33 million m3 in my hanger
How exactly do I rescue the carriers I have built that are up for sale and 33 million m3 in cargo from a container?
Are indy toons goign to need to fly what they built to rescue it? Why would I build in zero if im going from not risking losing my minerals and stuff for sale if the station is captured to being totally screwed.
Are you trying to prevent people building in zero to encourage it?
Risk reward |
Justa Hunni
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:51:27 -
[82] - Quote
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)? |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1107
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:55:54 -
[83] - Quote
on the stations destruction you were talking about only the owners being able too access the ships/assets from the wreck, i would rather be able as the attacker too get some reward for my effort or whats the point?
- make them hackable like relic sites - make the difficulty very high at least on the more valuable stuff and after 2 failed tries they lock so only the owner can access them.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic, nerf sentries.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Kahawa Oban
New Groton Industrial Works
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 18:58:03 -
[84] - Quote
This looks great. I will be looking forward to the individual threads coming out next week.
And thank you for this: Adding a mini-game to deploy Starbase structures and link them together was not something with enough perceived value to pursue. |
Ren Oren
ArchTech Logistics and Trading
79
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:00:00 -
[85] - Quote
MuppetsSlayed wrote:I want to reiterate a point someone else mentioned.
A lot of indy characters build stuff they cant fly. In eve we have always had to run multi accounts to get anywhere.
With the new mechanics about destructable outposts, etc. How they hell do our indy toons loot what they cant fly?
Is there any thought beign put into the fact that most of us are two, three or four characters in game. And we need our "group" of characters to be able to loot our wreck cans.
Some thought needs to be put into how you allow a designated person, or your corp/alliance to help loot your stuff. Or you will be introducing a scenario where an indy toon in zero must be able to fly what they build or be at a disadvantage. This is somethign that I see favoring older toons with many years of skill points who are likely to be less specialised than younger characters.
... ask a friend who can... maybe? |
adriaans
Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:01:48 -
[86] - Quote
Everything seems amazing with the exception of one thing, the datacore bit...
Is this all going to be fueled by fuel blocks? because surely that is going to skyrocket fuel prices?
----True oldschool solo pvp'er----
My latest vid: Insanity IV
|
Cervix Thumper
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:05:56 -
[87] - Quote
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.
|
Bel Boma
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:09:20 -
[88] - Quote
I'm disappointed to see that these new station mechanics don't come with a little WiS. This seems like the perfect time, place, and content to slip WiS in. |
luobote kong
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:10:41 -
[89] - Quote
CompleteFailure wrote:luobote kong wrote:In your slide you said one of the goals was that
"Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: ..."
Does this mean solo players will be able to do this or will the corp restriction remain? Try actually reading the dev blog: Quote: We donGÇÖt want to force the user to select which group they wish to use it for before deploying anymore. Instead, we want the user to make a conscious choice after it has been deployed, and decide if they want personal, corporation, alliance or public use. ThatGÇÖs right, we want those structures to be used for the wider audience, so if you wish to establish your own Market Hub somewhere, make it open to everyone and set your taxes to be shamelessly expensive go right ahead. In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use.
Erm.. I did. But what I haven't seen explicitly said is whether the user that deploys the structure can be a solo player or indeed can't be. Just seeking a clarification. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1051
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:13:19 -
[90] - Quote
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.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1051
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:15:24 -
[91] - Quote
luobote kong wrote:CompleteFailure wrote:luobote kong wrote:In your slide you said one of the goals was that
"Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: ..."
Does this mean solo players will be able to do this or will the corp restriction remain? Try actually reading the dev blog: Quote: We donGÇÖt want to force the user to select which group they wish to use it for before deploying anymore. Instead, we want the user to make a conscious choice after it has been deployed, and decide if they want personal, corporation, alliance or public use. ThatGÇÖs right, we want those structures to be used for the wider audience, so if you wish to establish your own Market Hub somewhere, make it open to everyone and set your taxes to be shamelessly expensive go right ahead. In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use.
Erm.. I did. But what I haven't seen explicitly said is whether the user that deploys the structure can be a solo player or indeed can't be. Just seeking a clarification.
Our current thinking is you cannot be in an NPC corp because you need to be able to declare war against the owner.
However we want people to be able to deploy personal use only towers from within any player corporation.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
JTK Fotheringham
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
92
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:20:15 -
[92] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.
Thanks for this clarification. Happier now.
Looking forward to that discussion. |
stoicfaux
5526
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:22:38 -
[93] - Quote
I'm confused. The entire Game of Drones team left CCP, has been working on a new MMO for a new publisher, and made the hugest screw-up possible by posting design notes on their old employer's (that would be CCP's) website?!?
I want to play GoD's new MMO. When's the beta?
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Demyen
Araata-Teiva Kamloss
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:24:18 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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: a NPC convoy would spawn and manually move to the destination, being highly susceptible to disruption from other player groups
Holycrap yes. Interbus shipping, and done in a realistic way that's not just magic teleportation! |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:29:54 -
[95] - Quote
This...makes me very sad in several ways.
I mean, I guess you can't please everyone, but I think you're missing some MAJOR player issues here and not realizing it. As always, my post might be a bit long, but I hope it adds something for you to maybe consider?
.
The Good:
1) I like the new system having a lot more types of structures. This is pretty sweet. I see administration structures which seem like a combination POS/Station/TCU, a POCO/Station(Corp offices/cloning facilities), etc. I really think that's a cool idea since it's one of the cool things about the Deployables having so many types.
2) I also like that it looks like you want to give players the option to build truly massive and monumental structures.
3) The new fitting system seems kind of cool and intuitive, at least the High/Medium/Low slots. I'm not quite sure I understand the S slots - are you saying to upgrade some things we have to kill our ability to do other things? That sucks...but I'll get to more why in just a sec.
4) It looks like we might finally be able to get away from moons...like the NPCs have been doing for YEARS. If only we could gate the entrances making people have to fly there manually. :p |
luobote kong
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:30:28 -
[96] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:luobote kong wrote:CompleteFailure wrote:luobote kong wrote:In your slide you said one of the goals was that
"Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: ..."
Does this mean solo players will be able to do this or will the corp restriction remain? Try actually reading the dev blog: Quote: We donGÇÖt want to force the user to select which group they wish to use it for before deploying anymore. Instead, we want the user to make a conscious choice after it has been deployed, and decide if they want personal, corporation, alliance or public use. ThatGÇÖs right, we want those structures to be used for the wider audience, so if you wish to establish your own Market Hub somewhere, make it open to everyone and set your taxes to be shamelessly expensive go right ahead. In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use.
Erm.. I did. But what I haven't seen explicitly said is whether the user that deploys the structure can be a solo player or indeed can't be. Just seeking a clarification. Our current thinking is you cannot be in an NPC corp because you need to be able to declare war against the owner. However we want people to be able to deploy personal use only towers from within any player corporation.
Thanks for the clarification. If that thinking holds then actually this is disappointing as it isn't much of a change at all. |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:30:41 -
[97] - Quote
The Bad:
1) While the new system seems to be bringing more TYPES, it seems to be eliminating the GRANULARITY. See, under the system now, I would take POCOs and TCU/IHUBs and set them to the side of the equation scale. Each has a particularly defined and narrow function. What we really have to look at here are Deployables, POSes (Starbases), and Stations/Outposts. Right now, I can launch a Mobile Depot for myself (aggravatingly, I can't give friends a password so they can use it...), a Small POS for specialized missions or for a small/poor/fledgling Corporation, a Medium POS for more expansive capabilities and a well off Corp or even small Alliance, a Large POS for a small Alliance and for large scale projects, and there is some type advantages based on which Racial POS you go with. Finally, for medium sized Alliances, there are Outposts - for large Alliances, they just build several dozen.
...the new system seems to be discarding this granularity entirely. There will be MDs still, of course, but you seem to be getting rid of POSes, if I'm reading this right. You'll have some combination MD+X structures, MD+POCO, MD+Manufacturing, etc, but no more POSes. And in the place of POSes, everything will be HUGE. No more Small or Medium options. The size alone will be massive, with, again, no granularity. Likewise, you have Outposts...but again, just one size - HUGE.
Not everyone is overcompensating for something. Some of us like smaller things. And there's something cool about the POS shield and being able to sort of build your little town - the main issue with POSes is how little anyone other than Corp bosses gets to play with them.
But as a person who has an alt in a small Corp which is trying to set up our first (Small) POS, hearing that this is going away and all we'll have is massive structures with no shields and no ability to lay out the structures in 3-space to our liking...this is very, very saddening.
Worse, while the present system could do with a "Mega Outpost" for large Alliances to have some fun with, the Small/Medium/Large gameplay is nice. PLEASE keep this or integrate this in the new system in some way!!!!
2) To expand on 3) in the Good, sometimes, and this is particularly important for small Alliances, you need a small facility that will do a little of everything. Max specialization and efficiency isn't the goal, ability to cover all your bases is. Later on, as/if you grow, you can then put out more facilities ans specialize. Specialization leads to increased efficiency and economies of scale, but that's only something you CAN do once you've grown to that size.
...by removing the generalization ability of structures, you're kicking small groups in the shins and preventing them from being able to grow organically over time. It basically means that a small group will have to sit in High Sec for a lot longer trying to recruit up numbers, or join up with a big blue doughnut to get the numbers to get into the structure game. And, again, this is very very sad.
PLEASE reconsider here. I agree that specialization should (as it does now) add benefits. However, you shouldn't make it where people CAN'T be inefficient. Inefficient is necessary for small things that need to grow. Whether children, learning new things, or starting a new group - inefficiency is a necessary first step to grow into something that is more efficient and powerful later.
.
Since it's easy to criticize but to execute you need ideas and suggestions, here are mine:
1) Having the ability to make supermassive things is cool - but don't overlook the builders in the sandbox that want to build a fort instead of a castle! Can you not leave in Small/Medium/Large POSes and possibly institute two types of Outposts? You can add in an X-Large POS if you really want something with that greater size (as well as adjust the structure sizes of the existing Large and Medium somewhat), and all existing Outposts would be the regular variety with the Super Outpost being an entirely new thing (complete with bragging rights when CFC or N3 build their first one). Balance and tuning and all that, but KEEP the granularity! It's a great thing, why break it when you can build/add TO it?
2) Reconsider the shields. Shields are pretty.
3) While making specialization more attractive is good, allow generalization (at much lower levels of efficiency) to stay in the game. Read the description of the Celestis sometime - there are a lot of small Corps and Alliances that need structures that meet that same goal. (I don't remember the exact wording, it's something like "Small Corporations who have limited resources like the Celestis because it's adaptable and relatively inexpensive.)
.
Thanks for your time!
(Sorry for double post, even though I had 12 characters left, it said I was over the limit. XD)
Hope this feedback - positive, negative, and suggestions - can be useful. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
136
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:35:50 -
[98] - Quote
Dev blog mentions entosis-only capture mechanic for L-size structures and damage-only for M-size.
Does it mean you have to babysit those structures 24/7 since there's no reinforce mentioned anywhere? |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:38:44 -
[99] - Quote
i have waited years.... and... its finnaly almost here.. Q~Q |
Madd Adda
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:40:56 -
[100] - Quote
Quote: 5. Housing
Proper housing of player items and ships is a critical must-have if we wish those structures to be used over NPC stations.
the issues with not using NPC stations is the destructibility of player made structures and the looting of assets. As it stands, NPC stations are nigh invulnerable and players can't steal from you from within stations.
Is CCP going to impose limits on what can be stored in NPC stations to force us to buy into this?
Also will the housing structures require fuel to remain online and charter sheet in order to be used in high?
Carebear extraordinaire
|
|
Javani
Low-Sec Survival Ltd.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:48:50 -
[101] - Quote
Obsidian Hawk wrote:I have a few questions.
1. Wh deployment / sizes allowed. 2.. Defenses. Currently there are major deathstars protecting the larger investments, how will we protect our investments now with only 8 guns? Are there plans for mobile sentry structures or something like that? 3. What bonuses will the base platform give to defenses? looking at that test set up, it looks like fodder for a group of bombers. 4. High sec, low sec, null, and wh space. What will be allowed what wont be allowed? 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. 6. Can I has them now please? 7. How you doin?
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 |
Candente
Navy Veteran Club
39
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:49:33 -
[102] - Quote
Congratulations to all who made this happening. Another new chapter for Eve. |
Morgana Tsukiyo
Samsara Dynamics
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:50:39 -
[103] - Quote
Now that-¦s the game i-¦ve been wanting to play! Good Job, put those on SiSi asap! |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:53:38 -
[104] - Quote
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? |
Redbull Spai
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:56:40 -
[105] - Quote
Quote:Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way.
Looking at the proposed system, it looks exactly like the current system - completely the opposite of this statement.
Under the current system, only the 0.1% of corp members with *POS Roles* get ANY content WHATSOEVER. The other 99.9% get absolutely ZERO content as regards player-owned structures. Under the new system, it looks the same - POS Role players get all the content, POS Role players are the only ones that can drop/fit the new structures, POS Role players are the only ones that decide where and who manufacturing can occur ect.
And please dont say start your own corp and give yourself POS Roles (or whatever it is going to be called), if your not an established corp in an established alliance with the members to defend such structures, you will get rolled over into dust.
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1746
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:58:04 -
[106] - 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? You can say the same about supercaps... depending what the changes to them will be
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Iosue
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
289
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:00:39 -
[107] - Quote
love what i'm seeing so far. need to spend a little time thinking some of the details over, but i really like the improvement goals driving the changes. this will have a big impact on industry both manufacturing and game play mechanics in general and i'm glad for this progress on that front, CCP. can't wait to see more, please keep the info coming. |
Iosue
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
289
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:01:58 -
[108] - Quote
Iosue wrote:love what i'm seeing so far. need to spend a little time thinking some of the details over, but i really like the improvement goals driving the changes. this will have a big impact on industry both manufacturing and game play mechanics in general and i'm glad for this progress on that front, CCP. can't wait to see more, please keep the info coming.
edit: also looking forward to reading dev feedback to responses here. |
Madd Adda
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:03:55 -
[109] - Quote
Iosue wrote:Iosue wrote:love what i'm seeing so far. need to spend a little time thinking some of the details over, but i really like the improvement goals driving the changes. this will have a big impact on industry both manufacturing and game play mechanics in general and i'm glad for this progress on that front, CCP. can't wait to see more, please keep the info coming. edit: also looking forward to reading dev feedback to responses here.
you could have just edited your first post.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:04:10 -
[110] - Quote
Seems cool. Will upgrades/rigs/services in the new structures depend on sov upgrades in nullsec?
CEO Svea Rike
|
|
RazorDreamz
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:09:27 -
[111] - Quote
I love where this is going!
I would love to see stations that are building ships to have visual of what they are building. So if your building a carrier for instance it should show a carrier moored and under construction. Not sure if this is can be reasonably applied for sub-caps but I think for caps it would help provide more interesting game-play via spying on stations and launching an attack for instance when you see a titan under construction. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1755
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:17:22 -
[112] - Quote
Redbull Spai wrote:Quote:Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. Looking at the proposed system, it looks exactly like the current system - completely the opposite of this statement. Under the current system, only the 0.1% of corp members with *POS Roles* get ANY content WHATSOEVER. The other 99.9% get absolutely ZERO content as regards player-owned structures. Under the new system, it looks the same - POS Role players get all the content, POS Role players are the only ones that can drop/fit the new structures, POS Role players are the only ones that decide where and who manufacturing can occur ect. And please dont say start your own corp and give yourself POS Roles (or whatever it is going to be called), if your not an established corp in an established alliance with the members to defend such structures, you will get rolled over into dust.
the reason that only players with pos roles get to play with them is very simple. pos roles are an all or nothing thing. someone who can build a ****** small mining tower can also offline the 5 CSAAs with titans in build.
this looks like that's going to change. you can now decide that peter, bob and anne get to play with mining towers, while only alex is allowed to screw with the titans in build.
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1706
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:18:26 -
[113] - 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.
What about outpost upgrades?
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1746
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:18:57 -
[114] - Quote
Will it mean removal of racial diversity like POSes and Fuels(Isotopes) ? Will you introduce new materials to make those structures ? It will require a lot of new skills counted 16 new skills if correct.... or it will go down to one per structure type/tree ?
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Sky Cloud Austrene
KISIN Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:19:33 -
[115] - Quote
5 questions/points to raise;
1) What becomes of the Anchoring & Starbase Defence skills ? How will they be impacted by the changes.
2) Will faction standings have any bearing on the ability & bonus's to use the new structures in high sec ?
Quote: Acquisition We want to significantly unify and improve structure acquisition as a whole. As such they will involve:
Acquiring the blueprint original (seeded on markets for Tech I variants). If Faction or Tech II variations are released, they will be available through loot and Invention respectively. Manufacturing the item from the blueprint. Deploying the structure in space by drag and dropping it. The interface should be clear enough to tell you if there are location restrictions and where to go to avoid them. We donGÇÖt want to force the user to select which group they wish to use it for before deploying anymore. Instead, we want the user to make a conscious choice after it has been deployed, and decide if they want personal, corporation, alliance or public use. ThatGÇÖs right, we want those structures to be used for the wider audience, so if you wish to establish your own Market Hub somewhere, make it open to everyone and set your taxes to be shamelessly expensive go right ahead. In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use.
3) In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use. That right there is the key part. Under the current system individuals are denied from having their own POS's ect unless they have both trained skills and are grabted the roles by their Corp CEO or Directors before hand to be able to use these things or unless they form their own alt corp to be able to do so. So, What stops a Corp CEO or director in giving individuals roles, the individual gose buys/manufactures/ships these proposed structures and deploys them for the intent of personal use, only then for a Corp CEO or director, to simply remove roles and screw you over ? Thats not a fantasy senario, I have had it happen to me under the current system with POS's Just sayin, that a players ability to use these things should not be governed by the corp management roles, if a play invests the time in training skills to use be able to make & manage these things, then the player should not be confined by corporation controls, but maybe corps/alliances could instead impose taxes. That would help corps and alliances gain a source of alternate income whilst freeing individuals to use them. Should a individual go against corp or alliance policy, the corp/alliance would still be able to see what and where the structure is thru the management window and take action to kill it or kick the individual.
4) Quote:Fate of stored items on structure destruction This sounds like a bad idea. Can totally see this being exploited by hell camps of stealth bombers. Why not just relocate all assets to a NPC station ?.
5) 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.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
523
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:21:50 -
[116] - Quote
Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.
By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even stealing effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
741
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:21:53 -
[117] - Quote
These changes look awesome, but leave me with two concerns:
Compensation for people who own starbases (that arent in space) when starbases are finally removed, and decay, the pictures in the blog show decay timers, will those impact XL deployables? Because if so that will be a problem if they are to replace outposts in the long haul.
What kind of compensation will there be for starbase owners (if any), and will XL structures decay?
Overall, I cant wait for the day I can have a personal pseudo-station somewhere without fear of theft, and the removal of the moon requirement makes these structures incredibly promising.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1888
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:27:12 -
[118] - Quote
I'm worried about highsec game play because of the comment that structure wrecks would only be looted by the owner. You absolutely need to ensure that highsec structures can be destroyed and looted. Otherwise you remove the only risk of the current system which is wardecs.
There is a lot of game play around people searching out unfuelled or at least undefended towers, deccing and destroying for the loot. It would be a shame for this to go away because it is one of the only significant risk elements of high sec industry.
Please make it so that:
1. Defences power down without fuel to make AFK and lack of planning have consequence. This could be done by having a shield/defence module which consumes fuel blocks. 2. Highsec structure wrecks can be looted by the legitimate aggressor (or anyone for a suspect flag).
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1963
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:31:21 -
[119] - Quote
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. Players should be more effective. (Player skills apply perhaps to add damage/effects).
Fuel use only when doing things with services is a great idea, and will enable especially smaller high sec corps to make more use of structures. Which also puts more assets in space to be attacked in a Wardec meaning there is more reason for a corp to stay together rather than disband and make a new one.
Awesome concept work, would like to see a lot more fill in of the structure list in the medium size as well for small high sec corps to use, as currently most of them seem directed towards Null. |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
161
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:37:57 -
[120] - Quote
Please consider:
If the owner of containers that are injected into space (as a result of structure destruction) does not retrieve them WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME, these containers should become scannable and hackable. This will provide additional and logical game play. The destroyed structure will become a beacon of possible loots to be had for explores as we travel from system to system.
Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE
Check out the Youtube Channel and be sure to subscribe!
|
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1746
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:38:35 -
[121] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I'm worried about highsec game play because of the comment that structure wrecks would only be looted by the owner. You absolutely need to ensure that highsec structures can be destroyed and looted. Otherwise you remove the only risk of the current system which is wardecs.
There is a lot of game play around people searching out unfuelled or at least undefended towers, deccing and destroying for the loot. It would be a shame for this to go away because it is one of the only significant risk elements of high sec industry.
Please make it so that:
1. Defences power down without fuel to make AFK and lack of planning have consequence. This could be done by having a shield/defence module which consumes fuel blocks. 2. Highsec structure wrecks can be looted by the legitimate aggressor (or anyone for a suspect flag). To bad all war are based around griefing.
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Sky Cloud Austrene
KISIN Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:40:22 -
[122] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Initial reply to the Dev blog/snippets from Fanfest.
Awesome concept work, would like to see a lot more fill in of the structure list in the medium size as well for small high sec corps to use, as currently most of them seem directed towards Null.
There is a reason for that. It being, that the current proposed structure changes will have a significant impact on nul & how nul works as well as implications towards sov.
But agree, there should be and probably will be, more stuff for high sec down the track.
|
Madd Adda
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:42:26 -
[123] - Quote
Tzar Sinak wrote:Please consider:
If the owner of containers that are injected into space (as a result of structure destruction) does not retrieve them WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME, these containers should become scannable and hackable. This will provide additional and logical game play. The destroyed structure will become a beacon of possible loots to be had for explores as we travel from system to system.
then won't the containers be camped to hell because the owner would have to come back?
if anything, eject containers that warp to a random location in system. I guess they can be probed but make it so the owner has an actual chance to retrieve the assets rather than just walk right into an ambush. Otherwise it's another "eve favors the aggressors" moment.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2149
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:49:02 -
[124] - Quote
So, are outposts on the way out? It seems like the new system is merging the functionality of the two current structure systems: POS and outposts. And in the blog it mentions no longer being able to plant new outposts.
Do you plan on removing them or letting them die out or what? |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
161
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:49:58 -
[125] - Quote
The owner is given a period of time to retrieve their assets as the dev blog states. During that time the containers are not scannable allowing the owner the opportunity to recover the goods in relative safety.
Now the converse is true. The owner knows what is in the containers and may choose not to recover them. The owner knows when the time elapses and the containers become scannable. The owner can choose to be the one laying the ambush!
To add another twist, allow the owner of a container that is hacked to obtain kill rights on the one taking the contents.
Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE
Check out the Youtube Channel and be sure to subscribe!
|
Poena Loveless
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:52:08 -
[126] - Quote
Peonza Chan wrote:Quote: E. Observatory arrays ... act as solar system wide D-scan blockers ...
I hope you are not considering to bring this into WHs I hope they aren't planning on bringing this to EVE period.
D-scan is vital for players finding each other.
While the overall direction you are going in is good, I think pretty much every suggestion for "Observatory arrays" so far is horrible.
Blocking star map filters (namely the data of contextual player activity they provide) and blocking D-scan is a really bad idea. In a game built around the vastness of (mostly empty) space, we need tools that encourage people to find each other and give us the tools and mechanics to do so.
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:52:24 -
[127] - Quote
How are the skills going to work, are we going to have to train up a whole lot of new expensive and time consuming skills now to do these new structures? Please say no.
Also, tower loots? Currently there is incentive to war-dec and kill towers to get their loots....seems like this will be gone if either of the main ideas means we can't get it.. |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
161
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:55:29 -
[128] - Quote
Idea: There will be structures that can affect the ability to cloak and using D scan. Could these structures also improve the ability to scan with both combat and core probes? Say, improve strength, speed, resolution.
Conversely, the structure could be set to inhibit the ability for it and nearby structures to be discovered.
Since these structures can now be deployed anywhere within a system this could allow for forward staging bases for invasion, or stealth homes for explorers or sovereignty griefers etc.
Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE
Check out the Youtube Channel and be sure to subscribe!
|
Michal Jita
Lords Of The Universe
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:56:23 -
[129] - Quote
I love the changes, just one thing which is a concern, current POS mechanic being terrible and all that still offers good protection for small corporations in wormholes, they require a significant fleet and time commitment to attack especially in low class WHs. I just hope small corps in low class WHs will still be able to gain some relative safety against bigger opponents as last thing we want is for big fleets just search out all smaller opponents and use entosis mechanic to loot and get rid of everyone that can't field big conventional fleet.
Love the work, just don't forget of the little guys.... |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
161
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:01:07 -
[130] - Quote
Idea: Observatories observe... gates create the ability to travel between systems... couple them together.
When coupled together a system could be targeted for observation: Discover what is being manufactured, harvested, traded etc. This coupled system could be used as a form of recon to assess adversary capabilities, intentions and provide a means to determine what systems need to be actually visited to refine the intel.
Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE
Check out the Youtube Channel and be sure to subscribe!
|
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1889
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:01:26 -
[131] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Zappity wrote:I'm worried about highsec game play because of the comment that structure wrecks would only be looted by the owner. You absolutely need to ensure that highsec structures can be destroyed and looted. Otherwise you remove the only risk of the current system which is wardecs.
There is a lot of game play around people searching out unfuelled or at least undefended towers, deccing and destroying for the loot. It would be a shame for this to go away because it is one of the only significant risk elements of high sec industry.
Please make it so that:
1. Defences power down without fuel to make AFK and lack of planning have consequence. This could be done by having a shield/defence module which consumes fuel blocks. 2. Highsec structure wrecks can be looted by the legitimate aggressor (or anyone for a suspect flag). To bad all war are based around griefing. This is not true. I do it a lot, purely for profit. Searching out offline or undefended highsec towers, trying to figure out how capable the corp is of mounting a defence, waiting for the 24 hour period before being able to attack and anticipating the shields going back up before the countdown is complete, killing the structures and waiting for the drops, often in the context of war targets in local or surrounding systems (often from other corps). This is all great content.
It is not difficult to defend against this sort of thing. For target selection, towers fall into two categories: offline and online. If offline with anchored research, industrial, CHA, PHA, SMA etc then it is immediately war decced. If online, a large tower will rule it out for me because the grind is too much of a deterrent. A small or medium tower with ANY defences at all is also ruled out because there are easier targets out there.
This is not griefing. It introduces consequence for lack of planning, lack of foresight or laziness. It introduces excellent and profitable gameplay for whoever can be bothered to go out and find good prospects and is willing to risk their own assets in war decs.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1964
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:08:32 -
[132] - Quote
Zappity wrote: This is not griefing. It introduces consequence for lack of planning, lack of foresight or laziness. It introduces excellent and profitable gameplay for whoever can be bothered to go out and find good prospects and is willing to risk their own assets in war decs.
It also does not remove risk if you can't loot it. As the 'stations' themselves are assets at significant risk and cost their victims. Your desired mechanics will just lead to the classic dec dodging continuing and people pulling down assets and staying docked for a week. The proposed mechanics are actually more likely to leave things in space for you to shoot at. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
317
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:10:00 -
[133] - Quote
All I can say at this point: Finally! I've been waiting for POSes to be wrapped up into a single structure since I first read about them ;) |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1746
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:10:39 -
[134] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Zappity wrote:I'm worried about highsec game play because of the comment that structure wrecks would only be looted by the owner. You absolutely need to ensure that highsec structures can be destroyed and looted. Otherwise you remove the only risk of the current system which is wardecs.
There is a lot of game play around people searching out unfuelled or at least undefended towers, deccing and destroying for the loot. It would be a shame for this to go away because it is one of the only significant risk elements of high sec industry.
Please make it so that:
1. Defences power down without fuel to make AFK and lack of planning have consequence. This could be done by having a shield/defence module which consumes fuel blocks. 2. Highsec structure wrecks can be looted by the legitimate aggressor (or anyone for a suspect flag). To bad all war are based around griefing. This is not true. I do it a lot, purely for profit. Searching out offline or undefended highsec towers, trying to figure out how capable the corp is of mounting a defence, waiting for the 24 hour period before being able to attack and anticipating the shields going back up before the countdown is complete, killing the structures and waiting for the drops, often in the context of war targets in local or surrounding systems (often from other corps). This is all great content. It is not difficult to defend against this sort of thing. For target selection, towers fall into two categories: offline and online. If offline with anchored research, industrial, CHA, PHA, SMA etc then it is immediately war decced. If online, a large tower will rule it out for me because the grind is too much of a deterrent. A small or medium tower with ANY defences at all is also ruled out because there are easier targets out there. This is not griefing. It introduces consequence for lack of planning, lack of foresight or laziness. It introduces excellent and profitable gameplay for whoever can be bothered to go out and find good prospects and is willing to risk their own assets in war decs.
"structure wrecks would only be looted by the owner" Thats for the biggest structures from what i understand the XL ones, maby also few X sized... how will that be related to high sec... nothing 100% sure
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
w1ndstrike
Strange Energy The Bastion
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:13:22 -
[135] - Quote
I think the biggest issue that will need to be addressed with these changes is how you handle the assets in outposts of players who are not currently subscribed. those of us who are subscribed will have some kind of heads up that its time to start moving anything non-essential, but unsubbed accounts have no such warning.
with the number of people who regularly take breaks from the game for longer periods of time, only to return and be very active (have done so myself) it is imperative that CCP find some way to "clean slate" the outposts for that pool of potentially returning players.
the best option I've seen floated so far is simply to have all assets owned by unsubscribed accounts and corporations where a member has not logged in for at least 2 months moved in a one-time deal to the nearest interbus station in a 0.6 highsec or higher (0.6 avoids most highsec islands in lowsec).
the only reason a single specific station is not suggessted despite it being easier to code is that this move would produce content for haulers and other services if/when those players return.
is it slightly heavy-handed? yes, but it is also the easiest way to avoid damaging player perceptions for those returning to the game after this system goes live.
all that being said, I look forward to new structures with interest, as it looks like making single star system a true home is within reach, instead of needing 3 or 4 for a complete service set.
if what is shown on the slides is correct, it also means that the wormhole crew will be getting a MASSIVE quality of life buff with what looks like offices and docking on smaller structures, and personal-use structures. which I cannot support enough (even though I don't live in J-space, those dudes deserve better support services for the risks they choose to take daily) |
Noriko Mai
2103
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:18:03 -
[136] - Quote
I would like to see mooring being some kind of structure extension that can be build up to X times to extend slots. If a parking lot of a super market is full, we build a bigger/second parking lot, not a second super market.
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16176
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:25:07 -
[137] - Quote
Fantastic blog, inspiring ideas.
Let's do this.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Phig Neutron
Rubicon Cubism
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:30:29 -
[138] - Quote
These ideas are all excellent. I would especially like to be able to have more than one "outpost" per system, potentially even from rival groups. It would also be good to make outposts destructable -- I remember there was a lot of outpost-building several years ago, but I don't think it happens much any more because the universe is pretty well saturated. I wonder if the devs intend to replace ALL outposts with this new system, even NPC outposts in highsec.
My only worry is that this removes the possibility of having things in "permanent storage". I have stuff all over the galaxy and it's always a treat to find something that I left behind years ago. I also quit the game for a few years and then came back. It wouldn't have been nice to find all my ships were exploded in my absence.
Here's my proposed solution: allow us to land our ships, and store our items, on moons or planets. That would be "permanent storage" but have no services or utilities. If you want to buy and sell, reprocess or manufacture, you'd have to put your assets at risk by flying them to a structure in space. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
896
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:32:05 -
[139] - Quote
Poena Loveless wrote:Peonza Chan wrote:Quote: E. Observatory arrays ... act as solar system wide D-scan blockers ...
I hope you are not considering to bring this into WHs I hope they aren't planning on bringing this to EVE period. D-scan is vital for players finding each other. While the overall direction you are going in is good, I think pretty much every suggestion for "Observatory arrays" so far is horrible. Blocking star map filters (namely the data of contextual player activity they provide) and blocking D-scan is a really bad idea. In a game built around the vastness of (mostly empty) space, we need tools that encourage people to find each other and give us the tools and mechanics to do so.
The tools and mechanics to find other players are already in game. They are called spaceships. Checking Dotlan or the in game map to look for ratting activity, cynosural fields, etc. needs to die in a fire. Make people get out in space and be active to get intelligence. Same goes for local chat.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Phig Neutron
Rubicon Cubism
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:32:38 -
[140] - Quote
sorry, duplicate |
|
Beta Vixen
United Conflict Space Command Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:33:21 -
[141] - Quote
Finally. It's been a LONG wait.
Still, I see many details that need to be hashed out, possibly in play testing.
in no particular order:
a. weapons and AI using them are vital to larger structures -- as others point out, being present to defend a structure 24/7 kills game play. With Entosis taking only minutes to, at most, a few hours to make something vulnerable, continuous defense would be required. In my experience [I've been in EVE since very near the beginning], that'll kill motivation to build up anything because it's too easy for the aggressors to succeed.
b. consider making the nub of structures upgradable in size. Start at MDepot size and functionality, add upgrades to increase size and change functionality.
c. there is no reason that the smallest size need have any weapons capability, nor AI -- let those functions be added as the structure grows, and quite possibly in increments.
d. deathstars have a purpose and use. 8 weapons is nothing to a deathstar -- some easily have 30 or more online all at once.
e. deathstars are why we have dreads. let's not kill the dreads for lack of something to do.
f. AI should target any ship trying to use entosis first ... basic defense principle.
g. starbase gunners are important and useful -- however, the number of weapons/modules each can control needs to be doubled to make them more in line with ships.
h. outposts do not currently have weapons -- i'm for adding them. Maybe we change the mechanic so that entosis can't be used until all weapons have been disabled -- thus creating another reason to keep dreads and carriers around [since carriers could rep the weapons if they seize military control of the space].
whoops -- all that time allows atm -- I'll be back with more later.
|
Unamed Vyvorant
Maple Leafs Nation Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:38:47 -
[142] - Quote
DONT KILL POSes/ |
Tara'Quoya Rax
Atlantis Asteria
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:46:36 -
[143] - Quote
Quote:H. Advertisement Centers
Structures mainly aimed toward propaganda spreading.
Service module possibilities: ...show how big your e-peen is...
Rigs possibilities: Anything affecting whatGÇÖs above.
uhu |
Circumstantial Evidence
176
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:48:01 -
[144] - Quote
Mind blown. Several years of thought have coalesced into the most comprehensive overhaul of structure mechanics, since structures were introduced. Many details remain to be worked out. I can pick out individual pieces I might use, but the scale and scope is so vast, I can't get this all in my head with just one read-through. |
Vanillo Vaille
Tactical Manufacturing Group
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 21:55:47 -
[145] - Quote
Beta Vixen wrote:Finally. It's been a LONG wait.
Still, I see many details that need to be hashed out, possibly in play testing.
in no particular order:
a. weapons and AI using them are vital to larger structures -- as others point out, being present to defend a structure 24/7 kills game play. With Entosis taking only minutes to, at most, a few hours to make something vulnerable, continuous defense would be required. In my experience [I've been in EVE since very near the beginning], that'll kill motivation to build up anything because it's too easy for the aggressors to succeed.
b. consider making the nub of structures upgradable in size. Start at MDepot size and functionality, add upgrades to increase size and change functionality.
c. there is no reason that the smallest size need have any weapons capability, nor AI -- let those functions be added as the structure grows, and quite possibly in increments.
d. deathstars have a purpose and use. 8 weapons is nothing to a deathstar -- some easily have 30 or more online all at once.
e. deathstars are why we have dreads. let's not kill the dreads for lack of something to do.
f. AI should target any ship trying to use entosis first ... basic defense principle.
g. starbase gunners are important and useful -- however, the number of weapons/modules each can control needs to be doubled to make them more in line with ships.
h. outposts do not currently have weapons -- i'm for adding them. Maybe we change the mechanic so that entosis can't be used until all weapons have been disabled -- thus creating another reason to keep dreads and carriers around [since carriers could rep the weapons if they seize military control of the space].
whoops -- all that time allows atm -- I'll be back with more later.
What if one of the service slot modules allowed for AI targeting at a very small fuel cost?
And, expanding on that, what about a sentry platform structure built to house weapons and EWAR but not take up much physical space, and could also be fitted with AI targeting service modules? That way, you can choose the amount of defenses you want if you feel 8 weapons isn't enough, and the trade off is more fuel required, similar to using a large POS tower today for more guns. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5767
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:01:56 -
[146] - Quote
Querns wrote:These upgrades are very expensive and are part of outposts, which seem to be being phased out in the new system. Will these upgrades be refunded?
One (obvious?) solution is to remove the upgrades from the outposts and leave the respective service module collection in the corp hangar of the corporation most responsible for the existing structure. This means you will have some "downtime" but at least you have the ability to migrate your paid-for upgrades to the new system.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2355
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:04:42 -
[147] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote: To bad all war are based around griefing.
Too bad you're wrong
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Zappity wrote: This is not griefing. It introduces consequence for lack of planning, lack of foresight or laziness. It introduces excellent and profitable gameplay for whoever can be bothered to go out and find good prospects and is willing to risk their own assets in war decs.
It also does not remove risk if you can't loot it. As the 'stations' themselves are assets at significant risk and cost their victims. Your desired mechanics will just lead to the classic dec dodging continuing and people pulling down assets and staying docked for a week. The proposed mechanics are actually more likely to leave things in space for you to shoot at.
So you're saying we shouldnt let them unanchor certain assets within 24 hrs of a war dec.
I agree.
Beta Vixen wrote:Finally. It's been a LONG wait.
Still, I see many details that need to be hashed out, possibly in play testing.
in no particular order:
a. weapons and AI using them are vital to larger structures -- as others point out, being present to defend a structure 24/7 kills game play. With Entosis taking only minutes to, at most, a few hours to make something vulnerable, continuous defense would be required. In my experience [I've been in EVE since very near the beginning], that'll kill motivation to build up anything because it's too easy for the aggressors to succeed.
b. consider making the nub of structures upgradable in size. Start at MDepot size and functionality, add upgrades to increase size and change functionality.
c. there is no reason that the smallest size need have any weapons capability, nor AI -- let those functions be added as the structure grows, and quite possibly in increments.
d. deathstars have a purpose and use. 8 weapons is nothing to a deathstar -- some easily have 30 or more online all at once.
e. deathstars are why we have dreads. let's not kill the dreads for lack of something to do.
f. AI should target any ship trying to use entosis first ... basic defense principle.
g. starbase gunners are important and useful -- however, the number of weapons/modules each can control needs to be doubled to make them more in line with ships.
h. outposts do not currently have weapons -- i'm for adding them. Maybe we change the mechanic so that entosis can't be used until all weapons have been disabled -- thus creating another reason to keep dreads and carriers around [since carriers could rep the weapons if they seize military control of the space].
whoops -- all that time allows atm -- I'll be back with more later.
a - you mean for the 4 hr period of your choosing...
d+e+f - Not so much under the proposed future sov system and unintelligent AI targeting is a good reason to have players online during the vulnerability period. Inactive groups with unguarded assets SHOULD lose their stuff easily. Thats the entire point.
g - there is no ship that can control 10x capital guns. But at least with these you can add weapon upgrades to your station guns which would likely make forming 'death stars' still possible, with perhaps even sebo's for mids, and that also provide services. who knows.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Enn DeeKay
GalOre Industries HELM Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:07:15 -
[148] - Quote
Outstanding stuff for the new concepts regarding structures, clearly a lot of consideration is going into this aspect of gameplay! Awesome!
I have not seen anything regarding abandoned structures however, and I think that some development and thought should go into this aspect of structure management and interaction.
Some ideas to consider:
(1) Corporations and alliances that have abandoned structures and are inactive or disbanded corporations (accounts expired, etc.) should be recoverable without a war dec by any other player, corporation, or alliance. Asset recovery operations should be part of exploring space, etc.
(2) A skill could be developed for the purpose of "Structure Takeover."
(3) Recovery of structure components should be possible in missions, anomalies, cosmic signatures. Given the right salvage skill level (or perhaps an additional skill book) to allow for the possibility of salvaging structure components from the aforementioned sites when they have structures in place. This would include all structure types and salvaging these structures could include the possibility to obtain structure BPCs.
Benefits include: moons and other locations where abandoned structures are anchored are able to be easily liberated and the assets returned to active use. Adds the possibility to camp abandoned structures and interfere with asset recovery operations.
Thanks for considering these ideas.
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5767
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:08:16 -
[149] - Quote
Beta Vixen wrote:d. deathstars have a purpose and use. 8 weapons is nothing to a deathstar -- some easily have 30 or more online all at once.
Perhaps what will replace death stars and **** stars will be a collection of structures with all their fittings tailored to maximum DPS and frustration. Perhaps there will be a structure module/rig which can modify Entosis time, improve ECM strength, improve weapon output, etc.
I would love to see the ability for a "member of the public" given certain rights be able to take control of the structures weapons, just like they were flying a spaceship. Now rather than 1 POS with 30 weapons of which 1 player can only control 5, you'll have 4 structures with 8 weapons, which a player can control one group of 8 (by assuming gunnery control of a structure/weapon platform).
Remember, part of the new system is the removal of anchoring restrictions.
If we could have "starbase gunners for hire" it would be easier to maintain effective defence of this infrastructure.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Justa Hunni
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:09:45 -
[150] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:It seems to me that there is not enough room for asshatry. Either you are moored to the structure or docked - either way you are 100% safe unless the structure is destroyed - which for larger structures is likely to be rare and for the smaller pos like structures will still take a considerable fleet. There should be room for people to make dumb decisions and for activities such as bumping from forcefields - the game design should not promote near perfect safety.
Also the pos redesign seems lacking - Right now - there is some thought put into pos design, e.g. guns on the bottom or top or balanced all around? This leads to strategic decisions as to how to attack pos - for instance you can attck from the top and be out of range of the guns on the bottom, etc.... Now the Pos is just being turned into just another red + to shoot. So all of the strategic decisions are being removed with nothing new added - seems to be just a needless dumbing down.
Finally structure management should not be too perfect - there should be room for corp theft.
Also personal housing - needs to be limited in both numbers that can be anchored and the locations where they can be placed. It is already difficult enough to find folk in a system - if there is unlimited housing which can be placed anywhere - it will be impossible to locate folk.
OK so you want to be able to jerk people around and you are concerned about "needless dumbing down" (usually code for "I had it tough so now all new people should have it tough too"). Oh, you also want the UI to allow you to capitalize on someone making a mistake by leaving corp management complex. Then to just finish you want to make it easy to find people since, you know, it's HARD finding people now . . . . /s
CCP stick to your guns, should be no reason you have to perfectly ensure that your ship is totally covered by a forcefield. Instread of bumping (which is a **** mechanism to begin with) you might actually have to destroy the station first! As for finding someone, I think it would be more interesting forcing someone to scan down your POS rather than simply flying to all the moons to see if it's there. Increases the warning and risk to anyone hunting you. |
|
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
56
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:15:11 -
[151] - Quote
Please make the XL:s at least 10b, preferably 20b or more. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2355
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:15:36 -
[152] - Quote
Market and Office Hubs wrote: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
good god...
Quote:a NPC convoy would spawn and manually move to the destination, being highly susceptible to disruption from other player groups.
Hopefully meaning they have no tank, warp to 15km at each gate and shooting them incurs a suspect status at worst.
Administration Hubs wrote:to switch NPC faction control or NPC security forces.
whats an NPC security force?
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Beta Vixen
United Conflict Space Command Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:20:47 -
[153] - Quote
back with more -- [see above]
i. I've wanted player owned mobile sentry structures 'forever'. I suggest that size and effectiveness be limited by sov when erected. Proximity restriction to gates, wormholes, and npc stations -- offgrid only. A small one in high or low sec would nicely intimidate the solo ganker dude in his increasingly more effective ship and lead to more small gang action. {oh, my ... you could drop one at the entry to an anom, too -- at least get warning when someone not blue tries to enter ... hmm -- concept maybe needs work, eh?}
j. I've also wanted to be able to upgrade the cpu/pg of towers forever. with elimination of racial differences, makes sense.
k. faction nubs should also exist although I'd like them to offer weapons upgrades, or cpu/pg upgrades over standard T1 units.
l. strongly in favor of simple replacement for existing structures with a standard, pre-defined new one trying to serve same functions. There must be ten thousand plus POCOs deployed already and thousands of towers. Manually replacing them all would be grunt work, not game play. [It's different when you conquer a region -- you expect the grunt work and will get benefits from doing it -- but having to do all of the existing ones over all at once -- huge PITA.] {The number of emplaced weapons must be higher than even this ... 100,000 is not out of the realm of possibility.}
m. careful modeling will be required to balance Fuel consumption pre and post implementation to prevent wild swings in ice prices. After all, the number of ice fields is limited and the number of working miners can change only slowly.
n. pls also think out how to simplify the moon mining to reactions mechanism. {while you're at it, can you simplify PI setup? maybe use same interface?}
more as I think of 'em .... laters
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1890
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:26:56 -
[154] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Zappity wrote: This is not griefing. It introduces consequence for lack of planning, lack of foresight or laziness. It introduces excellent and profitable gameplay for whoever can be bothered to go out and find good prospects and is willing to risk their own assets in war decs.
It also does not remove risk if you can't loot it. As the 'stations' themselves are assets at significant risk and cost their victims. Your desired mechanics will just lead to the classic dec dodging continuing and people pulling down assets and staying docked for a week. The proposed mechanics are actually more likely to leave things in space for you to shoot at. It does remove a lot of risk because the incentive for players to actually attack structures would be gone if they cannot loot. For example, a large faction tower is an expensive asset but is at virtually zero risk when anchored offline at a moon because it is worthless to an attacker.
But as Akrasjel Lanate wrote, perhaps the non-lootable angle is only for the largest structures and not for industry POS replacement structures.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Midori Amiiko
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:28:51 -
[155] - Quote
What about Acceleration Gates? I always thought it would be cool if you could place them and have them launch me into a "private" deadspace pocket or something. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5767
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:34:24 -
[156] - Quote
Will we be able to fit salvager modules to our MTUs under the new system? Thus from the base MTU through to the Magpie we could have more high slots, leading to either more tractor beams, or a mix of tractors and salvagers, along with tractor & salvager bonuses (with similar functionality to the Noctis) and rigs to enhance one or the other.
Also, why stop at EWAR modules for structures? Why not just have module and rig slots that are compatible with existing modules and rigs. So go ahead and fit that Cargohold Optimisation rig to your Office Center, or fit that 100MN MWD to your drilling platform.
As far as Interbus NPC convoys go, it would be nice if I could list a courier contract, which would be picked up by either a player or an Interbus agent depending on certain criteria. As an example, Interbus might:
- only pick up contracts under a certain collateral
- only accept contracts whose collateral is comparable to the value of goods (they use NPC magic to peek under the shrinkwrap before accepting the contract)
- will accept the oldest contract, one at a time upon completion of a previous delivery
Thus the enterprising player might be able to monitor their contracts and arrange for harm to come to the Interbus convoy, get their goods back and profit!
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Grimmash
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:36:01 -
[157] - Quote
To those asking for the new structure anchoring to be allowed to anyone in a corp, all of the horror stories of corp bosses stealing stuff work the other way too. If leadership gives every Tom, **** and Harry the ability to anchor stuff, what stops them from messing with more important stuff? What stops an individual from locking everyone else out and using the structure to grief corp mates in some way?
For high sec, it makes sense that you need to be in a corp to use structures. Anchoring in the NPC corp gives you an unassailable structure, which is not really a good design choice. No risk for the reward.
The real issue is that roles need to be separated and made granular from the current all or nothing approach. It looks like this is the direction CCP is going, which is great, but until we have both sides of the equation, the new corp interface and the new structures, it is hard to really get into debates on those situations.
From a wormhole perspective, we also need more info on entosis and how that will settle out. For small to mid size WH corps, I can see many of them avoiding larger structures they could otherwise afford and use if the timezone issues around the proposed entosis modules remains. Especially if defenses have to be manned to do anything. Why let my opponents have a window to sov zap my large/XL structures when I can make them grind the mediums? How would control points work in WH space, where constellations are not connected and the connections move around (especially if you are rolling holes)?
Overall, good ideas. I like where this is all heading. I look forward to details and revisions on the new structures and the related corp and sov/entosis mechanics. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
730
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:37:50 -
[158] - Quote
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...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5767
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:41:12 -
[159] - Quote
Grimmash wrote:For high sec, it makes sense that you need to be in a corp to use structures. Anchoring in the NPC corp gives you an unassailable structure, which is not really a good design choice. No risk for the reward.
NPC corp members can already anchor MTUs and Mobile Depots. Why should other structures be different? They're not "unassailable". The plan for the future is to be able to burn everything to the ground.
Grimmash wrote:From a wormhole perspective, we also need more info on entosis and how that will settle out. For small to mid size WH corps, I can see many of them avoiding larger structures they could otherwise afford and use if the timezone issues around the proposed entosis modules remains. Especially if defenses have to be manned to do anything. Why let my opponents have a window to sov zap my large/XL structures when I can make them grind the mediums?
Who says you'll be able to anchor large/XL structures in unknown space? You'll be able to get the same level of functionality out of a collection of medium structures. Medium structures only have a "damage" rather than Entosis or Entosis + Site combat mechanism.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Morgana Tsukiyo
Samsara Dynamics
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:42:55 -
[160] - Quote
Phig Neutron wrote:These ideas are all excellent. I would especially like to be able to have more than one "outpost" per system, potentially even from rival groups. It would also be good to make outposts destructable -- I remember there was a lot of outpost-building several years ago, but I don't think it happens much any more because the universe is pretty well saturated. I wonder if the devs intend to replace ALL outposts with this new system, even NPC outposts in highsec.
My only worry is that this removes the possibility of having things in "permanent storage". I have stuff all over the galaxy and it's always a treat to find something that I left behind years ago. I also quit the game for a few years and then came back. It wouldn't have been nice to find all my ships were exploded in my absence.
Here's my proposed solution: allow us to land our ships, and store our items, on moons or planets. That would be "permanent storage" but have no services or utilities. If you want to buy and sell, reprocess or manufacture, you'd have to put your assets at risk by flying them to a structure in space.
If stuff is stored at planets, i would love to use my Dust character to raid and steal them =) |
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1168
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:45:46 -
[161] - Quote
I would avoid having a small, medium and large version of these modules (ala small pos, medium pos, large pos).
I would make it pretty much a static figure and chuck the S/M/L out the door. It might as well be universal as you really don't need different version sizes (gets confusing).
You can make the faction versions have significant differences.
Also, if the green anchor thingy goes away.. .happy guy.
Extremely happy guy.
Yaay!!!!
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1473
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:46:57 -
[162] - Quote
So, for those of us who have invested heavily as a corp into outpost upgrades, where it was a significant investment, and not just 'oh, we're going to upgrade vfk, here's 40bil', are our upgrades just going poof? |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5767
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:51:13 -
[163] - Quote
Midori Amiiko wrote:What about Acceleration Gates? I always thought it would be cool if you could place them and have them launch me into a "private" deadspace pocket or something.
Or have acceleration gates as a longer-range version of the mobile jump unit, instead of a 100km range it provides a 10,000km range. Thus you can "launch" valuable ships such as freighters out of a bubble camp.
Another gate type that could be interesting is a warp gate, which could replace jump bridges for alliance-level logistics. The simple idea is that you anchor the warp gate and its end point, then when a ship activates the warp gate it will be flung into a 2AU/s warp to the other end. This will reduce the transit time for freighters and capital ships significantly. The warp gate would need a fairly large activation radius, such that placing one or two near a star gate is sufficient to provide coverage for freighters arriving furthest away.
Enterprising individuals could place warp gates near stargates in high traffic, large distance hisec systems and charge per activation. Then hisec wars would actually have a purpose ;)
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5767
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:53:42 -
[164] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:I would avoid having a small, medium and large version of these modules (ala small pos, medium pos, large pos).
while we're at it, why not make all spaceships the same size too? It's just confusing.
What I would like to see is structures using the same modules and rigs as spaceships, so we don't end up with a second parallel economy.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1168
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:54:18 -
[165] - Quote
Beta Vixen wrote:Finally. It's been a LONG wait.
Still, I see many details that need to be hashed out, possibly in play testing.
in no particular order:
a. weapons and AI using them are vital to larger structures -- as others point out, being present to defend a structure 24/7 kills game play. With Entosis taking only minutes to, at most, a few hours to make something vulnerable, continuous defense would be required. In my experience [I've been in EVE since very near the beginning], that'll kill motivation to build up anything because it's too easy for the aggressors to succeed.
b. consider making the nub of structures upgradable in size. Start at MDepot size and functionality, add upgrades to increase size and change functionality.
c. there is no reason that the smallest size need have any weapons capability, nor AI -- let those functions be added as the structure grows, and quite possibly in increments.
d. deathstars have a purpose and use. 8 weapons is nothing to a deathstar -- some easily have 30 or more online all at once.
e. deathstars are why we have dreads. let's not kill the dreads for lack of something to do.
f. AI should target any ship trying to use entosis first ... basic defense principle.
g. starbase gunners are important and useful -- however, the number of weapons/modules each can control needs to be doubled to make them more in line with ships.
h. outposts do not currently have weapons -- i'm for adding them. Maybe we change the mechanic so that entosis can't be used until all weapons have been disabled -- thus creating another reason to keep dreads and carriers around [since carriers could rep the weapons if they seize military control of the space].
whoops -- all that time allows atm -- I'll be back with more later.
a) I think initially the attacker needs a bit of a boost in order to get the ball rolling. The last thing you want is groups blueballing people (ala weaponizing boredom).
b) That is a bit excessive. Keep the system simple. There is really no need for a upgrade for these things. It should have the capability. If it doesn't, it never will.
c) Depends on how the structure functions, we don't know yet. Some I can see having guns, some I can't.
d and e) They are chucking the old pos system out. We'll have to manage with the new one. I'm sure there will be many ways to fit your pos
f) Actually that might remove the whole thing with using the entosis link if your ship gets poped in 10 seconds by the defense system. Whats the point then.
g) A pos gunner might turn into a single person controlling the POS/Base in total themselves (so instead of 10 gunners, one gunner can do it all. Call it the Den Mother of the pos.
h) That would be a lazy job for a carrier/dead honestly. And I wouldn't balance that based on what carriers/dreads could do. Its a bandaid fix, and wouldn't rectify any issue with them atm.
