| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
1206
   |
Posted - 2015.08.05 15:13:26 -
[331] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Borg Stoneson wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Suggestion:
Upon destruction of a station all hangar modules are ejected towards the planet the station was anchored on.... From what I understand the new structures wont be locked to moons or planets but rather can be placed anywhere Closest available planet then. Quote:Still convinced its technically not feasible for the code to change the location of all items in a station at one go. Haven't any of you ever seen what happens when 200 slowcats undock and deploy drones? We're talking MILLIONS of objects here. You are going to have TIDI so bad it'll reach -88 miles per hour and send you back to to 1984. It's not remotely the same. Displaying and tracking entities in space is something completely different from moving database entries from one place to another. Server impact would be minimal. Having been in a system where the inhabitants of a station started making contracts with the express purpose of generating lag, and succeeding, I would beg to differ.
At worst the database move could always be done during downtime, but CCP is always improving their server infrastructure. If something like this is ever implemented I'm assuming they'll do it in a way that does not put insane strain on the server.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots
Black Legion.
347
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 13:35:30 -
[332] - Quote
I imagine before something like this ever gets implemented, everyone will be selling off all but the most basic necessities. There's going to be a massive surplus of ships and modules re-injected into the trade hubs, and there will be a LOT more liquid isk being held onto. Don't think CCP would want either of those things to happen. The harbinger of this mechanic change will be inflation, coupled with the exponential decrease of content (ie ships sploding) |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
117
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 19:31:52 -
[333] - Quote
To the newest dev blog I must say a few things:
First, players everywhere thank you for finding a happy medium on the loot pinata only dropping items that would have been normally just been lost in the normal destruction of a POS/build job. Players don't lose more than they would have normally, and the attackers can have some loot.
Second, love the way vulnerability is designed for these. THIS is what sov vulnerability should be changed into as well!
Below are a few concerns and what I feel is an acceptable adaptation:
1- Delivery of personal/corp assets
5-20 days is seriously way too long, especially for a service you're telling us we need to pay for (based on market values we all know are never correct). I suggest the following:
-Flat rate based on distance to station/structure being delivered to.
-Free xfer: 2 weeks
-Paid xfer: 48 hours (delivery fee)
-Rush paid xfer: 1 hour (X% market + delivery fee)
Remember EVE is still a game. You are asking players in some areas to literally stop playing the game for 5-20 days after losing a battle. A 48 hour lockout simply makes more sense as "punishment" for not defending your structure, anything more than that is simply kicking a player while they're down and encouraging them to look elsewhere for their entertainment. And some players keep most of their wealth in assets, given the time limit to made a decision a free option that keeps them locked out for an extended period before delivery makes sense where as those in a rush to receive some of their items ASAP may pay for rushed delivery.
I say this with emphasis on WH players who will be living out of these structures. Telling them they effectively can't play for 5 days even after they rebuild the structure will not go over well.
Secondly, any sort of delivery service for destroyed structures can and will be "abused" by larger entities with massive amounts of isk. But designing mechanics to avoid such abuse to the detriment of the individual player is still bad game design. Remember you have the power to leave such fringe abuse cases possible and make a statement warning that abuse will result in bans and loss of alliance assets and leave it at that.
2- Time limit on claiming personal assets
People will always have to step away from the game for extended periods of time; be it deployment/family emergency/hospitalization/etc. You currently start the timer for 5 days after structure destruction. This must be changed to 1 week from return of player.
There simply is no discussing this matter. You cannot punish a player who had to leave for reasons out of their control.
3- Super cap relocation
If you lost the fight for a timer, the likelihood of your being able to return to that space and construct a new XL structure within 5 days of it's destruction is extremely unlikely. You are effectively saying it's gone forever.
Simply put, you need to allow the option for these to be thrown into the nearest alliance XL citadel or to be picked up from a cloaked container a random location in space placing it's location within the player's journal.
Again, CCP you can take a stance against abuse cases they won't be hard to identify. You need to design mechanics around what is fair for the individual player keeping in mind limited playtime, and the time and effort the individual had to put into obtaining these assets to begin with. You need to give them a fair -not perfectly safe- chance at recovery.
Just those three things need looking at in my opinion. And raising awareness to the problems now will do us a lot of good so it doesn't become another jump fatigue or aegis sov fiasco where Tranq become test server 2.0. |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA.
Unseen Wolves
536
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 20:25:34 -
[334] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:
I say this with emphasis on WH players who will be living out of these structures. Telling them they effectively can't play for 5 days even after they rebuild the structure will not go over well.
Errr... WH'ers dont get loot transfer, we need to rebuild citadel to get stuff back. Also, most WH'ers I know actually advocate for full hardcore where loot drops for the victor.
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Secondly, any sort of delivery service for destroyed structures can and will be "abused" by larger entities with massive amounts of isk. But designing mechanics to avoid such abuse to the detriment of the individual player is still bad game design. Remember you have the power to leave such fringe abuse cases possible and make a statement warning that abuse will result in bans and loss of alliance assets and leave it at that.
You cant choose where it goes, but indeed You can predict based on Your location which one will be chosen as closest npc station. To have NAY usage of that (uninterrupted stuff transport) You need in the first place to get that stuff into Your citadel, so whatever it was You could as well move to low sec Yourself. 20 days timer makes it even less plausible. Ofc we will probable see some fringe usages but I except them to have minor usage.
Nasar Vyron wrote:
2- Time limit on claiming personal assets
People will always have to step away from the game for extended periods of time; be it deployment/family emergency/hospitalization/etc. You currently start the timer for 5 days after structure destruction. This must be changed to 1 week from return of player.
There simply is no discussing this matter. You cannot punish a player who had to leave for reasons out of their control.
What time limit, cant find anything about it in the blogs. Only time limit is based on when EARLIEST You can move Your stuff.
Nasar Vyron wrote:
3- Super cap relocation
If you lost the fight for a timer, the likelihood of your being able to return to that space and construct a new XL structure within 5 days of it's destruction is extremely unlikely. You are effectively saying it's gone forever.
Again - What 5 days? Cant find anything in blog saying You have to do it in 5 days.
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
117
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 21:59:46 -
[335] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:
Again - What 5 days? Cant find anything in blog saying You have to do it in 5 days.
You are 100% correct on that, I reread those blogs three times and each time I kept reading 5 days to make a choice. I'm terribly sorry and made the edit.
And I never said you can choose where it goes, but the act of making a structure and throwing everyone's assets into a single corp tab then killing the structure with an alt alliance to quickly transport goods is abuse of the system and what I am referring to. |
Grorious Reader
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 22:41:38 -
[336] - Quote
Some suggestions with regard to citadels in WH space...
The current itteration of the asset safety rules laid out in the recent dev blogs really seem to leave WH space as an afterthought. CCP seems to have just gone with "well, that won't work in WH. Meh." as their solution. Here are my ideas for making citadels more WH friendly.
First; clone bays as they are in k-space won't work in WH for obvious reasons. But with a couple tweaks they would work fine.
- Restrict the clones to medical clones only. No jumping in and out of WH with jump clones.
- You have to get podded in the same system as your medical clone or you go back to a k-space clone. No podding yourself back into your WH system.
This allows you to actively defend WH systems. Without these, anyone who gets podded defending a WH has to make a potentially very lengthy and dangerous trip just to get back to the citadel they're trying to defend. This amounts to a whole lot of time not defending. Without clones, this will make for very short defenses when the attacker has superior numbers or firepower. Under the current POS system this isn't such a problem because POSes take a long time to reinforce. The process is much faster with the entosis model, and that's going to make defending WHs harder.
The second issue is asset safety.
Part of the reason for attacking POSes is to get loot from the hangars and silos. Just destroying it all is such a huge waste, and not rewarding at all for the attacker. Perhaps a better system would be to allow the alliance that destroys a citadel to build their own citadel in that system and have the loot (maybe just some of it, like a regular loot drop) delivered to their citadel after 7 days (2 days beyond the victim's 5 day minimum wait time). That gives the defender plenty of time to try to retake their system, but if they can't then to the victor go the spoils. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
267
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 11:12:20 -
[337] - Quote
EDIT: should post in the thread that actually might be read. |
Justin Cody
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
306
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 00:41:19 -
[338] - Quote
I have a better idea than anyone.
Station gets destroyed - you can move your stuff to another citadel in the same constellation once with no penalty within 24 hours. Once all in the constellation are destroyed or the 24 hour timer runs out...the citadel wreck spawns a bunch of satelite wrecks with all that juicy leftover lewtz on it. Ships just drop in space and float there. 100% drops.
get risky!
get some more dank memes! |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
66
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 19:19:18 -
[339] - Quote
I just thought of a funny idea.
You get some cheaper citadel and ask allies to put it up in your system, then load it with all your pyerite... and BOOM... it's in the lowsec in 5 days.
Cheapest jump freighter service ever. |
Grognard Commissar
EVE University
Ivy League
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 02:56:52 -
[340] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:I just thought of a funny idea.
You get some cheaper citadel and ask allies to put it up in your system, then load it with all your pyerite... and BOOM... it's in the lowsec in 5 days.
Cheapest jump freighter service ever.
actually... that's the best problem with this system yet... you found an exploit before it was even deployed! |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
81
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 12:22:17 -
[341] - Quote
One way to approach this feature would be to get a new line of containers, specifically for the hangars and inventory with emergency jumpdrives, which will bring the stuff to nearest npc station.
Blueprints and manufacturing leaves the Security of assets in the hands of the players, and even how much of the assets to be secure.
This will leave unsecure assets for drops if station gets blown.
Second feautre of this line of containers could be, if allowed trough the assets menu, to be retrived
In cases where stations are flipped, inactivity which turnes the area hostile or just moving out.
This will also remove asset movements from GM's, and allow players going afk a quick route out of harms way.
Yes, this will interfere a small bit with jf's role, but not so much as you would think as it is a one jump to npc.
You can also consider fuel requirments, towards what range these "liferafts" need to go, to balance things off.
Hope this makes sence to some. |
Tycho VI
Bearded BattleBears
I N F A M O U S
19
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 22:08:14 -
[342] - Quote
If supercaps could be docked on them in the future, and the citadel itself is destroyed with supers docked, should they really be given a nearly free pass with no pilot interaction?
What do you think the difference would be between whether they are safely moved or not in the bigger picture? |
Lotus Ambrosia
Mad Men Inc
4
|
Posted - 2015.10.01 07:30:03 -
[343] - Quote
OK GG 17 pages
I have some questions
nr1 what will happen to the old stations in null/lowsec?
nr2 what will happen to the items/ships in the old stations, i guess a lot of people have **** in station they don't have access to.
nr3, what happens to clones(with implants) in station that are destroyed.
|
Aendoren
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 18:17:08 -
[344] - Quote
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67433/1/Structuredestruction-01.png
I was just checking out how the new system would work and i have to say It just does not belong in Eve. Eve is a hard game and you stuff sitting in the outpost shouldn't just magically move into some other station, you shouldn't be just magicly jerked out of the ship your docked in your corpse thrown into space and that ship magically moved to safety in some npc station. Also it creates problems with the bounty system.
How it should work is your stuff ejected in cans, your ships ejected into space without a pilot if its not blown up in the explosion, and you and the ship your sitting in should be ejected into space either to warp away or fight for your survival.
What would fix everything is if you should be able to insure everything you own in station, you can already insure the ships, that way the game can stay realistic, the bounties work just like they do now.
This is Eve not Hello Kitty Eve adventure lets keep it that way. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1243
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 21:07:36 -
[345] - Quote
Aendoren wrote:http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67433/1/Structuredestruction-01.png
I was just checking out how the new system would work and i have to say It just does not belong in Eve. Eve is a hard game and you stuff sitting in the outpost shouldn't just magically move into some other station, you shouldn't be just magicly jerked out of the ship your docked in your corpse thrown into space and that ship magically moved to safety in some npc station. Also it creates problems with the bounty system.
How it should work is your stuff ejected in cans, your ships ejected into space without a pilot if its not blown up in the explosion, and you and the ship your sitting in should be ejected into space either to warp away or fight for your survival.
What would fix everything is if you should be able to insure everything you own in station, you can already insure the ships, that way the game can stay realistic, the bounties work just like they do now.
This is Eve not Hello Kitty Eve adventure lets keep it that way.
These would not be able to do there job if items were at risk
It does have its place in eve just like invulnerable structures
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Aendoren
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 23:59:55 -
[346] - Quote
Your items should be at risk, you should be able to insure them so you can rebuy them again. The idea is for you to defend your outpost and not let your stuff blow up.
You want it to easy you want the magic ferry to make your blown up stuff appier somewhere else with no hauling or risk.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2762
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 00:10:01 -
[347] - Quote
Aendoren wrote:Your items should be at risk, you should be able to insure them so you can rebuy them again. The idea is for you to defend your outpost and not let your stuff blow up.
You want it to easy you want the magic ferry to make your blown up stuff appier somewhere else with no hauling or risk.
So, you're saying I should live in NPC space? Since there isn't much benefit aside from a few extra percentage points of bonus for my activities.
I mean, what's the point of risking billions in assets, if I miss a couple days of playtime, it could be gone by then?
Btw, you're making the assumption that a 10% value cost is not risk. I'm not sure how that came across. |
Aendoren
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 00:54:00 -
[348] - Quote
This is Eve player built fantasy lands don't belong.
What's next you want jump freighters/freighters to magically have there hauls dumped into the nearest npc station because the risk is to hi?
That is the mentality you're taking.
Basically i'm just saying you need a good cheap insurance plan that covers your losses that way you're covered if thing go south.
And no one should build game mechanics on helping you if your missing a couple of days of playtime.
Quote: Btw, you're making the assumption that a 10% value cost is not risk. I'm not sure how that came across
10% risked are you kidding me! Yes i am absolutely saying 10% is not adequate risk.
The way ccp is showing it now there is almost no reason to fight to save your outpost.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2762
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 04:47:05 -
[349] - Quote
Aendoren wrote:This is Eve player built fantasy lands don't belong. What's next you want jump freighters/freighters to magically have there hauls dumped into the nearest npc station because the risk is to hi? That is the mentality you're taking. Basically i'm just saying you need a good cheap insurance plan that covers your losses that way you're covered if thing go south. And no one should build game mechanics on helping you if your missing a couple of days of playtime. Quote: Btw, you're making the assumption that a 10% value cost is not risk. I'm not sure how that came across 10% risked are you kidding me! Yes i am absolutely saying 10% is not adequate risk. The way ccp is showing it now there is almost no reason to fight to save your outpost.
That first sentence makes me really question your thinking. Seeing as it's kind of the basic premise Eve was built on.
Maybe you could try not seeing things in black and white rather than assuming my 'mentality' is the polar opposite of yours.
If I were to take your logic a step further, we should remove all loot drops. Doesn't make any sense that you have a chance to salvage your losses right? I bet it just infuriates you that the pilot even has the chance.
I'm sure that, in solidarity with your beliefs, you don't insure your ships or use SRP or take handout ships. I'm sure every time you lost access to assets in a station you or your alliance don't own, you turned around, opened assets, selected all, and trashed it.
Or you could possibly realize that 10% to you might be nothing, whereas 10% loss to an industrialist (not including aborted jobs) could run a few billion, not to mention eclipsing the potential margin they would have gotten from the structure. Or a marketeer, who likely has the same if not more in assets tied up there.
Nor have you seemed to remember the cost of the structure itself. Upwards of a billion possibly reaching 50bil+. And of course let's not forget the loot drop. Too much safety there, gotta remove it. No reason to fight for it either. Costs astronomically more than a POS, but definitely not worth fielding anything for that. No way, that's crazy talk.
I'm not sure you understand how much the measure of perceived safety affects the decisions of pilots. |
Aendoren
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 05:51:16 -
[350] - Quote
What I said was dead on, I do not want to see items magically teleport to another station, so if the structure can be blow up the items should follow the same rules that have made Eve such a great game for years and be sitting right there in space ejected from the outpost wreck.
Im not saying you should lose everything as far as monetary value, and you would definitely need a better insurance system then is out now because it sucks. Now I would like to know why you are so dead set against using the insurance system to recoup your losses instead of having all your stuff handed to you unscratched in some nearby npc station? You wouldn't be out any more isk my way then the system that is being talked about now but my way is a lot more realistic. True what I am proposing is harder on the outpost owners because i want them ejected in their ships still intact, but that at least does give them a chance to get away or win the fight and scoop there own loot back up and haul it away.
Example
Outpost is holding 10 billion in ship fittings and assorted parts, player insures contents for 200mill 3 month duration.
Ships themselves use the regular insurance system already in place.
Outpost is attacked and destroyed:
Player get ejected in his ship. Fate is in his hands.
Parts are destroyed or ejected in cans and are looted by anyone in area.
Player receives insurance pay out of 10bill on destruction of outpost.
Players unmanned ships are destroyed or survive to be ejected into space without pilot.
Ships destroyed player receives insurance, ships ejected player receives nothing.
Something like this has the same outcome and remains a realistic space sym. No magic ferry's needed.
|
Aendoren
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 06:20:32 -
[351] - Quote
Quote:This is Eve player built fantasy lands don't belong.
