These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

The future of in-space structures
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-12-23 09:40:25 UTC
Clansworth wrote:
5th: very improved scanning systems make the need to tie structures to a moon unnecessary.

I'm probably being dense but you've lost me here, help! I don't see the connection between the two.

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-12-23 09:53:12 UTC
Clansworth wrote:
[...]The skeleton contains a capacitor, with a small power generator (recharge rate). [...] There also would be engineering modules such as power plants (multiple sizes), station batteries (increasing cap size/efficiency, as well as allowing pre-charging cap's with booster charges). The power plants would be the modules that use Fuel Blocks. The power plants would be racial in variety. They essentially will cycle every x seconds, and if the cap is below a given level, it will consume fuel from its' stores and recharge the cap by a set amount. in this way, fuel usage would actually scal with structure usage, not just based on tower size.


Forgive me for chopping the quote about, I don't like massive quotes it makes it too easy to miss the point.

I love the idea of using cap boosters to charge a POS battery, did you envisage being able to ramp up your POS's abilities in times of war etc.? Surely a power plant would simply augment the power generation capability of a POS meaning its capacitor is recharged MUCH quicker (rather than waiting until the capacitor is run down before coming online)?

PS You included your own drawing Big smileBig smileBig smile love it! +1

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-12-23 09:54:09 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
5th: very improved scanning systems make the need to tie structures to a moon unnecessary.

I'm probably being dense but you've lost me here, help! I don't see the connection between the two.


The reason POS's are tied to moons, is so there is a finite number of places they could be, and so anyone can warp to them. These were created back in a time when you could make deep safes that were essentially unfindable. If they had allowed POS's to be built anywhere, they would all be in deep safes that only the corp members would have bookmarks for. It is about allowing interaction and creating content. If you think about it, the whole reason eve has gates is to make a place for interaction to exist. however, with the new scanning system, a POS would be able to be positioned anywhere in a system, and with minimal scanning equipment, should be locate-able by anyone looking for it (these things would have a pretty large signature).
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-12-23 10:00:43 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
[...]The skeleton contains a capacitor, with a small power generator (recharge rate). [...] There also would be engineering modules such as power plants (multiple sizes), station batteries (increasing cap size/efficiency, as well as allowing pre-charging cap's with booster charges). The power plants would be the modules that use Fuel Blocks. The power plants would be racial in variety. They essentially will cycle every x seconds, and if the cap is below a given level, it will consume fuel from its' stores and recharge the cap by a set amount. in this way, fuel usage would actually scal with structure usage, not just based on tower size.


Forgive me for chopping the quote about, I don't like massive quotes it makes it too easy to miss the point.

I love the idea of using cap boosters to charge a POS battery, did you envisage being able to ramp up your POS's abilities in times of war etc.? Surely a power plant would simply augment the power generation capability of a POS meaning its capacitor is recharged MUCH quicker (rather than waiting until the capacitor is run down before coming online)?

PS You included your own drawing Big smileBig smileBig smile love it! +1


One of the key benefits in using standard capacitor mechanics for the stations, is it offers new kinds of station warfare. Neut fleets can force production modules offline (if they can tank the defenses). Also, in lieu of using cap boosters for hotting up the station battery, a carrier in triage could infuse it with a pretty extensive energy boost as well.
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-12-23 10:25:50 UTC
About Reinforced mode (bear with me on this, as this is a bit different than the current hit it then come back in exactly x time to hit it again - which encourages too much metagaming with timezones and such):

