Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14605
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 15:08:25 -
[1] - Quote
Hey everyone.
As we announced in the Engineering Complex dev blog in October, the upcoming release on December 13th will remove the ability to deploy new Outposts and Outpost Upgrades in New Eden. This is a small first step in the long-term plan to gradually replace these legacy structures with newer Upwell technology. Any Outposts and Outpost upgrades deployed/installed before the December 13th downtime will continue to operate as normal and will not have any bonuses or functionality removed at this time.
As part of this release we are also ending the NPC market seeding of Outpost Construction Platform blueprints, Outpost Improvement Platforms and Outpost Upgrade Platforms, and it will no longer be possible to build new Outpost Construction Platforms. Any remaining blueprints and items in these groups that are not consumed before the December 13th downtime will be eligible for a form of reimbursement in the future. More information about this reimbursement plan will be provided at a later date.
If you or your alliance plans to deploy a new outpost or outpost upgrade, we urge you to do so before December 13th.
This thread will serve as the place to ask questions. Thanks!
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine.
163
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 15:42:31 -
[2] - Quote
and it begins |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
581
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 15:52:16 -
[3] - Quote
cool. whats an outpost?
Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
617
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 15:53:10 -
[4] - Quote
Black Ops rebalance?
When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
|
Amak Boma
Dragon Factory Peoples United Republic Empire
216
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 15:56:01 -
[5] - Quote
disable ability to store plex and skill extractor/injector to any ship.
also question - willw e fly concord ships ever? afaik i watched youtube and there will be frig cruiser and concord bs give away. what are requirements to acquire one and will be there other method to gain access to these sweet ships? |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2844
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 16:10:08 -
[6] - Quote
Would you please fix the game before you do anything else with the new structures? The industry window is currently utterly unusable because loading the tab Facilities in particular takes ages (longer than a freighter warp through a 50 AU system) and gets stuck often, loading contracts takes ages as well and the market is still sluggish.
You still cannot remotely contract or remotely sell things in a citadel. You still have not fixed the issue with citadel access courier traps.
Get to work on these issues before you progress with your structures plan!
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14607
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 16:16:24 -
[7] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Would you please fix the game before you do anything else with the new structures? The industry window is currently utterly unusable because loading the tab Facilities in particular takes ages (longer than a freighter warp through a 50 AU system) and gets stuck often, loading contracts takes ages as well and the market is still sluggish.
You still cannot remotely contract or remotely sell things in a citadel. You still have not fixed the issue with citadel access courier traps.
Get to work on these issues before you progress with your structures plan!
The issues you're describing are all near the top of our priority list and we're working on getting them fixed asap.
The ending of new outpost deployments doesn't slow down work on those features and actually frees up more resources for fixing structure bugs and adding missing functionality.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
Dreamer Targaryen
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 16:17:26 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:the upcoming release on December 13th will remove the ability to deploy new Outposts and Outpost Upgrades in New Eden.
Why now? There are a bunch of things, that are currently only available in/through the current Outposts, including, but not limited to:
- Insurence
- Repairing of Items (in case you don't have a ship to fit the module to, e.g. repairing of capital modules is impossible if you don't own a capital)
- Amarr Outposts are still the only way to get bonuses to system cost index multipliers.
With the removal of the ability to deploy new outposts now, you also remove the ability "get" those things, if you don't already own an outpost. Wouldn't it be more practical to take that away from us once there is already some sort of replacement for it instead of now? |
Grognard Commissar
Splinter Cell Operations inPanic
14
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 16:31:47 -
[9] - Quote
Dreamer Targaryen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:the upcoming release on December 13th will remove the ability to deploy new Outposts and Outpost Upgrades in New Eden. Why now? There are a bunch of things, that are currently only available in/through the current Outposts, including, but not limited to:
- Insurence
- Repairing of Items (in case you don't have a ship to fit the module to, e.g. repairing of capital modules is impossible if you don't own a capital)
- Amarr Outposts are still the only way to get bonuses to system cost index multipliers.
With the removal of the ability to deploy new outposts now, you also remove the ability "get" those things, if you don't already own an outpost. Wouldn't it be more practical to take that away from us once there is already some sort of replacement for it instead of now? I wholly agree. this seems kinda like putting the cart before the horse here. unless those missing pieces are to be released at the same time. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2845
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 16:34:07 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The issues you're describing are all near the top of our priority list and we're working on getting them fixed asap.
The ending of new outpost deployments doesn't slow down work on those features and actually frees up more resources for fixing structure bugs and adding missing functionality. Great, at least something.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
|
Angel Vrae
modro Swords of Damocles
10
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 16:36:50 -
[11] - Quote
why outposts?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely POS's should be the first to go? these things are obsolete.
(then again they could be the same damned thing and im just being ********)
Angel Vrae
Gallentean
Intaki
Artists
Industrial and Mining Director
Enriched Ambitions
|
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
162
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:03:29 -
[12] - Quote
Angel Vrae wrote:why outposts?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely POS's should be the first to go? these things are obsolete.
(then again they could be the same damned thing and im just being ********)
LOL POS's are not obsolete at all.
Things POS's can do that Citadels can't:
1. Protect a super or titan - Except for the case of a spy or idiot in charge of the pos password/awox and the 300 Billion killmail known as a keepstar, POS's are the safest place to put a titan or super.
Why? - You can still be bumped off of a citadel. This along with the promised warp changes are two things that have not been address or even mentioned by CCP in a while.
2. Moon Mine - This I think is getting replaced in the next major expansion though.
3. Anchor cyno jammers, jump bridges, etc. No mention when these are coming to citadels.
POS's will still be mandatory until the items in number 1 are addressed. |
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
75
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:03:36 -
[13] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Would you please fix the game before you do anything else with the new structures? The industry window is currently utterly unusable because loading the tab Facilities in particular takes ages (longer than a freighter warp through a 50 AU system) and gets stuck often, loading contracts takes ages as well and the market is still sluggish.
You still cannot remotely contract or remotely sell things in a citadel. You still have not fixed the issue with citadel access courier traps.
On the subject of industry window issues, once you have more than a handful of blueprints you find that
* the search box freezes the entire UI for several seconds, * the search box will sometimes load the search result result and then immediately load in a different set of blueprints which overwrite the search results. * the order that the facilities are shown in the drop-down box is apparently random, or at least inexplicable * there is no way to see the output hangar of a job, or change it after the job has been initiated * clicking on a job activity sometimes doesn't respond, as if waiting for a server response ...
Trade Hub Price Checker: stop.hammerti.me.uk/pricecheck
Visit "Haulers Channel" in game for all matters courier-related.
Structure name/system API: stop.hammerti.me.uk/api
|
Bubba Freedom
Sucking Grandly LLC
12
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:05:56 -
[14] - Quote
are we getting replacements for these soon? The question no one has asked while complaining is if/when the replacements will be here |
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
162
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:07:59 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The issues you're describing are all near the top of our priority list and we're working on getting them fixed asap.
The ending of new outpost deployments doesn't slow down work on those features and actually frees up more resources for fixing structure bugs and adding missing functionality.
Can we get an update or at least a mention that these are on the list?
1. Citadel teather bumping? Until this is addressed, POS's cannot be removed since you cannot protect anything on them from being bumped out of range.
2. Warp mechanics that were mentioned a while ago where you would auto warp after a few minutes (I think it was 1 or 3) so long as you were not scrammed, etc. Basically, anti-bumping mechan |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3138
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:15:32 -
[16] - Quote
14 replies and more than half of them are unrelated or asking for something else.
Better watch out guys, keep being greedy and the Yule lads will gobble you up this year. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2828
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:18:13 -
[17] - Quote
Scotsman Howard wrote:Angel Vrae wrote:why outposts?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely POS's should be the first to go? these things are obsolete.
(then again they could be the same damned thing and im just being ********) LOL POS's are not obsolete at all. Things POS's can do that Citadels can't: 1. Protect a super or titan - Except for the case of a spy or idiot in charge of the pos password/awox and the 300 Billion killmail known as a keepstar, POS's are the safest place to put a titan or super. Why? - You can still be bumped off of a citadel. This along with the promised warp changes are two things that have not been address or even mentioned by CCP in a while. 2. Moon Mine - This I think is getting replaced in the next major expansion though. 3. Anchor cyno jammers, jump bridges, etc. No mention when these are coming to citadels. POS's will still be mandatory until the items in number 1 are addressed.
Ehhh. A keepstar should be in the budget of any alliance fielding Titans, really. 2 and 3 are the important points, here.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Martin Hunter
Celestial Horizon Corp. Badfellas Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:23:05 -
[18] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. As we announced in the Engineering Complex dev blog in October, the upcoming release on December 13th will remove the ability to deploy new Outposts and Outpost Upgrades in New Eden. This is a small first step in the long-term plan to gradually replace these legacy structures with newer Upwell technology. Any Outposts and Outpost upgrades deployed/installed before the December 13th downtime will continue to operate as normal and will not have any bonuses or functionality removed at this time. As part of this release we are also ending the NPC market seeding of Outpost Construction Platform blueprints, Outpost Improvement Platforms and Outpost Upgrade Platforms, and it will no longer be possible to build new Outpost Construction Platforms. Any remaining blueprints and items in these groups that are not consumed before the December 13th downtime will be eligible for a form of reimbursement in the future. More information about this reimbursement plan will be provided at a later date. If you or your alliance plans to deploy a new outpost or outpost upgrade, we urge you to do so before December 13th. This thread will serve as the place to ask questions. Thanks!
|
Samshini
Application Rejected
2
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:25:46 -
[19] - Quote
So in plain words ? is it your not allowing new POS's is that what an outpost is.....or do you mean citadel? what are you phasing out . Using words like Outpost in content that doesn't use it is not helpful for us players we have simple names and acronyms for all that fancy stuff.Are you just wanting to replace stations with new citadel stuff? I get it the ME/TE complexes help with ME/TE for the bpo/bpcs used. but what are you replacing? what are you shying away from,other than legacy stuff.
|
Martin Hunter
Celestial Horizon Corp. Badfellas Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:27:59 -
[20] - Quote
Samshini wrote:So in plain words ? is it your not allowing new POS's is that what an outpost is.....or do you mean citadel? what are you phasing out . Using words like Outpost in content that doesn't use it is not helpful for us players we have simple names and acronyms for all that fancy stuff.Are you just wanting to replace stations with new citadel stuff? I get it the ME/TE complexes help with ME/TE for the bpo/bpcs used. but what are you replacing? what are you shying away from,other than legacy stuff.
Nope not pos's, their talking the stations players can deploy in sov space ie player owned stations = outposts. nothing to do with POSs |
|
Andronicus Maximo
Knights of Guinness and Blue Shamrocks
3
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:29:35 -
[21] - Quote
Scotsman Howard wrote:Angel Vrae wrote:why outposts?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely POS's should be the first to go? these things are obsolete.
