|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 53 post(s) |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
   |
Posted - 2015.05.18 16:08:58 -
[1] - Quote
Rather than having structures clog space with a swarm of regular drones consider
(1) limiting to 10 drones even for XL structures.
(2) slap on huge drone augmentation effects like control range = +100km per structure size
and radically increased speed (x3-x5 depending on size), agility, weapon tracking (x5), weapon range (X5),
weapon damage (x3) and durability effects (structure x1.5, armor x2, shields x5)
(3) total "instant" remote repair when passing within 1 radius of structure
(instant being faster for larger structures but no longer than 6 seconds for the smallest)
(4) web immunity within given radius of structure
(5) ?micro jump/warp within control radius once every 30 seconds?
This will make regular drones ideal for killing small relatively fast ships even in high sec. The tracking effects from the increased speed of drones will make them significantly harder to kill for small squads of ships.
Probably should be some limited AI to launch and swap the most effective drones (damage types & net pursuit speed) for the current top priority hostiles from the stores of drones remaining. Though there might also need to be a drone reserve store that can only be launched manually to keep a specialist team of SBs and T3 from killing all your Geckos while the station is unattended. Similarly there might be separate drone stores for invulnerability and reinforcement times when its mainly about harassing spies and siphon deployment rather than serious defense. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 16:17:08 -
[2] - Quote
Amanda Orion wrote:Sequester Risalo wrote:Amanda Orion wrote:
With a small POS, you can anchor more than can be online at once, and bring different modules on and off line as you need.
For example:
Online a lab to do some TE/ME, then offline it, online another lab for copying, then offline it - online the equipment and ammo assembly arrays to build something, or put the reprocessing array online while you are mining.
Will we still be able to do something similar with a medium citadel?
My understanding is that the modules will be like ship equipment. You may switch modules like any ship equipment. Only rigs will be destroyed by removal. Thanks. Sounds like there is cause for optimism :)
Assuming storage volume for structure modules is not a major issue. I guess if CCP wants to discourage excessive swapping they could make high volume modules tetherable like moored ships. That is extra structure modules would be lootable if the structure was destroyed. But I am thinking their new structure deployment model says modules probably fold up to "pocket-sized" when not deployed and installed -- thus solving the ship transport issues.
Though CCP could change that structure deployment model easily to use small structure SEED modules and requiring dumping jetcans/freighter cans of minerals nearby by a fleet of hauler ships for the assembly process. That would lower the current apparent tech issues where deployed modules are much more massive than the packaged structures not just compacted volume. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 20:39:38 -
[3] - Quote
EnternalSoul wrote:I have not yet seen the most important question being asked or answered yet!
Walking in these new structures! Can we and how much of it?
LOL - funny. Yeah it occurred to me that now would be a "good time" for CCP to slip new station walking areas into EVE without fanfare.
I mean there is a REAL question of whether every structure which internal docking will at least get Captain's Quarters. Definitely not a question critical to gameplay but it is there. If they do then maybe then maybe those quarters will be customize a little to the size and race of structure like we have the 4 racial structures.
Once you open that can of worms then you can ask about adding very simple rooms to be associated with each public service module. I assume CCP keep good notes on all the FUBAR issues they solved when creating the CQs. If so, simple public rooms would mainly be artwork and associated walk models. So primarily an issue of whether CCP artwork teams have spare time. Coding functions could just be hanging GUI click on NPC or vending machine to go to current popup windows.
But I recommend avoid multiplayer stationwalking interaction off the table in the name of life support. If CCP wants a frivolous feature challenge - try adding video convo screens to private chat when in CQ. One on one private convo video chat screen with emotes in CQ would be place to start. Then maybe work up to split screen and multiple players.
Definitely no call for complex issues of real windows on local space or user defined businesses & nightclubs or huge promenades or other multiple player shared interaction spaces on smaller structures. MULTIPLAYER station-walking being the real killer box of unsolved SNAFUs waiting to happen. If Multiplayer station-walking ever happens I guarantee that there will not only be be issues with basic interactions but several levels of "Jita like" congestion solving.
Smaller structures would however yield a logical reason to cap occupancy of public rooms at very low levels (say 4 players) and use cloned instances of public rooms as a forced way to handle player overflow -- all in the name of station life support. Leave mass melee battle on stations to the far far future or maybe another game.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 20:50:30 -
[4] - Quote
EnternalSoul wrote:I have not yet seen the most important question being asked or answered yet!
Walking in these new structures! Can we and how much of it?
If CCP does indulge in revamped CQ or other walkable station rooms for each station function module (maybe public vending machine or later full bodied NPC to click to converse)...
First thing to implement for any new station rooms should be a quick exit to CQ or hangar view & current menu system -- a way to jump away from bugs in new room.
Definitely not good time to introduce multiplayer station-walking rooms. Video conference private chat with "emotes" is about the limit of resource diversion that most players would accept. Even that should start as 1-to-1. A year from then think hologram conference table (2-10 seats) for private chat as first toe in water for multiplayer stationwalking. Heh heh that could even be reusable on capital ships for fleet squad sized chat/briefings prior to battle. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 21:29:19 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Gilbaron wrote:why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ? Se we can balance them separately, these weapons will have very different stats to existing ship weapons.
I am sure that part of the reason for this question is the issue of transitioning or exchanging old guns for new.
I am pretty CCP isn't going to just give everyone with a stock of old POS guns a lump of ISK. Though if they did a fair price would be equal to the highest EVE market sales average for that item in the 3 months prior to announcement that new structures were coming in the summer of 2015.
If CCP follow recent practice for module rebalance CCP will map many old weapon types to a few new weapon classes then swap old items for new. Which is great if you only have stuff from the low end cost and capabilities of old items that are mapped to a given new item. But usually there is no real parity for older items at the higher end of a mapped exchange group -- just a huge ISK and capacity loss.
I suspect the argument is that only the richest folk have the items at the top of the mapped group. But unless you are talking items of truly cosmic cost increase (e.g. officer or rare faction gear) EVE often does not work that way. That is the small POS owner DOES own a couple large artillery modules and not just small blasters modules. Maybe they are just collecting good buys for a planned medium POS or maybe they hung a stupid defense array on a small POS. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 21:30:27 -
[6] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Gilbaron wrote:why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ? Se we can balance them separately, these weapons will have very different stats to existing ship weapons. I am sure that part of the reason for this question is the issue of transitioning or exchanging old guns for new. I am pretty CCP isn't going to just give everyone with a stock of old POS guns a lump of ISK. Though if they did a fair price would be equal to the highest EVE market sales average for that item in the 3 months prior to announcement that new structures were coming in the summer of 2015. If CCP follow recent practice for module rebalance CCP will map many old weapon types to a few new weapon classes then swap old items for new. Which is great if you only have stuff from the low end cost and capabilities of old items that are mapped to a given new item. But usually there is no real parity for older items at the higher end of a mapped exchange group -- just a huge ISK and capacity loss. I suspect the argument is that only the richest folk have the items at the top of the mapped group & this is a good time to let air out of creeping EVE inflation at top end of players. But unless you are talking items of truly cosmic cost increase (e.g. officer or rare faction gear) EVE often does not work that way. That is the small POS owner DOES own a couple large artillery modules and not just small blasters modules. Maybe they are just collecting good buys for a planned medium POS or maybe they hung a stupid defense array on a small POS.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 22:33:44 -
[7] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ?
I like the new structure model BUT....
Ugh! Like many others I see huge issues with transition from old POS to new structures on day ZERO.
How does CCP plan to fairly map current widely varied external weapons battery deployment to a very few internal variations under the new ship like model?
I suppose there are 3 major approaches.
(1) Unfeasible. Send everyone's POS and stored gear to nearest friendly outpost or station. Make everyone redeploy from scratch and fight over spot and sovereignty. I believe CCP already rejected this due to projected lynch mob and 80% loss of business.
(2) Set everyone up with basic structure functionality and defenses. Modules inside structure map more cleanly and most advanced capability modules can generally be plugged in automatically until slots are filled. Consider all defense modules outside force field as extra optional capability. Put all exchanged "old for new" items in structure corporate storage (assumption that worst case fits) when they cannot be auto-plugged. Let users choose to add stored optional modules to structure as they log on. So Deathstar is not Deathstar until someone customizes. Problem: module exchange induced market glut due to far few slots than modules for weapons and certain other swaps (e.g. manufacturing storage tanks, hangars, corp storage, maybe refineries, etc)
(3) Pre-planned structure customization in advance of day zero. As one time good deal CCP has a corp pop-up window to determine how old gear on the spot gets swapped for new gear & instantly deployed. Might share code with final long term structure deployment interface but not instant DT deployment of day ZERO. Problem: needs to be available day if not weeks before day ZERO transition and needs way to hand offline POS of idle corps (yeah EVE has semi-abandon or low use POS esp in hi sec and WH). I guess option 2 above could be default for those not ready before ZERO Day change.
