EVE Search - Sticky:[New structures] Mooring and docking features

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[New structures] Mooring and docking features

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Hairpins Blueprint CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans 167	Posted - 2015.03.25 08:26:34 - [211] - Quote Ramases Purvanen wrote: Another way to make another class of capital ship useless (The Rorqual) Take away POS shields and no more boosting from a POS with an Orca or Rorqual (awesome job CCP) Rorqual is to be balaced, to be able do deploy some thing like pos shields so don't worry.
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 946	Posted - 2015.03.25 09:19:54 - [212] - Quote Dr Cedric wrote: Someone help me if I'm wrong, From what I've seen on the Dev-blog, certain structures will allow anchoring (does that mean mooring?), others not. Some will allow docking and anchoring (mooring?). Generally the ones that allow anchoring/docking also have high slots available. As far as I can tell, you can equip guns to the high slots of these structures, so... I'm supposing that if a group is able enough to launch one of these larger structures, and fit guns to it, and moor their supers at it, then that structure will be able to blap bubbles that are anchored in their general vicinity, and will also shoot at bad guys that are trying to camp in a super. I feel like this point hasn't been brought up in the conversation yet, so I wanted to mention it. If I've missed something big, please fill me in. On the other hand, if I've got a decent grasp of this, then the only real issue left is the intel issue still under discussion. What are remote reps?
Helevi Mernian Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 0	Posted - 2015.03.25 13:55:03 - [213] - Quote Short question on the Graphics side here. Playing since pretty much 2003 i got quite used to the old hangar views... and... i don't think they are something to keep around if you completly redo the whole docking system. What about removing the old hangar viewes in the docking mode. The current views are different for all racial stations/hangars and as the new structure system is going to be more unified, it would make sense to create a new one (or maybe more) for the unified designs. They should then be more immersive and could (potentiaonally) show the scale much better, as we are not bound to the usuall zoom-out-and-in details problem we have anywhere else in space. Thinking of something like you showed us in the "Future of Structures Presentation" - The Hangar Artwork with the "docked" Minmatar BC. I Know this is a minor point and all the game design is much more in focus for now, but would this be something to consider? Great shoutout to the whole structures Team, your work is awesome so far and your replys are pretty good, it really feels like our discussions here matter! Greetings
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 313	Posted - 2015.03.25 15:02:46 - [214] - Quote Helevi Mernian wrote: Short question on the Graphics side here. Playing since pretty much 2003 i got quite used to the old hangar views... and... i don't think they are something to keep around if you completly redo the whole docking system. What about removing the old hangar viewes in the docking mode. The current views are different for all racial stations/hangars and as the new structure system is going to be more unified, it would make sense to create a new one (or maybe more) for the unified designs. They should then be more immersive and could (potentiaonally) show the scale much better, as we are not bound to the usuall zoom-out-and-in details problem we have anywhere else in space. Thinking of something like you showed us in the "Future of Structures Presentation" - The Hangar Artwork with the "docked" Minmatar BC. I Know this is a minor point and all the game design is much more in focus for now, but would this be something to consider? Great shoutout to the whole structures Team, your work is awesome so far and your replys are pretty good, it really feels like our discussions here matter! Greetings CCP can't remove ship-spinning or the player-base will riot and burn all the stations to the ground.
Gfy Trextron Soul Takers 34	Posted - 2015.03.25 15:08:08 - [215] - Quote Well there are obviously things I do not understand behind several of the why's. I would have imagined that mooring would have been for the opportunity to get out of a super during online times without concerns of theft, and in my wildest dreams the ability to sell it via market or contract. I would think that you would still want to store it by safe log off. I have no idea why the hate for force fields. If it is a code or server issue, I can live without actually seeing it. But at least in low sec, we rely on them for a tremendous amount of staging, most importantly bridging and safe spot when logging on/off supers. Most other needs can be done from an NPC station, but if there is no station then I can see a definite need for miners and industry toons to have a safe area to land. CCP has gone to great lengths to explain that bumping out of a POS today is such a haneous offence a player can be banned for it, but now you are indicating that the ship will be fair game to bump away or hic point if not moored. So very confusing. We need the safety and the ability to use ship mods currently allowed within pos structures today to reasonably function.