(then again they could be the same damned thing and im just being ********) LOL POS's are not obsolete at all. Things POS's can do that Citadels can't: 1. Protect a super or titan - Except for the case of a spy or idiot in charge of the pos password/awox and the 300 Billion killmail known as a keepstar, POS's are the safest place to put a titan or super. Why? - You can still be bumped off of a citadel. This along with the promised warp changes are two things that have not been address or even mentioned by CCP in a while. 2. Moon Mine - This I think is getting replaced in the next major expansion though. 3. Anchor cyno jammers, jump bridges, etc. No mention when these are coming to citadels. POS's will still be mandatory until the items in number 1 are addressed. .......and they are more affordable bases for smaller corps |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1483
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:46:19 -
[22] - Quote
Bubba Freedom wrote:are we getting replacements for these soon? The question no one has asked while complaining is if/when the replacements will be here
The replacements are here - they're called Citadels.
Opinions about whether they're an adequate replacement seem to vary wildly depending on who you ask, what day of the week it is, and how many hamsters are currently taking a poop on TQ.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2829
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:48:21 -
[23] - Quote
Samshini wrote:So in plain words ? is it your not allowing new POS's is that what an outpost is.....or do you mean citadel? what are you phasing out . Using words like Outpost in content that doesn't use it is not helpful for us players we have simple names and acronyms for all that fancy stuff.Are you just wanting to replace stations with new citadel stuff? I get it the ME/TE complexes help with ME/TE for the bpo/bpcs used. but what are you replacing? what are you shying away from,other than legacy stuff.
There is a structure called an Outpost. That is the structure they're referring to.
It is not a POS.
It is not a citadel.
They're using the word "outpost" because that is what it is called.
The good news is, you're clearly not going to be affected by this.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Hello Meow Kitty
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 17:49:51 -
[24] - Quote
When do we get a dev blog on the upcoming features in this release?
The space nerd in me is going insane. |
Corsica Wind
LightWind Industries
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 18:05:15 -
[25] - Quote
This form for reimburstment, will it be for the market value of where we are located in EVE or a general payment (averaged) for each Outpost? |
StarRanger
Royal Star Ranger Family
29
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 18:08:27 -
[26] - Quote
Dont you just love confusion :)
We as players always talk about stations and POS's , CCP talks about Outposts and Control Towers. It's just what you are used to use in the game.
Gÿà playing with spaceships since 2003, serious business!
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2829
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 18:12:08 -
[27] - Quote
StarRanger wrote:Dont you just love confusion :) We as players always talk about stations and POS's , CCP talks about Outposts and Control Towers. It's just what you are used to use in the game.
They're not really stations, though. They're outposts. If you called them stations, they would be conflated with conquerable stations, which are another thing that exists.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Circumstantial Evidence
367
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 18:41:42 -
[28] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, while you are removing some obsolete gear, can you take a look at SBU's ? The NPC buy orders have run their course. I think you once proposed to convert all existing SBU's and their BPO's into TCU's. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2831
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 18:50:09 -
[29] - Quote
Corsica Wind wrote:This form for reimburstment, will it be for the market value of where we are located in EVE or a general payment (averaged) for each Outpost?
Nothing? They're probably not being removed any time soon. You just won't be able to place new ones.
If they do eventually remove them, I'd be surprised if there's any reimbursement (unlike POS).
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
164
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 19:06:34 -
[30] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Ehhh. A keepstar should be in the budget of any alliance fielding Titans, really. 2 and 3 are the important points, here.
In the grand scheme, I would probably agree with you. However, the simple fact is that the game does need to consider smaller groups as well. A large group should be able to push someone's sandcastle over, and they could do this by bubbling a POS (assuming null).
However, at the end of the day, there are other groups who use titans simply for bridging or small ops. Requiring a 300B investment (that will more than likely never even anchor) is sort of a bit of a stretch. Yes Eve is hard and not suppose to be easy, but that may be pushing the idea a bit.
Right now, it is easy to get a titan or super off an undock. It is called a dread bomb (a variation on the old pos bowling mechanic that was banned by CCP and then made impossible by changing cyno rules).
Drop a ton of caps on top of it to bump it at a huge rate of speed and kill it.
So simply put, even with keepstars in the game, CCP has basically re implemented a mechanic that they banned in the first place.
Yes, you can say that if someone wants to be safe, they should just log off the toon, but ANY game mechanic that basically forces a player to log or keep playing needs to be looked at to determine if it is acceptable. In this case, I do not think so. |
|
FireusI Jr
F-I-N-K Industry Sarcos Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 19:55:54 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Would you please fix the game before you do anything else with the new structures? The industry window is currently utterly unusable because loading the tab Facilities in particular takes ages (longer than a freighter warp through a 50 AU system) and gets stuck often, loading contracts takes ages as well and the market is still sluggish.
You still cannot remotely contract or remotely sell things in a citadel. You still have not fixed the issue with citadel access courier traps.
Get to work on these issues before you progress with your structures plan! The issues you're describing are all near the top of our priority list and we're working on getting them fixed asap. The ending of new outpost deployments doesn't slow down work on those features and actually frees up more resources for fixing structure bugs and adding missing functionality.
1) Also what about fixing the ticket system i had tickets go missing once i placed them ( Still do to this day) as i put one in not long ago about clone jumping oh wait its gone again for the 2nd time ( so Gave up).
2) local window to match station with standings how is red and who is not. This has been the case in the 7 years i been playing.
3) its nice u give us things but why fix things that are not broken and you vamp them and we hate them like the character info up date.
4) sick of mining changes ( We miners are the back bone of this game but yet not a fan of this new add on but thats just me talking ).
|
ckif Ormand
Gore Corp MATOU Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 20:13:36 -
[32] - Quote
-ƒ-Ç-+-¦-¦-é -¦-â-¦-¦ -¦-¦-¦-¦-é-î -+-+-ü-ï -¦-â-¦-â-é -+-+ -¦-+-+-+-¦-+-ü-+-Ç-+-¦-¦-é-î -+-à ? |
bringrainfire
Industrial Spy Network The. Foundation.
12
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 20:15:57 -
[33] - Quote
what will happen to all the slaves needed to build amarr outposts?
and also all the other materials that are needed. there will be no reason to shoot up convoys in highsec anymore. |
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1824
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 21:14:14 -
[34] - Quote
Bubba Freedom wrote:are we getting replacements for these soon? The question no one has asked while complaining is if/when the replacements will be here
You mean the Citadels we've had for a few months now?
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Allus Nova
45
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 22:08:25 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. As we announced in the Engineering Complex dev blog in October, the upcoming release on December 13th will remove the ability to deploy new Outposts and Outpost Upgrades in New Eden. This is a small first step in the long-term plan to gradually replace these legacy structures with newer Upwell technology. Any Outposts and Outpost upgrades deployed/installed before the December 13th downtime will continue to operate as normal and will not have any bonuses or functionality removed at this time. As part of this release we are also ending the NPC market seeding of Outpost Construction Platform blueprints, Outpost Improvement Platforms and Outpost Upgrade Platforms, and it will no longer be possible to build new Outpost Construction Platforms. Any remaining blueprints and items in these groups that are not consumed before the December 13th downtime will be eligible for a form of reimbursement in the future. More information about this reimbursement plan will be provided at a later date. If you or your alliance plans to deploy a new outpost or outpost upgrade, we urge you to do so before December 13th. This thread will serve as the place to ask questions. Thanks!
Fozzie...PLEASE don't **** with stations until Citadels are actually fully working. We have no insurance, repairs don't work inside, there are bugs with repairs to things like drones while tethered, and remote contracts don't work. |
Cade Windstalker
624
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 22:30:04 -
[36] - Quote
I'm really not sure why people are getting so bent out of shape over this, Outposts are currently indestructible as are the upgrades, and new outposts are deployed fairly rarely as-is. All the existing stuff will remain in place as well, so nothing is being removed, they're just stopping new stuff from being put up. |
Padre Aldan
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 23:04:23 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:This thread will serve as the place to ask questions. Thanks! Thank you, Fozzie, for the interesting and invaluable information on this, the hard work of your team and yourself is appreciated, as always.
A quick question (and I apologise if it has been answered elsewhere) but any idea how the defunct outpost skill will be dealt with, will it be refunded like other now surplus skills?
I am one of the lucky "elite" () few who has the 'Outpost Construction' skill and wonder if it will have any use in the times to come. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3760
|
Posted - 2016.12.07 23:25:52 -
[38] - Quote
Padre Aldan wrote:I am one of the lucky "elite" ( ) few who has the 'Outpost Construction' skill and wonder if it will have any use in the times to come. It's needed for Citadel construction and deployment already. |
Lady Ayeipsia
Perkone Caldari State
1250
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 00:19:01 -
[39] - Quote
So what happens to the outpost construction skill?
Let me edit this for clarification. Currently, the skill is required at level one to build citadels. However, you originally needed level V for certain outpost upgrades. Will there ever be a need for level V? I could not find a way in the UI that it benefited construction time or anything, so my apologies if I missed something. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
433
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 01:44:22 -
[40] - Quote
Dreamer Targaryen wrote:With the removal of the ability to deploy new outposts now, you also remove the ability "get" those things, if you don't already own an outpost. Wouldn't it be more practical to take that away from us once there is already some sort of replacement for it instead of now?
None of the current Outposts are having the insurance, repair, or index effects removed. They are still in game and will continue to still be in game until the actual deployed structures themselves are removed. So until CCP announces they are removing Outposts from EVE, you still have these services.
That said: CCP, we would really like it if we could insure, internal repair, and otherwise have all the benefits of an Outpost with Citadels.
Elenahina wrote:Bubba Freedom wrote:are we getting replacements for these soon? The question no one has asked while complaining is if/when the replacements will be here The replacements are here - they're called Citadels. Opinions about whether they're an adequate replacement seem to vary wildly depending on who you ask, what day of the week it is, and how many hamsters are currently taking a poop on TQ.
Almost made the same comment, then noted they were not talking about the structure but certain services.
Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
|
|
Uta Benigna
Grim Gambler
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 06:55:51 -
[41] - Quote
So what about the "outpost construction" skill? will i get the SP back? I've had skilled it to V, so it's quite an investment of time for me that's now completely useless. |
phoenix0269
Well Armed Rednecks The Babylon Consortium
5
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 10:26:46 -
[42] - Quote
pos's are still needed there are still to many things that you can do at the citadels and they cant defend themselves like a pos with guns during the Vulnerability times you cant bump in a pos ect. |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
764
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 10:51:14 -
[43] - Quote
Thanks for all the responses everyone!
WIthout going into timescales or the nitty gritty details, I can say that we still plan to ensure that new structures (Citadels, Engineering Complexes and beyond) reach full feature parity with POS's and Outposts before we remove either of them.
