These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Starbase changes for Crius

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Letto Atreides
Still Water Intergalactic Holdings
#181 - 2014-06-17 13:26:41 UTC
Dracnys wrote:
Please let up upgrade arrays like command centers! If you have an array online and one of the same type in your cargo present an upgrade button in the right click menu. Apply upgrade, array in cargo disappears and the online array gets the bonus and higher powergrid and CPU needs. No need for downgrading. It also forces people to keep all arrays (commit the CPU and PG) online for the whole duration of the job.

Offlining and onlining dozens of arrays is just like the clickfest we have now (maybe worse).



+1

Stacking Arrays is the biggest issue with this release. It really does seem like this was a lazy hack to make large towers valuable and prevent everyone from down sizing to small towers. CCP take the time to to things right!
Meytal
Doomheim
#182 - 2014-06-17 13:35:31 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
'I built this factory! Why should I have to pay for any workers

Greetings Steve! Thank you for coming on a tour of our facilities; I think you'll be quite impressed at what we've been able to achieve so far away from so-called civilisation. For our first stop, I'd like to take you by the slave pens, where we house our most educated slaves who perform the bulk of our research and manufacturing tasks. We raise and train them right here in this wormhole system at our planet-side educational facilities.

Steve Ronuken wrote:
or upkeep?!'

Presumably the fuel costs do something? Magic fuel, no? Otherwise, why don't non-industrial POSes have these supposed upkeep costs? And again, my corp owns, operates, and maintains this POS, in Wormhole space ... considered by CCP to be a completely different universe than K-space. To whom am I paying these costs? Myself? My corp?

Like I said, the arguments fit for Hisec and Lowsec, and even NPC Null.

Steve Ronuken wrote:
Considering how easy it is to bypass the limitation, POS standing limitations were bad complexity, limiting mostly newbie, and disinventivizing allowing newbies into corp.

It only limited the initial anchoring of the tower. You could recruit whoever you wanted once the tower was planted, as it suddenly didn't stop working. Granted, wars would make things interesting if you didn't have the corp standings to re-anchor your tower, but there's always the potential to make a new corp,eh?

You are right though that people were providing a service to do this, so it wasn't exactly limiting. But it increased player interaction, and provided an added risk for players to trust others in exchange for the corp being created.

Steve Ronuken wrote:
A POS benefit people might not have noticed:

If your POS is in a system without any industrial options, the number of hours of industry in that system will be lower. Which reduces your build costs. Exactly how that works out depends how many of the 2.5 billion minutes of jobs per month are done in system.

Still looking for a clarification of my earlier question about queuing jobs instead of forcing everything to run simultaneously, trading time for installation costs.
Rabbit P
Nuwa Foundation
Fraternity.
#183 - 2014-06-17 13:53:28 UTC
some questions

Quote:
Ore, ices and gas clouds may now be mixed together at the same time inside the structures – but modules cannot be moved inside the Reprocessing Arrays.


Reprocessing Arrays can't reprocess modules?
or just can't mix with ore/ice/gas, you can still reprocess modules alone.


Quote:
Moreover, Control Towers will now be anchorable in previously restricted solar systems like 0.8 and above.


previous blog said Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space minus some protected solar systems, is it still the case?

can we have the list of protected solar systems?
cellestron
Cruisers Crew
The Initiative.
#184 - 2014-06-17 14:03:59 UTC

Removing the standings requirements without making any other changes to POS mechanics/requirements is a horrible idea.

Now any large corp or alliance can go around and wardec smaller corps, kill their POS and then "grief" the site by putting up an offline POS they never intend to use. They could literally put up hundreds and then hide behind the sheer cost of warrdeccing them to hold the spots.

There needs to be some barrier, limit or challenge to erecting a POS in high sec unless your idea of an "industry change" is having to join a large alliance or coalition to keep your POS (sound familiar?).

Or having entire solar systems filled with offline control towers. The offline control tower problem is bad enough now and really needs to be addressed anyway.

I don't want running a POS in high sec to be risk free. But I don't want the "POS ownership" landscape in High Sec looking like an SOV map either.

At the very least please at least consider buffing the POS defenses to make them more defendable by small active corps before you make this change.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#185 - 2014-06-17 14:13:31 UTC
cellestron wrote:

Removing the standings requirements without making any other changes to POS mechanics/requirements is a horrible idea.

Now any large corp or alliance can go around and wardec smaller corps, kill their POS and then "grief" the site by putting up an offline POS they never intend to use. They could literally put up hundreds and then hide behind the sheer cost of warrdeccing them to hold the spots.

There needs to be some barrier, limit or challenge to erecting a POS in high sec unless your idea of an "industry change" is having to join a large alliance or coalition to keep your POS (sound familiar?).

Or having entire solar systems filled with offline control towers. The offline control tower problem is bad enough now and really needs to be addressed anyway.

I don't want running a POS in high sec to be risk free. But I don't want the "POS ownership" landscape in High Sec looking like an SOV map either.

At the very least please at least consider buffing the POS defenses to make them more defendable by small active corps before you make this change.





You are missing the point where CCP hates casual players, individual players, and even small groups non-aligned with the null sec cartels. If you look at these changes from that context, this overhaul makes sense.
cellestron
Cruisers Crew
The Initiative.
#186 - 2014-06-17 14:18:22 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
cellestron wrote:

Removing the standings requirements without making any other changes to POS mechanics/requirements is a horrible idea.

Now any large corp or alliance can go around and wardec smaller corps, kill their POS and then "grief" the site by putting up an offline POS they never intend to use. They could literally put up hundreds and then hide behind the sheer cost of warrdeccing them to hold the spots.

There needs to be some barrier, limit or challenge to erecting a POS in high sec unless your idea of an "industry change" is having to join a large alliance or coalition to keep your POS (sound familiar?).

Or having entire solar systems filled with offline control towers. The offline control tower problem is bad enough now and really needs to be addressed anyway.

I don't want running a POS in high sec to be risk free. But I don't want the "POS ownership" landscape in High Sec looking like an SOV map either.

At the very least please at least consider buffing the POS defenses to make them more defendable by small active corps before you make this change.





You are missing the point where CCP hates casual players, individual players, and even small groups non-aligned with the null sec cartels. If you look at these changes from that context, this overhaul makes sense.



My post isn't an "anti-nullsec" post. it is just a concern of how the new system will be manipulated.
Josef Djugashvilis
#187 - 2014-06-17 14:31:24 UTC
I Love Boobies wrote:
So... any news yet on the Rorqual since you're pretty much screwing them over with the compression changes? Like... you guys have any ideas where you are wanting to head with it? Or are you just gonna leave it as it is for years until you decide something should be done about it like 90% of the crap you do in game?

And yes... I'm bitter.


Guinness man myself.

This is not a signature.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#188 - 2014-06-17 15:50:03 UTC
cellestron wrote:

Now any large corp or alliance can go around and wardec smaller corps, kill their POS and then "grief" the site by putting up an offline POS they never intend to use. They could literally put up hundreds and then hide behind the sheer cost of warrdeccing them to hold the spots.

interesting idea, let's subject it to some scrutiny:

1) how long does it take to knock down an average highsec pos?
2) how many highsec moons will there be
3) how much does a pos cost?
4) what is the maximum number of man-hours a large alliance (let's call them "Goonswarm" for the purposes of this exercise) would be willing to devote to shooting useless empire pos
5) what is the maximum amount of isk?
6) given the above, what is the maximum percentage of highsec this hypothetical goonswarm will control? is this any meaningful percentage of highsec?

also:

7) what is the maximum cost of a wardec against goonswarm?
8) is that far more than anyone would pay for a few easy moon locations (knocking down an offline tower is pretty easy, compare to trying to take one from someone actually using it)
cellestron
Cruisers Crew
The Initiative.
#189 - 2014-06-17 16:04:32 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
[quote=cellestron]

4) what is the maximum number of man-hours a large alliance (let's call them "Goonswarm" for the purposes of this exercise) would be willing to devote to shooting useless empire pos





First of all I am not calling anyone out. Those are your words not mine. Pretty much any large group could do it.

This question right here is my point. Post-Crius high-sec POS will no longer be "useless".

As far as the rest of your questions...currently Pre-Crius there is no point. Post-Crius there will be. Will it be worth it to do so? I don't know. But I don't really want to find out.
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#190 - 2014-06-17 16:05:21 UTC
cellestron wrote:

Removing the standings requirements without making any other changes to POS mechanics/requirements is a horrible idea.

