These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Better Living Through Mobile Structures

First post First post
Author
Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#101 - 2013-11-14 02:35:21 UTC
Milton Middleson wrote:
If it's not worth the hassle, don't do it.


Explain to me why there should be invincible anything in this game.
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#102 - 2013-11-14 02:38:56 UTC
Mara Tessidar wrote:

Explain to me why there should be invincible anything in this game.


They aren't invincible. Just a pain to kill. You already identified what you need to do to kill them.
Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#103 - 2013-11-14 02:40:22 UTC
Milton Middleson wrote:
Mara Tessidar wrote:

Explain to me why there should be invincible anything in this game.


They aren't invincible. Just a pain to kill. You already identified what you need to do to kill them.


"Titans aren't invincible. Just a pain to kill." --CCP 2006

We all know how that turned out.
Zircon Dasher
#104 - 2013-11-14 02:43:28 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Excellent, but a couple of points?

1: Mobile Depot that is in reinforced mode can be scooped and then immediately redeployed at full? Or no? If so, that's a problem.

2: Perhaps it would be better if when exiting reinforced mode with zero shields that there is zero shield regen until the shield is repaired to +25% by someone, or the base is scooped and then redeployed after a suitable amount of time has passed. Actually, I think it would be best if they simply didn't regenerate at all until repaired above 25% period, even after being redeployed.



As it stands right now:

A reinforced depot that is scooped and redeployed begins activating with ~24% shield (I saw anywhere from 23-25% by the time I locked with a ScyFI). I am guessing/hoping that is a bug.

A small named Shield rep can rep it from 0% to 25% in about 15 seconds- so not sure it really matters. v0v

I do find it strange that there is no loss in functionality when in reinforced mode though. I would have thought the fitting service would go offline at least.....

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2013-11-14 02:45:19 UTC
I get that it's supposed to help the lone player venture into nullsec or wormholes where they can't expect refitting services. But it's practically free, its scoopability and reinforce timer discourage combat (discourage player interaction) and there's no drawbacks at all. EVE is the game where your decisions have lasting consequences... right?

A player can use it to refit outside of combat and use it to store their stuff. That's fine. They can scoop it easily and move on. That's fine. But it shouldn't be almost unkillable by a single other pilot when it's a single person's object in space that costs nothing to set up. Why bother taking sov, setting up a starbase or using a carrier for refitting or storing items? You can use this thing for no risk, as long as you check it once a day or just scoop it when you don't need it! Someone reinforced it? Scoop, anchor, transfer items from can to depot. I can refit again! Guess the attacker's going to have to maintain a constant 48-hour vigil if they want me out of this system.

What kind of game counts on either my watching paint dry for two days or the other guy not logging on for two days for me to win a fight? Inversely, making me check my depot each day manually is a drag.

Maybe the idea here is that those darned goons can't blob my depot. I'm only a single player and blobbing my depot is unfair when I set it up in their spa--

Damn. Their space. The space they fought for. The space they own. The space where they're supposed to get advantages such as fitting services for owning. The space that's only livable because they make the effort to keep undesirables out of it. The space that suddenly is worth a whole lot less because just anyone can come in and set up shop making ISK in the space they made the effort to take and spent the ISK to upgrade while I'm bumming off their work basing out of an unkillable structure.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#106 - 2013-11-14 02:46:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Benny Ohu
Zircon Dasher wrote:
I do find it strange that there is no loss in functionality when in reinforced mode though. I would have thought the fitting service would go offline at least.....

oh for christ's sake

e: I actually really like the idea of a little mobile base. I do. And I am excited about the possibilities of mobile structures. But when it's nearly indestructible, doesn't promote interaction, is really cheap and obsoletes similar features of a carrier or a small tower... It's too good?
Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#107 - 2013-11-14 03:03:24 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Maybe the idea here is that those darned goons can't blob my depot. I'm only a single player and blobbing my depot is unfair when I set it up in their spa--

Damn. Their space. The space they fought for. The space they own. The space where they're supposed to get advantages such as fitting services for owning. The space that's only livable because they make the effort to keep undesirables out of it. The space that suddenly is worth a whole lot less because just anyone can come in and set up shop making ISK in the space they made the effort to take and spent the ISK to upgrade while I'm bumming off their work basing out of an unkillable structure.


CCP Fozzie wouldn't know much about holding space and all of the wonderfully horrible things you already have to do to own it considering he belonged to Pandemic Legion.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#108 - 2013-11-14 03:13:00 UTC
I do want the depot to be a thing that works, it's just too good for the owner as it is, as I see it. But it does have to be skewed a bit in the defender's favour for the soloer to have a chance against the big guys, right?

Can it be improved like this?

Make the shield recharge slower, give it a one-or-two-hour window to destroy it. Have it so a cruiser or Bantam repping will get it to 25% shield in a timeframe of minutes. Put the structure mail back on, it encourages fights. That way, the attacker has a good window, and the defender has a good chance of saving it. And you have a better chance of both being at the same place at the same time.

Maybe the timer is randomised slightly. The defender knows the correct time the structure comes out, but the attacker has a margin of error.

And don't let players scoop the thing while it's reinforced. Continue to allow them to refit or take items out. They can refit to a combat setup or extract their most valuable stuff if they expect overwhelming force.

Ideally the defender can save their most valuable stuff in the worst-case scenario, but the attackers can remove the intruder from their space for a time by blowing up their base?
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#109 - 2013-11-14 03:27:46 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Converting the existing MWDs over to this new system

I know you mean Mobile Warp Disruptor because of context, but this is why we players call them "bubbles" Roll


I was wondering why he suddenly started talking about warp drives. That really is an acronym they need to change. Mobile Warp Bubble fits better, is more descriptive, and doesn't share acronyms with a VERY COMMON module.

CCP Masterplan wrote:
Depots will decay 30 days after the owner last interacts with it


Fabulous, now can we get this to apply to EVERYTHING ELSE, POS liter is EVERYWHERE.
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#110 - 2013-11-14 03:29:04 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:


Maybe the idea here is that those darned goons can't blob my depot. I'm only a single player and blobbing my depot is unfair when I set it up in their spa--

Damn. Their space. The space they fought for. The space they own. The space where they're supposed to get advantages such as fitting services for owning. The space that's only livable because they make the effort to keep undesirables out of it. The space that suddenly is worth a whole lot less because just anyone can come in and set up shop making ISK in the space they made the effort to take and spent the ISK to upgrade while I'm bumming off their work basing out of an unkillable structure.


So having more people living and operating in null sec is a bad thing?

I don't disagree with you though that in some respects these structures devalue aspects of Outposts. My knowledge may be a bit out of date but why would anyone now target an Outposts fitting service for example?

Very much like these structures for the most part, except that they all should require anchoring I, and depots perhaps are a bit too cheap considering their near invulnerability - now make them hackable and we're talking interesting stuff.

Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#111 - 2013-11-14 03:33:06 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
I do want the depot to be a thing that works, it's just too good for the owner as it is, as I see it. But it does have to be skewed a bit in the defender's favour for the soloer to have a chance against the big guys, right?

Can it be improved like this?

Make the shield recharge slower, give it a one-or-two-hour window to destroy it. Have it so a cruiser or Bantam repping will get it to 25% shield in a timeframe of minutes. Put the structure mail back on, it encourages fights. That way, the attacker has a good window, and the defender has a good chance of saving it. And you have a better chance of both being at the same place at the same time.

Maybe the timer is randomised slightly. The defender knows the correct time the structure comes out, but the attacker has a margin of error.

And don't let players scoop the thing while it's reinforced. Continue to allow them to refit or take items out. They can refit to a combat setup or extract their most valuable stuff if they expect overwhelming force.

Ideally the defender can save their most valuable stuff in the worst-case scenario, but the attackers can remove the intruder from their space for a time by blowing up their base?


I don't think CCP intends these to be the object of fights, but the facilitators of other fights.
Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#112 - 2013-11-14 03:36:19 UTC
Manssell wrote:

I don't think CCP intends these to be the object of fights, but the facilitators of other fights.


Then maybe make them worth fighting over.
Udonor
Doomheim
#113 - 2013-11-14 03:44:35 UTC
Too powerful as is. Structures this cheap and individual should be very TEMPORARY. Design should be for pick up at end of current logon session. Reinforced mode of 1-3 hours is long enough to return from supply run or following escalation. I would tend to limit unvisited lifetime to 2 days (shield decay vs recharge from ship visit). Otherwise expect every low and null sec player to have scores of these deployed and the old can clutter to be recreated though not in belts.

Protecting something this cheap should be something of a trap - just like rescuing a buddies ship. And the trap is somewhat two way since an attacking fleet can waste hours hanging around for a structure you wrote off --- or find that it was bait for your larger ambush fleet (plenty of time to organize).

However, slightly larger and more expensive structures could well have much longer lives. But really it should scale down from cost of equivalent small POS and ship+hangar array. Say 1/3 the cost and have an actual strontium and fuel bay for reinforce lasting 24 hours+. So about 50M ISK and 1 fuel block per day (10 cube bay).
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#114 - 2013-11-14 04:38:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Milton Middleson
Mara Tessidar wrote:
Manssell wrote:

I don't think CCP intends these to be the object of fights, but the facilitators of other fights.


Then maybe make them worth fighting over.


That's literally the opposite of what he said. It's not supposed to be something people fight over. It's supposed to augment a gang's ability operate for an extended period of time in hostile space.

Benny Ohu wrote:
Why bother taking sov, setting up a starbase or using a carrier for refitting or storing items? You can use this thing for no risk, as long as you check it once a day or just scoop it when you don't need it!


Possibly because a depot can, at best, hold one frigate. Which you can't actually use, because it's packaged and you can't assemble it. Meanwhile, a carrier can store, move, and assemble numerous ships. A station can store an infinite volume of ships, allows instantaneous repair and rearmament, and has grillions of EHP instead of 5000. You're right. I'm abandoning stations to live out of my yurt as soon as Rubicon drops.

Holy ****, people. It's not a collapsible CHA. It's not a mobile fortress. It's a field refitting service. Your enemies will not be able to stage out of your own space with impunity. They'll still need to get ships into your space, and they'll still need to find a way to store or hide them safely.

(Totally safe storage in hostile space already exists, by the way).
Christmas Pickle
State War Academy
Caldari State
#115 - 2013-11-14 04:47:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Christmas Pickle
----
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#116 - 2013-11-14 05:17:23 UTC
Quote:
We will of course be watching how all these structures are used and adjusting accordingly, but remember there are already "structures" you can drop in high security space that are even more difficult to kill and similarly worthy of destruction (anchored containers).


Only works with that "...in hisec" qualifier. Outside of CONCORDOKKEN for the anchored containers, these new structures you're adding are much, much harder to kill. If anchored containers were worth a **** then they would be used and lost often.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#117 - 2013-11-14 05:24:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Say you have an invader in your space, and the invader is using a depot. Many here seem to think the way to get rid of the invader is to kill his depot.

You got it backwards. The way you get rid of the depot is to kill the invader. Kill his ship, pod him home. Make it clear he is not wanted. Once he decides to move on you can find his depot and kill it without worrying about it getting re-deployed during the 2 day reinforcement. The only remaining annoyance is remembering the time it becomes vulnerable so you can finish it off.

CCP Fozzie, can you answer my questions? Can a pilot flagged as criminal use a depot? Will doing so be considered evading CONCORD as all the assets used in the gank are not subject to CONCORD destruction?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#118 - 2013-11-14 05:32:53 UTC
Assuming you just killed the invader he has a pretty ridiculous two entire days to come back and simply scoop and redeploy his depot. It's simply not feasible to prevent a person--especially in a post-Rubicon interceptor--from returning to a particular spot once for about a minute and a half in two days.

I love how in the devblog it says it will allow an "active" depot owner to save their shit. Yeah. "Active." Uh huh.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#119 - 2013-11-14 06:01:34 UTC
Also, unless these are being used to actually store substantial assets, players won't even need to keep it up in space (and thus at risk of destruction) to use the refitting service. It's so cheap and small that, more likely, it will just be a standard item people put in their cargo when they go out roaming. It will be deployed ad-hoc when needed, then scooped up after.
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#120 - 2013-11-14 06:18:40 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Lolmer wrote:
Shouldn't all of these deployables require "Anchoring I" trained at the least? They are, after all, being anchored in space. This would also disallow Trial Accounts from using them, which is a Good Thing(TM).


The Anchoring skill is required for the two most advanced of these structures (the Cyno Inhib and Siphon). The Depot and Tractor Unit are intended to be fairly entry level so they do not require skills to deploy.

This is the biggest Cop-out in the entire thread, if it is anchored in space it should require at least Anchoring 1