These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Looking for a Definitive answer on Docking in for Eng Complex

First post
Author
TrippyHippy
Tr0pa de elite.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2016-10-28 12:35:10 UTC
Dev Blogs say one thing, Sisi descriptions say another, what actually works is a 3d thing.

Looking for a Dev answer here.

Raitaru - no capitals, freighter/JR ok, Rorq ??

Azbel - blog says no caps, sis description says allows caps, regardless of combat capitals, rorquals ???

I would like to point out for a 6bn maybe 10bn isk fitted citadel the Azbel should really allow at least the Rorqual to dock. It is targetted as a manufacturing platform for capital ships, Rorquals will be used heavily in mining for them. As you cannot open your "Ore Hanger" up for fleet usage there is no way a freighter can float over and reasonably take Ore from Rorquals deployed in an asteroid belt 30k at a time from fleet hanger? Really?

Right now, you have to mine in the rorqual, dock in a fortizar, get a freighter haul to a Raitaru to reprocess (due to broken T2 rig costs) then haul it to a 3d citadel, an Azbel to build your capitals. Does any of this seem unreasonably clicky clicky and requiring 3 citadels seem annoying to anyone?

Just a reminder to CCP, not all industrialists have 300bn to deploy an XL citadel to make capital ships in a non janky way.

Hopefully at least Rorqs can dock in the Azbel and we fix the silly T2 Repro rig costs on L/XL citadels.

w1ndstrike
Did he say Jump
Dock Workers
#2 - 2016-10-29 06:08:43 UTC
let me add to your headache: CCP intends the as yet unreleased drilling platform structures to actually be the repreocessing bonused ones, so by design you would have to move the material from a drilling platform to your engineering complex anyhow
Arronicus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2016-10-29 06:28:45 UTC
TrippyHippy wrote:

Hopefully at least Rorqs can dock in the Azbel and we fix the silly T2 Repro rig costs on L/XL citadels.



T2 repro rigs ARE silly on the L/XL, yes, but fortunately we have absolutely no reason to fit them to those, they work perfectly on an astrahaus. Noone would be insane enough to put a repro rig on a keepstar, given how important the defensive rigs are.

Would certainly be nice to get some clarification from ccp on where rorqs are able to dock, though at least they have confirmed freighters can dock everywhere. If rorqs cant, it's just going to be "sit rorq in tether range, put compressed ore in fleet hangar, undock freighter, scoop, dock"
TrippyHippy
Tr0pa de elite.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#4 - 2016-10-29 12:51:23 UTC  |  Edited by: TrippyHippy
I understand CCP not wanting Rorquals on the Medium Citadels. But not allowing them on the Large is just derpy, so is not allowing capitals to dock in a capital shipyard... I get not wanting to have a 6bn isk capital hideout thats "easy" to deploy. But this is a non-issue. With a 24hr anchoring timer that is seen anywhere in space the idea of using one for forward basing is very costly and risky to lost 6bn of tinfoil if attacked.

Rorquals should absolutely be allowed to dock in Large Citadels, its frankly nuts if they are not able to. Let I knew you were not able to use fleet hangers while tethered.


And fix L/LX Repro Rig prices ffs.
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#5 - 2016-10-31 11:28:44 UTC
TrippyHippy wrote:
Dev Blogs say one thing, Sisi descriptions say another, what actually works is a 3d thing.

Looking for a Dev answer here.

Raitaru - no capitals, freighter/JR ok, Rorq ??

Azbel - blog says no caps, sis description says allows caps, regardless of combat capitals, rorquals ???

This is what we've got in the current design doc regarding docking abilities. If anything behaves differently from on Singularity, that should be considered a defect. (We've already got an open defect on the Azbel description not matching this list)

Medium (Raitaru)
* Small ships
* Large ships (Battleship, Freighter, Industrial, Orca)

Large (Azbel)
* Small ships
* Large ships
* One-way undock only: Capital ships (Including Rorqual)

XLarge (Sotiyo)
* Small ships
* Large ships
* Capital ships (Including Rorqual)
* One-way undock only: Supercapital ships

The one-way undocks are to support ships that can end up in the structure (typically because they were built there) and so can be launched but cannot re-dock once in space.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
#6 - 2016-10-31 13:07:37 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
TrippyHippy wrote:
Dev Blogs say one thing, Sisi descriptions say another, what actually works is a 3d thing.

