These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Back Into the Structure

First post First post
Author
Javani
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#101 - 2015-03-21 19:48:50 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
I have a few questions.

1. Wh deployment / sizes allowed.
2.. Defenses. Currently there are major deathstars protecting the larger investments, how will we protect our investments now with only 8 guns? Are there plans for mobile sentry structures or something like that?
3. What bonuses will the base platform give to defenses? looking at that test set up, it looks like fodder for a group of bombers.
4. High sec, low sec, null, and wh space. What will be allowed what wont be allowed?
5. Are we going to have a variation for each faction say minmatar mining, caldari mining, amarr mining? Or will it kind of be based on the outpost model for variations.
6. Can I has them now please?
7. How you doin?



I snippet from the Round Table:

1. ) The Hull sould not be limited to sec status / wh. only the rigs for specalistation. (no supers for wh )
2. ) No AI would fire back. only player can fire back. currently they are looking for timezone and capture machanics at sov 5.0
3. ) L and XL will evently have simillar machanics like the new sov system
4. ) highsec etc. will be currently limited by usable rigs wich will be limiting the me/te boost etc. no size limit. also there will be a thukker rig for low sec capital producement.
5. ) If i heard it right. there will no race specific structures only meta or maybe t2 variations
6. ) They said the first set (assambly or sience or ... which is currently not selected) should hit TQ this year
7. ) After fan-fest good :) thanks
Candente
Navy Veteran Club
#102 - 2015-03-21 19:49:33 UTC
Congratulations to all who made this happening. Another new chapter for Eve.
Morgana Tsukiyo
Samsara Dynamics
#103 - 2015-03-21 19:50:39 UTC
Now that´s the game i´ve been wanting to play! Good Job, put those on SiSi asap!

Join Project Transcendence.

Applied technology for the enhancement of human experience.

RainReaper
Bras-Tek Industries
Nefatari Union
#104 - 2015-03-21 19:53:38 UTC
Justa Hunni wrote:
Nyctef wrote:


tl;dr being able to put together a small town of individual structures would make me feel more like I'm building a home rather than just renting someone else's


I really like the changes but I'm quoting above as I had a totally different understanding of what is being contemplated. Right now I can have my POS do almost anything I want it to do (within PG and CPU) but your new structures seem to be role dependent. Does this mean I'll have to have separate research, manufacturing and refining "arrays" within my WH system rather than a single or two POS with all the necessary current arrays (with all the extra fueling etc headaches that enforces)?

isent it possible to just change the gear when you want it to do something else? you can store the things in the pos's storage right?
Redbull Spai
Twenty Questions
RAZOR Alliance
#105 - 2015-03-21 19:56:40 UTC
Quote:
Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way.


Looking at the proposed system, it looks exactly like the current system - completely the opposite of this statement.

Under the current system, only the 0.1% of corp members with *POS Roles* get ANY content WHATSOEVER. The other 99.9% get absolutely ZERO content as regards player-owned structures. Under the new system, it looks the same - POS Role players get all the content, POS Role players are the only ones that can drop/fit the new structures, POS Role players are the only ones that decide where and who manufacturing can occur ect.

And please dont say start your own corp and give yourself POS Roles (or whatever it is going to be called), if your not an established corp in an established alliance with the members to defend such structures, you will get rolled over into dust.

Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#106 - 2015-03-21 19:58:04 UTC
Aryth wrote:
With the newest system introduced last year, a great many alliances invested trillions in improvements. Are stations going to be rebated/refunded/changed when they are phased out of the industrial process?

You can say the same about supercaps... depending what the changes to them will be

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Iosue
Black Sky Hipsters
#107 - 2015-03-21 20:00:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Iosue
love what i'm seeing so far. need to spend a little time thinking some of the details over, but i really like the improvement goals driving the changes. this will have a big impact on industry both manufacturing and game play mechanics in general and i'm glad for this progress on that front, CCP. can't wait to see more, please keep the info coming. Bear

edit: also looking forward to reading dev feedback to responses here.
Iosue
Black Sky Hipsters
#108 - 2015-03-21 20:01:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Iosue
posting durr...
Madd Adda
#109 - 2015-03-21 20:03:55 UTC
Iosue wrote:
Iosue wrote:
love what i'm seeing so far. need to spend a little time thinking some of the details over, but i really like the improvement goals driving the changes. this will have a big impact on industry both manufacturing and game play mechanics in general and i'm glad for this progress on that front, CCP. can't wait to see more, please keep the info coming. Bear


edit: also looking forward to reading dev feedback to responses here.


you could have just edited your first post.

