These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sylvanium Orlenard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1081 - 2014-04-17 02:52:32 UTC
The information that has been released by the devs in this thread gave me an idea. Blueprint Containers you can read about it here : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4481003#post4481003
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1082 - 2014-04-17 02:54:38 UTC
Querns wrote:
Elmoira Dreszka wrote:

The question is: if the game I selected to play in this I believed be a sand box is to build and not destroy things, I have to change game? If I don't want do pvp than I have to change game?

"Sandbox" does not mean "the game is meant to be played the way I want to play it." It means the game has no goals and users have to create their own content.


TLDR: yes

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1083 - 2014-04-17 02:58:25 UTC
George Wizardry wrote:
I can see eve becoming a pure PvP universe so why not remove all the security zones now and get on with it?

Eve is already a pure PvP universe. By undocking, you consent to PvP.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1084 - 2014-04-17 02:59:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Daenika wrote:
Quote:
This is what I am fighting against since so many years, I can't play a fake sandbox that in reality is a canned path game.


People like you always seem to confuse the concepts of "viable" and "optimal". Just because something isn't optimal doesn't mean it's not viable. Highsec will be sub-optimal in some respects, but that doesn't mean it won't be viable as an industrial location.


People like you always seem to live in an otherwordly plane of existence, where MMO players settle down for second choices.

It's not so. People would go to incredible lengths just to squeeze out that 1% improvement (it's human nature).

Look at any PvP game forums, you'll always see all sorts of complaining because class X deals 0.1% more damage than class Y in the sub-sub-sub-exceptional case under examen.

EvE is not different and no, we are not talking about ice miners who gladly trade "sub-optimal" for "total AFK and safety".

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#1085 - 2014-04-17 03:29:35 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Make it risky to let a POS run out of fuel. Make it risky when a defensive shield is lowered. If you let your POS run out of fuel I want to be able to pinch it! You have essentially left it unlocked and undefended, regardless of your intent.


It already is risky: I go away for a weekend, and come back to find my corp has been wardecced, my POS destroyed, my BPOs gone. How much more risky do you want it to be? Should a POS owner be required to stay logged in 24/7 and never getting sleep in order to protect their asset? Should I have a large corp and post rosters for who is supposed to be on guard duty to make sure my POS doesn't get hacked out from under me?

How much risk do you want POS owners to face? Just because your POS is sitting idle in space for three years doesn't mean it's not at risk: it just means that your offline POS is not an attractive enough target for someone to give a damn.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
ASadOldGit
Doomheim
#1086 - 2014-04-17 04:06:59 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Xaniff wrote:

2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).

Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down.

(apologies for the delay in replying - only up to page 4)

In addition to getting rid of old POSes, I've never understood why there's only space for one POS around a moon - there's room for hundreds of them (even though the current system fixes them in place - no actual orbiting going on. You'd also need to distance them so POS guns aren't continuously firing at each other).
Players could be competing for minerals, just as PI forces competition for minerals on planets.

Also, space colonisation-wise, planets are more likely to have the first orbital structures, not moons - why can't we have POSes around planets, too?

Presumably it's a legacy thing to do with mining moongoo, but not all POSes mine that stuff, do they? For highsec, at least, it's just about the orbital slot. But orbital slots are soooo 22nd century - who's going to use them 40,000 years from now?
(I realise nothing can likely be done for the summer release...)

Sorry to use :Science!: Big smile

This signature intentionally left blank for you to fill in at your leisure.
Louis Robichaud
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1087 - 2014-04-17 04:25:35 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Querns wrote:
I thought of a potential gotcha: Will POS assembly modules also have their slots removed? Will you be able to, e.g., run an infinite number of ammo jobs from a single ammo assembly array?


Yes, slots are being removed on everything, however, cost scaling will still be applicable to Starbases as well. Please wait for the appropriate blog for more details.


Woah!

I knew they were being removed from NPC stations, did not realize that this also applied to POS. I imagine that having more than one array (what we used to do to get more slots) will be "beneficial" in some way still?

Anyway, I'll await to hear more details before being too concerned :)

I'm very happy to hear that industry is being fixed, and I'm positive about most of what I've heard so far. However, I do note that:

1: This will really change POS warfare in highsec. There will be far more spots than before, and with the absence of standing it will be easier for a corp to just pack up and leave for greener pastures. I imagine in the medium term there will be a lot more abandoned POS (my suggestion: after they run out of fuel and the force field drops, have the shields slowly degrade until only armor and structure is left).

2: Making industry easier and more fun is a laudable goal... yet we should be careful as to what we wish for. This will lead to more productive industrialists and more people doing industry, increasing supply and thus lowering prices and profit margins. It's a strange feeling to realize that a positive change could backfire like that...

I blog a bit http://hspew.blogspot.ca
DoToo Foo
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1088 - 2014-04-17 04:44:51 UTC
Some pilots are concerned about corp thefts of BPO's.

Allowing BPO's to be used directly from the personal hanger array (and return there when jobs are delivered) would largely resolve this issue.

http://foo-eve.blogspot.com.au/
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1089 - 2014-04-17 04:45:01 UTC
I'm curious to hear what bonuses could possibly justify me putting a 1.1 billion isk battleship BPO at risk, in a tower that's worth less than that by itself?

CCP has been going on a tear of late, devaluing things earned by veteran players. First it was refining SP (Which I want back, now that It'll only be half as effective as the skills I injected.), now NPC standings and remote jobs. I've never suspected CCP had it out for industrialists and miners, then we lost grav sites and it's been downhill ever since.
FREELANCER JUNI
#1090 - 2014-04-17 04:57:34 UTC
First off i really don't care what you do to your game
I have 3 account each with trader alts, making all the isk I need for PvP fun,
The only way to get more real cash out of me would be raise the subscription !!