Here's how I envision reinforcement going. Essentially, strontium is used as a super chaotic, and hazardous emergency fuel source, that runs a hardened shield booster. When the shields of the starbase are depleted, it triggers an emergency shutdown of all fragile starbase systems, and devotes all resources to emergency shield generation using the emergency strontium reactor. This completely depletes the cap, halting all starbase operations and putting all strontium generated energy into an insurmountable reinforcement shield. The extremely unstable strontium reaction is such that the starbase cannot be targeted while it is operating - however, if the owning corp can regain dominance of the area again, they can risk a forced shutdown of the strontium reactor. This will leave the station in a condition where it is completely depleted in shields and cap. However, it is then in a state where it can be targeted and recharged to operation. In lieu of this happening, the reactor will shut itself down when it runs out of emergency fuel, and the station will be in the same state, shield-less and cap-less (though they will regain their natural recharge at this point). Critical equipment will come back online when the cap is available (12%), and non-critical when it reaches 50%.
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2013-12-23 10:39:08 UTC
Clansworth wrote:
The reason POS's are tied to moons, is so there is a finite number of places they could be, and so anyone can warp to them. These were created back in a time when you could make deep safes that were essentially unfindable. If they had allowed POS's to be built anywhere, they would all be in deep safes that only the corp members would have bookmarks for. It is about allowing interaction and creating content. If you think about it, the whole reason eve has gates is to make a place for interaction to exist. however, with the new scanning system, a POS would be able to be positioned anywhere in a system, and with minimal scanning equipment, should be locate-able by anyone looking for it (these things would have a pretty large signature).

I get you, thanks for explaining. New point: POS tied to moons allows me to presume that they are in a stable orbit around said moon, just like Stations are around planets. How do you propose your new POS believably maintain their anchored positions in a Solar System without propulsion systems?

NB. Cans and Mobile Structures achieve this by being of low mass and positioned by the ship anchoring them, then needing regular visits from players (when I imagine they are restabilised in their orbits) to keep them from disappearing (are they destroyed or just lost forever to the void???).

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-12-23 10:53:50 UTC
Clansworth wrote:
About Reinforced mode (bear with me on this, as this is a bit different than the current hit it then come back in exactly x time to hit it again - which encourages too much metagaming with timezones and such):

Here's how I envision reinforcement going. Essentially, strontium is used as a super chaotic, and hazardous emergency fuel source, that runs a hardened shield booster. When the shields of the starbase are depleted, it triggers an emergency shutdown of all fragile starbase systems, and devotes all resources to emergency shield generation using the emergency strontium reactor. This completely depletes the cap, halting all starbase operations and putting all strontium generated energy into an insurmountable reinforcement shield. The extremely unstable strontium reaction is such that the starbase cannot be targeted while it is operating - however, if the owning corp can regain dominance of the area again, they can risk a forced shutdown of the strontium reactor. This will leave the station in a condition where it is completely depleted in shields and cap. However, it is then in a state where it can be targeted and recharged to operation. In lieu of this happening, the reactor will shut itself down when it runs out of emergency fuel, and the station will be in the same state, shield-less and cap-less (though they will regain their natural recharge at this point). Critical equipment will come back online when the cap is available (12%), and non-critical when it reaches 50%.

I really like this idea! To get it the attention it deserves perhaps you should start another thread

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-12-23 10:55:51 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
The reason POS's are tied to moons, is so there is a finite number of places they could be, and so anyone can warp to them. These were created back in a time when you could make deep safes that were essentially unfindable. If they had allowed POS's to be built anywhere, they would all be in deep safes that only the corp members would have bookmarks for. It is about allowing interaction and creating content. If you think about it, the whole reason eve has gates is to make a place for interaction to exist. however, with the new scanning system, a POS would be able to be positioned anywhere in a system, and with minimal scanning equipment, should be locate-able by anyone looking for it (these things would have a pretty large signature).

I get you, thanks for explaining. New point: POS tied to moons allows me to presume that they are in a stable orbit around said moon, just like Stations are around planets. How do you propose your new POS believably maintain their anchored positions in a Solar System without propulsion systems?

NB. Cans and Mobile Structures achieve this by being of low mass and positioned by the ship anchoring them, then needing regular visits from players (when I imagine they are restabilised in their orbits) to keep them from disappearing (are they destroyed or just lost forever to the void???).


I'd ask why something of this complexity, cost, and power level, wouldn't have some sort of maneuvering/stabalizing propulsers to compensate for solar wind and other environmental effects. Even the ISS uses about 7000kg of fuel a year to maintain proper orbit.
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-12-23 10:58:19 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
About Reinforced mode (bear with me on this, as this is a bit different than the current hit it then come back in exactly x time to hit it again - which encourages too much metagaming with timezones and such):

