These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Back Into the Structure

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gfy Trextron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#261 - 2015-03-22 14:33:40 UTC
The structure changes are very exciting! And while some things remain unclear I wanted to give you some perspective from our small corps point of view.

WALL OF TEXT WARNING

Most of us have tried null sec at one time or another since CCP constantly pushes its players in that direction for whatever reason. We concluded that risk vs reward along with the hassle of distance and security of assets coupled with the complete destruction of independent identity, null was not for us.

We determined that our prime enjoyment derives from small gang pvp. And we enjoy our limited local reputation of being a threat. We attempted the alliance thing but drama (not from us) quickly ended the first one we joined and have not done so again, even though CCP pushes players in this direction in and out of game. (I am still irritated from our corp being omitted from attendance prizes at EVE Vegas because we were not in an alliance and brought enough people to qualify)

I am going to go as far as saying we “OWN” a popular low sec system through true occupancy. We dominate PVP during our prime time window, yes blobs can run us into the NPC station until their ADHD pushes them towards the next possible target. We have owned all of the systems POCOS since POCOS could be owned (Our system flag). Own all the moons worth owning and even rent moons and passage through our system. While we can access some powerful friends that help if needed, our stuff could be taken if the conquers wanted it bad enough. They would then have to deal with defending their stuff every day for the rest of time. Some of us have lived in this system for over 8 years, many of us for 6 years, and the corp as it is now for over 3 years. We may not be active during all time zones and others may call this system their home, but I do not think it can be disputed that we own this system.

Now to the point. Listed by topic.

1) System flags – If the bigger blob comes in and puts up a structure to claim the system, it would kinda suck but be completely irrelevant (as long as NPC stations remain) to our main goal of constant PVP while still being allowed to go get a beer at any time. The likely hood of us being able or willing to fly all over the region to put some scanner on random sites is unlikely. So much effort and distraction from pvp during our limited prime time window.
2) Will it be required to “own” the system to use the system structures that modify the system? Or use any other structures at all? If so then you are dooming us to the bigger blob who will be regulating our system from 10 jumps away just because they have 100 scrubs to do all those stupid sites 24/7 and blob us when needed.
3) Are titans going to be vulnerable while trying to bridge? If a titan will simply be able to be hic pointed when we need a bridge (we have no other bridges in low sec), then they will be next to useless for us. While we have a few titans, as of the time of this writing, don’t think any of us have ever shot a player with one. I have had mine for 3 years and it has never done anything but bridge. (This could be yet another push by CCP towards the blob)
4) Cost. With the recent jump range changes (best thing for low sec! Love the change) we have had additional POS cost to increase our bridge range capabilities (still less than before change) and have been operating at a loss every month. Now considering that we may need several more structures to perform all the tasks that can currently be done at a couple flexible POS’s, this could result in catastrophic financial failure. Doing any task at less than the optimal is often not worth doing (and another push towards the blob).

Currently, besides the protection of the shield, POS’s can perform any function at optimal efficiency. This may not include simultaneously, but allows 1 structure to do as needed by on and off lining. Minimal cost and equal efficiency to anyone else, barring null sec system advantages.

So what is it CCP wants? EVERYTHNG you do pushes us towards 0.0 and coalitions. The ability for small 10-20 real people corps to reasonably exist is a continuing struggle and these multiple structures could be a huge nail in our coffin if not careful. I could have made this post 10x longer but I am unsure if it would have gotten my point across any more.

In closing I would like to say that I am available for further non posting discussion (I hate posting, arguing with my children is about all the silliness I can handle.). CCP has a tunnel vision towards thinking bigger is better, yet the most successful game change in years was about limitations.
Memphis Baas
#262 - 2015-03-22 14:37:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Memphis Baas
ergherhdfgh wrote:
If you want variable and emergent behavior in null then you need to attract a wide range of player types. Currently there seems to be only one play style that you want to encourage in null and that is the player that likes to destroy everything and watch the universe burn. Unfortunately if you don't attract the type of player that likes to build things then there won't be much to destroy.

NRDS game play has proven to attract a wide variety of players and make space very active with small and medium gang combat. For that to work you need to give players not interested on Sov warfare a reason to want to come to null and you have to give sov holders a reason to want to attract them. I've posted ideas on how to do this elsewhere already and won't duplicate that here but chasing out people that are not only interested in shooting everything that moves is going to limit the percent of your player base that is willing to spend time in null.