As the original post mentioned, plans for reimbursement will be announced when we're closer to the time.
Thanks again!
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Acedia
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 12:15:47 -
[44] - Quote
So this means ship insurance is been moved to High Sec and Low Sec only now? |
Tom Stonehoof
Infinite Point Systems Silver Dragonz
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 12:33:30 -
[45] - Quote
We had the summer of rage (2012), guess it's time for the winter of passive aggressiveness/Mild Rage (2016).
This is basically Incarna all over again in regards to resource allocation and implementing features that the player base has had rather vocal opposition to. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1486
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 12:45:06 -
[46] - Quote
Tom Stonehoof wrote:We had the summer of rage (2012), guess it's time for the winter of passive aggressiveness/Mild Rage (2016).
This is basically Incarna all over again in regards to resource allocation and implementing features that the player base has had rather vocal opposition to.
The major difference here is that Incarna wasn't necessary to the long term growth of the game - this is because of the amount of crap that's mired in the legacy code behind outposts and POSes and how they're managed. Legacy code that CCP apparently no longer has the people skills to effectively deal with - most likely due to employee attrition combined with poor documentation. In cases like that, the best thing to do is to replace the code with something that's easier to maintain and less spaghettified.
This has been coming for years - the systems behind outposts and POSes are antiquated and in the eight years I've been playing, CCP has not managed to make a change to those systems without seriously horking something up and causing more issues than they fixed. I'm ok with the game moving forward without them.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
Tom Stonehoof
Infinite Point Systems Silver Dragonz
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 12:58:37 -
[47] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Tom Stonehoof wrote:We had the summer of rage (2012), guess it's time for the winter of passive aggressiveness/Mild Rage (2016).
This is basically Incarna all over again in regards to resource allocation and implementing features that the player base has had rather vocal opposition to. The major difference here is that Incarna wasn't necessary to the long term growth of the game - this is because of the amount of crap that's mired in the legacy code behind outposts and POSes and how they're managed. Legacy code that CCP apparently no longer has the people skills to effectively deal with - most likely due to employee attrition combined with poor documentation. In cases like that, the best thing to do is to replace the code with something that's easier to maintain and less spaghettified. This has been coming for years - the systems behind outposts and POSes are antiquated and in the eight years I've been playing, CCP has not managed to make a change to those systems without seriously horking something up and causing more issues than they fixed. I'm ok with the game moving forward without them.
There in lies another issue though. The game is not moving forward. We're being promised new things on a bi-weekly basis. At one point we had weekly "expansion patches" until they realized the players didn't want this and it was alienating them by having massive downloads each week. Currently, further investments into citadels are not advisable until the high latency, lock ups and black screening on undock/docking including singular pilots and multiple accounts addressed as this is a severe issue plaguing the game and making a citadel more or less pointless to those whom work on an isk/hour basis for their drive to play this game.
Many of us from the years around/after incarna remember the massive "downscaling" of CCP Atlanta, CCP Shanghai and CCP Iceland offices. Along with the loss of CCP Dolan and many other staff. The loss of key staff has been obvious at since about 2013 where all native knowledge of certain systems/code vanished overnight. Disgruntled staff either left of their own accord to move to new studios, or others were outright let go. Whether directly or indirectly being publicly crucified as the reason behind things not working.
And there is actualy not much of a difference between now and incarna. There are changes that much of the playerbase did not think relevant to the gameplay or longevity of this game. Citadels were a half hearted attempt to draw players back in when they could not do the promised PoS revamp or modular structure with shielding that was promised in 2014. This is an attempt to hybridize the existing PoS features and Outpost features that is more equatable to the "Captain's Quarters" and that damned button that does nothing. And speaking of the Captain's Quarters, where is that with the Citadels? We're clearly trying to sweep that one under the rug right now since this is their big chance to pretend that it never hahppened.
But hey, if you're okay with being yanked by the chain and told "This is the new stuff, this is going to be better, this is the change we promised" and being disappointed like the United States after the 2008 election of Pres. Obama (i.e the summer of rage) to what is shaping up to be the earth shattering attrition of players like the deportation of many from the United States after the election of Pres. Elect Donald Trump (soon to be called the winter of passive aggressiveness/mild rage), then far be it from me to **** on your parade by giving you a viewpoint outside of your own that you may well soon understand, or realize that many others also share. |
Tom Stonehoof
Infinite Point Systems Silver Dragonz
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 13:05:45 -
[48] - Quote
On a related side note, can we please fix the EvE Gate usage while docked in a citadel? It would be nice if I could log in there directly, change characters, read my mail and answer it without having to constantly bounce back and forth to the forums which is a whole separate entity it seems these days, and going back to gate to check my mail? This was promised to be fixed around the same time in citadel contracts was promised to be fixed and the "workaround" that this supposedly is, is nothing more than a poor excuse of a "temporary fix". |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
764
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 13:49:45 -
[49] - Quote
Acedia wrote:So this means ship insurance is been moved to High Sec and Low Sec only now? Except that:
- Outposts aren't going anywhere in the near future. - Our plan is to reach feature parity before they are removed. - NPC Null allows for insurance outside of Empire space.
Tom Stonehoof wrote:At one point we had weekly "expansion patches" until they realized the players didn't want this and it was alienating them by having massive downloads each week. This was never promised or attempted, please don't spread untruths. Monthly patches were promised and continue to be delivered (Though we have tended back towards grouping things together for larger releases and having smaller releases in between)
Tom Stonehoof wrote:There are changes that much of the playerbase did not think relevant to the gameplay or longevity of this game. If you could point me towards all this negative sentiment towards removing POS's and Outposts I'd be very interested to read it. For what I've seen the response have been mostly understanding.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Tom Stonehoof
Infinite Point Systems Silver Dragonz
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 14:27:01 -
[50] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Tom Stonehoof wrote:At one point we had weekly "expansion patches" until they realized the players didn't want this and it was alienating them by having massive downloads each week. CCP Lebowski wrote: This was never promised or attempted, please don't spread untruths. Monthly patches were promised and continue to be delivered (Though we have tended back towards grouping things together for larger releases and having smaller releases in between) 1) Never insult one of your players. 2) Never insult the intelligence of one of your players 3) If you're going to insult one of your players, be prepared for them to fire back with your company's own disclosures from fanfest, fanfest keynotes, all sponsored eve gatherings. Quote:On May 6, 2014 at their yearly Fanfest convention, CCP announced the move from the current development cycle of two expansions per year, to ten expansions per year on a rapid release cycle of six weeks per expansion.[159] In September 2015, CCP announced that while the five week release cycle would be maintained for content such as quality of life changes, ship balance changes, visual upgrades, new ship skins and storyline developments, they would also be bringing back expansions: Source = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansions_of_Eve_Online So yes, it wasn't weekly, but it was more frequent, and had been an excuse for a brief period to attempt to push content faster and created much dislike in the general population. Hence the fallback to now include the old patch/expansion scheduling as well. Tom Stonehoof wrote:There are changes that much of the playerbase did not think relevant to the gameplay or longevity of this game. If you could point me towards all this negative sentiment towards removing POS's and Outposts I'd be very interested to read it. For what I've seen the response have been mostly understanding.
Have you not read this thread? And are you still continuing to insult your playerbase by playing the fool? Welcome to the winter of rage.
Edit: I can't unscrew this quoting mess since I can only quote 5 times per post. So people will have to be smart about figuring this out... *throws hands in air at the forum design* |
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
765
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 15:25:40 -
[51] - Quote
Tom Stonehoof wrote:Have you not read this thread? And are you still continuing to insult your playerbase by playing the fool? Welcome to the winter of rage. Good sir, with the utmost respect, have you read this thread?
So far it's had under 40 characters posting, and out of those I count less than 10 responses that could be called negative. Most of those are along the lines of "Please don't remove outposts before you provide new structures with the features they are missing", which as I said above, we've already promised!
Tom Stonehoof wrote:1) Never insult one of your players. 2) Never insult the intelligence of one of your players 3) If you're going to insult one of your players, be prepared for them to fire back with your company's own disclosures from fanfest, fanfest keynotes, all sponsored eve gatherings. I had absolutely no intention of insulting you, I simply pointed out that what you said wasn't factual. On top of that, the quotes you posted corroborated my point precisely!
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Zappity
Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde
3079
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 15:27:56 -
[52] - Quote
Tom Stonehoof wrote:I don't even know... New structures are so much better than POS or outposts. What are you talking about? We just need the bugs ironed out and basic stuff like insurance added. (Seriously, add insurance please.)
I don't think player sentiment is on your side here.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate Together We Solo
317
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 15:35:34 -
[53] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Tom Stonehoof wrote:There are changes that much of the playerbase did not think relevant to the gameplay or longevity of this game. If you could point me towards all this negative sentiment towards removing POS's and Outposts I'd be very interested to read it. For what I've seen the response have been mostly understanding.
Not related to outpost, but every single feedback thread for Citadels and the manufacturing arrays so far has been filled with complaints that they are not a replacement for small POSGÇÖs in price point, utility, stealth, and mobility for small corps and solo people especially. Groups you keep specifically saying will love these. I would point you to these, but it really is every single thread about them has this discussion. Not only have yaGÇÖll ignored all these concerns you continue to just say GÇÿwill be great for small corps and solo peopleGÇÖ in every public statement about them while the actual community of small entities loudly begs to differ. It's been a bit dismissive and insulting both by CCP and the CSM.
I have suggested before that whatGÇÖs need is something like a roundtable with small corps and solo people to actually hear and address these concerns. But you wonGÇÖt even acknowledge these concerns in the feedback threads. This entire thread practically past page 3 is all about wether these new structures can actually be used by small corps and solo people as you keep promising, but none of CCPs replies have anything to do with that. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=495425&p=4
As I have said, if CCP is going to raise the bar for structure ownership in game fine. But you need to come out and just SAY that. Stop playing this coy game where you just ignore the small entities elephant in the room while saying everything will be the same. Or if you donGÇÖt actually think you are raising the bar significantly for structure ownership by small entities as compared to POSGÇÖs then you really do need to engage with that community on some level because that is wildly out of touch. |
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
166
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 15:43:50 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Tom Stonehoof wrote:Have you not read this thread? And are you still continuing to insult your playerbase by playing the fool? Welcome to the winter of rage. Good sir, with the utmost respect, have you read this thread? So far it's had under 40 characters posting, and out of those I count less than 10 responses that could be called negative. Most of those are along the lines of "Please don't remove outposts before you provide new structures with the features they are missing", which as I said above, we've already promised! Tom Stonehoof wrote:1) Never insult one of your players. 2) Never insult the intelligence of one of your players 3) If you're going to insult one of your players, be prepared for them to fire back with your company's own disclosures from fanfest, fanfest keynotes, all sponsored eve gatherings. I had absolutely no intention of insulting you, I simply pointed out that what you said wasn't factual. On top of that, the quotes you posted corroborated my point precisely! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!