Looking for a Dev answer here.

Raitaru - no capitals, freighter/JR ok, Rorq ??

Azbel - blog says no caps, sis description says allows caps, regardless of combat capitals, rorquals ???

This is what we've got in the current design doc regarding docking abilities. If anything behaves differently from on Singularity, that should be considered a defect. (We've already got an open defect on the Azbel description not matching this list)

Medium (Raitaru)
* Small ships
* Large ships (Battleship, Freighter, Industrial, Orca)

Large (Azbel)
* Small ships
* Large ships
* One-way undock only: Capital ships (Including Rorqual)

XLarge (Sotiyo)
* Small ships
* Large ships
* Capital ships (Including Rorqual)
* One-way undock only: Supercapital ships

The one-way undocks are to support ships that can end up in the structure (typically because they were built there) and so can be launched but cannot re-dock once in space.


So wheres the dislike button?
Im sorry but you guys really are making this stuff ********, youre forcing us to use these things but yet only the biggest ones let rorquals dock and is just f**king assinine that you can build supercapitals/capitals in them but they cant dock? well how the f**k can you build them in it if they cant dock in it? Im sorry but a one way ticket is just super ********, structures are getting worse and worse the more of them you add and add to them, you obviously arent really listening to players, at least not the majority.
Anthar Thebess
#7 - 2016-10-31 13:56:59 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
TrippyHippy wrote:
Dev Blogs say one thing, Sisi descriptions say another, what actually works is a 3d thing.

Looking for a Dev answer here.

Raitaru - no capitals, freighter/JR ok, Rorq ??

Azbel - blog says no caps, sis description says allows caps, regardless of combat capitals, rorquals ???

This is what we've got in the current design doc regarding docking abilities. If anything behaves differently from on Singularity, that should be considered a defect. (We've already got an open defect on the Azbel description not matching this list)

Medium (Raitaru)
* Small ships
* Large ships (Battleship, Freighter, Industrial, Orca)

Large (Azbel)
* Small ships
* Large ships
* One-way undock only: Capital ships (Including Rorqual)

XLarge (Sotiyo)
* Small ships
* Large ships
* Capital ships (Including Rorqual)
* One-way undock only: Supercapital ships

The one-way undocks are to support ships that can end up in the structure (typically because they were built there) and so can be launched but cannot re-dock once in space.


I am not a miner, but excluding ability to dock on L version rorqual is bad.
People in nullsec don't use orcas, and will not use orcas.
If they mine minerals and store them on rorqual how they cannot dock this rorqual to L version of industrial complex to use them for production?

Maybe from balance perspective this don't look good for you - but forcing people to have alt that will move minerals from a rorqual to citadel in indy ship is much worst - it is simply annoying.




Zappity
Kurved Trading
#8 - 2016-10-31 16:39:53 UTC
Yeah, I think the Rorqual should be able to dock in the Large. Anything else penalises smaller corps who might want to put a Rorqual at risk but can't afford an XL.

Other than that, the docking restrictions for capitals are just plain common sense. Otherwise these structures would be used as cheaper mid points than Fortizars.

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

Shiela
Perkone
Caldari State
#9 - 2016-11-01 08:33:04 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
TrippyHippy wrote:
Dev Blogs say one thing, Sisi descriptions say another, what actually works is a 3d thing.

Looking for a Dev answer here.

Raitaru - no capitals, freighter/JR ok, Rorq ??

Azbel - blog says no caps, sis description says allows caps, regardless of combat capitals, rorquals ???

This is what we've got in the current design doc regarding docking abilities. If anything behaves differently from on Singularity, that should be considered a defect. (We've already got an open defect on the Azbel description not matching this list)

*snip*

Large (Azbel)
* Small ships
* Large ships
* One-way undock only: Capital ships (Including Rorqual)

*snip*

The one-way undocks are to support ships that can end up in the structure (typically because they were built there) and so can be launched but cannot re-dock once in space.


So, since you guys want to phase out player stations and POS that means I'm looking at a future where I would need to invest in a 15bil Fortizar just to store my Rorqual, along with whichever EC and drilling platform I'd need for my industry for really no reason at all.

