These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

[New structures] Mooring and docking features

First post First post
Author
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2015-03-23 11:57:04 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
Hello people,

We would like your feedback on the various new structure lines presented during Fanfest and on our latest structure blog.

This particular thread is going to be around the mooring and docking features tied with those new structures.


  • Mooring is intended for the largest ships (supercapitals and maybe capitals) to be safely stored around those new structures. As long as they are within a specific radius of the structure, they would be invulnerable and could not be bumped. They would otherwise not be able to interact with their surroundings or other ships on the field as long as they would be protected. This is meant as a replacement for Starbase forcefield which currently has a certain number of issues.

  • Docking is intended for smaller ships to be able to get inside the structure and be safe from direct assault (just like in NPC stations)


We are aware mooring presents a lot of discussion points, some of which were expressed during the Fanfest structure round table:


  • Having (super)capitals visible from space, even if invulnerable to direct assault, is going a huge intelligence boost to opposing forces.
  • Having (super)capitals traceable in such a manner could allow third parties to ambush (super)capital pilots as soon as they remove moorings to destroy the ships before they can escape.
  • Having a fixed mooring capability on those structures will create problems if the structure mooring capability is full when another (super)capital pilot tries to use it under pressure.


We are considering various ways of solving the points listed above, like giving some "buffer time" when pilots moor and remove moorings to give them time to react by either jumping / warping away or aligning to another structure with available mooring capability.
Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
#2 - 2015-03-23 12:03:52 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hello people,

We would like your feedback on the various new structure lines presented during Fanfest and on our latest structure blog.

This particular thread is going to be around the mooring and docking features tied with those new structures.


  • Mooring is intended for the largest ships (supercapitals and maybe capitals) to be safely stored around those new structures. As long as they are within a specific radius of the structure, they would be invulnerable and could not be bumped. They would otherwise not be able to interact with their surroundings or other ships on the field as long as they would be protected. This is meant as a replacement for Starbase forcefield which currently has a certain number of issues.



So, are we going to get assignable fighters again once this comes in?
Enta en Bauldry
EVE University
Ivy League
#3 - 2015-03-23 12:05:20 UTC
In W-Space, intel is gathered by d-scanning and looking on-grid (at POSes) to see if any players are active and what kind of ships they're in.

Do you intend to permit docking in W-Space? This would make intel gathering much harder unless mechanics are put in place to see what the docked players are doing. This is my biggest concern with the proposed "anchor any structure anywhere" philosophy you outlined at the fanfest presentation.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2015-03-23 12:24:00 UTC
Is the idea of a supercapital ship deploying its own moorable structure for personal use something you anticipated? Would you be able to do this during a fight?

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

Ulrik Elristan
EVE University
Ivy League
#5 - 2015-03-23 12:24:32 UTC
As a regular scout in w-space, I can only emphasize again Enta's point : removing this huge intel tool will be incredibly detrimental.

Maybe a half way meet between removing the full power of d-scan while allowing us at least some intel would be to have the possibility to see who and what is in the station once you're on grid with it.

A second concern I would have is timers : how do you intend to deal with the unavoidable station games that will come out of this ? As it is today, once you're out of the forcefield it is possible to bump you and keep you away. The way docking works, it will be much harder to get somebody out of docking range, and thus decrease the risk of undocking in a shiny ship.
Liam Inkuras
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6 - 2015-03-23 12:25:50 UTC
Somatic Neuron wrote:


So, are we going to get assignable fighters again once this comes in?

No, Skynet is kill

I wear my goggles at night.

Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone

Lu Ziffer
Jelly Baby Corporation
Guardian Society
#7 - 2015-03-23 12:42:01 UTC
If a supercapital is XL sized the station it is moored to should be XXL just to be reasonable in size.
Combined with the idea of having weapon highslots on structures the defence of such a station should be more then enough to keep a few ships of the grid.
fluffy jo
Universal Exports
#8 - 2015-03-23 12:50:20 UTC
just listened to the soundcloud roundtable.