You're not taking crazy pills. You are just attempting to reason with an annonomous person on a forum who clearly has his own views about things and thinks they apply to the player base as a whole.
As for the rest of this thread's original purpose, we have known for a while where everything was heading. Yes there are a few things still missing, but those a limited mostly to POS functions that are missing.
To be honest, the only complaint I could possibly give on this announcement was the relatively short time/notice given lol, but that is not a serious issue at all really considering the time it would take to prep anyways. |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
765
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 15:47:01 -
[55] - Quote
Manssell wrote:Not related to outpost, but every single feedback thread for Citadels and the manufacturing arrays so far has been filled with complaints that they are not a replacement for small POSGÇÖs in price point, utility, stealth, and mobility for small corps and solo people especially. Groups you keep specifically saying will love these. I would point you to these, but it really is every single thread about them has this discussion. Not only have yaGÇÖll ignored all these concerns you continue to just say GÇÿwill be great for small corps and solo peopleGÇÖ in every public statement about them while the actual community of small entities loudly begs to differ. It's been a bit dismissive and insulting both by CCP and the CSM. I have suggested before that whatGÇÖs need is something like a roundtable with small corps and solo people to actually hear and address these concerns. But you wonGÇÖt even acknowledge these concerns in the feedback threads. This entire thread practically past page 3 is all about wether these new structures can actually be used by small corps and solo people as you keep promising, but none of CCPs replies have anything to do with that. (the most 'liked' post are all about that) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=495425&p=4 As I have said, if CCP is going to raise the bar for structure ownership in game fine. But you need to come out and just SAY that. Stop playing this coy game where you just ignore the small entities elephant in the room while saying everything will be the same. Or if you donGÇÖt actually think you are raising the bar significantly for structure ownership by small entities as compared to POSGÇÖs then you really do need to engage with that community on some level because that is wildly out of touch. Thanks for that response, appreciate you taking the time to highlight that again. I'll bring this up with the team and see if we can get some traction on it, at the very least in the form of an official statement on this subject.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1070
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 15:53:33 -
[56] - Quote
Tom Stonehoof wrote:We had the summer of rage (2012), guess it's time for the winter of passive aggressiveness/Mild Rage (2016).
This is basically Incarna all over again in regards to resource allocation and implementing features that the player base has had rather vocal opposition to. the player base, with tiny exceptions, has been strongly pro-cits and pro-ecs |
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1070
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 15:58:05 -
[57] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Thanks for that response, appreciate you taking the time to highlight that again. I'll bring this up with the team and see if we can get some traction on it, at the very least in the form of an official statement on this subject.
im going to be real blunt here: the reason that the team hasn't been responding to these guys is because they are not going to be happy with anything short of the best highsec production facilities for 100m isk that are completely wardec-immune
small pos as production is broken as all hell and everyone who looked at it knows it, and there's no lack of clarity. there's just a small group of people complaining they're not getting what they want |
Cade Windstalker
625
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 16:31:23 -
[58] - Quote
Manssell wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:Tom Stonehoof wrote:There are changes that much of the playerbase did not think relevant to the gameplay or longevity of this game. If you could point me towards all this negative sentiment towards removing POS's and Outposts I'd be very interested to read it. For what I've seen the response have been mostly understanding. Not related to outpost, but every single feedback thread for Citadels and the manufacturing arrays so far has been filled with complaints that they are not a replacement for small POSGÇÖs in price point, utility, stealth, and mobility for small corps and solo people especially. Groups you keep specifically saying will love these. I would point you to these, but it really is every single thread about them has this discussion. Not only have yaGÇÖll ignored all these concerns you continue to just say GÇÿwill be great for small corps and solo peopleGÇÖ in every public statement about them while the actual community of small entities loudly begs to differ. It's been a bit dismissive and insulting both by CCP and the CSM. I have suggested before that whatGÇÖs need is something like a roundtable with small corps and solo people to actually hear and address these concerns. But you wonGÇÖt even acknowledge these concerns in the feedback threads. This entire thread practically past page 3 is all about wether these new structures can actually be used by small corps and solo people as you keep promising, but none of CCPs replies have anything to do with that. (the most 'liked' post are all about that) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=495425&p=4 As I have said, if CCP is going to raise the bar for structure ownership in game fine. But you need to come out and just SAY that. Stop playing this coy game where you just ignore the small entities elephant in the room while saying everything will be the same. Or if you donGÇÖt actually think you are raising the bar significantly for structure ownership by small entities as compared to POSGÇÖs then you really do need to engage with that community on some level because that is wildly out of touch.
It's less that threads have been filled with negative feedback and more that a few people who like the changes stop in to say a short bit and walk away, and the people who really don't like it stick around arguing for 20-30 pages either with each-other or a few people who feel like arguing a point. This pattern has held fairly constant for every feedback thread for... basically ever.
On top of that people who don't like an idea will tend to mentally discount or dismiss arguments to the contrary, so the mental weighting looks like "Oh man, look at all of these people who agree with me about how horrible this idea is!" vs "why do these few idiots defend this crap!?!?"
What you actually have is the people who like the idea mostly staying silent, while the people who don't like it are very vocal.
Best example ever of this was the Marauder changes, which went through three different major iterations. A first iteration, a second iteration after that first one got a lot of negative feedback, and then a third iteration that was very similar to the first after that second iteration got *way more* negative feedback from all the people who liked the second one more and were more than happy to say so... as soon as the idea looked like it wasn't going to happen.
Yay false consensus and mental biases! |
Circumstantial Evidence
367
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 17:29:58 -
[59] - Quote
Feature parity: a few items.
A control tower does not broadcast its presence in a solar system with an in-space icon visible to all players. When jumping into a new system, without needing to click d-scan, we can look in space for blue icons, and quickly determine that a new Citadel has started anchoring.
Separately, Overview (not in-space) Citadel icons are not supposed to be visible to players who are not in the access list. But (I think) due to the order of operations that occur in a session change, we frequently get to see all the citadel icons on the overview for just a second, until they are quickly removed from view because we don't have access.
A control tower can be online, with guns anchored able to defend itself in much less than 24 hours. The fact Citadels require 24 hours to anchor has been very good for conflict generation, but made them much harder to sneak into a solar system un-noticed, when compared to a small control tower. Especially when combined with icons visible in space.
A control tower increases its defense ability with each new player able to control its anchored weapons. That is traditional MMO game design: more players is better. I understand the decision the team made to simplify the control scheme and make it just like a ship, and its a very cool experience for the ONE player who can get to do it, in a battle at a Citadel. |
KoS Check
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 17:32:17 -
[60] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:Thanks for that response, appreciate you taking the time to highlight that again. I'll bring this up with the team and see if we can get some traction on it, at the very least in the form of an official statement on this subject.
im going to be real blunt here: the reason that the team hasn't been responding to these guys is because they are not going to be happy with anything short of the best highsec production facilities for 100m isk that are completely wardec-immune small pos as production is broken as all hell and everyone who looked at it knows it, and there's no lack of clarity. there's just a small group of people complaining they're not getting what they want
There's just a small group of homeless bees crying in a threadnaught that other people are upset because they aren't getting what they want, all the while crying foul about getting booted from their home sov and having a fortizar full of hostiles anchored right outside their last remaining bastion of ship spinning safety.
Don't worry, once that station becomes destructible, you won't have to hide anymore.... I mean you won't have anywhere to hide anymore. |
|
Tom Stonehoof
Infinite Point Systems Silver Dragonz
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 17:34:32 -
[61] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
What you actually have is the people who like the idea mostly staying silent, while the people who don't like it are very vocal.
I'm sorry, did you just assume MY OPINION? |
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
357
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 17:59:05 -
[62] - Quote
For those cases where an Astrahus is not suitable:
Maybe a huge Mobile Depot with a ship hangar and a gun on top might do?
(and if that's not stealthy enough, give it a cloaking device or at least D-scan immunity :-D) |
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1072
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 18:22:01 -
[63] - Quote
KoS Check wrote:There's just a small group of homeless bees crying in a threadnaught that other people are upset because they aren't getting what they want, all the while crying foul about getting booted from their home sov and having a fortizar full of hostiles anchored right outside their last remaining bastion of ship spinning safety.
Don't worry, once that station becomes destructible, you won't have to hide anymore.... I mean you won't have anywhere to hide anymore. we own all of delve, subhuman npc alt |
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1072
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 18:25:53 -
[64] - Quote
like what on earth do you think is going on, even for an npc alt post that is unconnected to reality |
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1072
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 18:27:13 -
[65] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Feature parity: a few items.
A control tower does not broadcast its presence in a solar system with an in-space icon visible to all players. When jumping into a new system, without needing to click d-scan, we can look in space for blue icons, and quickly determine that a new Citadel has started anchoring.
Separately, Overview (not in-space) Citadel icons are not supposed to be visible to players who are not in the access list. But (I think) due to the order of operations that occur in a session change, we frequently get to see all the citadel icons on the overview for just a second, until they are quickly removed from view because we don't have access.
A control tower can be online, with guns anchored able to defend itself in much less than 24 hours. The fact Citadels require 24 hours to anchor has been very good for conflict generation, but made them much harder to sneak into a solar system un-noticed, when compared to a small control tower. Especially when combined with icons visible in space.
A control tower increases its defense ability with each new player able to control its anchored weapons. That is traditional MMO game design: more players is better. I understand the decision the team made to simplify the control scheme and make it just like a ship, and its a very cool experience for the ONE player who can get to do it, in a battle at a Citadel. a control tower emails its location to the sov owner as soon as you anchor it, and the guns on a pos might as well not exist for all the good they do in any actual combat |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3762
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 18:47:55 -
[66] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote: a control tower emails its location to the sov owner as soon as you anchor it, and the guns on a pos might as well not exist for all the good they do in any actual combat
Guns on a POS are very relevant outside of the giant Sov entities that throw around entire capital fleets. It is one of the huge areas that Citadels are failing on in highsec, POS defences are far superior to what you can get on a Citadel in highsec, even on an XL Citadel. However that's something that's been beaten to death in other threads relevant to Citadels, which this isn't, so apologies for the slightly off topic post. |
DaReaper
Net 7 Cannon.Fodder
2916
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 18:50:32 -
[67] - Quote
citadels are million times better then pos'. keep up the good work gents
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
Eve For life.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
367
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 18:57:38 -
[68] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:a control tower emails its location to the sov owner as soon as you anchor it, and the guns on a pos might as well not exist for all the good they do in any actual combat That's cool for sov owners, but outside of Sov it might be possible to sneak in a control tower in an area someone "claims," but may not d-scan aggressively enough for new structures. |
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1072
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 19:19:58 -
[69] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:a control tower emails its location to the sov owner as soon as you anchor it, and the guns on a pos might as well not exist for all the good they do in any actual combat That's cool for sov owners, but outside of Sov it might be possible to sneak in a control tower in an area someone "claims," but may not d-scan aggressively enough for new structures. Either way, someone will notice if they look for it, and won't notice if they don't. Since it doesn't show up on your overview we are talking a very minor difference in the effort you need to put in to find it.