Now any large corp or alliance can go around and wardec smaller corps, kill their POS and then "grief" the site by putting up an offline POS they never intend to use. They could literally put up hundreds and then hide behind the sheer cost of warrdeccing them to hold the spots.

There needs to be some barrier, limit or challenge to erecting a POS in high sec unless your idea of an "industry change" is having to join a large alliance or coalition to keep your POS (sound familiar?).

Or having entire solar systems filled with offline control towers. The offline control tower problem is bad enough now and really needs to be addressed anyway.

I don't want running a POS in high sec to be risk free. But I don't want the "POS ownership" landscape in High Sec looking like an SOV map either.

At the very least please at least consider buffing the POS defenses to make them more defendable by small active corps before you make this change.




What prevented this in the current system? The will of a large player to sit on an alt with good standings? You think an entity that ***** billions a month per r64 moon is intimidated by this stupid, nonsensical, useless requirement?
Ozwald Dragorian
Second Dawn of the Phoenix
#191 - 2014-06-17 16:37:38 UTC
I Love Boobies wrote:
So... any news yet on the Rorqual since you're pretty much screwing them over with the compression changes? Like... you guys have any ideas where you are wanting to head with it? Or are you just gonna leave it as it is for years until you decide something should be done about it like 90% of the crap you do in game?

And yes... I'm bitter.



I agree fully. Our corp spent an immense amount of time sorting out pilots to fly the Rorqual simply for it's compression mechanic that made it unique. The Rorqual must receive a bonus towards compression or they become obsolete. I do not want to think of it as a stupid mining boosting ship that has to consume fuel in order for the hulks to be efficient when that fuel consumption is in fact defeating purpose of the boosts. I am considering small mining ops.

I would hate to see the ship being sat useless as it actually becomes with the addition to the compression arrays making everything so simple for everyone. Sick of the dumbing down, really am.
Veinnail
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#192 - 2014-06-17 16:45:21 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Chribba wrote:

So my original statement that I will now be taxed at my own POS is correct?


well... yes.

Some global job cost scaling effect with modifiers from local system manufacturing job numbers.


this

downvote mechanic
Flay Nardieu
#193 - 2014-06-17 16:46:49 UTC
Loraine Gess wrote:
cellestron wrote:

Removing the standings requirements without making any other changes to POS mechanics/requirements is a horrible idea.

Now any large corp or alliance can go around and wardec smaller corps, kill their POS and then "grief" the site by putting up an offline POS they never intend to use. They could literally put up hundreds and then hide behind the sheer cost of warrdeccing them to hold the spots.

There needs to be some barrier, limit or challenge to erecting a POS in high sec unless your idea of an "industry change" is having to join a large alliance or coalition to keep your POS (sound familiar?).

Or having entire solar systems filled with offline control towers. The offline control tower problem is bad enough now and really needs to be addressed anyway.

I don't want running a POS in high sec to be risk free. But I don't want the "POS ownership" landscape in High Sec looking like an SOV map either.

At the very least please at least consider buffing the POS defenses to make them more defendable by small active corps before you make this change.




What prevented this in the current system? The will of a large player to sit on an alt with good standings? You think an entity that ***** billions a month per r64 moon is intimidated by this stupid, nonsensical, useless requirement?


Can't mine or otherwise do moon goo in High-sec so not only is retort invalid, it is a clear indication individuals either not understanding how POS's work in high-sec currently and planned in next release or blatantly trying to confuse the under informed.

On a related note regarding the last part of previous statement, I have no qualms about directly calling out Goonswarm involving at least some of the member corps actions in high-sec where they enter into high for the purpose of pirating soft targets. Frankly speaking if an alliance willing to operate contrary and by game mechanics criminally in a section of space the war declaration only gives them a heads up, not a proper pursuit of defense or recompense. I don't particularly have a thing against goons but I am tired of their PR dept on forums telling everyone else how high-sec should be more like null (I will give them major credit for both their real knowledge of the game AND the way they spin things like politicians)
Ozwald Dragorian
Second Dawn of the Phoenix
#194 - 2014-06-17 16:49:07 UTC