Having a totally automated defense system blow up everything that gets near it is not necessarily the best idea. You wind up relegating battles to be back on dreads/carriers/supers, etc. Were looking to get away from that, not go closer to it.
Yaay!!!!
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
182
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 22:55:49 -
[166] - Quote
Wow, EvE meets X3 finally.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Phig Neutron
Rubicon Cubism
80
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 23:13:45 -
[167] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Beta Vixen wrote:f. AI should target any ship trying to use entosis first ... basic defense principle. f) Actually that might remove the whole thing with using the entosis link if your ship gets poped in 10 seconds by the defense system. Whats the point then. The point would be to bait the guns. You put an entosis link onto something with a great tank, put a bunch of logi ships on it, and then you can bring anything else you want with no fear of being targeted by the structure you're shooting.
However the AI is done, it should not be so predictable that attackers can figure out how to game the system. Either the AI is extremely intelligent, or, you let the defenders program the AI so that they can confound the attackers.
|
Flamespar
WarRavens
1310
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 23:20:23 -
[168] - Quote
Idea for a structure
Deep space observation post
Enables an overview of exploration sites in the system/constellation/region (range depends on size) New gameplay opportunities include the detection of comets, exploration sites in deep space, new regions of space. Ability to influence types of exploration sites that spawn. Other players can be dock and purchase exploration data. Player s
EVE Chronicle: An audio drama set in the EVE universe
http://evechronicle.blogspot.com.au/
https://twitter.com/Flamespar
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1892
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 23:20:48 -
[169] - Quote
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.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Phig Neutron
Rubicon Cubism
81
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 23:27:56 -
[170] - Quote
Beta Vixen wrote: n. pls also think out how to simplify the moon mining to reactions mechanism. {while you're at it, can you simplify PI setup? maybe use same interface?
I totally disagree. I think CCP should be looking for ways to complexify industry. The T1 manufacturing system, in which 90% of the items in the game are made out of the same 7 minerals with a blueprint and no intermediate steps, is incredibly limiting. Capital construction and T2 mineral production is barely more interesting. The PI system is so far the most interesting industrial mini-game in EVE, but affects only a tiny fraction of items. Transforming the industrial process for all those T1 ships and modules would be a huge improvement, whether it means adding more different types of minerals, requiring that ships be made out of subsystems instead of produced in one step, or something else. |
|
Phig Neutron
Rubicon Cubism
81
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 23:37:26 -
[171] - Quote
New structure idea: Space Elevator Purpose & function: Ships, modules, and other inventory can be placed in "long term storage" on the surface of a planet (temperate, barren, ice) or moon. Orbital storage (the top of the elevator) is limited to 1,000,000m3 of assembled, moored ships and 10,000m3 of stored items, and can be accessed immediately. Surface storage is unlimited, invulnerable, and free of charge. Moving items to or from the surface takes 10 minutes. Items on the surface cannot be retrieved without a working space elevator. Could also be used to pick up PI products from the surface.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10279
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 23:40:02 -
[172] - Quote
Damn good blog, one problem, I don't see the new structures on market yet.
Also their is not time travel structure that would allow us to go back in time and put these things into EVE instead of poses and outposts so we would have never had to deal with their crappiness. Please fix :)
|
Pissfat
Reverse Production
40
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 23:44:30 -
[173] - Quote
I love the new POS fitting window although i don't see options for extra redundancy modules. I am also concerned that when it is destroyed the possible wreck options layed out by CCP in the devblog would destroy WH seiges as we know it and people wouldn't lose any of their assets and the agressor would have no possibility of loot.
Seems like there wouldn't even be a need to self destruct ships anymore if you an just access them later, Sometimes in WH space the desire to start a seige is stemmed from being able to see all their **** burn. This feels to safe for us.
I am Winthorp, you may remember me from such films as....
|
Hilti Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 23:55:35 -
[174] - Quote
You have my vote on this, it look incredible and if you pull this off, props.
I do fear you have made a rather already complex system even more complex but hey complexity is what draws me to eve.
Surely those who have POS already anchored can have the new structure implemented by a script? |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1473
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 23:57:32 -
[175] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: What I would like to see is structures using the same modules and rigs as spaceships, so we don't end up with a second parallel economy.
This would be a balancing nightmare. Also, umm, you do realize that the new modules are going to replace the already existing pos modules, guns, hardeners and all that, so there will be no new 'economy' at all?A few new and different modules to make our industry/market even healthier but nothing even remotely close to a second parallel economy. |
Eden Runner
Eden Runners
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:04:06 -
[176] - Quote
I can not wait for this to happen. Do not conceptualize on this, just do it. I getting excited thinking of the systems I will build.
Speaking of building please expand space and reduce high sec, it is almost imposable for a new player to get out into null solo and set anything up without running under the shield of a large corp, it just too crowded. Everyone just blows you up in there T2/T3 within seconds for thinking of going into low. I want to spend my billions on building my own empire and not have to join someone else until I skill up for a year . Make all systems claimable and put Sov. into everyone hands or something. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1107
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:14:59 -
[177] - Quote
on POS's .. it seems odd that you can't get into the POS forcefield yet you can still damage the structure itself? surely if we are shooting the forcefield then shouldn't the range be determined by proximity to the forcefield rather than the tower?
and the forcefield should have the majority of the HP not the tower. would make sense if you have too shoot the forcefield than even a frigate should be able too fire at it and it should have HP itself.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic, nerf sentries.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
525
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:21:36 -
[178] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:on POS's .. it seems odd that you can't get into the POS forcefield yet you can still damage the structure itself? surely if we are shooting the forcefield then shouldn't the range be determined by proximity to the forcefield rather than the tower?
and the forcefield should have the majority of the HP not the tower. would make sense if you have too shoot the forcefield than even a frigate should be able too fire at it and it should have HP itself. If only you'd posted this in 2004 when it was still relevant. |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
207
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:25:26 -
[179] - Quote
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.
For Large and XL structures mounted in Empire space, Please consider this.
Standings with the NPC faction holder will increace or reduce the following:
1. Time and or squad size of a response by Concord to any and all attacks on the structure that occur without a war declaration.
Low stndings = long wait and frig-cruiser response High standings = short wait and pain
2. Fuel cost of operating modules.
obvious
3. NPC taxes over and above the structure holder's taxes.
obvious
4. Escort capacity of Interbus couriers.
Low stndings = frig-cruiser escorts High standings = full Armada based on value of contract
5. Time for Entosis capture.
obvious
6. Hitpoints of structures.
obvious
Etc and so on, You get my drift? This way, standings do not bar any entity from anchoring and using a system, but they offer a reward to those organizations that are loyal.
You kinda killed standings as a consideration for choice last time you had a chance. Please be more kind this time
Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words.
Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions.
Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character.
And character is everything. - author unknown
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
498
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:30:24 -
[180] - Quote
One important question.
Today one of the reason we attack other towers is loot (in WH piniata POS can have anything from few bill to 100 bil)
But we are now told that new system will somehow separate people assets from Struckture Fitting and only drop fitting???
My question is: will we still have loot from structures smaller than station?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
498
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:35:32 -
[181] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Dev blog mentions entosis-only capture mechanic for L-size structures and damage-only for M-size.
Does it mean you have to babysit those structures 24/7 since there's no reinforce mentioned anywhere?
Entosis link at least in SOV version cause reinforcements. Entire section during the presentation called "Structure defense" had one big bullet point: UNDER DISCUSSION
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
439
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:36:07 -
[182] - Quote
Nyctef wrote: The biggest problem for me is service slots. It feels really weird to change the role of a structure by adding something to it - like changing a frigate into a hauler by adding a module. It sounds like the intent is to have one-size-fits all structures, and to discourage stacking several structures in the same area. I'd love to go in the opposite direction - separating out structure roles into individual structures that players could arrange in their own way and fly around would add a lot in terms of customisability and immersion. Undocking from a mooring structure and heading over to the insurance structure would feel a lot more like being a space pilot rather than just pressing buttons in a station services menu. I also think making structures smaller and more focussed would make them more flexible and easier to iterate on individually in the future.
tl;dr being able to put together a small town of individual structures would make me feel more like I'm building a home rather than just renting someone else's
Ugh, no. Honestly I could not disagree more. This is exactly what we have now and what it feels like is not a town or a home. It feels like a disconnected pile of space junk.
A home is an artistically unified space station structure we can customize. Not a pile of disconnected parts. |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
84
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:47:51 -
[183] - Quote
Lot of interesting stuff here, Lot of frenzied enthusiasm also however there is also a lot of trepidation regarding the implementation of all of this new age material from a lot of players that is not mentioned here.
Question is why is all this necessary, Modular PoS systems have been mooted before, they have potential I agree, but as a game content generator, doubtful and I can see the idea of all these new 'Destroyable' structure theories becoming very old very quickly returning EVE to it's current state.
Recent changes in game have had nothing but a detrimental effect on player generated content for a number of very basic reasons that seem to have been overlooked by CCP when designing these changes, nothing here appears to change any of the negative so called positives they offer, Travel changes have left large areas of EVE as under utilized deserts, New structures will do nothing to change this in my view, why should players engage with them if the very reasons they currently don't engage with structures and areas of space still apply, Others looking to move into that space will have the same problems to deal with and soon loose interest when they too find most of there play time eaten up simply to get from one location to another.
New Sov systems proposed mean less rather than more incentive towards permanency and security of tenure in any location, add in the travel nerfs already in place and why would anyone want to invest time and money owning anything in a system and I still don't buy into this 'All work together' BS, no incentives worth players time is the bottom line here, fleet up to go mining or ratting, well those that are left actually doing it after CCP nerfs might do, but it's a big ask to have people just fleet up to protect those doing that, just not going to happen.
Again I ask why is all this required, why have the instant download system introduced, the new sov system, new structures system and why now all in a short space of time, seems to not only myself but a good number of others that we have every right to be concerned regarding the direction that CCP is taking EVE currently, This Own nothing, build nothing, plan nothing destroy everything type of FPS instant gratification mentality does not look good for a long term future for this game as turning it into one gigantic Jita 4-4 un-dock scenario seems to be there given intent and that as stated before will get very old very quickly for most established EVE players and drive them out in favor of the younger 'Credit Card' brigade far more amenable to the 'Pay to Win' type of MMO established on other platforms.
For the above reasons and others not mentioned this lot gets a resounding No from me at least. |
Internet Knight
Free Galactic Enterprises Nerfed Alliance Go Away
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:54:51 -
[184] - Quote
Are we still limited to anchoring these things near moons and planets? Or can we anchor them anywhere?
What about so-called deathstars; can we still configure the new structures to require large fleets to be conquered?
If I have materials trapped in nullsec now and the existing outpost is destroyed, then what? Am I then able to recover it without docking (since I cannot dock now because I no longer have access to the station...)?
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4880
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:59:04 -
[185] - Quote
This is... interesting.
You definitely need to keep the restrictions against NPC corps anchoring structures, and you need to think out how players leaving a corporation impacts structures they owned. The present system ("the structures are owned solely by the corporation") works. It's not the only viable option.
Player owned trade hubs will be extremely interesting if they can get off the ground. I don't think they will unless the NPC hubs have tax increases though - present taxes are a small price to pay for knowing that the tax will be the same tomorrow, and that the station is indestructible.
These should be anchorable at the Lagrange points of each planet.
Shoot everyone. Let the Saviour sort it out.
I enforce the New Haliama Code of Conduct via wardec ops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - read about requirements for highsec miners at www.minerbumping.com
|
Richecko
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 01:07:13 -
[186] - Quote
Some thoughts as a player who intends to permanently stay in an NPC corp and misc comments for the dev team to think about...
The Mobile Depot, and MTU were welcome additions both for their functionality and because all players could use them. The only oversights I've noticed with the MTU is that it can not be configured to have tractor on/off and to set the tractor to retrieve only personal assets when you are in a fleet (or the fleet boss can not set MTU's deployed by fleet members into personal-only mode". The fleet mode is convenient when all fleet members are working on a shared goal, and not convenient in a public ad-hoc fleet.
The new structures could learn from the Orca's Fleet on/off and Corp on/off switches. They make for effective permanent and ad-hoc use with a group of players in the same corp, different corps, or all NPC players and those positive benefits should be considered in the details of the structures.
I've been in my NPC Corp since 2009, my community is other players have been there longer than me (and we all happily chat in corp chat and have for years). I pay the same for my subscription as players who choose to join player corps and would like new content to consider me an equal rather than a 2nd class citizen. It would actually be nice to balance things out and let NPC corp members have some benefits player-corp capsuleers do not have since they have many game functions I do not have access too. Assuming player corps is the only source of community is outdated thinking.
Many Eve players fly multiple toons either as second accounts or as alts in order to specialize those other toons and it would be nice if the new structures expected this common use case and that a single Eve Online Subscriber may have a "group" of toons who work together. An example oversight in the shipping structures: Now with POCO's there's no easy way for your alt to pick up your PI results. This is inconvenient if, for example, you're a wormhole explorer and often 20-30 jumps from your PI system.
In this line of thinking of "consider you and your alts as a group", the current POS feature has no easy mechanism to transfer cargo in and out of a POS from a 2nd account that is in a different corp. You end up using something fleeting up and using an Orca or T2 Industrial Fleet Hanger as an analog to the station "trade" function , or Containers permanently floating inside the POS shield owned by different toons as an analog to contracts - and you use the POS shield as a way to safely endure setting off the "suspect" mechanic when the only efficient way to move cargo between toons is looting cans in space. An example use case is moving 1000 ice blocks from a NPC character to a character with access to a POS for refining purposes.
It would be nice if all new structures better considered this use case as a built-in (rather than optional) feature and worked as well as functions like Station Trading, Give Money, Courier & Item Exchange Contracts allow moving ISK and Assets between your toons via NPC stations.
Small POS'es are currently used in a similar way to deployables (brought by someone in your ad-hoc group or an alt in a 1-man player corp), for example to be able to temporarily provide compression service or a place to park a fleet booster, when mining away from your home system so the Ore can be trucked back to your home system using an Industrial instead of a Freighter. The new structures plan should have a successor to the Small POS and expect their both as an entry into structures at a 'personal' cost level, and their use in the "mobile" or short-term deployment case (< 1 week). Now it looks like the structures plan only has a successor to the Large POS.
As others have noted - support for w-space and shattered w-space should be explicitly considered and capability specified rather than overlooked.
If a Rigs mechanism is being used you don't want to have to destroy your rigs every time you scoop and move your mobile structure. Some deployables (like the Enormous Freight Container) can be deployed in a small ship yet need a Freighter to retrieve. There is no function in space to package it for transport. How the new structures work in this case should be purposefully thought through and designed since ships like freighters have a long training investment.
Some of the requests in the thread for more flexibility could be solved by specifying the # of slots in a deployable and letting the player choose the layout of High / Med / Low etc... (and change it after deployment in space). The current POS mechanic with it's offline/online capability is extremely flexible and that flexibility is not obviously preserved in the new structures proposal. Some players use POS like the new T3 Destroyers, switching between peacetime operations with defenses on standby and other functions fully active and combat operations when offense & or defense are prioritized.
Compression is not mentioned in the presentations and is very valuable to miners (especially ice miners).
It would be convenient if the new player structures could be a contract destination for courier contracts. This feature is missed about POS'es.
It would be nice if the new structures had a role that could add fuel but not remove it which could be permanently or temporarily assigned. That would facilitate helping maintain structures while new corp members gain trust of the POS owner.
Easier abandoned structures cleanup / removal is a natural extension of a salvaging career for a character with senior salvaging skills.
Can a POS and successor starbase be anchored on the same grid if they are somehow designated as successors during the transition period?
The material mentioned structure profiles. It would be nice if these could be shared, imported, exported like ship fits.
Is remote management of structures range eve-wide, region-limited? |
Phlebas the Phoenician
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 01:14:33 -
[187] - Quote
Hey guys, these are some nifty new ideas. Some of them, the observatory array in particular, seem to have the potential to substantially increase the home-field advantage of a sovereign nullsec system. Now, I'm picturing the capability to effectively disable dscan and cloak for a significant period of time, so take this feedback in that context.
While on the surface it might seem like a good idea to add to home field advantage, it seems like a solution in search of a problem. The defending alliance already has substantial advantages, such as a shorter travel distance for reships, the ability to react to an invading doctrine, etc. I wonder about the potential of that change to have a chilling effect on travel to systems not owned by your alliance.
Meanwhile, as someone who day trips to null, this would seem to substantially increase my risk. I rely on dscan, starmap, and cloak to have even a modicum of safety. If these became unavailable in null, it's hard to say whether it would be reasonably possible to travel through null as an independent agent. Perhaps it is as designed that it should be even more dangerous to travel through null, but it is already fairly depopulated, and one can make a reasonable argument that the danger of the space is a big part of why it is this way.
Again, these are just ideas about the changes as I am picturing them. Perhaps you're considering the capability instead to turn off dscan for a short window, with a warning going out in the system. Perhaps the resolution of the cloak-penetrator would require a substantial time to lock. Perhaps the starmap shroud would show up on the map (so I could know not to go to any such shrouded systems). These would all somewhat mitigate the added risk.
Before you implement any of the proposed features, I personally would be really curious about what problems they are solving. Is the home field advantage not already sufficient, that it needs to be increased? Are dscan, cloak, etc. causing problems that might be able to be fixed via a more surgical measure?
I feel like null population can be modeled as a pipe, where the diameter of the pipe is related to the danger of operation in null, and the viscosity of the fluid is the reward. Constricting the pipe by adding more danger and homefield advantage seems, with the little knowledge I have, like it could only decrease the number of people living or traveling out there.
Thanks for your consideration. |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 01:15:22 -
[188] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Poena Loveless wrote:Peonza Chan wrote:Quote: E. Observatory arrays ... act as solar system wide D-scan blockers ...
I hope you are not considering to bring this into WHs I hope they aren't planning on bringing this to EVE period. D-scan is vital for players finding each other. While the overall direction you are going in is good, I think pretty much every suggestion for "Observatory arrays" so far is horrible. Blocking star map filters (namely the data of contextual player activity they provide) and blocking D-scan is a really bad idea. In a game built around the vastness of (mostly empty) space, we need tools that encourage people to find each other and give us the tools and mechanics to do so. The tools and mechanics to find other players are already in game. They are called spaceships. Checking Dotlan or the in game map to look for ratting activity, cynosural fields, etc. needs to die in a fire. Make people get out in space and be active to get intelligence. Same goes for local chat.
But...D-scan IS people being active. You have to go into the System, with your SHIP, to D-scan. Additionally, unlike scan probes which are based on your character's skill qued skills, D-scan is an actual PLAYER skill. You have to think a little bit to use it, both in how you move and the direction and range you employ.
It's one of the few actual skills I've found in Eve (that is, player skill, not character skill.) Hacking/Archeology is luck based and dependent on the character skill, and probing is vaguely a mathematic inevitability - either you succeed or fail at some point based on character trained skills. The only change the system needs is to ping when a person uses it while cloaked so that if a cloaky scout doesn't keep moving, watchful enemies could scan him down.
That is, in the real world, subs have active and passive methods of detecting potential enemies. They try not to use active pinging unless they have to because watchful enemies can get their location if they do so. D-scan should function similarly (and CCP could introduce a skill book reducing that ping or some such - since they like players to have to wait hours for their characters to learn things before being able to efficiently employ them. :p)
.
Also, will keep reading, but it seems I'm mostly alone in my concern about lack of granularity or nice shields or being able to array your POS town to your liking. Guess I'll have to get my enjoyment before the system changes and then never use them again... -sadface- |
A'Tolkar
Carlson's Raiders
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 01:16:23 -
[189] - Quote
Part of removing the anchoring restrictions with POS allowed them to be packed up and moved regardless of sec standing. Partly to chase teams and also to move to systems with lower cost indices for manufacturing and/or research. We will be replacing Large POS with a Large Structure which will be ~40km from side to side. Pure structure and no shield radius like with the current iteration of large towers.
I don't think we want to go back on being able to pack up and chase opportunities in different areas of New Eden, but I also don't find it believable that we are going to be repackaging these larger structures. How will they move from one system to another? Since they will be fit like ships, hopefully they can unanchor, have a pilot with appropriate skills take control, and cyno to a beacon somewhere else. I would expect to move such a large structture that the jump fatigue would be incredible, even compared to capital ships, and scale up linearly with the size of the structure. Any elaboration on this point would be appreciated.
One other thing I would like to see: A service module to allow manufacturing structures themselves. An analogy would be a manufacturing array in the current POS code to build control towers, arrays, etc. This way one can more-or-less bootstrap in a remote area of space. Start with a small structure with a couple service slots: one for refining ore and another for manufacturing structures. Or perhaps one service slot, but just refit. Either way, the idea is that with a simple fleet of Prospect's and a cargo full of blueprints (for other structures, service modules, structure rigs), an enterprising group of exceptional pilots can build their own empire without having to haul hundreds of thousands (or millions) of m^3 worth of stuff from high sec out to null sec.
Finally, I would like to see these structures anchorable anywhere within a solar system.
Cheers! |
Zekora Rally
Negative Density
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 01:18:00 -
[190] - Quote
Quote:In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use.
CCP, I think it's time people in player-created corps are given the ability to launch towers for themselves without the need for config roles. Leave the corp roles for corporate launched towers. As it stands, you need to commit to a corp for a very long time in order to get them to trust you with roles and it still isn't guaranteed at the end of the day. I find it really limiting in terms of gameplay because it forces me to either wait until directors are online or leave the corp to create mine, in order to access arrays, labs and reactors. Obviously, npc corpers shouldn't be granted such a priviledge and wardecking the owners corp should still render the structure vulnerable. |
|
Chiralos
Chiral's Angels
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 01:25:08 -
[191] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Also the pos redesign seems lacking - Right now - there is some thought put into pos design, e.g. guns on the bottom or top or balanced all around? This leads to strategic decisions as to how to attack pos - for instance you can attck from the top and be out of range of the guns on the bottom, etc.... Now the Pos is just being turned into just another red + to shoot. So all of the strategic decisions are being removed with nothing new added - seems to be just a needless dumbing down.
Finally structure management should not be too perfect - there should be room for corp theft.
That's a good point, it would be a shame to lose that tactical element.
But, depending on how many of the new structures you can anchor and how far apart they can be, setting up a base with multiple structures (e.g. outer shell or wall of gun platforms) might more than make up for it. |
Richecko
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 01:32:53 -
[192] - Quote
Jazz Improv on new feature ideas...
NEW FUNCTIONALITY IDEAS
The observatory array is interesting and a good benefit for paying for fuel would be the ability to "radio" your structure and have it run DSCAN or Probe Scanner functions when you are out of system or have it radio you. Chat is global to eve, why not have communications with your structure be so? You could remotely see if a hostile fleet was nearby or if anomolies you were waiting for had spawned. It could also replace the tedious "click dscan", "click again...' mechanic with a proximity alarm function that alerts you when conditions you specify are met. Examples: Pilot with terrible standing in dscan range. Any pilot in dscan range. Jaspet anomaly spawned in system.
The new structures could have some passive income generating entertainment functions (to defer their costs like POCO's provide a POCO owner) that we see in NPC mission stations like the Damsel mission that other than being targets to be blown up are not part of the fun of gameplay. Players now through out-of game mechanisms offer entertainment services like gambling. The new structures could have:. Casino. Lottery. Bar/ Restaurant (sit, chat look out the window at space). Rent storage. Rent ship hanger space. it could also have a mechanism to facilitate commerce between high-skill industry characters (like refiners, ship builders, blueprint inventors or researchers) who exchange ISK for services derived from their specialized skills. Want max refining? Here's who you can pay to do that, where, and what they charge.
There could be an browsable and searchable analog to "fleet finder" or "agent finder" for player stations. Station owners or guest entrepreneurs could post an advert to attract capsuleers to their station and advertise available options. Adverts could have text and a JPG and public structures could have a brand/logo like corps not just a name. Then players could have individual public structures, or an analog to franchises (think Starbucks Coffee) with branch offices around new eden.
Structures that offer public services could have an analog to the "loyalty card" which gives discount to capsuleers for referring new customers or volume discounts for heavy users of paid services. There could also be an analog to the "coupon" to attract new customers.
There should be some way to share structure resources with "friends" whether players, corps or alliances, and to choose to not share the structure's resources with others (for example previous attackers). If standings are used, the structure probably needs something like it's own address book (like corps have) and this needs an import/export/share mechanism which is now sorely lacking from the player address book. Every club & bar has a bouncer, and public structures need the analog.
The described mechanic where structures have no AI defenses, yet the owner could be far across Eve, almost necessitates a variant on the jump clone feature where you can dock up and you (or your team) can jump into your structure to defend it when attacked rather than risk loosing it while you slowboat 30 or 50 jumps across New Eden. If this approach is taken, the relationship of this to the jump clone cooldown timer needs specification and discussion. What you don't want is players "chained" to their structures and unable to do gameplay like exploration that may lead them far from home.
If there is no POS shield in the new plan perhaps a structure with an appropriately skilled toon onboard becomes an alternate to a command ship (Orca for mining, T3 or other command ship for other boots) for originating fleet boosts in a system? There would need to be some benefit for giving up the mobility of being in a command ship and giving up being on a platform that can not run out of fuel. |
Flaming Butterfly
Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion.
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 01:42:26 -
[193] - Quote
We get to live like the ancients in real space condos instead of all clustered up in stations and out of crates...
About damn time.
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
4722
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:02:17 -
[194] - Quote
The presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_c2cSsVZj4 |
Maddaxe Illat
HIFI INDUSTRIAL The Kadeshi
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:05:16 -
[195] - Quote
Thank for the good time CCP but go get **** I will be subbing all 17 account now |
Aphsala
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:07:44 -
[196] - Quote
These announcements really got me excited, that is until he said basically "can be build,manufactured and deployed in empire"
Now unless you are going to be really shaking up how empire works, just why?
These structures when i seen them filled me with the need to go to null sec an become part of something, now saying that im back to, meh why bother.
These structures, for me, could have/should have, been the carrot on the end of the stick to get ppl to move there an participate, become part of something bigger sort of thing.
Now if your getting rid of empire (which i doubt) i understand, but if not i have to question the why of allowing all this in hi-sec.
Sorry for being a downer an probably missing something so damn obvious but well i just do not understand why hi-sec, as it is, needs these structures or even should be able to construct them in the first place, these should be exclusive to null/wh space an if you want to participate in the construction of them, well then move there an get out of hi-sec.
Just the thoughts of some not so understanding random carebear tbh |
Acks
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
77
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:13:19 -
[197] - Quote
This post is just nothing but WIN
As an ultra bittervet from the Beta days, this is so unbelievably encouraging. The direction CCP has taken in the last year is just fantastic. From the dev philosophy changes, to the new release schedule, and now all of these proposed structure changes.
I personally appreciate the very advanced notice to these new ideas / changes. Obviously a lot of thinking, tuning, testing, and tweaking will need to occur but this is so absolutely going in the right direction, it is REALLY encouraging. For the first time in a few years, I feel that playing this game for so many years is no longer heading towards a dead end.
THANK YOU CCP!
FEEDBACK ============= 1) The ship fitting style configuration for POS & Outposts is a great idea. As many others have commented in this thread, I think my one main area of concern is the currently proposed number of module slots. In particular the service slots.
2) The availability of these structures to HS and especially WH players is welcome news. Living in space should be less painful without at the same time always being 100% safe.
3) The proposed loot mechanics will probably need to be fleshed out quite a bit more. The previous comments have covered a lot of the potential issues with it as proposed. I think as a risk VS reward a good balance option might be that the loot rights be tied to a war dec. IE if group A war decs group B and then destroys group B's structure, group A has loot / salvage rights to the structure and any loot / items that were the property of group B. Any items that were not the property of group B would be protected for a period of time to allow the owners to collect them.
In Low & Null Sec, anyone doing damage to the structure should have loot / salvage rights to the structure and any property belonging to group B. Any property belonging to other parties would be protected like in HS for a period of time before becoming "fair game", though maybe for a shorter period of time based on sec status.
It would also be interesting if the proposed "InterBus" logistics service could be hired to retrieve loot belonging to you from a destroyed structure. This would make this new feature more widely used and provide additional loot / gank options and opportunities who are part of that play style. Also allowing the ability to assign "Salvage rights" like you can with kill rights would be a nice feature.
4) The new structure types and the fact their anchor points (at least for some of them) is no longer tied to a moon or planet give a massive increase to game play possibilities.
5) I am working under the assumption that these changes will include access management that is easier for owners / operators. Please make sure this is a priority. The new configuration templates and remote management ideas are fantastic.
6) Allowing individual, corp, alliance, and public access is also a great new expansion on current access rights. Based on how I read this, each person / group will have private storage which would solve one of the biggest hassles with POS structures and their facilities currently.
One question on this: will the structures have storage limits like the current POS system or will they be infinite like the current Station / Outpost systems? I realize this could vary by structure and storage type so a breakdown would be really useful. This will be particularly important to players wanting to setup "trade hubs".
On structures where storage is limited, please make the storage configurable by group / individual. Also for publicly accessible structures, if there is a storage limit, owners should have some mechanic to deal with "abandoned" items left at their facility taking up space.
7) Resource gathering structures are an awesome idea. I am looking forward to seeing the details for these emerge in the coming weeks. My one point on these is that I think all resource gathering activities should require some kind of semi regular interaction so they do not just become fire and forget ISK generators (outside of being attacked). This will be particularly important in NULL if industrial activity is going to impact the new Sov systems. Sov improvement / boosting should not be automated. Likewise for any HS deployment of these structures. PI currently operates on this largely fire and forget (for a week) system and it is just a boring grind.
Let me be clear, I am 100% for these structures and more like them, but please give a lot of consideration to their potentially abusive automation.
On a separate note: Will PI being getting revamped as part of the structure overhaul? Since this will clearly impact moon goo harvesting, it seems like it would fit with the changes.
More later but once again, this and the other ideas covered at Fanfest have made this long term bittervet excited about EVE again. MORE OF THIS CCP!!!
Thanks, Acks |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1966
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:16:02 -
[198] - Quote
Aphsala wrote:These announcements really got me excited, that is until he said basically "can be build,manufactured and deployed in empire"
Now unless you are going to be really shaking up how empire works, just why?
*rant sniped* Because high sec corps need to have assets worth fighting over also. If only Null corps can build these things, then the game will continue as it is.
High Sec is NOT newbie space, it is a different play style, and that play style is equally as deserving of having large assets in space which are worth fighting for or attacking someone over.
|
LuckyQuarter
Lucky Galactic Expeditions
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:19:31 -
[199] - Quote
Honestly, I don't see much that is currently wrong with pos's other than: a) CCP doesn't like the extended range shield b) It is currently not possible to fully setup a highsec pos as a corporate office with deliveries via courier, contracts, clones, and other services only offered at NPC stations. b) There is an artificial limitation on how much one can upgrade a POS (builtin cpu/power) so that for a small <5 person corp, a single medium/large pos is the most that be effectively built up as an extended base of operations. c) There are artificial limits on what structures can be deployed in what space, why can't I moon mine or perform reactions in highsec? Shouldn't that just make the pos more a target for wardecs/etc?
Things that I love about the current pos design that might be lost in a redesign: a) The current design rewards corps that think intelligently in 3d and which have redundant guns/structures at all major directions of attack. b) The current design allows corp members to relax somewhat while inside the pos shields and perform essential pos maintenance and to align/warp out safely unless the pos is camped with mobile warp disruptors at exit points. c) The current design is very friendly for small corps that need to do a little of everything in a single base.
What I might hope to see out of a redesign: a) If it got rid of the dichotomy of NPC stations and player structures, have npc stations just be XXXL pos's that can be destroyed throwing all the inhabitants and possessions into space(freeport mode is too easy on existing inhabitants), perhaps the station would automatically start rebuilding but it should be offline and unuseable for at least a few days if destroyed at least in low/null sec. Nothing should be absolutely safe _anywhere_ in low/null sec. b) Add a greater variety of industry modules, especially in highsec. The limitations of highsec pos's should be the limited resources/missions/exploration sites in the local area, not the structures or the pos itself. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
4723
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:27:31 -
[200] - 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. A large tower BPO at ME 10% is not worth 500m. I seem to recall it taking 142 days for the last +1 too, thanks to Crius.
CCP Nullarbor wrote:We did a similar thing during the industry expansion. I know. I lost billions of ISK of BPO value, and it cost me many billions of ISK to recover [e.g. 3.5b for my Rorqual BPO +1 ME].
Don't get me started on what I invested, time and ISK, to research my IHUB and CSAA BPOs. |
|
O'nira
13. Enigma Project
56
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:28:06 -
[201] - Quote
How does this affect wh space?
are these replacing poses or just outposts?
|
Gorongo Frostfyr
115
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:30:31 -
[202] - Quote
Last step removing 98% of the npc stations? |
Madd Adda
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:32:15 -
[203] - Quote
Aphsala wrote:These announcements really got me excited, that is until he said basically "can be build,manufactured and deployed in empire"
Now unless you are going to be really shaking up how empire works, just why?
These structures when i seen them filled me with the need to go to null sec an become part of something, now saying that im back to, meh why bother.
These structures, for me, could have/should have, been the carrot on the end of the stick to get ppl to move there an participate, become part of something bigger sort of thing.
Now if your getting rid of empire (which i doubt) i understand, but if not i have to question the why of allowing all this in hi-sec.
Sorry for being a downer an probably missing something so damn obvious but well i just do not understand why hi-sec, as it is, needs these structures or even should be able to construct them in the first place, these should be exclusive to null/wh space an if you want to participate in the construction of them, well then move there an get out of hi-sec.
Just the thoughts of some not so understanding random carebear tbh
how is that fair to hi sec players? why deny us equal usage these structures? What if we don't want to fight the big alliances who would just steamroll us first chance because we're too small/ill prepared to go to null? I understand some structures ought to be sov/null only and what not, but don't make it so we're forced to go somewhere that we would flatten with little effort.
Honestly i don't understand the appeal of forcing people to null beyond "we can shoot them without consequence"
I understand your feelings of being a part of something and building these structures, but you should realize, you can still do that even in hi sec.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Yilaina
Dug a Hole
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:32:48 -
[204] - Quote
The transition plan could do with some thought about buyback or conversion schemes for existing assets and BPOs. NPC orders which allow corps to resell the redundant structures at a time of their own choosing might work, while conversion of BPOs to the new structures should be relatively trivial. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5770
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:43:17 -
[205] - Quote
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.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Memphis Baas
251
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:48:10 -
[206] - Quote
Please set up a system whereby the structure owner can label the mooring spots with some visible text message. Because I'd rather see "Don't park here, CEO's spot" than have to listen to a session of "WHO TOOK MY PARKING SPOT, GET YOUR STUPID IBIS OUT OF MY PARKING SPOT OR YOU'RE KICKED" over teamspeak. |
Tajic Kaundur
Dropbears Anonymous Brave Collective
63
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:52:12 -
[207] - Quote
As long as Dscan isn't blocked by the Observatory, I'm happy with it. I feel like Dscan is a bit different than the rest of the things it can effect, since not only must you be in system to use it, while you can look at the map out-of-system- Dscan also requires you to be very active to use it. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
569
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 03:11:39 -
[208] - Quote
Wow this is bold guys! sheesh!
i would say it has the potential to totally revolutionise the game, but also there are some very sizeable traps that you can fall into that'd make a lot of people very concerned and liable to take some serious action if they feel they're being marginalised.
Quote:We are striving towards making our largest new structures as imposing and as visually rewarding as possible to reflect on the massive effort required to deploy them
firstly awesome that you're really giving a size increase to XL(outpost) Structures from 45km to 100km. so long as the 100km ones are still somewhat bulky and not super skinny. i Am somewhat unsure how you're going to transition from 1 to the other here without either replacing totally during a downtime or allowing multiple nullsec outposts.
Quote:... we are taking a different approach by making structures fittable, just like ships, with all the repercussions this implies.
i love the structure fitting screen! tbh i proposed and made a mockup of something similar 2 & 1/2 years ago under the modular pos threads, but the implementation of this is so much better (for obvious reasons - you guys are professionals after all!)
this was my original post for context: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1818171#post1818171
Service Slots One aspect of the service slots, 'roles' and structure sizes in their various forms are a little confusing. In the introduction part when describing service slots you refer the reader to the 'various structure roles' below as examples of what service slots can be filled with. However the manner with which you present the roles seem to describe them as individual structures and not service modules. This gets slightly more confusing when each structure on the various 'structure lines' have a service slot attribute on them seemingly indicating how many service slots those structures have.
See if they're the structures with the service slots to fill, what do you fill them with? sorry if im being pedantic about it.
However the variety and scope of the types of services is a real breath of fresh air!
Specific service slots:
I would recommend though that certain aspects of some service slots are made a little more complex as to not seem like things are magically 'appearing' in game complete and fully formed, eg the datacore spawning that could be turned into a form of raw material detection, collection and manufacture.
Love the idea of Ship insurance defined by Corporation. But, and this is a big but... anything of that form should have to be designed with a requirement that an actual player (with specific roles defining him as a SRP officer) has to rubber stamp each loss, approving it for additional insurance above and beyond regular Ship Insurance. Otherwise corporation wallets will be drained dry with people abusing the system to gain ISK under dubious circumstances.
Interbus Shipping sounds like a novel idea but i cannot see it working at all for the risk/reward players would have to put in. by that i dont mean personal risk of being killed themselves but the very real possibility of almost anyone intercepting shipments if they are to travel traditionally (gate to gate). unless the shipments are done similarly to how red frog/black frog do thier shipments. but then again an artificial game mechanic being injected here would pretty much obliterate player opportunities to provide services to others, black frog being a prime example.
With regards to mining and drilling platforms, nullsec is screaming out for a way to mass collect low end ores in sufficient quantity and speed to make importing less of a thing. and if only to allow the poaching of high end ores out of mining sites to not be seen as a total negative. Mining low ends in a max yield hulk is still pretty low isk per hour especially considering the other things he could be doing for money to feed either pvp activity or the purchase and importing of assets to sell to others for pvp activities. This is why the 'siege' mode idea for the rorqual, activating a massive high speed high quantity collector for low ends has been such a hit on the forums.
The ideas and proposals for Observatories and gates need to be rethought however, and can be significantly improved with regards to intel networks, sov based local with abilities to disrupt, hack steal or otherwise modify data that sov holders gleam from such structures and their interplay with ships in space uncloaked around them. Most activity metrics in the starmap are too vague to be utilised by nullsec alliances, this is why Intel channels are a thing, alongside web based apps that utilise copy/paste parsing of data into a shared pool of indexable contextualised intelligence on threats - yes its a thing too! internet space ships is serious business!
The inclusion of installable NPC agents into sov nullsec is something that should have been done ages ago, however their implementation shouldnt be all encompasing. By that i mean a Null Sec Organisation who's members consistently kill Blood raider ships should not be able to install a Blood Raider Agent in their structures. Details like this add compexity but also add realism by respecting logical premisses.
TBC... |
Grimmash
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 03:12:24 -
[209] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Grimmash wrote:For high sec, it makes sense that you need to be in a corp to use structures. Anchoring in the NPC corp gives you an unassailable structure, which is not really a good design choice. No risk for the reward. NPC corp members can already anchor MTUs and Mobile Depots. Why should other structures be different? They're not "unassailable". The plan for the future is to be able to burn everything to the ground. Grimmash wrote:From a wormhole perspective, we also need more info on entosis and how that will settle out. For small to mid size WH corps, I can see many of them avoiding larger structures they could otherwise afford and use if the timezone issues around the proposed entosis modules remains. Especially if defenses have to be manned to do anything. Why let my opponents have a window to sov zap my large/XL structures when I can make them grind the mediums? Who says you'll be able to anchor large/XL structures in unknown space? You'll be able to get the same level of functionality out of a collection of medium structures. Medium structures only have a "damage" rather than Entosis or Entosis + Site combat mechanism.
To the first, comparing an MTU to POS or similar structure (that provides industry services, ship protection, etc) is not an apples to apples comparison. If an MTU or MD had shield, that might make it comparable. You can't wardec an NPC corp, so how would you get at the bigger structures in any reasonable way?
To the second, based on comments CCP has made, I would wager that they are going to keep some similar function to the POS for WH dwellers, if not improve certain aspects of it. If they remove functionality or make it more complicated, I will be very shocked. The point of my comment was if the big structures have the entosis functionality as it currently works, I see a lot of people just not using them, and I would like any future CCP WH design decisions to actually be conscious ones :). But we are still missing a lot of info to really have any sort of meaningful debate. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
569
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 03:43:00 -
[210] - Quote
The Impending sh*tstorm that is Housing... so yah i expect a LOT of very polarised views on this mainly because the people who will be highly against the:
Quote:Fate of stored items on structure destruction
Specifically moored items. Now considering the value of the items currently in a freeform 'mooring' in POS's any significant reduction to the safety of those assets when moving from the current system to this new system will be met with significant resistance, and rightly so in my opinion.
considering that further on in the devblog it reads:
Quote:...if your e-peen is too large for docking, mooring will be preferred option.
...Wreck: when a structure is destroyed ... Moored ships would however become vulnerable and up for grabs by anyone.
im paraphrasing slightly but the intent is pretty obvious from what i see. This goes entirely against the 1st Improvement Goal set out at the start of the devblog and states:
Quote:Support and enhance existing gameplay
this change does not improve or enhance gameplay, it removes and endangers assets owned by players when they may not even be logged in. which is entirely unfair. Im not going to lie, for people hunting moby swinging d*cks its fantastic news, and is why i fully expect some severe polarisation of views on this.
My personal opinion on what should be done with regards to logged off supers that arent aggro'd but is moored onto a structure thats about to die, is ripped right from Battlestar Galactica's RAZER mini-movie, where by a ship cuts off mooring ties and 'blind' jumps to a random location in a randomised system.
In terms of specific eve context this random location could be within base jump range attribute of the super from its previous location, and due to its blind jump there's would be no cyno to speak of. Its Jump would be conducted from within the mooring forcefield that counteracts any warp disruption field around it. This action could not and should not be available to an active player or in any other situation except the cataclysmic destruction of the structure containing the mooring service. Once the jump is completed the super e-warps off using base attributes for the ship in terms of align speed and warp. The blind jump direction and distance is trackable due to how eve jump portals work, so it does give a hint of its direction. Knowledge of this and the configuration of space can be key to planning a trap with sufficient skill, knowledge and preparation, alongside a good amount of luck.
This would also add to the necessity of strategic placement of supercapital mooring pens. |
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 16:00:39 -
[271] - 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. [/quote]
Yeah the anchoring thing in this blog is more about reducing the total number of things that need to be anchored. As I read it you still anchor all these new structures. Even in Hi Sec. |
Noriko Mai
2103
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 16:20:53 -
[272] - Quote
What is a mockup?
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
A'Tolkar
Carlson's Raiders
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 16:43:22 -
[273] - Quote
Thank you for your sarcasm which adds nothing to the discussion. As for Capital Assembly Array, I am just wondering if there is another announcement coming down the pipe regarding capital ships in high-sec. And for the medium assembly array, is there a problem with me pointing out a possible mistake in a mockup? The whole point of the mockup is to convey how the new structure will work. What is wrong with asking for clarification when one data point contradicts with another one? If CCP wants to give us an idea on how things will work with mockups and someone notices something contradictory, I figure CCP would want to know in order to change it so they can present correct info. I don't know why you are so butt hurt by the question that you need to get sarcastic and imply that you are so much smarter. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 16:53:10 -
[274] - Quote
Pay careful attention to avoiding creating a permanent oligarchy, and some attention to making the oligarchy that has already formed more vulnerable to being overturned. If you get this wrong, it'll make it too easy for the "old money" in the game to continue dominating 0.0.
How will these structures be attacked? Will they all be subject to the new "entosis" mechanic, or will some of them require hit-point grinding (as with current POS)? The entosis mechanic (or something like it) will be preferable, increasing the opportunities for small entities to engage in creative destruction in the space of sovereigns who become complacent.
The intelligence networks replacing locator agents is good, but should only extend as far as the sovereign entity's borders. They should be able to tell the entity if a certain player is logged out or active within their borders, but should not extend game wide. Having them interfere with cloaking mechanics is a bad idea unless combined with eliminating local, and only if a significant lag (measured in minutes) is required to locate a cloaked ship. Watch lists should also be made permission based. Intelligence about things like supers logging on should have to be actively gathered, not given for free by the game mechanics.
Anything that allows a sov holder to rely on passive defenses, whether that's hit-points and timers, or scanners of some sort, is a bad thing. It makes it too easy for "old money" entities to control the entire map. Safety in sov space should be directly proportional to the active defense of the space.
|
Noriko Mai
2104
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 16:55:51 -
[275] - Quote
A'Tolkar wrote:Thank you for your sarcasm which adds nothing to the discussion. As for Capital Assembly Array, I am just wondering if there is another announcement coming down the pipe regarding capital ships in high-sec. And for the medium assembly array, is there a problem with me pointing out a possible mistake in a mockup? The whole point of the mockup is to convey how the new structure will work. What is wrong with asking for clarification when one data point contradicts with another one? If CCP wants to give us an idea on how things will work with mockups and someone notices something contradictory, I figure CCP would want to know in order to change it so they can present correct info. I don't know why you are so butt hurt by the question that you need to get sarcastic and imply that you are so much smarter. Puh, so may words to say so little... Let's say it this way: "This mockup shows how it may look"
Calm down a bit... relax, take deap breath.. maybe go for a walk. No need to be that aggressive on a sunday afternoon.
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
Grimmash
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:08:06 -
[276] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote: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.
I think this falls under "not enough info" from one of my previous posts. If there becomes a way to dec individuals or individual structures, then that solves the risk v reward problem nicely. But that is not what we ahve now. My point was if the current wardec mechanics stand, then we either don't know enough about the new structures to meaningfully get into the nitty gritty, or we need additional info on upcoming corp mechanics changes, and we need more info on how entosis will shake out.
I would love to see individuals be able to anchor and use stuff anywhere, in a way that does not encourage people to go solo. Like I said, I like all these changes, at a big picture level, but I need a lot more detail on a lot of mechanics to really decide if they are good or bad, better or worse, etc... I'm pointing out weird scenarios I can see when trying to theorycraft how the proposed changes will mesh with current mechanics.
I do hate current wardec mechanics, but that is a whole separate issue :). Not for how they affect me, but for how they work in HS. The whole risk v reward for wardecs is a really weird topic, and I don't think it has been meaningfully addressed in anyway. But where I live, I care a lot more about how the entosis v structure grind aspect plays out. |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
208
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:41:57 -
[277] - Quote
Redbull Spai wrote: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........
Wonder if you read the part about adding agents to null sec? I doubt your problems in this area will improve once all the raters opt to run missions instead because guess what will happen then....STANDINGS!
Also, I understand that changes have different effects depending on your playstyle. I do hope the Devs are not bending their ear only to one group of players.
Any way, good stuff coming.
Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words.
Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions.
Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character.
And character is everything. - author unknown
|
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R Astraeaus
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:45:13 -
[278] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: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 now due to limited play time 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. So I want a method that allows me to clearly defend in a realistic fashion also.
No, if you don't keep the window then getting into a ship, or asking someone to move over so you can look out the one small window or undocking just to see what's going on outside is simply stupid. That humans have forgotten how to make windows 23,000 yeas in the future is simply personally unacceptable to me. The POS FF give us (1) an amazing 'window' AND (2) Forcefields are a std of almost ALL SF, and just FYI, I have been ingame over 4 years, I have lived in POSes for at least 3.5 years of that time.
I have no issue whatsoever with what CCP is attempting with POS & Structure changes, it needs doing, badly. But while I appreciate consistency, please keep in mind IRL we have different equipment for different environments... you don't setup and ingloo in the Bahamas and you wouldn't try to live in a grass hut in Antarctica. Even forts built in polar climates are basically different from forts built in equatorial climes... and so it should be in EVE also. WSpace is not Empire space and, having lived in botth I can tell you from experience, it is NOT Nullsec no matter what the number at the top left says... it is inherently DIFFERENT and those differences must be taken into account or you end up forcing unbalanced and unpleasant gameplay on players.
You have given me my second strongest argument for keeping the FF and not havinf the Entosis Link work on POSes in WSpace... "...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."
We are NOT Sov holders... we do NOT need Sov mechanics in WSpace... just make a variant of the Std POS and the XL POS that are balanced towards the gameplay that is inherent in Anoikis.
Not that I expect this, when CCP decided to change Scanning they really screwed us in Anoikis... I am pretty sure this will be the same.
TurAmarth ElRandir
Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro
and Unrepentant Blogger
Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)=
http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/
|
grumpychops
Non Nobis
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:47:05 -
[279] - Quote
BPO/Structure replacement
First, I would like to say that these changes seem very interesting and could be a great thing for the game. Although, these are very broad ideas, I am a fan.
My main points of concern are the BPOs and Structures that currently exist in game. As developers, IGÇÖm sure you have noticed that it is very difficult to make everybody happy with regards to reimbursing defunct items. Industrialists put a lot of their valuable game time and ISK into researching these items. Simply reimbursing NPC price is a slight to the value of player effort. I would not suggest some formula to increase the ISK reward based on ME/TE levels. What I suggest is to simply give us the equivalent of what we have.
This is what I propose:
-Develop a matrix that establishes the equivalency of legacy items to new items. (Example: Large Amarr POS = Large assembly platform, Minmatar Outpost BPO = XL assembly array structure BPO, CSAA BPO = Cap ship construction rig BPO) - On the introduction of new structures and the beginning of Grace Period 1, convert all items and BPOs that are located in a station into the new equivalent. -Have all conversions retain the same ME/TE level of the previous item. -At the end of Grace period 2A, run the conversion one last time. (This will give a chance for items located in space during Grace Period 1 to be swapped out and returned to station so production cycles are not disrupted.
This format should (I think) make players who have invested a significant time into researching large structures to 10/20 happy, and increase consensus on the changes. It will also allow CCP to demonstrate that they value the effort that players put into these items. |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:55:30 -
[280] - Quote
The big problem you have when you start to look at "personal" structures, is the motivation of people to defend it vs the ease of destroying it.
In the current system a POS can be a personal structure, if it's in a cop that's controlled by one player. This is extremely common for things like reactions. Of course a POS takes a fair amount of EHP to grind through and reaction POS's are typically going to be the last target during a invasion. This means that individual should have time to get their stuff out before it even gets reinforced. The bigger risk is player fatigue (real not jumpaids) and losing billions because they didn't fuel their towers and everything went offline.
If you are thinking about applying the entosis mechanic to all structure in the new system, you really need to think about how this applies to "personal" structures. For one thing a constellation wide event for some dudes reactors, caused by someone shining a laser on it for ten minutes, is kind of silly. Go the other route and making it just shining a lazor and no individual would risk it.
I think this is the tricky balance. If anything a personal structure needs to be more secure because the only person who losses if it gets destroyed is the individual. But as we've seen in EVE, groups are more than willing to cause an individual pain. On top of that how do you apply a timezone mechanic to an individual structure. You have to defend your structure during individual primetime? That's really silly.
Look at things like mobile depots too. You can't leave a mobile depot in an area with any sort of traffic without it getting rf'd. The hep is just way to low. Sure you can drop in a safe spot no problem and as it is right now people won't scan them down. But if it's known that mining platforms could contain billions in reaction materials, those will be scanned down even if they are in safe spots.
I'm curious how this "space city" idea will play in here.
Also there does not seem to be any sort of structure dedicated as a weapons platform. Without this whatever structure has the best slot layout will just become a de facto weapons platform. |
|
Jezra Tanaka
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 17:57:50 -
[281] - Quote
I personally like the current anchoring mechanic. the way this is described makes me think that the new structures will be overly vulnerable because you are limited to 8 defenses. some places you need a deathstar with 12 Large pulse lasers and an array of supporting equipment just for defense, and only online the production modules you actually need at the moment.
in others you can leave just a little E-War up and be mostly fine as long as you check on it.
Point is that POS need to be more flexible then this model shows.
I do like the idea they fielded of having reppers on a structure. I can see the use of having a triage pos, but I'd rather that exist under current mechanics similar to the use of guns/E-war. |
Parmenionas
New Eden Times News and Media Agency
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 18:07:44 -
[282] - Quote
What does it have to do with POS and structures?
The Old GUI was surpossed to be obsolete in accordance with modern day standards for SciFi Games. The new one is just a polished version. But what does this line have to do with POS and structures?
Everything.
I saw a new idea pool that seems splendid and to complement it i saw the old good fitting screen. I must addmit that this screen is very straightforward and nice but long in line for an overhaul. When you implement a new feature or improve about an old one i excpect to see the UI to follow up as well.
I undestrund that in its simplicity the overview is great for combat because it is immediate and straightworward and hard to improve upon. But to deploy structures we need time. It is an immense adittion to the game and the player enviroment and it deserves to be completed with a methodologie that complements this addition and a UI that might change the way we see EVE. Right clicks in space is not the way to go here.
Finaly i shall add that for the new POS system i excpect finaly to some degree a WIS with a plan. Like walking up to a holodeck like room where we can address the works been done. This i see as a gentle push to help old aditions that are collecting dust.
This is a Sci Fi Game. As a matter of fact it might be the best that ever has been. But if we want it to be arround for some more years or even decates it will have to raise the bar to new levels. Otherwise the best game that has been will become a..... has been.
ps
Great work on the Valkyrie on the vid i saw you uploadet recently. Now you see why we EVE players complain for years over the proportions and perspective problems. This is how EVE should look, and if not in space at least the ship previews. Fly safe and keep delivering.
ps^2 Hugs to all the devs, no hard feelings here! |
Parmenionas
New Eden Times News and Media Agency
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 18:15:01 -
[283] - Quote
Chribba wrote:Very interesting, I foresee a major logistics effort to replace all structures though, if I understood it correctly we would have to replace them with the new things?
Also looking forward on more details about the mooring system, the radius things and of course if this might mean we will be seeing supercaps for sale on the market.
Imagining an outpost gets destroyed, and all the content and stuff gets ejected into space for the owner to scoop within the time, could a massive amount of canisters affect lag or similar with many thousands of new objects in space?
/c
It would make sense for the canisters and content to autopropel to a nearby station or outpost, probably predefined by the owners.
On another note though why not hve the preverbial npc haulers we see undock overtimes fly in, scoope the stuff and deliver with a small reward. After all we still need a ISK Sink, and that seems to make sense. |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
95
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 18:37:14 -
[284] - Quote
Please add killmails for Mobile Warp Disruptor structures. |
Kiela Paine
Lithium Industries
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 18:38:59 -
[285] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5602373#post5602373
Here's my feedback |
Escpage
Naquadria
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 19:01:55 -
[286] - Quote
I think it is a very good start. Structures have been missing the modular mechanics, happy to see that a rework is being considered. |
Noriko Mai
2104
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 19:03:59 -
[287] - Quote
While you remove the placing cross, can you please add something to align the structure as we like while placing them. Would be cool to have the planet behind your station while undocking and such things.