The changes on the table only say one thing to me - CCP Need more money
We all get it you are a business

The reason i have come to this opinion of mine is quite simple.

One way to boost any economy is mess around with the base materials - already planed with refining changes due
i really don't care I'm not a miner

The next step would be to mess with the industry that provides everything for the market
Again i really don't care I'm not a Industrialist

But these alone with raise the isk price of every item in eve, which would result in more Plex sold - congrats you done it
Again i really don't care I Pay via subscription

Have Fun With Your Game CCP - Lets hope you don't push to many away from eve

Cheers Freelancer Juni

A programmer’s wife sends him to the grocery store with the instructions, “get a loaf of bread, and if they have eggs, get a dozen.” He comes home with a dozen loaf of bread and tells her, “they had eggs.”
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1091 - 2014-04-17 04:57:37 UTC
55 pages of bla bla

it's awesome to see industry getting attention, well done CCP!
Obsidian Ruby
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1092 - 2014-04-17 05:20:30 UTC
So, your solution to Industry needs some help is to functionally make it so that industry corporations can't function properly due to blueprint location restrictions?
I'm more or less okay with everything except for that backwards idea. Industry doesn't need more people trying to destroy it, it needs easier access to it, and removing remote usage for a pos is *not* the way to do it.
Rusty Waynne
Rusty Waynne Corporation
#1093 - 2014-04-17 05:45:33 UTC
Oh man this looks exciting. I can't wait!
Emrys Ap'Morgravaine
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1094 - 2014-04-17 05:52:22 UTC
Questions:

Given the changes POS labs are going to undergo, what happens to any job already in progress? Will it continue unabated and have the BP return to it's origin point, still locked down? Will the job be cancelled entirely due to the code changes the lab will receive? If cancelled, will the BP get dropped at the tower?
Red Bot Huntress
Quascri
#1095 - 2014-04-17 06:03:14 UTC
Hey, I just got an idea.

Since you are already introducing taxes as an ISK sink on top of POS fuel costs, why not introduce an ISK sink for the other part of the player population?

Tax suicide gankers for the value of their ship + modules fitted each time concord is involved in a killmail. It doesn't have to be full 100% value, but rather a dynamic percentage from 1% to 14% depending on ganking congestion in a certain area.

This actually is a genuine proposal, that will introduce balance. Otherwise, you are just plainly punishing the industrial players.
Eleisa Joringer
Les chips electriques
#1096 - 2014-04-17 06:13:46 UTC
Concord fees. i love the idea.
Bad parking around jita : 10k isk
Invoking concord with hostile action : they will fine you for the fuel and amos.


Please CCP, make offline POSes require charters.
And make the amount of charters decrease with standings.
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#1097 - 2014-04-17 06:23:43 UTC
There is no reson Concord shouldn't levee a fee/fine to cover their costs. We know they are already struggling when they taxed the pocos. This idea makes sense but its wrong thread.
Anders Madeveda
Usque Ad Mortem
#1098 - 2014-04-17 06:41:52 UTC
Red Bot Huntress wrote:
Hey, I just got an idea.

Since you are already introducing taxes as an ISK sink on top of POS fuel costs, why not introduce an ISK sink for the other part of the player population?

Tax suicide gankers for the value of their ship + modules fitted each time concord is involved in a killmail. It doesn't have to be full 100% value, but rather a dynamic percentage from 1% to 14% depending on ganking congestion in a certain area.

This actually is a genuine proposal, that will introduce balance. Otherwise, you are just plainly punishing the industrial players.



This...CCP needs to prove that balance is what they are after, all I've seen in these Dev blogs is alot of cheap "More risk equals more reward" except all I am seeing is that there is more risk, conveniently I'm supposed to accept that the more reward is a click friendly UI? Show me the risk for IQ challenged gankers will rise in the same manner that my expenses just did with this expansion.
Radgette
EVE Irn Bru Distribution
#1099 - 2014-04-17 07:05:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Radgette
Ok maybe someone can explain this to me from a lore/RP perspective.


We have FTL communications and can talk and send silly images all the way across the cluster.

When we are podded we can instantly transfer our consciousness from thousands of lightyears away to a new body.

We can remotely change market orders across entire regions of space.

BUT

now we can nolonger upload schematics to our starbases from a station in the same system?

Is the universal internet provider running out of bandwidth or something? are we getting upload limits and so should we change provider for a better connection :p


So heres another way of doing things :

Allow us to keep installing jobs from a station with scientific networking, keeping our bpo's safe BUT charge us a fee for doing so.

lore reason : transfering large schematics requires a specialised array on the station and we are charged for using it.

Voila you get your isk sink and we get to keep using loced down bpo's corp wide without worrying about corp theft every day
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1100 - 2014-04-17 07:13:54 UTC
Anders Madeveda wrote:
Red Bot Huntress wrote:
Hey, I just got an idea.

Since you are already introducing taxes as an ISK sink on top of POS fuel costs, why not introduce an ISK sink for the other part of the player population?

Tax suicide gankers for the value of their ship + modules fitted each time concord is involved in a killmail. It doesn't have to be full 100% value, but rather a dynamic percentage from 1% to 14% depending on ganking congestion in a certain area.

This actually is a genuine proposal, that will introduce balance. Otherwise, you are just plainly punishing the industrial players.



This...CCP needs to prove that balance is what they are after, all I've seen in these Dev blogs is alot of cheap "More risk equals more reward" except all I am seeing is that there is more risk, conveniently I'm supposed to accept that the more reward is a click friendly UI? Show me the risk for IQ challenged gankers will rise in the same manner that my expenses just did with this expansion.


You know the answer to that.
This whole change is designed to make life miserable for those that think a game can be about more than mindless mayhem.
The inmates do run the asylum.