Quite an increase from the <1bil pos I could currently use for the same purpose. Feels like 1 step forward 2 steps back to me Sad
Cee Two
Radiant Blue Sun
#10 - 2016-11-01 15:40:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Cee Two
CCP Masterplan wrote:
TrippyHippy wrote:
Dev Blogs say one thing, Sisi descriptions say another, what actually works is a 3d thing.

Looking for a Dev answer here.

Raitaru - no capitals, freighter/JR ok, Rorq ??

Azbel - blog says no caps, sis description says allows caps, regardless of combat capitals, rorquals ???

This is what we've got in the current design doc regarding docking abilities. If anything behaves differently from on Singularity, that should be considered a defect. (We've already got an open defect on the Azbel description not matching this list)

The one-way undocks are to support ships that can end up in the structure (typically because they were built there) and so can be launched but cannot re-dock once in space.


Masterplan, with respect I would like to know the thought process that went into these decisions because I think they are based on some false assumptions.

1. Nobody in 0.0 does, or will use an Orca, regardless of the upgrades I cannot even offload a single Rorqual's ore bay into one to move it to a Raitaru or Azbel making it worthless as it will not keep up with the Rorquals. This is further exagerated by the fact the 'Ore Hold' is not fleet-sharable which means i need to seperate my ore into 10 piles and move them one at a time to the fleet hanger (30km3) and wait for the hauler to take before moving another pile. Nobody in their right mind would do this. If you have a mining fleet with 3-4 Rorquals which would not be uncommon you would need at least 5 if not 8 Orcas to keep up with the ore output. Its just not tenable, and neither is bringing a freighter out.

2. An Azbel is a capital shipyard and will want to be fed millions of m3 of minerals, orcas cant handle that. As I said in my previous post this is how you would have to get minerals there with the system as it is.
a) Rorqual mine ore in a site or belt
b) Ore has to be brought to a Fortizar (20bn) unless you are being super-risky and bringing a freighter to the site.
c) Ore has to be hauled to an Astrahus (5bn rigged) via freighter because L/XL T2 Rigs are broken pricewise (20bn each! for 2%)
d) Ore now has to be hauled AGAIN via freighter to an Azbel (10bn rigged) to make the capital ship.

You are replacing a single pos costing 2bn (generous) with 3 citadels totalling 35bn ISK to do the same job (and more than tripling fuel costs). You are also making people use freighters which is highly unsafe, AND on top of that they have to haul the ore to at least 2 not 3 different structures to make this happen. This is not only clicky clicky but 1700% cost increase to do the same thing you can do now. CCPlease.

3. An Azbel will cost when fit roughly 10bn ISK not allowing Rorquals to dock in it is lazy and stupid and does nothing but add extra "clicky clicky" to the game without any game benefit or player enjoyment. My prediction is Azbel's will basically be non-existant, only alliance will build Sotiyos and all capital/significant production will happen in single citadels under each alliance control further making corporations reliant on their alliance which is exactly the OPPOSITE direction CCP has been taking with Citadels to this point.

4. I have not seen any logic behind the Rorqual Docking setup, nor L/XL repro rig pricing (or rig slots in Eng Complxes being small in ratio to the number of service modules they will likely use). This bears some explanation of thought process.
Iliilliliill Iliilliliill
Tr0pa de elite.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#11 - 2016-11-01 16:06:20 UTC
All in all, not allowing Rorqs to dock in Large Engineering Complexes just seems foolish... Either allow them to dock, or allow them to offload ore (similar to a fleet hanger) while tethered. I can see a Rorq pulling up to an external bay and offloading its ore into a hanger that way (it would make sense if you dont want it to actually dock).. but not allowing a direct way to xfer ore from rorq to Azbel just seems foolish and short-sighted. I strongly urge CCP to reconsider the docking of Rorqs (or allowing some other means to offload ore).
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2016-11-02 11:39:45 UTC  |  Edited by: xttz
The docking restriction on the Sotiyo makes a lot of sense; it's substantially cheaper than the Keepstar and the ability to dock supercaps is one of the defining features for that structure. Allowing this ability on the Sotiyo would really undermine the incentive to make Keepstars.