Carebear extraordinaire

Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike
Northern Coalition.
#110 - 2015-03-21 20:04:10 UTC
Seems cool.
Will upgrades/rigs/services in the new structures depend on sov upgrades in nullsec?

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]

RazorDreamz
Chaotic Dynamics
#111 - 2015-03-21 20:09:27 UTC
I love where this is going!

I would love to see stations that are building ships to have visual of what they are building. So if your building a carrier for instance it should show a carrier moored and under construction. Not sure if this is can be reasonably applied for sub-caps but I think for caps it would help provide more interesting game-play via spying on stations and launching an attack for instance when you see a titan under construction.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2015-03-21 20:17:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
Redbull Spai wrote:
Quote:
Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way.


Looking at the proposed system, it looks exactly like the current system - completely the opposite of this statement.

Under the current system, only the 0.1% of corp members with *POS Roles* get ANY content WHATSOEVER. The other 99.9% get absolutely ZERO content as regards player-owned structures. Under the new system, it looks the same - POS Role players get all the content, POS Role players are the only ones that can drop/fit the new structures, POS Role players are the only ones that decide where and who manufacturing can occur ect.

And please dont say start your own corp and give yourself POS Roles (or whatever it is going to be called), if your not an established corp in an established alliance with the members to defend such structures, you will get rolled over into dust.



the reason that only players with pos roles get to play with them is very simple. pos roles are an all or nothing thing. someone who can build a ****** small mining tower can also offline the 5 CSAAs with titans in build.

this looks like that's going to change. you can now decide that peter, bob and anne get to play with mining towers, while only alex is allowed to screw with the titans in build.
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#113 - 2015-03-21 20:18:26 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Cervix Thumper wrote:
watching the twitch and reading this sounds kind of like a cash grab.

we have to purchase new material while the old become obsolete?

existing structures / purchases can't be upgraded or transitioned into the new system?

for those purchases that have already been made and not deployed.. players are S.O.L?

A transition period is nice but, all said and done, it seems like scrap the old and buy the new.


This was something missing from the blog but we discussed in our roundtable at Fanfest today. We will make sure you get some reasonable value back from your old structures and not just nerf them until they don't do anything. This includes the tower, modules and blueprints to build them.

We did a similar thing during the industry expansion.

Oh and for the wormholers, yes you will be able to anchor some (or maybe all of these structures). However there will be some activities / bonuses that remain tied to sovereignty. The exact details of this need to be discussed with the wormhole community to see what best fits their needs and play style.


What about outpost upgrades?

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#114 - 2015-03-21 20:18:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Akrasjel Lanate
Will it mean removal of racial diversity like POSes and Fuels(Isotopes) ?
Will you introduce new materials to make those structures(related to the Drilling platforms) ?
It will require a lot of new skills counted 16 new skills if correct.... or it will go down to one per structure type/tree ?

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Sky Cloud Austrene
hirr
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#115 - 2015-03-21 20:19:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Sky Cloud Austrene
Over all it sounds good, maybe a little over complicating something that doesn't need to be, but good anyway.

I have 5 questions/points to raise;

1) What becomes of the Anchoring & Starbase Defence skills ?
How will they be impacted by the changes.

2) Will faction standings have any bearing on the ability & bonus's to use the new structures in high sec ?


Quote:

Acquisition
We want to significantly unify and improve structure acquisition as a whole. As such they will involve:

Acquiring the blueprint original (seeded on markets for Tech I variants). If Faction or Tech II variations are released, they will be available through loot and Invention respectively.
Manufacturing the item from the blueprint.
Deploying the structure in space by drag and dropping it. The interface should be clear enough to tell you if there are location restrictions and where to go to avoid them.
We don’t want to force the user to select which group they wish to use it for before deploying anymore. Instead, we want the user to make a conscious choice after it has been deployed, and decide if they want personal, corporation, alliance or public use. That’s right, we want those structures to be used for the wider audience, so if you wish to establish your own Market Hub somewhere, make it open to everyone and set your taxes to be shamelessly expensive go right ahead. In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use.


