These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#741 - 2014-04-16 06:53:38 UTC
Caldari 5 wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Caldari 5 wrote:
One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space.


You are aware that a nullsec alliance can simply pay a standings service a few ISK (200m is the going price IIRC) to get them to create a new corp with 7.0 faction standings, have a member that's trusted with 5b take complete control of that corp, set up the 20 or whatever number HS POSes the alliance wants, and then admit the corp to join the alliance?

That is - exactly the same process that most (in the know) highsec research POSes are established with too, minus the part about joining the alliance. Only difference is, a tower bearing the alliance ticker "Goonswarm Federation" is more likely to be subject to wardecs and attacks than one bearing the ticker "Mission BLITZ".

Which is fine, because Goons can (if they care enough to bother) mount a fairly serious POS defense in highsec.

Personally I'd like to see that loophole closed, so that if a Corps Standings dropped below the required amount for more than 7 days then the Faction navy Turns up and starts shooting the POS(or other similar effect)


Why do you think that the game would be better if only the hardcore round the clock PVE players have access to highsec POS research?

Why not also impose other arbitrary grinds, like "You may not inject skillbooks for capital ships until you have completed 170 incursion sites", or "You may not copy blueprints until you have defeated 25 players in solo PVP?", or "You may not sit in a Hulk until you have suicide ganked four Hulks".

All of those requirements are significantly less onerous than the "your corp's average faction-to-player standing must remain above 7.0", and all are just as arbitrary.


I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#742 - 2014-04-16 06:57:51 UTC
George Wizardry wrote:
Hi, I think modifying the game to allow more is great but........

To my untrained MMO eye it appears as if all the latest changes/additions to Eve are pushing more and more towards a pure PvP environment and so far away from the true sandbox of equal mix PvP/PvE as possible.

Creating POS's in all high sec just gives the PvP's a chance to wardec your corp and blow them up.

Variable costing of jobs sounds good but have a hard coded upper limit or make it that each job type will take a specific amount of time e.g copying takes 1 week + 1 day per copy


If CCP really wants to have more PvP in the game that's ok I'll stop playing but I have a better idea :)

With-in High/low and null-sec create solar systems ( preferably chained together so it is possible to avoid them ) dedicated PvP and PvE and mixed area's. PvP high sec has a timer that takes concord 2 or 3 times as long to respond and low and null sec the same as now. The PvE high/low/null area's players are unable to shoot at any other player unless shown as a criminal red tag. But the pirates/npc's are exponentially harder than the existing mixed area's e.g high sec gets pirate cruisers as standard, low sec gets pirate bc's and null gets pirate battleships along with making missions more difficult etc

For me this makes a lot more sense in that the sandbox is still open to all and includes all the changes you want to make while making a lot more ppl in both PvP and PvE groups happy :)

Just my $0.02isk worth



Every single element of EVE has always been PVP, including the PVE. This isn't changing.

The other miner in the belt is competing for your asteroids.
The other inventor in the system is competing for limited copy and invention slots.
The other mission runner will loot Faint Epsilon Warp Scramblers every now and again, and each one they loot reduces the profit you get selling your ones.
And that other mission runner is buying ammo, pushing up the price you pay for it.
Every mission NPC you down adds more ISK into the overall game economy, contributing to inflation and thus hurting every single player with a positive wallet balance.

And that's not even touching on players shooting each other.


If you want non-PVP 'EVE', log into the test server, where the market is seeded by NPCs so you don't have to deal with real-loss PVP in trading.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#743 - 2014-04-16 07:01:03 UTC
Zappity wrote:


EHP also needs to come down. The clutter in wormhole space tells us the problem is not limited only to highsec protection.



I don't have a problem with POS EHP in general, a large POS takes about eighty dreadnought-minutes to destroy - short enough to not drag, long enough to drive conflict.

