These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Mini-blog] The Next Steps in Structure Transition

First post First post
Author
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#61 - 2017-04-12 13:51:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Rowells wrote:
It's going to be really neat seeing nullsec outpost models in empire space

I wonder how highsec/ NulSec NPC stations will be handled as far as ownership, vulnerability and destruction gets handled.

What happens to all those nice safe LowSec NPC stations where FW dudes stage and live?

As far as the current plan (or any hinted/discussed plans) they're not changing at all.

Although I understand the reasons why, I still feel it is a shame especially for LowSec.

I don't fancy wading through all the fanfest footage - Are HighSec and LowSec stations being treated the same as those in Nul as far as industrial things go?

Same as nevyn said, I haven't heard any plans to make NPC stations like player-owned structures at least in the last year.

Destructible FW stations might actually be an interesting concept though.

E: maybe I'm not understanding that second part. What do you mean by "as far as industrial things go"?
DrysonBennington
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2017-04-12 16:36:02 UTC
Is it possible to include a mini-moon mining game into Moon refining? The mini-game would be similar to hacking but instead of hacking you would have to bypass a certain number of moon layered obstacles that would allow the moon mining operation to continue mining the moon for better material.

If you fail the mini-game then your mining operation would be reduced by a certain percentage or yield.

Mining moon material should come with a risk factor and simply should not come as a given.

It's the whole risk versus reward thing.

I also think that moon mining should come with risk such as toxic clouds forming around the Moon after so much mining has taken place that would damage the mining platform for a certain number of cycles after mining has stopped. If mining continues the toxic cloud would grow in size and damage eventually rendering the moon unharvestable.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#63 - 2017-04-12 18:05:25 UTC
Andraea Sarstae wrote:
As for POSes, the one use that has not been replaced is that of a cheap base for a short trip somewhere. A young corp or newbros can buy themselves a small tower, go into a WH and set up shop for an afternoon, a few days or a week, and then take it with them when they leave. You can't do that with a structure that takes 24 hours to anchor, and 7 days to unanchor.

So, why not just leave them in game as portable bases, with corporate hangars, and simple remove all the industry functionality from them? Or come up with a small citadel class that anchors and unanchors in under an hour?

I feel like that's the most glaring hole in the Starbase->Citadel design.

Also, the 7 day unanchor timer with the fact that expensive rigs get destroyed really is one of the driving forces behind citadel spam. Since it costs nothing to just leave them there, but it does cost time and ISK to take one down, people just leave them behind.

So, yeah, that needs to be addressed as well.



Mobile depot is the word you are looking for
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#64 - 2017-04-12 18:21:22 UTC
Andraea Sarstae wrote:
As a director of a small Alliance that owns three outposts, and has for the past 6 years, I am looking at this with sadness.

I get what you're trying to do, but really it just feels ****** to know that our 6 years of building and maintaining our stations together, and occasionally having to fight to get them back, is just going to be tossed out the window for some new owner that might have it for as little as a few hours.


I think CCP has made it very clear just what they think of provi with this proposed change.
ReK42
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#65 - 2017-04-12 20:24:00 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
New Eden’s 68 Conquerable Stations have an especially important place in EVE player history. For most of their existence they made ideal locations for alliance home systems spread across the entire cluster. Conquerable Station Systems like NOL-M9, H-W9TY, C-J6MT, 1V-LI2, VFK-IV, BKG-Q2, C9N-CC, JV1V-O and FAT-6P have all been host to amazing Capsuleer achievements and epic stories full of drama and suspense.

Many of these stories can be difficult for newer players to find, so we realized that the end of the Conquerable Stations would be the perfect opportunity to add special monuments to the adventures you EVE players have led around those stations over the years. Each Conquerable Station will be replaced both with a new faction Citadel and with a special landmark site that will contain the ruined remains of the old station as well as a monument describing some of the historical significance of that particular system and station. The monument will also list the last alliance to control that Conquerable Station before the transition event. These landmarks will be a permanent reminder of the great things players have done in these systems over more than a decade.


Does this mean only NPC conquerable stations will receive monuments? What about all of the player-built outposts that have a rich history, like 6VDT-H? Will there be a monument with information about who built it, who last owned it and some of the events?
Punctator
Blackwater Task Forces
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2017-04-12 20:25:44 UTC
Hed, KBP are one of the most dangerous systems in eve... why?
because it is providence. If provi die, this game will lost so much content i dont want even think of it.
CCP you make one critical mistake - what players build belongs to players, you should not change roles after so long time. Just make a deadline and blow up all old stations, make some history for this event - they ware so old, rats eats cables whatever.
What you propose is gave aways old stations to the most powerfull groups it is realy sad for people who made this stations it was so much work for them...
It is like saying - you work for this, this is your lagacy, but **** off! now lords of the realm will have it.
You do big mistake from player perspective and it is not good for game itself... Just blow this stations in big explosions in all 0.0 - make deadline for people to move stuff, make citadels ect.

you just want to make two dishes on one fire ccp - but if it fails... eve will be much more boreing game... for sure.
TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2017-04-12 20:27:56 UTC
Pandora Deninard wrote:
Andraea Sarstae wrote:
As a director of a small Alliance that owns three outposts, and has for the past 6 years, I am looking at this with sadness.

I get what you're trying to do, but really it just feels ****** to know that our 6 years of building and maintaining our stations together, and occasionally having to fight to get them back, is just going to be tossed out the window for some new owner that might have it for as little as a few hours.


I think CCP has made it very clear just what they think of provi with this proposed change.


The alternative was just removing them all together. Be glad you're getting something in return.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#68 - 2017-04-12 20:44:59 UTC
ReK42 wrote:

Does this mean only NPC conquerable stations will receive monuments? What about all of the player-built outposts that have a rich history, like 6VDT-H? Will there be a monument with information about who built it, who last owned it and some of the events?


i appreciate the thought but there's just too many outposts that are the site of a massive goonswarm victory for ccp to give us monuments for each and every one
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
#69 - 2017-04-12 20:49:27 UTC
It would be even more interesting if the Industry Breakdown Image showed a relationship to space security as well.

HIstorically it's been something of a mantra; "if you can fly it before, you will be able to fly it after". So I am asking, if I have it anchored now, why can i not be able to anchor it later". A small POS with Refinery and Component Assembly Array. Be it ever so humble?!

I would remiss if I didn't point out that so far "the promise" has only been kept to mega and large.

I am not sure if I should call it Oh Well instead of Upwell.Or is it Orwell?
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#70 - 2017-04-12 20:50:42 UTC
Penance Toralen wrote:
It would be even more interesting if the Industry Breakdown Image showed a relationship to space security as well.

HIstorically it's been something of a mantra; "if you can fly it before, you will be able to fly it after". So I am asking, if I have it anchored now, why can i not be able to anchor it later". A small POS with Refinery and Component Assembly Array. Be it ever so humble?!

I would remiss if I didn't point out that so far "the promise" has only been kept to mega and large.

I am not sure if I should call it Oh Well instead of Upwell.Or is it Orwell?

you don't need any extra skills to launch a refining citadel and an engineering complex though
Petrified
Grimm Hounds
SONS of BANE
#71 - 2017-04-12 22:46:18 UTC
xOmGx wrote:

Why the F you want to remove POS after over 10 years of good service?

Why you want us to pay 10-20 time MORE for LESS functionality and protection? ( no forcefield, no automated guns)
Where are my laser guns on the citadels? all i see is Caldari crap missiles...

The good in good service is a little subjective. As a POS owner myself, I can say I am glad to see them going the way of the Dodo. The lack of automated defense is understandable given the vulnerability windows - no need to automate defense when they cannot be attacked at will outside of the window.

As for the upwell missiles: yeah - would be very nice to have some variety: lasers, hybrids, cannons, etc. At least the larger structures get some fancier weapon systems but the homogeny is boring.

I cannot say much about Outposts as I never built one but the cost difference between an Outpost and a Fortizar is significant. Considering the primary benefit of an Outpost over a POS was constancy, turning these Outposts into glorified Fortizars is a significant kick in head for these owners.

If CCP sees through turning Outposts into Fortizars then they should compensate the current outpost owners: as of the fanfest announcement (because any change in ownership after which is suspect in motivation) in some fashion. The loss of permanence on any of these structures is not to be underestimated nor blithely 'compensated' with a structure that can be destroyed. There is no parity with a tricked out faction fortizar and an Outpost. So Parity must be achieved in another fashion. ISK, one or more faction citadel BPCs, but something to the as of the Fanfest announcement to those current owners.

- - -

CCP Fozzie, you mentioned the Citadels being littered about; that you think they are too easy to maintain- simplest way to make them require maintenance: allow the structure to be entosised during its vulnerability. once Entosised the structure begins the unanchor process (or it cancels it if the structure is already unanchoring). If the owner is paying attention, they can cancel the process. If the owner is not paying attention, then 7 days later the structure unanchors.

Or: require a small amount of fuel hourly for the basic operations of the citadel. If there is no fuel, the citadel remains in place, but functions such as tethering, defenses, office access, repair, etc, are all turned off. You can still dock, you can still undock, you can store your stuff and ships in your own hanger, you just cannot get any other functionality and no protection until there is fuel in the fuel bay. Does not need to be a lot, but a token amount to ensure the structure is 'maintained'.

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

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.

Cloon McCloon
Space Fukery
Evictus.
#72 - 2017-04-12 23:50:55 UTC
Just curious, I have some very long-term research jobs going in stations that will still be going by Christmas... will these jobs roll into the new citadels and continue where they left off? will they be cancelled and fail? will they auto-complete? Im glad youre giving 8 months notice, but were 8+ month jobs considered in your plan? I would be less than thrilled if my BPO's failed after 9 months in research.

Thank you!
Valkorsia
Spartan Vanguard
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#73 - 2017-04-13 00:41:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkorsia
Pandora Deninard wrote:
Andraea Sarstae wrote:
As a director of a small Alliance that owns three outposts, and has for the past 6 years, I am looking at this with sadness.

I get what you're trying to do, but really it just feels ****** to know that our 6 years of building and maintaining our stations together, and occasionally having to fight to get them back, is just going to be tossed out the window for some new owner that might have it for as little as a few hours.


I think CCP has made it very clear just what they think of provi with this proposed change.


Yes they did.

Fozzie really doesn't like Providence and never did. It's not the only action where his bias is glaringly obvious. He's had two years to come up with a workable plan, and this was his design and programming 'best effort'. Truly laughable. Alternatives have been offered, viable one's, even at this late date here ... *crickets*

What is truly puzzling is Providence as a region played the game to it's maximum potential with structures - the way devs designed it - by planting stations in every system and working hard together, as a team, to do that. It took years. And in a few short months, Fozzie will make sure it's destroyed by literally painting a bullseye on our backs.
Circumstantial Evidence
#74 - 2017-04-13 01:10:03 UTC
Valkorsia wrote:
... It took years. And in a few short months, Fozzie will make sure it's destroyed by literally painting a bullseye on our backs.
I doubt it will be "destroyed," the people that want to live there will continue doing so, but if the forums-predicted storm arrives.... in smaller citadels. Providence remains a formidable, tiring grind if the goal is to take and hold every outpost prior to the transition (assuming profit motive: attacking line members: is all the work to enrich your leadership, worth it?) Perhaps new strategies and allies will emerge; some outposts may be spared for easier targets elsewhere - the problem is not unique to Providence.
Valkorsia
Spartan Vanguard
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#75 - 2017-04-13 01:23:47 UTC
Fair enough. Maybe not 'destroyed'. Is 'robbed' a more appropriate description?
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#76 - 2017-04-13 03:30:41 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Pandora Deninard wrote:
Andraea Sarstae wrote:
As a director of a small Alliance that owns three outposts, and has for the past 6 years, I am looking at this with sadness.

I get what you're trying to do, but really it just feels ****** to know that our 6 years of building and maintaining our stations together, and occasionally having to fight to get them back, is just going to be tossed out the window for some new owner that might have it for as little as a few hours.


I think CCP has made it very clear just what they think of provi with this proposed change.


The alternative was just removing them all together. Be glad you're getting something in return.


No, there are plenty of alternatives that needn't create this situation. Just change the models for example.
Valkorsia
Spartan Vanguard
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#77 - 2017-04-13 04:10:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkorsia
It's not like Providence lacks content. We don't mind the content. It's here every day. KBP/Dital - the Sev3rance and Yulai pocket entrace - is one of the deadliest pipes in the game for player vs. player content. Then there's the Catch pipe from HED, also at our doorstep. Newbros and veterans come here daily for fights in NRDS space and we oblige gladly.

We love content and gf's.

What we don't like is being 'setup' by a dev who clearly has an ax to grind with Providence and has lost touch with the very player base he seeks to attract.
The Receptionist
Pfizer Inc.
Unreasonable Bastards
#78 - 2017-04-13 04:47:56 UTC
Valkorsia wrote:

What we don't like is being 'setup' by a dev who clearly has an ax to grind with Providence and has lost touch with the very player base he seeks to attract.


That's pretty much the best description of the proposed changes I've seen ^^
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2017-04-13 05:08:04 UTC
Please don't remove starbases. Just nerf them if you have to. People already really love citadels. You've already greatly improved the quality of player-owned stations. Can we keep starbases as a relic?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Hairpins Blueprint
Perkone
Caldari State
#80 - 2017-04-13 11:09:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Hairpins Blueprint
1. Having it combat capable while belt is spawned is just plain bad. how you gona ninja mine the ore with Hulks when the thing can just kill them. It Should be incapacitated when belt is spawned.


2. The structure Should mine the ore too, automaticly, unpiloted. and that should take at least 24 hours for it to clear the belt by itself.
For one, it opens more time frame for people to steal the ore, Second you are not forcing people to mine the damn ore so we are sort of keeping the old moon mechanic but with much more risk than before.

If you wona speed up the mining process and go mine it, simple.

While the belt is spawned the platforn can't start pulling another rock (or you could turn the mining off, so you mine by yourself and make the platform start puling another rock), so we would have a trade off for having it mine by itself. Less ore per month than
mining it yourself.


3. It should have the POCO reinforce mechanic, and not this vulnerability windows, it's bad for content. /o\ Reee
Or better, just use stront like POS. That would be swell