A few of minor questions

Will there be restrictions on ship class or size that can be moored ?

If i moore a Battleship can i change ship to a destroyer without docking ?

Can you undock in a pod and go to a moored ship and board it ? if it is yours.
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2015-03-23 13:12:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Elenahina
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


  • Having (super)capitals visible from space, even if invulnerable to direct assault, is going a huge intelligence boost to opposing forces.
  • Having (super)capitals traceable in such a manner could allow third parties to ambush (super)capital pilots as soon as they remove moorings to destroy the ships before they can escape.
  • Having a fixed mooring capability on those structures will create problems if the structure mooring capability is full when another (super)capital pilot tries to use it under pressure.



Honestly, I don't see these as issues.

Supercapitals in particular are supposed to be strategic assets, not personal playthings (the last few years of Eve not withstanding), and as such, some thought should be put into their basing, advance, and withdrawl from the field.

To point 1: You know how modern navies hide aircraft carriers? Answer - they don't try - they're too farking big. Anyone with a halfway decent mapping sattellite can find them pretty much all the time, if they're willing to put in the time to look. Hiding the location of a super carrier is like trying to obscure the location of Central Park. If you're going to put supers out, you invest in keeping other people away from them. You move them from time to time. Or you use the ultimate cloak and log out in them, just like today.

#2 - You're saying this like it would be a bad thing. If you're going to unsling your supers on someone, shouldn't you have - I dunno - some kind of support fleet to protect them at their most vulnerable? Wouldn't knowing the time of an enemy operation, and surprising them in dock drive content?

#3 - Being able to play mooring games with Nyxes sounds like a terrible way to spend an evening. If the super cap pilot, not to mention the FC, isn't thinking far enough ahead to check the availability of moorage points before they put their ship in harm's way, then the ship deserves to die in a fire.

Honeslty, it's time everyone stopped trying to treat supercaps like battlecruisers. Stop trying to protect them like babies in a cot.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2015-03-23 13:15:11 UTC
Querns wrote:
Is the idea of a supercapital ship deploying its own moorable structure for personal use something you anticipated? Would you be able to do this during a fight?


That would make for some laughable situations until it got nerfed in the nuclear fire of nerfdom.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2015-03-23 13:16:25 UTC
Somatic Neuron wrote:

So, are we going to get assignable fighters again once this comes in?


Fighters will still be assignable after Scylla - you just have to actually put the carrier in harm's way to do it.
Seems fair to me.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#12 - 2015-03-23 13:19:36 UTC
Sorry to say it but mooring doesn't seem like a good idea. Unless you give a huge invulnerability timer after unmooring, and you add the ability to moor from the same distance as a forcefield radius, it will never fully replace a forcefield-like ability.

Also if there is the ability to dock, in my opinion, only supercaps should have to moor, not caps. Otherwise there will be a LOT of things in space at all times, because people have lots of caps.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Moridunum Kanjus
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#13 - 2015-03-23 13:30:26 UTC
Would it be possible to consider the best of both worlds when it comes to Forcefields and Mooring, mooring does seem like a cool idea to work with, but it has so many flaws previously pointed out in this thread.

Since there's an emphasis on the customizability of the structures themselves why not give the option to fit a forcefield? Obviously it would have to have a negative impact on the structure through high PG/CPU and even requiring multiple modules to function.

This would make having the mooring system far more flexible but then if you would rather a forcefield around your starbase you can compromise the utility in order to have one.

This gives people the option to do what they want and would accommodate for all types of players.
Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2015-03-23 13:35:09 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hello people,

We would like your feedback on the various new structure lines presented during Fanfest and on our latest structure blog.

This particular thread is going to be around the mooring and docking features tied with those new structures.


  • Mooring is intended for the largest ships (supercapitals and maybe capitals) to be safely stored around those new structures. As long as they are within a specific radius of the structure, they would be invulnerable and could not be bumped. They would otherwise not be able to interact with their surroundings or other ships on the field as long as they would be protected. This is meant as a replacement for Starbase forcefield which currently has a certain number of issues.