It's disposing of POS clutter in areas where dreadnoughts are not allowed (highsec) or not realistic to field (C1-3 WH space and maybe C4) that is the problem. Instead of 80 dreadnought-minutes, you need 500 battleship-minutes.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Hexatron Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#744 - 2014-04-16 07:01:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Hexatron Ormand
Quote:
Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials.



That brings up some very important questions for me, as we currently have our blueprints "locked up" at a station that has neither production or research slots currently. Also the process of locking and unlocking them is a super huge hassle.

Will it be possible to lock them up at pos structures? We use this system to make them publically available to the corp, without the risk of them being stolen or taken away. With your new system it would be impossible to keep them locked up, what means they are gone from the avaiability for all. What is a very viable thing as we use them together, as something we worked for, and earned for all of us. Now we get them taken away cause of those changes?

Or will the lock up system changed dramatically, so it is easier to lock and unlock them in bulks? To lock and unlock them on starbase structurs, and that quickly enough to be unlockable if a starbase is under attack?

By forcing the blueprints to be within the starbase structure, you make the "locking up" mechanics unusuable. We would need a system to make them as save as currently for "public usage" within the corp, yet still preserve the ability to instantly take them out if the structure is in danger. How are you making this possible? How are you compensating for that?

Just thinking about having to unlock all of our corporation BPOs and to relock them somewhere else makes me cringe. This locking system is pure torture.


We need a new locking system for blueprints, that makes them save on starbases, yet also allows emergency takeout if it is under attack by authorized persons like CEO or directors. Without this system you are making blueprint ownership as a corporation that makes them available for all members a huge hassle that breaks some valuable "we earned this BPO together in a corporation event and now have it available for all" gameplay.


How are we supposed to use the advantage of our starbase, if we cannot provide the blueprints in the same way as before to everyone? Also our station has not a single rroduction or research line currently, so we also cannot use those to make copies to take out to the starbase.

And unlocking hundrets of BPOs with the current system, to transfer them to a station that has those lines, to lock them back up there? No thanks.. may we open tickets for GMs to do that for us? You after all force us to move them out.....


For now i only see three solutions to this problem:

First: Allow instant locking and unlocking of BPOs, especially if the corp has not given out any shares. Also allow locking of BPOs on POS structures in such a case

Second: Give all stations at least slots to copy BPOs, so you can copy them everywhere, so you can then take a copy out to the POS.

Third: Allow remote usage of POS copy slots still from stations, for the same reason as above.


or otherwise you will kill "BPOs available to everyone within a corporation through locking them up" - as they would otherwise need to be in the personal hangar of a single person.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#745 - 2014-04-16 07:07:12 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

CCP, some slack???

First off, I fail to see how this is a huge nerf to Supercaps Online.
A POS with BPO's in it has still less risk of being hit than a tower with a CSAA, since a CSAA is a beacon.


We still don't know about how heavy the impact of the new changes will be, so it's too early to get all hissy & pissy.

But what I know NOW is that I am surprised you compare and value a "mere" supercap risk with the risk losing its BPO, which has epically huge research costs.

Any alliance, actually any individual who's vaguely efficient (including me) can buy some supercaps "just because", ISK is not so hard to farm.
But time is. Time is the most valuable commodity in game (and in RL), it's way more strategically important to efficiently employ time - including getting BPOs ready - than the mere products which cost a lot, but cost a disposable commodity (money).


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

And we all know that supercap mfg towers are seldom hit, though it does happen. goons don't even ALLOW their renters to make supercaps, and the goons have their industrial might buried deep in very safe enclaves.


They'd be totally dumb if the allowed that.


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Don't compare Eve to Wow. You know better than that.


I don't compare them. I talk by difference. EvE is the one MMO meant to be "hardcore PvP sandbox", WoW is the casual player, mild paced (for most) theme park.

Yet it's in EvE that we find a whole totally non sandbox, protected area where one may entertrain in the most mild way.

Anyone who has been in Crossroads at level 10 and got PKilled for 1 hour trying to do their quests, knows this simple concept I am saying.