Also, the blue flash thing is counteracted by that you now never need to clear a moon to drop your stager. You can't be moonlocked out and need to announce, two days in advance, you plan to clear a moon and drop a pos as soon as the pos you're clearing comes out of reinforced.
This isn't a real issue. |
Circumstantial Evidence
367
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 19:35:50 -
[70] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Either way, someone will notice if they look for it, and won't notice if they don't. Since it doesn't show up on your overview we are talking a very minor difference in the effort you need to put in to find it. I think the difference in effort is significant. Just looking at space, as opposed to needing to warp to distant celestials and clicking d-scan. Or using scan probes. If CCP would block the appearance of blue icons in space for citadels that are in the anchoring process, (until after anchoring is completed) that would match what control towers do in non-sov space. |
|
mkint
1290
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 20:33:58 -
[71] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:I have my toys and damn everyone else who doesn't do EXACTLY what I do! ftfy
Maxim 6. If violence wasnGÇÖt your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3989
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 22:06:57 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Thanks for all the responses everyone!
Without going into timescales or the nitty gritty details, I can say that we still plan to ensure that new structures (Citadels, Engineering Complexes and beyond) reach full feature parity with POS's and Outposts before we remove either of them.
As the original post mentioned, plans for reimbursement will be announced when we're closer to the time.
Thanks again!
CCP Lebowski, I really want to believe you when you say "full feature parity with POS's". I really really do. In particular, the feature of fast setup and fast removal. I can do both of these with a small POS in a single play session. I cannot go so with ANY new structure.
Please, please truly give us "full feature parity with POS's".
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
435
|
Posted - 2016.12.08 22:19:04 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Tom Stonehoof wrote:There are changes that much of the playerbase did not think relevant to the gameplay or longevity of this game. If you could point me towards all this negative sentiment towards removing POS's and Outposts I'd be very interested to read it. For what I've seen the response have been mostly understanding.
As a long term user of POSes I can attest to this: 1 - they need to be replaced. 2 - The direction you are going with the new structures is meeting my expectations and more to wit: 3 - They are meeting my overall needs as far as player owned structures are concerned.
Are they perfect? I have a few gripes, (parity of services not withstanding) such as being locked into modules when the structure is damaged. I can appreciate not swapping with a combat timer, but not being able to swap when you do not have a weapons timer or at least between vulnerabilities is no where near parity with POSes.
Vincent Athena wrote: CCP Lebowski, I really want to believe you when you say "full feature parity with POS's". I really really do. In particular, the feature of fast setup and fast removal. I can do both of these with a small POS in a single play session. I cannot go so with ANY new structure.
Please, please truly give us "full feature parity with POS's".
And this is the other gripe: A viable structure one can deploy, dock in, store things in, have defenses usable, and then remove within a 24 hour period.
Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
|
Cade Windstalker
626
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 03:24:14 -
[74] - Quote
Petrified wrote: Are they perfect? I have a few gripes, (parity of services not withstanding) such as being locked into modules when the structure is damaged. I can appreciate not swapping with a combat timer, but not being able to swap when you do not have a weapons timer or at least between vulnerabilities is no where near parity with POSes.
If I had to guess this is to make the fitting choices on the Citadels more meaningful, since unlike a POS it's very very easy for a Citadel to store multiple sets of complete fittings and very easy to change them out, so in order for the initial fitting choices to mean something (since first attacks often aren't defended anyway) they lock you in to your fitting at the time of the attack, so you can't just fit for maximum industry and then re-fit for combat when you get reinforced once, either out of fittings in the Citadel or by bringing in a Jump Freighter.
This kind of touches on something that bugs me a little, "feature parity" doesn't mean "will function exactly like POSes with all of the strengths and weaknesses these old things had" it means "fills most of the same niches and meets all the needs a POS did within reason".
No where in any of the designs has CCP said they wouldn't use this as a chance to iterate on the basic POS concept, one of the oldest pieces of Eve's design, and find ways to both make it more interesting and better. |
Cade Windstalker
626
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 03:26:18 -
[75] - Quote
Tom Stonehoof wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
What you actually have is the people who like the idea mostly staying silent, while the people who don't like it are very vocal.
I'm sorry, did you just assume MY OPINION?
Nope, though I am now assuming you have a stick jammed up there somewhere.
I didn't call anyone out by name, the "you" was pretty clearly second person plural, and I was speaking generally about groups of people categorized by opinions.
So yeah, no, nice try though, 1/10 for effort. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
436
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 03:42:00 -
[76] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Petrified wrote: Are they perfect? I have a few gripes, (parity of services not withstanding) such as being locked into modules when the structure is damaged. I can appreciate not swapping with a combat timer, but not being able to swap when you do not have a weapons timer or at least between vulnerabilities is no where near parity with POSes.
If I had to guess this is to make the fitting choices on the Citadels more meaningful, since unlike a POS it's very very easy for a Citadel to store multiple sets of complete fittings and very easy to change them out, so in order for the initial fitting choices to mean something (since first attacks often aren't defended anyway) they lock you in to your fitting at the time of the attack, so you can't just fit for maximum industry and then re-fit for combat when you get reinforced once, either out of fittings in the Citadel or by bringing in a Jump Freighter. This kind of touches on something that bugs me a little, "feature parity" doesn't mean "will function exactly like POSes with all of the strengths and weaknesses these old things had" it means "fills most of the same niches and meets all the needs a POS did within reason". No where in any of the designs has CCP said they wouldn't use this as a chance to iterate on the basic POS concept, one of the oldest pieces of Eve's design, and find ways to both make it more interesting and better.
Most POSes serious about defense have multiple weapon modules offlined and ready to online should they be needed. Additionally, modules can still be anchored and onlined (once the reinforce period is over) even during battle. Anyone throwing away the first defense of their citadel by not being there is not serious about defending their citadel or simply baiting for a fight.
Additionally, there is no such thing as this: "maximum industry and then re-fit for combat" as far as modules are concerned. Rigs, yes. High Slot, Medium, and Low Slot: no - they have 0 impact on industry. Service modules, no - they have no impact on citadel defense - except cloning.
So lets fine tune my gripe to be more precise: High, Medium, and low slots should be changeable despite damage to the struture - they simply cannot be changed while you have a weapon timer. Rigs and service modules are locked into place while the structure is damaged. Now you have a structure where you can change between defending against capitals or sub-capitals etc. but if they were industry minded in their Rigs, they are locked in and they cannot 'save' their service modules.
Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
|
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
7320
|
Posted - 2016.12.09 09:44:41 -
[77] - Quote
Several off topic posts have been removed, as well as, other posts that violated our forum rules. Please keep it civil, constructive and on topic. Thank you!
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer
|
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
1574
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 00:16:22 -
[78] - Quote
Tom Stonehoof wrote:
Have you not read this thread? And are you still continuing to insult your playerbase by playing the fool? Welcome to the winter of rage.
Edit: I can't unscrew this quoting mess since I can only quote 5 times per post. So people will have to be smart about figuring this out... *throws hands in air at the forum design*
What? I'm with him on this one; the amount of negativity toward these changes has been practically non-existent, with most concerns being along the lines of wanting to make sure players don't lose the ability to do much of what they do now. You're going full-Gevlon here, Tom. There won't be any winter of rage, because there is no range. Nullsec, lowsec, and highsec alike are on-board with these changes, and the way they are happening. Hell, even w-space residents seem to be pretty pleased with the way the new structures have been coming out, what with their ability to swap clones now, and there being no asset safety. |
Sales Alt negrodamus
Sanctuary of Shadows Triumvirate.
7
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 00:58:04 -
[79] - Quote
just to add my voice, i am utterly satisfied with the way the new structures are working out. once a few minor-but-important issues are resolved they will be better than POS/station trash by a significant margin.
**** still needs to be fixed but the issues there are all well known.
i can't wait for masterplan to delete pos and outpost code |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5937
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 08:51:34 -
[80] - Quote
On the removal of POSes:
I personally will be fine operating out of an engineering complex.
But, three years ago when I didn't have a good fraction of a trillion ISK behind me, I'd have balked at paying ~1b for a destructible engineering complex that broadcasts its location.
I think there is a need for something smaller than the lowest tier engineering complex, even if it is limited to tech 2 modules and tech 1 ships. Somewhere that a player with two billion in working capital can start to cut their teeth in manufacturing.
Presently I feel the smallest engineering complex requires you to have five to ten billion in working capital to justify its expense. The smallest POS works with two to three billion in working capital and that niche needs filling.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
|
Andreus Ixiris
SergalJerk Test Alliance Please Ignore
6038
|
Posted - 2016.12.10 13:50:39 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Thanks for that response, appreciate you taking the time to highlight that again. I'll bring this up with the team and see if we can get some traction on it, at the very least in the form of an official statement on this subject. Seriously, for Structures 2.0 to be at feature parity with the old system, I would very much appreciate it if we could get CCP clarification for how the following issues will be addressed:
- Price point. For the new structures to reach feature parity with starbases, you need to have a structure that does everything that could be done in a small POS in a package that costs roughly the same as a small POS, and the same is true of medium and large POSes as well. Now obviously there's things you can do with the new structures that could never be done with a POS: docking, cloning, tethering, markets, contracts, infinite hangar space. However, you can't scale up the price by too much or you put them beyond the reach of at least some individuals and corps who currently run starbases.
- Fuel consumption. Heavily related to price point, obviously, but the same principle applies - the fuel cost for what can be done in a POS should be the basis for the fuel cost of what you do in the new structures. By current calculations, depending on fitting, it can cost nearly as much per month to run a small engineering complex than it does to run a large POS. Again, there's not an exact equivalency because it has infinite manufacturing slots and functionality a POS doesn't, but again, if you can't find a solution to this, it's going to shut a lot of people out of private manufacturing.
- Scalability. Both of the above problems relate in some way to the loss of granularity in the way structures are configured. Starbases could have one manufacturing array or many, meaning you could customise your POS' manufacturing capacity based on what you needed. New structures, by comparison, have either zero or infinite slots, with the only granularity being the rigs and the cap/supercap manufacturing modules.
- Reconfigurability. Structure rigs, like normal rigs, inexplicably crumble to dust when you pull them out (it might be time to re-examine that entire mechanic, but I won't go into it here). This is a massive issue since a starbase can be reconfigured at no permanent cost - switch out the modules and you've got a totally different starbase. Obviously, new structures can be reconfigured instantaneously which is a distinct advantage over old starbase structures which had a lengthy anchoring and onlining process. However, there is a very significant permanent cost to reconfiguring new structures.
- Defensibility. This comes down to the fact that citadel defenses are very much weaker than starbases in general, but also more specifically that weapons do not scale. You get (a few) more slots for each size upgrade, but you're always using the same launchers. While I'm not advocating for a system whereby you can create an invincible doom fortress, deathstar POSes allowed smaller groups an equalising element in fights against larger groups. The low defensibility of engineering complexes is particularly worrisome. It also makes sense that economically vital structures have so little defense while citadels - which have little value other than as staging and power projection - have vast defense grids.
I look forward to CCP's address of these concerns.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Leda Hunter
SkyDevils Brothers of Tangra
35
|
Posted - 2016.12.11 08:17:32 -
[82] - Quote
ISD Inekooj wrote:-Æ-ü-¦ -+-ü-é-¦-¦-ê-+-¦-ü-Å -ç-¦-Ç-é-¦-¦-+ -+ -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-é-ï, -+-é-+-+-ü-Å-ë-+-¦-ü-Å -¦ -¦-ï-ê-¦-+-¦-Ç-¦-ç-+-ü-+-¦-+-+-ï-+ -¦-Ç-â-+-+-¦-+, -+-¦ -+-+-Ç-¦-ü-à-+-¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-ï-¦ -¦-+ -+-+-¦-+-+-¦-+-¦-+ -+-é-¦-+-Ä-ç-¦-+-+-Å -ü-¦-Ç-¦-¦-Ç-¦ 13 -¦-¦-¦-¦-¦-Ç-Å, -¦-â-¦-â-é -¦-+-+-+-¦-+-ü-+-Ç-+-¦-¦-+-ï -+-+-+-¦-+-¦-¦ -¦ -é-+-¦ -+-+-+ -+-+-+-¦ -ä-+-Ç-+-¦.
-ú -+-¦-+-Å -é-¦-¦-+-¦ -¦-+-+-Ç-+-ü. -ò-ü-+-+ -Å -ü-¦-â-+-+-+ -+-¦ -¦-¦-ü-Å-é-+-¦ -+-+-+-+-+-¦-Ç-¦-+-¦ ISK -ç-¦-Ç-é-¦-¦-¦-¦ -+-¦ -ü-é-Ç-+-+-é-¦-+-î-ü-é-¦-+ POS'-+-¦ -+ -+-¦-¦-¦-ü -¦ -+-+-+, -¦ -+-¦-é-¦-+ -+-+-+-é-+-Ç-¦ -¦-+-¦-¦ -+-+-é-Ç-¦-é-+-+ -+-¦ -+-+-â-ç-¦-+-+-¦ ME -+ TE -ì-é-+-à -ç-¦-Ç-é-¦-¦-¦-¦, -é-+ -¦-¦-¦-â-Ä -Å -+-+-+-â-ç-â -¦-+-+-+-¦-+-ü-¦-å-+-Ä? "-Æ -é-+-¦ -+-+-+ -+-+-+-¦ -ä-+-Ç-+-¦", -+-Å-¦-¦-+ -¦-+-¦-+-Ç-Å, -+-¦-â-ç-+-é -¦-¦-ü-î-+-¦ -é-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-+-+. -æ-+-¦-¦-+-¦-¦-Ç-Ä -+-¦ -¦-â-¦-â-ë-+-¦ -+-é-¦-¦-é. |
Gizzie Haslack
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2016.12.12 14:35:20 -
[83] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. As we announced in the Engineering Complex dev blog in October, the upcoming release on December 13th will remove the ability to deploy new Outposts and Outpost Upgrades in New Eden. This is a small first step in the long-term plan to gradually replace these legacy structures with newer Upwell technology. Any Outposts and Outpost upgrades deployed/installed before the December 13th downtime will continue to operate as normal and will not have any bonuses or functionality removed at this time. As part of this release we are also ending the NPC market seeding of Outpost Construction Platform blueprints, Outpost Improvement Platforms and Outpost Upgrade Platforms, and it will no longer be possible to build new Outpost Construction Platforms. Any remaining blueprints and items in these groups that are not consumed before the December 13th downtime will be eligible for a form of reimbursement in the future. More information about this reimbursement plan will be provided at a later date. If you or your alliance plans to deploy a new outpost or outpost upgrade, we urge you to do so before December 13th. This thread will serve as the place to ask questions. Thanks!
Is this to do with the rumours of CCP selling bits of the game to new providers? I'm not opposed to new blood, as new blood is new ideas; I'm just being nosy is all.
The EVE platform is top notch. But new ideas are always handy. As long as the game survives I'm peachy :) |
Cade Windstalker
631
|
Posted - 2016.12.12 15:06:51 -
[84] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Most POSes serious about defense have multiple weapon modules offlined and ready to online should they be needed. Additionally, modules can still be anchored and onlined (once the reinforce period is over) even during battle. Anyone throwing away the first defense of their citadel by not being there is not serious about defending their citadel or simply baiting for a fight.
Additionally, there is no such thing as this: "maximum industry and then re-fit for combat" as far as modules are concerned. Rigs, yes. High Slot, Medium, and Low Slot: no - they have 0 impact on industry. Service modules, no - they have no impact on citadel defense - except cloning.
So lets fine tune my gripe to be more precise: High, Medium, and low slots should be changeable despite damage to the struture - they simply cannot be changed while you have a weapon timer. Rigs and service modules are locked into place while the structure is damaged. Now you have a structure where you can change between defending against capitals or sub-capitals etc. but if they were industry minded in their Rigs, they are locked in and they cannot 'save' their service modules.
If you have a bunch of offlined POS guns sitting around then on the first pass I'm just going to pop the guns before I leave, since almost no one ever defends the initial attack on any structure, POS or otherwise as I said before (use of the term "first timer" was unclear, my bad)
Yes there aren't currently any industry focused high, medium, or low slot modules, but that doesn't preclude anything like that being included in the future. It also doesn't invalidate my point which is that I think CCP are doing this to make Citadel fitting decisions matter more. If you've fit one way you shouldn't be able to just spontaneously re-fit to another setup because your scouts say the enemy is bringing something else.
Having this sort of locking makes the fitting decision matter more the same way that combat refitting for Caps was nerfed to make fitting decisions matter. |
Cade Windstalker
631
|
Posted - 2016.12.12 15:22:01 -
[85] - Quote
Gizzie Haslack wrote: Is this to do with the rumours of CCP selling bits of the game to new providers? I'm not opposed to new blood, as new blood is new ideas; I'm just being nosy is all.
The EVE platform is top notch. But new ideas are always handy. As long as the game survives I'm peachy :)
At the risk of going off topic, this rumor seems to have grown weird mutant legs. Nothing has ever been said about CCP "selling bits of the game", the various private companies and individuals that own bits of CCP (as a whole and entire company) are apparently considering offers to buy their stake in CCP.
CCP as a company has basically no say in any of this except possibly the option to buy up the held stake.
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Seriously, for Structures 2.0 to be at feature parity with the old system, I would very much appreciate it if we could get CCP clarification for how the following issues will be addressed: - Price point. For the new structures to reach feature parity with starbases, you need to have a structure that does everything that could be done in a small POS in a package that costs roughly the same as a small POS, and the same is true of medium and large POSes as well. Now obviously there's things you can do with the new structures that could never be done with a POS: docking, cloning, tethering, markets, contracts, infinite hangar space. However, you can't scale up the price by too much or you put them beyond the reach of at least some individuals and corps who currently run starbases.
- Fuel consumption. Heavily related to price point, obviously, but the same principle applies - the fuel cost for what can be done in a POS should be the basis for the fuel cost of what you do in the new structures. By current calculations, depending on fitting, it can cost nearly as much per month to run a small engineering complex than it does to run a large POS. Again, there's not an exact equivalency because it has infinite manufacturing slots and functionality a POS doesn't, but again, if you can't find a solution to this, it's going to shut a lot of people out of private manufacturing.
- Scalability. Both of the above problems relate in some way to the loss of granularity in the way structures are configured. Starbases could have one manufacturing array or many, meaning you could customise your POS' manufacturing capacity based on what you needed. New structures, by comparison, have either zero or infinite slots, with the only granularity being the rigs and the cap/supercap manufacturing modules.
- Reconfigurability. Structure rigs, like normal rigs, inexplicably crumble to dust when you pull them out (it might be time to re-examine that entire mechanic, but I won't go into it here). This is a massive issue since a starbase can be reconfigured at no permanent cost - switch out the modules and you've got a totally different starbase. Obviously, new structures can be reconfigured instantaneously which is a distinct advantage over old starbase structures which had a lengthy anchoring and onlining process. However, there is a very significant permanent cost to reconfiguring new structures.
- Defensibility. This comes down to the fact that citadel defenses are very much weaker than starbases in general, but also more specifically that weapons do not scale. You get (a few) more slots for each size upgrade, but you're always using the same launchers. While I'm not advocating for a system whereby you can create an invincible doom fortress, deathstar POSes allowed smaller groups an equalising element in fights against larger groups. The low defensibility of engineering complexes is particularly worrisome. It also makes sense that economically vital structures have so little defense while citadels - which have little value other than as staging and power projection - have vast defense grids.
I look forward to CCP's address of these concerns.
Just my .02 USD here.
While I think price point is a very valid concern, and I think structures should probably be expanded in a way that allows a lower price point for some feature, I don't think there's a need for a 100% match in functionality and configurability with POSes.
Specifically I like that fitting decisions on a Citadel matter more than on a POS both for Rigs and the regular fittings. IMO that gives CCP more freedom with their design and makes the game more interesting because now we don't have the possibility of spontaneously swapping things around between fights or even mid-fight. |
Gizzie Haslack
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2016.12.12 15:32:36 -
[86] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Gizzie Haslack wrote: Is this to do with the rumours of CCP selling bits of the game to new providers? I'm not opposed to new blood, as new blood is new ideas; I'm just being nosy is all.
The EVE platform is top notch. But new ideas are always handy. As long as the game survives I'm peachy :)
At the risk of going off topic, this rumor seems to have grown weird mutant legs. Nothing has ever been said about CCP "selling bits of the game", the various private companies and individuals that own bits of CCP (as a whole and entire company) are apparently considering offers to buy their stake in CCP. CCP as a company has basically no say in any of this except possibly the option to buy up the held stake.
Oh, I get that. I'm fine with that. New blood can often work out :)
|
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1547
|
Posted - 2016.12.12 16:00:48 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Tom Stonehoof wrote:There are changes that much of the playerbase did not think relevant to the gameplay or longevity of this game. If you could point me towards all this negative sentiment towards removing POS's and Outposts I'd be very interested to read it. For what I've seen the response have been mostly understanding.
I agree. Eventually under the old one-station-per-system rule, every sovereign nulsec system would have an unalterable and indestructible station in it. Then what? Stagnation.
Changing to a new destructible system that is not limited to one station per solar system is far superior. imo it is worth the additional work to make it happen.
Still waiting on Drilling Platforms though. I am very curious to see what CCP has planned for moon mining and reactions.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Ripard Teg
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
1337
|
Posted - 2016.12.12 19:05:43 -
[88] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! I think the real question that is not being answered: "What is the rush?"
Why is there a rush to remove the ability to anchor outposts when you don't have a replacement for some of the functionality that outposts provide, except "live somewhere else"? Why December 13, and not "next summer" or at some later point when the new structures are more functional and more polished?
aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
|
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation
1080
|
Posted - 2016.12.13 00:34:48 -
[89] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! I think the real question that is not being answered: "What is the rush?" Why is there a rush to remove the ability to anchor outposts when you don't have a replacement for some of the functionality that outposts provide, except "live somewhere else"? Why December 13, and not "next summer" or at some later point when the new structures are more functional and more polished? because all of 0.0 has way more than enough outposts for all your ship insurance and module repairing needs |
Cade Windstalker
633
|
Posted - 2016.12.13 01:24:00 -
[90] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! I think the real question that is not being answered: "What is the rush?" Why is there a rush to remove the ability to anchor outposts when you don't have a replacement for some of the functionality that outposts provide, except "live somewhere else"? Why December 13, and not "next summer" or at some later point when the new structures are more functional and more polished?
I'm going to go with a desire on CCP's part to free up resources toward other endeavors. As he said in the same comment, this will actually free up resources towards development of the new features, probably because they won't be as pressed to deal with potential issues with the old ones. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3777
|
Posted - 2016.12.13 01:50:49 -
[91] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote: I think the real question that is not being answered: "What is the rush?"
Why is there a rush to remove the ability to anchor outposts when you don't have a replacement for some of the functionality that outposts provide, except "live somewhere else"? Why December 13, and not "next summer" or at some later point when the new structures are more functional and more polished?
How many months do you want from the last anchored outpost to when it is deleted. How many months does everyone else want. If they wait until feature parity then outright removal of the outposts will either be very soon, or delayed further than it needs to be. |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. The Bastion
178
|
Posted - 2016.12.13 12:38:16 -
[92] - Quote
The whole idea of removing 'Stations' did not make any sense when first promoted and makes even less now, Systems are being filled with utterly under utilized structures serving little or no purpose other than as ISK sinks, when is enough going to be enough. |
Eric Lemmonte
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.12.13 20:38:24 -
[93] - Quote
I'm mostly indifferent about the phasing to Citadel/Complexes as it has most of the same features of POS and Outpost. There is one issue that does bother me though.
We already have Medium, Large, and Extra Large class structures. The price tag of the Medium is already leaps and bounds higher than any standard control tower. I enjoy the freedom to setup and take-down a tower in a single sit-down playing the game.
Why not introduce a "Small" size that is comparable? A structure that would be considered small wouldn't have much in the way of fittings and would fill the niche for solo, day trips, and small corps to various areas. You could even limit them to having just one service, no offence, and few other options. Just make it so it can be deployed and taken down within a day. Maybe you wouldn't even let anything actually dock that is battleship or larger as another balancing aspect? |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
674
|
Posted - 2016.12.13 21:19:11 -
[94] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:Tom Stonehoof wrote:There are changes that much of the playerbase did not think relevant to the gameplay or longevity of this game. If you could point me towards all this negative sentiment towards removing POS's and Outposts I'd be very interested to read it. For what I've seen the response have been mostly understanding. I agree. Eventually under the old one-station-per-system rule, every sovereign nulsec system would have an unalterable and indestructible station in it. Then what? Stagnation. Changing to a new destructible system that is not limited to one station per solar system is far superior. imo it is worth the additional work to make it happen. Still waiting on Drilling Platforms though. I am very curious to see what CCP has planned for moon mining and reactions.
You're going to be waiting a long time for the drilling platforms..
They just got moved to "Fall 2017"
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
791
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 16:39:21 -
[95] - Quote
Thanks for all the replies here,
I just want to clarify my statements on feature parity in the context of Structures, as I don't want anyone to feel like they've been mislead! When I'm speaking about feature parity I'm generally talking about the broad high-level functionality. Let me give you a few examples of what that means:
- Provide storage for individuals, corporations and alliances. - Allow the insurance of ships - Allow the manufacture of T3 ships - Allow materials to be harvested from moons
These are all examples of functionality that we're looking to replicate. You will no doubt note that these types of high level functions make no mention of details such as cost, timescales or security, to name a few. While some of these things may be matched, these aren't what we are discussing when we say feature parity. Such details are often things that we need to be able to change for balancing purposes.
I hope this makes sense to everyone. We really appreciate the passion that people have for structures old and new, and we hope to provide exciting, engaging and balanced gameplay for all, even if it won't always precisely match the way things were.
Thanks again
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Cade Windstalker
635
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 17:21:49 -
[96] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Thanks for all the replies here,
I just want to clarify my statements on feature parity in the context of Structures, as I don't want anyone to feel like they've been mislead! When I'm speaking about feature parity I'm generally talking about the broad high-level functionality. Let me give you a few examples of what that means:
- Provide storage for individuals, corporations and alliances. - Allow the insurance of ships - Allow the manufacture of T3 ships - Allow materials to be harvested from moons
These are all examples of functionality that we're looking to replicate. You will no doubt note that these types of high level functions make no mention of details such as cost, timescales or security, to name a few. While some of these things may be matched, these aren't what we are discussing when we say feature parity. Such details are often things that we need to be able to change for balancing purposes.
I hope this makes sense to everyone. We really appreciate the passion that people have for structures old and new, and we hope to provide exciting, engaging and balanced gameplay for all, even if it won't always precisely match the way things were.
Thanks again
Thanks very much for the prompt and informative reply.
Could we get this added to a dev-blog or something though, so that people will actually see it?
My experience with Features and Ideas Discussion has been that there's a core group of users that frequent these forums and then everyone else just runs here on patch day when they see something in the patch notes they don't like. It's highly unlikely that the majority of people invested in the new structures will see this reply and it very much should be seen since it outlines a pretty key details of CCP's high level vision for Citadels and the replacement of POSes. |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
792
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 17:39:09 -
[97] - Quote
I'll certainly try and make sure we're clear about this in future dev blogs, and I've linked to this on Twitter at least (I know that not exactly full coverage!). For now that will have to do.
Feel free to spread the word in any way you see fit, or link to this post when you see misunderstandings.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
Oddsodz
MASS Mercenary Coalition
188
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 18:09:32 -
[98] - Quote
All I want is to be able to repair all the Lootz I get from spolding folks without having to fit said lootz to a ship and then undock and wait for tether repair. When you get a lot of lootz. It takes very long time doing that. Hope it will be addressed soon (or I am a noob and missed something about repairing modules in citadels) |
Cade Windstalker
636
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 18:16:33 -
[99] - Quote
Oddsodz wrote:All I want is to be able to repair all the Lootz I get from spolding folks without having to fit said lootz to a ship and then undock and wait for tether repair. When you get a lot of lootz. It takes very long time doing that. Hope it will be addressed soon (or I am a noob and missed something about repairing modules in citadels)
Someone can correct me if I'm hallucinating here but I believe there's already a Repair service that is attached to one of the already existing (as in, before this update) Service Rigs. I'm like 99.9% sure I've repaired things inside a Citadel before it just costs a small amount of ISK like in any other station. |
FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2016.12.14 22:48:58 -
[100] - Quote
Oddsodz wrote:All I want is to be able to repair all the Lootz I get from spolding folks without having to fit said lootz to a ship and then undock and wait for tether repair. When you get a lot of lootz. It takes very long time doing that. Hope it will be addressed soon (or I am a noob and missed something about repairing modules in citadels)
You know what I'm going to do now? I'm going to find you with a locator agent, then fit a horrible ship really poorly (Armor Caracal or something) and deliberately overheat stuff until all the modules are damaged. Then I'm going to put those modules in cargo and do the same thing with more. I mean like get four or five whole fits in there. After that I'm going to fly to where you live, let you kill me, and enjoy the most epic passive aggressive victory in the history of Eve. |
|
nezroy
Nice Clan
33
|
Posted - 2016.12.15 01:26:54 -
[101] - Quote
Eric Lemmonte wrote:Why not introduce a "Small" size that is comparable? A structure that would be considered small wouldn't have much in the way of fittings and would fill the niche for solo, day trips, and small corps to various areas.
You mean mobile depots?
|
mkint
1313
|
Posted - 2016.12.15 05:22:27 -
[102] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote: I just want to clarify my statements
these types of high level functions make no mention of details such as cost,
we hope to provide exciting, engaging and balanced gameplay for all,
Well, it's nice to know that "all" means "become nullbear pets or get out."
I left EVE because there were no more adventures worth pursuing. I played for 5 years, left for 3, still Alpha. You're telling us right here, right now, with this "clarification" that unless I want to fall in line and be an NPC in someone else's adventure, I'm not welcome in this game. Can we get THAT put into an official statement, so we can all officially give up on EVE forever?
Maxim 6. If violence wasnGÇÖt your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate Together We Solo
319
|
Posted - 2016.12.15 18:11:10 -
[103] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Thanks for all the replies here,
I just want to clarify my statements on feature parity in the context of Structures, as I don't want anyone to feel like they've been mislead! When I'm speaking about feature parity I'm generally talking about the broad high-level functionality. Let me give you a few examples of what that means:
- Provide storage for individuals, corporations and alliances. - Allow the insurance of ships - Allow the manufacture of T3 ships - Allow materials to be harvested from moons
These are all examples of functionality that we're looking to replicate. You will no doubt note that these types of high level functions make no mention of details such as cost, timescales or security, to name a few. While some of these things may be matched, these aren't what we are discussing when we say feature parity. Such details are often things that we need to be able to change for balancing purposes.
I hope this makes sense to everyone. We really appreciate the passion that people have for structures old and new, and we hope to provide exciting, engaging and balanced gameplay for all, even if it won't always precisely match the way things were.
Thanks again
I thank you for getting back to us, and while I completely understand CCPs position on this it does appear you are wildly out of touch with the small gang/solo community in regards to the new structures, or just do not care (which may be a design decision). Many of us had been hoping that the new structures would expand player interactions with them and become a tool where even smaller entities could feel they have a stake as advertised originally (the whole build your home thing). But instead you are raising the bar significantly for structure ownership and itGÇÖs clear that by GÇ£hope to provide exciting, engaging, and balanced gameplay for allGÇ¥ you mean a lot of groups that currently own structures will only be able to engage in that GÇÿgameplayGÇÖ in the future by docking in someone elseGÇÖs GÇÿhomeGÇÖ if they are allowed to.
And I understand why that would be the case, but please in the future stop GÇÿmarketingGÇÖ these towards GÇÿsmall and solo entitiesGÇÖ as you keep doing so in presentations since itGÇÖs coming off as condescending to a lot of people in those communities. Just be honest and you wonGÇÖt get as much of the rabble back at you. (especially when you do make that step to remove POS's!) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3414
|
Posted - 2016.12.16 07:47:02 -
[104] - Quote
Dreamer Targaryen wrote:
Amarr Outposts are still the only way to get bonuses to system cost index multipliers.
Well this is just false currently you can get a 51% reduction w/o one
BLOPS Hauler
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5938
|
Posted - 2016.12.18 21:23:00 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Thanks for all the replies here,
I just want to clarify my statements on feature parity in the context of Structures, as I don't want anyone to feel like they've been mislead! When I'm speaking about feature parity I'm generally talking about the broad high-level functionality. Let me give you a few examples of what that means:
- Provide storage for individuals, corporations and alliances. - Allow the insurance of ships - Allow the manufacture of T3 ships - Allow materials to be harvested from moons
These are all examples of functionality that we're looking to replicate. You will no doubt note that these types of high level functions make no mention of details such as cost, timescales or security, to name a few. While some of these things may be matched, these aren't what we are discussing when we say feature parity. Such details are often things that we need to be able to change for balancing purposes.
I hope this makes sense to everyone. We really appreciate the passion that people have for structures old and new, and we hope to provide exciting, engaging and balanced gameplay for all, even if it won't always precisely match the way things were.
Thanks again
I don't think it's appropriate to term something as feature parity when many typical users cannot attain feature parity because of cost.
There is still nothing even close to a substitute for a small POS.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
TakinYourIsk
Paranormal Phenomena
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.19 04:19:58 -
[106] - Quote
When might we know about turning in old outposts and outpost upgrades for iskies, or items? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3431
|
Posted - 2016.12.19 04:57:48 -
[107] - Quote
TakinYourIsk wrote:When might we know about turning in old outposts and outpost upgrades for iskies, or items?
Just after it's been long enough that no one cares anymore and the demand for it drops low enough ccp doesn't feel it needs to do it
BLOPS Hauler
|
Astrador
Falcon Agency
10
|
Posted - 2016.12.21 04:45:20 -
[108] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:Thanks for that response, appreciate you taking the time to highlight that again. I'll bring this up with the team and see if we can get some traction on it, at the very least in the form of an official statement on this subject. Seriously, for Structures 2.0 to be at feature parity with the old system, I would very much appreciate it if we could get CCP clarification for how the following issues will be addressed: - Price point. For the new structures to reach feature parity with starbases, you need to have a structure that does everything that could be done in a small POS in a package that costs roughly the same as a small POS, and the same is true of medium and large POSes as well. Now obviously there's things you can do with the new structures that could never be done with a POS: docking, cloning, tethering, markets, contracts, infinite hangar space. However, you can't scale up the price by too much or you put them beyond the reach of at least some individuals and corps who currently run starbases.
- Fuel consumption. Heavily related to price point, obviously, but the same principle applies - the fuel cost for what can be done in a POS should be the basis for the fuel cost of what you do in the new structures. By current calculations, depending on fitting, it can cost nearly as much per month to run a small engineering complex than it does to run a large POS. Again, there's not an exact equivalency because it has infinite manufacturing slots and functionality a POS doesn't, but again, if you can't find a solution to this, it's going to shut a lot of people out of private manufacturing.
- Scalability. Both of the above problems relate in some way to the loss of granularity in the way structures are configured. Starbases could have one manufacturing array or many, meaning you could customise your POS' manufacturing capacity based on what you needed. New structures, by comparison, have either zero or infinite slots, with the only granularity being the rigs and the cap/supercap manufacturing modules.
- Reconfigurability. Structure rigs, like normal rigs, inexplicably crumble to dust when you pull them out (it might be time to re-examine that entire mechanic, but I won't go into it here). This is a massive issue since a starbase can be reconfigured at no permanent cost - switch out the modules and you've got a totally different starbase. Obviously, new structures can be reconfigured instantaneously which is a distinct advantage over old starbase structures which had a lengthy anchoring and onlining process. However, there is a very significant permanent cost to reconfiguring new structures.
- Defensibility. This comes down to the fact that citadel defenses are very much weaker than starbases in general, but also more specifically that weapons do not scale. You get (a few) more slots for each size upgrade, but you're always using the same launchers. While I'm not advocating for a system whereby you can create an invincible doom fortress, deathstar POSes allowed smaller groups an equalising element in fights against larger groups. The low defensibility of engineering complexes is particularly worrisome. It also makes sense that economically vital structures have so little defense while citadels - which have little value other than as staging and power projection - have vast defense grids.
I look forward to CCP's address of these concerns.
All this.
In Addition:
* Visibility: Should not be visible in Overview when not public. Dscan and Probe-Scan is ok.
* Repackable: What if you want/Need to move to somewhere else? A Pos can be repacked and be brought to an other System.
Sorry but without this changes i have to say: Nothing for me.
|
Cade Windstalker
639
|
Posted - 2016.12.21 15:17:43 -
[109] - Quote
Astrador wrote:All this.
In Addition:
* Visibility: Should not be visible in Overview when not public. Dscan and Probe-Scan is ok.
* Repackable: What if you want/Need to move to somewhere else? A Pos can be repacked and be brought to an other System.
Sorry but without this changes i have to say: Nothing for me.
The actual benefit of POSes not showing up on the overview is pretty minimal.
Citadels can be torn down and moved, you just lose any rigs attached to them. This is a cost of the increased power Citadels offer and incentivizes players to keep their Citadels in more permanent locations, as opposed to POSes which can be very very quickly torn down and put back up. |
Astrador
Falcon Agency
10
|
Posted - 2016.12.21 23:14:51 -
[110] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Astrador wrote:All this.
In Addition:
* Visibility: Should not be visible in Overview when not public. Dscan and Probe-Scan is ok.
* Repackable: What if you want/Need to move to somewhere else? A Pos can be repacked and be brought to an other System.
Sorry but without this changes i have to say: Nothing for me.
The actual benefit of POSes not showing up on the overview is pretty minimal. Citadels can be torn down and moved, you just lose any rigs attached to them. This is a cost of the increased power Citadels offer and incentivizes players to keep their Citadels in more permanent locations, as opposed to POSes which can be very very quickly torn down and put back up.
For you may visibility is no matter - for me it is. Because i will not put it in low-sec and the next bad boy strikes it to dust while i am not online for some days. And when it is said it shall be like a pos it shall be visible like a pos. |
|
Nox Caelo
Boljsevisti
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.22 03:32:48 -
[111] - Quote
Hello! What about faction POS BPC found in relic/data sites? Were they removed and replaced by something as valuable? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3446
|
Posted - 2016.12.22 03:38:25 -
[112] - Quote
Nox Caelo wrote:Hello! What about faction POS BPC found in relic/data sites? Were they removed and replaced by something as valuable?
can you even read...
POS != outpost
BLOPS Hauler
|
Andreus Ixiris
SergalJerk Test Alliance Please Ignore
6055
|
Posted - 2016.12.23 18:03:51 -
[113] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Citadels can be torn down and moved, you just lose any rigs attached to them. This is a cost of the increased power Citadels offer and incentivizes players to keep their Citadels in more permanent locations, as opposed to POSes which can be very very quickly torn down and put back up. But when starbases are removed, you will need to replace them with a facility that can be quickly put up and torn down.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
330
|
Posted - 2016.12.23 22:44:19 -
[114] - Quote
Still unable to lock BPO's down in structures
Any eta on this being fixed? |
Marcus Binchiette
Pyrotech Creations
70
|
Posted - 2017.01.08 06:33:23 -
[115] - Quote
Am I correct in understanding that the eventual direction for Upwell citadels will also be to replace the POS and control towers?
I rather like the new Citadels, though, I still think there are some functional aspects of POS which are not fully covered and that some additional citadel types would need to be introduced to cover these. Such as:
1. Moon Mining Platform 2. Ice/Ore Short term Mining base 3. Short term defensive base.
With the small and medium POS control towers the anchoring time is very short, and the cargo size is also quite small. Such that a small POS and Compression array can easily be contained within the fleet hangar of an Orca for self-compression mining operations. This is a functionality of the POS which would be sadly lost if they were to be replaced with the existing Citadels. As the citadels are designed to be longer term installations.
Also too, the idea of mounting a small control tower specifically as a defensive hard point could also potentially be lost. Not to mention the moon mining applications as well. Though, a lunar equivalent of the POCO could be developed to assume that role. So as to bring the gameplay for moon resources somewhat inline with PI.
Anyway, these are just my ideas. If we are really heading down the path of phasing out the POS. Then I would suggest creating some small sized Upwell structures, with short anchoring times, to provide that functionality. Whether the defensive, and mining support bases are treated as separate structures and given their own model. Or whether they are the same structure and are specialised by means of modules. I think there is a need for a structure of this size. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3491
|
Posted - 2017.01.09 14:55:46 -
[116] - Quote
Marcus try reading up on the subject.
Citadels are just one of mant structures that together will be replacing pos' pos' will stay in the game until all functions are covered by at least one structure
BLOPS Hauler
|
Cenwarde
Mos Eisley Miners Perfect Dark
7
|
Posted - 2017.01.26 04:36:05 -
[117] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone.
As part of this release we are also ending the NPC market seeding of Outpost Construction Platform blueprints, Outpost Improvement Platforms and Outpost Upgrade Platforms, and it will no longer be possible to build new Outpost Construction Platforms. Any remaining blueprints and items in these groups that are not consumed before the December 13th downtime will be eligible for a form of reimbursement in the future. More information about this reimbursement plan will be provided at a later date.
What about the Outpost Construction skill/skillbook? Is this skill going to be reimbursed or repurposed? |
esquimo leviticus
ACE Trucking Co.
8
|
Posted - 2017.04.22 09:05:38 -
[118] - Quote
"Any remaining blueprints and items in these groups that are not consumed before the December 13th downtime will be eligible for a form of reimbursement in the future. More information about this reimbursement plan will be provided at a later date."
When is this happening? Know it's not probably high on your list but please get it sorted CCP. |
Jan Irvam
Capital Munitions
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 22:56:04 -
[119] - Quote
Really happy about this. I'm really happy about the cleanup that is happening this year. This thread has involved a lot of complaining about lack of functionality in the new structures, and a lot of the observations are good (repairs, remote contracts and orders, etc.). However I wrote a blog post advocating NOT putting the current full API functionality into the new structures. It might be worth a read. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |