These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1321 - 2014-04-18 22:42:49 UTC
Querns wrote:
Or is "gameplay" only supposed to be available to those who meet the stringent requirements of "have rubbed their face against the cheese grater of Eve: Online standings for a sufficient amount of time?"


You mean like ships are available to those that have the skills and enough money?
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1322 - 2014-04-18 22:46:01 UTC
Barton Breau wrote:
Querns wrote:
Barton Breau wrote:

A player with standing still benefits from the ability to set up another pos, moreover he can loose them ==> gameplay!

And when the proposed changes take effect, even more people can put up a POS, and then possibly lose them. That's a heck of a lot more of your vaunted GAMEPLAY than there would be if only standingshavers can erect POS.


Didnt you just repeat the same assumption on what is the right gameplay in your opinion without adding anything new?

Way of avoiding the question...

You implied that losing a POS is gameplay. Hence, more people losing a POS = more gameplay.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1323 - 2014-04-18 22:52:10 UTC
Querns wrote:
Barton Breau wrote:
Querns wrote:
Barton Breau wrote:

A player with standing still benefits from the ability to set up another pos, moreover he can loose them ==> gameplay!

And when the proposed changes take effect, even more people can put up a POS, and then possibly lose them. That's a heck of a lot more of your vaunted GAMEPLAY than there would be if only standingshavers can erect POS.


Didnt you just repeat the same assumption on what is the right gameplay in your opinion without adding anything new?

Way of avoiding the question...

You implied that losing a POS is gameplay. Hence, more people losing a POS = more gameplay.


I didnt, i meant standings.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1324 - 2014-04-18 22:53:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Querns
Maybe I should put it a different way. Given the cheese grater properties of acquiring standings in Eve: Online, name reasons why requiring standings for a POS is a good idea.

NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so others should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason.
NOTE: This is not equivalent to the process of conquering conquerable nullsec. Conquerable nullsec can be taken from those who conquer it; your standings are yours forever.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Altessa Post
Midnight special super sexy
#1325 - 2014-04-18 22:59:08 UTC
Having a POS is no small thing and I believe it supposed to be difficult to have one.

There are hundreds of small corp descriptions where you can read that they enthusiastically plan to set up a POS, --- one day. Most of them will not manage. It is hard. Yet, it is one of the few things which are easier for a small dedicated corp than for a large one. And having a POS is one of the rare goals corps have in EVE.

Removing the standing requirement will "providing everybody with a POS", but it is also removing one of the few accomplishments for corps. The coolness factor will be gone. You can no longer proudly advertise that your corp has a POS because you did it!

Taking the Xmas money from your grandma to buy a plex, changing the ISK into a tower, training one day for anchoring, ---tada, POS! This is your idea of "new and fresh game play"?

And for those arguing that building up standing is a useless grind: some of us like flying missions. We do this even as a corp activity. It is fun doing this together and we help new members through their first steps flying L2 or L3. It is a way to learn about the necessary skills, about ships and basic tactics.

The alternative created by removing standings feels bland and removes an iconing accomplishment for corps. Do not do it.

On the internet, you can be whatever you want to be. It is amazing that so many people chose to be stupid.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1326 - 2014-04-18 23:02:16 UTC
Altessa Post wrote:
Having a POS is no small thing and I believe it supposed to be difficult to have one.

There are hundreds of small corp descriptions where you can read that they enthusiastically plan to set up a POS, --- one day. Most of them will not manage. It is hard. Yet, it is one of the few things which are easier for a small dedicated corp than for a large one. And having a POS is one of the rare goals corps have in EVE.

Removing the standing requirement will "providing everybody with a POS", but it is also removing one of the few accomplishments for corps. The coolness factor will be gone. You can no longer proudly advertise that your corp has a POS because you did it!

Taking the Xmas money from your grandma to buy a plex, changing the ISK into a tower, training one day for anchoring, ---tada, POS! This is your idea of "new and fresh game play"?

And for those arguing that building up standing is a useless grind: some of us like flying missions. We do this even as a corp activity. It is fun doing this together and we help new members through their first steps flying L2 or L3. It is a way to learn about the necessary skills, about ships and basic tactics.

The alternative created by removing standings feels bland and removes an iconing accomplishment for corps. Do not do it.

This vignette is amusing, but does not reflect reality particularly well. In reality, you skip the grinding process and pony up ISK for a corporation or a standings dude and short-circuit the entire process.

Show me a corporation who honestly expects every one of their members to maintain 6.0-7.0 standings with a racial faction, so as to not hinder their ability to erect a POS, and I will show you a corporation of addled fools.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1327 - 2014-04-18 23:04:30 UTC
Altessa Post wrote:
Having a POS is no small thing and I believe it supposed to be difficult to have one.

There are hundreds of small corp descriptions where you can read that they enthusiastically plan to set up a POS, --- one day. Most of them will not manage. It is hard. Yet, it is one of the few things which are easier for a small dedicated corp than for a large one. And having a POS is one of the rare goals corps have in EVE.

Removing the standing requirement will "providing everybody with a POS", but it is also removing one of the few accomplishments for corps. The coolness factor will be gone. You can no longer proudly advertise that your corp has a POS because you did it!

Taking the Xmas money from your grandma to buy a plex, changing the ISK into a tower, training one day for anchoring, ---tada, POS! This is your idea of "new and fresh game play"?

And for those arguing that building up standing is a useless grind: some of us like flying missions. We do this even as a corp activity. It is fun doing this together and we help new members through their first steps flying L2 or L3. It is a way to learn about the necessary skills, about ships and basic tactics.

The alternative created by removing standings feels bland and removes an iconing accomplishment for corps. Do not do it.
I don't get this, so taking grandma's Christmas money to buy one plex and have a POS is terrible and wrong, but doing the same with 2 plex, one for the tower and mods and the other for someone to sit in your corp for a while, is somehow desirable?

If you like flying missions, great, this isn't stopping you in any way. If anything it's removing those that don't want to do it but are just for dropping a tower from competing with you. Be grateful CCP decided to buff your regular efforts.
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1328 - 2014-04-18 23:06:24 UTC
Querns wrote:
Maybe I should put it a different way. Given the cheese grater properties of acquiring standings in Eve: Online, name reasons why requiring standings for a POS is a good idea.

NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so other should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason.
NOTE: This is not equivalent to the process of conquering conquerable nullsec. Conquerable nullsec can be taken from those who conquer it; your standings are yours forever.


The same reasons we dont give players lv5 skills off the bat, or that capship skills have significantly greater multipliers.
Not even mentioning lore or rp, as that is widely laughed at.

1. note - i was not planning to mention it, but it was mentioned in this thread, so ok.
2. note - you can also loose standings by doing stupid stuff, much like sov or embryos :)

Dont get me wrong, more than standings for pos i am interested in the seemingly streamlining happy attitude you, your friends and the devs seem to have atm, and the arguments used to justify it.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1329 - 2014-04-18 23:09:24 UTC
Barton Breau wrote:
Querns wrote:
Maybe I should put it a different way. Given the cheese grater properties of acquiring standings in Eve: Online, name reasons why requiring standings for a POS is a good idea.

NOTE: "I had to suffer for it so other should also have to either suffer or pay me" is not a valid reason.
NOTE: This is not equivalent to the process of conquering conquerable nullsec. Conquerable nullsec can be taken from those who conquer it; your standings are yours forever.


The same reasons we dont give players lv5 skills off the bat, or that capship skills have significantly greater multipliers.
Not even mentioning lore or rp, as that is widely laughed at.
Character skills are for character progression, and here they serve the greater purpose of personalizing a character through their abilities selectively. Standings can have a similar effect, but have no reason to be in any way related to POS placement to retain that effect.
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1330 - 2014-04-18 23:21:24 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Character skills are for character progression, and here they serve the greater purpose of personalizing a character through their abilities selectively. Standings can have a similar effect, but have no reason to be in any way related to POS placement to retain that effect.