I think rather than attracting players to null, they're planning on changing high-sec and low-sec into null. Especially with the plan to allow the deploying of even the biggest structures in high-sec, and rigs or utility modules that change the sec status of the system. "You can anchor big structures in high-sec but won't be able to activate some sec-related modules. Oh but you can change the sec- rating of the system."

The change to structures seems to be motivated by the fact that they have a system that handles ships. With up to 8 H/M/L slots. So they're just going to make EVERYTHING a ship, simplify their code. And then, they're no longer looking at what we say, they're just analyzing the logs to see what we do, and what we do is we stay in high-sec no matter what they try, so they'll just make every space player-controlled (eventually). Motivation for going to null-sec: everywhere is null-sec.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#263 - 2015-03-22 14:50:50 UTC
Given the changes to outpost upgrades in Crius, a lot of alliances (mine included) have spent a lot of isk on outpost upgrades. Could we get some clarity on if there's going to be any sort of reimbursement for those when they're removed? That's also important to know if we should bother doing any more upgrades, or just deep-six any future upgrade plans.

Thanks!
A'Tolkar
Carlson's Raiders
#264 - 2015-03-22 14:51:59 UTC
Capital Assembly Array in Algogille (0.8)???

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structuremgmt2-02.png

And the Medium Assembly Platform has ZERO service slots??? Typo there? Because otherwise you can't fit assembly arrays in the structure, which means no assembly at all. I think from the images, all other medium structures have TWO service slots. You may want to look into that.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structure_ISIS5-01.png
Zekora Rally
U2EZ
#265 - 2015-03-22 14:59:07 UTC
Akii wrote:
The current issues I face running pos’s for manufacturing and research is that I have felt the need to run a small corp within an alliance rather than be part of a large corp:

Risks of using industry pos in a large corp vs running your own small corp

Unless you are in the upper echelons of the corp your assets are at risk as they are generally:

• Accessible by other members of the corp, materials and blueprints can be stolen
• Jobs can be stopped during production
• If you are removed from a corp your assets are stuck.

Anyone doing a decent amount of industry in a corp they don’t control must be insane.

Current solution: Make an alt corp for industry, all the risks are your own and you have total control, friendship is at the alliance level.
Arising issues: Game play becomes more isolated.

Improvements – Individual asset control

Each structure with storage should have at least 2 main compartments:

• An individual compartment for the accessing player which can be shared with whomever the individual decides. Only the individual or those that are selected for access should be able to remove items from here.
• A corp compartment that can be shared by all members
• The ability for corps to generate new hangers and assign to whom they deem fit.
• The corp should have the ability to eject any compartments at will (using the mechanisms for structure destruction i.e. a container appears in random space accessible only by the individual)
• If a job is stopped materials should be returned thereby preventing asset loss but still impacting time and profits

Hopefully if the asset protection is in place so that risk is solely down to the individual placing their assets there would be more sharing of structures for industry.

Or we could get personal POSs that dont need roles to be anchored as long as one is in a player controlled corp.
Lady Omanor
The Mining and Manufacturing Corporation
The Imperial Union
#266 - 2015-03-22 15:02:09 UTC
I have some questions to the new structures

1) I don't hope your going to use old models for the new structures, as showing here

Example

because that would just be squeezing the lemon, if you want to reinvent do it the whole way
through.
I hope you have models like the greate pictures at the begining of each


2) It looks like you are taking away a lot of the things High-sec Corporations could do with a POS in High-sec,
because most of the new structures has Entosis in Attack method and can there for only be use in space where
you can hold sovereignty.

They are left with an Assembly Platform that can easily be shot into pieces, plus it can not be anchored, so does
this mean, that no War-dec is needed, and Concord won't react, when it is attacked,
The two others has Entosis in Attack method, so no use in High-sec.

Assembly Arrays


They can't do research anymore in their own structures, according to this, because the two structures has Entosis in
Attack method

Research


And for the rest of the new structures that has damage in method can't be anchored either, so does this as stated
earlier mean that no War-dec, no Concord intervention, when they are attacked ?


3) Does the changes to structures mean, that everyone has to be in null sec to be able to use structures in their
Corporation ?
Because how it looks now, it is not safe for a High-sec Corporation to put up a structure.
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#267 - 2015-03-22 15:09:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
Generally like the direction of structures presented.

But what about moving R&D agents etc out of Hi Sec into WH and Null?
Locator agents are also obvious add-on. No reason Faction Mission agents (ambassadors) could not be installed as well.

You could add quarter slots for these NPCs assistant agents who could be hired on market or captured as loot. R&D agent for example.


Sure its a little like the Teams concept that got thrown out. Except not vague fuzzy, hard to figure out net effects, shared with everyone in system, and rather expensive for limited time effects. In general favoring discrete effects unlikely to be quickly wiped out by popularity linked NPC labor cost increases.


Instead I am saying NPC agents/assistants would affect only structure where they are installed. Installation into quarters slots similar to modules may or may not affect recurring operations costs for structure. But once installed agents remain on station until removed by owner or killed/looted in battle -- or perhaps until relevant standings drop too low especially in the case of faction agents.


Hmmm...small alliances might be eligible for NPC Empire military attache agent who can sometimes summon small NPC patrol (incursion level AI) or solo ace pilots (burners) to aid station defenses (attack group recently attacking station or assistance fleet). Obviously high faction standings would be required & some sort of trade deal where Empire faction gains more net ISK than ship losses. Alliance level diplomacy with NPC factions. Just an example of variety that installable structure agents could possibly address but not a requirement for idea to be implemented at any level.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#268 - 2015-03-22 15:18:09 UTC
One thing I'm concerned with is the size progression. In many cases one size may be too small, and the next too large. It would be nice if we could get something in between. How to do this? Allow structures to connect to each other. That is, if I deploy one structure right beside another, the two automatically plug into each other.

In terms of capabilities, they would not be sharing slots, or grid, or CPU. They would share inventory. The sharing of inventory also allows for painless upgrading. For example:

My corp deploys a large structure. The corp continues to grow, and we decide it's time to move to an extra large. Currently what you would need to do is deploy the extra large at some other position in the solar system, then have everyone fly back and forth moving stuff. Before you can decommission the large structure, you need to wait for that last guy who never seems to log in at the right time.

Now if the two structures plugged into each other: There is no need to move anything. The hangar space is the sum total of the hangar space of the two structures. I add one, everyone's stuff occupies the new hangars. I decommission the other, the stuff is still in the hangar, which is now a bit smaller.

Even if a unified hangar space could not be done, and the two structures remain separate in every way except graphically and by proximity: Moving stuff would just consist of dragging it from one inventory window to another, from the hangar of the old structure into the hangar of the new. The old, smaller structure could be left in place until that last guy finally logs in and moves his stuff. (Although something needs to be done about the guy who has quit eve). It could also be left there indefinitely, becoming extra room, or a place for new members, or just as an old, dust area where the Fedos go to mate.

Anyway, that's the idea: Allow structure to plug together to allow a smooth progression up the size scale as needs grow, and to remove the pain of moving day.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#269 - 2015-03-22 15:26:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
Lady Omanor wrote:
I have some questions to the new structures

...


2) It looks like you are taking away a lot of the things High-sec Corporations could do with a POS in High-sec,
because most of the new structures has Entosis in Attack method and can there for only be use in space where
you can hold sovereignty.

They are left with an Assembly Platform that can easily be shot into pieces, plus it can not be anchored, so does
this mean, that no War-dec is needed, and Concord won't react, when it is attacked,
The two others has Entosis in Attack method, so no use in High-sec.
...

And for the rest of the new structures that has damage in method can't be anchored either, so does this as stated
earlier mean that no War-dec, no Concord intervention, when they are attacked ?


3) Does the changes to structures mean, that everyone has to be in null sec to be able to use structures in their
Corporation ?
Because how it looks now, it is not safe for a High-sec Corporation to put up a structure.



I don't see CCP saying anchoring goes away. Instead they were saying that you only need to anchor one of the new structures to have something useful and defended. Versus anchoring many things: a tower, lots of guns, resist arrays, storage arrays, etc

Entosis attack does NOT require sovereignty. It changes or defends sovereignty over TCU or Outpost Station or Infrastructure Hub, each independently. I did not see anything about sovereignty or Entosis for any smaller structures. So this may well mean that anyone will soon be able to anchor other structures in any system similar to WH space. Of course defending those structures in the middle of Goonswarm or PL space could be a short lived "challenge".