Helevi Mernian Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave 1	Posted - 2015.03.25 15:11:24 - [216] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Helevi Mernian wrote: Short question on the Graphics side here. Playing since pretty much 2003 i got quite used to the old hangar views... and... i don't think they are something to keep around if you completly redo the whole docking system. What about removing the old hangar viewes in the docking mode. The current views are different for all racial stations/hangars and as the new structure system is going to be more unified, it would make sense to create a new one (or maybe more) for the unified designs. They should then be more immersive and could (potentiaonally) show the scale much better, as we are not bound to the usuall zoom-out-and-in details problem we have anywhere else in space. Thinking of something like you showed us in the "Future of Structures Presentation" - The Hangar Artwork with the "docked" Minmatar BC. I Know this is a minor point and all the game design is much more in focus for now, but would this be something to consider? Great shoutout to the whole structures Team, your work is awesome so far and your replys are pretty good, it really feels like our discussions here matter! Greetings CCP can't remove ship-spinning or the player-base will riot and burn all the stations to the ground. Ofc, WITHOUT removing shipspinning (again) ! Important point! thy m8 :)
Rose Honey Small Holdings Inc. 2	Posted - 2015.03.25 15:11:40 - [217] - Quote Ramases Purvanen wrote: Another way to make another class of capital ship useless (The Rorqual) Take away POS shields and no more boosting from a POS with an Orca or Rorqual (awesome job CCP) then grow some balls and put your ***** ship in space or mine without bonuses. Bitching about no longer getting high yields risk free. The you playing eve for. Man up or ** off.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 313	Posted - 2015.03.25 15:22:10 - [218] - Quote Gfy Trextron wrote: Well there are obviously things I do not understand behind several of the why's. I would have imagined that mooring would have been for the opportunity to get out of a super during online times without concerns of theft, and in my wildest dreams the ability to sell it via market or contract. I would think that you would still want to store it by safe log off. I have no idea why the hate for force fields. If it is a code or server issue, I can live without actually seeing it. But at least in low sec, we rely on them for a tremendous amount of staging, most importantly bridging and safe spot when logging on/off supers. Most other needs can be done from an NPC station, but if there is no station then I can see a definite need for miners and industry toons to have a safe area to land. CCP has gone to great lengths to explain that bumping out of a POS today is such a haneous offence a player can be banned for it, but now you are indicating that the ship will be fair game to bump away or hic point if not moored. So very confusing. We need the safety and the ability to use ship mods currently allowed within pos structures today to reasonably function. Forcefields just generally cause a lot of potential for exploits, edge-case behavior, and other issues. Just to list two that come to mind: "Garage Door force-fields", that let you Cyno in and then turn on the shield, significantly mitigating risk to your ship and risk-free escape from a bubbled POS by resetting the forcefield to fling the ships clear of the bubble cage. Add on issues with bumping, sitting next to the field to do something then just moving 5 feet and being "safe" again, and probably a few other things I'm not thinking of right now and it's not hard to see why CCP might want to get rid of forcefields. As to modules that can be used inside a POS, the only thing that comes to mind with significant game effect is Boosts, and since Off-grid Boosting is going away at some point, probably along with this re-work, that's a null concern here. Staging and other uses should be taken up by some sort of station analogue or the new Mooring system. It's important to remember that these structures are not going to all be exclusive to Null Security space (though obviously some will be) so if you have a reasonable use-case then outline it and make a case for how and why it should be covered by a new structure in Low Security space.
