| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
677
   |
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:46:18 -
[1] - Quote
Very promising indeed, it's great to see so many concerns from the last blog being fully addressed.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
677
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:37:03 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tobias Frank wrote:Looks promising!
Also, will we get docking scenes in the new citadels as we have now in stations/outposts when we are docked? Ship spinning is an important feature! No docking scene. When you dock, the camera will be centered around the structure instead, so you can now play structure spinning.
Walking in stations nerf confirmed! |
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
677
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:54:04 -
[3] - Quote
Some of the WIP artwork has multiple hangars... does that mean multiple undock points are happening? |
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
678
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:36:51 -
[4] - Quote
Will Ship Scanners (or a new equivalent) allow you to see how a structure is equipped? |
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
678
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 09:10:24 -
[5] - Quote
Will there be any mechanic in place to prevent indefinitely abandoned structures?
I understand this is more of an issue with starbases, as there are a finite number of moons per system. However even with severely reduced anchoring restrictions I can see certain areas of space being packed with old structures from defunct corps. Will there be a more direct method to dispose of (and hopefully loot) these? |
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
678
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 09:15:34 -
[6] - Quote
Tara Anju wrote:I like the described mechanics but I must admit I am a bit confused now.
Does all this only aply to citadels or other upcoming structures (mining stations, sensor arrays, ...) as well?
What about that command node spawning mechanic?
I really liked that idea of spreding combat over a whole region and making the topography of a regin matter in combat.
Is that all obsolete now?
Please clarify which mechanic applies to which parts of structure / sov warfare.
This will pretty much apply to all future structures also (aside from sov-related ones like TCUs).
The trouble with command nodes for non-sov structures is two-fold:
1) You're fighting for control of the structure itself, not control of the area as with sov. It makes sense that stand-alone structures are conquered through firepower.
2) These structures are meant to work in all kinds of space rather than just nullsec. This in turn brings around limitations when you move constellation-based fighting to other kinds of space; how would it work in wormholes, or when one side doesn't have the security status to move freely within a full high-sec constellation? It's best to keep things consistent in a way that works everywhere. |
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
679
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 11:01:50 -
[7] - Quote
afkalt wrote:
It's the same in *every* area of eve. Someone "expecting" a level of item safety in say, a freighter, is laughed off these boards - and rightly so.
Why do other areas qualify for special snowflake treatment?
Did I miss a bit in the blog which says people can't evac when it is RFd? Serisou question, I might have, I was doing a lot at once when I read it. If I did not and evac is viable....there's literally no good reason for this whatsoever.
In order to lose a freighter you *have* to be logged in and playing the game. You're actively in a position to mitigate any risk via in-game action.
Structures are persistent items that have to balance risk with the concept that players cannot be around 24/7 to mitigate it. EVE is (in theory at least) a video game and not a job. That means accommodating real life events such as players getting sick, going on holiday, looking after family, and any other scenario that could result in them being away from their hobby for a few days or more. By not providing scope for players to step away for a time, CCP would actively alienate a majority of players from using their brand new feature that's receiving so much development time. At best the feature would be under-utilised, at worst players would simply not play anymore.
It's hardly 'special snowflake treatment' to draw a line between a player actively logged in the game and able to take action, and a player who could lose months or years worth of assets to a real life calamity.
|
| |
|