These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Summer 2014] Starbase tweaks

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
#241 - 2014-05-07 20:57:29 UTC
Sure is alot of raging at a simple question. I personally don't care if they offer any reimbursement for the skill or not, as it's still useful for anchoring T2 bubbles, etc.

Try CalmingTFU a little. ;)

Dear lord, please help me deal with the insufferable....
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#242 - 2014-05-07 21:00:17 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Looks good.

Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.

Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train.


But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Cry

Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.

how dare you i insist you refund my anchoring v skillpoints immediately you are making this game too simple










just kidding

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#243 - 2014-05-07 21:29:57 UTC
thetwilitehour wrote:
Buff the guns scanres by 200% per level of anchoring.


A) Anyone with SDM trained can control up to 8 guns (F1-F8, like mods).
B) Anchoring makes guns lock faster by 10% per level (up to 50% lock time)
C) SDM improves weapon ROF while controlled by 5% per level (up to 75% of normal ROF)

Yay for fully armed and operational deathstars.
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#244 - 2014-05-07 21:48:53 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort?

And CCP still has said nothing useful about the coming office apocalypse. I guess that is intended. Yes, I'm mad that I've repeatedly attempted to engage in reasonable conversation about it, and the devs apparently just can't be bothered to even reply.

MDD
Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#245 - 2014-05-07 22:02:23 UTC
Red Teufel wrote:
I like the changes except now let us drop dreads in highsec to RF these towers pls.

Bastion mode...
Alundil
Rolled Out
#246 - 2014-05-07 22:17:30 UTC
mynnna wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Looks good.

Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.

Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train.


But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Cry

Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.


Wanna change some more numbers and do a balancing pass on POS guns and buff their stats a bit, since they haven't been touched since an era when a dreadnaught had less EHP than a cruiser can get today?


e: This goes especially for scan res. In context of such a change I'd propose massive increases to scan res, on the order of tenfold, but perhaps a corresponding increase in the automatic lock delay as well. That way an unmanned POS still takes its sweet time doing anything, but a manned POS is able to swiftly react to a changing combat landscape. You've got that huge tower there, why are its targeting arrays so bad?

Agreed.

I'm right behind you
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
#247 - 2014-05-07 22:28:34 UTC
Clansworth wrote:
Red Teufel wrote:
I like the changes except now let us drop dreads in highsec to RF these towers pls.

Bastion mode...


doesnt increase dps just range so kinda meh for shooting a pos
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#248 - 2014-05-07 22:48:54 UTC
Firvain wrote:
Clansworth wrote:
Red Teufel wrote:
I like the changes except now let us drop dreads in highsec to RF these towers pls.

Bastion mode...


doesnt increase dps just range so kinda meh for shooting a pos


It does, however, increase local tank and completely neutralize dickstars by being immune to ECM. Also, range bonuses actually do translate directly into a damage increase with the possible exceptions of the Paladin (not sure on pulse optimal, although you might be able to shift to T2 damage ammo) and the Golem.
Korthan Doshu
Doomheim
#249 - 2014-05-07 22:49:23 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort?


A thousand times this. Please split up invention and research so that both arrays are needed and people can't be sure about BPOs in POS.

It's the difference between no MLs and some MLs.
Jacabon Mere
Capital Storm.
Out of the Blue.
#250 - 2014-05-07 23:32:38 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort?

And CCP still has said nothing useful about the coming office apocalypse. I guess that is intended. Yes, I'm mad that I've repeatedly attempted to engage in reasonable conversation about it, and the devs apparently just can't be bothered to even reply.

MDD


And when they get 10 kestrel bpo's I will laugh. Most bpo's aren't that valuable. It may take some time, but pos shooting people will soon figure it out.

Capital Storm is recruiting Aussies for Lowsec pvp and money making. Join "Capital Storm Pub" channel ingame. www.capitalstorm.net
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#251 - 2014-05-07 23:49:14 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Oh god, can't believe I missed this.

Material discounts at job rather than run level would be a major, major change.

(I like it. But it would require a rework of a whole bunch of tools to take run numbers into account as well. And I'm not /sure/ about how it affects bpc vs bpo. I'm generally in favor.)

the tools are already being changed, and it only slightly adversely effects BPCs depending on how the rounding works.

Speaking of which, how does the rounding for a discount work? does it roundUp roundDown or just roundClose?

how would a 2% Material cost bonus effect a theoretical item taking 24 trit? 25 trit? 26 trit?



Heh. These are details I'm wanting to get my hands on too.

Along with a copy of the SDE to play with (and convert. From third party session, blueprint stuff will be in yaml)



Important questions:

When do numbers get rounded.
Regular ME per run, bonus from array via job?

There are edge cases where doing it either way is beneficial.

Hmm, I just got scared.

Will all the wonderful data and services you've made available now have to pass the dreaded NDA?

(I trust your ability to keep it data apart, but will CCP?)

CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#252 - 2014-05-07 23:55:29 UTC
[ Insert ****** forum post about how I only trained anchoring V for pos guns and I want my SP back because T2 large bubbles alone aren't really worth the SP spent Grrrrrr HERE ]

Yes....these are.......good........positive........changes. I'm so ..... happy .... for all the people that don't have to train anchoring V. Evil
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#253 - 2014-05-08 00:32:31 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Spectre Wraith wrote:
These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....

MODULAR STARBASES!!

There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases.



This. We've been demanding this feature for seven years now. CCP provides a service, why are we not being served?


Because of whiny, demanding children like yourself.

NEONOVUS wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Because I know the motivation behind the suggestion and it has very little to do with a manned POS's lock time.

Could you private mail me why?
Im now curious


Because he's very grrgoons and thinks I'm proposing it as a means to defend our towers against siphons. Which, you know, is why I specifically noted in my post that a buff to scan res should happen in a way that doesn't necessarily improve the lock time of an unmanned tower, such as a corresponding increase in the time before a POS will attempt to lock at all.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#254 - 2014-05-08 00:42:36 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Spectre Wraith wrote:
These are all very good changes, however, let me reiterate the one thing that is almost universally wanted/requested, and that is....

MODULAR STARBASES!!

There was a thread created years back of this very idea, including CAD/3d models of what this would be like, and ever since, has probably been the most requested/wanted for starbases.



This. We've been demanding this feature for seven years now. CCP provides a service, why are we not being served?


Because of whiny, demanding children like yourself.

NEONOVUS wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Because I know the motivation behind the suggestion and it has very little to do with a manned POS's lock time.

Could you private mail me why?
Im now curious


Because he's very grrgoons and thinks I'm proposing it as a means to defend our towers against siphons. Which, you know, is why I specifically noted in my post that a buff to scan res should happen in a way that doesn't necessarily improve the lock time of an unmanned tower, such as a corresponding increase in the time before a POS will attempt to lock at all.


The idea about anchoring skill increasing scan res of guns under your control was a pretty elegant solution
Sigras
Conglomo
#255 - 2014-05-08 00:54:24 UTC
Korthan Doshu wrote:
MailDeadDrop wrote:
If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort?


A thousand times this. Please split up invention and research so that both arrays are needed and people can't be sure about BPOs in POS.

It's the difference between no MLs and some MLs.

Guys... both arrays mean that there are potentially BPOs in the POS

Unless you've devised some clever way to copy without a BPO?
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#256 - 2014-05-08 01:07:59 UTC
Red Teufel wrote:
I like the changes except now let us drop dreads in highsec to RF these towers pls.



This, or at least make highsec POSes small only. Small ones are fine to pop with battleships.

Better again, introduce a tech 2 subcapital ship that can siege into an anti-structure platform.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Korthan Doshu
Doomheim
#257 - 2014-05-08 01:43:56 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Korthan Doshu wrote:
MailDeadDrop wrote:
If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort?


A thousand times this. Please split up invention and research so that both arrays are needed and people can't be sure about BPOs in POS.

It's the difference between no MLs and some MLs.

Guys... both arrays mean that there are potentially BPOs in the POS

Unless you've devised some clever way to copy without a BPO?


Nobody should be doing invention with anything other than ME0/PE0 BPOs. But if you're using researched BPOs to copy from your POS, well...duly noted.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#258 - 2014-05-08 03:33:25 UTC
Kenneth Feld wrote:

The idea about anchoring skill increasing scan res of guns under your control was a pretty elegant solution

It is although I suspect it would require coding some new bonuses and possibly other interactions with the POS code, which should generally understood to be scary. Bumping scanres by a factor of 10 and then increasing POS lock delay by some suitably large number does the same thing as anchoring 5, but would probably just be playing with existing stats, far less scary.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Ragnen Delent
13.
#259 - 2014-05-08 04:57:49 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Kenneth Feld wrote:

The idea about anchoring skill increasing scan res of guns under your control was a pretty elegant solution

It is although I suspect it would require coding some new bonuses and possibly other interactions with the POS code, which should generally understood to be scary. Bumping scanres by a factor of 10 and then increasing POS lock delay by some suitably large number does the same thing as anchoring 5, but would probably just be playing with existing stats, far less scary.


Hey, if it is possible though, it would at least stem the tide of "I don't need anchoring V please refund my sp" tears.
Sigras
Conglomo
#260 - 2014-05-08 05:30:50 UTC
Korthan Doshu wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Korthan Doshu wrote:
MailDeadDrop wrote:
If Research Labs and Hyasyoda Labs can *only* work on blueprint originals (since they only offer ME and TE services), then having them on a POS is a big flashing "SHOOT ME!" sign. Can I have big flashing "SHOOT ME!" signs on ships carrying BPOs, too, without any sort of effort?


A thousand times this. Please split up invention and research so that both arrays are needed and people can't be sure about BPOs in POS.

It's the difference between no MLs and some MLs.

Guys... both arrays mean that there are potentially BPOs in the POS

Unless you've devised some clever way to copy without a BPO?


Nobody should be doing invention with anything other than ME0/PE0 BPOs. But if you're using researched BPOs to copy from your POS, well...duly noted.

Thats not a relevant factor

If you're inventing command ships/marauders/BLOPS/JFs then you still have billions of ISK worth of BPOs in that tower.

researched BPOs arent actually worth that much more than stock BPOs