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
Lateris
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 19:06:19 -
[288] - Quote
I am so excited for this. From an environment design perspective how close can these structures be placed near moons or planets if its possible?
0/
|
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi
181
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 19:13:39 -
[289] - Quote
If you're going to remove Outpost construction (very bad idea in my opinion) and make them destructible then presumably there can reach a point where there are no more left in the game. So what does this mean for Walking in Stations? Has the entire WiS concept been abandoned by CCP? Two years ago Hilmar suggested we might hear something about it at last year's fanfest but instead we got some vague references to player-built gates.
I've always liked the idea of being able to walk around inside stations and feel it could provide a much needed new gameplay element to Eve which is becoming stale in its constant churning out of new ships and calling that new content. Certainly Eve's competition by way of Elite Dangerous and the forthcoming Star Citizen both have this feature. If WiS has not been abandoned then how do you square the idea of being able to walk around the inside of a structure with the risk of that structure being blown up with you in it? Have you even considered the ramifications of this if WiS is still something on the table?
Why not keep Outposts as the XL size Administration hub? Have you also considered that if you make the place where people store their stuff destructible, even if they're able to recover it if they control the grid, people will be more inclined to store their stuff in NPC stations thus you risk putting the final nail in the coffin of null sec sovereignty?
11 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
Arcos Vandymion
White Beast Inc.
97
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 19:16:20 -
[290] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote: EDIT: I am most curious how frozen corpses will be tied into advertising.
Soylent Green to go
Now available as well: The classic Soylent Orange as "To Go".
Special Limited time offer - obscure movie refference crossover taste. Soylent Clockwork - available in orange and green. |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
569
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 20:13:15 -
[291] - Quote
Jezra Tanaka wrote:I personally like the current anchoring mechanic. the way this is described makes me think that the new structures will be overly vulnerable because you are limited to 8 defenses. some places you need a deathstar with 12 Large pulse lasers and an array of supporting equipment just for defense, and only online the production modules you actually need at the moment.
in others you can leave just a little E-War up and be mostly fine as long as you check on it.
Point is that POS need to be more flexible then this model shows.
I do like the idea they fielded of having reppers on a structure. I can see the use of having a triage pos, but I'd rather that exist under current mechanics similar to the use of guns/E-war.
well the entire assortment of modules on the new structures will be completely new, not a redesign of the guns we have currently.
The guns we have currently have pretty much stayed exactly the same since they came out, and unfortunately ship power creep has occurred to the point that currently you do need 12 large pulses and dozens of mediums and small to aggressively defend an important asset. However i would imagine the new high slot guns for structures will have a significant improvement and increase in power to compensate for how lacklustre the current ones are.
plus i have to wonder that when those guns are destroyed, if they remove themselves from the high slot so it can be replaced by another gun from the structures armoury.
all 'what if's and presumptions so far but worthwhile discussing. |
Richecko
University of Caille Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 20:33:40 -
[292] - Quote
As long as we're also talking about making-up-new-stuff for structures...
An analog to the MTU and Mobile Depot that does compression would be a welcome addition to the game. You could stay out longer doing deep space mining particularly in mission or exploration sites, or in wormholes - especially ones that are limited to small or small & medium ships where you will never bring a Rorqual or Orca.
It's transport size should consider cargohold capacity of ships like the Venture, Prospect and Procurer, or if used in Null being pre-positiioned by an interceptor or covps ship like the Astero. It's ore hold size should consider how much Ore, Ice and Gas it could contain relative to the ore hold size of common mining ships. It's relationship to dscan, and whether it can be cloaked (perhaps for a period if fueled?) should also be considered.
Perhaps it's role should be combined with in-space storage for day-trippers. CCP want's us to live-in, explore and exploit deep space? Let's do it!
--
Sleeper's having cloaked structures is interesting. How about adding that element for players somewhere in the game. Seems like a worthy technology to harvest from new wrecked ancient structures.
|
Dracnys
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 21:05:01 -
[293] - Quote
First of all: this sounds very promising and in my opinion this is the most significant change in years.
I have a number of issues with some of the plans (more like warnings)
1. Giving sov holders and large groups too much power. Especially the observatory and the gate modules look like they will allow holders to gain massive bonuses in their systems. Uncloak people, track any intruders with the player tracker, lower their ship's agility, make them decloak faster from gate jump and make them spawn further away to prevent running back. This can be alleviated if the services are easily disrupted. NPC security force sounds like a terrible idea, if you want that there's highsec.
2. As a trader I am very much against increasing tax in NPC stations. High taxes cripple the trading profession and make markets inefficient, which hurts not only resale traders but also every seller and buyer. Please don't make existing markets worse to aggressively push players to trade in the new structures. It's fine if they have less taxes or provide other benefits.
3. Manufacturing arrays granting ME bonuses is very dangerous. It can easily lead to a situation where someone who doesn't have access to large, upgraded structures worth billions can't compete even in entry level markets (T1 modules, ammo...). Simply because their production costs are higher. I had to tell rookie industrialists too often that there is no point in manufacturing anything before they have perfect blueprints and perfect skills (which is thankfully fixed). |
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2673
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 22:17:06 -
[294] - Quote
So much to take in, eh?
Yeah even a long wall of text cannot cover all of the fine details that will have to be hammered out.
I do worry about loss of stuff. Mainly for folks who are deployed or away for good reason (not just because they are bored of the game). If there was a chance that they could come back to a complete loss of their null assets then they would have to either move said assets out anytime they were at risk of being away OR account share (which is not allowed). Put yourself in their shoes and ask if this is something you would want to face. The only safety MIGHT be huge coalitions which MIGHT provide enough security and stability that you would have a decent chance of coming back to all your investments intact. something something blue doughnut. . . . obligatory Grrr
yeah, so it is something I keep very much to the forefront when we discuss this sort of thing.
Some people want to watch the world burn. Question is are there so many of them that they are unstoppable? I mean I like a fire as much as the next person but I would not burn my own house down just for shiggles. Some people would burn this game to the ground and then move on to some other complaining that Eve was just ash and Dust (514). Will you help them, stop them, or stand back and grab the makings for s'mores? Should everything be made indestructible;e for fear of their actions or should we put mechanisms in place to help keep the fires fun but not out of control?
A new CSM, CSMX is just in the process of signing in. Stay in contact with the people you think represent you, the ones you voted for. It is why we bloody well exist, afterall.
m
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Light Speedy
Twin Tech
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 22:46:32 -
[295] - Quote
OK so all sounds good CCP I just have 2 things that worry me.
1. - When the jump fatigue changes were announces their were 152,847 jillion zillion comments saying it was the end of the world and it was a real good thing for the game. This time however everyone is posting positive comments which worries me some.....
2. - This thing/question is more personal, my corp and I are a small group in wh space. We make it work there because we have a uber deathstar POS with absolute **** tons of defenses randomly placed all over the place outside the shields. We can only have so many online but if under attack could online more or online replacements for damaged ones. Basically any serious and organized group could take us down with a little effort we all know. But we survive by being a tough nut to crack and looking like a hot mess of a porcupine if attacked.
The new fitting thing looks easier and fun, but it sure seems to make a lot less intimidating a target to fit 6-8 weapons all in one place on a station, as opposed to 25-50 randomly placed guns batteries, and 20 or so e war batteries like we currently have. Also would we be out in space in some kind of safety at first like we currently are in our shield? Or would we be in our Station knowing we are under attack somehow but not in our ships?
We also do a lot of different industry things at our POS and have different things online and offline depending on whats going on at any given time. Would we able to do similar?
Those are basically my concerns. I suppose a final thought would be that stations and Outposts have always felt like a house/building in space, where living in a POS with all its flaws is kinda like camping/homesteading in space the way for a small group to have its own place. I like camping I hope it still has that feel. |
Eric Xallen
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 22:46:50 -
[296] - Quote
I'm a little concerned with the direction they're taking on the outposts. Coupled with the new sovereignty mechanics, a push to completely destructible industry items will be a heavy disincentive to null industry. Its been stated numerous times that CCP wants to encourage local manufacturing.
However the risk of losing a huge amount in Rearearch/Manufacturing assets (not just the blueprints, but the stock, etc, for a bonafide alliance level amount of throughput) when added to the ease of loss will highly discourage people from investing in nullsec industry. Many items take longer to research/build than the 48-96 hr Fozziesov flip/destroy window, and the m3 involved means evacuation even if its not opposed is a huge pain in the ass.
I think this direction is running at cross purposes with their stated goals on reducing Nullsec's reliance on Jita. |
Vladd Talltos
Air The Initiative.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 22:55:08 -
[297] - Quote
Have you considered adding a shield module that can be fitted to the structure? The POS shield has always made it possible to effectively use/deploy the Rorqual for single player/multi-player mining operations. Wtihout the POS shield to support the use of the deployed Rorqual, the previous changes to structures, and the recent changes to capital ship travel, the Rorqual will be completely useless. Even deployed with a large fleet, the Rorqual would become the target of choice and be destroyed quickly.
Are there any plans to make the Rorqual useful again?
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
333
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 22:59:54 -
[298] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Our current thinking is you cannot be in an NPC corp because you need to be able to declare war against the owner.
However we want people to be able to deploy personal use only towers from within any player corporation.
First of all I cannot freaking wait for these changes, very well done so far devs. I look forward to providing a lot more feedback in the testing phases as they will affect many parts of my current and future play styles A LOT. However, off the bat, I have a few questions:
1) I am a bit confused about the progression from mobile structures to larger structures. On the proposed changes, do mobile deployables like the mobile depot become structures like the M sized "depot platform" or are mobile deployables going to stay as distinct structures one does not upgrade or fit with modules? The naming for the depot is a bit confusing if mobile depots stay as S size personal structures.
2) In terms of the "attack method," can you explain a bit more about the use of the entosis link on L and XL structures? And what does "entosis + site" exactly mean? ---> Say, for example, I want to remove a POCO after the changes, when a POCO becomes a "office center" on a planet. First of all, will POCO/Office centers potentially have guns and other modules fitted?! So then I use the entosis link on it. What happens at the end of the timer, does control swap to my corporation or do I then have the opportunity to blow it up and place my own like the current system?
3) Can you say whether there will be any limits to the NUMBER of structures a player can have? Presumably corporations will be able to have as many office centers as they want, considering many corporations have lots of POCOs which will become office centers. However, does that mean a player/corporation/alliance can have as many of any structure of any size as they want??
4) Finally, for now, will players be able to use jump clones in wormholes using the new office centers???????? That would be HUGE. |
Emma Yassavi
Estel Arador Corp Services Estel Arador Capsuleer Services
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 00:04:11 -
[299] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote: 6- You need to kill market hubs if you want to introduce player own markets, players need 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.
This is silly. Market hubs are a natural occurrence in any market (look at New York, Chicago, Hong Kong, London etc). They're simply a way to reduce transaction costs and increase liquidity. Trying to "kill" market hubs would just make thing more expensive for everyone (you'd sell goods for less, buy them for more and volume would be down so not even market makers would be better off).
Possibly, and this is speculation, the existence of player-owned market hubs will create competition to the NCP market hubs simply because of reduced taxes (which act as a transaction cost). The main problem would be to make sure that people were able to transport goods to and from the system reasonably safely, which of course would be a logistically difficult, but potentially having THE market hub in your area of nullsec would be the most profitable thing you could do in the game. I don't know the numbers, but I'd imagine .1% of 10% of Jita's daily volume is still a lot a ISK. |
Noriko Mai
2106
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 01:18:44 -
[300] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:[..]I do worry about loss of stuff. Mainly for folks who are deployed or away for good reason (not just because they are bored of the game).[..] Being bored is a good and valid reason to leave for a while and it should not be treated differently!
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
|
Elana Apgar
DarkMatter-Industries Upholders
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 01:31:05 -
[301] - Quote
I am super excited about these changes. It all sounds really cool. I think all the industrial structures sound awesome, and I can't wait to get some of that going in my wormhole.
There are a few concerns I have.
I'm not sure what the fate will be for POSs, but as of right now, we have safety in our forcefields. We can see the enemy (if there is one sitting at our tower) and we can also hit d-scan obsessively. It's where we hang out between fights and carebearing, while we wait for our scouts to find more content. If you transition us us to mooring, we won't be able to use d-scan, and that's a problem, especially since we don't have local (I am not advocating for local in W-Space, I like W-Space the way it is). We rely heavily on D-scan and losing that ability while we are waiting around is bad.
Another concern with the proposed system is that it looks like with the fitting window, there would be a limited amount of guns, EWAR, webs, and points that you'd be able to put on a tower. As I'm sure you guys are aware, a lot of times there's very valuable stuff stored in control towers. At present we can have as many defensive modules as we want anchored to our tower (although we cannot online all of them at once) so long as we don't cause lag (Deep Space 9 station in Polaris anyone?). We need to be able to defend whatever the next housing structure is as well as we can defend our current towers.
Will the skill "Starbase Defense Management" become obsolete? Will starbases/pos's definitely be phased out?
Elana
|
BoBoZoBo
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
549
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 02:02:25 -
[302] - Quote
This looks AMAZING! Very excited to see this and love the direction so far.
Primary Test Subject GÇó SmackTalker Elite
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4191
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 02:20:57 -
[303] - Quote
I would like to see the Faction standing requirements reinstated for corporation deployment of these new structures in high-sec. Large and extra-large structures should have the previous standing requirements, and these could be dropped down a bit for personal deployments.
Medium (personal) 0.5 - 1.0 standing 0.6 - 2.0 standing 0.7 - 3.0 standing 0.8-1.0 (unavailable to reduce clutter)
Large or Extra-Large (corporation only) 0.5 - 5.0 standing 0.6 - 6.0 standing 0.7 - 7.0 standing 0.8 - 8.0 standing 0.9 - 9.0 standing 1.0 - 10.0 standing
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1481
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 02:37:56 -
[304] - Quote
xttz wrote:Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.
By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even conquering effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good.
This. Fozzie and rise seem hellbent on completely killing the role of battleships, dreads, and supers in EvE, and it is not only invalidating very large amounts of skilling many players like myself have done across multiple characters, but seeks to take away a big part of the game that, for all we might complain about, we also enjoy. Having entosis control sov, and ihub capture and all that, sure, but non-sov structures should see be hitpoint targets, not entosis. A single interceptor that comes in when everyone in corp is asleep shouldn't be able to shut off our production for 12 hours a day.
Also, I really don't get why it is heralded as 'individuals will have the ability to set up personal structures, as long as they have permission (roles) from their ceo'. This really doesn't seem much different than the current system? |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4192
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 02:46:37 -
[305] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:This. Fozzie and rise seem hellbent on completely killing the role of battleships, dreads, and supers in EvE, and it is not only invalidating very large amounts of skilling many players like myself have done across multiple characters, but seeks to take away a big part of the game that, for all we might complain about, we also enjoy. Having entosis control sov, and ihub capture and all that, sure, but non-sov structures should see be hitpoint targets, not entosis. A single interceptor that comes in when everyone in corp is asleep shouldn't be able to shut off our production for 12 hours a day. And don't forget awesome structure explosions.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Elana Apgar
DarkMatter-Industries Upholders
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 02:52:07 -
[306] - Quote
Also, while we're discussing structures, does anyone else think that 1 day 18 hours is retardedly long for a reinforce timer on a mobile depot? |
Zheng'Yi Sao
DIRTY MONEY INC. Silent Infinity
64
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:01:50 -
[307] - Quote
What then is the use of a Rorqual?
We hide them in bubbles precisely because they are impossible to use without one. Sit in a belt with a Rorqual and see what happens. For that matter, where are the exhumers/barges supposed to go when the system goes red? Sure, we can warp to a safe point while we wait for the enemy to scan us down. Either we die at a bookmark in space, or we die in the warp bubbles deployed at stations to keep us from docking.
I suppose now I have to rely on Observation Platforms which may or may not block D-Scan system wide? These, of course will be primary targets. If they can be found? Not that you even need to blow it up, because a Rifter/Entosis link can render it inoperable in about ten minutes, maybe twenty if you meet the max defense bonus. Good luck operating anything next to low or hi sec. Any cut rate tourist with said Rifter/Entosis link can troll the nearby null systems at will. I won't go on about Entosis here though.
For that matter, do you even need Sov to deploy any of this stuff? Seems like the Sov owner deploys the big stuff, and the individual players get to anchor what exactly? I couldn't figure this part out from the blog. I feel like you have tossed out all these wild ideas, without explaining hardly at all how current game play will be effected in the new system.
Lots of folks complain that mining is horribly dull. I think the same about ratting. Mining in null is anything but boring. You constantly have to be on your toes. It also requires a major investment of ISK, training time, and upkeep. I don't see how I am supposed to practice my profession in the future. Bubbles make mining possible in null sec. Maybe you think it is reasonable to just hang a 3.5b capital ship out in space for anyone to point and destroy? Not worth it for me. Just a matter of time until you lose everything. Sure, a POS can be destroyed, but it takes time and energy to do so. Mining ships, and their support vessels are garbage when it comes to defense, hence why so many players go after them. Now we will be easy targets, with no place to run. Awesome.
To me, the entire point of Eve is that you can do something other than run around the universe shooting stuff. Now, anyone with the imagination to try a different style will be completely at the mercy of every drooling F1 monkey in New Eden. Excellent.
I would really like to be excited. Seeing such major changes with such little information just leaves me frustrated, angry, and thinking I will be looking for another game to play in the future.
"It's funny the things you people think are mandatory for us, as if we don't do what we do because it's a hilarious good time in a space video game." - Johnny Marzetti
|
bp920091
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
95
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:05:55 -
[308] - Quote
Overall, I like the changes that are presented, but there's an issue that I have. Referenced earlier in this thread, regarding the diversity of the structures.
A large structure (POS replacement) where moon mining takes place, should have at least 2 size levels.
As someone who manages not only R64 towers (where having a deathstar is pretty common, and would work fine in the new system), but the cheaper R16/32 towers, there needs to be a smaller tower that will have a much lower fuel cost/logistics requirement.
Just to give an example, a platinum moon will give you approx 295m in revenue a month, and costs 125m/month. That's only 170m/month, but since there's quite a few of these (easily 20x the number of R64s), that 170m adds up quite fast. However, this has to have a SMALL tower on it. Much lower defensive ability, no doubt, but it's got a lower fuel requirement. It can fend off a couple of people, but anything that tanks more than 1,000 dps gets to laugh at it, as it reinforces the tower.
A large tower will run you 500m/month, and there needs to be the capacity to mine and provide a reasonable defense.
There should be a range of structures, so that i'm not fitting one with the same capacities on a Platinum moon and a Dysprosium moon.
Dyspro brings in 4b/month, worth the logistical requirements of a massive deathstar. Platinum brings in 170m/month, only worthwhile en-masse. Please dont give a "one size fits all" method to the POS replacement.
Oh, if you do decide to only focus on the big deathstars, and make it impossible financially to run smaller towers, say goodbye to the T2 market (there's a lot of low-priced stuff that goes into the t2 mods, not just the high-value R64 moongoo).
***
Additionally, POS guns need to have the capacity of larger numbers of smaller guns (ie, have 1 large gun, 2 medium guns, or 4 small guns on the same slot), if we're only going to get the capacity to have 8 highslots. There are often REALLY good reasons to have a large number of small guns. |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1482
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:09:32 -
[309] - Quote
Zheng'Yi Sao wrote:What then is the use of a Rorqual?
We hide them in bubbles precisely because they are impossible to use without one. Sit in a belt with a Rorqual and see what happens. For that matter, where are the exhumers/barges supposed to go when the system goes red? Sure, we can warp to a safe point while we wait for the enemy to scan us down. Either we die at a bookmark in space, or we die in the warp bubbles deployed at stations to keep us from docking.
I suppose now I have to rely on Observation Platforms which may or may not block D-Scan system wide? These, of course will be primary targets. If they can be found? Not that you even need to blow it up, because a Rifter/Entosis link can render it inoperable in about ten minutes, maybe twenty if you meet the max defense bonus. Good luck operating anything next to low or hi sec. Any cut rate tourist with said Rifter/Entosis link can troll the nearby null systems at will. I won't go on about Entosis here though.
For that matter, do you even need Sov to deploy any of this stuff? Seems like the Sov owner deploys the big stuff, and the individual players get to anchor what exactly? I couldn't figure this part out from the blog. I feel like you have tossed out all these wild ideas, without explaining hardly at all how current game play will be effected in the new system.
Lots of folks complain that mining is horribly dull. I think the same about ratting. Mining in null is anything but boring. You constantly have to be on your toes. It also requires a major investment of ISK, training time, and upkeep. I don't see how I am supposed to practice my profession in the future. Bubbles make mining possible in null sec. Maybe you think it is reasonable to just hang a 3.5b capital ship out in space for anyone to point and destroy? Not worth it for me. Just a matter of time until you lose everything. Sure, a POS can be destroyed, but it takes time and energy to do so. Mining ships, and their support vessels are garbage when it comes to defense, hence why so many players go after them. Now we will be easy targets, with no place to run. Awesome.
To me, the entire point of Eve is that you can do something other than run around the universe shooting stuff. Now, anyone with the imagination to try a different style will be completely at the mercy of every drooling F1 monkey in New Eden. Excellent.
I would really like to be excited. Seeing such major changes with such little information just leaves me frustrated, angry, and thinking I will be looking for another game to play in the future.
Completely agree about mining not being dull. There's a ton of us out there who do it, who enjoy it. I think 90%+ of the complaints about mining come from those who dn't mine, which isn't worth listening to considering there are so many of us who enjoy it the way it is, that it works fine.
As for the rorqual, I highly suspect that they will put mining ganglink bonuses on the drilling platform and further relegate our mining director endgame ship into complete uselessness.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4194
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:11:54 -
[310] - Quote
Zheng'Yi Sao wrote:What then is the use of a Rorqual? Even though I don't own one, I sympathize and think it's long overdue for an overhaul.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:14:47 -
[311] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I would like to see the Faction standing requirements reinstated for corporation deployment of these new structures in high-sec. Large and extra-large structures should have the previous standing requirements, and these could be dropped down a bit for personal deployments.
Medium (personal) 0.5 - 1.0 standing 0.6 - 2.0 standing 0.7 - 3.0 standing 0.8-1.0 (unavailable to reduce clutter)
Large or Extra-Large (corporation only) 0.5 - 5.0 standing 0.6 - 6.0 standing 0.7 - 7.0 standing 0.8 - 8.0 standing 0.9 - 9.0 standing 1.0 - 10.0 standing
Yes, that would limit the spam somewhat.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4194
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:17:11 -
[312] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Yes, that would limit the spam somewhat. Can you imagine how many Billboard structures would be placed at each Star Gate alone...? And let's not even think about Jita!
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:20:25 -
[313] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Yes, that would limit the spam somewhat. Can you imagine how many Billboard structures would be placed outside of Jita - let alone stargates...
That would make the Universe... Alive!
Current Mobile Deployment mechanics are sufficient I think to present billboards in best light - not too far, not too close to a gate/station to make the advertisement actually work and be coherent.
P.S. I remember the times when I used to make can Art in Minmatar lowsec, just a few jumps from Amamake. ( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦)
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Zheng'Yi Sao
DIRTY MONEY INC. Silent Infinity
66
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:31:39 -
[314] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: Can you imagine how many Billboard structures would be placed at each Star Gate alone...? And let's not even think about Jita!
I wonder if systems will go into time dilation just from the pure volume of Billboards?
CCP worried about loading all the custom paint skins players might create, now they want to give us mobile video platforms?
"It's funny the things you people think are mandatory for us, as if we don't do what we do because it's a hilarious good time in a space video game." - Johnny Marzetti
|
Starbuck1988
Extreme Deep Invader Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:37:59 -
[315] - Quote
ok I love what you are doing with all this, I agree with most of what people are saying except the high sec and low sec going into a Null sec environment, that will defeat what all of this has been about, the first decade+.
The entosis thing whatever it is should be limited to Sov space, and for the new station structures, make it Small, Medium, and Large, and the Service/High/Med/Low are more just like with ships, the bigger the station, the more of each of those you get allowing you to do more.
The service slots just like T3 ships are changeable out where you can make it generic and can do anything, or you have more for more specialized things. just like if small or medium you can put where ships can moor, and if large and XL you can setup moor and dock types. |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4194
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:39:06 -
[316] - Quote
Starbuck1988 wrote:ok I love what you are doing with all this, I agree with most of what people are saying except the high sec and low sec going into a Null sec environment, that will defeat what all of this has been about, the first decade+. the entosis thing whatever it is should be limited to Sov space, and for the new station structures, make it Small, Medium, and Large, and the Service/High/Med/Low are more just like with ships, the bigger the station, the more of each of those you get allowing you to do more, and the service slots just like T3 ships are changeable out where you can make it generic and can do anything, or you have more for more specialized things. just like if small or medium you can put where ships can moor, and if large and XL you can setup moor and dock types. Honestly, I'm not sure if X-large structures should be constructible in high-sec.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2674
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:44:19 -
[317] - Quote
Noriko Mai wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:[..]I do worry about loss of stuff. Mainly for folks who are deployed or away for good reason (not just because they are bored of the game).[..] Being bored is a good and valid reason to leave for a while and it should not be treated differently!
and it wouldn't be, but we do need tonacknowledge that some folks have career/duty/rl commitments that drag them from the gameas opposed to just walking away until the next good war happens. The end result would be the same, however. IS the stuff protected or dropped, is it transferred to some neutral pickup point. Is there any hope for a loot pinata?
m
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:52:50 -
[318] - Quote
bp920091 wrote:Overall, I like the changes that are presented, but there's an issue that I have. Referenced earlier in this thread, regarding the diversity of the structures.
A large structure (POS replacement) where moon mining takes place, should have at least 2 size levels.
As someone who manages not only R64 towers (where having a deathstar is pretty common, and would work fine in the new system), but the cheaper R16/32 towers, there needs to be a smaller tower that will have a much lower fuel cost/logistics requirement.
Just to give an example, a platinum moon will give you approx 295m in revenue a month, and costs 125m/month. That's only 170m/month, but since there's quite a few of these (easily 20x the number of R64s), that 170m adds up quite fast. However, this has to have a SMALL tower on it. Much lower defensive ability, no doubt, but it's got a lower fuel requirement. It can fend off a couple of people, but anything that tanks more than 1,000 dps gets to laugh at it, as it reinforces the tower.
A large tower will run you 500m/month, and there needs to be the capacity to mine and provide a reasonable defense.
There should be a range of structures, so that i'm not fitting one with the same capacities on a Platinum moon and a Dysprosium moon.
Dyspro brings in 4b/month, worth the logistical requirements of a massive deathstar. Platinum brings in 170m/month, only worthwhile en-masse. Please dont give a "one size fits all" method to the POS replacement.
Oh, if you do decide to only focus on the big deathstars, and make it impossible financially to run smaller towers, say goodbye to the T2 market (there's a lot of low-priced stuff that goes into the t2 mods, not just the high-value R64 moongoo).
***
Additionally, POS guns need to have the capacity of larger numbers of smaller guns (ie, have 1 large gun, 2 medium guns, or 4 small guns on the same slot), if we're only going to get the capacity to have 8 highslots. There are often REALLY good reasons to have a large number of small guns.
I think it's na+»ve to assume moon mining as it exists in its current form will continue exactly as is in the new system. |
bp920091
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
96
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:56:23 -
[319] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:bp920091 wrote:Overall, I like the changes that are presented, but there's an issue that I have. Referenced earlier in this thread, regarding the diversity of the structures.
A large structure (POS replacement) where moon mining takes place, should have at least 2 size levels.
As someone who manages not only R64 towers (where having a deathstar is pretty common, and would work fine in the new system), but the cheaper R16/32 towers, there needs to be a smaller tower that will have a much lower fuel cost/logistics requirement.
Just to give an example, a platinum moon will give you approx 295m in revenue a month, and costs 125m/month. That's only 170m/month, but since there's quite a few of these (easily 20x the number of R64s), that 170m adds up quite fast. However, this has to have a SMALL tower on it. Much lower defensive ability, no doubt, but it's got a lower fuel requirement. It can fend off a couple of people, but anything that tanks more than 1,000 dps gets to laugh at it, as it reinforces the tower.
A large tower will run you 500m/month, and there needs to be the capacity to mine and provide a reasonable defense.
There should be a range of structures, so that i'm not fitting one with the same capacities on a Platinum moon and a Dysprosium moon.
Dyspro brings in 4b/month, worth the logistical requirements of a massive deathstar. Platinum brings in 170m/month, only worthwhile en-masse. Please dont give a "one size fits all" method to the POS replacement.
Oh, if you do decide to only focus on the big deathstars, and make it impossible financially to run smaller towers, say goodbye to the T2 market (there's a lot of low-priced stuff that goes into the t2 mods, not just the high-value R64 moongoo).
***
Additionally, POS guns need to have the capacity of larger numbers of smaller guns (ie, have 1 large gun, 2 medium guns, or 4 small guns on the same slot), if we're only going to get the capacity to have 8 highslots. There are often REALLY good reasons to have a large number of small guns. I think it's na+»ve to assume moon mining as it exists in its current form will continue exactly as is in the new system.
Agreed, but given the lack of logistics people being included in CCP's thought processes proved that there was none, other than the R64 maintenance group (the initial capital range nerf included JFs, which would have obliterated the t2 market, and it was only when there was a massive player backlash to them regarding logistics when they relented (their initial thought process was "People found ways before JFs, so they'll find ways now" without realizing what gameplay changes (carrier + industrials in SMA) people used before JFs)), it needs to be brought up. |
Thalos Maedros
Hells Demon Brigade Scorpion Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 04:20:47 -
[320] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I would like to see the Faction standing requirements reinstated for corporation deployment of these new structures in high-sec. Large and extra-large structures should have the previous standing requirements, and these could be dropped down a bit for personal deployments.
Medium (personal) 0.5 - 1.0 standing 0.6 - 2.0 standing 0.7 - 3.0 standing 0.8-1.0 (unavailable to reduce clutter)
Large or Extra-Large (corporation only) 0.5 - 5.0 standing 0.6 - 6.0 standing 0.7 - 7.0 standing 0.8 - 8.0 standing 0.9 - 9.0 standing 1.0 - 10.0 standing
Only problem with that system then would be players would then set up personal structures instead if they wanted to bypass the requirements you stated above. As CCP said they want it to have more possibilities for players, your idea is bringing it back to limitations |
|
Silana Hurtini
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 04:35:36 -
[321] - Quote
Quote:Text advertisement, billboard replacement, being used as gigantic monuments with no purpose (except to show how big your e-peen is by showing the statue of your glorious alliance leader). Could also involve frozen corpses somehow.
I am not a woman, but I think that this type of language is not welcoming to them. Not that anybody who plays the game probably cares, but you'd hope the devs would at least. |
Oxide Ammar
189
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 06:47:58 -
[322] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Starbuck1988 wrote:ok I love what you are doing with all this, I agree with most of what people are saying except the high sec and low sec going into a Null sec environment, that will defeat what all of this has been about, the first decade+. the entosis thing whatever it is should be limited to Sov space, and for the new station structures, make it Small, Medium, and Large, and the Service/High/Med/Low are more just like with ships, the bigger the station, the more of each of those you get allowing you to do more, and the service slots just like T3 ships are changeable out where you can make it generic and can do anything, or you have more for more specialized things. just like if small or medium you can put where ships can moor, and if large and XL you can setup moor and dock types. Honestly, I'm not sure if X-large structures should be constructible in high-sec.
They will allow capital ships in hisec and reintroduce level 5 missions back to hisec, also they might introduce upper tier of incursions used only by capital ships....mark my words
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.
|
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
62
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 07:28:34 -
[323] - Quote
Great to see these changes coming!
Looking forward to further details, especially so we can theory craft the interaction between structure size, corp size and attack mechanics.
Cheers, Neug
Indices/Mining Simulator V3.8 UPDATED
Daily Forge Mineral Sales Summary V1.3
Neug's Prime Industrial Real Estate V1.3
|
Imigo Montoya
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 08:11:54 -
[324] - Quote
"be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users"
This is concerning. I have small children so I regularly have to go afk while playing, usually at short notice. This means that I need to be able to get assets safe if I'm out flying at all. PvE no longer holds any interest to me and I generally prefer shooting player controlled ships when I have the opportunity to actively engage with this game, so combine these things together and my gameplay experience of EVE would be best described as cloaky pew.
My favourite activity is catching people coming through gates with my cloaky Sabre. That means I am generally on-grid with a system bottleneck structure, and already vulnerable to being decloaked due to where I have to be located to be ready to catch a potential target. If I need to go afk I'll warp off to a safe or perch and cloak up there. When I used to do PvE activities, it was generally in a place where I had a POS or station nearby that I could warp to and safe/dock up. That is still available to me, but that would mean I'd have to pursue PvE activities
One of the things I really like about EVE is the emergent nature of it. Instead of providing pre-defined gameplay, EVE provides the tools and allows the player the ability to engineer the way they use them in a way that suits their own varied needs. In order for me to be able to play EVE at all, I need to be able to make it work within the RL constraints that I have. Being able to fit a cloak allows me to engage with the game and provide content for people that otherwise often wouldn't be there. Giving sov holders an "I see you" button removes that possibility. It also removes a whole lot of active intel gathering operations like getting a cloaked ship into hostile staging systems to watch their formups and fleet compositions, so seems rather OP. A more palatable effect would be increasing targeting or re-cloak delays.
Ironically, cloaky ships are my favourite prey. They provide a difficult yet achievable challenge, and they are also not invulnerable simply because they have a cloak on them.
I even wrote an entire article on the topic which I would like to bring to your attention.
In summary, please don't undermine the foundations of the emergent sandbox that gives EVE its appeal. |
Amarisen Gream
The ArK's Hammer ArK Alliance
66
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 08:20:29 -
[325] - Quote
Imigo Montoya wrote:"be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users" This is concerning. I have small children so I regularly have to go afk while playing, usually at short notice. This means that I need to be able to get assets safe if I'm out flying at all. PvE no longer holds any interest to me and I generally prefer shooting player controlled ships when I have the opportunity to actively engage with this game, so combine these things together and my gameplay experience of EVE would be best described as cloaky pew. My favourite activity is catching people coming through gates with my cloaky Sabre. That means I am generally on-grid with a system bottleneck structure, and already vulnerable to being decloaked due to where I have to be located to be ready to catch a potential target. If I need to go afk I'll warp off to a safe or perch and cloak up there. When I used to do PvE activities, it was generally in a place where I had a POS or station nearby that I could warp to and safe/dock up. That is still available to me, but that would mean I'd have to pursue PvE activities One of the things I really like about EVE is the emergent nature of it. Instead of providing pre-defined gameplay, EVE provides the tools and allows the player the ability to engineer the way they use them in a way that suits their own varied needs. In order for me to be able to play EVE at all, I need to be able to make it work within the RL constraints that I have. Being able to fit a cloak allows me to engage with the game and provide content for people that otherwise often wouldn't be there. Giving sov holders an "I see you" button removes that possibility. It also removes a whole lot of active intel gathering operations like getting a cloaked ship into hostile staging systems to watch their formups and fleet compositions, so seems rather OP. A more palatable effect would be increasing targeting or re-cloak delays. Ironically, cloaky ships are my favourite prey. They provide a difficult yet achievable challenge, and they are also not invulnerable simply because they have a cloak on them. I even wrote an entire article on the topic which I would like to bring to your attention. In summary, please don't undermine the foundations of the emergent sandbox that gives EVE its appeal.
You can always "Log off Safely", The issue with cloaky campers isn't that they have to chase children around the house, its that they log on in a safe place, and then "we" the rest of the people who live in that space have no clue if they are at a keyboard or not. And you, not being at your keyboard shouldn't provide a negative experience for players who are.
in short - its the "log on, safe up, and then **** off so I can go to work, or take a **** or wtf else the cloaky person does for 23 hrs, and keep the locals wondering if, i'm there or not.
xoxo
Amarisen Gream
|
Karsha Amerel
Psy Corp.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 08:34:15 -
[326] - Quote
I think it would be worthwhile to have the Observatory arrays let the owner know if hostiles are active (or inactive) in the system, rather than remove their cloak. That would make the most annoying part of afk cloaking obsolete.
If a cloak removing feature was put in, maybe it could announce in local 5 minutes before it was going to happen, so active hostile players can get safe. After 5 minutes it sends out a system wide pulse that de-cloaks everyone. People can simply recloak after their cloak cool down. The Observatory arrays would then not be able to de-cloak pulse for an hour (or so). This would give people the ability to destroy afk cloakers, but for active hostiles it would be mildly inconvenient.
I think a lot of these suggestions can be implemented really well, but also really badly. And it is impossible to please everyone.
|
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 08:52:13 -
[327] - Quote
So will you be able to set up your own "pos"? Currently they are all tied into the corp roles meaning that only the selected few get to mess around with the pos stuff.
Would be nice if you could lanch your own pos or lanch for corp thing. |
Oxide Ammar
189
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 09:05:08 -
[328] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:Imigo Montoya wrote:"be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users" This is concerning. I have small children so I regularly have to go afk while playing, usually at short notice. This means that I need to be able to get assets safe if I'm out flying at all. PvE no longer holds any interest to me and I generally prefer shooting player controlled ships when I have the opportunity to actively engage with this game, so combine these things together and my gameplay experience of EVE would be best described as cloaky pew. My favourite activity is catching people coming through gates with my cloaky Sabre. That means I am generally on-grid with a system bottleneck structure, and already vulnerable to being decloaked due to where I have to be located to be ready to catch a potential target. If I need to go afk I'll warp off to a safe or perch and cloak up there. When I used to do PvE activities, it was generally in a place where I had a POS or station nearby that I could warp to and safe/dock up. That is still available to me, but that would mean I'd have to pursue PvE activities One of the things I really like about EVE is the emergent nature of it. Instead of providing pre-defined gameplay, EVE provides the tools and allows the player the ability to engineer the way they use them in a way that suits their own varied needs. In order for me to be able to play EVE at all, I need to be able to make it work within the RL constraints that I have. Being able to fit a cloak allows me to engage with the game and provide content for people that otherwise often wouldn't be there. Giving sov holders an "I see you" button removes that possibility. It also removes a whole lot of active intel gathering operations like getting a cloaked ship into hostile staging systems to watch their formups and fleet compositions, so seems rather OP. A more palatable effect would be increasing targeting or re-cloak delays. Ironically, cloaky ships are my favourite prey. They provide a difficult yet achievable challenge, and they are also not invulnerable simply because they have a cloak on them. I even wrote an entire article on the topic which I would like to bring to your attention. In summary, please don't undermine the foundations of the emergent sandbox that gives EVE its appeal. You can always "Log off Safely", The issue with cloaky campers isn't that they have to chase children around the house, its that they log on in a safe place, and then "we" the rest of the people who live in that space have no clue if they are at a keyboard or not. And you, not being at your keyboard shouldn't provide a negative experience for players who are. in short - its the "log on, safe up, and then **** off so I can go to work, or take a **** or wtf else the cloaky person does for 23 hrs, and keep the locals wondering if, i'm there or not.
Since they are going to remove local channel or make it delaying showing new comers this won't be your first problem to deal with.
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.
|
Jennifer Maxwell
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 09:13:18 -
[329] - Quote
Silana Hurtini wrote:Quote:Text advertisement, billboard replacement, being used as gigantic monuments with no purpose (except to show how big your e-peen is by showing the statue of your glorious alliance leader). Could also involve frozen corpses somehow. I am not a woman, but I think that this type of language is not welcoming to them. Not that anybody who plays the game probably cares, but you'd hope the devs would at least. As a woman, I really don't care in the slightest if people use "this type of language". As a matter of fact, I'd be kinda pissed if I knew the devs felt they had to censor themselves just because a few people, men or women, got their panties in a twist.
You've got a right to be offended about things. But that doesn't mean that anyone else has to care if you're offended, and it sure as hell don't give you the right do be offended on anyone else's behalf, and especially not mine. |
Jennifer Maxwell
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
243
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 09:23:44 -
[330] - Quote
This intel array idea has me exited more so than most of the other structures on the list. I love the idea of being able to affect what kind of information shows about an area, or be able to get advanced info about someplace, or whatever else.
Please please PLEASE don't give a giant "**** you!" to your lowsec players and make this sort of stuff only available in sov and/or nullsec space! Or if you do, PLEASE let the Militia have access to these kinds of things somehow! Right now, there's almost no reason beyond tier control to even take any more systems in FW. We all want more reasons to fight over stuff, and you've been ignoring us for a long time. We don't have an interest in moving to nullsec, so throw us a bone here instead of trying to push us in that direction, please.
These are the kinds of structures I've wanted since I've begun playing Eve. Please don't limit them to sov space only and make me super sad in the process :( |
|
Imigo Montoya
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 09:28:00 -
[331] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote: You can always "Log off Safely", The issue with cloaky campers isn't that they have to chase children around the house, its that they log on in a safe place, and then "we" the rest of the people who live in that space have no clue if they are at a keyboard or not. And you, not being at your keyboard shouldn't provide a negative experience for players who are.
in short - its the "log on, safe up, and then **** off so I can go to work, or take a **** or wtf else the cloaky person does for 23 hrs, and keep the locals wondering if, i'm there or not.
Not if I'm active and engaging with people to provide said content I can't.
If there is somebody in your system that is afk, they're no threat to you. If they're at their keyboard, then they're not afk.
The same reasoning you're using also applies to people docked up in a sov station. Somebody can log on in a safe place (the station), and then "we" the rest of the people who live in (or visit) that space have no clue if they are at the keyboard or not. Should we advocate for a deployable structure that will kick people out of the station when used? Anybody who is at the keyboard can just dock up again, right?
To quote CCP Greyscale on nullsec from his 2014 GDC talk on crimewatch "choosing to live out here puts you in constant danger". If you think that having somebody who is not blue occupying the same system as you is a "negative experience", then perhaps nullsec isn't the right type of space for you to be in. |
Sequester Risalo
Significant Others
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 10:02:33 -
[332] - Quote
I very much like the new structure ideas. Especially since I (and probably many others) suggested some of those in the feedback query I filled out recently.
However I am not happy with the defense options for small corps. Sometimes one is away for several days on holidays or business trips with no opportunity to log in. Especially not for four hours every day.
Now in the old system I could be fairly certain that no one messes with a sufficiently armed POS. Now If I understand correctly all it takes is a trollceptor with an entosis link and the structure is gone upon return from holidays. Please tell me that I'm getting something wrong here.
Maybe the solution would be another kind of structure. We do have -manufacturing -research -market and office -mining -bservatory -administration
How about adding some kind of military structure with good defenses and ship assembly and repair services? |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
569
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 10:04:09 -
[333] - Quote
i would generally say that quoting CCP Greyscale as a support for your argument is definitely not the way to go, but i guess a broken clock is right twice a day... |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1894
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 10:34:02 -
[334] - Quote
What about abandoned structures? Please take the opportunity to fix that flaw of POS design. They should be hackable or something to prevent the current clutter.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
908
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 11:05:09 -
[335] - Quote
This all looks universally awesome. My only confusion is that this all seems to imply that Outposts will obey the same rules as other structures, and therefore will become destroyable. Now, that is perfectly fine with me, and you look to have considered the loosing-stuff-in-station angle, but doesn't this contradict the new sov changes, since the station capture mechanics seem to be very contrary to a system edging towards making them destroyable? Are we misunderstanding things (as in, the loosing stored items is just for dealing with the replacements for POSes, and destroyable station are still off the table) or is the station rules in the sov update just a placeholder until this system can replace it? |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4198
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 11:06:53 -
[336] - Quote
Thalos Maedros wrote:Only problem with that system then would be players would then set up personal structures instead if they wanted to bypass the requirements you stated above. As CCP said they want it to have more possibilities for players, your idea is bringing it back to limitations Yes, except a) players would be limited to 0.5-0.7 systems and b) they'd require the requisite 1.0-3.0 Faction standing.
Oxide Ammar wrote:They will allow capital ships in hisec and reintroduce level 5 missions back to hisec, also they might introduce upper tier of incursions used only by capital ships....mark my words Wouldn't that be nice.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 11:28:07 -
[337] - Quote
Imigo Montoya wrote:"be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users" This is concerning. I have small children so I regularly have to go afk while playing, usually at short notice. This means that I need to be able to get assets safe if I'm out flying at all. PvE no longer holds any interest to me and I generally prefer shooting player controlled ships when I have the opportunity to actively engage with this game, so combine these things together and my gameplay experience of EVE would be best described as cloaky pew. My favourite activity is catching people coming through gates with my cloaky Sabre. That means I am generally on-grid with a system bottleneck structure, and already vulnerable to being decloaked due to where I have to be located to be ready to catch a potential target. If I need to go afk I'll warp off to a safe or perch and cloak up there. When I used to do PvE activities, it was generally in a place where I had a POS or station nearby that I could warp to and safe/dock up. That is still available to me, but that would mean I'd have to pursue PvE activities One of the things I really like about EVE is the emergent nature of it. Instead of providing pre-defined gameplay, EVE provides the tools and allows the player the ability to engineer the way they use them in a way that suits their own varied needs. In order for me to be able to play EVE at all, I need to be able to make it work within the RL constraints that I have. Being able to fit a cloak allows me to engage with the game and provide content for people that otherwise often wouldn't be there. Giving sov holders an "I see you" button removes that possibility. It also removes a whole lot of active intel gathering operations like getting a cloaked ship into hostile staging systems to watch their formups and fleet compositions, so seems rather OP. A more palatable effect would be increasing targeting or re-cloak delays. Ironically, cloaky ships are my favourite prey. They provide a difficult yet achievable challenge, and they are also not invulnerable simply because they have a cloak on them. I even wrote an entire article on the topic which I would like to bring to your attention. In summary, please don't undermine the foundations of the emergent sandbox that gives EVE its appeal.
I also have kids and often leave the screen due to IRL-events, often initiated by said kids, or by my wife in the middle of super-imortant-space-ship-fleets dualboxing litterally billions of ISK in the form of a Supercarrier and a Carrier, which is much much worse than a 55 M ISK dictor tbh... ;-).
So I know the feeling!
But you and I already have a plethora of available options today, and even more when the new intel-structures come!
* Cloak in a safespot. THere IS a risk that the enemy will use a "decloaking-function" JUST as you are away for 16 minutes from your screen. But then again, there is a large chance they won't! How do THEY know you ARE actually AFK and not alertly looking for combat probes if you get decloaked?! Huh!? For an alert "AFK-cloaker" that is actually on-screen, it would be a small task to see the decloak, detect the combat probes and just warp off to a new safe and cloak up again looong before they warp into your current safespot.
* Safe-logoff which is possible if you do not have any timers preventing log off. This takes 30s, which probably would be rather safe to run off and save a crying kid, or demanding wife-initiated-task. Still a small chance they decloak AND combat probe you out JUST as you run off, but really....not a problem!
* Leave the system and cloak up in another system nearby, where they do not have the necessary intel-structures up. Cloak up on a safe in a system where there is no intel-structures, and you are TRULY safe. AFAIK the "anti-AFK-cloaking-function" will also be limited in number of uses (cool-down-timer?) and will depend on an available intel-structures and possibly sov-updates for this (?). So keep an alt in a cloaky in a non-structure-system nearby, and you can fly in that one, and go AFK during the cooldown if you want to troll the people more ;-)
* And finally, the risk of loosing a cloaky dictor worth about 55 M ISK should not really be a problem for you - you might aswell loose it in pvp and "**** happens" in EVE as in IRL. This is called "risk" and the reward is that you have a possibility to kill much more valuable ships like deep-space-transports or whatever. Same goes for cloaky Stealth Bombers AFK cloaking systems day out and day in without any active input from the player - they are very cheap compared to what you hunt with them. Loosing a Supercarrier and a carrier currently worth about 35 B ISK would be much worse, but I won't complain when that risk materilize due to IRL-stuff (it has, many times!). That's how this game works!
I think this "decloaking-function" is a good id+¬a that will make it a bit harder for people to play EVE-online passively. Play it actively, or log off. And the new function will not mean anything and will be easy to counter for players that ARE active. If you happen to be AFK with "legimit reasons" and get killed in the process - well, tough luck, **** happens! I dont think it will reduce the number of cloaky campers significantly either, and when they log on and cloak up, you KNOW they are not AFk so the effect of them beeing in system will only be higher! They will shut down ratting and other activities much more efficiently!
CEO Svea Rike
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 11:34:15 -
[338] - Quote
Zappity wrote:What about abandoned structures? Please take the opportunity to fix that flaw of POS design. They should be hackable or something to prevent the current clutter.
And I imagine the Observatory will have effects on Local?
If no one is protecting them, you could just entosis them on your own with one ship and easily take control or blow them up in the entosis-process I guess (whatever will be the outcome of entosising structures?)
CEO Svea Rike
|
Gempei
Marvinovi pratele Nulli Secunda
78
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 11:47:50 -
[339] - Quote
davet517 wrote:...How will these structures be attacked? Will they all be subject to the new "entosis" mechanic, or will some of them require hit-point grinding (as with current POS)? first attribute for every structure - damage / entosis
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
908
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:17:57 -
[340] - Quote
Further thoughts, particularly regarding the highsec-applications of this.
- Given that "ability to deploy POSes" and "corp hangers" are some of the very few benefits accorded a player corporation (and in discussions about "social corporations" these ares nearly close to the only remaining benefit if social corporations are non-wardeccable), and it stated in the dev-blog that solo players would be allowed to deploy these structures, surely this removes the last benefits of player-run corporations, making NPC corps or social corps the default common-sense option for the highsec player. Has this been considered, and if so, what will be done to make player corps a viable option to wardec-immune alternatives?
- There was talk about NPC convoys to deliver small goods between stations. I am perfectly fine with this in principle, but what are the highsec implications? Current NPC convoys are freely shootable without a Concord intervention (I am not sure, I believe the faction police might respond, but I am unsure of this), will this be the case for these player-paid haulers? And if not, why not? Wouldn't this invalidate the player-operated hauler gameplay if NPC's are doing it cheaper and with Concord protection? And why should Concord intervene, since they do not intervene in any other combat between player and NPC?, |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1069
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:26:03 -
[341] - Quote
Tzar Sinak wrote:Please consider:
If the owner of containers that are injected into space (as a result of structure destruction) does not retrieve them WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME, these containers should become scannable and hackable. This will provide additional and logical game play. The destroyed structure will become a beacon of possible loots to be had for explores as we travel from system to system.
Yes this was how we imagined the can ejection should work, at least the scanning part. It also lets us play with the timing on how long the can is safe. The big XL structures might have quite a long time period before the journal entry expires vs a small structure which only gives you a few days to try to recover your assets (for example).
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Eduardo'o
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:50:42 -
[342] - Quote
Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
908
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:56:25 -
[343] - Quote
Another thought - although I love the idea of wrecks to get around the issue of loss of long-term storage, there is a potential (particularly if this is enabled too far down the size chain) of clutter. Particularly if this becomes enabled for POS-replacements, since POSes get shot up all the time, in short order (particularly on high-value moons) there could be a veritable wreck field around a moon of old, dead POSes. Now, to be fair, this might be kinda cool in its own way, but perhaps an option is needed for corps to be able to repair an old wreck in place of just laying down a new one. This should probably be only allowed for corps to repair their own wrecks (to avoid using this mechanic to lock-out people from their stuff by enclosing it in a new structure not of their corp), which would still mean some wreck fields will appear, but in areas where you have a couple of groups see-sawing control of an area, it will significantly reduce the clutter. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1069
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:57:42 -
[344] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:One important question.
Today one of the reason we attack other towers is loot (in WH piniata POS can have anything from few bill to 100 bil)
But we are now told that new system will somehow separate people assets from Struckture Fitting and only drop fitting???
My question is: will we still have loot from structures smaller than station?
This is a really good question. We need to carefully balance the reward for attackers vs the risk for people to actually put all their stuff in a structure and use it. Right now things are very binary, outposts you never lose anything and POSes you lose everything. We want to add more granularity and opportunity for it to go either way.
So a few points worth noting:
1) Structures should be destroyed more often than they currently do (easy thing to say for Outposts obviously) which means more opportunities for looting.
2) Creating a time limited ability for the owners to evac their stuff from a safe spot near the structure creates another opportunity for the aggressor to catch them in the act and collect more loot. This also balances quite nicely between a deep nullsec system being taken over vs a high security system.
b) We want to explore ideas for dropping "in progress" loot such as build materials from industry jobs, and other such things. Taking suggestions on this.
If there is a good chance of all of the stuff being destroyed when the structure goes down we will see far less people take that risk and so far less opportunities for people looking for loot in the first place.
It's a great discussion to debate though, exactly how much risk vs reward is fair considering both sides.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1069
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:00:34 -
[345] - Quote
Eduardo'o wrote:Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation
PS: great stuff
Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
536
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:06:27 -
[346] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Eduardo'o wrote:Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation
PS: great stuff Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example.
It's not just inactive accounts. I've got a ton of stuff all over New Eden, in various null stations. There's little chance of being able to go and get it all and it's something I didn't consider when doing it because the mechanics allowed it. Some of your new ideas are great, some need plenty of thinking applied because while you can set things to year 0, you need to consider those who've lived under the old mechanics for years and either help them move their stuff or not completely invalidate years of accumulated items which they assumed will be safe and retrievable at some stage.
|
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
536
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:11:48 -
[347] - Quote
I'm slightly concerned about the mooring and removing of pos shields in relation to supercaps. What happens with unsubbed supers? When moored can the pod leave and return, once left what happens to the super? What happens if you're moored and you lose the outpost while logged off? How many mooring points are there? Will you remove pos shields once the mooring is in place? I understand the need to tone down supers but they still need to be fun rather than a chore to own.
|
Lurifax
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:18:55 -
[348] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Eduardo'o wrote:Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation
PS: great stuff Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example.
Have some loot drop and some send to the nearest NPC station? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1069
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:42:05 -
[349] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Eduardo'o wrote:Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation
PS: great stuff Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example. Have some loot drop and some send to the nearest NPC station?