How does one arrive at that conclusion? I am genuinely interested, where you see the disconnect of -5.0 + you dont get shot at, fraternize with other people of 7 + and you can have a CONCORD protected pos in highsec.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1331 - 2014-04-19 00:12:40 UTC
Barton Breau wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Character skills are for character progression, and here they serve the greater purpose of personalizing a character through their abilities selectively. Standings can have a similar effect, but have no reason to be in any way related to POS placement to retain that effect.


How does one arrive at that conclusion? I am genuinely interested, where you see the disconnect of -5.0 + you dont get shot at, fraternize with other people of 7 + and you can have a CONCORD protected pos in highsec.
Concord protection of anything else that is concord protected is not contingent upon faction standings so why should POS be an exception? Really by that token if there is any application of settings it should at best mirror faction navy KOS standings by your logic, meaning a day old alt can still pop up a tower just as well as they can wander the whole of highsec.

How do you connect the idea of being disallowed access with privileged status? And in what way does that actually justify the privilege being maintained as an exclusivity?
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1332 - 2014-04-19 00:32:40 UTC
I will probably never own a POS myself but I have to say that removing the standing requirement to anchor a POS in High Security is a very bad idea.

For as long as I've been playing this game, being able to place a POS in High Security is a badge of honor. If a change to the standing requirement is actually needed, (and it's not) then just allow the Corp members modified standing to be used in the Corp standing average. Opening up the rest of High Security to allow POS to be anchored is all fine and dandy but it needs to follow the original standing mechanic for anchoring, ie, same amount of corp standing as the system security level.

What I see happening here is an entire type of player run business being snuffed out of existence. This new change doesn't help the smaller corps and alliances that have worked hard at building up and maintaining Faction standings in order to have a POS in High Sec.

Opening up High Sec systems to anyone with no standing whatsoever to anchor a POS just means more moons for the big power-block Alliances to control.



DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Volar Kang
Kang Industrial
#1333 - 2014-04-19 00:50:03 UTC
I see a lot of talk of POS bashing and noobs spamming POS,s come the change but ask yourself this... After the change why even put up a POS in high-sec? You can just move five to eight jumps from Jita and have all the slots you want for less than the monthly cost of a POS.

Personally I have a few systems on my radar and after the change I will most likely take my POS down and avoid the hassles of having it while doing industry in the total safety of a station. This change is actually going to reduce the number of POS,s in high-sec.
Matthew
BloodStar Technologies
#1334 - 2014-04-19 00:53:17 UTC
My thoughts, in no particular order:


The big plan

I like the direction and goals stated. As an industrialist, it does increase my risks in some areas, but also expands on opportunities. I'm excited about being in industry in a way I haven't been for a long time now. However, as with most changes, it has the potential to be done really well or very badly, and there is not enough detail in this first blog to judge. So I will largely reserve judgement until the more detailed blogs arrive.


Cleaning Market Groups

All sounds sensible, liking the icons especially, as icon pattern matching should help a bit when trying to work out which section your item might be under.

Stopping the damage

Loving this change, gets rid of needless complexity and all the odd behaviors that occurred around this mechanic. Only concern is that the volume gets adjusted along with the quantity, but that has already been mentioned.


Removal of Extra Materials

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

All extra materials are turned into regular materials, that will indeed be now affected by skills and waste. Except for Tech I ships and items, as such:


  • You should never see a Paladin require 2 Apocalypses to build
  • You should never see a Large shield Extender II require 0.75 Large Shield Extender I to build


I support the concept of tidying up the current mess that is the Raw/Extra material requirements (especially the messy way they are implemented in the static data). However, this response makes it clear that we will still have some materials that behave like Extra Materials (i.e. not subject to waste), even if they are no longer called Extra Materials.

Whatever the new rules are for what counts as a non-waste material need to be clearly shown in the bill of materials (and easily identifiable in the static data dump). Otherwise, you will simply be replacing one form of obfuscation with another. I'd also hope that this has been implemented as some sort of "no-waste" flag that could be applied to anything, rather than a special-casing in the code for Tech 1 items. Otherwise it'll significantly limit design flexibility further down the line.

Assuming these issues have been designed for properly, it sounds like what we'd end up with is a rationalized list of Extra Materials with an improved back-end implementation, rather than the complete removal of Extra Materials. Which is fine. If the above concerns have not yet been considered, I would encourage them to be.

Cost Scaling System

Sounds good in principle, bringing back the connection between cost and demand is very welcome. I never understood why it was removed when the current slot system was introduced. Will wait on the detail blog to judge how it will work in practice.

Starbase Changes

Loving the removal of anchoring and standing restrictions. Addressing the issue of abandoned starbases is a must to go alongside this though.

There has been a lot of discussion in the thread already about whether wardecs are enough, and what should count as "abandoned". However, we've had a definition of "abandoned" for anchored (but offline) objects since 2008. While starbases being an exception while online is perfectly reasonable, I've never understood why they were still an exception when offline, especially since the changes to anchoring times made the time difference between re-activating an offline starbase and re-deploying a removed starbase much less.

Placeholding moons with offline starbases would still be viable - if the real estate is valuable to you, visiting the tower once every 30 days is not an unreasonable imposition. People who do this, and starbases within the 30-day window, would still offer a perfectly viable target set for any of the more interesting hacking mechanics that have been discussed.

As to why not just leave them up indefinitely and let people take them down with wardecs? It adds a barrier to entry based on how popular the area used to be, or just how long the moons have been available for junk towers to accrue at, and grinding down the tower of someone who hasn't logged in, and may never log in again, does not add gameplay, it adds a grind. As we are removing the standings grind, it makes sense to remove this HP grind as well. This would do nothing to block conflict around genuinely active towers with players that may fight back, or at least be materially affected by your actions.


Losing the safety of keeping blueprints in the station is a concern, but this has been acknowledged, so I will await details on the promised improvements to copying and the starbase facilities before judging this.

New UI

Looks very swish, but will need to wait for the detail blog and get my hands on it to really judge how the workflow handles.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1335 - 2014-04-19 00:57:34 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
standings characters are still worth the most as traders.


Not for long, I'd wager. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. They've confirmed standings, and faction standings in particular I guess, are a mechanic that no one wants or likes and are actively removing it from anything they touch. How long until they they remove it from broker fees? The sooner the better, honestly.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1336 - 2014-04-19 01:02:27 UTC
Volar Kang wrote:
I see a lot of talk of POS bashing and noobs spamming POS,s come the change but ask yourself this... After the change why even put up a POS in high-sec? You can just move five to eight jumps from Jita and have all the slots you want for less than the monthly cost of a POS.

Personally I have a few systems on my radar and after the change I will most likely take my POS down and avoid the hassles of having it while doing industry in the total safety of a station. This change is actually going to reduce the number of POS,s in high-sec.
Well, that takes care of that then.If you are correct then POS have become excessively devalued and any remaining value they may have added to standings would be negligible at best.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#1337 - 2014-04-19 01:15:30 UTC
Volar Kang wrote:
I see a lot of talk of POS bashing and noobs spamming POS,s come the change but ask yourself this... After the change why even put up a POS in high-sec? You can just move five to eight jumps from Jita and have all the slots you want for less than the monthly cost of a POS.

Personally I have a few systems on my radar and after the change I will most likely take my POS down and avoid the hassles of having it while doing industry in the total safety of a station. This change is actually going to reduce the number of POS,s in high-sec.

Probably true for POSes used for research and copying, but maybe not for those used for manufacturing.

I know that I'm certainly NOT going to be putting my BPOs in a high-sec POS. I think that it is highly unlikely that CCP can make the reward worth the risk. The mere fact that labs are attached to the POS will ensure an automatic wardec of any small research or industrial corp. Even if you move your BPO's out of the POS before the wardec starts, cancelling ME/PE/copy jobs in progress and the POS downtime due to the wardec will probably erase any benefit.