Here's how I envision reinforcement going. Essentially, strontium is used as a super chaotic, and hazardous emergency fuel source, that runs a hardened shield booster. When the shields of the starbase are depleted, it triggers an emergency shutdown of all fragile starbase systems, and devotes all resources to emergency shield generation using the emergency strontium reactor. This completely depletes the cap, halting all starbase operations and putting all strontium generated energy into an insurmountable reinforcement shield. The extremely unstable strontium reaction is such that the starbase cannot be targeted while it is operating - however, if the owning corp can regain dominance of the area again, they can risk a forced shutdown of the strontium reactor. This will leave the station in a condition where it is completely depleted in shields and cap. However, it is then in a state where it can be targeted and recharged to operation. In lieu of this happening, the reactor will shut itself down when it runs out of emergency fuel, and the station will be in the same state, shield-less and cap-less (though they will regain their natural recharge at this point). Critical equipment will come back online when the cap is available (12%), and non-critical when it reaches 50%.

I really like this idea! To get it the attention it deserves perhaps you should start another thread

I see no reason for a separate thread just for the reinforcement changes, as they really wouldn't apply well to the current structures.
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2013-12-23 11:30:52 UTC
Clansworth wrote:
I'd ask why something of this complexity, cost, and power level, wouldn't have some sort of maneuvering/stabalizing propulsers to compensate for solar wind and other environmental effects. Even the ISS uses about 7000kg of fuel a year to maintain proper orbit.

Touché

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-12-23 11:54:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tryaz
Clansworth wrote:
One of the key benefits in using standard capacitor mechanics for the stations, is it offers new kinds of station warfare. Neut fleets can force production modules offline (if they can tank the defenses). Also, in lieu of using cap boosters for hotting up the station battery, a carrier in triage could infuse it with a pretty extensive energy boost as well.

I think I am using standard capacitor mechanics. Sorry for continually asking for clarification in what you propose but in your original idea you say:
Clansworth wrote:
[...] They [The power plants] essentially will cycle every x seconds, and if the cap is below a given level, it will consume fuel from its' stores and recharge the cap by a set amount. in this way, fuel usage would actually scal with structure usage, not just based on tower size.

The way I understand current capacitor mechanics the chain is set up Reactor (ship's) > Capacitor > Module. Any Module whose activation cost does not exceed your cap recharge rate is effectively running off the reactor but importantly also NOT because when your capacitor is depleted/being neuted you are unable to activate even those modules. What I'm getting at is that to keep in line with the lore shouldn't your power plants simply buff the reactor of the POS (thereby increasing recharge rate) rather than waiting until the capacitor is depleted to engage? Otherwise aren't you just duplicating your excellent idea of being able to inject the Battery module with cap booster charges?

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-12-23 12:20:51 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
One of the key benefits in using standard capacitor mechanics for the stations, is it offers new kinds of station warfare. Neut fleets can force production modules offline (if they can tank the defenses). Also, in lieu of using cap boosters for hotting up the station battery, a carrier in triage could infuse it with a pretty extensive energy boost as well.

I think I am using standard capacitor mechanics. Sorry for continually asking for clarification in what you propose but in your original idea you say:
Clansworth wrote:
[...] They [The power plants] essentially will cycle every x seconds, and if the cap is below a given level, it will consume fuel from its' stores and recharge the cap by a set amount. in this way, fuel usage would actually scal with structure usage, not just based on tower size.

The way I understand current capacitor mechanics the chain is set up Reactor (ship's) > Capacitor > Module. Any Module whose activation cost does not exceed your cap recharge rate is effectively running off the reactor but importantly also NOT because when your capacitor is depleted/being neuted you are unable to activate even those modules. What I'm getting at is that to keep in line with the lore shouldn't your power plants simply buff the reactor of the POS (thereby increasing recharge rate) rather than waiting until the capacitor is depleted to engage? Otherwise aren't you just duplicating your excellent idea of being able to inject the Battery module with cap booster charges?


The reason the power plants need to cycle, instead of just buff the basic cap recharge, is to regulate fuel block usage to follow actual use. And while the power plants may seem to duplicate the cap booster method, the key difference here is operational cost. The power plant's cost in fuel is FAR less than the cost of the cap boosters to provide the same effect. Subsequently, the cap booster method is only really useful for one-time precharge/recharge of the cap. I envision that bringing modules onlnie would use massive amounts of power (just as they do on ships), causing a significant discharge event. The operational impact of this could be alleviated by trucking in cap boosters.