Yes returning to NPC stations may be another option for dealing with Outposts specifically.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Elana Apgar
DarkMatter-Industries Upholders
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:50:50 -
[350] - Quote
Silana Hurtini wrote:Quote:Text advertisement, billboard replacement, being used as gigantic monuments with no purpose (except to show how big your e-peen is by showing the statue of your glorious alliance leader). Could also involve frozen corpses somehow. I am not a woman, but I think that this type of language is not welcoming to them. Not that anybody who plays the game probably cares, but you'd hope the devs would at least.
I am a woman, and I have no problem with this. Most of the girls that play this game are used to hanging around with guys and used to how they talk.
Please don't talk for us gamer girls. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3757
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:53:32 -
[351] - Quote
June Blindbird wrote:Starbase defence (with guns control) and flying ships inside the forcefield (because cannot dock) don't seem to have replacement since Mooring means no pilot inside and docking means ship spinning and no view of space.
What are the plans for these ?
Docking could also mean having the view centered on the structure you are at, and still allow you to view your immediate surroundings. We don't necessarily need to have NPC station hangar view for those. |
|
Elana Apgar
DarkMatter-Industries Upholders
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:53:51 -
[352] - Quote
Eduardo'o wrote:Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation
PS: great stuff
You know, you can create contracts anywhere in New Eden. So you can be in a wormhole and create a contract to sell your junk in a station that you can no longer access. You can also see about getting a logistics firm, like Black Frog, to move your stuff for you. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3757
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:55:25 -
[353] - Quote
Chribba wrote:Very interesting, I foresee a major logistics effort to replace all structures though, if I understood it correctly we would have to replace them with the new things?
Also looking forward on more details about the mooring system, the radius things and of course if this might mean we will be seeing supercaps for sale on the market.
Imagining an outpost gets destroyed, and all the content and stuff gets ejected into space for the owner to scoop within the time, could a massive amount of canisters affect lag or similar with many thousands of new objects in space?
/c
We will find ways around this not to have the servers die and beg for mercy. Ejected containers could have extremely large capacity so one is enough for each owner, or that you at least don't have 100 container for each possible owner. Also remember, those will not appear until the owner warps to the planet bookmark (like Planetary Launches), so this will spread the spawning as well. |
|
Elana Apgar
DarkMatter-Industries Upholders
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:55:51 -
[354] - Quote
Jennifer Maxwell wrote:Silana Hurtini wrote:Quote:Text advertisement, billboard replacement, being used as gigantic monuments with no purpose (except to show how big your e-peen is by showing the statue of your glorious alliance leader). Could also involve frozen corpses somehow. I am not a woman, but I think that this type of language is not welcoming to them. Not that anybody who plays the game probably cares, but you'd hope the devs would at least. As a woman, I really don't care in the slightest if people use "this type of language". As a matter of fact, I'd be kinda pissed if I knew the devs felt they had to censor themselves just because a few people, men or women, got their panties in a twist. You've got a right to be offended about things. But that doesn't mean that anyone else has to care if you're offended, and it sure as hell don't give you the right do be offended on anyone else's behalf, and especially not mine.
Amen. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3761
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:59:24 -
[355] - Quote
xttz wrote:Have you decided how ownership will work on an ongoing basis?
For example, if we launch a new structure and set it for corporation/alliance use, can a spy with the appropriate roles then come along and set it for personal or public use? If set for public use who can change it back again; anyone?
How would unanchoring structures work? I'm especially thinking for structures where players and dock or moor ships.
Using a structure is not the same as managing or owning it.
Example:
I'm setting a Ship Assembly Array to be set to public, anyone can use it to build ships. However not everyone can tweak its ownership or status settings (like changing roles or permissions). Only the owners or the guys set with specific roles can do so.
Large structures with ship docked could require extra security, that's a good point you are making. Either have a long countdown period before unanchor (that everyone with enough roles can see in the corporation) or have a 2 man rule to unanchor the most valuable structures could help fixing this. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3761
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:02:27 -
[356] - Quote
Centurax wrote:Really excited about the proposed changes, really happy good work!! Some questions: How fuel will be used and which types used with which structure? The size of ships needed to deploy the XL Stations? edit: Will it be possible to transfer the new structures, in a similar way to POCO's? I think this direction is a vast improvement and I am looking forward to its development.
- Fuel blocks will most likely be the main resource for service modules to operate. No longer need Strontium for Reinforced period (or whatever capture system we end up with). Also no longer need fuel blocks just to keep the structure in space, if all goes according to plan. Bit early to say so far.
- We want XL structures to feel like a proper commitment (they're taking over Outpost gameplay after all), so it'll most likely be a large ship and most likely not a small frigate.
- Structure transfer was brought up during the Fanfest round table, we don't see any reason why not so far. Do you have any reason why we should not allow structure transfer?
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3763
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:10:42 -
[357] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Three things I'm worried about:
1. What is my extensive pos blueprint collection going to be good for?
2. The datacore thing. I don't really see the point. Why do you think it needs change?
3. How am I supposed to deal with the fact that a french accent is going to trigger a sizeable nerdboner for the foreseeable future?
Don't **** this up please, the implications on many other game systems are massive
- As mentioned by CCP Nullarbor somewhere in this thread, we need to plan for proper reimbursement for existing Starbase structures, blueprints and various assets tied to the stuff we already have. Outpost and their upgrades / improvements is going to be tricky though due to them changing hands so often.
- Ideally we would really like players to take over most NPC services in game as possible. EVE is a sandbox, and the further we can push this concept the more emergent gameplay occurs, which makes us happy.
- Ah yes, ze french accent nerdboner issues. Well the best way to deal with this is to start wearing a beret, let your armpit hair grow and wear very tight pants. That way when other french people talk and notice the nerdboner, they can say: "Is that a baguette in your pants or are you just really happy to see me"?
We'll do our best not to **** this up too much, which is why we're calling for your feedback early on guys . |
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:12:49 -
[358] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Tzar Sinak wrote:Please consider:
If the owner of containers that are injected into space (as a result of structure destruction) does not retrieve them WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME, these containers should become scannable and hackable. This will provide additional and logical game play. The destroyed structure will become a beacon of possible loots to be had for explores as we travel from system to system. Yes this was how we imagined the can ejection should work, at least the scanning part. It also lets us play with the timing on how long the can is safe. The big XL structures might have quite a long time period before the journal entry expires vs a small structure which only gives you a few days to try to recover your assets (for example).
Veri naise.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Noriko Mai
2110
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:13:16 -
[359] - Quote
I would like to see mooring being some kind of structure extension that can be build up to X times to extend slots. If a parking lot of a super market is full, we build a bigger/second parking lot, not a second super market.
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3763
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:00 -
[360] - Quote
Nyctef wrote:I love almost everything about these ideas -- good work! I can't wait to play around with some of these structures.
That said, I have a few reservations based on what's been presented so far:
With some of the examples for assembly arrays or research laboratories, there aren't entries listed for the smaller sizes. Is this a deliberate decision at the moment? I think it would be a good idea to have small, affordable entry-level structures for people who are just starting out
At least with the examples presented so far, it feels like most of the fitting options are to do with combat capabilities -- I think it would be cool to have more industrial upgrades for some of the other structures (things like more research slots or mining yield bonuses come to mind)
The biggest problem for me is service slots. It feels really weird to change the role of a structure by adding something to it - like changing a frigate into a hauler by adding a module. It sounds like the intent is to have one-size-fits all structures, and to discourage stacking several structures in the same area. I'd love to go in the opposite direction - separating out structure roles into individual structures that players could arrange in their own way and fly around would add a lot in terms of customisability and immersion. Undocking from a mooring structure and heading over to the insurance structure would feel a lot more like being a space pilot rather than just pressing buttons in a station services menu. I also think making structures smaller and more focussed would make them more flexible and easier to iterate on individually in the future.
tl;dr being able to put together a small town of individual structures would make me feel more like I'm building a home rather than just renting someone else's
Those are good points, however we want to be careful with the structure spam. Having a design that requires you, the players, to have a **** ton of them spread in space essentially brings us back to Starbases. We do plan on having smaller, more affordable progression of structures if there is gameplay for it yes. So for instances, we could have an Assembly Array that is size M, with less fitting capabilities than L, but still giving you a glimpse of what's to come.
|
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:12 -
[361] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
- Outpost and their upgrades / improvements is going to be tricky though due to them changing hands so often.
I dunno GÇö-áseems pretty simple to me. Whoever owns the outpost at the time of the refund gets the money. :sun:
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
290
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:16 -
[362] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Eduardo'o wrote:Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation
PS: great stuff Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example.
Few thoughts:
How about copying the sleeper technology? (Sleeper caches) In an emergency situation (explosion imminent!) a structure jettisons escape pods with the loot and those will be cloaked, nullified and everything and hide the loot somewhere in the system.
They could stop functioning over a period of time to enhance the explorer gameplay. E.g. not EXACTLY 1 year after the outpost was destroyed something appears, but gradually as those pods run out of energy. Then there would be some special exploration sites spawning and every time something is recovered from those sites, it will be removed from the loot table. (potentially also if the site despawns without being scanned & hacked) Previous owners can only find their remaining stuff through bookmarks that has NOT yet been stolen.
Addition: There could be player-manufactured containers that are more durable and keep the stuff hidden for longer times. Cautious players could store their valuable assets in these containers. Such containers could also address another problem. If an outpost is destroyed and a player comes back to evacuate his stuff from the wreckage using a special bookmark... I imagine he would typically find hundreds of thousands of m-¦. Very unlikely he would be able to evacuate everything in one go. Limited size containers and multiple bookmarks (possibly with the container name) would not have the problem. They could just work like the cans from PI launches nowadays.
In general I really like the idea. Former battlefields would become special locations to fight over again after a while. They would be valued by explorers AND the spacescape would dynamically and gradually change back as loot is being removed. Maybe players would specialize in this kind of lore and become historians in New Eden to keep track. :-D |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1071
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:23 -
[363] - Quote
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.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
56
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:59 -
[364] - Quote
Just a question.
Where will be the room for part time players with or within a corp?
With the current sov system and stations it is highly possible that your stuff is still accessible if you login next weekend. With the new sov system and destructible big containers it is highly possible that your stuff isn't accessible next weekend and blown up the week after. Therefore part time players can't have reasonable stuff in sov null anymore including any kind of industrial activity.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10348
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:16:21 -
[365] - Quote
I know yall gotta iron out the details. I'm just saying iron faster because this stuff is awesome lol. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
724
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:17:23 -
[366] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: As mentioned by CCP Nullarbor somewhere in this thread, we need to plan for proper reimbursement for existing Starbase structures, blueprints and various assets tied to the stuff we already have. Outpost and their upgrades / improvements is going to be tricky though due to them changing hands so often.
I don't think it will be tricky: refund the owner at the time the upgrades are made useless. When we upgrade an outpost, we take the risk that someone will come and take it from us. We have to accept that risk in order to do it, so there's no reason we would need to be compensated for upgrades that someone else took away from us. However, those people now put in considerable effort to secure their new outpost: they fought to take it and as a result of their efforts secured an upgraded outpost. If that outpost is suddenly made useless (or the upgrades are suddenly made useless), it's that party that should be compensated, not the original builder. If you compensate the original builder, they get a windfall they'd never have gotten without the change, while the conqueror loses out.
My feeling is that the owning corporation should be rebated the cost of the upgrades+fillings - either in kind (the new replacement structure in a station somewhere) or more likely just the isk cost, directly to the owning corp's wallet. The isk method makes everything simpler and an assurance that something like this would happen lets us continue to at least consider upgrades - without that, the chance to install new upgrades is essentially taken out of the game early. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1706
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:18:02 -
[367] - 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.
I am going to assume you don't track who upgraded a station then?
If not, the only fair thing is to reimburse the current holder. Which might kick off some hilarious wars prepatch.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3764
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:18:31 -
[368] - Quote
Samsara Toldya wrote: No racial towers - no racial fuel?
- Racial fuel will most likely be spread among the various structures, or merged into one, not sure yet. Up to discussion, like everything else.
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1071
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:19:09 -
[369] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:Just a question.
Where will be the room for part time players with or within a corp?
With the current sov system and stations it is highly possible that your stuff is still accessible if you login next weekend. With the new sov system and destructible big containers it is highly possible that your stuff isn't accessible next weekend and blown up the week after. Therefore part time players can't have reasonable stuff in sov null anymore including any kind of industrial activity.
That is the reason for the proposed ejection mechanics which will keep your personal assets safe for a period of time for you to collect.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1706
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:20:39 -
[370] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Samsara Toldya wrote: No racial towers - no racial fuel?
- Racial fuel will most likely be spread among the various structures, or merged into one, not sure yet. Up to discussion, like everything else.
Merge it into one. This is already something that should be done with compressed ore too. Eliminate needless complexity.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
724
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:20:56 -
[371] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Fuel blocks will most likely be the main resource for service modules to operate. No longer need Strontium for Reinforced period (or whatever capture system we end up with). Also no longer need fuel blocks just to keep the structure in space, if all goes according to plan. Bit early to say so far.
This is a very minor point but if you eliminate stront for starbases, you've got to do something with it - it's already basically junk. Either rebalance ice asteroids to have far less, or add in something that eats stront. |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
275
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:22:34 -
[372] - Quote
What is the plan wit regard to wspace? In particular will we be allowed to have "L" structures? What about "XL" structures? Building a sandcastle could be fun. |
Idgarad
Yulai Guard Yulai Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:22:56 -
[373] - Quote
Simple solution for the "structure destroyed, what to do with everyones ****" solution. Throw it into impound and charge a per m3 free to get it out of impound with the first 50,000m3 free of charge (or whatever m3 value is appropriate). They can go to any station and get their stuff but charge a fee to prevent creative item transferring over a distance. Moored ships fair game.
To further temper the impound solution have it transfer only Xm3 per hour. Someone with 300,000,000m3 of cargo in a station might have to pay (say for argument and easy math 10isk per m3) would fork over 3,000,000,000 isk to get it all out but only 1,000,000m3 per hour so you'd be looking at 3000 hours (128 days) to get it all out of impound. (Obviously tweak those numbers to something appropriate).
It prevents someone loading up a crap ton of capitals and blowing their own POS up to quick move stuff around while giving people the ability to get their loot from a station that got whacked while there were gone.
Think of it as Interbus handling the salvaging of the massive wrecks. Hell let those on the killmail get a % cut of the impound fee as compensation.
Moored ships I would assume are normal fair game but this seems a simple, lightweight solution and compromise. Nothing worse then someone who only plays say in the winter, and comes back after 4 months. |
Noriko Mai
2110
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:23:33 -
[374] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:Just a question.
Where will be the room for part time players with or within a corp?
With the current sov system and stations it is highly possible that your stuff is still accessible if you login next weekend. With the new sov system and destructible big containers it is highly possible that your stuff isn't accessible next weekend and blown up the week after. Therefore part time players can't have reasonable stuff in sov null anymore including any kind of industrial activity.
That is the reason for the proposed ejection mechanics which will keep your personal assets safe for a period of time for you to collect. But wouldn't this require a whole freighter fleet per member? Everyone would grab highest value, lowest volume items and leave.
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3766
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:28:25 -
[375] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:One thing that I would like to see is overview availability of structures BASED ON STANDINGS. As in, you can warp to a structure without having to scan it down or get a bookmark if its configured to allow you based on being in a corp/alliance or having standings. If you DONT have standings to see it from anywhere in system, you've gotta probe that **** down yourself or get a bookmark. AN EXAMPLE: I decide I want a base of operations for just me. I anchor a personal large "station thing" or whatever, and set it to personal use, and use personal standings to decide who can access it. Since I only have my alts set to personal +10, this new structure shows up on all their overviews anywhere they are in system, and lets them warp to, dock, moor supers/caps, and access everything in and on it. Nobody else in my alliance, corporation, or any other randoms can see this structure if they aren't on grid or running combat probes. That's the vision I'm seeing. I want that. Give that.
An interesting idea, thanks for that. We are considering to have some of the structures visible by default on the overview, especially if they take over Outpost role (so most likely the XL structures) but this has an intriguing take on it. |
|
Miss Iniquitous
Razing Demolitions
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:31:00 -
[376] - Quote
Hello, I manage 6 POS Moon Mining, running Reactions and manufacturing T2 Components all mixed together across the 6 POS in low sec.
Will I still be able to run the same or similar operation on these structures after the change?
It took me many months to acquire these moons and figure out the reaction system.
Due to the above I am anxious about the transition period.
I am certainly not looking forward to being told to unanchor all of this to replace with the new structures and mods only to continue my industry.
Will CCP replace my anchored reaction chain structures with the new ones or will I as feared have to do this myself all over again?
I definitely need more information on the transition in order to be sufficiently prepared for this. I am going to have a lot of EVE chores to do, I am not excited about this!
I am excited about these changes though!! |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3766
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:32:51 -
[377] - Quote
Mnemonyss wrote:If the new structures are fittable, will they also have drone bays and allow for drones to be deployed when under attack?
We want them to be like ships, so if there is good gameplay behind it, there is no reason why they shouldn't use drones, or fighter / fighter-bombers at the largest sizes. We do not like gun automation though, so it's likely those will have to be manually controlled if they ever make it in, again, like ship drones. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3766
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:33:39 -
[378] - Quote
Kel'Taran wrote:So with the Large size structures (New POS) only being attackable via entosis (look at the pics in the blog attack method all says entosis) you have gone and taken away the primary use for dreads once new sov goes into effect and carriers have no more repping use either.
That's something that was also brought up during the Fanfest structure round table which needs to be taken care of, yes. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:41:13 -
[379] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Mnemonyss wrote:If the new structures are fittable, will they also have drone bays and allow for drones to be deployed when under attack? We want them to be like ships, so if there is good gameplay behind it, there is no reason why they shouldn't use drones, or fighter / fighter-bombers at the largest sizes. We do not like gun automation though, so it's likely those will have to be manually controlled if they ever make it in, again, like ship drones. Valkyrie tie-in detected. :haw:
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Elana Apgar
DarkMatter-Industries Upholders
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:45:28 -
[380] - Quote
Idgarad wrote:Simple solution for the "structure destroyed, what to do with everyones ****" solution. Throw it into impound and charge a per m3 free to get it out of impound with the first 50,000m3 free of charge (or whatever m3 value is appropriate). They can go to any station and get their stuff but charge a fee to prevent creative item transferring over a distance. Moored ships fair game.
To further temper the impound solution have it transfer only Xm3 per hour. Someone with 300,000,000m3 of cargo in a station might have to pay (say for argument and easy math 10isk per m3) would fork over 3,000,000,000 isk to get it all out but only 1,000,000m3 per hour so you'd be looking at 3000 hours (128 days) to get it all out of impound. (Obviously tweak those numbers to something appropriate).
It prevents someone loading up a crap ton of capitals and blowing their own POS up to quick move stuff around while giving people the ability to get their loot from a station that got whacked while there were gone.
Think of it as Interbus handling the salvaging of the massive wrecks. Hell let those on the killmail get a % cut of the impound fee as compensation.
Moored ships I would assume are normal fair game but this seems a simple, lightweight solution and compromise. Nothing worse then someone who only plays say in the winter, and comes back after 4 months.
I like this idea |
|
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:45:34 -
[381] - Quote
Most of the suggestions the Devs came up with I like and I have no problem with.
Seems really interesting..
There is however, one structure that I think will be the most pain, open for general abuse by players and break the way the game is currently played. The "Observatory arrays".
"Dedicated to intelligence gathering. GÇóService module possibilities: Being able to increase, decrease or block Star Map filters in the solar systems theyGÇÖre deployed, act as solar system wide D-scan blockers, disrupt ship intelligence in the solar system, take over player tracking capabilities from NPC agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users. We are considering basing their effectiveness through a network coverage (like cell phones) so that a single one may not be that useful, but maintaining a bunch of them in space could give a significant advantage. GÇóRigs possibilities: anything affecting the duration or effectiveness of whatGÇÖs mentioned above."
I hate the idea of decreasing the Star Filters for anyone. This would severely hurt the lone explorer pilot game play and would only give advantage to the large alliance blocks power.
D-Scan blocking would make finding and killing the home alliance much more difficult for the people that make things in nullsec blowup. Which CCP wants.
Also hate the cloak user pinpointing. Again. This will make the large alliance, with the system as their home, more powerful and people will be less likely to venture into these SOV systems.
I promise if you make Observatory Arrays with this abilities as described that there will be a lot less smaller PVP in nullsec (which is already pretty anemic) and will shrink pvp down to large alliance fleet battles. Small group raiders will be the most negatively affected by this structures abilities.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1177
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:46:32 -
[382] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Kel'Taran wrote:So with the Large size structures (New POS) only being attackable via entosis (look at the pics in the blog attack method all says entosis) you have gone and taken away the primary use for dreads once new sov goes into effect and carriers have no more repping use either.
That's something that was also brought up during the Fanfest structure round table which needs to be taken care of, yes.
Wasn't a fan of pospreys, nor carriers repairing pos stuff (kinda a crap job for them).
Adding in structure grinds isn't a positive thing nor a good role for dreads. We're trying to get away from that. I'm not sure what it should turn into though.
Yaay!!!!
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1684
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:51:58 -
[383] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: 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 far
I'd suggest reimbursing the corp wallet of the corp who dropped it? The longer the station was in space, the smaller the reimbursment.
About the transfer of structures, it seems like a much needed functionality in my opinion. You could create emergent gameplay for the hauling role: People installing structures for you. And you would allow diplomatic deals to be made, that kind of stuff. Or people moving away from eve for a while and wanting other people to own it to manage it if needed.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3767
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:53:56 -
[384] - Quote
Brain Gehirn wrote:Questions:
- How are you going to handle multiple structures affecting the same system wide effects? - How are you going to deal with the amount of structures in space that this is going to generate? (imagine systems near Jita.. the amount of structures on each) - Why the total removal of the shield forcefield? This is still better than mooring for supercaps unless you want they all to die at some point - What is the strategical benefit of this system over the old system in combat situations? - What is the limit of on grid structures? Otherwise we could just build a giant lag city of hell to protect ourselfs since there is no forcefield - How would you handle the pain that is going to be for players if we start to spam systems with little market hubs? Am I going to warp 20 times inside the same system to fit a ship? - Why a player will prefer the new system over outposts since his itens are (by far) better 'defended' inside outposts? Isnt this going to nerf nullsec A LOT instead of making people a little more happier?
- It is most likely only one structure will provide the system wide effect per solar system. Remember, those will be delivered through service modules, not the structure themselves, so we can tell the user another module of this type is already active and that needs to be taken care of (destroyed, disabled or whatever) before you can install yours. Those could also work with a large cooldown, so you cannot online another service module providing the same system wide effect while the other one is on cooldown. There are ways to solve this particular problem.
- We don't want to provide hard caps for structure, but we don't want everyone to anchor structures in the same solar system either. We will most likely have soft barriers, like fuel cost, or NPC taxes going up the more player structures there are within the same solar system for instance. Another way to do this is to have finite resources. For instance, only 20 caches of datacores could exist per solar system, so if you have 200 structures with this datacore service module installed not many of them are going to spawn anything.
- Forcefield mechanic has issues that we want to remove in the new system, if possible. The (super)capital issues are indeed something that needs to be discussed, a thread was created for that purpose there.
- Strategical benefit is simple: we want structure gameplay to involve players and not bore them to tears. To this end structures need to be a lot more enjoyable to use, which led us to have them fitted and used like ships (without movement).
- Yeah, there is going to be a limit, it depends what the range is going to be on the structure weapon themselves, since we would like to avoid structures shooting other structures (especially if they can only be taken down from the Entosis module). We also need the limit due to the rendering graphical toll on your computer, having too many of them will cause your GPU to melt while begging mercy.
- Market is a very important upgrade, and maybe not something that we are going to allow on the smaller structures. Remember, service modules will have CPU and PWG requirements, and those can be balanced to fit on specific sizes. On the same example, we are not going to allow Supercapital Ship Assembly capabilities on a small structure.
- That is why we need to make stored items relatively safe and give players a chance to defend their assets. The current issue we have is the over-proliferation of outposts - since they are not destructible there is less and less of a reason to build them in the first place. We want emergent content and to this end structures being destroyed really is something we feel attached to.
|
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
724
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:56:21 -
[385] - Quote
Altrue wrote: I'd suggest reimbursing the corp wallet of the corp who dropped it? The longer the station was in space, the smaller the reimbursment.
Why? Neither of these make sense. Why should we get compensated for outposts we lost, and why should our compensation depend on how long it was in space? If the asset suddenly becomes worthless due to a patch change, that's still money directly out of our pocket.
It would be bizzare if we got a refund on this outpost we dropped in 2008 and lost in 2009: http://evemaps.dotlan.net/outpost/46DP-O, but not outposts we currently own and have owned for years but did not drop ourselves. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3769
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:58:30 -
[386] - Quote
And by the way guys, proper discussion threads are now up in the Feature and Ideas subforum.
Feel free to comment there as it will be easier for everyone to filter the topics that way. |
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:59:22 -
[387] - Quote
Wow, a lot of great ideas and looking forward to all the changes.
I would like the "rigs for structures" to be divided a bit: There should be modifications that are chosen at the time the structure gets put into space and "anchored" and which cannot be modified until the entire thing gets torn down again (if at all possible for the XL thingies). On the other hand regular rigs should work the same as they do for ships (replaceable at any time but destroyed upon being removed). I imagine the thing like T3-Subsystems, but without swapping after the entire thing is assembled (meaning the "subs" or "permanent rigs" modify the base attributes the structure brings to the field and provide bonuses or modifiers that cannot be gained by regular rigs).
Therefore I think an additional phase when setting up structures would make sense: Introduction of gantries similar to the one used for POCOS. They come in the sizes M,L and XL (usable for all structures of the corresponding type), requiring a rather small amount of materials. When put into space they allow the placement of 1 unit of structure into it. In addition a few PI materials should be needed in order to put up a structure of size M upwards (having an automatic cost associated with tearing down and setting up again, not counting potential rigs which might be lacking, would encourage players to keep stuff in space and defend it instead of dodging every bit of danger). Ofc the amount should not go overboard and scale with the size and type of structure that is about to be anchored. Besides that all the gantry would provide a couple of slots for "permanent rigs" defined by the structure placed into it. Those rigs are consumed together with the gantry, the structure and the additional materials once the final building process is initiated. After that the structure sits in space with its base attributes and the optional permanent modifiers from those extra rigs, ready to be fitted with regular mods/rigs.
This would encourage specialization of structures and discourage structure spam, since even the step of putting a structure in space would automatically incur costs that cannot be recovered. The additional gantry phase however would (or at least 'could in theory') prevent players from making big mistakes, since they have another step where they need to make a "yes I really DO want to do this"-decision (and it allows for sanity checks whether or not a planned combination of effects would even be possible in the first place in the current system, see below).
By splitting basic structures and their potential permanent bonuses into different sources, CCP would have more fine grained balancing tools. They can make 1 and only 1 base version of each structure type in every size the type is required and then instead of making faction or racial versions of the base structure, split and move those "faction features" into above mentioned permanent rigs or subs (like e.g. bonuses to certain types of guns or a more powerful reactor or fuel catalyst to save fuel, etc...). To prevent overpowered combinations some constraints should be placed, like e.g. associating those rigs with a type and restricting max number of rigs per type. Ah, and I would put all really, really strong effects, especially strong system wide ones, into this kind of system.
Just a few of my thoughts to what I imagine the biggest and greatest change to eve since I started :> |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3769
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:01:27 -
[388] - Quote
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)?
You could have the a single or two structures with what you need, but those will not be as effective as having them on the proper bonuses structures.
Example:
- If you have enough fittings, you could have a reprocessing, research ME and TE service modules on a Assembly Array structure
- However it will not be as effective as having the reprocessing module on the Drilling Platform, and the research ME and TE modules on the Research Laboratory.
Exact definition of "effective" is up to discussion at this point. I could be pure efficiency, reduced fitting costs, fuel costs, rig calibration costs etc...
EDIT: remember that rigs will be the main slots to provide specialization bonuses as well, and due to their limited nature, you will not be able to reach the same generalization you currently enjoy with a single Starbase indeed. As mentioned in the blog, we would like to allow you to specialize further in a specific field should you choose to. |
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:02:08 -
[389] - Quote
Maybe consider a thread for discussions on the capture mechanic, as that seems to be a big part of the discussion, although that of course also depends on how newsov play testing shakes out.
Have you considered a combination of entosis and hotpoint/damage on a single structure? IE entosis once through a structures shields? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
724
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:02:55 -
[390] - Quote
What are the problems that CCP sees with rebating outposts/outpost upgrades when they're made useless? Is it simply who gets the compensation (the dropper or the current holder) or are there other issues of concern we should be thinking about? |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1076
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:23:58 -
[391] - Quote
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote: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.
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
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
zar dada
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:24:02 -
[392] - Quote
Sorry if these have been asked and answered already.
Will there be a limit to number of ships allowed to Moor on the new POS replacement structure?
Will there be a way to see the current grid while parked / docked at the structure?
What will the limitations for wspace?
Can I setup Clones and Markets in wspace?
Can my corporation prevent personal/out of corp structures in a system? Using some kind of module? Or observatory structure?
If we can do markets and personal storage in wspace, but the structure is owned /anchored by a corporation, will directors/CEO have total access to that storage? And the ability to cancel/claim market orders/contracts by other players at that station?
For the transition, will ISK for current POS mods be replaced? And to whom will the ISK be sent? The owner of the POS player or corp?
Can we have a wspace structure that identifies the system with out corp/alliance name/logo? Because we have a certain structure and or a certain module?
KB
fcftw.org
|
Volcan Roubartzan
13th Company Wulfen Zero Fux.
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:24:39 -
[393] - Quote
Instead of removing forcefields entirely, it would be nice to see them as a module that protects the undock of a starbase.
Harnessing wormholes as star gates with system effects worries me because currently wormholes are the best part of eve and their effects/transience is a big part of making this so. Also Entosis linking structures in a wormhole would wreak havoc on small wormhole corps which make up the majority of the population there. I'm excited about these structures but I think its important to tread more cautiously where the game play is currently not broken.
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1706
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:28:13 -
[394] - Quote
Do you envision several different types of structures on the same grid? Do you see the possibilities of overlapping concentric circles of guns?
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3772
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:31:28 -
[395] - Quote
EX Winet wrote: 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.
- We could have Sov holding provide reduced fuel bills for service modules yes. Depends what we want to do with Sov, I need to talk about that one with Fozzieboy.
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3775
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:36:10 -
[396] - Quote
High-level concept work made to illustrate how a structure tree could evolve between sizes. Not final or representative of final attributes. |
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
724
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:39:35 -
[397] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:EX Winet wrote: 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.
- We could have Sov holding provide reduced fuel bills for service modules yes. Depends what we want to do with Sov, I need to talk about that one with Fozzieboy.
Are some structures going to be limited to sov, like outposts currently are? |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1759
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:41:55 -
[398] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.
why should someone who currently doesn't own something be reimbursed for it ?
if you give something to someone else (or have it taken by someone else) you really shouldn't be reaping the benefits anymore
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1181
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:43:47 -
[399] - Quote
Since I started playing Eve in Quantum Rise, this has to be the most ambitious set of changes CCP has ever attempted. Good luck. After having read the blog I have a few questions and observations to bring up.
Outpost Rigs -
- Will rigs be replacing outpost upgrades? Seems so.
- Plz have sec status bonuses based on true sec, not just hi/lo/nul/w-space. This will generate granularity for bonuses and make better truesec space worth fighting over for the better effects on structure upgrades/rigs.
Assembly Arrays -
- If Assy Arrays are player controlled, what does it matter if they have an NPC cost reduction?
Research Labs -
- Datacore Spawning. Don't IHUBs already have an upgrade for this? Or are you removing IHUBS?
Market/Office Hubs -
- Interbus shipping seems great. But it also seems like something that could be very easily gamed using alts or alt corps. I like the risk/reward balance there. It is trivial to shoot NPC haulers even in hisec so long as you don't mind the standings loss.
Observatories -
- Detect cloakies? yes, plz.
- I love the scalability and improved effects from using multiple observatories. Astronomers have been using this effect for many years to improve the resolution and information gathering capabilities of their telescopes. Make it so.
- Modify wormhole spawning? Again, do not IHUB upgrades already do this or are IHUBs being removed?
Stargates -
- What about Acceleration Gates?
- Does this mean you will be completely removing Jump Bridges with no replacement?
Admin -
- TCUs being removed and replaced?
- A structure to change sec status could be abused badly, especially in border systems with sec status near to 0.45. Modifying this up or down could change a system from hisec to lo sec, or vice-versa. These structures should not be usable outside of nulsec.
Advertisements -
POS replacements-
- The ability to set and change the scope of a structure (personal/corp/alliance/public) after deployment would be awesome. There is nothing worse than having to scoop a structure and redeploy it just to change the scope of use or ownership.
Fate of items stored in destroyed structures -
- The wreck idea seems pretty useless if a player can only undock once. Unless they have a freighter, they will likely only get a few hundred meters of stuff and one ship out, guaranteeing an almost total loss every time. Huge risk with very little chance of recovery. Containers that spawn on different grids (otherwise the lag would be insane) seems much better in that regard. It will also allow for much more player interaction at later times.
Something completely different (Structure defense) -
- Remove the ability to use sentry drones from ships and enable them on structures. Give structures enough bandwidth, drone bay volume, and sentry bonuses to use them. Is this feasible?
- I'm more concerned that with only 8 high slots, structures will be severely lacking in fire-power. Sentry drones could supplement them nicely where they need it the most; against large ships with the potential to easily destroy them. This would also fix the issue with sentry drones completely screwing the entire combat meta. Two birds with one stone.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Oxide Ammar
190
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:45:58 -
[400] - Quote
CCP, what is the idea behind your insist of manning the POS guns to defend and not make like the current system we have right now ? This is game guys why you we to feel it is full time job game to defend ourselves by having corp members 24/7 online to be rdy to man the guns if we got attacked ? reasons ?
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.
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1078
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:47:03 -
[401] - Quote
A'Tolkar wrote:Thank you for your sarcasm which adds nothing to the discussion. As for Capital Assembly Array, I am just wondering if there is another announcement coming down the pipe regarding capital ships in high-sec. And for the medium assembly array, is there a problem with me pointing out a possible mistake in a mockup? The whole point of the mockup is to convey how the new structure will work. What is wrong with asking for clarification when one data point contradicts with another one? If CCP wants to give us an idea on how things will work with mockups and someone notices something contradictory, I figure CCP would want to know in order to change it so they can present correct info. I don't know why you are so butt hurt by the question that you need to get sarcastic and imply that you are so much smarter.
This picture is absolutely just a mockup. We don't have that level of detail to share with you yet. Sorry if that was misleading.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1759
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:48:20 -
[402] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:EX Winet wrote: 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.
- We could have Sov holding provide reduced fuel bills for service modules yes. Depends what we want to do with Sov, I need to talk about that one with Fozzieboy.
service modules need to be flat out better for sov owners. and we are not talking about fuel cost, we are talking about reward for the additional risk of putting something in low/null/wh vs putting something in highsec.
reduced fuel cost is a drop in the ocean here. we need to talk about giving a much bigger advantage here.
10% ME for lowsec, 20-25% for nullsec before it's actually worth to build something in null/low for export.
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1499
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:51:11 -
[403] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote: service modules need to be flat out better for sov owners. and we are not talking about fuel cost, we are talking about reward for the additional risk of putting something in low/null/wh vs putting something in highsec.
reduced fuel cost is a drop in the ocean here. we need to talk about giving a much bigger advantage here.
10% ME for lowsec, 20-25% for nullsec before it's actually worth to build something in null/low for export.
You are adorable.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:56:15 -
[404] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:... I'm more concerned that with only 8 high slots, structures will be severely lacking in fire-power. ...
Well, there are no infos as of yet on what kind of weapons structures will be able to fit into those "mere 8" high slots... Could be everything from little laz0rs for smaller structures up to capital guns, DD-like "deathstar rays" for XL-structures or even a somewhat reduced version of the DDs of old. It's imho a bit early to talk about lack of fire-power. Just imagine one of those 8 guns pulverizing a marauder (or bigger) or the likes every 15s and soon 8 guns are quite a bit of fire-power....
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1079
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:57:46 -
[405] - Quote
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote: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 now due to limited play time 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. So I want a method that allows me to clearly defend in a realistic fashion also. No, if you don't keep the window then getting into a ship, or asking someone to move over so you can look out the one small window or undocking just to see what's going on outside is simply stupid. That humans have forgotten how to make windows 23,000 yeas in the future is simply personally unacceptable to me. The POS FF give us (1) an amazing 'window' AND (2) Forcefields are a std of almost ALL SF, and just FYI, I have been ingame over 4 years, I have lived in POSes for at least 3.5 years of that time. I have no issue whatsoever with what CCP is attempting with POS & Structure changes, it needs doing, badly. But while I appreciate consistency, please keep in mind IRL we have different equipment for different environments... you don't setup and ingloo in the Bahamas and you wouldn't try to live in a grass hut in Antarctica. Even forts built in polar climates are basically different from forts built in equatorial climes... and so it should be in EVE also. WSpace is not Empire space and, having lived in botth I can tell you from experience, it is NOT Nullsec no matter what the number at the top left says... it is inherently DIFFERENT and those differences must be taken into account or you end up forcing unbalanced and unpleasant gameplay on players. You have given me my second strongest argument for keeping the FF and not havinf the Entosis Link work on POSes in WSpace... " ...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." We are NOT Sov holders... we do NOT need Sov mechanics in WSpace... just make a variant of the Std POS and the XL POS that are balanced towards the gameplay that is inherent in Anoikis. Not that I expect this, when CCP decided to change Scanning they really screwed us in Anoikis... I am pretty sure this will be the same.
The sov capture mechanics copied verbatim will have difficulty scaling downwards to small corps and solo players. We are waiting to see how all that discussion plays out before deciding what of that system makes sense for structures.
We are definitely aware of the fact that smaller groups have different defence requirements to large sov holding alliances.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:58:46 -
[406] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:10% ME for lowsec, 20-25% for nullsec before it's actually worth to build something in null/low for export.
Since ME bonuses seem to be pandora's box for CCP, I'd rather have all areas get the same ME treatment and simply allow null or low to spew out stuff much faster ;)
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1079
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:59:37 -
[407] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:EX Winet wrote: 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.
- We could have Sov holding provide reduced fuel bills for service modules yes. Depends what we want to do with Sov, I need to talk about that one with Fozzieboy.
service modules need to be flat out better for sov owners. and we are not talking about fuel cost, we are talking about reward for the additional risk of putting something in low/null/wh vs putting something in highsec. reduced fuel cost is a drop in the ocean here. we need to talk about giving a much bigger advantage here. 10% ME for lowsec, 20-25% for nullsec before it's actually worth to build something in null/low for export.
We are proposing that rigs can receive bonuses that work better in nullsec / sov systems.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
539
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:01:05 -
[408] - Quote
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. |
Aliventi
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
833
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:04:02 -
[409] - Quote
I do have a questions about structures, notifications, and SOV.
If I recall correctly, under the current Dominion SOV mechanics, structures such as POS towers, when anchored in SOV space, give a free, effortless, and perfect intel notification that Allaince XYZ is anchoring a POS in a system you own. This has really been a huge annoyance for groups that want to stage covertly out of opposing space as the opposing side knows instantly where you are. Another big issue with this system is that is it one of the big causes for groups to own lots of space as the more space you own the more security these free, effortless, and perfect intel notifications provide.
I hope you can understand that I would very much like to have these notifications go away. That way I can anchor and use structures to adversely affect my enemies without them getting a free, effortless, and perfect intel notification of what I am doing. So will these types of notifications be going away? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3776
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:04:33 -
[410] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:A'Tolkar wrote:Thank you for your sarcasm which adds nothing to the discussion. As for Capital Assembly Array, I am just wondering if there is another announcement coming down the pipe regarding capital ships in high-sec. And for the medium assembly array, is there a problem with me pointing out a possible mistake in a mockup? The whole point of the mockup is to convey how the new structure will work. What is wrong with asking for clarification when one data point contradicts with another one? If CCP wants to give us an idea on how things will work with mockups and someone notices something contradictory, I figure CCP would want to know in order to change it so they can present correct info. I don't know why you are so butt hurt by the question that you need to get sarcastic and imply that you are so much smarter. This picture is absolutely just a mockup. We don't have that level of detail to share with you yet. Sorry if that was misleading.
I beat you to that reply. Nice try though, kangarooboy |
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1079
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:08:24 -
[411] - Quote
Jezra Tanaka wrote:I personally like the current anchoring mechanic. the way this is described makes me think that the new structures will be overly vulnerable because you are limited to 8 defenses. some places you need a deathstar with 12 Large pulse lasers and an array of supporting equipment just for defense, and only online the production modules you actually need at the moment.
in others you can leave just a little E-War up and be mostly fine as long as you check on it.
Point is that POS need to be more flexible then this model shows.
I do like the idea they fielded of having reppers on a structure. I can see the use of having a triage pos, but I'd rather that exist under current mechanics similar to the use of guns/E-war.
1 weapon slot can mean 6 guns place at the end of each 3 dimensional axis. You should have 360 degree defences since you cannot move or spin around or arrange them at all.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
PsychoBitch
Playboy Enterprises Dark Taboo
458
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:09:04 -
[412] - Quote
First, if this is half the abortion the industry update was - this will not be pleasant.
Second, I sincerely hope that they are going to have an automated conversion of the current POS's and not force the customers to shoulder the burden of these changes. |
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
291
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:09:42 -
[413] - Quote
xttz wrote:
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.
Propaganda towers ofc. ;-) |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
539
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:09:55 -
[414] - Quote
xttz wrote:Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.
By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even conquering effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good.
Quoting myself because I'd love to hear what the devs are thinking on this. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1500
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:12:05 -
[415] - Quote
PsychoBitch wrote:First, if this is half the abortion the industry update was - this will not be pleasant.
Second, I sincerely hope that they are going to have an automated conversion of the current POS's and not force the customers to shoulder the burden of these changes. The industry update was one of the best things that CCP has ever put out. I hope the same thinking that went into the industry revamp gets applied to structures. Structures need that out-of-the-box thinking and willingness to take significant risk to be successful.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
725
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:13:59 -
[416] - Quote
PsychoBitch wrote:First, if this is half the abortion the industry update was - this will not be pleasant.
Second, I sincerely hope that they are going to have an automated conversion of the current POS's and not force the customers to shoulder the burden of these changes. aside from the lack of thought that went into some of the team mechanics (sniping, mostly), the industry update was an unvarnished success |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
539
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:14:53 -
[417] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Mnemonyss wrote:If the new structures are fittable, will they also have drone bays and allow for drones to be deployed when under attack? We want them to be like ships, so if there is good gameplay behind it, there is no reason why they shouldn't use drones, or fighter / fighter-bombers at the largest sizes. We do not like gun automation though, so it's likely those will have to be manually controlled if they ever make it in, again, like ship drones.
There needs to be a degree of automation otherwise fitting weaponry because pointless in many situations, especially for personal structures. Are players expected to be around 23/7 to defend them?
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
132
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:17:46 -
[418] - Quote
xttz wrote:xttz wrote:Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.
By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even conquering effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good. Quoting myself because I'd love to hear what the devs are thinking on this. Structure grinding is bad and scales horribly. If you don't realize this by now, you have not been paying attention.
Unless you are a new bro. In that case; history has proven that structure grinding is not good game play. Do a bit of research and you will see all the bad stuff it causes. And of course, welcome to EVE new bro!
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with valid a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Mac O'Neal
Industrial Accidents Incorporated
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:19:05 -
[419] - Quote
Ok, I liked a lot of ideas put out there but I am a bit worried about their implementation a bit.
First off I am a Wormholer, thats what I do and thats what I love. If these changes drastically change how I am able to defend my structures and use them to make ISK I am fairly concerned. I had already had my infastucture for T3 production turned on its head after years of skilling to make them, harvesting the needed gasses, running the reactions, stocking up on parts, doing the reverse engineering, building my complex spread sheets needed for materials management and and production cost estimation only to have it all changed in a patch making almost all of what I have in place rendered useless and loss cost efficient by nerfs to invention and materials requirements... but I'm still here.
I now rely on PI as well as reactions going at my towers for making ISK... I dont remember seeing anything in the post about reactions for POS structures... are you going to eliminate my other means of ISK making?
Also I'd like more clarification on what ships can be used with what structures. Our corp has invested billions in Towers and Caps in our WH with the intent of staying in and holding our little bit of J space, from having towers on every moon to deter evictions and having caps set for defense as well as use for escalations etc... What happens to us?
Logistics is a pain for us as it is and has taken us a significant amout of time to move in our assets and set up for ourselves, if the system is revamped with these grace periods will we have to move billions of isk out to sell it to a station to buy new items then start all over again from scratch? Does that mean we have to leave our caps out and vulnerable while we transition and risk what we already own to transport it and change it to the new system? If we have to buy new modules will they be at a fixed price for a bit so those with infrastructures dont have to wait for new items to be produced and wait till prices marginalize before we can buy them?
Dont get me wrong I would like to see POS's look more intimidating for sure... I remember when I first started I wanted to own a structure like a High sec station in space and have it be MINE... then I learned the game doesn't work quite like that. So changes to appearance are intriguing to me...
The idea of fitting a POS like as ship is interesting, BUT If all I can fit is XL weapons whats to keep a group of fast T3's with high DPS from flying under the guns and hammering it? What will you do to replace the redundant weapons idea on some POS's where you invest the time to anchor extra weapons to online when one is incapped whiled your controlling them to defend a POS?
Then the shield... oh the shield... I hope it stays... but I guess time will tell, I think I saw one on the size concept chart but if it goes... Not sure what we will do. Not to say I'm a shield hiding care bear BUT I do like to pick my fights based on who may be on in the corp and what skills we have to run a fleet etc...
I dont know, I am a little on edge of what this will mean for smaller corps such as ours with casual players. I don't want a game to be like a JOB I want it to be a game for fun. I like to put in time and enjoy myself, I dont want to have to have set times for people to be on, drop everything in my real life to run a defense etc.
One more side note: I know POS controls and managment of permissions is a pain, why not fix that versus completely revamp the structures etc? |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1759
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:21:31 -
[420] - Quote
PsychoBitch wrote:First, if this is half the abortion the industry update was - this will not be pleasant.
Second, I sincerely hope that they are going to have an automated conversion of the current POS's and not force the customers to shoulder the burden of these changes.
wat ?
there are four things wrong with indu as we have it today.
1. corp mechanics
2. structures
3. ties with sov
4. the ease of T2 invention, especially for modules.
1-3 are actively being worked on
4 is a relatively easy fix. just increase ranks for modules. and that's an easy fix
other than that, the indu changes were amazing
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
726
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:24:26 -
[421] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Structure grinding is bad and scales horribly. If you don't realize this by now, you have not been paying attention. Unless you are a new bro. In that case; history has proven that structure grinding is not good game play. Do a bit of research and you will see all the bad stuff it causes. And of course, welcome to EVE new bro! if you're talking to xttz without realizing who xttz is, you probably shouldn't be trying to talk down to people by implying your vast knowledge of eve history
especially on anything related to pos, sov warfare, sov mechanics, or really anything about eve mechanics |
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1004
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:30:41 -
[422] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:xttz wrote:xttz wrote:Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.
By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even conquering effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good. Quoting myself because I'd love to hear what the devs are thinking on this. Structure grinding is bad and scales horribly. If you don't realize this by now, you have not been paying attention. Unless you are a new bro. In that case; history has proven that structure grinding is not good game play. Do a bit of research and you will see all the bad stuff it causes. And of course, welcome to EVE new bro!
You dumb **** xttz has been playing EVE since you were in diapers. He basically owns structure warfare. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1502
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:35:33 -
[423] - Quote
Yeah, even an individual like myself, who considers himself to be superior to all other thought leaders in Eve: Online, defers to xttz's expertise in the area of sovereignty and POS.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Phig Neutron
Rubicon Cubism
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:53:42 -
[424] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:Just a question.
Where will be the room for part time players with or within a corp?
With the current sov system and stations it is highly possible that your stuff is still accessible if you login next weekend. With the new sov system and destructible big containers it is highly possible that your stuff isn't accessible next weekend and blown up the week after. Therefore part time players can't have reasonable stuff in sov null anymore including any kind of industrial activity.
That is the reason for the proposed ejection mechanics which will keep your personal assets safe for a period of time for you to collect.
You're blowing off his concern. Not everybody has a jump freighter alt that they want to put at risk every other weekend, or a carrier/bowhead to pick up a bunch of fitted ships in a war zone. Under this new system, no one is going to bring more than one or two ships into 0.0 at a time, and forget about anybody bringing materials and doing industry! You will see many more people based out of NPC space and just going into 0.0 on roams. I strongly recommend you think about some mechanic for "cold storage" of assets, perhaps on planet or moon surfaces, so that you can build up assets over time in nullsec. |
Madeleine Lemmont
Divide et Impera DE
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:09:55 -
[425] - Quote
Well, I'm new in business.
Does corps can adjust the interior appearance for structures which allow docking inside? Nothing against a unique Gallentean appearance of labs for instance. But it would be really cool to have SKINs for structures too. Outside AND inside...
---
I really like the planned new visuals of POS forcefields. But why this great structure should be removed? Which issue is breaking down a "shield tower"?
Why not have medium sized structures which provide opportunities for small and medium gangs temporarily? I would like to have medium sized modules for structures and medium and or large sized modules for ships which allow to create forcefields while anchored temporarily. Modules consuming fuel depending on size and field size and type.
Means: - fleet shield - fleet "cloak" (reducing sig radius significantly) -> large scan inhibitor (no forcefield EHP instead) - counter measures for scan ships or observatories creating or reducing echoes of fleets (no forcefield EHP instead) - ships for temporary/ninja moon mining - highslot disabling inside the field (no forcefield EHP) - industry ship siege system (i.e. forcefielded Rorqual for on-grid support) - jammer (no forcefield EHP) - impulse decloaker with cooldown (no forcefield EHP) - eWar system (no forcefield EHP)
Means not: - Replacement of siege modules
Of course you should not be able to fire weapons or activate harvesting eqipment inside a field like that. You cannot project a bubble around static obstacles of all kind (i.e. within belts).
However... I'd like to see shield towers and forcefields in future too. But they should get a downgrade in fuel usage and become fast-anchorable medium deployables. |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:11:07 -
[426] - Quote
ok i have one question. will it be possible for us to place these structures close to eachother and with that build like a city of structures??? with that we could build build like a small city in the stars. with difrent uses ofcourse |
Madeleine Lemmont
Divide et Impera DE
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:20:14 -
[427] - Quote
Phig Neutron wrote:... I strongly recommend you think about some mechanic for "cold storage" of assets, perhaps on planet or moon surfaces, so that you can build up assets over time in nullsec. Opposite this you have to think about reward for killed structures.
If all assets are gone, no one likes to bring them there again. If no assets could be claimed by the aggressor, aggression makes no economical sense.
Structures should be destructable. So far it's ok. There should be a way to bring all 0.0 players together for that issue what creates a real reason discrepancy between aggressing and defending parties. But not alone for 0.0 space.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3238
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:34:52 -
[428] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:And by the way guys, proper discussion threads are now up in the Feature and Ideas subforum. Feel free to comment there as it will be easier for everyone to filter the topics that way. I notice there is no "Structures: General" Thread. That is one for comments that cover all structures. Or should we use this thread for that?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1091
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:39:39 -
[429] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:And by the way guys, proper discussion threads are now up in the Feature and Ideas subforum. Feel free to comment there as it will be easier for everyone to filter the topics that way. I notice there is no "Structures: General" Thread. That is one for comments that cover all structures. Or should we use this thread for that?
Yep, use this thread for now.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
611
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:44:00 -
[430] - Quote
Btw there should totally be a ton of sexy skins available for structures, so people can personalize their homes and not have every station be the same, which would look and feel just terrible. Ideally there should be even variable shapes, but I realise thats not really doable because of art resources.
and we should be able to build little complexes and cities, probably
W-Space Realtor
|
|
Keskora Yaari
POS Party Low-Class
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:49:36 -
[431] - Quote
My corp currently lives in a wormhole with 29 active POSs. My chief concern is that we can continue to live and operate in our wormhole without having to fear for our assets every time we go outside. If forcefields are going away, I would like these structures to still have solid enough defenses to prevent anyone from just waltzing in and taking it out. I think being able to anchor multiple structures on the same grid would be very good for this. If a giant marketing structure doesn't have the slots available to adequately defend itself, allow other structures to be nearby and react to aggression. Maybe not a ton of them on one grid... but enough to be a substantial enough force that defenders and residents feel safe and a big enough challenge that attackers with sizable enough fleets can take on the challenge to destroy them.
Also i think from an aesthetic point of view being able to have a giant floating space colony sounds AMAZING.
Another thing... please please please don't let the observatories block out the d-scan in a wormhole system. That will ruin wormhole pvp and force all pilots to use combats to so much as see if a wormhole is inhabited. It kills all the surprise and danger that makes wormhole space so amazing.
The other concern I have is what happens to assets when a structure is destroyed. A big staple in wormhole PVP is structure bashing and having no loot drop from dead structures eliminates the motivation to attack them in the first place. Every wormholer knows that there is always a possibility of getting your POS taken out and loosing your assets. It's part of the risk of getting into wormhole space and I don't think that should go away completely.
I am still so excited for these changes though. Having to manage all of our POSs with as many members as we have has gotten more and more ridiculous with the limited roles they have available right now. Guess it won't be much of a POS Party without POSs anymore though :/ |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3238
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:57:00 -
[432] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:xttz wrote:Have you decided how ownership will work on an ongoing basis?
For example, if we launch a new structure and set it for corporation/alliance use, can a spy with the appropriate roles then come along and set it for personal or public use? If set for public use who can change it back again; anyone?
How would unanchoring structures work? I'm especially thinking for structures where players and dock or moor ships. Using a structure is not the same as managing or owning it. Example: I'm setting a Ship Assembly Array to be set to public, anyone can use it to build ships. However not everyone can tweak its ownership or status settings (like changing roles or permissions). Only the owners or the guys set with specific roles can do so. Large structures with ship docked could require extra security, that's a good point you are making. Either have a long countdown period before unanchor (that everyone with enough roles can see in the corporation) or have a 2 man rule to unanchor the most valuable structures could help fixing this. 2 man rule? So, in this game of alts, that would be me, myself, and I? Or are you going to make it so it has to be two separate actual players, not just two different pilots? To do so, you would have to make it a EULA requirement that all players disclose all their accounts to CCP.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
293
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 18:04:21 -
[433] - Quote
xttz wrote:xttz wrote:Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.
By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even conquering effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good. Quoting myself because I'd love to hear what the devs are thinking on this.
