These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#421 - 2015-03-23 16:24:26 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:

Structure grinding is bad and scales horribly. If you don't realize this by now, you have not been paying attention. Blink

Unless you are a new bro. In that case; history has proven that structure grinding is not good game play. Do a bit of research and you will see all the bad stuff it causes. And of course, welcome to EVE new bro! Smile

if you're talking to xttz without realizing who xttz is, you probably shouldn't be trying to talk down to people by implying your vast knowledge of eve history

especially on anything related to pos, sov warfare, sov mechanics, or really anything about eve mechanics
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#422 - 2015-03-23 16:30:41 UTC
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
xttz wrote:
xttz wrote:
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.


Quoting myself because I'd love to hear what the devs are thinking on this.

Structure grinding is bad and scales horribly. If you don't realize this by now, you have not been paying attention. Blink

Unless you are a new bro. In that case; history has proven that structure grinding is not good game play. Do a bit of research and you will see all the bad stuff it causes. And of course, welcome to EVE new bro! Smile



You dumb **** xttz has been playing EVE since you were in diapers. He basically owns structure warfare.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#423 - 2015-03-23 16:35:33 UTC
Yeah, even an individual like myself, who considers himself to be superior to all other thought leaders in Eve: Online, defers to xttz's expertise in the area of sovereignty and POS.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Phig Neutron
Rubicon Cubism
#424 - 2015-03-23 16:53:42 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
VolatileVoid wrote:
Just a question.

Where will be the room for part time players with or within a corp?

With the current sov system and stations it is highly possible that your stuff is still accessible if you login next weekend.
With the new sov system and destructible big containers it is highly possible that your stuff isn't accessible next weekend and blown up the week after.
Therefore part time players can't have reasonable stuff in sov null anymore including any kind of industrial activity.


That is the reason for the proposed ejection mechanics which will keep your personal assets safe for a period of time for you to collect.


You're blowing off his concern. Not everybody has a jump freighter alt that they want to put at risk every other weekend, or a carrier/bowhead to pick up a bunch of fitted ships in a war zone. Under this new system, no one is going to bring more than one or two ships into 0.0 at a time, and forget about anybody bringing materials and doing industry! You will see many more people based out of NPC space and just going into 0.0 on roams. I strongly recommend you think about some mechanic for "cold storage" of assets, perhaps on planet or moon surfaces, so that you can build up assets over time in nullsec.
Madeleine Lemmont
Ars Vivendi
#425 - 2015-03-23 17:09:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Madeleine Lemmont
Well, I'm new in business.

Does corps can adjust the interior appearance for structures which allow docking inside?
Nothing against a unique Gallentean appearance of labs for instance. But it would be really cool to have SKINs for structures too. Outside AND inside... Blink

---

I really like the planned new visuals of POS forcefields. But why this great structure should be removed? Which issue is breaking down a "shield tower"?

Why not have medium sized structures which provide opportunities for small and medium gangs temporarily?
I would like to have medium sized modules for structures and medium and or large sized modules for ships which allow to create forcefields while anchored temporarily. Modules consuming fuel depending on size and field size and type.

Means:
- fleet shield with force field (EHP)
- fleet "cloak" (reducing sig radius significantly) -> large scan inhibitor (no forcefield EHP instead)
- counter measures for scan ships or observatories creating or reducing echoes of fleets (no forcefield EHP instead)
- webbing tower (no forcefield EHP)
- energy neutralizer tower (no forcefield EHP)
- eWar system (no forcefield EHP)
- ships for temporary/ninja moon mining
- highslot disabling inside the field (no forcefield EHP)
- industry ship siege system (i.e. forcefielded Rorqual for on-grid support)
- jammer (no forcefield EHP)
- impulse decloaker with cooldown (no forcefield EHP)
- lowsec or 0-sec anchored jumpbridge into highsec i.e. for smugglers

Means not:
- Replacement of siege modules

Of course you should not be able to fire weapons or activate harvesting eqipment inside a field like that. You cannot project a bubble around static obstacles of all kind (i.e. within belts).