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 491	Posted - 2015.03.25 15:56:10 - [219] - Quote Enta en Bauldry wrote: In W-Space, intel is gathered by d-scanning and looking on-grid (at POSes) to see if any players are active and what kind of ships they're in. Do you intend to permit docking in W-Space? This would make intel gathering much harder unless mechanics are put in place to see what the docked players are doing. This is my biggest concern with the proposed "anchor any structure anywhere" philosophy you outlined at the fanfest presentation. ships in w-space can already 'dock' with being stored in the maint array.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 747	Posted - 2015.03.25 15:56:34 - [220] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Forcefields just generally cause a lot of potential for exploits, edge-case behavior, and other issues. Just to list two that come to mind: "Garage Door force-fields", that let you Cyno in and then turn on the shield, significantly mitigating risk to your ship and risk-free escape from a bubbled POS by resetting the forcefield to fling the ships clear of the bubble cage. Add on issues with bumping, sitting next to the field to do something then just moving 5 feet and being "safe" again, and probably a few other things I'm not thinking of right now and it's not hard to see why CCP might want to get rid of forcefields. yeah, people have spent years edge-casing all sorts of **** with pos shields, from pos bowling, to safe cynoing, to skynet, etc, it's just asking for trouble in a game like eve it is immensely more exploitable if you're no longer restricted from only anchoring those force fields at specific points at a moon

Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 313	Posted - 2015.03.25 16:14:13 - [221] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: yeah, people have spent years edge-casing all sorts of **** with pos shields, from pos bowling, to safe cynoing, to skynet, etc, it's just asking for trouble in a game like eve it is immensely more exploitable if you're no longer restricted from only anchoring those force fields at specific points at a moon Yup. It's much easier to regulate edge-cases if the safety feature is now something you have to manually toggle, rather than being a function of distance. Now you can say "You just Cyno'd in, we're still degaussing your engine coils (or something) so you can't Moor your ship yet, sorry!" since it's going to be a hotkey or right click or something. Seriously though, get physics involved in any game ever and the exploit list goes through the roof... just ask any GM who's ever had a player bring a physics text to the table and try to use it as a core rulebook...
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 4784	Posted - 2015.03.25 16:25:17 - [222] - Quote Removed a non-constructive post. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Masao Kurata Z List 202	Posted - 2015.03.25 17:27:03 - [223] - Quote Hairpins Blueprint wrote: And with, I think i would be cool to REMOVE the watchlist, if you don't approve it. This free intel is way too powerfull. Some small Ali got theire titan moored; Structure got destoyed. Pilot is watchlisted. He logs in and hunt is on : ( I think this mechanic is bad, kills a lot of suprise; Watchlisting without approvement should be removed. Hunting anyone specific without watchlists or without locators is in practice impossible. It's not free intel, it's necessary intel.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2163	Posted - 2015.03.25 19:18:09 - [224] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Hairpins Blueprint wrote: And with, I think i would be cool to REMOVE the watchlist, if you don't approve it. This free intel is way too powerfull. Some small Ali got theire titan moored; Structure got destoyed. Pilot is watchlisted. He logs in and hunt is on : ( I think this mechanic is bad, kills a lot of suprise; Watchlisting without approvement should be removed. Hunting anyone specific without watchlists or without locators is in practice impossible. It's not free intel, it's necessary intel. I think the watch list can go, but i do think locators can stay. Maybe tie the log in history to the locator so that the information isnt completely gone. But, honestly, knowing exactly when your enemies are awake really kills any kind of surprise tactics on a larger scale
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 140	Posted - 2015.03.25 19:25:34 - [225] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Hairpins Blueprint wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Having (super)capitals visible from space, even if invulnerable to direct assault, is going a huge intelligence boost to opposing forces. Having (super)capitals traceable in such a manner could allow third parties to ambush (super)capital pilots as soon as they remove moorings to destroy the ships before they can escape. Having a fixed mooring capability on those structures will create problems if the structure mooring capability is full when another (super)capital pilot tries to use it under pressure. Make supers cloaked when they "Moor" = no free intel. This is effectively just docking supers, protection with no intel is the same as docking, but maybe it's time to allow that? In order to prevent Suddenly Supers Capitals with docking games, you need to have it where undocking super capitals can't lock anything for a period of time after undocking. Maybe even extend that to super capitals that log in that logged off while in space. Make it significant enough to balance out the ability to dock such a powerful ship. That and get rid of remote assist bonus on super carriers and give the Hel a fighter/bomber bonus already. That said I still think mooring a super capital that stays in space to allow corporation and alliance members to use them as part of station defenses would add some interesting game play. Have upgrades on the station to allow more moored super capitals and the graphics addition so attackers can see what they are up against. Maybe the attackers can target the moored super capitals just like station services to disable it. Can't unmoore the super capital until it is fully repaired. Lots of interesting game play. Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
Masao Kurata Z List 202	Posted - 2015.03.25 19:44:43 - [226] - Quote Rowells wrote: I think the watch list can go, but i do think locators can stay. Maybe tie the log in history to the locator so that the information isnt completely gone. But, honestly, knowing exactly when your enemies are awake really kills any kind of surprise tactics on a larger scale There's a very easy counter to that: go afk.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2164	Posted - 2015.03.25 19:59:15 - [227] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Rowells wrote: I think the watch list can go, but i do think locators can stay. Maybe tie the log in history to the locator so that the information isnt completely gone. But, honestly, knowing exactly when your enemies are awake really kills any kind of surprise tactics on a larger scale There's a very easy counter to that: go afk. that's not exactly fun gameplay, is it?