(2a) I suppose a minor variation on option 2 exists where CCP "power rates" old defense or functions vs "power rating" of new structures then automatically plugs new modules for closest match. Could even avoid market glut issues of unused modules by discarding all extras or simply giving nominal ISK/mineral value. Probably not as happy as solution value-wise but more seamless change for common POS in operation. Gonna miss a little on some unusual purpose POS but there is not a perfect solution. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 23:32:50 -
[8] - Quote
unimatrix0030 wrote:Citadel weapons will be fit like a ship fitting. But will we be able to target them individualy and incapacitate them like the current pos systems or will it be like a ship, working until the citadel is destroyed(or overheat damage)?
Already answered in part. Weapons disabled by Entosis as a station function. Or at least I assume that is just another station function. Though maybe that is only at slot level of supplementary defense modules.
Meaning certain defense capability built into bare hull itself might not be disabled by Entosis until structure hull goes into reinforce or maybe not at all. Interesting question from hull reinforce/capture viewpoint. That would actually be fair exchange for loss of force field coverage for defending ships. Docking with blind undock or fixed mooring with no initial maneuver options are not equivalent to force field advantage that worked even at reinforced POS. Also consider that forcefields kept enemy ships at distance while maneuvering to warp etc & now enemies can be at point blank and ready to scramble range. So a certain basic level of persistent firepower from hull itself might be good compensation. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 00:27:19 -
[9] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:The first or second Dev blog said they would old and new POSs would coexist for an unspecified amount of transition time.
My preference would be for CCP to have an equivalency matrix for POS items and let you right-click convert them. Something like, you empty, offline, and optionally scoop everything but the tower. Right click tower to convert it to new equivalent. Bring your old POS items into the station, right click them to convert to new equivalents. Anything that doesn't have an equivalent should refund the ISK value from a month before fanfest. (Refunding minerals for everyone would cause mineral costs to plummet for a bit causing diminishing returns for POS owners.)
(Optional) If a tower isn't manually converted move all tower assets into a corp hanger in the nearest NPC station and add a journal entry.
This way many corps/alliances wouldn't have the IMMENSE amount of work of disposing of their existing POSs before the time came when old POSs are taken out of the game completely.
Autoconvert on Unanchor would be lots better for anyone with lots of POS modules at various locations. Matrix convert would be nicest for corps and individual with only single POS and few spare modules. Even then transporting modules to NPC stations and back could be painful and very risky. I can see a pirate windfall on that month.
Plus no nullsec corp wants to have their moon mining spot up for grabs for however long it takes to logon and haul parts back from an NPC station. Can you imagine the hundreds of POS disappearing and the race to erect them again potentially 0-20 jumps away? No concentration of escorts possible unless you possibly concede some systems and orbital slots as lower priority...so lots of dead haulers carrying structures.
WH POS would be even worse situation. Cause I assume all WH POS would go back to Jita as best definition of closest NPC station for unknown space. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 00:33:27 -
[10] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:The first or second Dev blog said they would old and new POSs would coexist for an unspecified amount of transition time.
My preference would be for CCP to have an equivalency matrix for POS items and let you right-click convert them. Something like, you empty, offline, and optionally scoop everything but the tower. Right click tower to convert it to new equivalent. Bring your old POS items into the station, right click them to convert to new equivalents. Anything that doesn't have an equivalent should refund the ISK value from a month before fanfest. (Refunding minerals for everyone would cause mineral costs to plummet for a bit causing diminishing returns for POS owners.)
(Optional) If a tower isn't manually converted move all tower assets into a corp hanger in the nearest NPC station and add a journal entry.
This way many corps/alliances wouldn't have the IMMENSE amount of work of disposing of their existing POSs before the time came when old POSs are taken out of the game completely.
Well coexisting side by side orbital structures would solve much of this. That would give corps quick place to store stuff from old POS. Convert on unanchor would do away with hassle and danger of round trip transporting back to station. Many of those converted modules could be installed as soon as a new hull was anchor - thus reducing purchases needed. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|