Well eve might be a player built fantasyland but at least is has realism and i don't want to see that taken away, I love how the npc hauler ships move stuff from station to station, I love how when i haul hi value freight in hi sec i'm more nervous then i am flying in 0.0.
And I will fight to keep the game designers on the path of realism, and not have magical game mechanics whisking away stuff without at least some form of destructible hauling. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2762
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:29:00 -
[352] - Quote
Alright, I likely misinterpreted what your intent was, I apologize for that.
Now to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, your issue is not (or less) the safety mechanic itself, but more the realism (or lore reason, correct those if I'm wrong)? |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2304
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 21:10:09 -
[353] - Quote
Aendoren wrote:
And no one should build game mechanics on helping you if your missing a couple of days of playtime.
CCP want their player to have their stuff if they come back after months/years. Would your insurance at least cover unlimited time frame?
|
Aendoren
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 21:15:11 -
[354] - Quote
Im ok with unlimited or 6 month/1 year. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2304
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 21:24:44 -
[355] - Quote
Aendoren wrote:Im ok with unlimited or 6 month/1 year. I dont even care if insurance is cheap.
Im looking at this from living in them and being involved in killing them.
And what about the inevitable trillions of ISK injected in the system from that insurance system? |
Aendoren
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 22:36:56 -
[356] - Quote
Well im having trouble wrapping my head around that problem, yes alot of isk worth of stuff should drop, i mean you did just blow up a small station, but then again it cant be worth so much that it is just to profitable for the invaders either.
|
Tackly Tackleson
UNITAS.
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:48:45 -
[357] - Quote
What about removing the trash and reprocess function of a reinforced citadel? That would have some interesting effects especially in wormholes. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
4379
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 14:11:36 -
[358] - Quote
Removing sticky. Still want your feedback but we need room for other thread in this subforum. New pinned thread will be pointing to this one. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
4380
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 15:48:00 -
[359] - Quote
Proper recap of everything we've said so far tied to this.
Assets & Asset safety:
- All citadels have infinite personal and corporation hangar capacity to fulfill their defense and housing role. This may not be the case for all the future structures however.
- All citadels have asset safety feature. When it is destroyed, all assets are impounded. When impounded, players have to wait a minimum amount of time before being able to access them again.
There are 2 ways to recover impounded assets:
- Deliver to the same solar system: assets can be delivered locally if there are NPC stations or Citadels in the same solar system. Players will have to wait a minimum of 5 days before being able to deliver them.
- Deliver to another solar system: players will have to pay 15% of the total item value and wait a minimum of 20 days before being able to deliver them. Players cannot choose destination in that case. It will always be the top station in the closest low-security system if the destroyed Citadel was in null or low-security space. If the Citadel was in high-security space, it will be the closest high-security solar system. If there is a NPC station in the same solar system as the destroyed Citadel in high-security or low-security space this option is not available.
Further information on asset safety:
- The timer starts counting down as soon as the structure is destroyed, no button needs to be pressed. This ensure players with lapsing accounts do not need to wait the full duration when coming back into the game.
- We will automatically move items if no choice is set after 20 days. If there is a NPC station in the solar system, we will move them there. If there aren't, we will move them as discussed in option 2 above. This avoids players to build local ship caches in a null-security system that cannot be removed.
- In case of remote delivery, the payment can be done on a one item basis for players not having enough cash to pay for the whole fee at once.
- Current plan is to move capitals and supercapitals as well, so yes they can go to low-security NPC stations.
- Citadels in wormhole spaces do not benefit from asset safety. All items are lost when the structure is destroyed there.
|
|
Carmaine
The Awesome Corp
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 23:42:54 -
[360] - Quote
Long time player here, always been a huge fan of the perma destruction and risks in this game, and sorry, there should be no security of assets, I don't even get how this is being thought up without people saying this is removing all the freaking risks for the game. One of the biggest issue in the game is that risk is going down, ISK is going up, inflation is taking place.
And now you make it even easier to keep your stuff. The only fun I've had in this game in the past year is from wardeccing/getting wardecced for small pos in lowsec/high sec. You had a chance at good loots, possibly good BPOs and what not. Now there will be absolutely no reason to wardec randoms for funsies other than to grief them.
It's been like 6 patches in a row now that you made things more carebeary, more "safe". Next patch is going to be consensual PVP only, and then removal of permanent destruction of asset, so when you die, you pay 15isk and your opponent gets a Victory Star that he can put on his ship? |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |