These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Dreams: Introducing Engineering Complexes

First post First post First post
Author
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#861 - 2016-11-07 09:21:40 UTC
YeuxVerts Belle wrote:
Terrible idea.
I'd have suggested a better one, but at this late stage, our hands are tied by the resources already spent on the existing plan. Our best chance is to rescue it.

YeuxVerts Belle wrote:
Basically, you're making it so that all non-citadel structures are either bound to a citadel (thus multiplying the price of any industry operation) or just a target.
That's not true.

As I detailed, all structures are still defensible by a fleet of pilots, which is the only defence that is actually going to achieve anything under CCP's current plan since the EC defences as they stand would not even be able to repell a single multiboxer.

Also I suggested that some small amount of defensive capability should be possible via the single high slot, albeit very limited. I also suggested that more passive defensive capabilities should be available to all structures via more low slot and rig slot defensive fitting options.

Each non-citadel structure COULD be defended by a Citadel and the M class Citadel isn't hugely expensive for that task. Although I personally believe that there should be a size class of all these structures below M anyway, to allow for smaller budgets and entry level players, but that's another matter.

YeuxVerts Belle wrote:
Today, they have a moderate potential to be a force multiplier.
Only a very minimal force multiplier and given that you have to use a pilot to man those defenses, you have the opportunity cost of having one less pilot in fleet to count against that.

YeuxVerts Belle wrote:
A much simpler idea than the one you describe, with a similar result, is to give more bonuses and service slots to citadels so they can do every piece of industry.
That is a design even less ambitious that what CCP is already going for. I really don't think we should be looking to aim any lower. After many years of being promised a proper POS replacement, modular POSes or cities in the sky, just getting a new version of the already existing outposts would be the most mighty kick in the teeth in my opinion.

YeuxVerts Belle wrote:
I like where CCP is taking us.
I'm happy for you, since CCP is most likely going to implement exactly what they have proposed, so that is where you will be going. If those unambitious designs are all you desire, then you'll do well out of this.

Unfortunately, I'm a 12 year veteran of this game who has seen the industry and structure gameplay shrink downwards towards this most pathetic current state with no little amount of disgust. I like sandbox gameplay, interesting tactical and economic choices and a design the encourages varied and emergent playstyles that are not pre-designed by the unavoidably narrow vision of developers. So I want them to give us tools, building blocks if you will, that we can use to build things that transcend anything that CCP would have designed into them... as we have done with the previous systems that were not so limited in their scope.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#862 - 2016-11-08 04:17:59 UTC
YeuxVerts Belle wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
To expand upon my idea, this is what I would suggest CCP do now to save the new structures from being so mediocre:

Leave Citadels as they are, but plan a balance/iteration pass for the future once all the other structures are out.

Change ECs so they can be anchored within weapons range of Citadels (but Citadels still cannot be anchored within range of another Citadel). Have a shorter exclusion range between ECs to prevent congestion, walls of structures or the overlap of any short range weapons that may be allowed on them.

Change ECs so that M, L and XL only have ONE high slot. Restrict the options for that high slot to the close range point defence battery (which isn't available in HS) and add a selection of relatively weak short range single target weapons (one for each racial flavour would be great) that can fill that slot in HS situations or in other sec if they are desired.

Change ECs so they have ZERO midslots.

Change ECs so they have 1, 2 and 3 low slots respectively.

Change ECs so they have ZERO fighter tubes.

Now you don't have to balance the fitting requirements on ECs around the potential for defence, just the potential for industry.

Now you can build cities in space and have much more fun and engaging structure gameplay.

Follow this design through to the other non-citadel structures.


Terrible idea.

Basically, you're making it so that all non-citadel structures are either bound to a citadel (thus multiplying the price of any industry operation) or just a target. Today, they have a moderate potential to be a force multiplier.
A much simpler idea than the one you describe, with a similar result, is to give more bonuses and service slots to citadels so they can do every piece of industry.

I like where CCP is taking us.

As I said in an earlier post.. Go take a look at Perimeter and tell me CCP is taking us in the right direction.
Hundreds of all but invulnerable structures, cluttering up overviews and space in general, is not what Eve is about.

NB; Once you've looked at Perimeter today - Imagine what it will look like once all those invulnerable Citadels start adding EC's to their lineup. (no-one is ever going to bother shooting structures in systems like this, timers are a pita, logistics of wardeccing owners is a pita, etc)

CCP is on the way to turning EveOnline into StructuresOnline for no other reason than - They think it is a good direction to go.

++ I don't see how you could say making EC's etc modular type structures is going to increase the cost to indy players. Each industrial group or individual is eventually going to need all these new structures to compete - CCP has already ensured smaller entities (pretty much everyone other than nulblob alliances) are at a huge disadvantage and aren't about to back down by making Citadels better at things they were never designed for.

This has been the biggest problem with new structures all along - What has been released has been done so with capabilities they were never meant to have - Simply because CCP knew, without this Citadels would never have been taken up by the masses. Now they are ready to release the next stage of an already broken release of structures and all it is doing is adding cost, time and complexity for players for little to no benefit. EC's cost wise, in time required, usefulness and isk outlay offer nothing to encourage players to replace existing structures.

They will probably use the same failed strategy they tried with citadel market hubs (up the prices for using npc facilities) in an attempt to force players into using this latest release, EC's.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#863 - 2016-11-08 06:12:44 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Go take a look at Perimeter and tell me CCP is taking us in the right direction.
Hundreds of all but invulnerable structures, cluttering up overviews and space in general, is not what Eve is about.

To be honest, I suspect that result was more or less unavoidable. It's more to do with accessible structures appearing on the overview than any congestion of structures in the game, since POS were everywhere they were allowed to be before the new structures were introduced.

Perimeter and the Jita halo in general are going to be congested with structures simply because the new market features are allowing Jita to expand to fill those adjacent systems. It does have some nice emergent gameplay and economic features, plus it may eventually result in a bit of load balancing off of Jita proper and on to the Jita halo systems.

The fact that the uberhub of EVE is going to be a writhing mass of players, structures, depots, debris, local spam and gankers isn't something I object to. It's like visiting any busy commercial district and it's actually quite nice to see it manifest itself that way. Sure it's uncouth, dirty and noisy but I think at least one place in EVE has to be like that.

We'll all end up with an extra overview tab that excludes these things at some point, it's just it takes time for us to evolve our routines to the new order of things.

Still, I'm more concerned with what happens everywhere else in the game, in your local backwater where a 10 man indy corp wants to build something meaningful and aspirational to make their mark on the game... even if it's totally irrelevant to everyone outside their corp.

I want that minecraft, kerbal, "EVE the way it used to be" gameplay to be there because it so obviously appeals to so many of EVE industrial players and it's a shame to see that only supported in the most thin and superficial way in CCP's current vision, when only minor changes would be required to make it a truely wonderful implementation that iterates on and learns from the positives of the old POS system (before it was made derelict).

I don't believe most indy groups will want their structures to be publicly accessible and visible on the overview going forward (we're not talking about those in the Jita halo and those that are publicly available as rental services) because discretion has always been the best defence for any industrial corp. Under my rescue plan, I would expect there to be a great many sprawling hidden cities that are only known to those who own them or those that spend the time to search for them. Under CCP's vision, I'm expecting rental services to be much more common because it's one of the few HS business models that will actually have commercial merit, given the fact that the structures are so defensively weak and will drop a lot of loot it doesn't really make sense for a lot of people to put them up for their own use as opposed to farming "pubbies" for rental income.

TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#864 - 2016-11-08 08:37:57 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Go take a look at Perimeter and tell me CCP is taking us in the right direction.
Hundreds of all but invulnerable structures, cluttering up overviews and space in general, is not what Eve is about.


Its funny, when people PVP with ships, its very normal, but when its related to the economy, its clutter.

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

YeuxVerts Belle
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#865 - 2016-11-08 10:06:34 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
As I said in an earlier post.. Go take a look at Perimeter and tell me CCP is taking us in the right direction.
Hundreds of all but invulnerable structures, cluttering up overviews and space in general, is not what Eve is about.


I call that a minor graphical problem. Open your d-scan and look how many POSes there are ; even more invulnerable. You just don't see them at first glance.

The above message presents my opinions on the topic at hand. If there is a conflict between my views and reality, consider reality to be correct until proven otherwise.

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#866 - 2016-11-08 21:28:22 UTC
Since I didn't see it mentioned here yet:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6701678#post6701678

Quote:

With the upcoming release of Engineering Complexes in Ascension, we're taking the opportunity to look at the build/research/copy times of some of the largest blueprints in EVE. This will help ensure that production rates don't get too out of control with the bonuses on the new structures, and also generally cleans up some of the progression of build times between smaller and larger items.

The current plan is:

Titan/Supercarrier blueprints: +100% build/research/copy time
Carrier/Dread/Force Aux/Rorqual blueprints: +33% build/research/copy time
All Upwell Structure blueprints: +33% build/research/copy time
JTK Fotheringham
Ducks in Outer Space
#867 - 2016-11-08 22:38:08 UTC  |  Edited by: JTK Fotheringham
Are the fuel costs going back to 20/30/40 - or was that an omission?

/JTK

- Edit
I should have checked the Google Docs link. This image - in the Devblog - is misleading.
RainReaper
Bras-Tek Industries
Nefatari Union
#868 - 2016-11-08 22:50:56 UTC  |  Edited by: RainReaper
JTK Fotheringham wrote:
Are the fuel costs going back to 20/30/40 - or was that an omission?

/JTK


Those where legit changes made because they agreed that the 20/30/40 fuel blocks for the services was way to expensive.
So they decreased the 3 base services to 12 the capital one to 24 blocks and then the super cap one to 36 to bring the numbers to a more sane level.

They also gave all the EC hulls a base 1% ME Reduction while slightly nerfing the rigs.

Then the Raitaru will have a 15% job time reduction, 3% job instal cost reduction.

The Azbel will have a 20% job time reduction, 4% job instal cost reduction and lastly.

The Sotiyo will have a 30% job time reduction and a 5% job instal cost reduction.

All the structures will still have their 25% engineering fuel reductions so it will cost even less on the EC to use those services.

They made it like this cause people dident like the absolute specialization nature of the structures, but now we can build anything more efficiently while still being able to specialize into certain thigns you want to build and thus any EC will be a better choice over any NPC station.
Now Life
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#869 - 2016-11-09 07:37:40 UTC
one of the biggest problems is the rigs .
Why use rigs to give bonus on the service modules
Rigs are slots to give extra bonus to armor/shield /dps/power/cpu/.....

give the EC and citadels servise modules where you can insert scripts to give bonus to the things you need.
or a slot like the T3 ships have. (Sub System)
Now Life
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#870 - 2016-11-09 07:44:39 UTC
Now Life wrote:
is it already released how much the bpo cost will be of EC / rigs /service mods ?


Someone ?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#871 - 2016-11-09 09:23:16 UTC
RainReaper wrote:
JTK Fotheringham wrote:
Are the fuel costs going back to 20/30/40 - or was that an omission?

/JTK



They made it like this cause people dident like the absolute specialization nature of the structures, but now we can build anything more efficiently while still being able to specialize into certain thigns you want to build and thus any EC will be a better choice over any NPC station.
Of course that more than anything depends on how many hours per day your prepared to commit to Eve.
If your not able to keep an EC running 24/7 - Your much better off using a pos (for best outcome) or an npc station.

Even with the cost to keep services running lowered, it still can't compare to the single cost of running a pos and it certainly isn't a better option setup cost wise OR startup cost wise either..

But then once al the industrialists combine resources and become one giant alliance, as per Devs idea of how eve should be played, it won't matter how much things cost to maintain.

I wonder how long it will take for Citadels and EC's to begin to just get abandoned in space, like the hundreds and hundreds of pos's littering highsec, as players change how they make income, quit eve, go broke, etc. I wonder more how CCP will handle al the space junk no-one can or is willing to shoot.
I have a stick in Amarr space that hasn't been online in 4 years - It and the other 10 or 12 in the same system, just sit there day in day out.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

blue dehazon
Stonegard Arrows
#872 - 2016-11-11 12:47:50 UTC  |  Edited by: blue dehazon
More vurlnebillety time sucks bigg time,i want to play this game not baybysitting structures.And 24h ancoring time !! its the most boring thing i don in a game ewer.And all those riggs for manufactoring just plain crazy not to mention werry greedy of you ccp,in a POS you can make almost evrything turning on off different structurs,so this new engenering structures shud have the same function, scrap the riggs for production and make them like moduls you kan swap if no job is running on the modul.at the moment id like my Large pos way more then this new structures.the only thing this new structures have going for them at the moment is storage space,And building dreams.i got it the industrials is clerly not part of this dream,only those who whant to pray on them migth now get their dream game... you make manufactoring cost more you dont implement the only relly good thing a POS have going for it like forcefield automated defences swaping of production so what dream are you reely building for Indy pilots kan you Plees explain that.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#873 - 2016-11-11 13:18:19 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
To expand upon my idea, this is what I would suggest CCP do now to save the new structures from being so mediocre:

Leave Citadels as they are, but plan a balance/iteration pass for the future once all the other structures are out.

Change ECs so they can be anchored within weapons range of Citadels (but Citadels still cannot be anchored within range of another Citadel). Have a shorter exclusion range between ECs to prevent congestion, walls of structures or the overlap of any short range weapons that may be allowed on them.

Change ECs so that M, L and XL only have ONE high slot. Restrict the options for that high slot to the close range point defence battery (which isn't available in HS) and add a selection of relatively weak short range single target weapons (one for each racial flavour would be great) that can fill that slot in HS situations or in other sec if they are desired.

Change ECs so they have ZERO midslots.

Change ECs so they have 1, 2 and 3 low slots respectively.

Change ECs so they have ZERO fighter tubes.

Now you don't have to balance the fitting requirements on ECs around the potential for defence, just the potential for industry.

Now you can build cities in space and have much more fun and engaging structure gameplay.

Follow this design through to the other non-citadel structures.


Excellent suggestions.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

blue dehazon
Stonegard Arrows
#874 - 2016-11-11 14:52:30 UTC
[quote=Mara Rinn]How I would change Engineering Complexes to be a little more flexible:


  1. Provide more fitting slots than a citadel
  2. Provide less CPU, PG than a citadel
  3. Ensure that assembly arrays and labs can be paused at any time without damaging the work in progress
  4. Allow the station operator to offline and online modules at will
  5. Add a DPS floor set at 20% of the DPS cap, meaning that if incoming DPS drops too low the repair timer will not pause. No plinking away with a stealth bomber or cloaky recon, keeping the repair timer active while dealing 200 DPS for half a day waiting for your corp mates to wake up and attend the structure bash
  6. If not a DPS floor, add a repair cap allowing hull, armour, shields to be repaired but limiting incoming repairs to a certain amount of HP/second
  7. Add a hard repair timer of one hour starting from the end of the vulnerability window so that an attacker can't keep the station vulnerable for up to 24 hours from the vulnerability window by simply shooting the structure with a small fleet until the defender has to go to work/bed


This will at least allow the EC (which is much more valuable than a citadel in terms of strategic worth) to be treated like a POS. We can have it bristling with offensive and defensive systems, along with all those lovely labs and activity lines, and offline the weapons while focussed on industry. Then when under attack we can offline the industry modules and online the weapon systems.

Add a rig or module which will reduce the vulnerability window. Seriously, the structure with the smaller HP has the larger vulnerability window? Why?

Provide meaningful gameplay, encourage structure owners to be active during the structure's vulnerability window.

At the very least it should be possible for the owner of a small EC in hisec to e.g.: online enough hardeners to reduce the incoming DPS from a 12 battleship fleet to the point that the repair timer will start again, while maintaining reps on their own fleet to try and drive off the attackers.

Previous discussion about work to prevent a repair timer being indefinitely prolonged:

The whole vulnerebilty consept shud be scraped.howe many 1000 peopol have to guard structurs ewry day.howe many 1000 houers of game play gos wasted on this iven when thers no attack.is this rely an improvment of game play,I say no.its not iven good for the gankers having 1000ns of players staying at structurs defende them and not doing other things in the game.

Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#875 - 2016-11-11 16:56:02 UTC
blue dehazon wrote:
.......................

Add a rig or module which will reduce the vulnerability window. Seriously, the structure with the smaller HP has the larger vulnerability window? Why?.................


I don't necessarily disagree with some of the points raised in the ongoing discussions, however, this point (and similar) have come up enough times to be commented on.

The ECs are optimised for Building and Research (like the Amarr Factories and Minmatar Outposts; as well as particular POS structures). Their 'weaknesses' therefore are expressed in lower HP, less ability to fit defensive modules and, indeed longer vulnerability windows.

It is the Citadels, however, that are optimised for Defence. If someone wants more defence for their structure, therefore, then fit the Manufacture or Research modules to a Citadel!

All that said, however, I do wonder whether the vulnerability windows should not actually be the same for each class of Structure - ie ECs also are 3/6/15.....

The arguments of relative play time vs being able to defend the structure if you want one are pretty much the same.

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium

blue dehazon
Stonegard Arrows
#876 - 2016-11-11 20:56:14 UTC
Marcus Tedric wrote:
blue dehazon wrote:
.......................

Add a rig or module which will reduce the vulnerability window. Seriously, the structure with the smaller HP has the larger vulnerability window? Why?.................


I don't necessarily disagree with some of the points raised in the ongoing discussions, however, this point (and similar) have come up enough times to be commented on.

The ECs are optimised for Building and Research (like the Amarr Factories and Minmatar Outposts; as well as particular POS structures). Their 'weaknesses' therefore are expressed in lower HP, less ability to fit defensive modules and, indeed longer vulnerability windows.

It is the Citadels, however, that are optimised for Defence. If someone wants more defence for their structure, therefore, then fit the Manufacture or Research modules to a Citadel!

All that said, however, I do wonder whether the vulnerability windows should not actually be the same for each class of Structure - ie ECs also are 3/6/15.....

The arguments of relative play time vs being able to defend the structure if you want one are pretty much the same.

first of all you refer to me,and its not from my quote or post.And guarding structures are hardly fun gaming,no more fun than ther is for pvp pilots to guard mining ops.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#877 - 2016-11-11 21:11:37 UTC
blue dehazon wrote:
Marcus Tedric wrote:
blue dehazon wrote:
.......................

Add a rig or module which will reduce the vulnerability window. Seriously, the structure with the smaller HP has the larger vulnerability window? Why?.................


I don't necessarily disagree with some of the points raised in the ongoing discussions, however, this point (and similar) have come up enough times to be commented on.

The ECs are optimised for Building and Research (like the Amarr Factories and Minmatar Outposts; as well as particular POS structures). Their 'weaknesses' therefore are expressed in lower HP, less ability to fit defensive modules and, indeed longer vulnerability windows.

It is the Citadels, however, that are optimised for Defence. If someone wants more defence for their structure, therefore, then fit the Manufacture or Research modules to a Citadel!

All that said, however, I do wonder whether the vulnerability windows should not actually be the same for each class of Structure - ie ECs also are 3/6/15.....

The arguments of relative play time vs being able to defend the structure if you want one are pretty much the same.

first of all you refer to me,and its not from my quote or post.And guarding structures are hardly fun gaming,no more fun than ther is for pvp pilots to guard mining ops.
You don't really need to guard your structures each vulnerability window. CCP has thoughtfully given you three chances to save your space stations, so if you by some chance miss the first reinforcement, you can assemble your fleet 24h later, and then again another 5 days later if you fail, to make your stand and defend your structure.

I am pretty sure that is safe enough for you to not worry about having a defence fleet on standby each window, especially given you are very unlikely to be attacked ever given the lack of drops. Stop whining about changes you have no control over and start dealing with the reality of the new system.
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#878 - 2016-11-11 21:52:46 UTC
blue dehazon wrote:
....
first of all you refer to me,and its not from my quote or post.............


I would happily apologise - if you edited your post........

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium

Lightning Q
Quantum Dominion
Event Horizon.
#879 - 2016-11-12 16:35:39 UTC
Ellowah

Cheers for the lower fuel costs :)
Rigs are still a mess tough

I did read a good point some1 made here about losing the "shared" workspace / manu array with the future end of POS's.
This is something I also use heavily, since it simplifies organisation of materials over multiple accounts.
Or helps keeping materials for specific projects seperate, so you can't accidently use it for the wrong build order.

CCP could you consider creating a new sort of "Joined Inventory" (with a limited ammount ofc)
But basicly a hanger you can invite people into who you want, basicly to create a joint inventory with your own alts or other people)
Preferably with Nameable tabs.

And with a log who added/took what !)
Then the Title of security Officer actually means something lol

Other points are also still valid on the posts on here;
* It's sad EC's can't be anchored next to Citadels or linked together with long space tethers.
* Some systems are getting a bit "full with citadel trash" and the current system to kill them is not encouriging soley because of the 3 timers.

RainReaper
Bras-Tek Industries
Nefatari Union
#880 - 2016-11-12 16:49:25 UTC  |  Edited by: RainReaper
Lightning Q wrote:
Ellowah

Cheers for the lower fuel costs :)
Rigs are still a mess tough

I did read a good point some1 made here about losing the "shared" workspace / manu array with the future end of POS's.
This is something I also use heavily, since it simplifies organisation of materials over multiple accounts.
Or helps keeping materials for specific projects seperate, so you can't accidently use it for the wrong build order.

CCP could you consider creating a new sort of "Joined Inventory" (with a limited ammount ofc)
But basicly a hanger you can invite people into who you want, basicly to create a joint inventory with your own alts or other people)
Preferably with Nameable tabs.

And with a log who added/took what !)
Then the Title of security Officer actually means something lol

Other points are also still valid on the posts on here;
* It's sad EC's can't be anchored next to Citadels or linked together with long space tethers.
* Some systems are getting a bit "full with citadel trash" and the current system to kill them is not encouriging soley because of the 3 timers.



About the new structures not having a shared inventory like the old POS. this is not really correct.
you can get an office att any structure and with a corp office you will have access to corp hangars just like you had with the POS corporate hangar arrays. it is not possible to create shared inventories with specific caracters sadly, however! in the new structures it is possible to directly deliver any item to anyone else in the game where it will apear in the private hangar inside that specific structure on top of being able to trade like in a station.