As I understand it, the old idea of sovereignty goes away completely. So no TCU stuff is required to anchor Outpost station or Infrastructure hub in null. The Territorial Claim Unit effect is merely icons on a map for purposes of EPeen challenge. Who knows NPC flagged sovereignty might well be up for grabs sometime after new system is debugged and proven.

In the meantime this means you can anchor all structures anywhere sovereignty-wise as far as I can tell. But the system security stuff may still restrict us for a while. While that is mostly side effect of Empire space -- note that proposed player station gear included stuff to raise system security.

Plus even now CONCORD does not come for all ANCHORed structures. Deployable structures just cause SUSPECT response. Will CCP increase the size that only causes SUSPECT instead of CRIMINAL (and CONCORD response)? Hard to predict. But I do not see a reason or hint that such a move is in the very near future. In fact it looks like CCP wants people to favor player structures over NPC stations even in high sec due to slightly better refine % etc.
Lady Omanor
The Mining and Manufacturing Corporation
The Imperial Union
#270 - 2015-03-22 15:38:42 UTC
[/quote]

As I understand it, the old idea of sovereignty goes away completely. So no TCU stuff is required to anchor Outpost station or Infrastructure hub in null. The Territorial Claim Unit effect is merely icons on a map for purposes of EPeen challenge. Who knows NPC flagged sovereignty might well be up for grabs sometime after new system is debugged and proven.

In the meantime this means you can anchor all structures anywhere sovereignty-wise as far as I can tell. But the system security stuff may still restrict us for a while. While that is mostly side effect of Empire space -- note that proposed player station gear included stuff to raise system security.
[/quote]

Okay, was hard to interperter from the dev blog CCP send out on sovereignty changes.

But would be great, if they all can be put up every where.
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#271 - 2015-03-22 16:00:39 UTC
Lady Omanor wrote:


As I understand it, the old idea of sovereignty goes away completely. So no TCU stuff is required to anchor Outpost station or Infrastructure hub in null. The Territorial Claim Unit effect is merely icons on a map for purposes of EPeen challenge. Who knows NPC flagged sovereignty might well be up for grabs sometime after new system is debugged and proven.

In the meantime this means you can anchor all structures anywhere sovereignty-wise as far as I can tell. But the system security stuff may still restrict us for a while. While that is mostly side effect of Empire space -- note that proposed player station gear included stuff to raise system security.
[/quote]

Okay, was hard to interperter from the dev blog CCP send out on sovereignty changes.

But would be great, if they all can be put up every where.
[/quote]

Yeah the anchoring thing in this blog is more about reducing the total number of things that need to be anchored. As I read it you still anchor all these new structures. Even in Hi Sec.
Noriko Mai
#272 - 2015-03-22 16:20:53 UTC
A'Tolkar wrote:
Capital Assembly Array in Algogille (0.8)???

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structuremgmt2-02.png

And the Medium Assembly Platform has ZERO service slots??? Typo there? Because otherwise you can't fit assembly arrays in the structure, which means no assembly at all. I think from the images, all other medium structures have TWO service slots. You may want to look into that.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structure_ISIS5-01.png

What is a mockup?

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
A'Tolkar
Carlson's Raiders
#273 - 2015-03-22 16:43:22 UTC  |  Edited by: A'Tolkar
Noriko Mai wrote:
A'Tolkar wrote:
Capital Assembly Array in Algogille (0.8)???

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structuremgmt2-02.png

And the Medium Assembly Platform has ZERO service slots??? Typo there? Because otherwise you can't fit assembly arrays in the structure, which means no assembly at all. I think from the images, all other medium structures have TWO service slots. You may want to look into that.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structure_ISIS5-01.png

What is a mockup?