Cap boosters, though, are an optional thing here. I intentionally don't include them in the core power system, or even in the fuel burning power plants. They were only included in the station battery module. it's quite a tradeoff, and would only be utilized in specific use cases.
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-12-23 12:29:57 UTC
Clansworth wrote:
The reason the power plants need to cycle, instead of just buff the basic cap recharge, is to regulate fuel block usage to follow actual use. And while the power plants may seem to duplicate the cap booster method, the key difference here is operational cost. The power plant's cost in fuel is FAR less than the cost of the cap boosters to provide the same effect. Subsequently, the cap booster method is only really useful for one-time precharge/recharge of the cap. I envision that bringing modules onlnie would use massive amounts of power (just as they do on ships), causing a significant discharge event. The operational impact of this could be alleviated by trucking in cap boosters.

Cap boosters, though, are an optional thing here. I intentionally don't include them in the core power system, or even in the fuel burning power plants. They were only included in the station battery module. it's quite a tradeoff, and would only be utilized in specific use cases.


Sorry but I still think there's a disconnect in your thinking. So there's a cost for bringing modules online (good idea btw) which can be alleviated by the use of cap booster charges (another awesome idea) but the power plant can remain online by itself without using fuel blocks and automatically begins activity when it is needed Ugh?

  • Why would anyone ever offline a power plant except to remove it?
  • Why shouldn't it be the player who manages when the fuel blocks are needed by bringing the power plant online (allegorical with real world energy grids)?

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-12-23 13:01:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Clansworth
Tryaz wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
The reason the power plants need to cycle, instead of just buff the basic cap recharge, is to regulate fuel block usage to follow actual use. And while the power plants may seem to duplicate the cap booster method, the key difference here is operational cost. The power plant's cost in fuel is FAR less than the cost of the cap boosters to provide the same effect. Subsequently, the cap booster method is only really useful for one-time precharge/recharge of the cap. I envision that bringing modules onlnie would use massive amounts of power (just as they do on ships), causing a significant discharge event. The operational impact of this could be alleviated by trucking in cap boosters.

Cap boosters, though, are an optional thing here. I intentionally don't include them in the core power system, or even in the fuel burning power plants. They were only included in the station battery module. it's quite a tradeoff, and would only be utilized in specific use cases.


Sorry but I still think there's a disconnect in your thinking. So there's a cost for bringing modules online (good idea btw) which can be alleviated by the use of cap booster charges (another awesome idea) but the power plant can remain online by itself without using fuel blocks and automatically begins activity when it is needed Ugh?

  • Why would anyone ever offline a power plant except to remove it?
  • Why shouldn't it be the player who manages when the fuel blocks are needed by bringing the power plant online (allegorical with real world energy grids)?

I don't see a reason to online and offline a power plant, or almost any module for that matter. How often do you offline modules on your ships? The idea here is to improve the starbase management system, not add another painful level of micromanagement. Currently, the reason starbase managers online and offline structures is because of limited resources of the fixed powergrid and cpu, and the need to shift focus of starbase operations within those limited restraints. My system, however, you would not really need to online and offline components, especially if those components power usages could automatically vary with use. (an idle assembly line would use far less cap than an active line - weapons/modules only utilize cap when firing, etc). The only time a fully functioning starbase would offline components would be with a lack of power (off-lining non-critical operations to maintain readiness of critical defensive systems) due to either poor starbase design (more loads than the power plant(s) could maintain), attack, or fuel shortage.