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

These changes, along with the subsequent blogs, are targeted at wrecking high sec industry.
If the CSM's goal with these changes was to reduce the amount of casual players subscribing to the game, they certainly have achieved it.


I have had to guard POSes in low sec and NPC null sec. It's a bit harsher than doing the same in hi sec, I doubt everyone will scramble to Goon-happy-lands (sov) or NPC null.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Don Aubaris
#746 - 2014-04-16 07:17:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Don Aubaris
While there are a few good things in the Blog, this is hardly a better world.

* POS's all over high-sec is good. But the standing should stay. There is only one thing worse then a bad change, and that is a change that disrespects the effort a player made to get somewhere. This doesn't mean it should stay as is. It should be made alot stricter even. If takes x standing to set up a POS in a system with sec-status x then it should stay above x-3 or so or your POS stops working. Living in High-sec should have its cost too.

* Unlimited slots in NPC-stations, even with a cost, is silly and goes in the wrong direction. Once again you show a complete lack of vision. With POCO's in highs-sec you pushed players into something that should never happend. Now that you have the chance to push players into something good, you don't do it.

Players should get 1 slot of every kind in a NPC-station. Just to try it out. They should get 1 (or 2 ) slots of every kind in low-sec (to push people a little bit in that direction). And all the rest should be done in POS's. POS's should have slots that can be rented out to the general public (with a cost, related to the standing of the public ofcourse, and the possibility to block below a certain level) or contracted to a specific player/corps/alliance. Not that this means you should have access to the POS. There should be an (indestructable) POCO-like office outside the shields. A player puts this stuff in...and get this stuff out later. Without the POS owner being able to mess with it. Then you get player-interaction and a good NPC-nerf. This introduces risk for the clients (not the owners since they can safely do all the stuff within the shields) and give pirates a new target. With the POS -defenses jumping in the defense of its customers depending on their status.

A corps should only be able to put 1 POS up in high-sec. This to ensure there is enough room for everyone. (and yes..of course they will setup dummy corps). A Non-active POS should be removable after 1 month of inactivity (without a war-dec) and activity must be atleast 1 month before the counter is reset. (otherwise they'll just throw in 1 fuel-block every month)

This would make POS's a lot more attractive in high-sec. That requires another defense-mechanism or the small corps have no chance. A POS must be indestructable in high-sec. If you want a POS in a certain system that is full, you'll just have to offer the owner a price that he will accept. Trade is the motor of Highsec. Not violence.

That doesn't mean POS's should be safe all the time. You cannot conquer them. But you can rob them one the shields are down. Pirates can attack a POS without a war-dec. A POS should have it defenses (just as they do have now). And Concord will intervene eventually. But the delay is a mix of POS-Owner and Pirate influence with CONCORD and the number of attackers. A Pos-owner can have a contract with concord to intervene after x hours. With the price going up the smaller x is. A pirate-group can bribe concord to add a delay to that. So a Pirate must estimate the value of the POS-contents, evaluate the defenses, guess the concord-response time, .... Can they rob it before their time runs out? And will they make a profit?

So if a small corps takes a break for 14 days, it can hire CONCORD to have a faster reaction time. When the corps is active, the defenses can be lead by the players themselves.

I think this will limit the violence against POS's but still make it possible. But only the stupid and high networth ones will be at risk.

But it's already mid-april...bit late to publish a dev blog. These things should be done atleast 6 months ahead.
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#747 - 2014-04-16 07:17:21 UTC
Removing standings requirement from hisec poses removes one of the few (and weak) incentives to set up industry in lowsec.

Would it be possible to consider some sec status related bonus to manufacturing and research (and related activies) to improve this aspect?

Aeonidis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#748 - 2014-04-16 07:21:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Aeonidis
Aliventi wrote:
Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.

Quote:
Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention.


CCP Greyscale wrote:

That's the current plan, yes.