Thank you for your sarcasm which adds nothing to the discussion. As for Capital Assembly Array, I am just wondering if there is another announcement coming down the pipe regarding capital ships in high-sec. And for the medium assembly array, is there a problem with me pointing out a possible mistake in a mockup? The whole point of the mockup is to convey how the new structure will work. What is wrong with asking for clarification when one data point contradicts with another one? If CCP wants to give us an idea on how things will work with mockups and someone notices something contradictory, I figure CCP would want to know in order to change it so they can present correct info. I don't know why you are so butt hurt by the question that you need to get sarcastic and imply that you are so much smarter.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#274 - 2015-03-22 16:53:10 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
Pay careful attention to avoiding creating a permanent oligarchy, and some attention to making the oligarchy that has already formed more vulnerable to being overturned. If you get this wrong, it'll make it too easy for the "old money" in the game to continue dominating 0.0.

How will these structures be attacked? Will they all be subject to the new "entosis" mechanic, or will some of them require hit-point grinding (as with current POS)? The entosis mechanic (or something like it) will be preferable, increasing the opportunities for small entities to engage in creative destruction in the space of sovereigns who become complacent.

The intelligence networks replacing locator agents is good, but should only extend as far as the sovereign entity's borders. They should be able to tell the entity if a certain player is logged out or active within their borders, but should not extend game wide. Having them interfere with cloaking mechanics is a bad idea unless combined with eliminating local, and only if a significant lag (measured in minutes) is required to locate a cloaked ship. Watch lists should also be made permission based. Intelligence about things like supers logging on should have to be actively gathered, not given for free by the game mechanics.

Anything that allows a sov holder to rely on passive defenses, whether that's hit-points and timers, or scanners of some sort, is a bad thing. It makes it too easy for "old money" entities to control the entire map. Safety in sov space should be directly proportional to the active defense of the space.

Edit:

As with the above, invulnerable stuff in 0.0 is a bad thing. It makes it too easy for wealth to beget wealth with too little risk. If a structure is destroyed, the items and materials within is should be subject to looting somehow. Increasing the relative reward of living in 0.0 and having it be riskier is preferable to making it possible to accumulate vast amounts of invulnerable wealth.
Noriko Mai
#275 - 2015-03-22 16:55:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Noriko Mai
A'Tolkar wrote:
Noriko Mai wrote:
A'Tolkar wrote:
Capital Assembly Array in Algogille (0.8)???

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structuremgmt2-02.png

And the Medium Assembly Platform has ZERO service slots??? Typo there? Because otherwise you can't fit assembly arrays in the structure, which means no assembly at all. I think from the images, all other medium structures have TWO service slots. You may want to look into that.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structure_ISIS5-01.png

What is a mockup?


Thank you for your sarcasm which adds nothing to the discussion. As for Capital Assembly Array, I am just wondering if there is another announcement coming down the pipe regarding capital ships in high-sec. And for the medium assembly array, is there a problem with me pointing out a possible mistake in a mockup? The whole point of the mockup is to convey how the new structure will work. What is wrong with asking for clarification when one data point contradicts with another one? If CCP wants to give us an idea on how things will work with mockups and someone notices something contradictory, I figure CCP would want to know in order to change it so they can present correct info. I don't know why you are so butt hurt by the question that you need to get sarcastic and imply that you are so much smarter.

Puh, so may words to say so little... Let's say it this way: "This mockup shows how it may look"

Calm down a bit... relax, take deep breath.. maybe go for a walk. No need to be that aggressive on a sunday afternoon.

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
Grimmash
New Jovian Exploration Department
New Jovian Collective
#276 - 2015-03-22 17:08:06 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Richecko wrote:
Grimmash wrote:
You can't wardec an NPC corp, so how would you get at the bigger structures in any reasonable way?


I do not think this challenge is beyond the creativity of the CCP Game Designers and the community to propose, iterate, invent and implement a mechanism so that it is an equal amount of work for an aggressor to place a structure at risk of displacement independent of the corp the player chooses to exist in. The aggressor should, of course, also have a non-trival penalty for failure and inconveniencing the defender.

Maybe it's as simple as wardec'ing the structure - not the corp or individual that owns it or an extension of the duel mechanic or some variation on ganking (because NPC players might want to ransack a structure independent of who owns it too).

If CCP wants everything to be able to be blown up, they will find a way.

So if you wardec the structure then it would only be logical that the structure and the owner are the only two who can shoot the war targets. Or are you proposing that NPC corps schould be subjected to wardecs, you know, to become more equal and stuff.