  • Docking is intended for smaller ships to be able to get inside the structure and be safe from direct assault (just like in NPC stations)


We are aware mooring presents a lot of discussion points, some of which were expressed during the Fanfest structure round table:


  • Having (super)capitals visible from space, even if invulnerable to direct assault, is going a huge intelligence boost to opposing forces.
  • Having (super)capitals traceable in such a manner could allow third parties to ambush (super)capital pilots as soon as they remove moorings to destroy the ships before they can escape.
  • Having a fixed mooring capability on those structures will create problems if the structure mooring capability is full when another (super)capital pilot tries to use it under pressure.


We are considering various ways of solving the points listed above, like giving some "buffer time" when pilots moor and remove moorings to give them time to react by either jumping / warping away or aligning to another structure with available mooring capability.


I'm actually of the opinion that the intelligence is fine. yes dscan will be spammed with hundreds of moored supers and capitals. The only thing I would suggest is that dscan show whether a super or cap is moored or not (probably too powerful, but there needs to be a way to filter the intel a little. We have this issue in wspace whenever someone has all their capitals just floating in a pos (its spam, we know they aren't running, and yes they are all unmanned. Its a bit spammy and hard to filter out.

The second item of traceable supers is a concern. I won't comment on that.

the third item can be pretty easily addressed with just having a number or visual queue regarding the amount of mooring spaces left on a structure. Maybe something as simple as a number in front of the structure name (3 left, 2 left, 1 left, full). You can be dramatic but sometimes simple is best.

Yaay!!!!

ChromeStriker
Out of Focus
Odin's Call
#15 - 2015-03-23 13:51:52 UTC
Posted this in another thread... but prob makes more sense here...
What im really interested in is how close we can put these different structures together....?

Can we put smaller structures closer together and make a space community thing?
Can we put smaller structures close to large structures...?

I would like to be able to make a hub of activity in a system... obviously without breaking things so that it gives an unfair advantage... i just dont want to be warping around a system doing stuff i can now do simply all in one place... and separating people out that are now all living together...

No Worries

Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#16 - 2015-03-23 13:54:33 UTC
There seems to be some concern that this is replacing the POS forcefield entirely.

Not in the sense of "storing" supers or caps, but the idea that an in space staging point in being lost. Whether it's for a fleet in hostile territory, somewhere for Titans to bridge from or for miners or ratters that want to be "safe" but still have the awareness that comes with being undocked.

What happens to the forcefield in this new concept?
Darren Fox
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#17 - 2015-03-23 14:02:00 UTC
I can only echo the last poster on this. Without some sort of forcefield mechanic, there is no "staging in space". Nowhere to keep a titan, safe-align a fleet etc. What mechanism/structure will ensure that gameplay is kept?
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2015-03-23 14:06:05 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:

I'm actually of the opinion that the intelligence is fine. yes dscan will be spammed with hundreds of moored supers and capitals. The only thing I would suggest is that dscan show whether a super or cap is moored or not (probably too powerful, but there needs to be a way to filter the intel a little. We have this issue in wspace whenever someone has all their capitals just floating in a pos (its spam, we know they aren't running, and yes they are all unmanned. Its a bit spammy and hard to filter out.


There already is a way to filter them - the Mark I eyeball. In use for gathering accurate intel since 5000 BC.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#19 - 2015-03-23 14:37:00 UTC
Moored ships should not appear on D-Scan. Smile
Ben Ishikela
#20 - 2015-03-23 14:40:45 UTC
Darren Fox wrote:
I can only echo the last poster on this. Without some sort of forcefield mechanic, there is no "staging in space". Nowhere to keep a titan, safe-align a fleet etc. What mechanism/structure will ensure that gameplay is kept?

But i like disrupting an aligning fleet when i find one. Without forcefield, they might be harder to find, but now i can actually do something. yes?

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.

123Next pageLast page