However the same can't be said about the Azbel / Fortizar. Once fittings & services are factored in, the Azbel is a bit over half the cost of its Citadel counterpart while being significantly more vulnerable. Even when rigged purely for combat, an Azbel is barely comparable to an Astrahus in terms of defensive power with a large vulnerability window. These things will die when placed on the front lines.
Unlike supers, the ability to dock with capital ships is pretty ubiquitous in EVE already and even when outposts go away we'll still have NPC stations to use them with. Realistically I think the worry of people using Azbels as a budget Fortizar to base capital ships from is unfounded, and easily balanced by the much higher vulnerability factors.

Let's give the Azbel exactly the same docking restrictions as the Sotiyo and be done with it. It reduces the barrier of entry for smaller groups to use their Rorquals without some special casing, while leaving the door open for them to upgrade with a Fortizar later if they wish.

Edit: if you really want to differentiate between Azbels and Fortizars, remove the Market service (and/or PDS module) from the former in exchange for less restrictive docking
Galinius Valgani
Sirius Syndicate
The Army of Mango Alliance
#13 - 2016-11-02 12:15:51 UTC
People in Rorquals will fly to the next Sotiyo or Fortizar for docking...but they will hate it.
Please at least explain why Rorqual support shall be restricted to entities willing to make on investment of 30b+.

And please do not simply write it is meant to improve collaboration...

Never even considered somebody would come up with such a restriction.
Azbel gone from decent to crap by simply not reading that one line.

Thanks for trying
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#14 - 2016-11-02 13:30:48 UTC
TrippyHippy wrote:
I understand CCP not wanting Rorquals on the Medium Citadels. But not allowing them on the Large is just derpy, so is not allowing capitals to dock in a capital shipyard... I get not wanting to have a 6bn isk capital hideout thats "easy" to deploy. But this is a non-issue. With a 24hr anchoring timer that is seen anywhere in space the idea of using one for forward basing is very costly and risky to lost 6bn of tinfoil if attacked....


Wait, are you saying there is some sort of intent to take risks in a pvp game?

That blows my mind!

Why can't we all be friends, make a campfire and sing a song and do a joined mining op together? Hugs for everyone Smile

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Lupercus Mars
Hawking Applied Sciences Institute
#15 - 2016-11-02 16:06:14 UTC
Cee Two wrote:

2. An Azbel is a capital shipyard and will want to be fed millions of m3 of minerals, orcas cant handle that. As I said in my previous post this is how you would have to get minerals there with the system as it is.
a) Rorqual mine ore in a site or belt
b) Ore has to be brought to a Fortizar (20bn) unless you are being super-risky and bringing a freighter to the site.
c) Ore has to be hauled to an Astrahus (5bn rigged) via freighter because L/XL T2 Rigs are broken pricewise (20bn each! for 2%)
d) Ore now has to be hauled AGAIN via freighter to an Azbel (10bn rigged) to make the capital ship.

You are replacing a single pos costing 2bn (generous) with 3 citadels totalling 35bn ISK to do the same job (and more than tripling fuel costs). You are also making people use freighters which is highly unsafe, AND on top of that they have to haul the ore to at least 2 not 3 different structures to make this happen. This is not only clicky clicky but 1700% cost increase to do the same thing you can do now. CCPlease.


Man you must have hated to live in nullsec befor citadels because this was my route:

1. Import ore from either staging or jita with jf's to Minmatar station
2. Move refined minerals from Minmatar station to amarr station via jump bridge
3. Build parts in amarr station

So even not accounting for the hauling of ore to refinery part, that ment freighters with minerals had to warp 2 times of both times they could be bubbled along the way. It ment I needed an upgraded minmatar station(80 billion isk give or take) and an upgraded amarr station(80 billion isk give or take), 2 posses with jump bridge(ehh lets say 2 bill each), coz god slinging freighters through a gate is pretty suicidal.

Now in the new world its this

1. Import ore to the Engineering complex through jf's
2. undock freighter from engineering complex full of ore to instaundock raitaru refinery(20 second warp max on grid so can see bubbles)
3. undock freighter from raitaru full of minerals and instawarp back to azbel or sotiyo(again 20 seconds warp as you are on grid)

Or hell, you can just throw in a t1 refining rig on your building azbel or sotiyo and not have to worry about hauling what so ever. Yeah om my god you lose what 1% effeciancy, oh no


All im seeing is you get more chooices what to do. You can go maximum effort and get maximum profit or you can be lazy as **** and settle for lower margins but pretty much zero effort. Just the option of building with bonus in the same place as you can refine is an absolute masterfull idea.