I think this falls under "not enough info" from one of my previous posts. If there becomes a way to dec individuals or individual structures, then that solves the risk v reward problem nicely. But that is not what we ahve now. My point was if the current wardec mechanics stand, then we either don't know enough about the new structures to meaningfully get into the nitty gritty, or we need additional info on upcoming corp mechanics changes, and we need more info on how entosis will shake out.

I would love to see individuals be able to anchor and use stuff anywhere, in a way that does not encourage people to go solo. Like I said, I like all these changes, at a big picture level, but I need a lot more detail on a lot of mechanics to really decide if they are good or bad, better or worse, etc... I'm pointing out weird scenarios I can see when trying to theorycraft how the proposed changes will mesh with current mechanics.

I do hate current wardec mechanics, but that is a whole separate issue :). Not for how they affect me, but for how they work in HS. The whole risk v reward for wardecs is a really weird topic, and I don't think it has been meaningfully addressed in anyway. But where I live, I care a lot more about how the entosis v structure grind aspect plays out.
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
#277 - 2015-03-22 17:41:57 UTC
Redbull Spai wrote:
Patri Andari wrote:
STANDINGS



First of all, I am more than a bit happy with what I have read so far. That being said, I still think CCP got it wrong when it eroded standings with empire factons as a requirement to anchor semi-permanent structures in empire space.

I get that you wanted to reduce the barriers for change, but I hope you seize this opportunity to revisit that. Here is what I propose:

Standings (corporate) are not a barrier to anchor in empire. However, standings with the empire where semi permanent strutures (L & XL) are calculated based on current (today) methods.

(yadda)

You kinda killed standings as a consideration for choice last time you had a chance. Please be more kind this time


Standings should be a mechanic purely for mission runners. Mission running should not be a barrier to placing structures. Empire alliance standings have one purpose and one purpose only - to annoy FC's when he tries to fly his fleet through Amaar space and an 8 year old veteran complains he cant because in his first month as a newbie he accepted too many Minmatar level fours before realising you should NEVER accept missions against empire factions if you intend joining a PVP alliance in the future........


Wonder if you read the part about adding agents to null sec? I doubt your problems in this area will improve once all the raters opt to run missions instead because guess what will happen then....STANDINGS!

Also, I understand that changes have different effects depending on your playstyle. I do hope the Devs are not bending their ear only to one group of players.

Any way, good stuff coming.

Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown
TurAmarth ElRandir
Hiigaran Bounty Hunters Inc.
#278 - 2015-03-22 17:45:13 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:

I disagree... the Entosis module is all about Sov and only about Sov. No Sov in WSpace... no Entosis mechanic needed in WSpace. We don't want it, we don't need it, period.

And taking away our widow is just mean and short sighted... =\

You still keep your window, just take over piloting the station quickly, or ask the guy who is.
It's not 'quite' as good, I agree, and we can hope that the code for piloting the station allows anyone 'docked' to observe their grid in all areas of space as an ideal solution. But weighed up against all the other benefits that are planned I'll take that slight downside, and yes I have done some POS living even if not as much as you probably have.

I agree the Entosis is about Sov also, just.... CCP are trying to develop consistent and clear mechanics. And it's not that if behaviour changes on security status or area of space. So.... it's a question of which need over-rides, or how to adjust entosis while keeping it clear in other area's of space.

I'm mainly high sec living now due to limited play time and I'm also totally not keen on someone being able to use an entosis link on a 20 man corp anywhere in a four hour time period and wreck stuff as a result. Since no way a small high sec, low sec or WH corp is going to be able to cover time periods like Null alliances will be able to. So I want a method that allows me to clearly defend in a realistic fashion also.


No, if you don't keep the window then getting into a ship, or asking someone to move over so you can look out the one small window or undocking just to see what's going on outside is simply stupid. That humans have forgotten how to make windows 23,000 yeas in the future is simply personally unacceptable to me. The POS FF give us (1) an amazing 'window' AND (2) Forcefields are a std of almost ALL SF, and just FYI, I have been ingame over 4 years, I have lived in POSes for at least 3.5 years of that time.