But, for manufacturing, I can use BPCs in a POS. Unless CCP makes it possible for other players to see exactly what is being manufacturing, it will be difficult to determine if it is worth wardec'cing the POS owners. In this case, the reward vs risk ratio may be acceptable.
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1338 - 2014-04-19 01:56:33 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Soldarius wrote:
Urziel99 wrote:
I'm curious to hear what bonuses could possibly justify me putting a 1.1 billion isk battleship BPO at risk, in a tower that's worth less than that by itself?

CCP has been going on a tear of late, devaluing things earned by veteran players. First it was refining SP (Which I want back, now that It'll only be half as effective as the skills I injected.), now NPC standings and remote jobs. I've never suspected CCP had it out for industrialists and miners, then we lost grav sites and it's been downhill ever since.


Devaluing skills? Are you kidding me? You had to train jack-all to get perfect refine in hisec, compared to my nulsec refining alt that had to train all but the specialty skills to 5, the specialty skills to 4, plug in a 1% refining implant, and refine at an improved refinery, because only certain Conquerable Outposts have 50% refineries. You deserve no reimbursement. Train the skills like everybody else.

Why would you put your BPO in a POS? Do the same darn thing you're already doing. The only thing you can do now that you won't be able to do this summer is remote ME/PE research. So put your BPO in a corp hanger at a research station and do that there. While you're at it, do your copying there, too. Take BPCs, move to production site. 2ez.

NPC standings requirements are only being removed for POS anchoring. Everything else still applies.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.


Try again. I have all the skills trained on 4 accounts. I used to mine in nullsec with mining crystals before CCP broke the Exhumers cargo bays. http://eveboard.com/pilot/Urziel99 take a look for yourself. I only stopped mining in nullsec after CCP broke hidden belts.

As to your blather about BPO's in a POS We can remote build with BPO's and BPC's now. The only proviso is to make sure that the print and the materials are both in the same hangar division. I've done it with T1 and T2 mods for 2 years now.

Standings are however being changed if 6.66 can't give tax-free refines then those standings are by default worth less than they were pre-patch.

*Snip* Removed reply to an edited out part of the quoted post. ISD Ezwal.
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1339 - 2014-04-19 02:01:20 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Volar Kang wrote:
I see a lot of talk of POS bashing and noobs spamming POS,s come the change but ask yourself this... After the change why even put up a POS in high-sec? You can just move five to eight jumps from Jita and have all the slots you want for less than the monthly cost of a POS.

Personally I have a few systems on my radar and after the change I will most likely take my POS down and avoid the hassles of having it while doing industry in the total safety of a station. This change is actually going to reduce the number of POS,s in high-sec.

Probably true for POSes used for research and copying, but maybe not for those used for manufacturing.

I know that I'm certainly NOT going to be putting my BPOs in a high-sec POS. I think that it is highly unlikely that CCP can make the reward worth the risk. The mere fact that labs are attached to the POS will ensure an automatic wardec of any small research or industrial corp. Even if you move your BPO's out of the POS before the wardec starts, cancelling ME/PE/copy jobs in progress and the POS downtime due to the wardec will probably erase any benefit.

But, for manufacturing, I can use BPCs in a POS. Unless CCP makes it possible for other players to see exactly what is being manufacturing, it will be difficult to determine if it is worth wardec'cing the POS owners. In this case, the reward vs risk ratio may be acceptable.


There are orders of magnitude more stations with manufacturing services than research. The run of the mill build pos may go away without substantial bonuses (except T3 science and industry which can't be done in station.) But ME/PE stations will likely be max congested in short order, there are only about 10% of all stations that have those services.
ST Mahan
Doomheim
#1340 - 2014-04-19 02:12:49 UTC
Firvain wrote:
Nlex wrote:
Standings required for anchoring a POS are as much RP and lore item as they are a gameplay mechanic. Removing them would mean that suddenly, Empires let just about anyone plunk a POS at their moons. Why would they do that, especially when CCP's recent plot developments hint at Empires being oh so afraid of capsuleers' rising power?


Maybe thats the whole point. Our rising power means we dont need permission of the empire's to anchor a tower. See we got this lore thing sorted!



I suspect we will see more of this as the current and other expansions roll out.