However... I'd like to see shield towers and forcefields in future too. But they should get a downgrade in fuel usage and become fast-anchorable medium deployables.
RainReaper
Bras-Tek Industries
Nefatari Union
#426 - 2015-03-23 17:11:07 UTC
ok i have one question. will it be possible for us to place these structures close to eachother and with that build like a city of structures??? with that we could build build like a small city in the stars. with difrent uses ofcourse
Madeleine Lemmont
Ars Vivendi
#427 - 2015-03-23 17:20:14 UTC
Phig Neutron wrote:
... I strongly recommend you think about some mechanic for "cold storage" of assets, perhaps on planet or moon surfaces, so that you can build up assets over time in nullsec.
Opposite this you have to think about reward for killed structures.

If all assets are gone, no one likes to bring them there again. If no assets could be claimed by the aggressor, aggression makes no economical sense.

Structures should be destructable. So far it's ok. There should be a way to bring all 0.0 players together for that issue what creates a real reason discrepancy between aggressing and defending parties. But not alone for 0.0 space.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#428 - 2015-03-23 17:34:52 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
And by the way guys, proper discussion threads are now up in the Feature and Ideas subforum.



Feel free to comment there as it will be easier for everyone to filter the topics that way.

I notice there is no "Structures: General" Thread. That is one for comments that cover all structures. Or should we use this thread for that?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#429 - 2015-03-23 17:39:39 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
And by the way guys, proper discussion threads are now up in the Feature and Ideas subforum.



Feel free to comment there as it will be easier for everyone to filter the topics that way.

I notice there is no "Structures: General" Thread. That is one for comments that cover all structures. Or should we use this thread for that?


Yep, use this thread for now.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#430 - 2015-03-23 17:44:00 UTC
Btw there should totally be a ton of sexy skins available for structures, so people can personalize their homes and not have every station be the same, which would look and feel just terrible. Ideally there should be even variable shapes, but I realise thats not really doable because of art resources.

and we should be able to build little complexes and cities, probably
Keskora Yaari
POS Party
Ember Sands
#431 - 2015-03-23 17:49:36 UTC
My corp currently lives in a wormhole with 29 active POSs. My chief concern is that we can continue to live and operate in our wormhole without having to fear for our assets every time we go outside. If forcefields are going away, I would like these structures to still have solid enough defenses to prevent anyone from just waltzing in and taking it out. I think being able to anchor multiple structures on the same grid would be very good for this. If a giant marketing structure doesn't have the slots available to adequately defend itself, allow other structures to be nearby and react to aggression. Maybe not a ton of them on one grid... but enough to be a substantial enough force that defenders and residents feel safe and a big enough challenge that attackers with sizable enough fleets can take on the challenge to destroy them.

Also i think from an aesthetic point of view being able to have a giant floating space colony sounds AMAZING.

Another thing... please please please don't let the observatories block out the d-scan in a wormhole system. That will ruin wormhole pvp and force all pilots to use combats to so much as see if a wormhole is inhabited. It kills all the surprise and danger that makes wormhole space so amazing.

The other concern I have is what happens to assets when a structure is destroyed. A big staple in wormhole PVP is structure bashing and having no loot drop from dead structures eliminates the motivation to attack them in the first place. Every wormholer knows that there is always a possibility of getting your POS taken out and loosing your assets. It's part of the risk of getting into wormhole space and I don't think that should go away completely.

I am still so excited for these changes though. Having to manage all of our POSs with as many members as we have has gotten more and more ridiculous with the limited roles they have available right now. Guess it won't be much of a POS Party without POSs anymore though :/
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#432 - 2015-03-23 17:57:00 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
xttz wrote:
Have you decided how ownership will work on an ongoing basis?

For example, if we launch a new structure and set it for corporation/alliance use, can a spy with the appropriate roles then come along and set it for personal or public use? If set for public use who can change it back again; anyone?

How would unanchoring structures work? I'm especially thinking for structures where players and dock or moor ships.


Using a structure is not the same as managing or owning it.

Example:

I'm setting a Ship Assembly Array to be set to public, anyone can use it to build ships. However not everyone can tweak its ownership or status settings (like changing roles or permissions). Only the owners or the guys set with specific roles can do so.


Large structures with ship docked could require extra security, that's a good point you are making. Either have a long countdown period before unanchor (that everyone with enough roles can see in the corporation) or have a 2 man rule to unanchor the most valuable structures could help fixing this.

2 man rule? So, in this game of alts, that would be me, myself, and I? Or are you going to make it so it has to be two separate actual players, not just two different pilots? To do so, you would have to make it a EULA requirement that all players disclose all their accounts to CCP.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#433 - 2015-03-23 18:04:21 UTC
xttz wrote:
xttz wrote:
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.