A real world power plant is also rarely brought online of offline. It is instead throttled through it's capacity range to match demand (or more accurately, sell power to the grid at the most efficient levels acceptable to satisfy demands, balanced with fuel costs between the large variety of disparate plants on a power grid). Since starbase fuel is in large block units, it is much harder to 'throttle' it's use, which is why the cycling method is proposed. As long as the cap size is sufficiently larger than the injection pulse of the power plant per cycle, it will buffer on/off cycle of the power plant, and cause fuel use to be proportional to energy demand. The exception to this is small automated peaker plants. Those are small, yet inefficient plants, designed to come online for short durations (peak load periods, usually mid afternoon in hot climates). When grid demands exceed certian thresholds, they are started up, produce power at their max rates, until power demands drop below a threshold. THAT is more analogous to the cap booster usage.
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2013-12-23 13:09:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tryaz
Clansworth wrote:
I don't see a reason to online and offline a power plant, or almost any module for that matter. How often do you offline modules on your ships? The idea here is to improve the starbase management system, not add another painful level of micromanagement. Currently, the reason starbase managers online and offline structures is because of limited resources of the fixed powergrid and cpu, and the need to shift focus of starbase operations within those limited restraints. My system, however, you would not really need to online and offline components, especially if those components power usages could automatically vary with use. (an idle assembly line would use far less cap than an active line - weapons/modules only utilize cap when firing, etc). The only time a fully functioning starbase would offline components would be with a lack of power (off-lining non-critical operations to maintain readiness of critical defensive systems) due to either poor starbase design (more loads than the power plant(s) could maintain), attack, or fuel shortage.

A real world power plant is also rarely brought online of offline. It is instead throttled through it's capacity range to match demand (or more accurately, sell power to the grid at the most efficient levels acceptable to satisfy demands, balanced with fuel costs between the large variety of disparate plants on a power grid). Since starbase fuel is in large block units, it is much harder to 'throttle' it's use, which is why the cycling method is proposed. As long as the cap size is sufficiently larger than the injection pulse of the power plant per cycle, it will buffer on/off cycle of the power plant, and cause fuel use to be proportional to energy demand. The exception to this is small automated peaker plants. Those are small, yet inefficient plants, designed to come online for short durations (peak load periods, usually mid afternoon in hot climates). When grid demands exceed certian thresholds, they are started up, produce power at their max rates, until power demands drop below a threshold. THAT is more analogous to the infrequent use of the cap booster feature (again, that was just an added bonus feature I put in, for some rare case situations. not something that is going to be used very often, I'd imaging.


Thanks for your answers, they've been very interesting. I hope you haven't found my queries too tiresome. I entirely agree with your proposals to-date as long as I've understood one things correctly: that the ability to fit a module would, in your POS system, only depend upon the number of slots available (it is only its activation/bringing online which depends upon the reactor). Have I understood correctly?

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-12-23 13:53:10 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
I don't see a reason to online and offline a power plant, or almost any module for that matter. How often do you offline modules on your ships? The idea here is to improve the starbase management system, not add another painful level of micromanagement. Currently, the reason starbase managers online and offline structures is because of limited resources of the fixed powergrid and cpu, and the need to shift focus of starbase operations within those limited restraints. My system, however, you would not really need to online and offline components, especially if those components power usages could automatically vary with use. (an idle assembly line would use far less cap than an active line - weapons/modules only utilize cap when firing, etc). The only time a fully functioning starbase would offline components would be with a lack of power (off-lining non-critical operations to maintain readiness of critical defensive systems) due to either poor starbase design (more loads than the power plant(s) could maintain), attack, or fuel shortage.

A real world power plant is also rarely brought online of offline. It is instead throttled through it's capacity range to match demand (or more accurately, sell power to the grid at the most efficient levels acceptable to satisfy demands, balanced with fuel costs between the large variety of disparate plants on a power grid). Since starbase fuel is in large block units, it is much harder to 'throttle' it's use, which is why the cycling method is proposed. As long as the cap size is sufficiently larger than the injection pulse of the power plant per cycle, it will buffer on/off cycle of the power plant, and cause fuel use to be proportional to energy demand. The exception to this is small automated peaker plants. Those are small, yet inefficient plants, designed to come online for short durations (peak load periods, usually mid afternoon in hot climates). When grid demands exceed certian thresholds, they are started up, produce power at their max rates, until power demands drop below a threshold. THAT is more analogous to the infrequent use of the cap booster feature (again, that was just an added bonus feature I put in, for some rare case situations. not something that is going to be used very often, I'd imaging.


Thanks for your answers, they've been very interesting. I hope you haven't found my queries too tiresome. I entirely agree with your proposals to-date as long as I've understood one things correctly: that the ability to fit a module would, in your POS system, only depend upon the number of slots available (it is only its activation/bringing online which depends upon the reactor). Have I understood correctly?