3) " In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use."
That right there is the key part.
Under the current system individuals are denied from having their own POS's ect unless they have both trained skills and are granted the roles, by their Corp CEO / Directors before hand, to be able to use these things or unless they form their own alt corp to be able to do so.
So,
What stops a Corp CEO or director in giving individuals roles, the individual gose buys/manufactures/ships these proposed structures and deploys them for the intent of personal use, only then for a Corp CEO or director, to simply remove the individuals roles and screw them over & take the structures for them selves ?
Thats not a fantasy senario, I have had it happen to me under the current system with POS's
Just sayin, that a players ability to use these things should not be governed by the corp management roles, if a player invests the time in training skills to use be able to make & manage these things, then the player should not be confined by corporation controls, but maybe corps / alliances could instead impose taxes.
That would help corps and alliances gain a source of alternate income whilst freeing up individuals to use be able to usethe structures outside of direct corp control via the role system.
Should a individual go against corp or alliance policy, the corp/alliance would still be able to see what and where the structure is thru the management window and take action to kill it or kick the individual.

4)
Quote:
Fate of stored items on structure destruction

This sounds like a bad idea. Can totally see this being exploited by hell camps of stealth bombers.
Why not just relocate all assets to a NPC station ?.

5) I imagine these structures would still be required to have some sort of HP system tied to them, in order to be able to guage damage so they can be destroyed and also, so the defenders can repair them if they rebuff an attack.
How would this work and how will it be different from a structure grind?
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#116 - 2015-03-21 20:21:50 UTC  |  Edited by: xttz
Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.

By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even conquering effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good.
M1k3y Koontz
THE AESIR.
Hostile Probes
#117 - 2015-03-21 20:21:53 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
These changes look awesome, but leave me with one concern on the XL deployables

Will XL structures decay? Because if they are meant to replace outposts (which they seem to be planned to do so) emptying it out and redeploying it would be a massive pain that brings their usefulness into question for staging.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#118 - 2015-03-21 20:27:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
I'm worried about highsec game play because of the comment that structure wrecks would only be looted by the owner. You absolutely need to ensure that highsec structures can be destroyed and looted. Otherwise you remove the only risk of the current system which is wardecs.

There is a lot of game play around people searching out unfuelled or at least undefended towers, deccing and destroying for the loot. It would be a shame for this to go away because it is one of the only significant risk elements of high sec industry.

Please make it so that:

1. Defences power down without fuel to make AFK and lack of planning have consequence. This could be done by having a shield/defence module which consumes fuel blocks.

2. Highsec structure wrecks can be looted by the legitimate aggressor (or anyone for a suspect flag).

At the moment there is a choice between maxing out your industrial fittings (labs, assembly arrays etc) or sacrificing some grid and cpu for defences. The consequence, and subsequent opportunities for others, of choosing the former should not disappear.

The other thing that results in a good game play choice is the size of the POS because of the shield grind. The benefit is the increased EHP and deterrent (not to mention fitting) and the trade off is the fuel and cost of the tower. Maybe there could be different defensive module sizes with different fuel requirements to retain these choices.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#119 - 2015-03-21 20:31:21 UTC
Initial reply to the Dev blog/snippets from Fanfest.

AI MUST fire back; Can't stress this enough, if a player fits weapons to their structure they should always fire at attackers. Otherwise it's a 24/7 job to defend a structure, not a game. Players should be more effective. (Player skills apply perhaps to add damage/effects).

Fuel use only when doing things with services is a great idea, and will enable especially smaller high sec corps to make more use of structures. Which also puts more assets in space to be attacked in a Wardec meaning there is more reason for a corp to stay together rather than disband and make a new one.

Awesome concept work, would like to see a lot more fill in of the structure list in the medium size as well for small high sec corps to use, as currently most of them seem directed towards Null.
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
#120 - 2015-03-21 20:37:57 UTC
Please consider:

If the owner of containers that are injected into space (as a result of structure destruction) does not retrieve them WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME, these containers should become scannable and hackable. This will provide additional and logical game play. The destroyed structure will become a beacon of possible loots to be had for explores as we travel from system to system.

Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE

Check out the Eve-Prosper show for your market updates!