Also there are soooo many miners out there who haul with freighters its not even funny lol. And saying warping a freighter between citadels/engineering complex is risky is just laughable. You can instawarp between structures, they are on grid so you can see hostiles once you undock. So where is the risk in this?
Lupercus Mars
Hawking Applied Sciences Institute
#16 - 2016-11-02 16:08:13 UTC
Also they are adding dropbox for structures so ships can drop stuff from outside to inside, which would solve your whole rorqual cant dock situation
xttz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2016-11-02 17:33:31 UTC
Lupercus Mars wrote:
they are adding dropbox for structures


Soon™
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
SONS of BANE
#18 - 2016-11-03 04:21:23 UTC
Basically you have your Fortizar which will allow everything except suppers to dock where you park your Rorqual when not in use.
You build and refine at your Azbel to produce everything but capitals and reprocess.

That dropbox needs to arrive very soon. Because installing at reprocessing service on the Fortizar just to compress to move it then to the Asbel is plain silly.

But in reality, it would be better if you allowed the Rorqual to dock at the Azbel considering it's importance to mining support.

Even better would be if you kept the docking restrictions consistent between all the Structure classes. Remembering whether you can dock Ship X at structure A but not at structure B is inconsistent. Please: keep the docking restrictions based on the size of the Structure consistent across all classes.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.

Cee Two
Radiant Blue Sun
#19 - 2016-11-03 11:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Cee Two
Petrified wrote:
Basically you have your Fortizar which will allow everything except suppers to dock where you park your Rorqual when not in use.
You build and refine at your Azbel to produce everything but capitals and reprocess.

That dropbox needs to arrive very soon. Because installing at reprocessing service on the Fortizar just to compress to move it then to the Asbel is plain silly.

But in reality, it would be better if you allowed the Rorqual to dock at the Azbel considering it's importance to mining support.

Even better would be if you kept the docking restrictions consistent between all the Structure classes. Remembering whether you can dock Ship X at structure A but not at structure B is inconsistent. Please: keep the docking restrictions based on the size of the Structure consistent across all classes.


Who in their right mind would spend 30bn ISK on T2 Repro rigs for their Azbel when you can spend 3bn for them on a Raitaru? That is part of the problem that has not been addressed in Dev Blogs is T2 rig cost scaling in L/XL citadels as far as repro is concerned, also frankly Indy citadels could use 4 rig slots instead of 3. Just make rigs have 100% stack penalty, add more functionality without more bonus.

As far as 'drop boxes' go, as they are not in patch notes, nor firmed up dev blogs they are coming as "soon" as walking in stations.

My point stands that yes we are replacing the core functionality of a 2-3bn ISK POS with 40bn ISK worth of Citadels with 5-10x the fuel consumption. How this is supposed to help "small plucky corporations" is beyond me.

Yes I know citadels "do it better" but its also going to be the ONLY way to do things going forward, there won't be a "low cost" option once POSes are removed (or their mfg structures) . Docking consistency would be nice, barring that I see no logical reason the Rorqual should not be allowed to dock in the Azbel.
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
SONS of BANE
#20 - 2016-11-03 21:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Petrified
Cee Two wrote:

Who in their right mind would spend 30bn ISK on T2 Repro rigs for their Azbel when you can spend 3bn for them on a Raitaru? That is part of the problem that has not been addressed in Dev Blogs is T2 rig cost scaling in L/XL citadels as far as repro is concerned, also frankly Indy citadels could use 4 rig slots instead of 3. Just make rigs have 100% stack penalty, add more functionality without more bonus.

Considering the Ligature and Zeugma data analyser's had their material requirements adjusted down dramatically decreasing the cost and rarity of those Analyzers, it would not be terribly off for CCP to do to the rigs what they did to the analyzers (including returning the excess materials for the units in storage).

I don't use T2 rigs precisely because the cost far outweighs the benefit provided. (ie: volume of reprocessed materials won't see a return on the cost for years - which is a looong time in video games).


But the Rig issue is not central to this thread despite lending to the problem posed: docking inconsistencies between the same structure size.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.

12Next page