Phoenix Czech wrote:

Suggestion:
OK - you want to give players variability in manufacture costs. This step will force players to start manufacturing on POSes. Instead of stacking structures, give the players possibility to change CPU and PG requirements for the structure. So onlined structure with minimal requirements has (for example) 50K PG / 100 CPU and gives 0% manufacturing cost bonus. Player decide to manufacture the most eficiently, so he change the requirements of this structure to 500K PG / 1000 CPU and receives 25% bonus in manufacturing. Here is only one structure to handle with. Much less click fest with structure management. Easy to change settings (no anchoring, moving, etc with structures) / more time to do somethnig else. Wardec corporations still will be able to figure out who is manufacturing at low costs and wardec him (they will see how many structures on the POS is online and will be able to count PG / CPU consuption). I know that POSes code is not optimized and you are working on rebuilding it, but this could not be so big change to base program code.........
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#195 - 2014-06-17 17:23:38 UTC
JetCord wrote:
can someone remind me again why are we removing slots from stations and pos structures? what are the reasons?


Right now, new players who want to try researching can't find slots without 4-8 week wait times. Bad new player experience. By eliminating slots and making cost scale with demand, it encourages people to spread out non-artificially but also lets anyone try it out for simple work.


JetCord wrote:
its like me buying a car and pay for the fuel for it operation but i have to pay so i can drive it around


You already do. Registration and taxes aren't free.
Veinnail
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#196 - 2014-06-17 17:25:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Veinnail
I am still a bit confused as to the "logic/lore" that supports BPOs not being usable remotely, when the precedent for remote data usage is very well founded in the eve-universe. such as clone/jump clone tech. Schematics would be much easier and more viable to transfer than consciousness.

Edit:

yes, I understand conflict drivers and all that, sure. I understand the risk free position many builders are in. I guess I'll just hang back and #popcorn
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#197 - 2014-06-17 17:26:10 UTC
I do believe that shooting an anchored but unfueled POS shouldn't require a wardec, and that without fuel or stront, the resists/HP should get nerfed.

Cleanup of space junk should be fast and easy.
Veinnail
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#198 - 2014-06-17 17:27:30 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
I do believe that shooting an anchored but unfueled POS shouldn't require a wardec, and that without fuel or stront, the resists/HP should get nerfed.

Cleanup of space junk should be fast and easy.


how about the SHIELDS should be down. just saying
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#199 - 2014-06-17 17:28:30 UTC
Veinnail wrote:
I am still a bit confused as to the "logic/lore" that supports BPOs not being usable remotely, when the precedent for remote data usage is very well founded in the eve-universe. such as clone/jump clone tech. Schematics would be much easier and more viable to transfer than consciousness.


Today there's literally zero risk to big industrialists who can keep all their BPOs in an NPC station.

By forcing them to do copies in that station, and fly those copies to their POS adds a gameplay element.

Some people don't like it, others do. Personally I like it.

Yes, the cost of all goods may rise a bit. As it is now, relative to the cost of a PLEX, prices seem (to me) to be at or near an all-time low.

--gos
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#200 - 2014-06-17 17:32:11 UTC
Letto Atreides wrote:
Dracnys wrote:
Please let up upgrade arrays like command centers! If you have an array online and one of the same type in your cargo present an upgrade button in the right click menu. Apply upgrade, array in cargo disappears and the online array gets the bonus and higher powergrid and CPU needs. No need for downgrading. It also forces people to keep all arrays (commit the CPU and PG) online for the whole duration of the job.

Offlining and onlining dozens of arrays is just like the clickfest we have now (maybe worse).



+1

Stacking Arrays is the biggest issue with this release. It really does seem like this was a lazy hack to make large towers valuable and prevent everyone from down sizing to small towers. CCP take the time to to things right!


I generally agree. While the clickfest known as PI is hardly a system to copy, the upgrade mechanic for control centers possibly makes sense. Allow people to upgrade their anchored and online array, where the CPU/grid consumed goes up linearly and the benefit is subject to diminishing returns. Let people pay a concord tax for this upgrade in empire space. Then if you offline it (to online guns for a pos defense), you now need to re-upgrade it if you want to reuse its upgraded capabilities again.

This should reduce most of the bad mechanics out of the system.