Styphon the Black Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 20	Posted - 2015.03.25 20:05:51 - [228] - Quote Rowells wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: Rowells wrote: I think the watch list can go, but i do think locators can stay. Maybe tie the log in history to the locator so that the information isnt completely gone. But, honestly, knowing exactly when your enemies are awake really kills any kind of surprise tactics on a larger scale There's a very easy counter to that: go afk. that's not exactly fun gameplay, is it? Any game tactic that involves not actually playing the game points to problem.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6181	Posted - 2015.03.25 20:17:14 - [229] - Quote I didn't realize there were any significant groups in game that didn't already know exactly where all enemy supers of interest are at any given point in time. Not really seeing an issue with "too much free intel" in this case. However, if you're worried about it, request the ability for your mooring structure to be able to mount a module that projects holograms of fake super caps on any empty spot on the mooring platform. Pilots with permission to moor at that structure could easily determine which slots are still free, but no one else could unless they perhaps did a lengthy scan with a ship scanner at relatively short range. To be honest any capital ship, let alone any super cap, should be nigh impossible to hide from anyone wanting to track it's movements. View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Rialen Gravit Negotii Gentlemen's.Parlor 17	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:37:04 - [230] - Quote posted a brief idea for mooring in the drilling platform (as I was writing specifically for it)... Firstly, I am assuming that these structures can be attacked at any time (not like the entosis link system with a 4hr primary timer). As such, parking a super cap or titan at the structure will mean that a high number of players can reinforced structure very quickly putting those ships at risk (during owner's offpeak time) As such, (and I think this was mentioned previously), the ability to pass weapons control (high slot) over to the structure is idea, when moored and no pilot is within the ship. This will provide additional offensive capabilities for the structures when it is attacked. Structures with high slot weapons (means you have set number of offensive weapons fitted to the structure). you can moor dreadnaught (with weapons and ammo) will add additional fire power (usually seige weapons to take out larger capital ships) you can moor super caps (although super caps don't have weapons in highslots, maybe bombers from super cap can be launched and defend structure if you moor a titan, the capital guns on a titan can open fire on whatever attacks structure

Zheng'Yi Sao DIRTY MONEY INC. Silent Infinity 71	Posted - 2015.03.25 22:56:21 - [231] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Another element i want to throw in here is the idea of soft mooring which works a bit like the current POS shield so you can still move around and use dscan etc within range of the structure but you cannot target anything and you are invulnerable. It is basically an area invulnerability effect around the station like a remote rep or similar. It allows you to warp to 0 or undock into relative safety. You can of course be bumped unless you do a hard mooring or dock up. Thoughts? Is this where I am supposed to park my Rorqual, or warp my Exhumers to? "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
Zheng'Yi Sao DIRTY MONEY INC. Silent Infinity 72	Posted - 2015.03.25 23:14:23 - [232] - Quote Midori Tsu wrote: "This is meant as a replacement for Starbase forcefield which currently has a certain number of issues." Would it be possible to get a list of these issues? As i see it, mooring is a really bad replacement for the removal of POS shields, increased risk for almost no bonus. I've been searching through a couple threads for this very same list. I would very much love to find one.. "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
Zheng'Yi Sao DIRTY MONEY INC. Silent Infinity 72	Posted - 2015.03.25 23:23:02 - [233] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: These changes are far enough in the future it's likely that we'll also get capital ship changes, including the Rorqual, before that, along with the long promised removal of Off Grid Boosting, making the entire point moot anyway. I think that's a more than reasonable expectation at this point. Very reasonable. Question is are we the only ones who reason this way? As others have pointed out, there is a whole lot of smoke and pictures, and nothing solid to comment on. Major shake up, no answers. I am not sure what is really expected out of us here. The whole thing is pretty frustrating. "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
Siobhan MacLeary Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Ocularis Inferno 200	Posted - 2015.03.26 00:04:33 - [234] - Quote Lu Ziffer wrote: If a supercapital is XL sized the station it is moored to should be XXL just to be reasonable in size. Combined with the idea of having weapon highslots on structures the defence of such a station should be more then enough to keep a few ships of the grid. Scaps are 14-15km long. XL structures are 100km in at least one dimension. L structures are 45km in at least one dimension. I don't think we have to worry about scale being off. GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ - CCP Soundwave
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 313	Posted - 2015.03.26 01:01:55 - [235] - Quote SilentAsTheGrave wrote: In order to prevent Suddenly Supers Capitals with docking games, you need to have it where undocking super capitals can't lock anything for a period of time after undocking. Maybe even extend that to super capitals that log in that logged off while in space. Make it significant enough to balance out the ability to dock such a powerful ship. That and get rid of remote assist bonus on super carriers and give the Hel a fighter/bomber bonus already. You mean like a base locking time that is on the order of 20-30 seconds against a Battleship? I mean, right now with a POS supers can sit, fully functional, sitting just outside a POS shield and duck inside as soon as they get shot, as well as ducking out relatively easily, so it's not like this is much of a concern compared to the current system. Zheng'Yi Sao wrote: Very reasonable. Question is are we the only ones who reason this way? As others have pointed out, there is a whole lot of smoke and pictures, and nothing solid to comment on. Major shake up, no answers. I am not sure what is really expected out of us here. The whole thing is pretty frustrating. Read the first post. They're looking for feedback and ideas. Pretty clear cut there. This is a first pass to get general feedback and suggestions from the community.
Lienzo Amanuensis 55	Posted - 2015.03.26 05:42:43 - [236] - Quote I think it matters a great deal where these things are. With a few caveats, I favor making sov matter. However, it needs to be based on adjacency, or sov in neighboring systems. Each level of sov should include new defensive modules. These high defense sov upgrades should favor tactical upgrades and manufacturing. They should be bad for harvesting and pve of all sorts. Each of these anchorables should double shields, double structure sensor strength, double reinforcement times, and doubles entosis time. This would make shipyards in the highest sov systems unprobeable. (Does nothing for spies.) This would actually make it no longer necessary to restrict players from putting them elsewhere, only make it more risky to do so. Adjacency complements the new sov concept, but also keeps some of the sanity of dominion sov. It gives alliances a secure center, but can cripple them quickly if they do not address sustained pinprick assaults on their periphery. If you want people to play chess, you have to give them a chessboard. If you want people to play ping pong, you give them a table and a paddle.
Felter Echerie SL33P3R C3LL 4	Posted - 2015.03.26 08:10:27 - [237] - Quote it just make sense that huge ships like capitals would need huge structures to support them.
Anthar Thebess 978	Posted - 2015.03.26 10:41:55 - [238] - Quote Will there be ability to upgrade structure to bigger size one. Bad example, but some example. I deploy mobile depot. Bring 3 capital construction modules and now i have lvl 1 private depot. (stationary much more EHP, i must place strontium to have reinforce timer) I make another course and bring 5 other capital construction modules and i have lvl 2 private depot. (More EHP, but i can mount first module) Next course, again few cap components. (Much much more EHP, i can mount first capital guns, and now even dock small ships) etc. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 207	Posted - 2015.03.26 14:42:37 - [239] - Quote Look, the biggest problem with the mooring idea floated so far is operations in enemy territory, mainly involving Super Capital pilots. It simply doesn't make strategic, logistical or financial sense to deploy an XL structure in your neighbours back yard, even assuming there's a free planet to do so. So why not keep Large Towers in as the Medium sized structure which solves this problem? Or tell us what your plan for Supers is so Super Cap pilots at least have some context for these changes. 11 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
Evil Zeb ZC Industries Dark Stripes 0	Posted - 2015.03.26 16:12:56 - [240] - Quote I like the idea of leaving a deployable staging structure that has a shield where people can assemble fleets and or stage there supers in it, they would also be able to titan bridge in safety and it would allow for all the edge cases that are covered by starbases now, but it would come pre configured with defences ref timers and such with a just add fuel requirement. we can call it anything other than a Minmatar control tower just to help the everything must change group but it would actually be a Minmatar control tower called something else.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.