I have no issue whatsoever with what CCP is attempting with POS & Structure changes, it needs doing, badly. But while I appreciate consistency, please keep in mind IRL we have different equipment for different environments... you don't setup and ingloo in the Bahamas and you wouldn't try to live in a grass hut in Antarctica. Even forts built in polar climates are basically different from forts built in equatorial climes... and so it should be in EVE also. WSpace is not Empire space and, having lived in botth I can tell you from experience, it is NOT Nullsec no matter what the number at the top left says... it is inherently DIFFERENT and those differences must be taken into account or you end up forcing unbalanced and unpleasant gameplay on players.

You have given me my second strongest argument for keeping the FF and not havinf the Entosis Link work on POSes in WSpace... "...no way a small high sec, low sec or WH corp is going to be able to cover time periods like Null alliances will be able to."

We are NOT Sov holders... we do NOT need Sov mechanics in WSpace... just make a variant of the Std POS and the XL POS that are balanced towards the gameplay that is inherent in Anoikis.

Not that I expect this, when CCP decided to change Scanning they really screwed us in Anoikis... I am pretty sure this will be the same.

TurAmarth ElRandir Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro and Unrepentant Blogger Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)= http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/
grumpychops
The Farting Unicorns
#279 - 2015-03-22 17:47:05 UTC  |  Edited by: grumpychops
BPO/Structure replacement

First, I would like to say that these changes seem very interesting and could be a great thing for the game. Although, these are very broad ideas, I am a fan.

My main points of concern are the BPOs and Structures that currently exist in game. As developers, I’m sure you have noticed that it is very difficult to make everybody happy with regards to reimbursing defunct items. Industrialists put a lot of their valuable game time and ISK into researching these items. Simply reimbursing NPC price is a slight to the value of player effort. I would not suggest some formula to increase the ISK reward based on ME/TE levels. What I suggest is to simply give us the equivalent of what we have.

This is what I propose:

- Develop a matrix that establishes the equivalency of legacy items to new items. (Example: Large Amarr POS = Large assembly platform, Minmatar Outpost BPO = XL assembly array structure BPO, CSAA BPO = Cap ship construction rig BPO)
- On the introduction of new structures and the beginning of Grace Period 1, convert all items and BPOs that are located in a station into the new equivalent.
- Have all conversions retain the same ME/TE level of the previous item.
- At the end of Grace period 2A, run the conversion one last time. (This will give a chance for items located in space during Grace Period 1 to be swapped out and returned to station so production cycles are not disrupted.

This format should (I think) make players who have invested a significant time into researching large structures to 10/20 happy, and increase consensus on the changes. It will also allow CCP to demonstrate that they value the effort that players put into these items.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#280 - 2015-03-22 17:55:30 UTC
The big problem you have when you start to look at "personal" structures, is the motivation of people to defend it vs the ease of destroying it.

In the current system a POS can be a personal structure, if it's in a cop that's controlled by one player. This is extremely common for things like reactions. Of course a POS takes a fair amount of EHP to grind through and reaction POS's are typically going to be the last target during a invasion. This means that individual should have time to get their stuff out before it even gets reinforced. The bigger risk is player fatigue (real not jumpaids) and losing billions because they didn't fuel their towers and everything went offline.

If you are thinking about applying the entosis mechanic to all structure in the new system, you really need to think about how this applies to "personal" structures. For one thing a constellation wide event for some dudes reactors, caused by someone shining a laser on it for ten minutes, is kind of silly. Go the other route and making it just shining a lazor and no individual would risk it.

I think this is the tricky balance. If anything a personal structure needs to be more secure because the only person who losses if it gets destroyed is the individual. But as we've seen in EVE, groups are more than willing to cause an individual pain. On top of that how do you apply a timezone mechanic to an individual structure. You have to defend your structure during individual primetime? That's really silly.

Look at things like mobile depots too. You can't leave a mobile depot in an area with any sort of traffic without it getting rf'd. The hep is just way to low. Sure you can drop in a safe spot no problem and as it is right now people won't scan them down. But if it's known that mining platforms could contain billions in reaction materials, those will be scanned down even if they are in safe spots.

I'm curious how this "space city" idea will play in here.

Also there does not seem to be any sort of structure dedicated as a weapons platform. Without this whatever structure has the best slot layout will just become a de facto weapons platform.