If you dislike the proposed changes and on the other hand like structure shooting... there still is that monument in front of Jita 4-4. Excellent opportunity to team up with a few corp mates and spend a night or two. ;-)
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 18:08:24 -
[434] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: I notice there is no "Structures: General" Thread. That is one for comments that cover all structures. Or should we use this thread for that?
Yep, use this thread for now.
Any comments on the proposal of pushing a part of the flexibility/decision-making/costs to the "launch and anchor" phase of a structure's life cycle? Granted it doesn't work for every kind of structure, but for those with a serious impact on their environment/system it might imho provide useful. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
913
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 18:19:08 -
[435] - Quote
One intresting thought if the entosis mechanics are going to be used further down the size scale, is how is the new whack-a-mole capture system going to work in Wormholes? You cant exactly spawn capture nodes in random wormhole systems and say "find em yourself", and if they all spawn in the system with the structure, WH guys are getting a free pass at defending their stuff compared to everyone else. Hows it going to work (Are we going to see some silly crap like random spawn nodes in to other systems with permanent statics until the structure is captured)? |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
330
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 18:25:51 -
[436] - Quote
This looks amazing! Can't even imagine all the posibilities. Hype train warms engine again! |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3238
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 18:36:08 -
[437] - Quote
Above, I suggested the idea of allowing us to make intermediate size structures, that is, a structure between a medium and a large, but sticking two mediums together. The method would be to deploy a second medium at the same location as an existing one, and the two end up docked to each other. The two structures would still be treated as separate structures in terms of slots, grid, and CPU. They could share inventory, or at least allow easy movement of inventory between the two.
Any thought on allowing something like this?
Another question: Many corps deal with war and structures by turtling. That is, take down the structure for the duration. In a way, it givers an unopposed win to the aggressor. For such corps, the new structures become quite uninviting. When taken down, the rigs are lost.
How about: Unanchored and scooped structures stay rigged? They only lose the rigs if repackaged for sale. That way any corp, even those with no interest in war, will find the new structures inviting. They just have to deal with the consequence of having to take down, lose the use of, and re-deploy the structure each and every war.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
133
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:43:21 -
[438] - Quote
Querns wrote:Yeah, even an individual like myself, who considers himself to be superior to all other thought leaders in Eve: Online, defers to xttz's expertise in the area of sovereignty and POS. I have done a fair amount of reading and never heard of him. I just thought he was new to the game due to him wanting structure grinding when there has been scores of people listing why it is bad. His post just had a new bro feel to it. I meant no harm.
I would love to read up on his expertise on the subject of structures and sovereignty. Please mail and or list some links. I'm always eager to learn. Apologies to xttz.
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with valid a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3212
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:57:35 -
[439] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Jezra Tanaka wrote:I personally like the current anchoring mechanic. the way this is described makes me think that the new structures will be overly vulnerable because you are limited to 8 defenses. some places you need a deathstar with 12 Large pulse lasers and an array of supporting equipment just for defense, and only online the production modules you actually need at the moment.
in others you can leave just a little E-War up and be mostly fine as long as you check on it.
Point is that POS need to be more flexible then this model shows.
I do like the idea they fielded of having reppers on a structure. I can see the use of having a triage pos, but I'd rather that exist under current mechanics similar to the use of guns/E-war. 1 weapon slot can mean 6 guns place at the end of each 3 dimensional axis. You should have 360 degree defences since you cannot move or spin around or arrange them at all.
the 6 gun thing is really just a visual part. its 1 gun at the end of the day. shooting at one thing. taking away one slot. having the stats of one gun.
i am also curious how you want to compute the tracking and falloffs. since you can't just see it as a ship and compute everything from the center of a 100km large structure. POS was already inconsistent how it worked
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
|
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy Caldari State
202
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:21:58 -
[440] - Quote
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 :)
|
|
Albert Spear
Non scholae sed vitae
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:28:21 -
[441] - Quote
I think I like it, subject to details to follow - including slot counts, modules, and supporting blueprints.
I would hope that the smallest modules and structures would be accessible to manufacture to newer players - so that the gameplay spreads across as much of the player base as possible. |
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
116
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:32:58 -
[442] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:you will not be able to reach the same generalization you currently enjoy with a single Starbase indeed. As mentioned in the blog, we would like to allow you to specialize further in a specific field should you choose to. At this point its not exactly "if you so chose" but more like....""as you are forced to"....
Maybe a basic structure that can be more generalized and NON-specialized as each and every one of them is atm....if a "choice" isn't actually a "choice".....then how is it we were able to chose anything? |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:37:32 -
[443] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:CCP, what is the idea behind your insist of manning the POS guns to defend and not make like the current system we have right now ? This is game guys why you we have to feel it is full time job game to defend ourselves by having corp members 24/7 online to be rdy to man the guns if we got attacked ? reasons ?
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.
11 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy Caldari State
202
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:40:52 -
[444] - Quote
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. |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:45:38 -
[445] - Quote
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.
11 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
555
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:53:43 -
[446] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Querns wrote:Yeah, even an individual like myself, who considers himself to be superior to all other thought leaders in Eve: Online, defers to xttz's expertise in the area of sovereignty and POS. I have done a fair amount of reading and never heard of him. I just thought he was new to the game due to him wanting structure grinding when there has been scores of people listing why it is bad. His post just had a new bro feel to it. I meant no harm. I would love to read up on his expertise on the subject of structures and sovereignty. Please mail and or list some links. I'm always eager to learn. Apologies to xttz.
Uh yeah I may have been around here for a little while.
Structure grinding is bad when it's mandatory and/or abused. This was the issue with Dominion sov, as the effort required to remove hostile structures was the same in every situation, regardless how much the space is used or what was invested in it. This in turn creates a barrier for entry into null-sec; you have to be able to inflict obscene amounts of damage which in turn means caps and supercaps.
The flipside of this is that key enemy structures should require an element of risk to take out. Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. This is a fantastic avenue for content, with defenders setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE. |
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 22:36:28 -
[447] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Re racial types: the new structures wont be following the standard racial variants ie Caldari, Gallente etc
Would it be possible to use the new SKIN ship painting system on these new structures? Granted the configuration of all these structures will add a bit of variation but everyone having the same structures is going to get a bit boring.
|
Pesadel0
the muppets Void..
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 23:26:49 -
[448] - 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.
This is a very important question , because per example my corp is a small gmt corp that lives in WH space , our pos are death-stars to deal with the foes , with this change me and my corp mates will wake up and see all our stuff destroyed because :
1-No one was there at 4 eve time to man the guns.
I mean really=? |
Akii
The Shell Subsidary Home Front Coalition
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 23:38:18 -
[449] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: So a few points worth noting:
1) Structures should be destroyed more often than they currently do (easy thing to say for Outposts obviously) which means more opportunities for looting.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: We want them to be like ships, so if there is good gameplay behind it, there is no reason why they shouldn't use drones, or fighter / fighter-bombers at the largest sizes. We do not like gun automation though, so it's likely those will have to be manually controlled if they ever make it in, again, like ship drones.
Mooring looks like anyone with eyes on the structure can see all ships stored there.
Is this really what is going to be achieved? From the dev blog
Quote: 5. Housing
Proper housing of player items and ships is a critical must-have if we wish those structures to be used over NPC stations. As such, we have different ideas up our sleeves to make that happen.
I feel like NPC stations are looking like the safer option for small corps... |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
498
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 23:57:41 -
[450] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Forcefield mechanic has issues that we want to remove in the new system, if possible. The (super)capital issues are indeed something that needs to be discussed, a thread was created for that purpose there.
Can we finally know what are those "issues with forcefield"?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
498
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 00:03:54 -
[451] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Yep, use this thread for now.
So a general question: will we be able to anchor multiple structures on one grid (i.e. POS town)
So I can have my laboratory and array and hangar at the same spot?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Schwein Hosen
DuckPus Fightclub
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 00:34:49 -
[452] - Quote
I think you should consider making some small percentage of the stuff in the station drop as loot available to anyone. That way, no one person loses that much, but everyone can have a fun reward once the station blows up. I mean, at say 5% people can't complain that much and I feel like they do deserve to lose something since the thing did blow up. 5% would still mean billions in most cases, plenty enough for looting chaos to ensue. |
Dani Maulerant
Order of the Valkyrie LOADED-DICE
19
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 01:07:26 -
[453] - Quote
Has anyone asked yet what will happen then to Faction Tower BPCs some may have stashed away, or posted on contracts? Will they be reimbursed or just simply lost with nothing for the trouble of having pulled them from profession sites? |
Valterra Craven
519
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 01:11:30 -
[454] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Samsara Toldya wrote: No racial towers - no racial fuel?
- Racial fuel will most likely be spread among the various structures, or merged into one, not sure yet. Up to discussion, like everything else.
I think a fuel block should require some of each type. That way space that doesn't contain a certain type of ice still needs to import something in the new mechanic. |
Valterra Craven
519
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 01:17:19 -
[455] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:EX Winet wrote:So i have two simple questions
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. 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.
There is also a large benefit to fuel use in faction towers as well.
I think you need to release a general structure that doesn't fit any set type of work (ie research, or manfucture) and maybe its special bonus is reduced fuel usage to compensate for no other bonuses.
This would be good for people just getting into large space born assets.
One thing I want you guys to think about as well is how one would go about "upgrading" in place under the new system.
Say for example I want to go from a med manufacture to a large, or I want to a med research.Under the old system if you wanted to switch a pos role you just switched out the structures on it. now its a whole new structure. I'd much prefer if you didn't have to do that.
Which gives me an idea. I'd much rather the pos be more like tech 3 destroyers where you could set which role you wanted the pos to occupy (ie switch between research/other things). I know that limits "variety", but under this idea you could go back to having racial/faction variants instead (which IMO is more eve like given how ships are setup) and then with each one be able to choose a role with a time limit for switching etc. |
Valterra Craven
519
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 01:26:05 -
[456] - 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?
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.
Sorry, kinda posting stream of thought on this.
If you went with my idea of racial structures instead of role structures, you could leave outposts as is under the new system completely.
For example, lets say you have a mini outpost.
Under the old system those structures got special bonuses.
Under the new system each race gets a special bonus for a specific role. So for example mini are good are building stuff so they get the normal role bonus if you chose to go manufacture, so lets say that normal role bonus is 10% and then because they are mini they get another 5%. But lets say you don't want to stay manufacture, well it just becomes a bonus you don't use or a special sub role that it gets to retain while doing something else. So lets say a mini structure with a research role gets 10% to research for its role and 5% to manufacture for race.
Then you take all the upgrades the station has and convert them to the new system, be they rigs, or "fittings". That way NOTHING needs to be reimbursed, and if they are converted to fittings, they can be used on some other XL structure if people so chose. Doing conversions seems much simpler than having everyone start from scratch. |
Valterra Craven
519
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 01:30:00 -
[457] - Quote
Also, I'm going to be watching you VERYYYY closely. It seems like just a year ago I was having to protect my "precious"
The Hyasyoda Research Lab. Please don't screw it up.... |
Valterra Craven
519
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 01:38:01 -
[458] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: Re racial types: the new structures wont be following the standard racial variants ie Caldari, Gallente etc
Please elaborate on why. The new system is decidedly "un-eve" like with no real reason why. Especially after I argued so hard for all industrial ships to be moved to ORE a while ago, and you guys persisted with the racial variants there.
|
Juan Mileghere
Incident Command Southern Star Dominion
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 02:22:43 -
[459] - Quote
Only real question would be how this all is affected in different parts of space... |
Juan Mileghere
Incident Command Southern Star Dominion
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 02:23:55 -
[460] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: Forcefield mechanic has issues that we want to remove in the new system, if possible. The (super)capital issues are indeed something that needs to be discussed, a thread was created for that purpose there. Can we finally know what are those "issues with forcefield"? wasn't that because stuff could get bumped out of bubbles if cynoed in a certain way? |
|
The Tallman
Krannon of Sherwood Carthage Empires
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 02:41:32 -
[461] - Quote
What are we doing with all the modules, hangers, labs, etc. That we have all spent significant amount of isk on putting into our current pos's?
Does that investment just disappear? Can we trade in or get compensated for the switch over to new structures? |
Lelira Cirim
The Graduates Forged of Fire
221
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 02:45:10 -
[462] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:EDIT: I am most curious how frozen corpses will be tied into advertising. A salvage drone, a nail gun, and 100 of your closest friends.
Do not actively tank my patience. || EVE University Wiki Team
|
The Tallman
Krannon of Sherwood Carthage Empires
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 02:47:22 -
[463] - Quote
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. |
Byson1
Origin Unlimited Natural Selection Initiative
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 03:09:47 -
[464] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Pay careful attention to avoiding creating a permanent oligarchy, and some attention to making the oligarchy that has already formed more vulnerable to being overturned. If you get this wrong, it'll make it too easy for the "old money" in the game to continue dominating 0.0.
How will these structures be attacked? Will they all be subject to the new "entosis" mechanic, or will some of them require hit-point grinding (as with current POS)? The entosis mechanic (or something like it) will be preferable, increasing the opportunities for small entities to engage in creative destruction in the space of sovereigns who become complacent.
The intelligence networks replacing locator agents is good, but should only extend as far as the sovereign entity's borders. They should be able to tell the entity if a certain player is logged out or active within their borders, but should not extend game wide. Having them interfere with cloaking mechanics is a bad idea unless combined with eliminating local, and only if a significant lag (measured in minutes) is required to locate a cloaked ship. Watch lists should also be made permission based. Intelligence about things like supers logging on should have to be actively gathered, not given for free by the game mechanics.
Anything that allows a sov holder to rely on passive defenses, whether that's hit-points and timers, or scanners of some sort, is a bad thing. It makes it too easy for "old money" entities to control the entire map. Safety in sov space should be directly proportional to the active defense of the space.
Edit:
As with the above, invulnerable stuff in 0.0 is a bad thing. It makes it too easy for wealth to beget wealth with too little risk. If a structure is destroyed, the items and materials within is should be subject to looting somehow. Increasing the relative reward of living in 0.0 and having it be riskier is preferable to making it possible to accumulate vast amounts of invulnerable wealth.
I disagree small corportations/alliances will not be able to man a constant watch and provide a constant defence, this old money will not be affected either way. they will have the manpower either way. What you are asking for is just to make greifing easier for the greifers.
If this greifer route continues- systems will roll. Ihubs and infrastructure will blow up, do this a few times and people quite trying to invest their time into the game.
No one building, no one to provide content for pvp. |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
770
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 03:51:23 -
[465] - Quote
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.
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves."
The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
|
volo ratio
Spinstate Dynamics
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 04:30:59 -
[466] - Quote
Please consider a way to retain the amazing complexity that POS setup can provide. The idea of some simplistic "fitting" replacement with docking rather than the shield... very underwhelming. The ability to deploy sub-structures in a certain spatial configuration can lead aggressors into traps or allow smart attackers to exploit a weak setup. Similarly, being able to online systems in real-time provided some flexibility. These tactical considerations add depth to combat which should be retained and expanded on. The concept of a volumetric area of shielded space can be viewed in an analogous fashion.
I understand wanting to make EVE easier for the console kiddies, but this is going way too far. How about retaining the concept of spatial complexity and making it even more tactically important rather than just making certain that a trained gerbil can deploy a structure? From inception, meaningful complexity has been at the core of EVE. PLEASE stop dumbing down the game.
With respect - volo
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1972
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 05:41:39 -
[467] - Quote
volo ratio wrote:Please consider a way to retain the amazing complexity that POS setup can provide. The idea of some simplistic "fitting" replacement with docking rather than the shield... very underwhelming. The ability to deploy sub-structures in a certain spatial configuration can lead aggressors into traps or allow smart attackers to exploit a weak setup. Similarly, being able to online systems in real-time provided some flexibility. These tactical considerations add depth to combat which should be retained and expanded on. The concept of a volumetric area of shielded space can be viewed in an analogous fashion.
I understand wanting to make EVE easier for the console kiddies, but this is going way too far. How about retaining the concept of spatial complexity and making it even more tactically important rather than just making certain that a trained gerbil can deploy a structure? From inception, meaningful complexity has been at the core of EVE. PLEASE stop dumbing down the game.
With respect - volo
Please send the rest of us your bank account details, so that you can pay for the RSI which the current system induces when we attempt to set up POS'es. Thank you for your time.
Otherwise, lets not be stupid about an amazing development to ease strain and fighting the interface that lets us get on with the important stuff quickly. |
Aivo Dresden
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
423
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 07:19:15 -
[468] - Quote
Random question. Most of these use anchoring + some new skills depending on specialization. What will happen to the Star Base Defense Management skill? |
Masao Kurata
Z List
195
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 07:22:17 -
[469] - Quote
There are a lot of specific things I want to address in their own threads, but there's one little thing you could do to make a lot of people happy: enable cargo scanners (for all contents regardless of personal hangars etc., including in progress job stuff since you have plans for that) and ship scanners (for the structure "fits") on all new structures. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
237
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 08:04:19 -
[470] - Quote
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.
"...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
|
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
564
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 08:26:00 -
[471] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: Forcefield mechanic has issues that we want to remove in the new system, if possible. The (super)capital issues are indeed something that needs to be discussed, a thread was created for that purpose there. Can we finally know what are those "issues with forcefield"?
It's built on very old legacy code that's very hard to maintain. Forcefields also weren't written with any of the modern EVE features in mind, and this has lead to all kinds of exploits over the years which have been 'fixed' with various inelegant hacks.
However the most important issue is that GMs have no accurate way to tell from the logs if a ship is within a forcefield or not. That makes them a nightmare for exploit / reimbursment matters. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3187
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 08:59:48 -
[472] - Quote
I asked this in the Item Safety thread but it may be more appropriate here: what is the 'endgame' for existing outposts beyond the 'cannot build new' stage of the transition plan? Will they ultimately be converted into the new equivalent XL structures, or left in place in their current form, or deleted?
Some outposts have been around for almost 10 years and a lot of past and present players have assets locked away which will, regardless of how long your transition period is set at, not be evacuated before you reach this point.
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.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3187
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 09:12:29 -
[473] - Quote
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?
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.
|
Oxide Ammar
192
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 09:19:05 -
[474] - Quote
Can someone confirm or deny if XL sizes (of each new structure) are only nullsec exclusive or can be deployed in hisec/lowsec also ?
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.
|
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
559
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 09:39:14 -
[475] - Quote
I have a large investment in faction POS and POS modules and while it might not match a large alliance investment it's my investment.
Investment is the reason most people stay in EVE and this isn't a grr, grr, rage quit response. It's a please stop putting nails in that coffin response.
I like the looks of this in concept but I'd like you to consider investment when you start nuking our stuff. Flipping all my Meta 4 to meta 1 is one thing. This is much larger.
And then there is this.
Scatim Helicon wrote:I asked this in the Item Safety thread but it may be more appropriate here: what is the 'endgame' for existing outposts beyond the 'cannot build new' stage of the transition plan? Will they ultimately be converted into the new equivalent XL structures, or left in place in their current form, or deleted?
Some outposts have been around for almost 10 years and a lot of past and present players have assets locked away which will, regardless of how long your transition period is set at, not be evacuated before you reach this point.
If this is a less than overt way to delete outposts? You really need to think this through in terms of transitions because my small cry in the dark will seem comical in the history books of EVE.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
Isengrimus
LOST IDEA C0VEN
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 09:42:02 -
[476] - Quote
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. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
565
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 10:20:55 -
[477] - Quote
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. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1193
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 10:37:11 -
[478] - Quote
Keskora Yaari wrote:My corp currently lives in a wormhole with 29 active POSs. My chief concern is that we can continue to live and operate in our wormhole without having to fear for our assets every time we go outside. If forcefields are going away, I would like these structures to still have solid enough defenses to prevent anyone from just waltzing in and taking it out. I think being able to anchor multiple structures on the same grid would be very good for this. If a giant marketing structure doesn't have the slots available to adequately defend itself, allow other structures to be nearby and react to aggression. Maybe not a ton of them on one grid... but enough to be a substantial enough force that defenders and residents feel safe and a big enough challenge that attackers with sizable enough fleets can take on the challenge to destroy them.
Also i think from an aesthetic point of view being able to have a giant floating space colony sounds AMAZING.
Another thing... please please please don't let the observatories block out the d-scan in a wormhole system. That will ruin wormhole pvp and force all pilots to use combats to so much as see if a wormhole is inhabited. It kills all the surprise and danger that makes wormhole space so amazing.
The other concern I have is what happens to assets when a structure is destroyed. A big staple in wormhole PVP is structure bashing and having no loot drop from dead structures eliminates the motivation to attack them in the first place. Every wormholer knows that there is always a possibility of getting your POS taken out and loosing your assets. It's part of the risk of getting into wormhole space and I don't think that should go away completely.
I am still so excited for these changes though. Having to manage all of our POSs with as many members as we have has gotten more and more ridiculous with the limited roles they have available right now. Guess it won't be much of a POS Party without POSs anymore though :/
Kes, you have 29 pos's, somewhere in the realm of 400 members. Just how much defense do you need :-P
I get the concern, but it shouldn't be able to build the Wall Of China in your wormhole.
Yaay!!!!
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1194
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 10:49:18 -
[479] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Samsara Toldya wrote: No racial towers - no racial fuel?
- Racial fuel will most likely be spread among the various structures, or merged into one, not sure yet. Up to discussion, like everything else.
I think a fuel block should require some of each type. That way space that doesn't contain a certain type of ice still needs to import something in the new mechanic.
Fuel blocks.... Might have to redo blocks. Instead of 4 types, just one block that takes all 4 isotopes to build. Also make them smaller and more condensed. Something as simple as 4 blocks to fuel a starbase an hour (yes it would take the current amount of pi, isotopes, etc it does now to make.
If you make a service block specific, you begin pandering to certain sectors of space (specifically gallente and caldari fuel).
Fuel cannot be confusing. It also cannot be segmented for a general pos. either combine it into one type, or figure out a way to get blocks working on a non racial platform but still require racial ice.
Maybe change the jump formula for ships from using isotopes to using fuel blocks. You would have to make fuel blocks physically smaller though for ships to carry. A combined fuel block from all 4 races (starbase fuel), can cover the base itself.
I'm spitballing a few concepts of fuel because else, if you make market hubs all require caldari ice, you've just made it the most valuable ice for wspace in total
Yaay!!!!
|
Marox Calendale
Human League
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 11:12:14 -
[480] - Quote
There is something I-¦m pretty sure I noticed at the Eve Fanfest Keynote but can-¦t it on the Dev Blog. Poses and Outposts are currently restricted to be only deployed at moons (Pos) and planets (Outposts).
Is it true that these restriction are gonna be deleted to deploy them all over the solar system?
If yes, what other restrictions do you think about?
Will it be possible to anchor Poses in shattered holes?
Will Structure Weapons need to be fuled up?
|
|
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. |
|
Xindi Kraid
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
903
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 00:00:07 -
[511] - Quote
xttz wrote: Hostile market hubs? Heh, I like it.
You are doing hostile takeovers.
CCP Nullarbor wrote: 1 weapon slot can mean 6 guns place at the end of each 3 dimensional axis. You should have 360 degree defences since you cannot move or spin around or arrange them at all.
Are you envisioning the specific scenario of POS a defensive module being one specific item (eg. turret), and a certain number of those are placed on the hull to provide full coverage as it is on ships, or have you given any though to things like weapons SYSTEMS. for example a 150 MM railgun system would install a dozen 150MM railguns and a half dozen dual 150 MM railguns, to have a better spread of target selection (other ideas are stuff like a cruise missile battery that can also target paint 1-2 targets). Also would the cluster of turrets off one fitted item work like ship turrets where whichever turret on the assigned module is in arc with the target it fires and the rest lay dormant, or will each turret be able to fire independently?
On a different note, how is ownership being handled? I know you mentioned certain services may be limited by sec status and sov, but like how outposts are alliance only while POSes are corp only and mobile depots are purely personal, will different sizes of structure only be able to be owned by specific groups? For instance, I have long had a Hyasyoda Mobile Lab I carry from corp to corp to put up in the POS for R&D, and also now have a tower, but still need roles to manage it; In the new system, I am assuming IF we get smaller structures of that category, I can probably own for myself a small lab I can do a couple BPs in, or, as somone who can afford a POS, can I run an actual large research laboratory launched for myself, and owned by myself (attackable by WTs of course just as my ship is)?
Also, related to this, how much can we allow access to others? If I put up my lab for myself rather than corp, can I still allow corp mates (or even alliance mates) to use the lab? Can I even set it up to allow public use (for a fee of course)
I would like to suggest, along with the specialized structures, we get a few super general structures with absolute middle of the road stats, and a few extra fitting/service slots, so we have a few things we can do literally everything with like the current POSes (like what wormholers use; sure it's mostly storage, but another big part of it is what do we need here now since there's no market for 5 holes and 20 jumps).
Speaking of wormholers: I think the community could use a depot type structures that are mainly storage, but escpecially ship storage, and I hope ship storage can be expanded (maybe have extra storage be a service, and depots have a role bonus for those) |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
239
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 00:22:47 -
[512] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Lurifax wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Eduardo'o wrote:Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation
PS: great stuff Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example. Have some loot drop and some send to the nearest NPC station? Yes returning to NPC stations may be another option for dealing with Outposts specifically. Just change the owner of the items an impound fee for recovery.
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
239
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 00:33:11 -
[513] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Chribba wrote:Very interesting, I foresee a major logistics effort to replace all structures though, if I understood it correctly we would have to replace them with the new things?
Also looking forward on more details about the mooring system, the radius things and of course if this might mean we will be seeing supercaps for sale on the market.
Imagining an outpost gets destroyed, and all the content and stuff gets ejected into space for the owner to scoop within the time, could a massive amount of canisters affect lag or similar with many thousands of new objects in space?
/c We will find ways around this not to have the servers die and beg for mercy. Ejected containers could have extremely large capacity so one is enough for each owner, or that you at least don't have 100 container for each possible owner. Also remember, those will not appear until the owner warps to the planet bookmark (like Planetary Launches), so this will spread the spawning as well.
You could also delay the calculation for spawning based on whether the person is online or offline and in the system. The server does a check and notes who has any possessions in the station. If they are in the system and online, then the server further processes the contents of their hangers. If there are corp assets in the station then the server checks to see if there are corp members online in the system before processing assets. Might need to have a table created for each station that simply lists the name of a player with an asset in station and the corp name with a used hanger. If the player it out of the system, asset processing takes a lower priority. If they are offline, assets processing does not take place until they are online or at downtime. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
239
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 02:13:09 -
[514] - Quote
Overall, I am really, really looking forward to these changes. Never dealing with the green box again can't come soon enough.
I love the idea that these can be anchored anywhere. Not being tied to the moon or planet will make these very flexible.
1 -aspiring to be the bad boy of High Sec War Decs, I will place these structures around Jita IV-4 with weapons bristling and ready to insta pop any and all war targets daring to undock or dock. I will eclipse the stargates in Niarja and Uedama to the same effect. CCP will need to ensure anchoring around Gates and Stations is limited. There are enough mobile depots and MTUs without adding armed POSes.
2 - The ESS was an excellent alert system for wormholes to let people know when someone has entered. Unfortunately CCP prevents anchoring them in WH space now. But with these structures I could anchor a defensive POS on top of a worm hole, bubble the wormhole, and have a certain sense of security. Sure, I won't know who came in, but if they are not in an interceptor or a cloak capable ship, I am pretty sure the starbase under attack notifications let alone any kill mail provided by the structure killing someone will let me know when I really need to turtle up. This is something I hope CCP does not restrict, if they do, they need to have it as a proximity restriction.
3 - Think DeathStar, but with component pieces. Will there be restrictions on proximity to each other?
4 - Moonmining - can multiple Structures be set up to mine the moon? Or will it function like the TCU: whoever has the first mining module active reaps the reward? Will mining be restricted to the proximity of the warp-in? Can I now mine the other side while someone mines the warp in side?
5 - Will combat timers prevent me from docking/mooring?
6 - Old Abandoned POSes should simply be relieved of CONCORD protection. If I have two months of lead time to the full changeover to the new structures, then I will have had time to decommission my POS. If I have valuables in my POS and am offline, then someone most likely already war dec'ed my corp and killed the modules, leaving only the stick behind. The lead up period should be enough notification via general EVE update emails saying POS mechanics are changing to let me know I should resub to take it down. After the change the POS should be freely shoot-able without obtaining even a suspect flag. Maybe any online or offline POSes left after the change should get a 30 day count down of doom... maybe a massive event that removes them. Something happened... did the drifters take offense to my stick? Salvaged by Circadian Sleepers?
Maybe reduce all offline POSes to 1 HP after the change?
7 - If I have corpses in my POS or new structure, will that attract the attention of Drifters? |
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 03:32:36 -
[515] - Quote
concerning the dead-stick issue, I think new-form POS's should consume fuel hourly like old starbases, if only a little, to distinguish active from abandonted structures (and running service modules can just consume more fuel, as in the proposal)
when a structure is unfuelled/offline then maybe it loses a lot of the weight of its shield/armor defense (maybe online has base 50% resistances but offline all resistances reduce to zero) so they're easy to clear away when abandoned
also, as many have voiced, it's a pretty un-cool idea that - based on what little we see in the proposal (as much as it is) - our new bases might be helpless about defending themselves if we happen to be asleep when a substantial structure is attacked!
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.
|
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah
475
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 04:40:17 -
[516] - Quote
A question to the game designers:
What's your plan for small corps that can't be online every night for their designated four-hour block? With structures no longer being able to defend themselves, what steps can we take other than commit to playing nights we already know we can't, in order to secure our structures from capture?
Let's take an example of a M or L assembly array. If someone knows that we just aren't playing much on Tuesdays and Wednesdays as a corp, what prevents a lone pilot from wardeccing, attacking our structure on a Tuesday with an entosis link and claiming it before we get much chance to defend it? Then finishing up the job on a Wednesday when we probably won't be able to get enough people together to mount a defense.
Currently when we are wardecced, we simply make sure all the guns are online and a sole attacker or two isn't going to be able to really take out our POS even when we're not around?
Is your intention, CCP, to make it so that small corps that can't field a proper defense at least every other night simply stay out of structure gameplay? I really, really like the idea of all these structures and I'm not looking for invulnerability, but right now the proposed mix of time spent on setup and time spent on stealing doesn't seem in balance. It looks like it's going to be far too easy to steal structures from corps that aren't on regularly even if they want or are willing to invest heavily in offline defense.
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 06:10:14 -
[517] - Quote
Quintessen wrote:A question to the game designers:
What's your plan for small corps that can't be online every night for their designated four-hour block? With structures no longer being able to defend themselves, what steps can we take other than commit to playing nights we already know we can't, in order to secure our structures from capture?
Let's take an example of a M or L assembly array. If someone knows that we just aren't playing much on Tuesdays and Wednesdays as a corp, what prevents a lone pilot from wardeccing, attacking our structure on a Tuesday with an entosis link and claiming it before we get much chance to defend it? Then finishing up the job on a Wednesday when we probably won't be able to get enough people together to mount a defense.
Currently when we are wardecced, we simply make sure all the guns are online and a sole attacker or two isn't going to be able to really take out our POS even when we're not around?
Is your intention, CCP, to make it so that small corps that can't field a proper defense at least every other night simply stay out of structure gameplay? I really, really like the idea of all these structures and I'm not looking for invulnerability, but right now the proposed mix of time spent on setup and time spent on stealing doesn't seem in balance. It looks like it's going to be far too easy to steal structures from corps that aren't on regularly even if they want or are willing to invest heavily in offline defense.
I guess this will be self-regulated. PLayers that can not be online every night at their "prime time" will not own sturctures (if the same mechanics are applied as to sov). OR they have to form bigger corps so that a minimal force is always online at their primetime, i.e. structures is nothing for small corps. The new sov- and structure-mechanics will shake up all of EVE quite a bit, old relations will end, new will be forged. This will be fun, because EVE needs a large injection of shake up!
CEO Svea Rike
|
Oxide Ammar
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 06:19:58 -
[518] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:Quintessen wrote:A question to the game designers:
What's your plan for small corps that can't be online every night for their designated four-hour block? With structures no longer being able to defend themselves, what steps can we take other than commit to playing nights we already know we can't, in order to secure our structures from capture?
Let's take an example of a M or L assembly array. If someone knows that we just aren't playing much on Tuesdays and Wednesdays as a corp, what prevents a lone pilot from wardeccing, attacking our structure on a Tuesday with an entosis link and claiming it before we get much chance to defend it? Then finishing up the job on a Wednesday when we probably won't be able to get enough people together to mount a defense.
Currently when we are wardecced, we simply make sure all the guns are online and a sole attacker or two isn't going to be able to really take out our POS even when we're not around?
Is your intention, CCP, to make it so that small corps that can't field a proper defense at least every other night simply stay out of structure gameplay? I really, really like the idea of all these structures and I'm not looking for invulnerability, but right now the proposed mix of time spent on setup and time spent on stealing doesn't seem in balance. It looks like it's going to be far too easy to steal structures from corps that aren't on regularly even if they want or are willing to invest heavily in offline defense.
I guess this will be self-regulated. PLayers that can not be online every night at their "prime time" will not own sturctures (if the same mechanics are applied as to sov). OR they have to form bigger corps so that a minimal force is always online at their primetime, i.e. structures is nothing for small corps. The new sov- and structure-mechanics will shake up all of EVE quite a bit, old relations will end, new will be forged. This will be fun, because EVE needs a large injection of shake up!
What does that mean? small corps should suck it up and never own POS in this game because you hide behind a wall of peasants that can defend your structures 24/7. Why the hell people are disconnected from reality and never realize this a game.
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.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3193
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 09:03:58 -
[519] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:+1. Multiple paths to victory seems very in-concept for Eve-O. I'd be massively excited about a system where an invading alliance had different groups dedicated to attacking the defences in multiple different ways to progressively degrade the defender's sovereignty. The current proposal could form the basis of this but as it stands is very bare-bones.
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.
|
Marox Calendale
Human League
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 11:01:52 -
[520] - 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? What about a Data Center Module for Service Slots at Large and X-Large Structures? You could store and use all of your BPO-¦s and BPC-¦s from one single Point or maybe spread them over several of Data Centers. Today already most Blue Prints are used in a digital form and not as a real Paper Sheet or have at least a digital backup. Depending how complex industry and industry structure should be, this could be scaled to Backup Data Centers for those who fear to lose their high scaled BPO-¦s or to Data Links which are needed to transfer the Data between the Data Centers and the Manufacturing- or Research Structures. |
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 12:10:36 -
[521] - Quote
Marox Calendale wrote: What about a Data Center Module for Service Slots at Large and X-Large Structures? You could store and use all of your BPO-¦s and BPC-¦s from one single Point or maybe spread them over several of Data Centers. Today already most Blue Prints are used in a digital form and not as a real Paper Sheet or have at least a digital backup. Depending how complex industry and industry structure should be, this could be scaled to Backup Data Centers for those who fear to lose their high scaled BPO-¦s or to Data Links which are needed to transfer the Data between the Data Centers and the Manufacturing- or Research Structures.
To extend on that I'd really like to get rid of the "physical form" of BPCs/PBOs alltogether when not in transit inside a ship's cargo hold or temporarily stored in a hangar. Have above "Data Center" service act as a database that holds an arbitrary amount of BPCs/BPOs, unifying them by their respective type/ME/TE (so instead of e.g. 300 copies of ME0/TE0 30 run kestrel BPCs in my hangar floor I would have 1 entry in the Data Center that reads "9000 kestrel BPCs ME0 TE0". An invention or other job would then deduct the required amount of runs from that database. Make it so that entries can be organized (into groups) and allow access right definitions, so that secured sharing is possible. Import to and export from Data Centers should be easy, like dropping physical blueprints into its "hangar" or selecting an entry, clicking some "export" option and then defining number of BPCs and runs per BPC to be transformed into physical form (note that to get BPCs you would still have to perform the normal copy job on a BPO).
The above Data Link idea could then be used to further share access (read and/or write) to a Data Center, again with very fine grained right management. For example take an XL structure hosting expensive blueprints in its Data Center. By using a Data Link the structure could expose those blueprints to another structure (in the same system ofc) in "read only" mode, so that a lower sized and thereby much more vulnerable assembly array could build from those multi-billion blueprints with at least some degree of safety (note that there is still no absolute safety in this system, which is good). |
Echo Mande
68
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 13:13:48 -
[522] - Quote
Overall this should make/keep things interesting, even though the crossover will probably be painful to many.
I've got a some questions, remarks and suggestions, mostly about POS class stuff:
1) How does this relate to highsec? I'm a high-sec industry player and really would like to keep my factory/lab there. Which structures will be useable in highsec?
2) Where would the new structures be anchorable? At moons like with a POS or at random locations in deep space? The latter would open up new possibilities for emergent play (shenanigans) and ease current location frustrations.
3) This is probably something best addressed in a corp overhaul, but I would really like it if I could grant structure access or even partial structure access (fuel bay forex) on a group/character basis. That way a structure owner could grant access only to members of ship building group 4 (if set up via corp roles) or directly to the pilots Lamplighter, Blue Bomber, Deicide, Purple Itch and Prionator, regardless of which corp/alliance they're a member of. Selective access would be one extra way to keep BPOs and materials somewhat more secure.
4) Will these structures be anchorable close to one another to provide fire support?
5) The new structures will apparently be constructable. Will the current POS structures be made recyclable to let people recoup their investments?
6) It might be interesting to have a structure that would hide (make almost impossible to scan down) everything, including itself, in a certain radius for a certain period but disallow certain items/module/structure activation (cyno, gate, maybe market, L&XL structures). The idea would be to allow the creation of a true outlaw 'hidden base' to annoy people with. Possibilities?
|
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah
476
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 13:55:32 -
[523] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:Quintessen wrote:A question to the game designers:
What's your plan for small corps that can't be online every night for their designated four-hour block? With structures no longer being able to defend themselves, what steps can we take other than commit to playing nights we already know we can't, in order to secure our structures from capture?
Let's take an example of a M or L assembly array. If someone knows that we just aren't playing much on Tuesdays and Wednesdays as a corp, what prevents a lone pilot from wardeccing, attacking our structure on a Tuesday with an entosis link and claiming it before we get much chance to defend it? Then finishing up the job on a Wednesday when we probably won't be able to get enough people together to mount a defense.
Currently when we are wardecced, we simply make sure all the guns are online and a sole attacker or two isn't going to be able to really take out our POS even when we're not around?
Is your intention, CCP, to make it so that small corps that can't field a proper defense at least every other night simply stay out of structure gameplay? I really, really like the idea of all these structures and I'm not looking for invulnerability, but right now the proposed mix of time spent on setup and time spent on stealing doesn't seem in balance. It looks like it's going to be far too easy to steal structures from corps that aren't on regularly even if they want or are willing to invest heavily in offline defense.
I guess this will be self-regulated. PLayers that can not be online every night at their "prime time" will not own sturctures (if the same mechanics are applied as to sov). OR they have to form bigger corps so that a minimal force is always online at their primetime, i.e. structures is nothing for small corps. The new sov- and structure-mechanics will shake up all of EVE quite a bit, old relations will end, new will be forged. This will be fun, because EVE needs a large injection of shake up!
I've tried for years to find corporations of people I like and trust; and who like and trust me as well. It's actually a lot harder for some that others. I have found that people don't trust that easily in EVE. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's eluded me for years. Part of the problem is that it seems that the people I like to hang out with don't enjoy EVE for very long.
So I take what I can with the small group of the people I can find. Currently we can defend our possessions effectively enough because the mechanics allow it. I can tell you that people will not join up if they don't like each other regardless if the mechanics make it the only viable route to experience the full game.
I can tell you that almost everyone whose company I've enjoy is now gone from the game. Each, who have played for years, has left because some part of the community or some lack of enjoyment has made them feel the game isn't worth it anymore. Frankly I leave and come back, but I always wonder why I come back after awhile. EVE is a huge game and each time I find something new to do that I hadn't done before. But I'm an adult with lots of responsibilities and an active life. I just can't dedicate enough time to this game to make it the primary source of my friends and enjoyment. But it also feels like the game will soon be greatly diminished for me as a player who plays with other people like me.
I'm not threatening to rage quit and CCP doesn't owe me anything, but if they really want structure gameplay to be available to everyone they need to figure out a way to make it so that I can still play a night a week and have a reasonable expectation that my stuff might survive from week to week if I'm willing to put in the initial effort -- like I can today.
I would ask that CCP please consider leaving AI defenses in place or find another mechanic that addresses the same need. |
Tessaline
Tessaract Industries
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 16:48:10 -
[524] - Quote
I really like the main proposal. The only thing that I would like to add is to have structures like Gates and Observatories influence Local. If I were to go through the monumental effort of constructing a Stargate, I'd want it to only relay who is in the system to the people holding Sov...
Then, Observatories (and Cov. Ops. possibly) could be used to hack into the Local feed to provide local to pilots in the same fleet or alliance. Actually, offensive observatories sounds like a logistical nightmare... So I think a better option would be to have system Stargates and Observatories hackable with the new Entosis Link. As long as POSs can't be anchored too closely to those two "sensitive" structures, I feel it could be a good mechanic. |
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R Astraeaus
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 18:26:48 -
[525] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:Not only are you currently proposing allowing so-called 'troll ceptors' to run around griefing the living daylights out sov holders by knocking their sov in to reinforced every day but now you're suggesting it can also be blown up. What if you're docked inside the structure at the time it goes boom? If I can't dock safely, can't store ships safely, can't buy ships safely, can't invest in the market safely, do you seriously think people are going to want to live in sov space, especially given you can get just as much PvP in low sec and make far more money in high sec? At best, 0.0 is reduced to 2003 levels with a smattering of alliances scratching out a living in NPC null.
(1) 'troll ceptors' are not a thing nor are they anything CCP has proposed... they are a figment of nullwhinebears imaginations... the Entosis link does not even exist on TQ yet... sheesh.
(2) "If I can't dock SAFELY, can't store ships SAFELY, can't buy ships SAFELY, can't invest in the market SAFELY, do you seriously think people are going to want to live in sov space, especially given you can get just as much PvP in low sec and make far more money in high sec?" OMFG!! Seriously???
(a) you are not supposed to be SAFE anywhere, it's EVE... and nullsec is SUPOSED to be this dark deadly dangerous place... not the land of unicorns and hugz... (b) and if you can get 'just as much PvP' in low sec and make 'far more ISK in highsec', whyinhell are you in null to begin with??
I live in Anoikis, WSpace... and ALL the stuff I have there is at risk 23/7/365... as for "safe" I have my ISK in the wallet (as we all do) and about as many ships 'safely' docked up in Hisec as I do in the hole...
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
1977
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 21:00:02 -
[526] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: We are definitely aware of the fact that smaller groups have different defence requirements to large sov holding alliances.
AI Guns are one of these things that are very important to smaller groups. It's silly to expect players to man the guns 24/7 in case a hostile is on grid.
The AI doesn't have to be super effective, players might have to set up some basic tactics. A list of 10 responses to ships on grid that the AI will do or something. And if players don't bother setting up any tactics then the AI doesn't know how to respond.
Players should be more effective, player skill could add to the damage of the guns, and obviously is likely to be better targeting than a few simple AI tactics. That will provide enough incentive to actively control the weapons if the opportunity is there, without utterly wrecking small groups.
CCP Nullarbor wrote: We are proposing that rigs can receive bonuses that work better in nullsec / sov systems.
Be very careful with this. Null should NOT become 'End Game' space. It should be possible to be equivalent in high sec.
Since once structures are in space one can actually be at extreme risk in high sec because you don't have access to all the shiny null ores which you are handing to null on a plate now, or the officer loot, or the larger deadspace loot, etc etc. But are actually putting large structures at just as much risk with wardecs.
The War dec system is actually exceptionally powerful as soon as there are assets in space worth or requiring defending for a high sec corp. And it is very possible for a smaller high sec corp to be repeatedly grief decced by larger groups once assets are at risk.
So do not fall into the trap Null alliances like to put out about their 'high risk' when a small high sec corp can actually be faced with more real day to day risk than some Null alliances do, due to the player use of the sandbox. Yes Null has more mechanical risk, but player use dictates how much of that shines through.
I.E. High Sec should have the same refine rates as Null. Null has better ore to start with, even currently, and you are now planning to hand them near perfect ratio's of infinite ore simply because they couldn't handle mining asteroid belts like the rest of EVE does. This means Null already has a significant advantage on mineral production, and they don't need a further advantage in refining, which has allowed them to literally outprice highsec on buying ore. The only reason the critical nature of this hasn't really shown through is the massive stockpiles of minerals in highsec already.
So be brave, allow equality if High sec corps are prepared to make the same investment into structures, the difference in resource availability in Null sectors should be the draw, not bonuses that mean they automatically win at everything. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
750
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 21:29:01 -
[527] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: Be very careful with this. Null should NOT become 'End Game' space. It should be possible to be equivalent in high sec.
yes, by coming out into nullsec and doing the work and taking the risk to get your own space
stop trying to get for free what other people work for |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1977
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 21:34:18 -
[528] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote: yes, by coming out into nullsec and doing the work and taking the risk to get your own space
stop trying to get for free what other people work for
Ah, so you want a Themepark MMO where one 'zone' is end game, and everyone has to funnel out to that one particular area of space? Even if they are prepared to invest the SAME amount anywhere else.
I am not asking for NPC stations to match services. I am asking for a PLAYER BUILT structure in any area of space to be the same in the critical cost areas. When players have to spend the same amount of isk, they should be getting the same cost reward from it. This was always the Null argument as to why outposts should be better "We invested Isk into it". Well guess what, now High Sec & Low Sec & WH should get the same option to invest Isk & defend it. And get the same results for their investment.
Since it's player built what's the problem, or is it just that people don't want to come out and be either your cattle or your prey so you keep wanting to force them to. |
Shanghilo
Genetic Research Silent Infinity
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 22:20:25 -
[529] - Quote
Helicopter view is interesting on this topic from a Developer program simplification and Graphic artist enhancement angle.
We had a pretty good platform for mining with the Orca and the Rorqual - The functional POS is basically a shield for multiple types of "deployable" function platforms. If the intent is to remove off line towers and anchored items, put a off line timer on all these things like anchored containers. You would not want everyone to have their NEW mining platforms anchored in the asteroid belts. The rollout of the Compression array and the Jump range reductions already hurt the Rorqual value. The Reprocessing array reduced the value of the outposts for operational revenue recovery. So there is already lots of smack down recovery there.
From first glance it appears that these deployables are Orca / Rorqual / Titan styled tier 1 presentation entities with new graphics. Not sure that scalability really matters when you look at the Luxury Yacht (it may be small but it looks HUGE) It will be very difficult to match the flexible functionality of a tower or properly compensate the player base on its decline. So it's possible to add more "destroyable'" deployables without removing online towers and outposts from EvE. Scalability I don't want to warp 2 times to get around a graphic (like a gallente outpost) Imagine the size of Jita when you think scalability, Then knowing where all your targets pile of bigger ships is so you can hot drop in with your New extended range black ops fleet and finally use your clone bays to pick up the freebees.
More over the functional aspects of an outpost has overtime been its security. Should then that the person who is trying to take over with the new sov space mechanics need also Sovereignty level 5 skill to play "capture the flag" and kill the ihub bonus to validate the ability to hold interest in this space in the first place? This exposure of ships in a system is also a Red Flag on the direction as you would not see this at any NPC station. To continue to make things easier for the newer player base is Fantastic. For industry players this game is a lot of redundant work <> fun. Easily removing IHub Sov functions that is in part an earned player based effort bonus and then to create new targets by creating exposure does pull the stopper out of the sink.. I don't see any new flow from the faucet. More Risk, Less Reward, More Time Spent, Less Value earned for effort seems to be trending.
|
Big John Kelly
Conclav3 of Shadow5
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 23:20:41 -
[530] - Quote
I have some comments on the "Back Into The Structure" article. For structure combat, you say that you want it to be more exciting and not a static grind. I too would prefer that the fighting be exciting. However, historically, capturing fortifications/structures was a grind. That was the point of a fortress, to wear out your enemy, have his army die of disease and starvation. In addition, considering that pilots are online at different times and that many of us have lives outside of the game and can't instantly jump online and play for hours, it seems that structures should be safe from sudden onslaughts. Also, many pilots belong to small corporations that invest a great deal of time and effort creating star bases that are use for manufacturing and other processes beneficial to the game and players. To allow a large corporation to jump into high sec and knock out stations seems to be counter productive. The large alliances already have lots of advantages.
Creating a easy new way to build star bases seems like a good idea and I really like using the setup base on ship fitting. I do wonder how all the time players spent learning skills that are now unnecessary is going to be compensated. Making it easier for new players is a sound business move and good for the game I think. However, on the other hand, why should a new player get to do with minimal effort, what others spent significant time and isk learning how to do?
Getting rid of complex operations that don't add to game play is great. I hated positioning missile arrays and other stuff like that. I prefer keeping things simple. When it comes to your idea of making people fuel each array as it is used, I think you are moving in the opposite direction. Filling up the tower fuel depot once a month is simple and straight forward. How do you keep track of multiple pilots using the same arrays to build items with different requirements and time periods. Whose fuel gets used up first? What do I gain as a player for keeping track of fuel usage per my ship assembly and also research assembly and my ammunition assembly and my module assembly etc?
I understand the concept of following the ship fitting process, but why would rigs be destroyed if you want to change them? It's a building. You move things around, all more space, expand upward, downward, or sideways. No need to destroy parts of your structure. We are in space, not a narrow plot in downtown Manhattan. Again, what advantage or fun for me to have to destroy something I built so that I can grow my skills and capabilities?
You want to put Outposts in hi-sec, but reduce their capability. Why? Just give the star bases more things they can do.
You talk about specialization for service and manufacturing modules and rigs. I don't see the point. We already have over 10 different manufacturing arrays not counting research and development. The only point I can see is to force pilots to buy more stuff. It certainly makes it more complicated with no benefit to players. Then add in separately fueling every array when you use it. Again, going in the wrong direction. Certainly, I can see differentiating between tech I and tech II ships, that makes sense. But for most stuff, just have a basic manufacturing array. If you want, let pilots add different capabilities to the array. Then you can make anything that you installed the proper manufacturing cell for. You want imposing structures in space, wow a mile long manufacturing center. what a vista.
I don't understand your plans for changing research and development. Why would I have a facility that does research in my star base, only to have the research pop up in a can somewhere in the middle of nowhere? How does that make sense? What is realistic about that? Do the guys at the skunk works develop new planes only to have it show up in a can in the Artic? Don't think so. If I want to sell my datacores, I can take them to market. Or if you let us develop markets at our bases, I will sell it where I make it. Now that makes sense.
Taxes from NPCs on my star base seems unfair. I already pay a hourly license to build and use the star base. Why do we pay taxes to manufacture stuff in our own star base? I certainly can't see carrying that over to the new system.
I am not in favor of any kind of pollution gas clouds etc. It's a game, we don't need climate change or Al Gore. Certainly, you can't name a reason why any player would have fun dealing with that kind of stuff. I learned skills and paid isk for be able to build stuff in space, I don't need or want to worry about pollution. If I do, I can join a real political party and do that instead of gaming.
I like the idea about intelligence gathering and having some kind of observation systems to protect your bases. However, a couple of cautions. If you are looking for small fleets or individuals to be able to attack, raid, and hamper large corporations/alliances, this could stop them cold. Single ships and small groups can sneak around, too small a signal or aberration to detect. Large fleets get spotted right away and groups in the middle some percentage. I also like the idea if you are active in a system with bases and mining ops etc. that your system is stronger and more secure.
How are you going to compensate all of us that already have invested large amounts into our bases? Our current bases should be replaced with the current new functions equal to what we have, or we should be compensated. It sounds like you will have all new blueprints. Maybe we can research our current prints to get them up to the state of art for the new stuff. In any case, we should not just lose our investments and the new people who could not or would not build the old stuff get the new for the same or less effort and cost. I love the idea of individuals owning their own station.
|
|
Locke Deathroe
Clan 86 Antesignani Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 23:43:31 -
[531] - Quote
While I admit that POS structures are falling a bit behind the rest of the advances in Eve, I feel is has more to do with the UI/Management of the POS and not how the POS's are put together and used. I feel that the current changes on the table (i.e. high, mid and low slot configs) are a completely stupid thing to do with POS's as a whole. I am not sure how anyone would think these changes would be a positive way to effect change to POS mechanics. With the last several patches CCP has made POS's in null, low and even highsec USEFUL. Now with the proposed changes you are going to take all of that away in my opinion.
If you want to fix the POS structures you need to sit down and spend time on the management UI which has always been a tragically designed cluster of crap. The industry surrounding moon mining at a POS has always been a complete mess, add to that the new dynamics of CCP taxing any and all research or industry and it's just a total disaster.
I also understand the plan is to remove the restriction of anchoring on a moon. Hummm let's consider this for a minute. Let's drop towers around gates in null, lowsec or yes even highsec.... think about that and let it sink in. Then take the indy guys, dropping towers in belts, or even dropping them in missions or incursions....
CCP, please stop and think about what you are about to do to a mechanic that is NOT broken before you go and totally screw something up yet again! |
Thegasp Cupcakes
CareBears Gone Dark Pina Colada Armada
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 00:17:26 -
[532] - Quote
Aryth wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Samsara Toldya wrote: No racial towers - no racial fuel?
- Racial fuel will most likely be spread among the various structures, or merged into one, not sure yet. Up to discussion, like everything else.
Merge it into one. This is already something that should be done with compressed ore too. Eliminate needless complexity.
I know this is back there a bit, but reading it.. I agree it should be One, not only due to simplicity... But aren't we cutting our dependence on the factions more with this system... storyline wise? So why keep us dependent on their fuel designs? |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2180
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 00:45:40 -
[533] - Quote
i am posting merely to register my opposition to Entosis links working on large structures (aka POS-replacements). I also oppose no AI for guns. I oppose the Prime Time mechanic in all it's forms and uses, even on structures.
here's some reasoning.
You are introducing a game play function which inherently produces a time period (which may not maatch the attacker's time zone) which MUST be defended, lest the structure go into reinforced and, at a time in the future, be conquered or destroyed. if the defender is not on during that time, for whatever reason (even including one of your patched borked his install and he has to download 7 gigs at slow speed, for argument's sakes) everything is lost.
This is at odds with your move away from complicated make-work gameplay functions, and it is ironic because it is clear tha you have set off on a path of removing the DPS vs EHP mechanic from the game. I agree that putting EHP in front of an objective, as a wall to be breached by the attacker, is not exciting game play. Structure grind is boring, dull, lifeless game play.
However, there is strategic decision game play behind every attack in the current DPS/EHP game. The objective must be worth the effort the attacker puts in to the assault, either financially, psychologically, or otherwise. if it is not, EHP works as an effective deterrence to casual attack. Walls of EHP can be successfully deployed to protect assets from groups which would otherwise just gleefully destroy your assets.
There is no strategic gameplay at the heart of the Entosis style game play. in nullsec it is merely a capture the flag mechanic. In the sphere of structures, as proposed, and given no AI guns will automatically defend your structures (in which case, why even have them?), the only deterrence to attack falls back on the Prime Time mechanic.
Viz. the point about guns being useless, this is quite apposite; if your structure defences in nullsec, lowsec or w-space do not defend your assets automatically in your absence, they are totally useless. You would be best in fact fitting capital remote repairers to your structures and working in toward a RR themed ultimate Structure Cat doctrine, and defend yourself wwith tanked blap dreads or similar. This is because theres little point having to put a toon into structure defence and having guns when your fleet gets destroyed instantly on undock - better to have an indestructible logi wing.
So, we have totally indefensible structures which can be flipped inside of 10 minutes if the owner is absent 48 hours or less. This then implies that the owner, be it a sole person or a corporation, must have at least two toons within the vicinity of the structure and at keyboard for the entire period of structure vulnerability. You will need one to man the guns and another to run an entosis ship to block an attacking entosis ship, or to reverse the reinforcement or other damage done with an entosis link.
This is patently ridiculous.
This is worse game play than building EHP walls to deter casual attackers. It lowers the barrier to attack to absolutely nothing. It lowers it from being a corporate-level activity organised by content creators and motivated by corporate goals or CEO megalomaia, to "I have ten minutes spare and those guys are AFK"
It reduces a corporate activity of many players, to something you can do solo, with minimal risk. So what if an Entosis link is worth 40M ISK and someone comes back ,mans a gun, and blows up your ship? People sacrifice cyno bombers all the time for content. Given the reward of stealing a POS (200M++ ISK plus cntents and candy moored to the outside) the loss is worth it, especially if the effort to ping the POS is 10 minutes for one toon.
The effect of this is to destroy corporate game play and corporate level conflict to griefing by alts. it not only throws all structures open to theft, grief and destruction, it forces bad gameplay on the owner, who must now babysit his structures during his prime time instead of going about his business and actually gaming. You think I joke? If you go for a trip to jita to shop someone can have your POS reinforced before you get back.
What kind of game are you creating here? You need to have a good hard think about the games theory behind these changes and what you honestly think the douches which play EVE will do with the metagaming possibilities which you open up.
Yes, the current system is not ideal. EHP walls incentivise aggregation of larger fleets of larger ships to reduce hours long grinds into minutes-long blitzes. The EHP vs DPS game has created the Blue Donut, has created supercap proliferation, turned nullsec into a wasteland of boring gameplay. But the solution is not neccessarily to consider that EVE and the structure ownership and capture mechanism needs to be reduced to a solo activity completed in ten minutes.
I am baffled and confused. I thought you guys were smarter than this. I thought you had a tenth of a clue, but clearly you do not. In my opinion, no AI guns and entosis gameplay will be the death of structures, and will destroy corporate gameplay by forcing content creators to get god at docking games or quit.
Prolapse. Taking fights since 2014.
Sudden Buggery. Got duumb? Hola, Batmanuel!
http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Sahasranama Artrald
Avatar Innovations
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 13:46:11 -
[534] - Quote
Quote:i am posting merely to register my opposition to Entosis links working on large structures (aka POS-replacements). I also oppose no AI for guns. I oppose the Prime Time mechanic in all it's forms and uses, even on structures.
I do have to agree to an extent with this. When reading the proposed changes to sovereign mechanics, there were a lot of aspects I liked and there were some that were bizarre, and I don't mean just because it is a different system.
I think I understand where the desire is coming from to have less or remove structure grinds, but as much as structure grinds are boring and mind numbing and the vast majority of people would probably be happy to find an alternative, I am not sure the alternative is to flip the coin entirely. The grind acts as a deterrent and as the previous poster said, this dictates somewht the risk of investment. Do you build a station? Well there are some significant deterrents to take it off you and a random gang of inties are not going to reinforce an outpost while you are not online. Basically, It takes an organised fleet to take space.
When I read the entosis mechanics, it seems as though that has flipped entirely on its head. I have grave reservations about small gangs of inties being able to come and reinforce outposts and in this new world, XL Structures, in less time than it takes to eat my dinner. TS conversations are talking about small gangs running around great swathes of space reinforcing every structure they can find - why? Well not necessarily to take the space, but just to be a **** to everyone living in the area.
When you add in the prime time vulnerability, this causes even more issues. What the hell is prime time for my alliance? I play with people from at least 13 different time zones that I have so far counted, and the time zones all vastly different. We have managed to break it down to roughly two stretches of time that would be "EU prime" and "US prime", but choosing one over the other means effectively removing every single player in the alliance in the wrong TZ to be discluded from that activity, making them feel like crap for not assisting, or being kicked because they can't, and then on top of that, causing those that do play in that time zone to be on defence of their space, against small roaming gangs who can reinforce structures by throwing a feather at it, every single day they come to play.
I mean am I missing the concept entirely? Is the posts about the changes worded so badly I have completely confused how this is supposed to work? The description of the mechanic above I just wrote - had I heard that as I suggestion I would have laughed at the person. I just don't understand how this kind of structure mechanic is supposed to make living in null more interesting . Although scratch that, if you are in the roaming gang it might be more interesting, but to the people living in null, well they can go %$#@ themselves yes?
I am one of those people who loves the industry side of things. I will admit I am not a huge PvP person. I know living in null is a good place to PvP but you simply can't live there without good logistic and industry support, and the changes in the last 12 months seem to keep making my job much more difficult with seemingly no increased benefits. The jump changes made moving needed materials from high much harder, which would be fine if the materials were obtainable in null - but the moon goo simply isnt available everywhere, and even when you control several systems you are always missing 70% of the types of goo. Mineral shortages such as Mexallon living in drone space, not to mention trit means more importing is necessary, but you have not given the tools to help alleviate those issues - rather just taken them away and once again said go ^%$# to building in null.
Now don't get me wrong, I like the idea of some of these structures immensely, but what I see as an indy support, is more isk being placed in structures, more building needed to make and provide them, more fuel, more mineral requirements and still shafted on being able to provide it all. I am also seeing a greatly increased risk for assets with once again no benefit.
Right now I am managing 7 POS towers for reactions and moon goo and shortly this is going to increase to about 25. I see no assistance in this regard, just more costs and more risks. It seems the structures are going to be even more vulnerable which means I should pull back into more tightly protected areas - except doing that means even further restricting resources making building even more difficult.
Basically and TLDR, I see a lot of proposed changes and ideas and so far, all it says to me is more headaches, more difficulty, less protection, less resources, more cost and in the end, little to no benefits to me whatsoever. I have to say, I like the ideas, I like people discussing the issues, but god damn fix the industry side of null before trying make great sweeping changes to how everything works or you won't have the good fights you want in null because no one with half a brain cell is going to want to actually go to the effort of building the ships you want to blow up. |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1195
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 13:52:18 -
[535] - Quote
Big John Kelly wrote:...words...
I skimmed this post, saw the words "How are you going to compensate..." and stopped reading.
To the player that said nulsec is not end-game, yes it is. IT is literally the only place in the game where you can literally claim your own space and build an entire space empire. Tell me how that is not end-game content for empire-builders and those with aspirations of leadership?
There is no reason nulsec cannot give better bonuses to structures based on strategic index for example. Oh, wait. They already do. The ability to anchor certain structures like jump bridges and SCSAA for example.
Typical highsec risk averse jealousy. Take the risk. Reap the rewards. That is all.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Xindi Kraid
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
904
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 14:39:28 -
[536] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Big John Kelly wrote:...words... I skimmed this post, saw the words "How are you going to compensate..." and stopped reading. To the player that said nulsec is not end-game, yes it is. IT is literally the only place in the game where you can literally claim your own space and build an entire space empire. Tell me how that is not end-game content for empire-builders and those with aspirations of leadership? There is no reason nulsec cannot give better bonuses to structures based on strategic index for example. Oh, wait. They already do. The ability to anchor certain structures like jump bridges and SCSAA for example. Typical highsec risk averse jealousy. Take the risk. Reap the rewards. That is all. Except not everyone has aspirations to build an empire. In fact, if you talk to the WH crowd, many of them do that content specifically BECAUSE they are tired of the politics and posturing that comes with holding null-sov. Stop trying to funnel everyone into YOUR preferred gameplay style.
end-game should take place wherever players want to spend an investment making content. Yes, for some that's owning sov, for other's its basing out of low-sec or manufacturing everything they can at the edge of high-sec. All should be allowed, and all should be rewarded and encouraged.
I have little problem with SOV having other benefits to running structures based on the investment into the space(reduced running costs for Sov fuel bonuses, for example), but if equal investment is given to the STRUCTURE itself, it should have equal output within reason.
I also think you are mistaken about where risk is. lowsec is actually the most risky space since there's more people around. null has huge swaths empty of players where there are less roving bands of people who are going to come over and kick over your tower just for ***** and giggles because of the distance involved. |
Spacepilot101
TIME WARP Corp New Eden Terraform Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 15:39:17 -
[537] - Quote
I've got a question about that.
So what can we expect? Which distance between two structures, are you thinking of?
I think the Control Towers are good, but they need a redesign.
I thought of using them as anchorplace, to make a field with a radius (like 30km) where strukctures can be ancored, like now, but without a forcefield. As soon as the Tower goes into RF, the old Bubble appears and protect everything inside. Just the owners do have access. So Remote Repair-Tools fitted in structures are useful, to repair. As long as the CT is in RF the strucutres cannot be fitted.
Also the Fuel is individually. As more Structrues are onlined, as more fuel is needed.
Maybe you can work with those ideas :) Would help a lot of POS owners, who don't want to unancor the towers.
-Space |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2185
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 00:25:40 -
[538] - Quote
Dear CCP Fozzie, CCP Rise, CCP Phantom, CCP Manifest CCP whoever the crap is pushing this load of horse dung up hill with a rake,
here is another thought game for you to play with while considering how to "balance" entosis gameplay with the new L sized structures, and your lofty goal of removing structure grind entirely;
Lets say you live in a system. The system is for argument's sakes 80 AU across and no two planets are within d-scan of one another, and there are at least 4 planets.
Let's also assume, to make this easy, that you are in Sov Null, and you have sov space, and it's your ONLY alliance system have an Outpost, a TCU and an I-hub and your space is not upgraded. Entosis links therefore take 10 minutes to work.
You own ten POS-simulants, from labs to intel arrays, whatever it doesn't matter.
You are online in the prime time, so your structures are vulnerable.
All ten of your structures come under attack simultaneously, and someone also attacks the i-hub, TCU and Outpost with Entosis links.
You have 13 structures to defend, by yourself, being as you are the only person from your alliance in the constellation.
Do you, a) choose to defend the Outpost b) choose to defend the TCU c) choose to defend the i-hub d) defend POS #1 e) defend POS #2 f to m) defend POS #3 to POS #10
Can you see the problem with this? Merely by putting this naff and pathetic mechanism for vulnerability onto POSs, you have exponentially increased the vulnerability of all of your alliance's assets. Because none of your assets defend themselves, and you are the sole defender, you are going to lose at least 8-11 of those assets, depending on how fast you can dock at a station, man the guns, blap the link alt (regardless of the ship flying the Entosis link), undock (if you can), warp to the other objective, dock, repeat, etc,.
Essentially the collection of POSs are undefendable by one person because, without POS guns defending the POS with 4,000 DPS and without at least one hour's boring structure grind in front of them (at least) and with a ten minute vulnerability timer to overcome, there is literally no way to defend all your structures.
Even if you had two people defending 13 structures, you would still fail the majority of the defences.
if you fail the i-hub, TCU and Outpost, you now have ten more timers to defend throughout your constellation. If you had any other POSs in any other systems, they'd also be on the menu but you have to run gate camps possibly to attend those timers.
So you've got let's say, 8 POSs reinforced. You have 48 hours, and now you've got 2 non-RFed POSs and 3 sov structures. This is looking like a really fun 48 hours, isn't it?
This is the game you are creating for sov defenders. it is utterly stupid.
You know why FW is the way it is? Well, for the first year of this system, people fought in gangs and fleets. We had a hell of a lot of fun, killed a hell of a lot of ships. Then the alts started flipping systems, and the meatbods burned out on defending space at a tenth the LP efficiency of worthless warp stabbed cloaky heron alts grinding buttons. So people left, or gave up the FW game entirely, and it turned into a giant farm.
But it wasn't dead, because you ran an alt on the other militia and farmed at tier 5 while pew pewing with your main, who lived in highsec nextdoor.
In sov, there is no farming the winning side with an alt while living in highsec. in wormholes, there is no plexing one POS while your other ten burn down.
This is a patently stupid system, forcing people to play a game or lose everything. Forcing people to be present to defend space against meaningless, worthless attacks and if you screw up once - like BRAVE did in GE- last week - the vultures smell blood and blob you and you lose it.
have a good long think about this, CCP. I implore you. You're cheapening warfare in EVE to attention contests. Attention contests are won by people with alts, orbiting buttons and not caring about the losses. That's not good gameplay either.
Prolapse. Taking fights since 2014.
Sudden Buggery. Got duumb? Hola, Batmanuel!
http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Marox Calendale
Human League
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 00:46:45 -
[539] - Quote
Hoe shall the different sizes of structures be deployed? Will it be for all the same like drag and drop and then its there? I think this shouldn-¦t become true for Large or even X-Large Structures. I sounds weird that you just have to drag and drop an X-Large Structure and then something which is about 100km in its size is plopping off in front you.
In the Dev Blog you say:
Quote:Visually aspirational: This is self-explanatory, we want structures to feel imposing, visually rewarding as a whole. That includes showing different visuals for their various states, actions or reactions to their activities, but also making the largest structure feel like a great achievement for whichever social group managed to build them (or blow them up). If it should be an achievement, then it-¦s probably the best when the larger Structures have to be an upgrade of the 1 size smaller structure. For example, do create a medium size structure you have deploy a small one first and then upgrade it. and after it, upgrade the medium one to large and the large one to x-large.
Optional: Its only possible to upgrade a structure if the upgrade is needed. Take the market hub as an example. You have to deploy the small one, but you-¦re only allowed to upgrade it, if it is really used so if there are a special amount of market orders from different players at it. Smaller Corps don-¦t need to deploy an X-Large Market if they are using it just for their self. But if they would allow everybody to use the market, then it would may be grow.
On the other hand, how shall it work, if I have to install a single assembly array for each ship size, component, drones or what else and am not able to anchor them next to each other? For example, to have the best bonuses, upgrades, facility slots or whatever I suggest to use only X-Large Structures. But then I have to install 1 X-Large for each ship size? And for Market, Drilling and so on another one too? 10 or 12 or maybe more X-Larges in one System? Or one Constellation? How would it work it Wormhole? Do I have to fly to every structure to get the manufactured ships?
I think what would be better is something I would call "The concept of growing cities": You would combine different kinds of structures to one bigger structure. For example, take the different medium ship manufacturing arrays and combine them the medium research facilities and get one Large Research and Manufacturing Structure.
At the moment I am able to have all the different kinds of arrays and whatever at 1 Pos and am able to use each of it, just by switching off and on what I actually need. Why can-¦t these new structure be also like this? |
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2697
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 01:34:33 -
[540] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote: You are online in the prime time, so your structures are vulnerable.
All ten of your structures come under attack simultaneously, and someone also attacks the i-hub, TCU and Outpost with Entosis links.
You have 13 structures to defend, by yourself, being as you are the only person from your alliance in the constellation.
.
I think we found the problem, captain.
Sov is for the places where your alliance lives.
m
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
|
Misha Tokila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 05:09:36 -
[541] - Quote
I've thought about this long and hard and I like the proposed changes...especially the fuel changes for starbases (POSes). Here is a list of things that I would like to see.
- Arbitrary positioning of starbases and stations
Give us the ability to anchor starbases and stations at arbitrary locations in a system. Instead of having a starbase around a moon only, or a station around a moon or planet, I would like to see something where a base/station is by an asteroid field, or the sun, or 15AU above the plane of the system. Having a starbase combined with a customs office, or a starbase around a planet would offer interesting gameplay as you can have both a customs office and a starbase at a planet. We already do this for stations around planets with customs offices.
- Combine deployable functions
This is something that I've though about too. Leading in from the previous point, have a starbase function as a POS and as a docking point around a planet.
Another idea is to combine the functions of a mobile tractor unit and a mobile depot. So you have a MTU where you can change fittings on your ship and store items. It would have two cargo bays. One for the MTU which still have the 27,500m³ of cargo space where items can only be removed and the 3,000m³ where you can place items in. It would last for 30 days.
- Ability to deploy sentry guns for stations
I know that NPC stations have this, not sure about player owned stations though.
- Different looks and graphics
Those people who run combat sites will understand what I am talking about here. For a starbase, I would like to see the ability to deploy cargo platforms similar to the visuals in the various combat sites. It's boring to have just a tower and then anchor a bunch of other structures around the tower for functionality. You can't even dock. I welcome the change for docking ships on a starbase.
- Resource Gathering
One thing that I would like to see is the ability to mine moons in highsec. Granted, the materials won't be as abundant as they are in lowsec and nullsec, similar to planetary interaction resources. In highsec, it's not really worth the cost/effort to deploy a starbase in highsec unless it's in a system with no station and you need a safe spot or a cargo drop if you're mining.
I know people will disagree with me on this point, but hear me out. Before the industry changes, it made sense to have a POS in highsec to provide research and manufacturing capabilities because there where only so many slots available, especially for research jobs with lead times at 2 months or more for more populated regions. Unless you can justify the fuel cost of the POS for doing research and manufacturing, a highsec POS doesn't make much sense. The one exception to this is, I think, is a drug lab for booster manufacturing.
Now if players were able to mine moons in highsec, this would increase POS deployment in highsec and it would make sense.
- Starbases are not totally safe, and neither are stations
Right now, you cannot destroy a player station, but you can flip the ownership. By adding moon mining and other nullsec mechanics to highsec, it would make highsec more like nullsec in gameplay with the noted exception that in order to kill a starbase in highsec, you need to have a wardec first.
That is all for now.
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1201
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 13:43:27 -
[542] - Quote
Xindi Kraid wrote:Except not everyone has aspirations to build an empire. In fact, if you talk to the WH crowd, many of them do that content specifically BECAUSE they are tired of the politics and posturing that comes with holding null-sov. Stop trying to funnel everyone into YOUR preferred gameplay style.
I never said anything of the sort. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that I was? I know perfectly well there are large numbers of players that have said "screw nulsec" and have moved to w-space or losec. This is why there are so many losec alliances with small super-capital fleets actively hotdropping everything within reach. Perhaps you forget how rare it used to be for even decent-sized nulsec alliance to have supercap fleets. Now pretty much everyone has at least 1 titan.
And lets not forget that every single station outside of nul is NPC, and thus a freeport, except for those in faction warfare. Worse, you can't even hellcamp your enemies into a station or POS because no bubbles.
Losec is getting worse than nulsec in that you not only have lower rewards, but greater risks, and less tools to deal with your enemies.
For the record, I am not trying to funnel anything or anyone into my "preferred style" of gameplay, whatever that is. I've done pretty much everything this game has to offer and I'm getting bored. If you want to go fly in w-space or losec, go for it. It makes no difference to me.
My original comment was about how the poster that I quoted felt entitled to compensation because the game changed, which is a typical and common entitlement reaction to having their time investment shifted around involuntarily. What the player fails to realize is that involuntary interaction is core to Eve Online, especially when the devs make changes to the game. CCP is not required to compensate anyone when they make changes to the game.
However, this does not mean that CCP should not compensate in certain cases, and I recognize that when players' assets are flat out removed by devs (removal of data interfaces for example), that CCP would be well-advised to compensate them.
CCP devs have already said that hey would be replacing some BPOs with new ones. In fact, they're actually going to be introducing more BPOs for sov structures; a net gain. The structures themselves will no doubt be replaced on a one-for-one basis. Thus no further compensation is warranted. So I fail to see what the poster even wants to have compensated.
Lastly, I find it highly hypocritical that you would post telling me not to do something, which is itself a negative imperative. Pot, meet Kettle.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2187
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 14:24:09 -
[543] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Trinkets friend wrote: You are online in the prime time, so your structures are vulnerable.
All ten of your structures come under attack simultaneously, and someone also attacks the i-hub, TCU and Outpost with Entosis links.
You have 13 structures to defend, by yourself, being as you are the only person from your alliance in the constellation.
.
I think we found the problem, captain. Sov is for the places where your alliance lives. m
Yeah. i have zero POSes in my wormhole. Therefore I am unconcerned by entosis mechanics. Come on, dude, grow a brain.
Prolapse. Taking fights since 2014.
Sudden Buggery. Got duumb? Hola, Batmanuel!
http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Lim Hiaret
Hiaret Family
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 17:22:04 -
[544] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
First, this is all so awsome, I can't wait to see this happen. I love it! Go Go Go, and go fast
Now, please also consider an exploration platform for nomadic lifestyle, deep space exploration and wormhole operations. No bonuses needed, but evrything possible. Flexible like a T3 cruiser. |
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2698
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 17:29:12 -
[545] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Trinkets friend wrote: You are online in the prime time, so your structures are vulnerable.
All ten of your structures come under attack simultaneously, and someone also attacks the i-hub, TCU and Outpost with Entosis links.
You have 13 structures to defend, by yourself, being as you are the only person from your alliance in the constellation.
.
I think we found the problem, captain. Sov is for the places where your alliance lives. m Yeah. i have zero POSes in my wormhole. Therefore I am unconcerned by entosis mechanics. Come on, dude, grow a brain.
I was not aware that wormholes worked by constellation. Silly me.
I'd push the wormhole/goon rep about how this will effect the wormhole constellation pos's. I tend to just answer the questions as presented. As it is, yeah, I can see a lot of the pos mechanics are up in the air for wh folks and they are justifiably concerned. But that was not what you asked or how you presented the question, is it?
m
Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯|(pâä)/¯
|
Axhind
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
79
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 18:23:02 -
[546] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Trinkets friend wrote: You are online in the prime time, so your structures are vulnerable.
All ten of your structures come under attack simultaneously, and someone also attacks the i-hub, TCU and Outpost with Entosis links.
You have 13 structures to defend, by yourself, being as you are the only person from your alliance in the constellation.
.
I think we found the problem, captain. Sov is for the places where your alliance lives. m
Fozzie and co are saying that they are doing this to enable smaller entities to take and hold sov. Sounds like it will be even more just big blocks holding a bit of space they need and burning down everything else. When it takes 10 minutes to burn down everything and you can destroy outposts and the rest guess how long it will take CFC and N3/PL to turn 0.0 into a wasteland (and not a wasteland 2 a good game at that). |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1984
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 19:19:34 -
[547] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: I was not aware that wormholes worked by constellation. Silly me.
I'd push the wormhole/goon rep about how this will effect the wormhole constellation pos's. I tend to just answer the questions as presented. As it is, yeah, I can see a lot of the pos mechanics are up in the air for wh folks and they are justifiably concerned. But that was not what you asked or how you presented the question, is it?
m
Low Sec, High Sec also it's entirely conceivable only one person will be there. There are some serious issues with the initial sketch design which was put together entirely for Null Sec, and seems to be ignoring the other areas of space, as well as simply handing more bonuses to Null with the 'bonuses by space' idea despite the fact these will require the same expense in every area of space. And once assets in space are at risk Wardecs are actually a very powerful tool, they can only be evaded when you can simply tear all your assets down, you won't be able to do that with all of these I'm sure. |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers FUBAR.
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 22:27:40 -
[548] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Those are good points, however we want to be careful with the structure spam. Having a design that requires you, the players, to have a **** ton of them spread in space essentially brings us back to Starbases. We do plan on having smaller, more affordable progression of structures if there is gameplay for it yes. So for instances, we could have an Assembly Array that is size M, with less fitting capabilities than L, but still giving you a glimpse of what's to come.
Okay, I feel better having heard this. Like my posts way back on pg5, I like the new structure ideas. The POCO/office one sounds particularly cool in am immersion sort of way. But I don't like not being able to build a little space town like you can with the current POS system, and I don't like that it seems like a "One size fits all - LARGE!!!" Both spatially (the comparison to the old structures) and in terms of functions.
It also seems, at first glance, to not have generalist structures. That is, a small corp/alliance or a WH group needs a POS that can do a little of everything, if nothing particularly well, while an established group strives for efficiency, and so makes their POSes specialized to specific uses and tends towards the larger structures.
This system seems to be great for the second group, but completely ignoring the first group.
So as long as you guys work on some smaller, cheaper structures and some more generalist structures for small groups just starting out, I think this could be awesome to see. Just please please PLEASE do keep that in mind. After all, how fun will structures be if only the biggest and most well connected alliances can use them? |
Cindy Cloudwalker
CVT IND
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 22:37:28 -
[549] - Quote
@CCP
1. Will you be pushing everyone out of WHs via structure mechanics?
2.If not:
A. Under the assumption that you will use the Sov structure system for all structures, what is the process for a pos in WH space once someone "entosisnises" the POS?
B. How many Hitpoints will it take to blap the structures since you are moving away from structure grinds? Will one small fleet be able to lay waste to all of your hard work in a matter of minutes?
C. Will we be able to control all guns now that you are apparently getting rid of POS gun AI. (I dont want POS gun AI to go away) It will push me out of WH space since I am solo player (army of alts) in a WH.
For the moment I have to suspend any further expansion into my WH project and make preparations for a potential evacuation.
Retards
Cindy |
Tenchi Sal
White Knights of Equestria
237
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 02:38:36 -
[550] - Quote
Surprised no one has brought up upgrading system sec. If its done right and you can keep the better low sec belts around, I can see some high sec corps with balls taking over and fighting for some low sec systems.
Can we get some more info on whats the plans about upgrading security? |
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 04:55:31 -
[551] - Quote
Misha Tokila wrote:
- Arbitrary positioning of starbases and stations
Give us the ability to anchor starbases and stations at arbitrary locations in a system. Instead of having a starbase around a moon only, or a station around a moon or planet, I would like to see something where a base/station is by an asteroid field, or the sun, or 15AU above the plane of the system.
Ability to warp to any point in the solar system using Core Scanner probes -> Position 8 probes in pinpoint formation, set them to 0.25 AU radius -> Warp -> Place station/structure -> Profit.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
331
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 12:23:49 -
[552] - Quote
I have a question for CCP.
Are there plans for being able to hack abandoned structures, and take possession of them? I am thinking mostly on W-Space and Highsec, where such a mechanic has been desired for a long time. I know it might not be as straightforward with the new system as it would be now (hacking POS). If the answer is yes, could it have something to do with Entosis Links? |
Memphis Baas
264
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 17:01:24 -
[553] - Quote
By the way, CCP, brilliant idea with the structures. The proposed changes inevitably lead to player-owned-structures in high-sec, which will eradicate market hubs.
I don't imagine anyone will want to trade in a POS (taxed) Jita 4-4, or anywhere else for that matter, so good bye trade hubs. Will be fun to watch the station traders try to move their stuff out when the NPC station is destroyed so whatever alliance can place their taxable market station in its place.
Please write lore pieces to explain why the empires are giving capsuleers control over all orbital bodies in their space, should be fun to read.
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 09:52:18 -
[554] - Quote
These changes will convert null into a beach with with ppl. stumbling over your sandcastles. You will have to build that up each time you log in and defend it while you online. That will be ok for a vacancy but not for living there. Maybe better go to a private beach that are owned by the bigger allies. If we can't or don't want to, where are we ought to live? I guess this will be NPC stations spread over null which provide staging for any form of not paying visitors aswell.
|
Aluka 7th
179
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 11:45:56 -
[555] - Quote
OUTPOST REIMBURSEMENT
Just give materials needed to build one to the owner of outpost at the time of proposed structure change. Now that will spark some good wars :) |
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
912
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 13:19:32 -
[556] - Quote
I don't think this has been covered yet. What sort of materials are going to be required? outposts have their own components and the eggs have to be filled with commodities (if I am not mistaken at the moment a lot of those are PI materials) while smaller structures are made entirely of PI mats.
How are outpost components and PI mats going to factor into making these new structures? My personal thought was have both used where larger structures tend towards using components while smaller ones tend towards PI materials. |
Konpai
Kanpai Dansei
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 18:13:30 -
[557] - Quote
I love these ideas! This is something I've been waiting for. This is going to make EVE a totally different game for me and I can't wait for that to happen!
Good work guys and gals! Keep it up! |
Iudicium Vastus
Incognito Holdings and Savings
320
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 22:40:07 -
[558] - Quote
Whatever replaces the Jump Bridge structure on POSes I hope CCP will consider coding them to be usable only by set corp, or at max an alliance. None of this 'blue' nonsense. Would be at least another chip taken off the boulder of large coalitions if jump networks can't be used.
Or like some proposed structure settings so far (personal>corp>alliance>public), if you want your blues to use the bridge network, then they must be set to Public. No restrictions to the point of your reds also using the jump bridges.
This sort of strict levels of settings should in fact be for everything and every structure. Highest level is alliance (no blues) or if you do want your allies to use your structures, then set to openly public. Could really encourage alliance-level entities to populate null or even have come alliances diverge from existing mega blocks if they don't wish their resources and structures being set to public to maintain the current state.
[u]Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW?[/u] No, just..
-Fit more points
-Fit faction points
-Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too)
|
Laraxie
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 00:51:27 -
[559] - Quote
Only 1 question:
What will happen to existing research jobs?
When the last industry overhaul was done, jobs that were created in a POS lab where transfered to the station lab. Will it be the same this time around? |
LuckyQuarter
Lucky Galactic Expeditions
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 01:35:20 -
[560] - Quote
I think CCP needs to break down their changes into a few separate issues:
New universal concept for structures across all space- fine generally, if it actually meets the needs of high, low, null, and wh space. It isn't clear that this is the case. It seems that the incentives here are all coming from null and developers trying to simplify things, certainly not highsec or wormhole space. Although the idea of extensible/modifiable structures is worthy of development.
Specializing structures versus general structures - Fine as it goes, worst case - high sec industrialists might have to maintain a few more structures and find ways to pay for them. The new functionality here will create significant profit potential that may help with that. Nullsec shouldn't have an issue with it. Not sure about wormhole space...
Pushing structure design more for larger corps than solo/small corps - This is where details on the current design are too vague to evaluate.
Universal defense mechanism for structures across all space - this idea just seems stupid. Highsec and to an extent wormhole space mechanics are all about structure grinding, and for good reason...it works well and allows groups of all sizes to participate w/o concepts of sovereignty, ability to perform pvp, or system control. That said, I think the new link mechanism should be an acceptable way to take over and loot offline/abandoned towers.
|
|
Sri Nova
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 03:22:09 -
[561] - Quote
Exciting,
my 3 concerns are
1. the interbus market system.
there should be no npc assisted market in null.
instead of inter bussing in goods, allow for the players to create a logistics system to enable safe travel to market hubs.
target several several system throughout null space as key systems that allow for infrastructure to be placed that allows for jumps into empire space where there is a corresponding player structure.
for example : the spacers alliance has control of 50 some star systems one of them being a system that allows for creation of a jump point that has access to several systems in empire space. as long as the system and at least one of the empire space systems has the correct structure in place a safe jump can be made into or out of null/empire space.
of course it will have a fuel cost and of course it will be destroyable.
the point of this is to create systems through out null space that have extra value , these systems are spread out so it will be difficult for any one alliance to have more than just a few thinking maybe 1 2 or 3 but 4, 5, or 6 would be rare.
2. the mooring system while it is cool . i think mooring should have some kind of benefit . maybe moored ships can act as extra player controlled turrets to the structure. because as is why moor when you can keep it safe somewhere else ?
3. destroyed structures and their goods.
this is a toughie but the goods should be lootable and the player should be able to protect their goods.
maybe a insurance system that gets more costly as the items get bigger / more volume .
ie blue prints and such aren't too expensive but modules and huge quantity of materials/componets get expensive. maybe rigs that offset the cost .
insured equipment get jettisoned to a player selected book mark.
uninsured stuff is up for grabs.
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1514
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 03:33:22 -
[562] - Quote
There's much too much for me to take in here, but I like the boldness of the initiative.
Also, the discussion in this thread is happening at an unusually high level, which has made it very informative to read.
The devil will always lurk in the details, but from here this looks great.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Escuro
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 11:55:18 -
[563] - Quote
OK, new structures. An important change, but raises lots of questions not visible in the blog.
- Some of the dev-posts mentioned that you can place the stucture EVERYWHERE. So it's time to build outposts in WH space, anchore some super-caps and voila - super indestructible base is ready? I am AGAINST placing something larger than M sized in WH space. Let's get back to uninhabitated dangerous WH you had from the start.
- The intel structure - once again, if it can disrupt D-scan, pinpoint cloakies etc. IT IS A HUGE advantage to WH carebears. No no into WH space.
- Ship docking/mooning - what is the targeted ammount of ship mooning into the structure which will replace the tower. Lot's of people actually live in their Control towers, WH people actually have over 50b+ of assets on a tower, ships, fitting etc. How limited do you plan those strucutures?
Also, the concept of making the warp speed lower, d-scan block, anti-cloak is full of **it. EVE is a game that should be dangerous, not a game of "place a telescope and farm happy ever after". It's not so easy to gank a carebear even today, with everyone aligned, tons of different anomalies etc. How should we ambush later on? |
Webster Carr
Aliastra Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 13:19:49 -
[564] - Quote
After watching the Structures presentation on you-tube I have to say I was really impressed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo&list=PLQvKSs1k6DLOiGGb44McruXcndTtzUUlu&index=36
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/
I especially liked the idea for streamlining the deployment, operation, and configuring of structures. You fit the structure like a ship and deploy into space. A structure has service slots, these determine what type of services the structure can offer, assembly array, reprocessing, etc. (With certain structures getting bonuses to certain services.) Fuel is consumed by use of it's services not by just existing. Nice, intuitive, and understandable game play.
Quote: D. Drilling platforms
Focused on resource harvesting as a whole.
Service module possibilities: Reprocessing, moon harvesting, reactions, mining, gas harvesting. We also are considering new harvesting gameplay mechanics. We could for instance have pollution gas clouds form around drilling structures that see high activity, or seed small planetoids in specific asteroid belts and scanable sites which require a drilling platform to break it down in smaller harvestable rocks. Rigs possibilities: Anything that improves reprocessing, moon harvesting, reaction, tractor beam range effectiveness.
This part of the Dev Blog Sparked an idea: Why not allow the Rorqual some Service slots and bonuses similar to a Drilling platform, essentially turning it into a mobile Drilling Platform. (It would be immobile when deployed but possibly use the same 'reinforcement' mechanics as structures giving a reason to park a several billion isk ship in an asteroid belt.)
This idea of containing structure slots could be extended to other capital ships as well. (Anyone ever read the Star Wars novels with the smuggler Booster Terrik who captured an imperial star destroyer and turned it into a mobile smuggler's marketplace?)
Just an Idea, Web |
Webster Carr
Aliastra Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 15:00:15 -
[565] - Quote
Rena'Thras wrote:The Bad:
PLEASE reconsider here. I agree that specialization should (as it does now) add benefits. However, you shouldn't make it where people CAN'T be inefficient. Inefficient is necessary for small things that need to grow. Whether children, learning new things, or starting a new group - inefficiency is a necessary first step to grow into something that is more efficient and powerful later.
.
Since it's easy to criticize but to execute you need ideas and suggestions, here are mine:
1) Having the ability to make supermassive things is cool - but don't overlook the builders in the sandbox that want to build a fort instead of a castle! Can you not leave in Small/Medium/Large POSes and possibly institute two types of Outposts? You can add in an X-Large POS if you really want something with that greater size (as well as adjust the structure sizes of the existing Large and Medium somewhat), and all existing Outposts would be the regular variety with the Super Outpost being an entirely new thing (complete with bragging rights when CFC or N3 build their first one). Balance and tuning and all that, but KEEP the granularity! It's a great thing, why break it when you can build/add TO it?
2) Reconsider the shields. Shields are pretty.
3) While making specialization more attractive is good, allow generalization (at much lower levels of efficiency) to stay in the game. Read the description of the Celestis sometime - there are a lot of small Corps and Alliances that need structures that meet that same goal. (I don't remember the exact wording, it's something like "Small Corporations who have limited resources like the Celestis because it's adaptable and relatively inexpensive.)
.
Thanks for your time!
Hope this feedback - positive, negative, and suggestions - can be useful.
Now here is an idea that might solve several issues: What if, in addition to all of the specialized types there was added a generalized structure with lesser bonuses to all roles. It could never equal the raw bonuses of what the specialized structures could do, but it could fit and do all or most of the activities. In addition: when the transition came all of the existing POS structures could simply be transformed into the new type of general structure with similar mods in place.
Web |
Elayae
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc The 11th Hour Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 20:23:14 -
[566] - Quote
A few additions or ideas:
Firstly zero security without sovereignty is going to get an immense boost with this new structure update. Think of added trade and public stations and also lowering security status will be nice to tweak here. The number of pilots will certainly increase.
Secondly the important moon mining R64 and R32 should be dependent on the presence of a rorqual, this ship should be the only one to actively mine these.
Thirdly it would be more wise to do the restructuring of the structures first before the sovereignty changes. Many sovereignty mechanics rely on the structure set up. For example I fear that with the new structures new fortresses are created which are almost invincible when attacking because there are too many variables in play.
Stick to the bottom up approach as is suggested, because doing sovereignty first makes no sense when the important building blocks are not yet present.
Just my 2 cents. -Ela
|
Tejoe Nightstar
Society of Mechanics Engineers and Gearheads
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 01:22:08 -
[567] - Quote
There should be a +25% time increase per station's size for every level above M. The larger (and much higher priced) structures need to be made of sterner stuff. |
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
29
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 13:05:13 -
[568] - Quote
Things have been mentioned befor. I just want to add pointing force in that direction.
> Winner gets the stuff. This is eve, HTFU. It's that simple. Even if there's an entity roaming all over destroying everything - so be it. If we wanted safe-drops we'd be playing other MMOs. If you transit to a state in which everything can be destroyed, consider a proper transition phase in which vets, big traders and indies have options to easely reorganize (or move) their stuff for the new system. Nothing, should be safe nowhere, and if there is a 100% safe (high-sec NPC stations) you should finally consider starting a m3 cargohold charge to balance things out.
> Forcefield were not _just_ bad. Don't forget, that having your enemy outside the forcefield, you have that EYE-2-EYE thing. Agressors could see what owners are about to do. Staging fleets, safe but visible. I would hate to see POS power games becoming similar to docking games at station. Please, try to hold on to the fun things about forcefields.
> Unique homes and combat/defence tactics. Currently owners have power over how they setup thier structures. When you consider "linking structures together" is bad complexity - reconsider. We are still eve players. I'd hate to just drop one structure and call this my home (it would look just like 1000 others). I like how owners currently have to balance out "industrial power vs defensive capabilities". And i love how everyone can analyze a tower and decide on how to engage.
> Fuel requirements, if it has no fuel, it should be offline! It should be possible to notice if a structure has not received the necessary attention. You want to kill AFK empire but create sort of AFK structures? |
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
57
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 15:01:23 -
[569] - Quote
Jon Hellguard wrote:Things have been mentioned befor. I just want to add pointing force in that direction.
> Winner gets the stuff. This is eve, HTFU. It's that simple. Even if there's an entity roaming all over destroying everything - so be it. If we wanted safe-drops we'd be playing other MMOs. If you transit to a state in which everything can be destroyed, consider a proper transition phase in which vets, big traders and indies have options to easely reorganize (or move) their stuff for the new system. Nothing, should be safe nowhere, and if there is a 100% safe (high-sec NPC stations) you should finally consider starting a m3 cargohold charge to balance things out.
> Forcefield were not _just_ bad. Don't forget, that having your enemy outside the forcefield, you have that EYE-2-EYE thing. Agressors could see what owners are about to do. Staging fleets, safe but visible. I would hate to see POS power games becoming similar to docking games at station. Please, try to hold on to the fun things about forcefields.
> Unique homes and combat/defence tactics. Currently owners have power over how they setup thier structures. When you consider "linking structures together" is bad complexity - reconsider. We are still eve players. I'd hate to just drop one structure and call this my home (it would look just like 1000 others). I like how owners currently have to balance out "industrial power vs defensive capabilities". And i love how everyone can analyze a tower and decide on how to engage.
> Fuel requirements, if it has no fuel, it should be offline! It should be possible to notice if a structure has not received the necessary attention. You want to kill AFK empire but create sort of AFK structures?
You want sov nullsec empty, well you will get that. |
Kell Taron
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 17:06:58 -
[570] - Quote
1. Will there be a new set of skills to train along with the new structures?
2. Will any of our current spaceship skills effect how we can fit the new structure slots, or how well we can operate them?
3. How will our current structure skills pass over to the new system?
Thanks |
|
Webster Carr
Aliastra Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:33:00 -
[571] - Quote
One thing we haven't heard much about yet is the armament of the new structures. With the new structures being able to be anchored freely: where is the Military Defense Fort Structure? Am I the only one thinking of anchoring one of these on each side of a gate to a dead end system, manned and ready to defend my newly named Webville system from all intruders (Yes I realize they can just jump behind them)? (Ok you may have figured out that in RTS games I tend to turtle.)
Which leads me to the following questions:
Are structures going to be able to be able to anchored close enough to one another to provide mutual support and defense? (Please Yes!)
If so will structures be able to anchored close to star gates, territory claim units, infrastructure hubs, etc... in order to provide offense/defense?
What will the passive offensive/defense options for structures be? (Please don't tell me that if they happen to be attacked while you're at work they don't fight back at all...even though fitted with weapons. f I go on vacation I don't want to come back and find my wormhole home in ruins even though it was well supplied/defended.)
What will the possible defensive and offensive capabilities of the various structures? What should they be? Could/should a medium be equal to a Battleship, a Large structure equal to a Dred, and a XL equal to a Titan in offense? To analyze further: will a Medium structure fit Large Guns while Large or XL structures fit the same XL guns that are on dreads and titans?
Will the larger structures with Entosis capture be able be defended using their own weapons? (And/or fit their own Entosis mod in their high slot to be used by the structure next door for defense?) How will these larger Entosis structures work in Wormholes with no Sov? *If I were to make a recommendation: have only the XL structures deal with Entosis, anything smaller use damage/reinforcement mechanics, there needs to be something able to be docked at that you can put in a wormhole...
Will you be able to fit remote repair mods in the high slots to support a defending fleet (and/or drones)? (And or other structures.) Essentially making fighting at/defending your station a very strong tactical advantage.
Will there (should there) be a fortification structure with bonuses to weapons/defenses? (Think the Wormhole forts from Weber's Honor Harrington series, or Babalyon 5, or Deep Space 9: Will you be able to build a station (or group of stations) at a key defensive point that it takes a large fleet to neutralize.)
Will we be able to build an armed POCO (or similar structure that performs it's function).? Preferably one that can be docked at...I like the idea of my colony sending it's shipments straight up to my comfortable, well defended, station..
-Web
|
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
209
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:17:20 -
[572] - Quote
Please leave my well earned though pitifully compensated R&D grind for datacores alone. Thankyou.
Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words.
Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions.
Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character.
And character is everything. - author unknown
|
Webster Carr
Aliastra Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:18:18 -
[573] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:Please leave my well earned though pitifully compensated R&D grind for datacores alone. Thankyou.
I am sorry. I will elaborate. Research Project Management (RPM) is a 50 million isk skill with a high rank ( i think 5) that has but one use. It allows a character to access additional research agents.
Unlike the specific science skills which have other functionality, RPM ONLY exists to aid in datacore collection. I have it trained to level 5 on several characters who I have done the grind to access multiple agents.
It would be daft to expect CCP to reimburse the specific science skills needed to get the datacores (i.e. quantum physics), but please tell me that you have a plan to give back any skill points devoted to RPM if you remove R&D agents as a source for datacores completely.
I agree, keep the Research Agents as a source of data cores.
As an alternate source you could build a Research Structure and put a 'DATA CORE Research Lab' in one of it's structure slots. You then set that lab to work in the same manner as you would an NPC research agent. Data cores that the lab produces are stored in your personal hangar on the structure (like a POCO). You then swing by on a regular basis and collect data cores in a method similar to the current Research Agent process or somewhat like PI production.
Perhaps the structure DATA CORE lab could even could use an amount of simple P2 PI as input, differing based upon the data core desired: Mechanical Engineering uses Mechanical Parts, Electronic Engineering uses Miniature Electronics, Nanite Engineering uses well Nanites... In other words it works like industry or research, with the number of Data Cores Job slots being determined by your Research Project Management skill.
In essence you could use a NPC agent or your own Research Lab or a combination of the two to a limit of determined by your Research Project Management skill.
Just like current BPO research you have the option to use a research lab at an NPC station or build your own... Simple and intuitive, and follows existing in game methods. (Of course the production of DATA CORES by the lab would be greater than that of Research Agents.)
In my opinion the sandbox is enhanced by having multiple routes to the same goal.
-Web |
Warden Archerus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 21:27:48 -
[574] - Quote
Will there be a max range from the system that structures can be anchored? |
Tejoe Nightstar
Society of Mechanics Engineers and Gearheads
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 05:45:45 -
[575] - Quote
I have found three ways to generate datacores.
- Research Agents
- drops from data anomilies
- LP stores of a few (FW?) corporations
This does not need to be increased. |
Webster Carr
Aliastra Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:16:47 -
[576] - Quote
Tejoe Nightstar wrote:I have found three ways to generate datacores.
- Research Agents
- drops from data anomilies
- LP stores of a few (FW?) corporations
This does not need to be increased.
If done as I would suggest Data Cores from a Research Structure slot would use one of your 'Research Project Management' Agent slots and would simply be an alternative (though perhaps more productive) method of acquisition rather than an increase.
-Web |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
212
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:04:01 -
[577] - Quote
Webster Carr wrote:Patri Andari wrote:Please leave my well earned though pitifully compensated R&D grind for datacores alone. Thankyou.
I am sorry. I will elaborate. Research Project Management (RPM) is a 50 million isk skill with a high rank ( i think 5) that has but one use. It allows a character to access additional research agents.
Unlike the specific science skills which have other functionality, RPM ONLY exists to aid in datacore collection. I have it trained to level 5 on several characters who I have done the grind to access multiple agents.
It would be daft to expect CCP to reimburse the specific science skills needed to get the datacores (i.e. quantum physics), but please tell me that you have a plan to give back any skill points devoted to RPM if you remove R&D agents as a source for datacores completely. I agree, keep the Research Agents as a source of data cores. As an alternate source you could build a Research Structure and put a 'DATA CORE Research Lab' in one of it's structure slots. You then set that lab to work in the same manner as you would an NPC research agent. Data cores that the lab produces are stored in your personal hangar on the structure (like a POCO). You then swing by on a regular basis and collect data cores in a method similar to the current Research Agent process or somewhat like PI production. Perhaps the structure DATA CORE lab could even could use an amount of simple P2 PI as input, differing based upon the data core desired: Mechanical Engineering uses Mechanical Parts, Electronic Engineering uses Miniature Electronics, Nanite Engineering uses well Nanites... In other words it works like industry or research, with the number of Data Cores Job slots being determined by your Research Project Management skill. In essence you could use a NPC agent or your own Research Lab or a combination of the two to a limit of determined by your Research Project Management skill. Just like current BPO research you have the option to use a research lab at an NPC station or build your own... Simple and intuitive, and follows existing in game methods. (Of course the production of DATA CORES by the lab would be greater than that of Research Agents.) In my opinion the sandbox is enhanced by having multiple routes to the same goal. -Web
I am sorry. The skill has an 8x multiplier not 5x. The suggestion by Web at least gets one thinking about was to keep the skill meaningful rather than just stip out all funtionality.
However, somethng tells me that CCP would dumb down the skill to 3x multiplier or some other weaksauce.
Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words.
Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions.
Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character.
And character is everything. - author unknown
|
Olivia Moon
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 04:13:02 -
[578] - Quote
I honestly believe that, if I'm correct, the structures affect the price of minerals and ices. To bring positive effect to the market in the universe, it won't be a bad idea for the new structures employing more resources or fuels to power them. In a logical sense, since the structures get much bigger, more fuels should be reasonable. The supply of everything is overwhelmed at the moment.
Apart from that, the structures look awesome! EVE is migrating from some numbers into a more realistic, second-life experience! |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
332
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 08:38:07 -
[579] - Quote
Big question for the devs and I don't think it quite fits in any of the existing threads since it deals with how all of the structures are going to interact outside of Sov space.
In Sov I think the Entosis mechanics are going to work well, at least once the kinks are hammered out and they get some testing. The idea of a scramble for nodes over an entire Constellation sounds like a ton of fun. The problem is that it doesn't necessarily work in Wormholes or some parts of Low Security space (for example anywhere that shares constellation space with High Sec) and doesn't seem to be intended for the structures smaller than XL size.
- Are these smaller structures going to be the current, albeit smaller, Structure Grind with Stront timers?
- Or is it going to be a more limited version of the Entosis mechanics?
- If the latter what would this look like and at what size of Structure does the answer become "just shoot it", if ever?
- Is the 4 hour vulnerability window going to apply to all structures, and how is it going to interact with Personal Structures? It doesn't really seem fair if a player anchors something analogous to a Personal POS and then it gets wrecked while they're offline because they're not awake during their Corp or Alliance's vulnerability window (if they want to sync them up that's fine but should they be forced to?).
- and on a related note, if someone anchors a personal Structure that is subject to Entosis or at least sends out a warning mail, does that mail go to the entire corp/Alliance or does it just go to the person in question (or something in between)?
|
Oxide Ammar
197
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 10:27:24 -
[580] - Quote
Escuro wrote:OK, new structures. An important change, but raises lots of questions not visible in the blog.
- Some of the dev-posts mentioned that you can place the stucture EVERYWHERE. So it's time to build outposts in WH space, anchore some super-caps and voila - super indestructible base is ready? I am AGAINST placing something larger than M sized in WH space. Let's get back to uninhabitated dangerous WH you had from the start.
I recall (from the Fanfest) they meant by anchoring structure everywhere, that we won't have the mandatory requirement of anchoring POS to moons and outposts to planets. You will be able to anchor POS in the middle of no where, Pair that with huge systems that you can't D-scan from one side to another you will be able to anchor POS in safe spot till you get probed successfully.
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.
|
|
Pounerin
Sound and Fury
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 19:27:13 -
[581] - Quote
Concerning management of folks who can use structure capabilities:
Do ensure that one can specify Titles, and not just individuals for access! That way corporate management can assign people a title and have them automatically have the intended access.
Consider some way to identify a group of Alliance members (or other members) by some group name, and then use that group name to specify access to structures and capabilities.
|
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
563
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 04:26:11 -
[582] - Quote
All I can do at this point is react to scenario like angles and one such scenario I see is, CCP want us to essentially throw 10 years of sandbox out the window and do it all again, Shiny edition. I'm not seeing the reason or logic in saying Outpost A must go for this new system to be put in place, or Large Tower 21,851 needs to be worthless trash for this system to be in place. Just like you gave the Apocalypse battleship a new design and just made all Apocalypse Battleships look like the new one, you have not given me a reason why structures and other such assets now in the game can't simply be made new. Other than to facilitate fake content at the expense of player progress.
If you want to reset EVE, it's your game. Just don't be surprised when people catch on and laugh at you.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
337
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 05:10:07 -
[583] - Quote
Ioci wrote:All I can do at this point is react to scenario like angles and one such scenario I see is, CCP want us to essentially throw 10 years of sandbox out the window and do it all again, Shiny edition. I'm not seeing the reason or logic in saying Outpost A must go for this new system to be put in place, or Large Tower 21,851 needs to be worthless trash for this system to be in place. Just like you gave the Apocalypse battleship a new design and just made all Apocalypse Battleships look like the new one, you have not given me a reason why structures and other such assets now in the game can't simply be made new. Other than to facilitate fake content at the expense of player progress.
If you want to reset EVE, it's your game. Just don't be surprised when people catch on and laugh at you.
Because the new structures don't correspond to the old ones one anything like a 1:1 basis, and in the case of the POSes the difference in implementation is such that there's not really anything salvageable there. The point of the transition period is so people can get the new structures online and functioning while shifting over to them without yanking the rug (in the form of the old structures) out from under everyone. |
Tejoe Nightstar
Society of Mechanics Engineers and Gearheads
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 20:18:37 -
[584] - Quote
Webster Carr wrote:Tejoe Nightstar wrote:I have found three ways to generate datacores.
- Research Agents
- drops from data anomilies
- LP stores of a few (FW?) corporations
This does not need to be increased. If done as I would suggest Data Cores from a Research Structure slot would use one of your 'Research Project Management' Agent slots and would simply be an alternative (though perhaps more productive) method of acquisition rather than an increase. -Web
At most, make it the equivalent of a level 3 agent; 40 ~ 50 research parts per day possibly modified by the sov indices. But no daily mission to balance the fact that you can select the research to make up for what you aren't finding at the data anom site drops.
|
Webster Carr
Carr Consolidated Corporation
12
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 21:15:51 -
[585] - Quote
Tejoe Nightstar wrote:Webster Carr wrote:Tejoe Nightstar wrote:I have found three ways to generate datacores.
- Research Agents
- drops from data anomilies
- LP stores of a few (FW?) corporations
This does not need to be increased. If done as I would suggest Data Cores from a Research Structure slot would use one of your 'Research Project Management' Agent slots and would simply be an alternative (though perhaps more productive) method of acquisition rather than an increase. -Web At most, make it the equivalent of a level 3 agent; 40 ~ 50 research parts per day possibly modified by the sov indices. But no daily mission to balance the fact that you can select the research to make up for what you aren't finding at the data anom site drops.
Running Data Core Research/Production though a slot in a structure would also have the additional cost (and danger, even in high sec there could be war-decs) of the structure itself so having it produce at a rate equal to an NPC agent of your relevant science skill would not be a problem IMHO.
-Web
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
223
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 21:26:25 -
[586] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Ioci wrote:All I can do at this point is react to scenario like angles and one such scenario I see is, CCP want us to essentially throw 10 years of sandbox out the window and do it all again, Shiny edition. I'm not seeing the reason or logic in saying Outpost A must go for this new system to be put in place, or Large Tower 21,851 needs to be worthless trash for this system to be in place. Just like you gave the Apocalypse battleship a new design and just made all Apocalypse Battleships look like the new one, you have not given me a reason why structures and other such assets now in the game can't simply be made new. Other than to facilitate fake content at the expense of player progress.
If you want to reset EVE, it's your game. Just don't be surprised when people catch on and laugh at you. Because the new structures don't correspond to the old ones one anything like a 1:1 basis, and in the case of the POSes the difference in implementation is such that there's not really anything salvageable there. The point of the transition period is so people can get the new structures online and functioning while shifting over to them without yanking the rug (in the form of the old structures) out from under everyone.
in reality they are pulling the rug from under everyone by incredibly mismatching skills and materials required to build the new structures. at the same time they still have not fixed the "removal of teams" fiasco impacting job cost in industry. |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
565
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 21:59:35 -
[587] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Ioci wrote:All I can do at this point is react to scenario like angles and one such scenario I see is, CCP want us to essentially throw 10 years of sandbox out the window and do it all again, Shiny edition. I'm not seeing the reason or logic in saying Outpost A must go for this new system to be put in place, or Large Tower 21,851 needs to be worthless trash for this system to be in place. Just like you gave the Apocalypse battleship a new design and just made all Apocalypse Battleships look like the new one, you have not given me a reason why structures and other such assets now in the game can't simply be made new. Other than to facilitate fake content at the expense of player progress.
If you want to reset EVE, it's your game. Just don't be surprised when people catch on and laugh at you. Because the new structures don't correspond to the old ones one anything like a 1:1 basis, and in the case of the POSes the difference in implementation is such that there's not really anything salvageable there. The point of the transition period is so people can get the new structures online and functioning while shifting over to them without yanking the rug (in the form of the old structures) out from under everyone. in reality they are pulling the rug from under everyone by incredibly mismatching skills and materials required to build the new structures. at the same time they still have not fixed the "removal of teams" fiasco impacting job cost in industry.
And if I am going to continue dropping candor, this has nothing to do with EVE revamp. Just like moving Sov from moons to planets was all about Dust514, this is all about integrating Valkyrie in to the EVE universe. I'll wager, part of the battle plans involving larger structures is going to be about deploying Valkyrie squads to handle smaller targets.
That in itself isn't an issue but 90% of all the grand delusion of Dust514 and New Eden never came to pass. If Valkyrie falls on its face like Dust514 did, we will be stuck with a half finished edition of EVE where great things might have happened but never came to fruition.
I will be as blunt as I can. I can't absorb the asset loss they are asking me to absorb. I need those items to be re-purposed. I don't and never have obtained assets on the base that I could roll in to Jita and become uber rich. I collect assets with the intent to one day use those assets and this proposal takes 40% of my useable assets and certifies them as eternal garbage. I don't want to spend another ten years building up a useable asset list. It wasn't fun the first time, it was a necessary evil. I'm not seeing the 'gud-fights' here. I'm seeing a grind wall in to the sunset and beyond and a promise of 'gud-fights' somewhere a decade down the road.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
340
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 22:48:53 -
[588] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:in reality they are pulling the rug from under everyone by incredibly mismatching skills and materials required to build the new structures. at the same time they still have not fixed the "removal of teams" fiasco impacting job cost in industry.
Um, are you privy to information I'm not? Because as far as I'm aware there's no details, at all, about skill, material, or other requirements for these new structures. None, nothing, and nada.
Ioci wrote:And if I am going to continue dropping candor, this has nothing to do with EVE revamp. Just like moving Sov from moons to planets was all about Dust514, this is all about integrating Valkyrie in to the EVE universe. I'll wager, part of the battle plans involving larger structures is going to be about deploying Valkyrie squads to handle smaller targets.
That in itself isn't an issue but 90% of all the grand delusion of Dust514 and New Eden never came to pass. If Valkyrie falls on its face like Dust514 did, we will be stuck with a half finished edition of EVE where great things might have happened but never came to fruition.
I will be as blunt as I can. I can't absorb the asset loss they are asking me to absorb. I need those items to be re-purposed. I don't and never have obtained assets on the base that I could roll in to Jita and become uber rich. I collect assets with the intent to one day use those assets and this proposal takes 40% of my useable assets and certifies them as eternal garbage. I don't want to spend another ten years building up a useable asset list. It wasn't fun the first time, it was a necessary evil. I'm not seeing the 'gud-fights' here. I'm seeing a grind wall in to the sunset and beyond and a promise of 'gud-fights' somewhere a decade down the road.
IMO this is kind of unwarranted speculation. There's been no announcement of a tie in between Eve and Valkyrie, and all indications point to CCP having learned their lesson with Dust514 and the problems that integration ran into. Given the complete lack of any available info to back up your claims here this isn't so much candor as rumor mongering and ranting.
As for the assets you do realize they're talking about *reimbursing* the cost of the POS, right?
Is your concern that that reimbursement won't happen until after functionality is transferred or is it that you're worried about it not covering the cost of whatever you have to put up to replace your POS?
Whatever your concern that's what this thread is for. There's no hard details yet, just a grand plan and a request for feedback. |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
566
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 23:34:37 -
[589] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:in reality they are pulling the rug from under everyone by incredibly mismatching skills and materials required to build the new structures. at the same time they still have not fixed the "removal of teams" fiasco impacting job cost in industry. Um, are you privy to information I'm not? Because as far as I'm aware there's no details, at all, about skill, material, or other requirements for these new structures. None, nothing, and nada. Ioci wrote:And if I am going to continue dropping candor, this has nothing to do with EVE revamp. Just like moving Sov from moons to planets was all about Dust514, this is all about integrating Valkyrie in to the EVE universe. I'll wager, part of the battle plans involving larger structures is going to be about deploying Valkyrie squads to handle smaller targets.
That in itself isn't an issue but 90% of all the grand delusion of Dust514 and New Eden never came to pass. If Valkyrie falls on its face like Dust514 did, we will be stuck with a half finished edition of EVE where great things might have happened but never came to fruition.
I will be as blunt as I can. I can't absorb the asset loss they are asking me to absorb. I need those items to be re-purposed. I don't and never have obtained assets on the base that I could roll in to Jita and become uber rich. I collect assets with the intent to one day use those assets and this proposal takes 40% of my useable assets and certifies them as eternal garbage. I don't want to spend another ten years building up a useable asset list. It wasn't fun the first time, it was a necessary evil. I'm not seeing the 'gud-fights' here. I'm seeing a grind wall in to the sunset and beyond and a promise of 'gud-fights' somewhere a decade down the road. IMO this is kind of unwarranted speculation. There's been no announcement of a tie in between Eve and Valkyrie, and all indications point to CCP having learned their lesson with Dust514 and the problems that integration ran into. Given the complete lack of any available info to back up your claims here this isn't so much candor as rumor mongering and ranting. As for the assets you do realize they're talking about *reimbursing* the cost of the POS, right? Is your concern that that reimbursement won't happen until after functionality is transferred or is it that you're worried about it not covering the cost of whatever you have to put up to replace your POS? Whatever your concern that's what this thread is for. There's no hard details yet, just a grand plan and a request for feedback.
The thing is, we have seen them add slots, take slots, add stats, take stats. They can make a frigate a titan, they do it. It's called a Polaris. There is no valid excuse to not convert all existing structure to the new one, throw in a month of immunity while we fit them out. If all goes to plan, existing structures will die in a fire anyway. If they don't, this is what I called it in the first place. Buying 5 more years of asset build up by removing existing asset.
Finally, there is no indication of reimbursement. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Transition2.png
I'm certain BPOs will have buy back (though they said that about TCU's and I still have mine) but my stuff is mostly faction and kind of like my Meta 4 stacks that are now worth 15% of what they were and are essentially meta 1, I don't see that happening.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
223
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 01:11:00 -
[590] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:[quote=Milla Goodpussy]in reality they are pulling the rug from under everyone by incredibly mismatching skills and materials required to build the new structures. at the same time they still have not fixed the "removal of teams" fiasco impacting job cost in industry.
Um, are you privy to information I'm not? Because as far as I'm aware there's no details, at all, about skill, material, or other requirements for these new structures. None, nothing, and nada.
dude, they have an example listing of skills required to build these structures. although its an example it basically says "goodbye outpost construction skills".. it list beginning with anchoring 3 onward to platform operation, hub operation, assembly operation, etc..
meaning you WILL have to train up new skills and have them each at lvl 5 for the XL structure.. which going by their plans.. NO ONE has or will have time to build these things right off the bat.. unless they do something like say.. ok you have outpost construction 5 then that will be removed and you'll get ALL operation skills at 5..
good luck on day 1.
as for materials.. its pretty obvious it cant be much different from the current station mat requirements.. of course fozzie will tamper with it and double up here and there.. or even worse they throw in new parts (which also means time to research the bpo and BUY IT).. which has been indicated thru the "transition" phases where we'll get reimbursed for the old BPO's (station/towers/sov structures) that are being removed.
the intention of the reimbursement plan is to make the punch to the gut not hit so hard however it will STILL hit hard cause there are no longer "teams" which help reduce the ME/TE productions of said items...
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
342
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 03:45:24 -
[591] - Quote
Ioci wrote:The thing is, we have seen them add slots, take slots, add stats, take stats. They can make a frigate a titan, they do it. It's called a Polaris. There is no valid excuse to not convert all existing structure to the new one, throw in a month of immunity while we fit them out. If all goes to plan, existing structures will die in a fire anyway. If they don't, this is what I called it in the first place. Buying 5 more years of asset build up by removing existing asset. Finally, there is no indication of reimbursement. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Transition2.pngI'm certain BPOs will have buy back (though they said that about TCU's and I still have mine) but my stuff is mostly faction and kind of like my Meta 4 stacks that are now worth 15% of what they were and are essentially meta 1, I don't see that happening.
This dev post, third one in this thread, specifies that there will be some kind of reimbursement.
Also, yes there are perfectly valid reasons not to turn the old structures into the new ones. Just from a code standpoint it would be a huge mess, since you're talking about structures that go from being a single tower with anchorables 'attached' to a variety of different station types with modules and services. This isn't turning a Frigate into a Titan, or even changing the stats on something around. What you're asking is simply impossible because there's no way for CCP to know which structure you want your POS turned into, and the various modules don't do anything like corresponding to the new structures in value, function, or a dozen other things.
Also given past changes it's likely the will reimburse any now un-used skills as well. Also TCU's haven't gone away yet so of course you still have yours.
If you have concerns then bring them up, if you're still not happy when they announce the reimbursement plan (whatever it's going to be) then bring it up then. In the meantime I don't see how you think predicting doom and incompetence is going to be a productive addition to this discussion...
Milla Goodpussy wrote:dude, they have an example listing of skills required to build these structures. although its an example it basically says "goodbye outpost construction skills".. it list beginning with anchoring 3 onward to platform operation, hub operation, assembly operation, etc..
meaning you WILL have to train up new skills and have them each at lvl 5 for the XL structure.. which going by their plans.. NO ONE has or will have time to build these things right off the bat.. unless they do something like say.. ok you have outpost construction 5 then that will be removed and you'll get ALL operation skills at 5..
good luck on day 1.
as for materials.. its pretty obvious it cant be much different from the current station mat requirements.. of course fozzie will tamper with it and double up here and there.. or even worse they throw in new parts (which also means time to research the bpo and BUY IT).. which has been indicated thru the "transition" phases where we'll get reimbursed for the old BPO's (station/towers/sov structures) that are being removed.
the intention of the reimbursement plan is to make the punch to the gut not hit so hard however it will STILL hit hard cause there are no longer "teams" which help reduce the ME/TE productions of said items...
You're correct, it appears to be hidden in the example progression images.
Given how they've done these transitions historically they'll probably refund SP for any skills that get removed, or give people the new skills equivalent to whatever the old level was. They'll also seed the Skill Books for this stuff well before they're actually usable to give people time to train the new skills, the same way they're seeding Entosis Link BPs well before they make any changes to Sov.
The XL structures won't be much of a concern either, at least for the average player, because those are largely for Sov and won't be touched by the majority of players. They probably won't even be anchorable in High Security Space in most cases. Anyone with access to Sov has the time and other resources to have people with the relevant skills at level 5 the day these structures go live, even if they don't actually do anything.
Teams were a thing that were around for... about six months? They also provided fairly small bonuses and Eve industry existed just fine for a decade before they came along. It's hard to think that their removal is going to have any impact what so ever on the rollout of these structures. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
223
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 05:03:10 -
[592] - Quote
You're correct, it appears to be hidden in the example progression images.
Given how they've done these transitions historically they'll probably refund SP for any skills that get removed, or give people the new skills equivalent to whatever the old level was. They'll also seed the Skill Books for this stuff well before they're actually usable to give people time to train the new skills, the same way they're seeding Entosis Link BPs well before they make any changes to Sov.
The XL structures won't be much of a concern either, at least for the average player, because those are largely for Sov and won't be touched by the majority of players. They probably won't even be anchorable in High Security Space in most cases. Anyone with access to Sov has the time and other resources to have people with the relevant skills at level 5 the day these structures go live, even if they don't actually do anything.
Teams were a thing that were around for... about six months? They also provided fairly small bonuses and Eve industry existed just fine for a decade before they came along. It's hard to think that their removal is going to have any impact what so ever on the rollout of these structures.[/quote]
not exactly, if they stick to their plan.. effective THIS JUNE, you will have an incredible short amount of time to get the training done.. and further although they removed teams, they did not change the job cost and TIME for also which teams offered.. meaning for an XL or even Large the build time is actually LONGER than one can expect.
not only that they're shutting off services of the old structure for them to be then added to the new structure..(remember if you're just starting out you better have your skill at 5 in order to even submit the darn job).. the entire "cooking" process would take a few days.. once again they're not thinking of industry and the changes impacted from crius regarding the structure transition phases.... this begins soon as they begin seeding. that's
and about the link....its already tied to skills which many have already trained and can use from day 1.. building the new platforms on the other hand pending on the sov holder and his/her talents would be a serious issue deploying the new "egg"
in addition to the final "egg" you're going to need time to build its other parts..no confirmation if this is able to/will be able to build in an outpost or pos. it is a mess! furthermore although he's no longer with ccp... greyscale once stated "ccp will do anything besides SP reimbursement and are moving away from that stance".. so either at 5 we get all the operation skills and have no need of buying new skill books to train up if we've already reached max sp level for outbust construction or they get rid of the stance altogether.
so umm?? yeah ccp and fozzie better get their heads out of their behinds and think this plan over..
PS.. I used teams and they were a benefit to use.. their vision was blind and I guess many just didn't have the isk to get involved into it.. it helped me build on lots of things and also SHORTENED times... although I have greyscales TE vision skills at max.. but industry should get revamped again (rorqual fix anyone??) before they even think about this transition mess because they're about to break things left and right. |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
566
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 06:41:49 -
[593] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:This dev post, third one in this thread, specifies that there will be some kind of reimbursement.Also, yes there are perfectly valid reasons not to turn the old structures into the new ones. Just from a code standpoint it would be a huge mess, since you're talking about structures that go from being a single tower with anchorables 'attached' to a variety of different station types with modules and services. This isn't turning a Frigate into a Titan, or even changing the stats on something around. What you're asking is simply impossible because there's no way for CCP to know which structure you want your POS turned into, and the various modules don't do anything like corresponding to the new structures in value, function, or a dozen other things. Also given past changes it's likely the will reimburse any now un-used skills as well. Also TCU's haven't gone away yet so of course you still have yours. If you have concerns then bring them up, if you're still not happy when they announce the reimbursement plan (whatever it's going to be) then bring it up then. In the meantime I don't see how you think predicting doom and incompetence is going to be a productive addition to this discussion...
Under the new system if I have a POS it becomes a stand alone starbase with fittings and rigs options that define what it is going to be used for. There is no 'code mess' involved. If I have POS x 10 they become empty starbase x 10 and are completely re-written as such. Most of what we call POS mods now will be stand alone deployable structures under the new system and there is no code mess here either. Once it is repackaged, old becomes new. A battery will become a structure level starbase gun turet. If I have 600 Large True Sansha Beam laser Batteries, they become whatever new high slot module suits the Large Beam laser for a starbase. What they are doing is dragging out a grind process of arms build up by forcing us all to start on the ground again. They bring down the database for 6 hours and replace all our old stuff with new stuff. There is no code barrier. You are equating 'stuff' in a video game with tangible items rather than quantities of values. They still need to run duplicate systems as long as old versions are deployed but even in the phase out system they need to do that.
There is no 'doom and gloom' involved here. I indicated in the outset,
Ioci wrote:All I can do at this point is react to scenario like angles and one such scenario I see is, CCP want us to essentially throw 10 years of sandbox out the window and do it all again, Shiny edition.
CCP doesn't have a development team. They have a nerf bat, police force. They have spent the past 5 years vigorously trying to undo everything we do and it doesn't work. I like the new system, it has great potential but the clear focus here is not result. It is in dragging out player implementation because when it's all up and running, we are back to where we are now. With a whole bunch of stuff, we don't need and don't use. Instead of having a Dark Blood tower and True Sansha Beam lasers sitting in a station, not getting used, I will have Starbase hurr durr durr sitting in a station, not getting used.
They can roll over inventory but they need to have a point in the new system to do it and right now? They don't. I want them to focus on that. I want this new system to be content and not a PITA to content, like it is now.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
RandomFlame
Gila Knights
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 08:08:08 -
[594] - Quote
I like the idea of drilling platforms mentioned in the "Back into the Structure" Dev Blog, I hope that these will be available for wh and high sec use though in the difficult to read caption accompanying drilling platforms it looks like only L (Extraction Centres) and XL (Extraction Headquarters) have been shown as the concept.
|
DINGDONG DING
Offensive Dynamics Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 08:23:15 -
[595] - Quote
small and medium belts in -1 systems should have same bonus as large and above. so people would use them at-least.. they seem to be just wasted.. |
DoToo Foo
Setenta Corp AL3XAND3R.
50
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:01:45 -
[596] - Quote
Large wall of text at http://foo-eve.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/fozziesov-my-perspective-and-confusion.html
TLDR version.
I don't understand when a POS replacement is going to be destroyed and when it will be captured.
Small wormholes only support a few active players, but they are very good at that. Please allow a small group of players the ability to turtle up sufficiently so that a single bored troll cant reinforce a wormhole POS in 40 minutes just because we didn't log in that night.
|
Shalmon Aliatus
Bluestar Enterprises The Craftsmen
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 15:17:30 -
[597] - Quote
If we can fit POS like ships, can we fit cloak pls ?
Same as with ships you can't do much with your structure when it's cloaked (maybe basic functionality like docking and moving items around)
Make it require fuel like the other station services.
This could also make it possible for small groups to hide their structures, if they can't be active for a longer time (holidays and stuff), but don't want to shutdown their structure. This would be a variant of the basic cloak, which requires less fuel but would shut down any active from the structure |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
223
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 15:48:23 -
[598] - Quote
Shalmon Aliatus wrote:If we can fit POS like ships, can we fit cloak pls ?
Same as with ships you can't do much with your structure when it's cloaked (maybe basic functionality like docking and moving items around)
Make it require fuel like the other station services.
This could also make it possible for small groups to hide their structures, if they can't be active for a longer time (holidays and stuff), but don't want to shutdown their structure. This would be a variant of the basic cloak, which requires less fuel but would shut down any active from the structure
looks at this!.. you want cloaky fawkin structures..
why don't ccp just scrap this entire "destructible" mess .. cause its easy to see that folks are not excited about losing their structures/possessions all due to not being logged in 23/7.
|
Arthmer
Un.Reasonable Un.Bound
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 18:04:57 -
[599] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: 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.
Please let wormholers have the market-hub options! I really would like to be able to put up buy/sell orders for my corp mates so I can buy their salvage/relics/gas/etc and sell them ships/modules.
It wouldn't hurt to allow us to assemble t3 cruisers... |
Webster Carr
Carr Consolidated Corporation
13
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 19:28:10 -
[600] - Quote
Shalmon Aliatus wrote:If we can fit POS like ships, can we fit cloak pls ?
Same as with ships you can't do much with your structure when it's cloaked (maybe basic functionality like docking and moving items around)
Make it require fuel like the other station services.
This could also make it possible for small groups to hide their structures, if they can't be active for a longer time (holidays and stuff), but don't want to shutdown their structure. This would be a variant of the basic cloak, which requires less fuel but would shut down any active from the structure
This makes one think about other possible fitting options (other than the service slots) to interact with the space around it:
Could an observatory array fit a probe launcher (or equivalent) to be able to scan from the station?
Weapons have already been mentioned and also potentially Drones: How about Nos, Neut, Ewar, Web, Fighters, an ?illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator??
For non combat: Tractor Beams, Salvagers, Mining Lasers, Cloak?
With the ability to fit weapons (and it is said actively control them) that brings to mind that you will have the ability to actually see space and activity outside the station from within.
So Questions become: Will active command of a station work like making a ship active? Will one character control all defenses or will we have our first multi-character 'vessel' with a station. (And what does that bode for possible future ship design?)
Thoughts?
-Web
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
347
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 19:59:35 -
[601] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote: not exactly, if they stick to their plan.. effective THIS JUNE, you will have an incredible short amount of time to get the training done.. and further although they removed teams, they did not change the job cost and TIME for also which teams offered.. meaning for an XL or even Large the build time is actually LONGER than one can expect.
FYI you need an open-quote to quote someone within your post.
Also Structure Changes are not scheduled for June, the Sov changes are scheduled for June (tentatively) and the Structure changes don't have a release date yet, even a tentative one, beyond "starting in 2015".
Also CCP didn't adjust times or costs up when they introduced Teams, they were a pure buff, so there was nothing to adjust back down for. They were supposed to encourage competition and a dynamic manufacturing landscape which would incur some costs. This wasn't happening so they removed them. None of which has any significant impact on these new structures.
Milla Goodpussy wrote:not only that they're shutting off services of the old structure for them to be then added to the new structure..(remember if you're just starting out you better have your skill at 5 in order to even submit the darn job).. the entire "cooking" process would take a few days.. once again they're not thinking of industry and the changes impacted from crius regarding the structure transition phases.... this begins soon as they begin seeding. that's
and about the link....its already tied to skills which many have already trained and can use from day 1.. building the new platforms on the other hand pending on the sov holder and his/her talents would be a serious issue deploying the new "egg"
I have no idea what you mean by most of this except for that bit of "this begins as soon as they begin seeding" which is frankly silly and something you have no evidence for, it's just a blind assumption. As for the rest please clean it up so it actually gets your point across. Right now it doesn't make sense as english sentences to me.
Milla Goodpussy wrote:in addition to the final "egg" you're going to need time to build its other parts..no confirmation if this is able to/will be able to build in an outpost or pos. it is a mess! furthermore although he's no longer with ccp... greyscale once stated "ccp will do anything besides SP reimbursement and are moving away from that stance".. so either at 5 we get all the operation skills and have no need of buying new skill books to train up if we've already reached max sp level for outbust construction or they get rid of the stance altogether.
PS.. I used teams and they were a benefit to use.. their vision was blind and I guess many just didn't have the isk to get involved into it.. it helped me build on lots of things and also SHORTENED times... although I have greyscales TE vision skills at max.. but industry should get revamped again (rorqual fix anyone??) before they even think about this transition mess because they're about to break things left and right.
Sounds like we should wait and see what the details of the transition are then, doesn't it? Because you've just said you have no idea what they're going to do, and yet you seem convinced it's going to be horrible for you and your manufacturing when we don't even have any details and this is months away from even starting to transition. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
347
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 20:10:46 -
[602] - Quote
Ioci wrote: Under the new system if I have a POS it becomes a stand alone starbase with fittings and rigs options that define what it is going to be used for. There is no 'code mess' involved. If I have POS x 10 they become empty starbase x 10 and are completely re-written as such. Most of what we call POS mods now will be stand alone deployable structures under the new system and there is no code mess here either. Once it is repackaged, old becomes new. A battery will become a structure level starbase gun turet. If I have 600 Large True Sansha Beam laser Batteries, they become whatever new high slot module suits the Large Beam laser for a starbase. What they are doing is dragging out a grind process of arms build up by forcing us all to start on the ground again. They bring down the database for 6 hours and replace all our old stuff with new stuff. There is no code barrier. You are equating 'stuff' in a video game with tangible items rather than quantities of values. They still need to run duplicate systems as long as old versions are deployed but even in the phase out system they need to do that.
There is no 'doom and gloom' involved here. I indicated in the outset,
Except there is no "Starbase" under the new system, there are a bunch of specialized structures that have different bonuses and do different things. There is literally nothing in the new system analogous
Ioci wrote:loci wrote:All I can do at this point is react to scenario like angles and one such scenario I see is, CCP want us to essentially throw 10 years of sandbox out the window and do it all again, Shiny edition. CCP doesn't have a development team. They have a nerf bat, police force. They have spent the past 5 years vigorously trying to undo everything we do and it doesn't work. I like the new system, it has great potential but the clear focus here is not result. It is in dragging out player implementation because when it's all up and running, we are back to where we are now. With a whole bunch of stuff, we don't need and don't use. Instead of having a Dark Blood tower and True Sansha Beam lasers sitting in a station, not getting used, I will have Starbase hurr durr durr sitting in a station, not getting used. They can roll over inventory but they need to have a point in the new system to do it and right now? They don't. I want them to focus on that. I want this new system to be content and not a PITA to content, like it is now.
I'm really really not seeing where you're getting this from. You seem absolutely convinced that this is going to go horribly for you when it's months away and we have no details about how the transition is actually going to go beyond "yes, there's going to be reimbursement". Personally I like the direction CCP have gone with game balance in the last six years. It's a lot better than Railguns sitting around for at least five years as the worst weapon system in the game before being touched.
What about if, as CCP roll out the new structures that replace various POS functions, they put out Blueprints that let you take your POS tower or POS modules or whatever and the difference in materials between that and the new structure and then spit out the new structure and any un-used materials from the old POS? Would that be a suitably seamless transition for you? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
347
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 20:13:32 -
[603] - Quote
Arthmer wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: 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.
Please let wormholers have the market-hub options! I really would like to be able to put up buy/sell orders for my corp mates so I can buy their salvage/relics/gas/etc and sell them ships/modules. It wouldn't hurt to allow us to assemble t3 cruisers...
Heck, maybe use a combination of a Market Hub, security structures, and a Gate spec'd toward increasing Wormhole spawns to create a neutral Market Hub system in a C1 or C2 that has like 4-5 Statics to higher class sites. You can't bring big ships in but you can bring industrials and smaller stuff through. Could make for some pretty hilarious gameplay. In before someone names it The Goblin Market :D |
Shaz'bot
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 23:36:43 -
[604] - Quote
Reading that devblog made me feel as excited about EVE as my first few weeks in-game did back in 2009.
Amazing, it all sounds just awesome and there's so much awe-inspiring potential gameplay that could emerge, I hope the ideas don't change much if at all.
+1 to everything!
Take ma moneh! |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
567
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 00:40:24 -
[605] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Ioci wrote: Under the new system if I have a POS it becomes a stand alone starbase with fittings and rigs options that define what it is going to be used for. There is no 'code mess' involved. If I have POS x 10 they become empty starbase x 10 and are completely re-written as such. Most of what we call POS mods now will be stand alone deployable structures under the new system and there is no code mess here either. Once it is repackaged, old becomes new. A battery will become a structure level starbase gun turet. If I have 600 Large True Sansha Beam laser Batteries, they become whatever new high slot module suits the Large Beam laser for a starbase. What they are doing is dragging out a grind process of arms build up by forcing us all to start on the ground again. They bring down the database for 6 hours and replace all our old stuff with new stuff. There is no code barrier. You are equating 'stuff' in a video game with tangible items rather than quantities of values. They still need to run duplicate systems as long as old versions are deployed but even in the phase out system they need to do that.
There is no 'doom and gloom' involved here. I indicated in the outset,
Except there is no "Starbase" under the new system, there are a bunch of specialized structures that have different bonuses and do different things. There is literally nothing in the new system analogous Ioci wrote:loci wrote:All I can do at this point is react to scenario like angles and one such scenario I see is, CCP want us to essentially throw 10 years of sandbox out the window and do it all again, Shiny edition. CCP doesn't have a development team. They have a nerf bat, police force. They have spent the past 5 years vigorously trying to undo everything we do and it doesn't work. I like the new system, it has great potential but the clear focus here is not result. It is in dragging out player implementation because when it's all up and running, we are back to where we are now. With a whole bunch of stuff, we don't need and don't use. Instead of having a Dark Blood tower and True Sansha Beam lasers sitting in a station, not getting used, I will have Starbase hurr durr durr sitting in a station, not getting used. They can roll over inventory but they need to have a point in the new system to do it and right now? They don't. I want them to focus on that. I want this new system to be content and not a PITA to content, like it is now. I'm really really not seeing where you're getting this from. You seem absolutely convinced that this is going to go horribly for you when it's months away and we have no details about how the transition is actually going to go beyond "yes, there's going to be reimbursement". Personally I like the direction CCP have gone with game balance in the last six years. It's a lot better than Railguns sitting around for at least five years as the worst weapon system in the game before being touched. What about if, as CCP roll out the new structures that replace various POS functions, they put out Blueprints that let you take your POS tower or POS modules or whatever and the difference in materials between that and the new structure and then spit out the new structure and any un-used materials from the old POS? Would that be a suitably seamless transition for you?
They are dividing structures in to classes. Starbase is the POS class and yes it will be a basic 'hull' structure that can be invented in to duties through fit and rig. Yes there will be a starbase under the new system.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
Ranzera Stez
Wormbro Ocularis Inferno
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 05:23:33 -
[606] - Quote
Read the whole thread. I saw some questions that didn't get answers and I have a few of my own that I didn't see get asked. Real talk here CCP.
What is the plan for these structures in wormholes? There's 3 big missing pieces of this puzzle and I can't reconcile them with the information available.
1) A place to idle safely in wormholes.
Right now, we typically warp to the POS and stay inside the force field. I see that you've presented 2 structure types but neither seem like a good fit for J Space. Your large types supposedly offer mooring, but this doesn't make a lot of sense given the restrictions on quantity of ships that you want to allow to dock this way. Your extra large types don't feel like they fit in J space because they allow straight up regular docking. We can't do it now, are you going to add it?
2) Wormhole ship storage.
I don't see any structure that allows the storing of ships except the extra larges with regular docking. Same as above. Are you bringing docking to J Space?
3) Shattered Planet Systems
These have no moons. You can't anchor POSs here. These new structures don't have that limitation. Are you bringing player structures to Shattered Wormhole systems?
Other Stuff
4) Fuel and the fragmentation of player structures.
Many players get a wide use of bonused activities out of their POSs. I think it seems reasonable they will try to continue to do so. So now that you've made 3 structures to do the job of what 1 would normally be doing, what's the fuel costs going to be to run an Assembly Center, Research Center and an Extraction Center compared to 1 large POS? My WH Corp has a large Industry POS that runs that equivalent right now. I'm concerned about the fuel costs of running 3 structures to do what we're doing today with one.
5) Any player that wants to use structures can: Missing Medium structure types
I noticed with little effort there's no medium research structure. What gives?
6) Removing Turret AI
Are you serious? |
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 08:08:13 -
[607] - Quote
These structures are awesome.
I can not wait. You need to release something, like tomorrow. The market is screwy. I was making 200 Mil easy a day station trading structures and now I'm lucky to make 50 Mil, so I have quit and people getting their POS's blown up are just going to live in NPC stations for now. Good thing I started to do T2 production or else I would have had to drop an alt or two. I want to do more production but, I am not going to invest in more POS's right now.
Also I was just starting to consider buying structure PBO's and was going to put everything I had into that.
So thank you for releasing the information at fanfest or I would have been freaking out over my purchase and would have believed I lost everything, I feel sorry for everyone that has PBO's and have no idea what is going to happen to them. Hopefully you convert them to an equal valued similar structure type for them. |
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
928
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 08:11:49 -
[608] - Quote
Ranzera Stez wrote:Read the whole thread. I saw some questions that didn't get answers and I have a few of my own that I didn't see get asked. Real talk here CCP.
They did mentione (somewhere) that they had thought of allowing docking where you can see space rather than the hangar, and they also mentioned they can still restrict any type of structure from being allowed in certain systems such as the shattered systems, so that is 1 and 3.
Also they said the images they showed where just demonstrative and aren't necessarily be representative of the final product (ie. no medium research lab doesn't mean we won't get one. They haven't yet said WHAT sizes of what things we will be getting though.
Nothing for the rest. |
Idgarad
Yulai Guard Yulai Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 12:01:23 -
[609] - Quote
If we do get public slots at a POS you'll need a public tax rate and a cap on jobs per public person. I'd hate for POS owners not to be able to control how popular they are, all those BPOs, BPC, etc in a bust publically accessable POS would be honey to a particular stuffed bear if you catch my meaning... wink wink.... nudge nudge... secret handshake... |
Ranzera Stez
Wormbro Ocularis Inferno
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 14:10:57 -
[610] - Quote
Xindi Kraid wrote:Ranzera Stez wrote:Read the whole thread. I saw some questions that didn't get answers and I have a few of my own that I didn't see get asked. Real talk here CCP. They did mentione (somewhere) that they had thought of allowing docking where you can see space rather than the hangar, and they also mentioned they can still restrict any type of structure from being allowed in certain systems such as the shattered systems, so that is 1 and 3. Also they said the images they showed where just demonstrative and aren't necessarily be representative of the final product (ie. no medium research lab doesn't mean we won't get one. They haven't yet said WHAT sizes of what things we will be getting though. Nothing for the rest.
Space window docking sounds nice. I anticipate a lot of resistance from the wormhole crowd though.
I'm looking forward to what CCP has to say about 3, still. These systems seem to have less activity (that I can tell) compared to the average wh system. A policy reversal doesn't seem impossible to me. |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
349
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 16:57:49 -
[611] - Quote
Ioci wrote:They are dividing structures in to classes. Starbase is the POS class and yes it will be a basic 'hull' structure that can be invented in to duties through fit and rig. Yes there will be a starbase under the new system.
I'm going through the dev blog, carefully, and I'm finding:
- Assembly Arrays
- Research Laboratories
- Market and Office Hubs
- Drilling Platforms
- Observatory Arrays
- Gates
- Administration Hubs
- Advertisement Centers
None of these contain anything like a current Starbase, and there is no mention of the word "Starbase" in the dev blog that does not refer to a current-mechanics POS.
Ranzera Stez wrote:1) A place to idle safely in wormholes.
Right now, we typically warp to the POS and stay inside the force field. I see that you've presented 2 structure types but neither seem like a good fit for J Space. Your large types supposedly offer mooring, but this doesn't make a lot of sense given the restrictions on quantity of ships that you want to allow to dock this way. Your extra large types don't feel like they fit in J space because they allow straight up regular docking. We can't do it now, are you going to add it?
2) Wormhole ship storage.
I don't see any structure that allows the storing of ships except the extra larges with regular docking. Same as above. Are you bringing docking to J Space?
I'd be willing to bet there are some rather interesting discussions going on with the CSM over this, but I assume at present the intent is to allow docking in wormholes.
Ranzera Stez wrote:5) Any player that wants to use structures can: Missing Medium structure types
I noticed with little effort there's no medium research structure. What gives?
"This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course" at a guess having a Research Structure at that level of risk and price point doesn't fit with their goals for the structure type. There's also no Medium Structure for several of the other types as well.
Ranzera Stez wrote:ETA: Thought of one more. It would be *reaaaaallly* nice if we could launch PI materials to/from the new POCO equivalent when we're not in system. This would be a major quality of life enhancement.
As far as I can tell POCOs are staying as they are, since there's no replacement mentioned in the dev blog, as well as no replacement of them mentioned. This seems to just affect POSes, Sov structures, and Outposts. |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
568
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 17:36:26 -
[612] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Ioci wrote:They are dividing structures in to classes. Starbase is the POS class and yes it will be a basic 'hull' structure that can be invented in to duties through fit and rig. Yes there will be a starbase under the new system. I'm going through the dev blog, carefully, and I'm finding:
- Assembly Arrays
- Research Laboratories
- Market and Office Hubs
- Drilling Platforms
- Observatory Arrays
- Gates
- Administration Hubs
- Advertisement Centers
None of these contain anything like a current Starbase, and there is no mention of the word "Starbase" in the dev blog that does not refer to a current-mechanics POS. This becomes this But I still don't think you understand the way they plan to implement the new system. A warp scrambling battery for example, or a weapons Battery will no longer be floating around a POS. They will become modules you fit to a starbase but rather than convert current POS mods to the new fittings system, they plan to make them obsolete and require us to make everything new and there is no reason for it.
I do understand why you are seeing the 'flaw' in my questioning. All our current stuff has role in the new system but the new system adds hundreds of times more possibilities to structure options. We will still need to build 'stuff' from specialist starbases to rigs, maybe even module options current POS mods don't account for, like Armor plates. There is no Armor mod right now or Armor resist mod for POS. All POS are shield based tank but a lot of the stuff in the new system is current stuff that is convertible. I'd rather see my stuff become new stuff with role and augment my assets to what I am missing than have it all slowly phased to junk.
I understand that this means certain role based structure markets are going to launch glutted but -
I've provided feedback. If CCP understand what I am saying, I don't need to go any further. If they don't then I can try and elaborate further. I'll assume they do and end this.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
349
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 17:56:15 -
[613] - Quote
No, that's a size comparison, the new structures are listed further down the page in the progression trees. There is no Large structure that is functionally similar to a POS, there are a lot of specialized structures at the same size bracket though. The old primary functions of a POS are being split out into Assembly Arrays, Research Laboratories, and Drilling Platforms, with guns and other modules being available in some form on all new structures.
Ioci wrote:But I still don't think you understand the way they plan to implement the new system. A warp scrambling battery for example, or a weapons Battery will no longer be floating around a POS. They will become modules you fit to a starbase but rather than convert current POS mods to the new fittings system, they plan to make them obsolete and require us to make everything new and there is no reason for it.
I understand that perfectly well, it's likely those old POS mods will either be converted into the new modules or have their value reimbursed, depending on which is better for the in-game economy. There are reasons for it (very valid ones in my opinion) you just don't seem to agree with them.
Ioci wrote:I do understand why you are seeing the 'flaw' in my questioning. All our current stuff has role in the new system but the new system adds hundreds of times more possibilities to structure options. We will still need to build 'stuff' from specialist starbases to rigs, maybe even module options current POS mods don't account for, like Armor plates. There is no Armor mod right now or Armor resist mod for POS. All POS are shield based tank but a lot of the stuff in the new system is current stuff that is convertible. I'd rather see my stuff become new stuff with role and augment my assets to what I am missing than have it all slowly phased to junk.
I understand that this means certain role based structure markets are going to launch glutted but -
I've provided feedback. If CCP understand what I am saying, I don't need to go any further. If they don't then I can try and elaborate further. I'll assume they do and end this.
I would recommend you save your feedback, refine it, and repost it once we have more info on whatever sort of reimbursement they have planned. You've certainly made it clear that it's going to be tricky to avoid messing with small scale industrialists, but I don't think it's going to be impossible either. |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
568
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 18:22:59 -
[614] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: I would recommend you save your feedback, refine it, and repost it once we have more info on whatever sort of reimbursement they have planned. You've certainly made it clear that it's going to be tricky to avoid messing with small scale industrialists, but I don't think it's going to be impossible either.
Then maybe they should have asked for feedback when we weren't forced to speculate so much.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
352
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 03:18:48 -
[615] - Quote
Ioci wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote: I would recommend you save your feedback, refine it, and repost it once we have more info on whatever sort of reimbursement they have planned. You've certainly made it clear that it's going to be tricky to avoid messing with small scale industrialists, but I don't think it's going to be impossible either.
Then maybe they should have asked for feedback when we weren't forced to speculate so much.
That defeats the point of asking for early feedback. They're looking for ideas and feedback on our general ideas, they've said there is going to be a reimbursement, what more are you looking for here? |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
568
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 03:35:07 -
[616] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Ioci wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote: I would recommend you save your feedback, refine it, and repost it once we have more info on whatever sort of reimbursement they have planned. You've certainly made it clear that it's going to be tricky to avoid messing with small scale industrialists, but I don't think it's going to be impossible either.
Then maybe they should have asked for feedback when we weren't forced to speculate so much. That defeats the point of asking for early feedback. They're looking for ideas and feedback on our general ideas, they've said there is going to be a reimbursement, what more are you looking for here?
Much like you, what I am 'looking for' is more input from CCP. This back and forth you and I have been having has evolved my feedback but until they provide more details we are all still swimming in the dark.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
Spacepilot101
TIME WARP Corp New Eden Terraform Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 11:18:37 -
[617] - Quote
Would the ihub and the Territorial claim unit get replaced with the administration hub, or would exist both types of structures in future? Does anyone know this? And whats meant by "territory flag". Is just the logo from the ally on a wall of the ad-hub or does he replace the whole function of holding sov? |
Inquisitor Magneto
Pax Amarria Trading Company Aurora Foundation
4
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 14:11:17 -
[618] - Quote
i have a question and if it was answered please do let me know where i can read up on the info.
The new structure system. currently we have many blue prints and investments in the old structures, weapon platforms inhibiters, etc. what will happen or become of these blue prints/ structures when the change comes. can we get our investment back or will this be a loss once the new items come out? |
Krahazik Dragon
Black Crown Munitions
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 14:53:50 -
[619] - Quote
Just like to say so far I am liking what I am seeing here for the new system.
As to what happens when a structure is destroyed, I'd like to cast my vote for the wreckage idea. Would be fitting with the universe and setup.
Would there be a hangar like place or captain's quarters like place for players when their ship is docked or moored in/at a station? Would like to see something like that instead of the current system where you get kicked out into space in your pod when your ship is docked.
Would also like to see something like a corp lounge. A walk-able space similar to the captain's quarters, that is accessible to corp members. Could be an add-on module that's fitted into one of the station slots.
Manufacturing Director
Manufacturing all the amunition you need as well as other supplies and equipment.
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1520
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 17:54:23 -
[620] - Quote
Inquisitor Magneto wrote:i have a question and if it was answered please do let me know where i can read up on the info.
The new structure system. currently we have many blue prints and investments in the old structures, weapon platforms inhibiters, etc. what will happen or become of these blue prints/ structures when the change comes. can we get our investment back or will this be a loss once the new items come out?
Phased-out structures and anchorables and their blueprints will be reimbursed.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
353
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 06:07:57 -
[621] - Quote
Inquisitor Magneto wrote:i have a question and if it was answered please do let me know where i can read up on the info.
The new structure system. currently we have many blue prints and investments in the old structures, weapon platforms inhibiters, etc. what will happen or become of these blue prints/ structures when the change comes. can we get our investment back or will this be a loss once the new items come out?
There's going to be some kind of reimbursement but we don't have many details beyond a rough outline to phase out the old functionality as the new structures are introduced, and that old items, BPs, and the like will be reimbursed in some way.
loci an I have been discussing this for a couple of pages now, if you want to go back and skim the highlights, there's also a link to a comment about reimbursement.
Ioci wrote:Much like you, what I am 'looking for' is more input from CCP. This back and forth you and I have been having has evolved my feedback but until they provide more details we are all still swimming in the dark.
Yup, which means we should limit our feedback to either suggestions for how things should be done or critique of the details we do have. I think we've identified several problems in the basic phasing out system proposed by CCP so lets build on that.
If CCP phases out functionality followed by removing the structure or module, then in the case of functions currently carried out by a POS current industrialists will have to completely rebuy hard capital assets to continue production, or they'll have to wait until a reimbursement or conversion on their existing assets happens. IMO the easiest way to deal with this without triggering a market meltdown is to allow for conversion of the old structures into the new ones directly through Blueprints. This way everyone gets to pick what they get and if people want to leave their POSes up until they're reimbursed they can, or they can "cash out" early when the feature they're most interested in gets rolled over, and in the meantime station services can pick up the slack.
Thoughts? |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 10:44:14 -
[622] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: If CCP phases out functionality followed by removing the structure or module, then in the case of functions currently carried out by a POS current industrialists will have to completely rebuy hard capital assets to continue production, or they'll have to wait until a reimbursement or conversion on their existing assets happens. IMO the easiest way to deal with this without triggering a market meltdown is to allow for conversion of the old structures into the new ones directly through Blueprints. This way everyone gets to pick what they get and if people want to leave their POSes up until they're reimbursed they can, or they can "cash out" early when the feature they're most interested in gets rolled over, and in the meantime station services can pick up the slack.
Thoughts?
Hm, if by "directly through Blueprints" you mean having the BP accept different sets of input materials, this might be tricky to implement I think and potentially even more confusing for the user when a BP happens to ship with a lot of build options. A rather simple way would be to use the "exchange" features in existing LP stores, where one trades for example a regular ship + stuff for the respective faction version. So let the corporations that are (or will be) involved with starbases/structures offer a kind of "replacement program" where you can throw in your old structures and get the new ones. The difference in materials or whatever else constitutes the "worth" of items exchanged that way could then be paid in various way, either directly in raw materials, via components or even LP/flat out Isk.
Viable option? |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
572
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 18:53:57 -
[623] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Ioci wrote:Much like you, what I am 'looking for' is more input from CCP. This back and forth you and I have been having has evolved my feedback but until they provide more details we are all still swimming in the dark. Yup, which means we should limit our feedback to either suggestions for how things should be done or critique of the details we do have. I think we've identified several problems in the basic phasing out system proposed by CCP so lets build on that. If CCP phases out functionality followed by removing the structure or module, then in the case of functions currently carried out by a POS current industrialists will have to completely rebuy hard capital assets to continue production, or they'll have to wait until a reimbursement or conversion on their existing assets happens. IMO the easiest way to deal with this without triggering a market meltdown is to allow for conversion of the old structures into the new ones directly through Blueprints. This way everyone gets to pick what they get and if people want to leave their POSes up until they're reimbursed they can, or they can "cash out" early when the feature they're most interested in gets rolled over, and in the meantime station services can pick up the slack. Thoughts?
All the old stuff falls in to a class in the new system. Outposts are in the XL class, all their own. POS are in a large class all their own. If I had to make a suggestion to CCP about the direction to take old stuff, I'd suggest an RnG retrofit option in stations and a new structure.
An example: I have a True Sansha POS or BPC of one, I send it through a retrofit cycle and an RnG return system hands me a True Sansha BPC of a similar and modern version. I might end up with a True Sansha Drilling platform, I might end up with a True Sansha battle starbase. Insert RnG. The same could be done with all modules and BPC`s. An Amarr small tower has various possible versions of itself in the new system and a retrofit RnG could be given. BPO`s too for that matter. In the new system of 10% ME&PE it can take as much as 2 to 5 years to cap out a BPO based on cost and they can`t reimburse that, there is no way. If they all got retrofit there would be a pool of manufacturing level resources players could exchange according to what they have and what they want. It doesn`t leave Old Vets high and dry and doesn`t give them any more advantage than they have now.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
353
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 12:33:29 -
[624] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:Hm, if by "directly through Blueprints" you mean having the BP accept different sets of input materials, this might be tricky to implement I think and potentially even more confusing for the user when a BP happens to ship with a lot of build options. A rather simple way would be to use the "exchange" features in existing LP stores, where one trades for example a regular ship + stuff for the respective faction version. So let the corporations that are (or will be) involved with starbases/structures offer a kind of "replacement program" where you can throw in your old structures and get the new ones. The difference in materials or whatever else constitutes the "worth" of items exchanged that way could then be paid in various way, either directly in raw materials, via components or even LP/flat out Isk.
Viable option?
I was thinking create separate BPs sold for 1 ISK (or whatever) on the market. These BPs take in an old structure and the difference in materials between that and the new structure, and output the new structure and any leftover materials. Then when the old structures are phased out and otherwise reimbursed CCP can go through and remove the un-used BPs for converting those structures.
I'm just proposing using BPs because it's an existing system and shouldn't require CCP's ISDs/GMs to spend a ton of time manually converting stuff. There may be a different way to do this, like through the reimbursements system, but I don't know about it.
Ioci wrote:All the old stuff falls in to a class in the new system. Outposts are in the XL class, all their own. POS are in a large class all their own. If I had to make a suggestion to CCP about the direction to take old stuff, I'd suggest an RnG retrofit option in stations and a new structure.
An example: I have a True Sansha POS or BPC of one, I send it through a retrofit cycle and an RnG return system hands me a True Sansha BPC of a similar and modern version. I might end up with a True Sansha Drilling platform, I might end up with a True Sansha battle starbase. Insert RnG. The same could be done with all modules and BPC`s. An Amarr small tower has various possible versions of itself in the new system and a retrofit RnG could be given. BPO`s too for that matter. In the new system of 10% ME&PE it can take as much as 2 to 5 years to cap out a BPO based on cost and they can`t reimburse that, there is no way. If they all got retrofit there would be a pool of manufacturing level resources players could exchange according to what they have and what they want. It doesn`t leave Old Vets high and dry and doesn`t give them any more advantage than they have now.
They've already said there won't be faction differences between these structures. There's just a Drilling Platform, rather than having a Gallente/Amarr/Minmattar/Caldari/various pirate versions of these structures, with the fuel types split up between the structure types.
Also I'm not sure what RnG stands for here so I can't really comment further, sorry bad with acronyms. |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
572
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 18:38:26 -
[625] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
They've already said there won't be faction differences between these structures. There's just a Drilling Platform, rather than having a Gallente/Amarr/Minmattar/Caldari/various pirate versions of these structures, with the fuel types split up between the structure types.
Also I'm not sure what RnG stands for here so I can't really comment further, sorry bad with acronyms.
If they plan to remove faction from structures, that nullifies 90% of my concerns. The bulk of my investment is in pirate faction and no matter what CCP say, I know that won't get reimbursed. More stuff classified as Jita Junk added to the pile.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 19:51:51 -
[626] - Quote
Ioci wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
They've already said there won't be faction differences between these structures. There's just a Drilling Platform, rather than having a Gallente/Amarr/Minmattar/Caldari/various pirate versions of these structures, with the fuel types split up between the structure types.
Also I'm not sure what RnG stands for here so I can't really comment further, sorry bad with acronyms.
If they plan to remove faction from structures, that nullifies 90% of my concerns. The bulk of my investment is in pirate faction and no matter what CCP say, I know that won't get reimbursed. More stuff classified as Jita Junk added to the pile.
idea 1. the existing POS structures can be left as they are. They are pretty outdated anyways. Would be like a T1 version of a newer, more powerful version of structures.
idea 2. use the existing modules as input materials for building the new version.
idea 3. use the existing modules as equipment to fit to the new structures. I.e. the new "large" defense structures will be able to fit 4-5 large hybrid batteries on the "high" slots, 1-2 domination stasis turrets or shield hardening arrays on the "medium" slots and so on. Would solve the problem for at least part of the existing structures, and it will also make a difference for using faction structures.
|
N0A
Friends of Honor
13
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 19:55:01 -
[627] - Quote
Terminator Cindy wrote:idea 3. use the existing modules as equipment to fit to the new structures. I.e. the new "large" defense structures will be able to fit 4-5 large hybrid batteries on the "high" slots, 1-2 domination stasis turrets or shield hardening arrays on the "medium" slots and so on. Would solve the problem for at least part of the existing structures, and it will also make a difference for using faction structures.
THIS. +1
As a collector of faction batteries, i would very much like them NOT to lose their value :) |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
354
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 21:31:46 -
[628] - Quote
Terminator Cindy wrote:idea 1. the existing POS structures can be left as they are. They are pretty outdated anyways. Would be like a T1 version of a newer, more powerful version of structures.
idea 2. use the existing modules as input materials for building the new version.
idea 3. use the existing modules as equipment to fit to the new structures. I.e. the new "large" defense structures will be able to fit 4-5 large hybrid batteries on the "high" slots, 1-2 domination stasis turrets or shield hardening arrays on the "medium" slots and so on. Would solve the problem for at least part of the existing structures, and it will also make a difference for using faction structures.
Idea 1 is just not going to happen. The POS shield has all kinds of abuseable edge cases associated with it and needs to go. (This is why you don't let gamers use physics texts as rule books... points to anyone who gets the reference)
2 is more or less what I'm talking about, but on a temporary basis, since there's no point in having these stick around longer than the actual old structures.
The problem with 3 is that it ties the new system to the old modules, and that's something I'd rather see them avoid. They're talking about re-balancing the guns and other modules as well as adding new. Having to find a use for every old module limits this, and some of the old modules are going to just flat out disappear and turn into structures in their own right.
Ioci wrote:If they plan to remove faction from structures, that nullifies 90% of my concerns. The bulk of my investment is in pirate faction and no matter what CCP say, I know that won't get reimbursed. More stuff classified as Jita Junk added to the pile.
There's no guarantee there won't be some kind of basic and Faction/T2 structure variant, but I wouldn't bet on it for some of the larger stuff, at least to start. There are faction deployables though so it's possible.
Setting aside the pessimism for a second what do you think would be a reasonable way to reimburse faction structure value? |
John Maximus
Fink Operations Here Be Dragons
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 17:27:48 -
[629] - Quote
While I like the ideas in general there are a few caveats as I see it.
1. Destroyable nullsec stations/outposts and your stuff... The idea of looting/salvaging I think just wont work. Say I have an industrial toon producing freighters. I run small scale so I only produce 5 at a time.. That is roughly 500million units of trit to start with, or about 5 000 000 m3, then add a couple of finished hulls. The current profit margins on freighters would be juat over 10% not counting blueprint costs. However ONE outpost destroyed would force me to build at least 100 freighters to make my loss back. As the sheer volume would not be salvageable. Also dumping 10s of hulls of capital ships when you come with one toon to save your stuff.. No, just no. It basically makes nullsec industry not worth doing yet again: A possible solution would be an outpost wreck only allows pods ro doxk. That way you have a chance of rescuing your stuff, even if it is high risk and takes time. Its doable, and thus people might risk it.
The removal of towers and forcefield bubbles: First it removes a part of gameplay some like when it comes to defence, having multiple POS gunners and actively defending your structure in space. The active gameplay with defence would be removed as I see it, but nothing replaces it? Basically sit inside and wait to die. This becomes especially clear in WH space, as the POS today, thats what you got. Also most likely as a defender, you will be offline when the attack happens, so you log on at a massive tactical disadvantage. At that time most likely you will be bubbled like crazy, and any attenpt to undock will be a deathtrap. So WH industry goes out the drain, as well as doing anything else but log off in your own safespot every time with all your valuables. Just when it comes to WH space tactics as a "pure defender" I dont see any feasible way to have a chance for evacuation without the bubble, but I hope I am wrong.