Quoting myself because I'd love to hear what the devs are thinking on this.


If you dislike the proposed changes and on the other hand like structure shooting... there still is that monument in front of Jita 4-4. Excellent opportunity to team up with a few corp mates and spend a night or two. ;-)
Banko Mato
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#434 - 2015-03-23 18:08:24 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:

I notice there is no "Structures: General" Thread. That is one for comments that cover all structures. Or should we use this thread for that?


Yep, use this thread for now.


Any comments on the proposal of pushing a part of the flexibility/decision-making/costs to the "launch and anchor" phase of a structure's life cycle? Granted it doesn't work for every kind of structure, but for those with a serious impact on their environment/system it might imho provide useful.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#435 - 2015-03-23 18:19:08 UTC
One intresting thought if the entosis mechanics are going to be used further down the size scale, is how is the new whack-a-mole capture system going to work in Wormholes? You cant exactly spawn capture nodes in random wormhole systems and say "find em yourself", and if they all spawn in the system with the structure, WH guys are getting a free pass at defending their stuff compared to everyone else. Hows it going to work (Are we going to see some silly crap like random spawn nodes in to other systems with permanent statics until the structure is captured)?
Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#436 - 2015-03-23 18:25:51 UTC
This looks amazing! Can't even imagine all the posibilities. Hype train warms engine again!
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#437 - 2015-03-23 18:36:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Above, I suggested the idea of allowing us to make intermediate size structures, that is, a structure between a medium and a large, but sticking two mediums together. The method would be to deploy a second medium at the same location as an existing one, and the two end up docked to each other. The two structures would still be treated as separate structures in terms of slots, grid, and CPU. They could share inventory, or at least allow easy movement of inventory between the two.

Any thought on allowing something like this?

Another question: Many corps deal with war and structures by turtling. That is, take down the structure for the duration. In a way, it givers an unopposed win to the aggressor. For such corps, the new structures become quite uninviting. When taken down, the rigs are lost.

How about: Unanchored and scooped structures stay rigged? They only lose the rigs if repackaged for sale. That way any corp, even those with no interest in war, will find the new structures inviting. They just have to deal with the consequence of having to take down, lose the use of, and re-deploy the structure each and every war.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#438 - 2015-03-23 19:43:21 UTC
Querns wrote:
Yeah, even an individual like myself, who considers himself to be superior to all other thought leaders in Eve: Online, defers to xttz's expertise in the area of sovereignty and POS.

I have done a fair amount of reading and never heard of him. I just thought he was new to the game due to him wanting structure grinding when there has been scores of people listing why it is bad. His post just had a new bro feel to it. I meant no harm.

I would love to read up on his expertise on the subject of structures and sovereignty. Please mail and or list some links. I'm always eager to learn. Apologies to xttz. Oops
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#439 - 2015-03-23 19:57:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Jezra Tanaka wrote:
I personally like the current anchoring mechanic.
the way this is described makes me think that the new structures will be overly vulnerable because you are limited to 8 defenses. some places you need a deathstar with 12 Large pulse lasers and an array of supporting equipment just for defense, and only online the production modules you actually need at the moment.

in others you can leave just a little E-War up and be mostly fine as long as you check on it.

Point is that POS need to be more flexible then this model shows.

I do like the idea they fielded of having reppers on a structure.
I can see the use of having a triage pos, but I'd rather that exist under current mechanics similar to the use of guns/E-war.


1 weapon slot can mean 6 guns place at the end of each 3 dimensional axis. You should have 360 degree defences since you cannot move or spin around or arrange them at all.


the 6 gun thing is really just a visual part. its 1 gun at the end of the day. shooting at one thing. taking away one slot. having the stats of one gun.

i am also curious how you want to compute the tracking and falloffs. since you can't just see it as a ship and compute everything from the center of a 100km large structure. POS was already inconsistent how it worked

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#440 - 2015-03-23 21:21:58 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Re reimbursement: this is an interesting idea, will discuss it with the team.

Re racial types: the new structures wont be following the standard racial variants ie Caldari, Gallente etc


Maybe you need to "tear down" your outpost over time to get the resources? Might be a new use for the salvaging skill. Every successful cycle, you have a chance of getting something. Would make for a lot opportunity for fights and ninja salvagers :)