This would suck. T2 BPO's should go the way of the dinosaur. New inventors already have a hard enough time competing with T2 BPOs ME/PE ratings as well as overall costs applied to final manufacture of said T2 items. IMHO the 2 systems are incompatible and the game should have one or the other and not both.
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#749 - 2014-04-16 07:28:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Muestereate
Crosspost: In reference to this interface picture Possible SISI config

This post mainly addresses the choice of icons:

I like a lot of it, I doubt if a dev reads this gd complaint but I do agree with the icons OP. I've doen a lot of industry and the icons are not intuitive as icons should be, they NEED to have rollovers at the least. Same goes for materials. Everything else in game is text or numeric data, moving over to graphics is an extra mental task. I could learn the icons, I could speed up the conversion with time, but they are not intuitive. Like many Microsoft Icons are:)

Icon design requires designers willing to go to a deeper layer of psyche, these icons are cognitive and not instinctual. To get through the cognizant layer certain mental defenses on the designers side must be slipped thru, discarded, broken or replaced. The evidence that the designer has broken through the consciousness is that less detail rather than more conveys more meaning. They are symbols that have been buried in our heads for longer periods of time and our relative to our culture.

For instance the crystal Icon on the top left does indeed resonate as a symbol for minerals. From a geek culture, I grew crystals at the age of 8 to 10 and almost instinctively I know that crystals usually precipitate from minerals rather than elements. My brain needs no more processing time to make the new association than simple a assignment. I already have the refined minerals in my mind as a sort of set, list or dictionary. minerals =["trit", "pyer", "iso", ...]; crystal_outline = mineral. Fast and direct mental access.

Now I like that transistor, It too I studied in elementary school while growing crystals. It kind of says I'm a crystal too but from elements instead. Its got a direct association too but this time the association is the beginning of a hierarchical collection I would assign the name of crystallized metals or electronic semiconductors and what this actually does is reveal another weakness. The composites pictured are neither electronic or crystallized metallic elements.

The Icons great!!! I think it should be used for what we call moon materials, with the exceptions of the gasses they sound elemental, metallic and potentially capable of semiconductor or superconductor traits.

As the icon currently sits my brain has to go through a series of variable assignments which is cognitive in nature rather than instinctual as icons in a perfect world should be. My brain has to say, transistor image = moon metal: moon metal = intermediate: intermediate = composite. While its carrying this chain I'm also pulling along node indexes for a hierarchical tree of simple and complex reactions. At this point my brain blows a gasket, the transistor has added at least 3 or 4 mental associations to the already more complex t2 thought chain And I don't even need to know this chain without a moon.

Which brings me, since I don't want to not offer a solution when exposing a problem. I would suggest a:

Crescent Moon with 4 beams. The crescent moon is immediately recognizable at a primal level as being a moon. 4 beams signifies its a composite that took Four moon materials to produce. The beams also are a quick association to the glow around the composites icons.

And what is that icon for planetary commodities? It looks like a hedge clipper. Am I supposed to associate hedge clipper with hedges and hedges with vegetation and vegetation with planets and planets with planetary interaction and planetary interaction with planetary commodities before I come to the (Inescapable??? :)) conclusion that hedge clippers = PI stuff?

We have to go back, more primal, more instinctive. Eve's roots are mythology, Greek, Norse, Celtic and probably more along occult lines. A suggestion for planets is a dot representing the sun surrounded by several circles symbolizing orbits with dots along those orbits as planets. By exaggerating the size of the planet orb in comparison to the sun orb its possible that this might say planet rather than solar system. Another symbol, closer to the hedge-clipper but symbolic of Earth more-so than "planets" Is a usually Green circle as a wreathe of leaves or vines and inside that circle a tree branching out to top and bottom and into the "leaves/vine"

I too hope someone takes us back to our mythological roots and symbols instead of Modern Microsoft icon dysfunctions. Eve's history should carry into its future. I'm a PC guy but Apple had Icons right.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#750 - 2014-04-16 07:43:53 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient?

Because it clearly isn't sufficient right now. Have you ever gone out and looked at the number of offline POS in highsec?


Have you seen the number of offline POS in locations that are actually desirable? There aren't many. You know why? Because they got blowed up, is why!

Heck, I've seen corporations lose abandoned hi sec POSes to a single pilot, because that solo pilot had the gumption to wardec the holding corporation (or alliance) and take the risk that someone would shoot back. So you can take your "oh noes, 500 battleship minutes" whining and vamoose!

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Dormio
Shocky Industries Ltd.
Goonswarm Federation
#751 - 2014-04-16 07:56:11 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
[quote=Slappy Andven][quote=CCP Ytterbium][quote=Xaniff]
We're not removing the ability to lock down blueprints in your station. You can still lock down as before and build, research and copy using the infinite slots in the station.

That would mean that office price on lab stations will skyrocket. One of the main reasons for POS in hisec is availability of labs for copy. Removing slots you will remove that reason, will be the efficency enough reason to keep the POS ?

Confront your enemies Gentleman can walk but never run !
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#752 - 2014-04-16 07:59:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Mara Rinn wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient?

Because it clearly isn't sufficient right now. Have you ever gone out and looked at the number of offline POS in highsec?


Have you seen the number of offline POS in locations that are actually desirable? There aren't many. You know why? Because they got blowed up, is why!

Heck, I've seen corporations lose abandoned hi sec POSes to a single pilot, because that solo pilot had the gumption to wardec the holding corporation (or alliance) and take the risk that someone would shoot back. So you can take your "oh noes, 500 battleship minutes" whining and vamoose!

I said nothing about 500 battleship hours. And I will certainly not vamoose! So there!

There are thousands of the bloody things offline throughout highsec simply because letting them go offline is extremely safe. Why should it be? They are valuable assets and should be at risk if you decide to let the proper protection fail. If they are not fuelled and protected by a shield they should be far more vulnerable than they are.

Honestly, those resists on an OFFLINE stick? Please. That is simply a hangover from the days when POS were tied to sov and should be fixed.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures
#753 - 2014-04-16 07:59:44 UTC
Now anyone can enjoy the simplicity and easy of use found in the POS interface, regardless of standings.

That aside, glad to see extra materials go away. long overdue. My indy alt looks forward to these other dev blogs.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#754 - 2014-04-16 08:15:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Zappity wrote:
Because it clearly isn't sufficient right now. Have you ever gone out and looked at the number of offline POS in highsec?
Yes, with some frequency as I go out and scout potential new locations. It's actually quite easy to find abandoned spots and the only quibble is whether or not you want a high-quality station in the same system or not.

Quote:
There are thousands of the bloody things offline throughout highsec simply because letting them go offline is extremely safe. Why should it be? They are valuable assets and should be at risk if you decide to let the proper protection fail.
This is already the case. If you don't defend them properly, they get blown up in short order by some wardeccer who wants the spot. That is why I reject outright any kind of suggestion that only amounts to “I want it faster” or “I don't want to put the effort in”, which is… oh… pretty much all of them. The wardecs are provably already enough to do the job and laziness or impatience is not a sufficient reason to provide a secondary method.

Right now, if a POS is actually abandoned, the effort required to take it down and replace it is exactly zero. Start it up before you make dinner; by the time the dishes are done, so is the POS.

Destination SkillQueue wrote:
It forces a pointless grind on the players for no benefit to any relevant party. It all makes sense, if the parties are actively defending it, since it gives them a chance to protect their assets and creates an opportunity for a fight between the attacker and the defender. An abandoned POS is an admission by neglect, that they have no interest in defending that asset and therefore the attacker is just forced to waste money and time on a grind, that doesn't make the game better, the attacker hates to do and the defender doesn't care about.
…but that just leads back to the same old question: how do you determine that it is “abandoned”. The only sensible way to do that is to see whether or not someone is interested in defending it. That means maintaining the wardec mechanic (which is already being used successfully for exactly this purpose) — letting people do 15-minute drive-by:s does not offer that ability to determine anything.

This leads to two main considerations: first, any kind of “remove abandoned POSes” mechanic must include a mechanism to determine which are genuinely determined and which are not. This means having a significant enough delay to let the defenders mount a defence. Second, such a mechanic cannot be allowed to be faster than wardecs since that just means it will be abused to bypass wardecs against legit targets. With the removal of standings requirements, that abuse would reach epidemic proportions.

If you want to get rid of the HP grind, that's one thing (see the hacking deployable idea linked earlier), but getting rid of the delay simply cannot happen without causing all kinds of issues.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#755 - 2014-04-16 08:24:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…but that just leads back to the same old question: how do you determine that it is “abandoned”. The only sensible way to do that is to see whether or not someone is interested in defending it. That means maintaining the wardec mechanic (which is already being used successfully for exactly this purpose) — letting people do 15-minute drive-by:s does not offer that ability to determine anything.

This leads to two main considerations: first, any kind of “remove abandoned POSes” mechanic must include a mechanism to determine which are genuinely determined and which are not. This means having a significant enough delay to let the defenders mount a defence. Second, such a mechanic cannot be allowed to be faster than wardecs since that just means it will be abused to bypass wardecs against legit targets. With the removal of standings requirements, that abuse would reach epidemic proportions.

If you want to get rid of the HP grind, that's one thing (see the hacking deployable idea linked earlier), but getting rid of the delay simply cannot happen without causing all kinds of issues.

Why can't offline = abandoned? Why should you be able to lower defensive shields without consequence?

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Oxide Ammar
#756 - 2014-04-16 08:25:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Oxide Ammar
if the cost of putting BPO in POS lab for ME/PE/Copy research is more than the 14% tax they applying to stations, I don't see any benefit at all doing this in POS. Losing isk and risking BPOs is not worth it.They need to make it lucrative enough which result bigger profit margin if you researched or manufactured items in POS.

PS. For the love of god remove the huge list of arrays to manufacture ships, ones for T1 and ones for T2 and multiply all this by the sizes of the ships we have !!!

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
H3llHound
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#757 - 2014-04-16 08:36:17 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Quote:
On T2 BPOs, please don't reduce copy times here without a real balancing effect for invention. The status quo is ok but changing copy times would make it worse.


Inventors would benefit far more than T2 BPO owners from reduced copy times.



How exactly would Inventors benefit from reduced ->T2 BPO<- copy times?

T1 BPOs I understand but not T2.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#758 - 2014-04-16 08:37:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Zappity wrote:
Why can't offline = abandoned?
Because there's little to no correlation between the two.

Abandonment isn't just a state — it's an intent, or perhaps more accurately a lack thereof. An offline POS is about as abandoned as a ship in your hangar, and for much the same reasons: just because it is current in a state of non-use does not mean that it is not intended to be used, and there are plenty of reason for not having it in use it every second of every day.

Unless you devise a way to measure that intent (something that wardecs already do), you have no way of determining whether the POS you're eyeing is abandoned or not.

Quote:
Why should you be able to lower defensive shields without consequence?
You're not. If you do, you become an instant target for wardecs (which, by the way, creates consequences for more than just your POS).
Pubbie Spy
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#759 - 2014-04-16 09:03:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Pubbie Spy
Don Aubaris wrote:
While there are a few good things in the Blog, this is hardly a better world.


Literally everything in your post is a horrible idea.

Quote:
* POS's all over high-sec is good. But the standing should stay. There is only one thing worse then a bad change, and that is a change that disrespects the effort a player made to get somewhere. This doesn't mean it should stay as is. It should be made alot stricter even. If takes x standing to set up a POS in a system with sec-status x then it should stay above x-3 or so or your POS stops working. Living in High-sec should have its cost too.


* God forbid industry become more accessible. Oh no, my standings grind is being disrespected, I am being oppressed! Think of the people offering faction standing boost services!

Quote:
* Unlimited slots in NPC-stations, even with a cost, is silly and goes in the wrong direction. Once again you show a complete lack of vision. With POCO's in highs-sec you pushed players into something that should never happend. Now that you have the chance to push players into something good, you don't do it.


I don't even understand what problem you are trying (unsuccessfully) to describe.

Quote:
Players should get 1 slot of every kind in a NPC-station. Just to try it out. They should get 1 (or 2 ) slots of every kind in low-sec (to push people a little bit in that direction). And all the rest should be done in POS's. POS's should have slots that can be rented out to the general public (with a cost, related to the standing of the public ofcourse, and the possibility to block below a certain level) or contracted to a specific player/corps/alliance. Not that this means you should have access to the POS. There should be an (indestructable) POCO-like office outside the shields. A player puts this stuff in...and get this stuff out later. Without the POS owner being able to mess with it. Then you get player-interaction and a good NPC-nerf. This introduces risk for the clients (not the owners since they can safely do all the stuff within the shields) and give pirates a new target. With the POS -defenses jumping in the defense of its customers depending on their status.


Yes, I get it. You really love poses. Everyone must love poses. Everyone must love the most horrible user interface in EVE. Everyone must also spend even more effort on doing the mindlessly boring task of freightering stuff around.

Quote:
A corps should only be able to put 1 POS up in high-sec. This to ensure there is enough room for everyone. (and yes..of course they will setup dummy corps). A Non-active POS should be removable after 1 month of inactivity (without a war-dec) and activity must be atleast 1 month before the counter is reset. (otherwise they'll just throw in 1 fuel-block every month)

This would make POS's a lot more attractive in high-sec. That requires another defense-mechanism or the small corps have no chance. A POS must be indestructable in high-sec. If you want a POS in a certain system that is full, you'll just have to offer the owner a price that he will accept. Trade is the motor of Highsec. Not violence.

That doesn't mean POS's should be safe all the time. You cannot conquer them. But you can rob them one the shields are down. Pirates can attack a POS without a war-dec. A POS should have it defenses (just as they do have now). And Concord will intervene eventually. But the delay is a mix of POS-Owner and Pirate influence with CONCORD and the number of attackers. A Pos-owner can have a contract with concord to intervene after x hours. With the price going up the smaller x is. A pirate-group can bribe concord to add a delay to that. So a Pirate must estimate the value of the POS-contents, evaluate the defenses, guess the concord-response time, .... Can they rob it before their time runs out? And will they make a profit?



Ok, so you want highsec to become a WoW like themepark. I will use our renter ISK to create corps, hoover up all those indestructible highsec poses, and rent out slots at extortionate prices. Then I'll roll up in 256 siege bombers and bash any non goon pos in 20 minutes. More power to the blob, the tears must flow.
Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
#760 - 2014-04-16 09:05:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Aliventi wrote:
Quote:
Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original.

Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention.


That's the current plan, yes.



That's a plan?Ugh
Having a handful of players that have items from a discontinued mechanics dating back more than 5 years ago controll the market of T2 BPCs is an actual plan? Wow.

Mass printing of T2 BPCs will not "make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing", but make it harder if not impossible for new players to get into T2 invention if they expect to have any profit from it. In fact, new players are not the only ones affected by this but all players that do not have T2 BPOs.

Unless there is a substantial ISK cost for the process of copying T2 BPOs to make them less profitable than investing actual gameplay effort, skills and ISK to invent an item, this is a horrible idea. The only reason why I and many others were indifferent about T2 BPOs even existing in the game several years after the way to obtain them was discontinued was that inventors COULD compete with the owners of T2 BPOs. If this goes through that would not be possible any more.

In fact, while you're at re-hauling industry and removing legacy stuff that is several years old and don't serve the originally intended purpose - then why not consider removing T2 BPOs and compensating the owners in some way? For example, turning T2 BPOs into T2 BPCs with infinite runs. Or introducing a chance of unsuccessful copy like we have in invention.

I really hope you will look into this problem and not just go through with it like it was done when nullsec anomalies were nerfed. That one really backfired on the game and on CCP. This one will as well.