Anyway, other than those two things, I really like the proposed changes. |
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 18:22:05 -
[630] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Setting aside the pessimism for a second what do you think would be a reasonable way to reimburse faction structure value?
There could be 2 forms or reimbursement : - by similar value - by similar usefulness
Either by reimbursing the money spent on the transaction when that module was bought or an average value of the market price, I think this would be the biggest reimbursement value in the history of eve. Injecting this kind of isk would not do good to eve economy. in the same time, nerfing those modules to almost useless, or reimbursing only a small fraction of their costs would hurt a large portion of eve players, most of which form the backbone of industry and research. That is why i think it makes much more sense to go with a reimbursement which will replace the modules with some of similar use in the new systems. Using them as modules to fit on the new structures would be the best solution in my opinion as it preserves the current professions ( and skills ), production and research lines for those modules, and also the faction ones ( loot/bpcs and existing modules ).
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
355
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 05:10:32 -
[631] - Quote
John Maximus wrote:While I like the ideas in general there are a few caveats as I see it.
1. Destroyable nullsec stations/outposts and your stuff... The idea of looting/salvaging I think just wont work. Say I have an industrial toon producing freighters. I run small scale so I only produce 5 at a time.. That is roughly 500million units of trit to start with, or about 5 000 000 m3, then add a couple of finished hulls. The current profit margins on freighters would be juat over 10% not counting blueprint costs. However ONE outpost destroyed would force me to build at least 100 freighters to make my loss back. As the sheer volume would not be salvageable. Also dumping 10s of hulls of capital ships when you come with one toon to save your stuff.. No, just no. It basically makes nullsec industry not worth doing yet again: A possible solution would be an outpost wreck only allows pods ro doxk. That way you have a chance of rescuing your stuff, even if it is high risk and takes time. Its doable, and thus people might risk it.
There's nothing stopping you from canceling your production after the first timer goes off if you think there's a good chance your side can't defend. Also if you find the risk unacceptable you can always either produce in smaller volumes or move your production to High Sec.
Certainly there's not much different here from current POS or Outpost production, since it's rarely feasible to evac yFreighters if your stuff is about to get wrecked currently either.
John Maximus wrote:The removal of towers and forcefield bubbles: First it removes a part of gameplay some like when it comes to defence, having multiple POS gunners and actively defending your structure in space. The active gameplay with defence would be removed as I see it, but nothing replaces it? Basically sit inside and wait to die. This becomes especially clear in WH space, as the POS today, thats what you got. Also most likely as a defender, you will be offline when the attack happens, so you log on at a massive tactical disadvantage. At that time most likely you will be bubbled like crazy, and any attenpt to undock will be a deathtrap. So WH industry goes out the drain, as well as doing anything else but log off in your own safespot every time with all your valuables. Just when it comes to WH space tactics as a "pure defender" I dont see any feasible way to have a chance for evacuation without the bubble, but I hope I am wrong.
Anyway, other than those two things, I really like the proposed changes.
They actually mentioned they want the new defenses to be more effective but purely active, meaning a player has to log in and man them.
Also you shouldn't be offline because your structures are only vulnerable to attack during a 4 hour window that you set. So that *should* be your corp's prime-time window.
Also since "the bubble" is being replaced with mooring or docking you should still be able to evac, but that's what this thread is for. Bringing up ideas and concerns so CCP can poor over them, cover a wall or four with post-it notes, and then come back with a list of ideas they're looking at actually implementing so we can get enraged about those
Terminator Cindy wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Setting aside the pessimism for a second what do you think would be a reasonable way to reimburse faction structure value? There could be 2 forms or reimbursement : - by similar value - by similar usefulness Either by reimbursing the money spent on the transaction when that module was bought or an average value of the market price, I think this would be the biggest reimbursement value in the history of eve. Injecting this kind of isk would not do good to eve economy. in the same time, nerfing those modules to almost useless, or reimbursing only a small fraction of their costs would hurt a large portion of eve players, most of which form the backbone of industry and research. That is why i think it makes much more sense to go with a reimbursement which will replace the modules with some of similar use in the new systems. Using them as modules to fit on the new structures would be the best solution in my opinion as it preserves the current professions ( and skills ), production and research lines for those modules, and also the faction ones ( loot/bpcs and existing modules ).
FYI it's impossible for CCP to reimburse the value you paid for an item. Item IDs are only unique so long as the item is unpackaged, as soon as it''s packaged again the unique ID is lost, along with any meta-data associated with that item. Also that kind of screws over anyone who bought these items during a slump in price or sufficiently far back that prices were lower.
I'm sure they'll try to preserve things as much as possible where they can, but I'd prefer if they didn't go with that as a design goal, since that limits what they can do with the new structures significantly, and these look far more interesting in the ways they differ from the current implementation than the ways in which they are similar to it.
I think there's also another option here you may not be considering, which is reimbursing the minerals and parts used to create these structures, though that obviously doesn't work for faction ones. |
Marox Calendale
Human League
46
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 08:27:14 -
[632] - Quote
Ioci wrote:All the old stuff falls in to a class in the new system. Outposts are in the XL class, all their own. POS are in a large class all their own. If I had to make a suggestion to CCP about the direction to take old stuff, I'd suggest an RnG retrofit option in stations and a new structure. That-¦s not correct, take a second view at the Pictures in dev blog. You will see that outpost will get large strctures while starbases (pos) do fit even much better which medium size structures. XL Structures are a new category which isn-¦t build by Players at the Moment. |
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 14:19:42 -
[633] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I think there's also another option here you may not be considering, which is reimbursing the minerals and parts used to create these structures, though that obviously doesn't work for faction ones.
absolutely - i do not mean it would be a prblem to reimburse the standard ones but for the faction ones it would be very difficult, since the price has changed over the years ( a faction tower was even over 4 bil at some point ).
IMO it would be a lot better to find a good use for these modules in the new structure system. |
james a ashdown
Andromeda Mining and Industry Aureus Alae
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 15:58:48 -
[634] - Quote
1st of all hats off to you CCP. The ideas you are proposing will change EVE (hopefully) for the better, but why stop hear? If you are going to make such huge changes push the boat out just that little further .
I have spent the large part of the day reading over a few 100 comments that others have come up with so far and some of them are very good ideas.
But 1st i would like to show my support for something a lot of players are concerned about.
1. Outposts
a) what is going to happen to the vary large investments made my corps and alliances for outpost upgrades installed after the indy update not so long ago. It would be unfair for z outpost owners to simply lose all that time and isk.
b) looking over the DEV blog you said that we where no longer going to be able to build outposts but you have not said what was going to happen with them. If they stay can they be destroyed or simply ownership can change? We also have to think about the players that may not have active accounts at the moment and do / would not know anything about these changes.It would also be unfair should they log back on after a years or so break to find that all there assets and billions / trillions of BPO's have been lost.
c) Just like the skill remapping you can redo after a set amount of time maybe once all this goes live every player should be given the option to move the items they wanted to a hi sec NPC station. this will give everyone the chance all at the same time the chance to get ready for such a huge change.
2. Structure BPO's
a) Current outpost and POS BPO's will be removed from the game. Whats going to happen the TIME & ISK invested in these items? An idea i seen commented before and 1 i had wished had played a part when the ME/TE was changed with the indy release in a similar way is a straight swap. Amarr POS BPO is swapped for XYZ. But then you probably want everyone to start from square 1 witch is fine however a resistible compo should be given for these items that takes into account the time and isk spent on the BPO its self. Fair is fair after all.
3. New stations
a) I like the fact that everything in EVE can be blown up even if as a industrialist i run the risk of losing everything, however such structures costing 10's of billions of isk should be no push over!!!
b) upon station being destroyed i am liking the idea of the cans however as someone has already pointed out we cant all fly what we build and in some cases betting back to our null sec space to retrieve such items may not even be possibly. would look forward to hearing more options regarding this.
c) I rely like the idea of being able to put a structure where ever i like eg. at a mining anom with the station guns to warn of would be hostiles after an easy kill. The rorqual would need looking at thou as no one is going so sit a 2bil ship that cant defend its self on grid.
d) Current POS BPO's require P4 PI to make, are the new stations also going to require this or should i stop my PI production now?
e) These station, like POS's can now must be movable to other locations or systems.
Ideas to look at
a) storage is going to be a huge prob with the new stations no matter how much you give us. so why not look at using some other aspects with in eve that are already there. for eg. planets and moons. How i would see this working is similar to PI but a complete new skill path. you set up a storage facility on planet or moon and have to use launch pad to send or retrieve your items. the better your skills the more storage you could have but to keep these facility running will mean you have to employ npc's on the planet to run things for you in turn costing isk to maintain. You could even go as far as needing living facility's for these npc's or something.
b) personnel and corporate items should remain just that. at no point should either items be put at risk by someones greed and access to such should be granted to selected members.
c) It would be a nice idea if i could set up contracts for my corp/ alliance members or even public to complete construction projects for my self / corp or even rent out my skills the same way. Z person would set up contract at reverent station with all the minerals, components and BPO's / BPC's needed to complete the job and a reward would be given for doing so.
d) Partition hangers or station cans to better organize assets. Its a pain having 30 - 40 cans all with different items in them when i could put all my BPO's in 1 can but separate them in to there own areas with in the same can, much like RL warehouses would.
e) More personal and corporate / alliance wallets.
f) Now im surprised this had not already been done but there you are. I would save my self so much time each week if i could keep track of and move my PI on planet ( not while logged in to game ) on my lunch break via the eve gate or an app for my tablet that i have to sign in and out of each time. Not so much blast things in to space but reset extractors and move PI from warehouse to warehouse and so on.
Ok so i guess i should say sorry for the wall of text but if you have made it this far fair play to you and im sure a lot of you will have something to say about the above and i look forward to hearing about it.
the last thing im going to say hear is as follows;
CCP we pay ur wages DON'T SCREW US OVER!!!!
|
Fird
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
6
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 17:35:44 -
[635] - Quote
Why not just add this content instead of replacing? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
359
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 21:39:03 -
[636] - Quote
Fird wrote:Why not just add this content instead of replacing?
Because the current structure content has all sorts of problems with it? Lets just think of a few issues with the current POS mechanics...
- Garage Door Cynos
- Activating a Cyno at full warp to place yourself inside a POS shield when you stop
- Bumping ships out of a forcefield, aka "POS bowling"
- Resetting the POS password to almost completely negate bubbles
- POS passwords in general are a poor access mechanic
- Fitting a POS requires more than just the POS in space, sometimes upwards of 30-40 in-space objects, plus the number of bubbles required to camp a POS. All of this generates lag and takes up system resources.
- The combined damage players deal to structures is almost greater than the combined damage players deal to NPCs
Marox Calendale wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Also you shouldn't be offline because your structures are only vulnerable to attack during a 4 hour window that you set. So that *should* be your corp's prime-time window. You-¦re mixing 2 different dev Blogs. It-¦s not quiet sure, that entosis links and/or Primetimes will work in other Areas than sov 0.0! It is a possible way, but at the Moment no one from CCP said that i will be like this.
This is how we've been told the Entosis mechanics will work, and the Structures dev blog lists which structures fall under which Entosis mechanics, though it's hidden in the icons of those progression tree images. Also current POS timezone mechanics apply to everyone, and structures without Timezone mechanics would very very obviously *suck*. Overall I think this is a reasonable assumption until something appears to contradict it.
Terminator Cindy wrote:absolutely - i do not mean it would be a prblem to reimburse the standard ones but for the faction ones it would be very difficult, since the price has changed over the years ( a faction tower was even over 4 bil at some point ).
IMO it would be a lot better to find a good use for these modules in the new structure system.
I just think there are too many problems for this to work effectively. Too many new structures and too much chance for a player to lose or gain a ton of value, which is bad for the economy. We can't have CSAAs turning into full new L or XL structures, and you don't want your POS to turn into something worth less than a current POS is.
Plus there are, IMO, better options that allow for a more even return on investment. |
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 07:37:09 -
[637] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Plus there are, IMO, better options that allow for a more even return on investment.
I absolutely hope there are, and that there will be employed. Because i am personally tired of how popular are, on this forum, the measures that hit the players investing into industry. Me and my co-workers have invested over 100 bil isk in bpos and faction bpcs and modules, and, if i say here that we decided to suspend our accounts if such measures are taken, this thread will fill with smart "can i haz your stuff" replies.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
363
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 08:17:23 -
[638] - Quote
Terminator Cindy wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Plus there are, IMO, better options that allow for a more even return on investment. I absolutely hope there are, and that there will be employed. Because i am personally tired of how popular are, on this forum, the measures that hit the players investing into industry. Me and my co-workers have invested over 100 bil isk in bpos and faction bpcs and modules, and, if i say here that we decided to suspend our accounts if such measures are taken, this thread will fill with smart "can i haz your stuff" replies.
This has less to do with you doing industry and more to do with that threat being, on the whole, like an Eve Online version of a 4 year old holding threat breath in response to a punishment. It inevitably comes up in every change or balance thread and while I'm sure some people carry it out that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Overall it's much more productive and effective to state your case clearly and with supporting evidence, especially in cases like this where reimbursing you isn't so much a game balance decision as a quality of life one and CCP has every reason for people to want to come away from this transition happy with the changes. |
OverlordY
Interspan
7
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 18:15:59 -
[639] - Quote
This has to be one of the most constructive threads in eve history.....
Yet the dev feedback is beyond lacking.. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 22:01:10 -
[640] - Quote
OverlordY wrote:This has to be one of the most constructive threads in eve history.....
Yet the dev feedback is beyond lacking..
This is pretty normal. Flurry of devs answering questions and clarifying early on, followed by them going into stealth mode, following the thread, and formulating plans and such behind the scenes. Then, eventually, we'll get a new thread with new info. The only reason Falcon and a few other devs are super active on the forums is because that's their job. If Rise or Fozzie are posting on here that's time they're not covering whiteboards with post-it notes and scribbles that eventually turn into a design post on here. |
|
Melissa Redoran
Economic Services
4
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 19:13:14 -
[641] - Quote
As feedback is welcomed by CCP I-¦d like to add some personal questions (forgive my ignorance - I-¦ve not read this entire thread... if mentioned before then add_counter +1)
- seems to me that some effort has been put into socialising players with each other, bringing them together to enjoy this game as a group. Introducing some sort of timezone system which allows attacks only within a specified timeframe for a few hours seems problematic here. Does this bring players from different timezones together or does this seperate them from another, eliminating the need for cooperation?
- if there`s a mechanic implemented like mentioned above, combined with "only owner can defend - must show up on the battlefield, beeing active": Imagine several alliances, Corporations working together - first one sets attack window from maybe 00:00 - 04:00 - second one from 05:00 - 09:00 a.s.o. Couldn-¦t this leed to some sort of gameplay like: Lets defend the assets of Alliance One with all members in our coaliton (Stations from Alliance 2-10 are safe *muha* - regroup for an hour - defend assets of Alliance Two with all coalition members ... *muha* most of our space ist safe ... a.s.o. !?
- Also implementing "you can kill this station but looting is only allowed for the owner" seems ... not very immersive or good gameplay to me. Attackers need logistic, time and much more to loot. They can be attacked and destroyed during this. And if not - well in this case they can already crush every attemp to save lost assets... Whats with "risk vs reward"? If you cant protect it - if u cant rescue your assets - you should change your actions and not being protected for that!
Brutal, harsh and unforgiving universe?
(btw. Every time this risk vs reward gets mentioned I hear Concord saying: Oh hello experienced player with 100m SP, noticed your high reward in everything you do ... but just let me protect you the same way I would protect a Newbie so you won-¦t leave my glourious highsec. Cooperation with other players, seeking for a place in the universe where you can protect yourself and your income ... forget about this - btw. fitting is so much easier ... just put this bulkhead on, I need a moment to spawn")
Over the years some core philosophies have been pointed out over and over again... but someone is breaking them over and over again, not thinking about them when "designing" new features or looking at older, implemented ones that clearly stand against them. Why is this so? Maybe some behaviour in terms of gameplay you try to fix with feature redesigns a.s.o. are only appearing because of this and all the effort, money and time you could use to take EVE to the next level, so it can compete with next generation games and live through the next 10, 20 years ... well, enough of that.
All this years you dreamed of this playerdriven universe, reducing npc impact more and more, transfering more and more into players hands ... leading to a CCP featuresuggestion to introduce hauling with npcs (OFCOURSE only low volume ... ofcourse ... and you can shoot at them ... awsome...)
Greetings |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
383
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 21:50:19 -
[642] - Quote
Answers or responses for some of these...
Melissa Redoran wrote:- seems to me that some effort has been put into socialising players with each other, bringing them together to enjoy this game as a group. Introducing some sort of timezone system which allows attacks only within a specified timeframe for a few hours seems problematic here. Does this bring players from different timezones together or does this seperate them from another, eliminating the need for cooperation?
This is just an extension of the current POS-fuel mechanics. It's impractical to have structures vulnerable at every hour since this makes it very easy for a group in a different country or simply one with a different play-schedule to move in and knock over your stuff when you aren't available to defend it.
Melissa Redoran wrote:- if there`s a mechanic implemented like mentioned above, combined with "only owner can defend - must show up on the battlefield, beeing active": Imagine several alliances, Corporations working together - first one sets attack window from maybe 00:00 - 04:00 - second one from 05:00 - 09:00 a.s.o. Couldn-¦t this leed to some sort of gameplay like: Lets defend the assets of Alliance One with all members in our coaliton (Stations from Alliance 2-10 are safe *muha* - regroup for an hour - defend assets of Alliance Two with all coalition members ... *muha* most of our space ist safe ... a.s.o. !?
Yes, but it's unlikely that all members of both groups would be able to show up for a 9 hour defense block on a week night, especially since Eve's player-base has a significant portion mid-20's or older. Realistically there's nothing stopping you from simply moving everyone under one Alliance banner.
Melissa Redoran wrote:- Also implementing "you can kill this station but looting is only allowed for the owner" seems ... not very immersive or good gameplay to me. Attackers need logistic, time and much more to loot. They can be attacked and destroyed during this. And if not - well in this case they can already crush every attemp to save lost assets... Whats with "risk vs reward"? If you cant protect it - if u cant rescue your assets - you should change your actions and not being protected for that!
You still have to recover the displaced/salvageable assets which provides a lot of risk as you yourself pointed out here. The alternative is people keeping the majority of their assets in High, Low, or NPC Null stations for greater safety. Even under current Outpost mechanics the worst that can happen to your stuff is you lose access to it due to station permissions, and most of the time you can put up a contract to courier it out after the dust has settled or sell it off to the new occupants.
Melissa Redoran wrote:Brutal, harsh and unforgiving universe?
(btw. Every time this risk vs reward gets mentioned I hear Concord saying: Oh hello experienced player with 100m SP, noticed your high reward in everything you do ... but just let me protect you the same way I would protect a Newbie so you won-¦t leave my glourious highsec. Cooperation with other players, seeking for a place in the universe where you can protect yourself and your income ... forget about this - btw. fitting is so much easier ... just put this bulkhead on, I need a moment to spawn")
Over the years some core philosophies have been pointed out over and over again... but someone is breaking them over and over again, not thinking about them when "designing" new features or looking at older, implemented ones that clearly stand against them. Why is this so? Maybe some behaviour in terms of gameplay you try to fix with feature redesigns a.s.o. are only appearing because of this and all the effort, money and time you could use to take EVE to the next level, so it can compete with next generation games and live through the next 10, 20 years ... well, enough of that.
All this years you dreamed of this playerdriven universe, reducing npc impact more and more, transfering more and more into players hands ... leading to a CCP featuresuggestion to introduce hauling with npcs (OFCOURSE only low volume ... ofcourse ... and you can shoot at them ... awsome...)
Greetings
I feel like you're forgetting two of the other core tenets of the game here. That the game should be fun within the above constraints and that the game should encourage meaningful choices. Hence Low Slots on freighters, NPC hauling, ect.
Regarding NPC hauling specifically players have asked for more reason to play with the NPC convoys ever since the old incentive to gank them was removed (unique items). In this case this is combined with a unique trade-off for the player. They can either run over in a fast Frigate or maybe even a Shuttle to pick up their item or they can put out an order, risk that the item won't make it to them, and keep doing what they're doing.
I'd also like to posit that the vast majority of players who refuse to leave High Sec would, if forced to or if the risk/reward balance was tipped significantly far away from them, probably leave the game rather than leave High Sec, and this would likely kill the game. |
Melissa Redoran
Economic Services
4
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 08:53:04 -
[643] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Answers or responses for some of these... This is just an extension of the current POS-fuel mechanics. It's impractical to have structures vulnerable at every hour since this makes it very easy for a group in a different country or simply one with a different play-schedule to move in and knock over your stuff when you aren't available to defend it. [...] Yes, but it's unlikely that all members of both groups would be able to show up for a 9 hour defense block on a week night, especially since Eve's player-base has a significant portion mid-20's or older. Realistically there's nothing stopping you from simply moving everyone under one Alliance banner. [...] You still have to recover the displaced/salvageable assets which provides a lot of risk as you yourself pointed out here. The alternative is people keeping the majority of their assets in High, Low, or NPC Null stations for greater safety. Even under current Outpost mechanics the worst that can happen to your stuff is you lose access to it due to station permissions, and most of the time you can put up a contract to courier it out after the dust has settled or sell it off to the new occupants.
I guess we will see which gameplay evolves around this new mechanics. Hoping for the best here
Quote: I feel like you're forgetting two of the other core tenets of the game here. That the game should be fun within the above constraints and that the game should encourage meaningful choices. Hence Low Slots on freighters, NPC hauling, ect.
Regarding NPC hauling specifically players have asked for more reason to play with the NPC convoys ever since the old incentive to gank them was removed (unique items). In this case this is combined with a unique trade-off for the player. They can either run over in a fast Frigate or maybe even a Shuttle to pick up their item or they can put out an order, risk that the item won't make it to them, and keep doing what they're doing.
I'd also like to posit that the vast majority of players who refuse to leave High Sec would, if forced to or if the risk/reward balance was tipped significantly far away from them, probably leave the game rather than leave High Sec, and this would likely kill the game.
But - especially for NPC hauling:
- this will clearly cut a player profession reducing possible income and opportunities - Making NPC haulers valuable for ganking can be achived in other ways - think of NPC tradegoods a.s.o. - Creating meaningful choices? Let-¦s follow this path a little bit: - Choose if you want to hire NPCs (more risk - more reward) or players (less risk - less reward)? Shouldn-¦t this be the other way around to support player interactions? - If this is possible for hauling, let-¦s extend all other professions with such a meaningful choice, too! Theres no point in just cutting one profession: - Choose how you get low volumes of minerals to produce your ship: hire NPC miners that are expecially vulnerable (ofcourse) - Choose who would produce just this one ship you would like to fly - hire NPC producers or player producers (ofcourse NPC producers will be ... somehow ... very risky and rewarding.
So much choices everywhere
See the point im concernd of? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
384
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 09:24:54 -
[644] - Quote
Melissa Redoran wrote:But - especially for NPC hauling: - this will clearly cut a player profession reducing possible income and opportunities - Making NPC haulers valuable for ganking can be achived in other ways - think of NPC tradegoods a.s.o. - Creating meaningful choices? Let-¦s follow this path a little bit: - Choose if you want to hire NPCs (more risk - more reward) or players (less risk - less reward)? Shouldn-¦t this be the other way around to support player interactions? - If this is possible for hauling, let-¦s extend all other professions with such a meaningful choice, too! Theres no point in just cutting one profession: - Choose how you get low volumes of minerals to produce your ship: hire NPC miners that are expecially vulnerable (ofcourse) - Choose who would produce just this one ship you would like to fly - hire NPC or player manufacturers (ofcourse NPCs will be ... somehow ... very risky and rewarding, only manufacturing T1...) - a.s.o. So much choices everywhere See the point im concerned off? It-¦s already possible to set up courier contracts and do whatever you are doing while someone else hauls your stuff. You just have to pay for it. (Some thing most of the players I got to know in EVE wouldn-¦t like to do for haulingservices.) What about newbies who would like to enjoy especially hauling and trading, only able to carry low volumes, low values, low collaterals with them?
As far as I'm aware low-volume short-distance (sub 10 jumps) hauling isn't an active profession in Eve, and I suspect CCP's metrics support this. It should be fairly easy for them to take a survey of all Courier Contracts in the last six months which were actually fulfilled and check the distance traveled and the load in m3 and determine what a reasonable range for this new service is.
The main problem is that the cost per jump is generally prohibitively expensive for inexpensive small volume goods, and the newbies who might be interested in such contracts can't afford the collateral on even a set of T2 Medium Guns (around 8-9 Million) and if you want something in, say, the next hour then you're probably better off firing up a second client, making a brand new alt, and having him move your stuff since Courier Contracts not done through Red Frog or someone similar (who don't do low-volume/low-collateral for particularly cheap) can take days to fulfill and even Red Frog takes 24 hours most of the time.
I also wouldn't say hiring an NPC is more reward. It's small volume, probably slower than a player ship carrying a similar volume of goods, and more likely to be targeted (because no Concordoken) meaning you don't get the reward at all some percentage of the time.
Comparing this to Player Hauling, having a player haul your stuff is probably more expensive, but potentially faster if realistically much slower (due to the time for someone to actually accepting your contract, if they do at all), more reliable, and if your stuff blows up in transit you get a collateral payment. |
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
593
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 17:26:51 -
[645] - Quote
Are there any plans to expand these structures as larger conflict drivers for high security space? There is an idea I want to throw out that would help promote more conflict for space utilizing entities in highsec.
Structures should be providing bonuses to things like mission running and mining with the added logistics of maintaining them and the added risk of defending them. From what I gather from the dev blogs this looks to be the direction you are taking.
Instead of structures providing a set bonus for the deploying corp or alliance though, how about structures leech bonus from a collective pool for each system?
Imagine for a moment that each system offers a 30% bonus to mission profits or mining through the deployment of structures. If one corp deploys the structure they receive the 30% bonus for that activity. If a second corp deploys the structure, each corp receives only a 15% bonus for that activity. Three structures, 10% each.
This would promote either cooperation between the corps (forming one larger corp) or competition between them (kill the other corp's structures to get your full bonus). Systems like Osmon and ice systems would be a proper warzone.
To prevent abuse we would add an industrial index to the equation. There are two ways to prevent abuse using that. 1) You need to have a certain amount of industrial activity in the system before you can deploy the structure. or 2) The structures start with leeching 0% bonus from the system pool and only gain bonus through industrial activity.
The numbers are arbitrary of course but you get the picture. The idea is to have the presence of structures affect not only the deploying corp, but the other corps that utilize the system. This creates conflict.
There are all our dominion
Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
|
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 05:34:21 -
[646] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I'd also like to posit that the vast majority of players who refuse to leave High Sec would, if forced to or if the risk/reward balance was tipped significantly far away from them, probably leave the game rather than leave High Sec, and this would likely kill the game.
Absolutely agree.
Also should note that most of the industry corporations are run by a small number of players ( usually with a large number of accounts ). Small, relatively easy defendable spaces are their territory ( hence the success of Apocrypha and the w-space ). Destroy this balance and most of them will rather leave than move to null.
|
Rumbaldi
Quantum Innovations Limited
15
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 10:03:52 -
[647] - Quote
Will this make a lot of the current structure/POS related BPOs obsolete or will the items (like turrets etc) like be manufactured as they are now but the fitting of those items on a POS be different? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
392
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 15:31:50 -
[648] - Quote
Rumbaldi wrote:Will this make a lot of the current structure/POS related BPOs obsolete or will the items (like turrets etc) like be manufactured as they are now but the fitting of those items on a POS be different?
They're going to eventually become obsolete. Old items and BPOs will be reimbursed in some as yet to be determined/disclosed way.
Per the Fanfest presentation the new modules will be Structure Only so they aren't tied to the balancing of ship weapons and modules in any way.
It's possible reimbursement will involve the conversion of some old stuff into new stuff but we don't know that for sure right now. We've actually been discussing reimbursement and what would be fair for the last ~4-5 pages. |
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
32
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 16:35:04 -
[649] - Quote
CCP, if you read this far and took notes. I want to thank you for your efforts!
Okay, get back to work now. chop-chop! |
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
365
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 21:48:17 -
[650] - Quote
I haven't seen any mention of structure tank modules. Will all structures have the same amount of hp?
Also, are entosis structures destructible at all?
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
403
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 23:18:59 -
[651] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:I haven't seen any mention of structure tank modules. Will all structures have the same amount of hp?
Also, are entosis structures destructible at all?
The whole point of Entosis Sov is that there is no more structure HP. Fitting tank to one of these structures would be completely pointless.
As to structure destruction, read the Dev Blog it's all in there. Alternatively there's a Fanfest presentation on Youtube with mostly the same content. (short answer, yes, you can Entosis some things into blowing up) |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 14:06:16 -
[652] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Iris Bravemount wrote:I haven't seen any mention of structure tank modules. Will all structures have the same amount of hp?
Also, are entosis structures destructible at all? The whole point of Entosis Sov is that there is no more structure HP. Fitting tank to one of these structures would be completely pointless. As to structure destruction, read the Dev Blog it's all in there. Alternatively there's a Fanfest presentation on Youtube with mostly the same content. (short answer, yes, you can Entosis some things into blowing up)
Well, there will still be structures (medium and below me thinks?) that are unaffected by the magic sov wand and will be destructible by means of hp grind. For those it would make perfect sense to have tanking modules. Introduces choices to be made about how to use which slot on the fitting screen and such, which is (almost) always good. |
Teddy J Rogers
Society of Mechanics Engineers and Gearheads
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 02:55:54 -
[653] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Fitting tank to one of these structures would be completely pointless.
Pun intended? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
404
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 03:10:28 -
[654] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:Well, there will still be structures (medium and below me thinks?) that are unaffected by the magic sov wand and will be destructible by means of hp grind. For those it would make perfect sense to have tanking modules. Introduces choices to be made about how to use which slot on the fitting screen and such, which is (almost) always good.
That assumes that those structures will even have fittings. Since the small Structures obviously won't and the only Medium analogue we have so far is the POCO it's questionable whether or not these structures will have module slots.
Teddy J Rogers wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Fitting tank to one of these structures would be completely pointless. Pun intended?
Nope, really I'm still not sure what the pun is supposed to be... something about the structure not fitting a Warp Disruptor? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2128
|
Posted - 2015.05.07 10:04:59 -
[655] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:The whole point of Entosis Sov is that there is no more structure HP. Fitting tank to one of these structures would be completely pointless. As to structure destruction, read the Dev Blog it's all in there. Alternatively there's a Fanfest presentation on Youtube with mostly the same content. (short answer, yes, you can Entosis some things into blowing up) No, the point of Entosis Sov is that you don't HAVE to structure grind to take undefended space. If it removes the option of simply blowing the other guys **** up in the current manner, that's not so good. |
Icikurbt
DucKtape Unlimited SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 02:20:08 -
[656] - Quote
So for the players at of all this i love it and so does most everyone i talk too.
Issue is that your going to do it in phases. Offering us blueprints to buy, Then we have to mine, skill, build and then place these new structures. We already did all that with the soon to be old structures.
What kind of blueprint change over if any will we might see, ie: small tower for new small structure. So i do not have to buy a blueprint for a small structure again. i could keep going but hopefuly you get it..gun for gun
Cause the biggest game ending item that i hear is that something needs to happen so all the time i spent researching, mining, building, and then placing null sec stations, poses, upgrading them and systems. Does not just go to waste and not all of it just go to the current owning corp or alliance holding corp. As all alliance players will tell you that you don't own ****, the alliance does. And alot of poses out there are not owned by the corps that have them anchored they are owned by players that have gotten the roles to place them ....
So to re imburse anything how to do it so. Everyone benifits. Is going to be your issue |
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise
74
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 08:20:51 -
[657] - Quote
I mentioned this in another thread. Make Steath Bombers D-scan immune vs current cloak effects.
The d-scan immune is a new feature and probably not possible back in the day of SBs. But now it is a feature and should be put to use -- side note-- would love to see a pirate faction line with all D-scan immune ships - maybe even a intra-system hauler like the specialized gallente hulls
xoxo
Amarisen Gream
|
Vasama
Nosferatu Security Foundation
3
|
Posted - 2015.05.11 18:13:30 -
[658] - Quote
Here is little brainstorming about the structures.
I was at the fanfest and heard the applauds when a graf was shown how the DPS for structure grind is supposed to drop after the new system. I thought it is nice, but then again is it really so? What is truly a great alternative?
There needs to be enough commitment from attacker and time from defender to react to initial assault. No matter what kind of method is used for that. Ex. I think current POCO system is pretty successful. If attacker commits heavily defender has a shorter time to react, if commitment is less there is plenty of time for defender to react for the initial attack - how ever the real contest is when the timer ends. Now if a single ship could make a structure invulnerable in relatively short time that would open up too big grief game play. Just to make the target vulnerable - just because you can. Other side has to react even the aggressor never meant to finish the job. Threat has to be committed in order to make defender to commit to defence. One mosquito bite should not result CTA.
New structures should be able to be given away, occupied or destroyed. Governing them is not easy. Should you turn your structures to 3rd party who would have right to do that? Dual or triple directors signing off? Should there be several options that could be selected when the structure would go active? How could that be changed as the game goes on and playing field changes, corps change folks go inactive etc. All those scenarios should be taken to account somehow.
How about the capture? What if there would be a new unit introduced to Eve - Space Marines, (produced as PI product) and having upkeep of food, weapons for training and fighting (more PI products) or just ISK. If you manage to siege structure you could send in the marines. Taking account the defending garrison some sort of of abstract fight would go on. Landing ships should be easy to blow off, yet the defender could reinforce the garrison by bringing in the troops in any kind of vessels and docking up.
After the successful capture structure would not be fully operational. An administrative period of several days could go on - pretty much depending how long the fight has been taken. Maybe there would be some repairs to be carried out again ISK or materials or maybe it would just burn more fuel for some time.
Should there be an option for the defender to self destruct the structure in order to deny asset from the attacker? Again who has the right to sign off the command?
Then again just killing a structure with ships should require firepower - pretty much like a current POS bash - expect the defences would be functional in all the time? Or should there be a way to shut down the defences of the new structures some how? If we would have marines would they be able to destroy the structure easier from inside?
Being able to run a structure as a service to other players and putting tax on it can be nice addition to Eve content. But in order to make it really work the tax set up has to have power. It cannot be just flat % by standing or alliance or corp. Eve has great industry it needs the tax system to match that. Goal should be that you can direct production by taxation even on individual character level, but you donGÇÖt have to. Needs can be so different on different set ups.
I don't think that structure should be fully operational immediately after launch. There should a time during the structure would be some what more vulnerable for attack and it would take longer time before it could accept ships or be able to produce any economic benefits for the user. Ex dropping a structure to act as a forward base. There should be a time before it can accept ships and give ex fitting service etc.
Ships leaving from structure: You need to be able to watch the structure from outside in order to see what kind of visible threats there are. Maybe the access to outside view could be restricted if needed? There could be several launch tubes to different direction from the hangar. The tube would act like micro jump drive or mobile micro jump unit. There could a possibility to dial in the distance from 50 km to 100 km or some other figures. Main question is should you be able to warp immediately back to the station? Actually this method could be already be introduced to the stations in New Eden right now. Ex Jita 4-4 could have several launch tubes toward all star gates and several other directions. That would make departing, especially with the big ships, a lot easier. Nor would there be anymore station docking games same way as now. It would lead to smoother game play all around. Anyhow end result is that if you want to bubble up the structure to prohibit departure you really need a lot of bubbles or bigger bubbles need to be created. It would not have a difference on bubbles for the ships trying to dock to structure. There could be some lateral segregation system on the launch tubes to prevent bowling effects from micro jump drives. Also the capacity could be limited so you should choose the one with shorter queue in order to get out faster. Reduced capacity would mean that hole fleet could not launch as one but if the full launch capacity would be used the ships would be shooting to all directions.
Vasama
IGÇÖd ruther see good system at 2018 then mediocre implementation 2016.
|
Aker Krane
OMEGADYNE LABS Rising Darkness
12
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:06:31 -
[659] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Rumbaldi wrote:Will this make a lot of the current structure/POS related BPOs obsolete or will the items (like turrets etc) like be manufactured as they are now but the fitting of those items on a POS be different? They're going to eventually become obsolete. Old items and BPOs will be reimbursed in some as yet to be determined/disclosed way.Per the Fanfest presentation the new modules will be Structure Only so they aren't tied to the balancing of ship weapons and modules in any way. It's possible reimbursement will involve the conversion of some old stuff into new stuff but we don't know that for sure right now. We've actually been discussing reimbursement and what would be fair for the last ~4-5 pages. __________________________________________
LetGÇÖs just say, I am more than a little apprehensive on this one.
I and many others were severely shortchanged when it came to CCP fiats which deleted or combined components in the past. Blueprints are especially concerning.
I and others have made SIGNIFICANT investments over the years in the existing structure BPOs. Both in initial cost AND years of R&D to make these BPOs competitive. After Crius, CCP introduced scaling research costs that some of us have undertaken on our BPOs in order to bring them up competitive margins. These costs, in both time and isk are non-trivial.
Being reimbursed for heavily researched BPOs solely for the NPC cost of these items is NOT acceptable or in any way equitable/reasonable.
These were not items that were gifted or part of a lottery. These were items which we bought from NPC entities, we paid NPC taxes and fees and invested large amounts of time to R&D them.
Furthermore, due to the current NPC copy costs, it is no longer acceptable to just delete the copies of these items. Again, the copy costs of many of these BPOs are non-trivial. As an example, it costs between 10 and 30 Million isk per run (dependent on the indices of the particular system) to make a copy of an outpost BPO.
I have a feeling a lot of folks are going to get stiffed again by CCP on this one.
|
Rumbaldi
Quantum Innovations Limited
15
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 15:05:43 -
[660] - Quote
Aker Krane wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Rumbaldi wrote:Will this make a lot of the current structure/POS related BPOs obsolete or will the items (like turrets etc) like be manufactured as they are now but the fitting of those items on a POS be different? They're going to eventually become obsolete. Old items and BPOs will be reimbursed in some as yet to be determined/disclosed way.Per the Fanfest presentation the new modules will be Structure Only so they aren't tied to the balancing of ship weapons and modules in any way. It's possible reimbursement will involve the conversion of some old stuff into new stuff but we don't know that for sure right now. We've actually been discussing reimbursement and what would be fair for the last ~4-5 pages. __________________________________________ LetGÇÖs just say, I am more than a little apprehensive on this one. I and many others were severely shortchanged when it came to CCP fiats which deleted or combined components in the past. Blueprints are especially concerning. I and others have made SIGNIFICANT investments over the years in the existing structure BPOs. Both in initial cost AND years of R&D to make these BPOs competitive. After Crius, CCP introduced scaling research costs that some of us have undertaken on our BPOs in order to bring them up competitive margins. These costs, in both time and isk are non-trivial. Being reimbursed for heavily researched BPOs solely for the NPC cost of these items is NOT acceptable or in any way equitable/reasonable. These were not items that were gifted or part of a lottery. These were items which we bought from NPC entities, we paid NPC taxes and fees and invested large amounts of time to R&D them. Furthermore, due to the current NPC copy costs, it is no longer acceptable to just delete the copies of these items. Again, the copy costs of many of these BPOs are non-trivial. As an example, it costs between 10 and 30 Million isk per run (dependent on the indices of the particular system) to make a copy of an outpost BPO. I have a feeling a lot of folks are going to get stiffed again by CCP on this one.
I am not really familiar with the ins and outs of it, I was thinking of getting some BPOs hence my original question but think ill hold off. I cannot imagine CCP refunding the BPOs on a scale of research, just like I cannot see them refunding billions per BPO if they ever get rid of T2 BPOs. And how heavily researched BPOs were not reimbursed in any way when the ME/TE went to 10/20
I would assume their train of thinking is that as time move forward and they improve the game then older aspects and options need to be taken away to make room for the new. This is of course just an opinion but one that is more likely (I think) than anything else.
|
|
Zan- nah
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 17:43:22 -
[661] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Rumbaldi wrote:Will this make a lot of the current structure/POS related BPOs obsolete or will the items (like turrets etc) like be manufactured as they are now but the fitting of those items on a POS be different? They're going to eventually become obsolete. Old items and BPOs will be reimbursed in some as yet to be determined/disclosed way.Per the Fanfest presentation the new modules will be Structure Only so they aren't tied to the balancing of ship weapons and modules in any way. It's possible reimbursement will involve the conversion of some old stuff into new stuff but we don't know that for sure right now. We've actually been discussing reimbursement and what would be fair for the last ~4-5 pages.
I wonder what will become of existing faction towers? |
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 07:20:50 -
[662] - Quote
Zan- nah wrote:I wonder what will become of existing faction towers?
There are dozens of faction modules which are in the same situation. I have asked this many times, including by petition, without answer. |
Ragren
DS Trading Corp
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 17:42:11 -
[663] - Quote
very interesting.... But my corp took a huge income loss when the copy system changed and a titan copy went from 4 to 10 bill to a whopping 250 mill on a 60 bill investment per titan bpo... x4. Not even accounting for reasearch time.. We now have a significant amount in Pos's and parts. the pos's are now worth half what they were purchased for. How do you intend to refund for these assets. We have had to stop some production to wait on some of these changes. They appear to be 3 to 9 months out.
the time setting up data core income is also headed out the window. You have taxed it and complicated production. hours of spreadsheets out the window. I like production and use it to fund the combat side. I am getting this removed.
As a two member corp we did the grinding for 7 years. Take a little more time considering consequences.
Venting done...
The graphics are amazing...
About time mining made sense in Null sec
Hoping new station system comes soon so upgrades can be done a business resumed
Ragren |
Pelle Wittewoa
University of Caille Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 13:58:53 -
[664] - Quote
Aker Krane wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Rumbaldi wrote:Will this make a lot of the current structure/POS related BPOs obsolete or will the items (like turrets etc) like be manufactured as they are now but the fitting of those items on a POS be different? They're going to eventually become obsolete. Old items and BPOs will be reimbursed in some as yet to be determined/disclosed way.Per the Fanfest presentation the new modules will be Structure Only so they aren't tied to the balancing of ship weapons and modules in any way. It's possible reimbursement will involve the conversion of some old stuff into new stuff but we don't know that for sure right now. We've actually been discussing reimbursement and what would be fair for the last ~4-5 pages. __________________________________________ LetGÇÖs just say, I am more than a little apprehensive on this one. I and many others were severely shortchanged when it came to CCP fiats which deleted or combined components in the past. Blueprints are especially concerning. I and others have made SIGNIFICANT investments over the years in the existing structure BPOs. Both in initial cost AND years of R&D to make these BPOs competitive. After Crius, CCP introduced scaling research costs that some of us have undertaken on our BPOs in order to bring them up competitive margins. These costs, in both time and isk are non-trivial. Being reimbursed for heavily researched BPOs solely for the NPC cost of these items is NOT acceptable or in any way equitable/reasonable. These were not items that were gifted or part of a lottery. These were items which we bought from NPC entities, we paid NPC taxes and fees and invested large amounts of time to R&D them. Furthermore, due to the current NPC copy costs, it is no longer acceptable to just delete the copies of these items. Again, the copy costs of many of these BPOs are non-trivial. As an example, it costs between 10 and 30 Million isk per run (dependent on the indices of the particular system) to make a copy of an outpost BPO. I have a feeling a lot of folks are going to get stiffed again by CCP on this one. We are ****** Aker, say bye bye 140b in station's (As builder, have 4 around, unsellable, locked up cash), bpo's, yeeeears of reseach and "ze business". Have lost 200b in T2bpo value with the T2 industry changes. And now, with this, i predict at least 50b void. 312 plex: poooof: 4687 Euro in value, being put out of the prizepool.
As reimbursement, i would like to suggest the following: Outpost bpo reimbursement based on the NPC prize + (current difficulty level of outpost's (the highest i guess out my head) and their current ME PE research level). The same for the components. The build only (but not deployed) should be ME0 bpo > (PI sell cost jita + installationcost's (components + outpost (roughly 1.3b also))). The deployed ones: Who ever deployed the station first > active 1: executive corp, director. They did the investment. |
Kail Izzraham
Spacelys Manufacturing Exploration and Mining Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 04:24:19 -
[665] - Quote
I love the idea, and the POS system is indeed in need of a major overhaul.
But of everything I read (which is brilliant I must say), there was only one section that troubles me. That was "...Encourage interaction between groups of players: Partly covered before, we want our new system to greatly favor player interactions via cooperative or competitive gameplay....".
Interaction and/or cooperative game play is rare. You really have your private groups so to speak, I have not seen (as of yet anyway) much in the way of anything being 'social' in nature, and to me anyways, interaction and cooperation is a social mechanic. I try to be social when ever possible, but 99% of the time I get nothing but dead air in return.
No matter I am still looking forward to seeing what exciting new features they bring. |
Aker Krane
OMEGADYNE LABS Rising Darkness
14
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 14:07:03 -
[666] - Quote
[/quote] We are ****** Aker, say bye bye 140b in station's (As builder, have 4 around, unsellable, locked up cash), bpo's, yeeeears of reseach and "ze business". Have lost 200b in T2bpo value with the T2 industry changes. And now, with this, i predict at least 50b void. 312 plex: poooof: 4687 Euro in value, being put out of the prizepool.
As reimbursement, i would like to suggest the following: Outpost bpo reimbursement based on the NPC prize + (current difficulty level of outpost's (the highest i guess out my head) and their current ME PE research level). The same for the components. The build only (but not deployed) should be ME0 bpo > (PI sell cost jita + installationcost's (components + outpost (roughly 1.3b also))). The deployed ones: Who ever deployed the station first > active 1: executive corp, director. They did the investment.[/quote]
Could not agree with you more Pelle.
If CCP goes with just an NPC reimbursement on these items, I will be out 270-300 B in sunk costs. To me, this is non-trivial amount of investment.
Since Crius, It has almost felt as if CCP has declared war of sorts on industrialists.
|
Pelle Wittewoa
University of Caille Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 22:22:46 -
[667] - Quote
Aker Krane wrote: Since Crius, It has almost felt as if CCP has declared war of sorts on industrialists.
Yeah indeed a little bit. I merely think thou, that all they are trying to do, is taking (excessive corporate) ISK out of the economy and in the meanwhile balance all income forms. I think their focus was long on the first step: easier income source balance: Mission, NPC, FW, Plexing, lp ect balancing. And my feeling is that it is slowly drifting towards upwards. With Step two balanced; Industry and especially marginalizing T2 manufacturing and invention incomes: make it more accessible for the lesser gifted players and finally deal with the T2 bpo issue. Step 3, is being discussed here with hints by the developers and lies into structures. The future of alliance income is going to be generated by the masses: in form of industrial revenue. One of th+¬ biggest major issue, the EVE sandbox core has ever had, (and needs to solve if it ever want to be mainstream MMO) is identifiable by asking yourselve the question: "How will EVE look like-, and be as an experience, if it was easier and just as cheap to get a fully fitted ship in high populated nullsec space as in dixodie (example)?" If you think what this could mean, to the game on long term, it will radically improve the experience by a hugh factor! And as i see it for now, it could actually work! Given the structural bonuses are equally reflected in the profit-vs-risk-vs-effort equation in compared to being/staying in safer sec. If that happens, the Hart of PewPew will be the future center of nullsec space. Ohhh boyy, welcome 100k Active user Peaks \0/ Very exiting times.
(As i know, at least one dev reads this: i would like to donate my props of the rest of the year, to the dev that came up with the spelling checker to the forums!) |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra Gallente Federation
224
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 07:09:24 -
[668] - Quote
Drilling platforms GÇó Service module possibilities: Reprocessing, moon harvesting, reactions, mining, gas harvesting. We also are considering new harvesting gameplay mechanics. We could for instance have pollution gas clouds form around drilling structures that see high activity, or seed small planetoids in specific asteroid belts and scanable sites which require a drilling platform to break it down in smaller harvestable rocks.
Good idea. Certain rocks, gas and ice when mined when increase the pollution cloud index. The Drilling platform would give varied bonuses to their applied field of mining or harvesting. The pilot would have to dock to with the platform then pay a fee based on daily, weekley or monthly charge rates for the applied bonus.
Administration Hubs - Docking with the Admin Hub would allow the pilot access to all of the system facilities that the Hub is connected to for a fee. Bonuses that are applied from the Admin Hub however would be less than acutally paying for the bonus fee from each specific facility but would cost less than purchasing the bonus from the specific facility. Once a pilot has paid for a bonus in the Admin Hub the pilot could not purchase the bonus from a specific facility until the contract date had expired.
Will the new facilities provide any type of defense ships such as drones or fighter and fighter bomber protection to those who purchase the bonus contracts from a facility?
I would think that this type of defense would create a new market for industry in producing the specified drones and small strike craft.
The Defense Force could be deployed by the facility and then directed to a planet, a belt or bookmarked location. Duration of time in space would be determined by the facility managers skill level plus the Defense Force Manager's skill level. For example an Admin Hub would have at most the ability to launch 3 waves of T1 Defense Drones (comparable to Medium Integrated Drones or Faction Drones) that would stay in space for two, four, six, eight or ten minutes before returning to their facility automatically. Once at a location the drones would attack any ship that does not fit the facilities standing criteria such as NRDS or the normal standing system. Defense Forces could be attacked by pilots and NPC but they could not attack NPC unless first attacked. |
Obulus Akiga
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 13:42:41 -
[669] - Quote
I am not sure if this has been mentioned yet, I don't have time to read through all the posts but I second this if someone has mentioned it.
Outright removing structures in place all over New Eden then having to put up the new ones in their place just seems like a serious issue. If I am upset that even my medium tower and a few POCOs will have to be replaced, I can't imagine how furious the bigger alliances are. I mean it's a hell of a lot of stress even on a small level, I would imagine entire alliances having to practically fold their sov and rebuilt from the ground-up. If they can put in such an enormous effort to replace everything, then wow I would be amazed. This is putting an incredible amount of stress on the community.
I think we should have an option to CONVERT existing structures into the new, appropriate replacement. We should have the same grace period as we would have completely renovating our entire structure purely for converting structures. I have read the devblog twice on the structures, and it sounds incredible and I love the idea, but removing structures and having to replace them completely - not so much. For example towers of small, medium, and large can be converted into an appropriate new replacement - maybe make it safe to do this over a period of downtime. Same with other structures such as outposts of various sizes being converted to an appropriate replacement, as well as other structures in the game.
I just feel that everyone actually having to replace everything is dangerous for the game and hurting the players. I highly suggest this is looked into. I have been playing MMO's since 2004 and I have tried out many of them. When MMOs take out stuff, it's always a bad thing and hurts the game.
Would you guys suddenly take out spaceships instead of just re-balancing, updating models, textures, graphics etc? Structures are an even more serious issue than taking out spaceships without some kind of replacement put in place. They take a ton of work and it will ruin literally the working processes of entire alliances. |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
527
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 14:27:56 -
[670] - Quote
Obulus Akiga wrote:I am not sure if this has been mentioned yet, I don't have time to read through all the posts but I second this if someone has mentioned it.
Outright removing structures in place all over New Eden then having to put up the new ones in their place just seems like a serious issue. If I am upset that even my medium tower and a few POCOs will have to be replaced, I can't imagine how furious the bigger alliances are. I mean it's a hell of a lot of stress even on a small level, I would imagine entire alliances having to practically fold their sov and rebuilt from the ground-up. If they can put in such an enormous effort to replace everything, then wow I would be amazed. This is putting an incredible amount of stress on the community.
I think we should have an option to CONVERT existing structures into the new, appropriate replacement. We should have the same grace period as we would have completely renovating our entire structure purely for converting structures. I have read the devblog twice on the structures, and it sounds incredible and I love the idea, but removing structures and having to replace them completely - not so much. For example towers of small, medium, and large can be converted into an appropriate new replacement - maybe make it safe to do this over a period of downtime. Same with other structures such as outposts of various sizes being converted to an appropriate replacement, as well as other structures in the game.
I just feel that everyone actually having to replace everything is dangerous for the game and hurting the players. I highly suggest this is looked into. I have been playing MMO's since 2004 and I have tried out many of them. When MMOs take out stuff, it's always a bad thing and hurts the game.
Would you guys suddenly take out spaceships instead of just re-balancing, updating models, textures, graphics etc? Structures are an even more serious issue than taking out spaceships without some kind of replacement put in place. They take a ton of work and it will ruin literally the working processes of entire alliances.
At which point did anyone said anything about taking stuff and replacing them with new structures? Devs said that new and old structures will coexist for a looong time until all old functionality is moved into new structures. For all of this time You will have tons of time to take down old structures if you find new more promissing (adding direct conversion would be pita to program and would be waste of resources as player can take down stuff and put new one themself). And only AFTER this long period they will at some point start to take down old structures (note: never said they will replace with new ones, just take them away, period)
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
|
Wild Dreams
Casimir Effect
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 15:55:47 -
[671] - Quote
so basically if they don't replace the structures where they are in space null sec alliances are going to do more than burn jita I think they will destroy it I mean can u imagine all the null sec alliances trying to get all those structures they had replaced from high sec back to there original null sec space and set them up without an enemy alliance hot dropping the setup stage things will get messy unless the introduction of these new structures are not done right
I myself cannot wait for them as a part solo player the thought of having my own market hub I can tax all from my own home base makes me happy
like this post if u agree null sec is gona get messy |
DHuncan
Minerva Group Scibere est Agere
92
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 12:08:57 -
[672] - Quote
How was it called? Administrative center? Shan't those interfere with the existing sovereignty mechanics?
As far as the old structures and satellite modules. CCP should: 1- Seed the market with buying offers so players can recover the isk invested in the old POSes 2- Nerf the BPs if you want to avoid a never ending industry of guaranteed demand to the production of those items.
What did you say about CODE?
|
Sabastian Cerabiam
Seventh Element Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 14:01:05 -
[673] - Quote
CCP needs to come out with some form of information regarding this post and the other station post. They hinted at all of this good ideas then let it all die over the last couple months.
Last i heard they wanted to start pushing this stuff out "this summer" well this summer is just about over. |
Aker Krane
OMEGADYNE LABS Rising Darkness
17
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 16:04:58 -
[674] - Quote
Has CCP even released the name of the next patch?
Anyone know the target date of release? |
Sabastian Cerabiam
Seventh Element Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 17:18:42 -
[675] - Quote
Next Patch is Aug 25th. Its on the updates page already. forgot the exact name though and im to lazy to look it up haha. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: [one page] |