Onlining a module isn't the only thing that sucks the cap. The modules actual operation uses a certain cap/time period. Some modules (storage types - CHA's, SMA's, etc) use a small amount of cap). Other modules (Factories, Labs, etc) use significantly more (when active). Still others (Forcefield, moon harvester) or a lot more all the time. It's just a matter of ensuring you have a large enough power plant to power what you are going to use on the station. Yes, though, there are limited numbers of slots on a given skeleton as well.
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2013-12-23 14:22:36 UTC
Clansworth wrote:
Onlining a module isn't the only thing that sucks the cap. The modules actual operation uses a certain cap/time period. Some modules (storage types - CHA's, SMA's, etc) use a small amount of cap). Other modules (Factories, Labs, etc) use significantly more (when active). Still others (Forcefield, moon harvester) or a lot more all the time. It's just a matter of ensuring you have a large enough power plant to power what you are going to use on the station. Yes, though, there are limited numbers of slots on a given skeleton as well.


Yep I get all that but what's the actual limiting factor in the number of modules you can have attached to your POS? What I'm asking is are you removing PG and CPU from POS?

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#38 - 2013-12-23 14:26:47 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
Onlining a module isn't the only thing that sucks the cap. The modules actual operation uses a certain cap/time period. Some modules (storage types - CHA's, SMA's, etc) use a small amount of cap). Other modules (Factories, Labs, etc) use significantly more (when active). Still others (Forcefield, moon harvester) or a lot more all the time. It's just a matter of ensuring you have a large enough power plant to power what you are going to use on the station. Yes, though, there are limited numbers of slots on a given skeleton as well.


Yep I get all that but what's the actual limiting factor in the number of modules you can have attached to your POS? What I'm asking is are you removing PG and CPU from POS?


That was the intention. The limiting factor would be module/hardpoint slot count on the skeleton, and cap energy.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#39 - 2013-12-23 17:51:30 UTC
Clansworth wrote:
Tryaz wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
Onlining a module isn't the only thing that sucks the cap. The modules actual operation uses a certain cap/time period. Some modules (storage types - CHA's, SMA's, etc) use a small amount of cap). Other modules (Factories, Labs, etc) use significantly more (when active). Still others (Forcefield, moon harvester) or a lot more all the time. It's just a matter of ensuring you have a large enough power plant to power what you are going to use on the station. Yes, though, there are limited numbers of slots on a given skeleton as well.


Yep I get all that but what's the actual limiting factor in the number of modules you can have attached to your POS? What I'm asking is are you removing PG and CPU from POS?


That was the intention. The limiting factor would be module/hardpoint slot count on the skeleton, and cap energy.

PG & CPU should stay also. No reason for them to go. By keeping them you also make it possible to make certain modules hard to have several of on a single POS, but can allow them to happen by RCU/CPU enhancement modules, but they can still be easy on the capacitor to run.
So it allows you multiple balance options for fitting, which can be used to create more diversity.
Like ships, if the only limit was capacitor & slots you would get very different fits to what we see now in some cases.
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-12-23 18:04:44 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
Tryaz wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
Onlining a module isn't the only thing that sucks the cap. The modules actual operation uses a certain cap/time period. Some modules (storage types - CHA's, SMA's, etc) use a small amount of cap). Other modules (Factories, Labs, etc) use significantly more (when active). Still others (Forcefield, moon harvester) or a lot more all the time. It's just a matter of ensuring you have a large enough power plant to power what you are going to use on the station. Yes, though, there are limited numbers of slots on a given skeleton as well.


Yep I get all that but what's the actual limiting factor in the number of modules you can have attached to your POS? What I'm asking is are you removing PG and CPU from POS?


That was the intention. The limiting factor would be module/hardpoint slot count on the skeleton, and cap energy.

PG & CPU should stay also. No reason for them to go. By keeping them you also make it possible to make certain modules hard to have several of on a single POS, but can allow them to happen by RCU/CPU enhancement modules, but they can still be easy on the capacitor to run.
So it allows you multiple balance options for fitting, which can be used to create more diversity.
Like ships, if the only limit was capacitor & slots you would get very different fits to what we see now in some cases.


Obviously, if it is required for balance restraints, then it would have to be there. that said, an 'overpowered' POS is not really the same as an 'overpowered' ship.
Previous page123Next page