These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#341 - 2015-03-23 12:26:03 UTC
Tzar Sinak wrote:
Please consider:

If the owner of containers that are injected into space (as a result of structure destruction) does not retrieve them WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME, these containers should become scannable and hackable. This will provide additional and logical game play. The destroyed structure will become a beacon of possible loots to be had for explores as we travel from system to system.


Yes this was how we imagined the can ejection should work, at least the scanning part. It also lets us play with the timing on how long the can is safe. The big XL structures might have quite a long time period before the journal entry expires vs a small structure which only gives you a few days to try to recover your assets (for example).

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Eduardo'o
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#342 - 2015-03-23 12:50:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Eduardo'o
Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation

PS: great stuff
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#343 - 2015-03-23 12:56:25 UTC
Another thought - although I love the idea of wrecks to get around the issue of loss of long-term storage, there is a potential (particularly if this is enabled too far down the size chain) of clutter. Particularly if this becomes enabled for POS-replacements, since POSes get shot up all the time, in short order (particularly on high-value moons) there could be a veritable wreck field around a moon of old, dead POSes. Now, to be fair, this might be kinda cool in its own way, but perhaps an option is needed for corps to be able to repair an old wreck in place of just laying down a new one. This should probably be only allowed for corps to repair their own wrecks (to avoid using this mechanic to lock-out people from their stuff by enclosing it in a new structure not of their corp), which would still mean some wreck fields will appear, but in areas where you have a couple of groups see-sawing control of an area, it will significantly reduce the clutter.
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#344 - 2015-03-23 12:57:42 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Nullarbor
Max Kolonko wrote:
One important question.

Today one of the reason we attack other towers is loot (in WH piniata POS can have anything from few bill to 100 bil)

But we are now told that new system will somehow separate people assets from Struckture Fitting and only drop fitting???

My question is: will we still have loot from structures smaller than station?


This is a really good question. We need to carefully balance the reward for attackers vs the risk for people to actually put all their stuff in a structure and use it. Right now things are very binary, outposts you never lose anything and POSes you lose everything. We want to add more granularity and opportunity for it to go either way.

So a few points worth noting:

1) Structures should be destroyed more often than they currently do (easy thing to say for Outposts obviously) which means more opportunities for looting.

2) Creating a time limited ability for the owners to evac their stuff from a safe spot near the structure creates another opportunity for the aggressor to catch them in the act and collect more loot. This also balances quite nicely between a deep nullsec system being taken over vs a high security system.

3) We want to explore ideas for dropping "in progress" loot such as build materials from industry jobs, and other such things. Taking suggestions on this.

If there is a good chance of all of the stuff being destroyed when the structure goes down we will see far less people take that risk and so far less opportunities for people looking for loot in the first place.

It's a great discussion to debate though, exactly how much risk vs reward is fair considering both sides.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#345 - 2015-03-23 13:00:34 UTC
Eduardo'o wrote:
Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation

PS: great stuff


Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#346 - 2015-03-23 13:06:27 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Eduardo'o wrote:
Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation

PS: great stuff


Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example.


It's not just inactive accounts. I've got a ton of stuff all over New Eden, in various null stations. There's little chance of being able to go and get it all and it's something I didn't consider when doing it because the mechanics allowed it. Some of your new ideas are great, some need plenty of thinking applied because while you can set things to year 0, you need to consider those who've lived under the old mechanics for years and either help them move their stuff or not completely invalidate years of accumulated items which they assumed will be safe and retrievable at some stage.


knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#347 - 2015-03-23 13:11:48 UTC
I'm slightly concerned about the mooring and removing of pos shields in relation to supercaps. What happens with unsubbed supers? When moored can the pod leave and return, once left what happens to the super? What happens if you're moored and you lose the outpost while logged off? How many mooring points are there? Will you remove pos shields once the mooring is in place? I understand the need to tone down supers but they still need to be fun rather than a chore to own.
Lurifax
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#348 - 2015-03-23 13:18:55 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Eduardo'o wrote:
Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation

PS: great stuff


Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example.


Have some loot drop and some send to the nearest NPC station?
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#349 - 2015-03-23 13:42:05 UTC
Lurifax wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Eduardo'o wrote:
Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation

PS: great stuff


Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example.


Have some loot drop and some send to the nearest NPC station?


Yes returning to NPC stations may be another option for dealing with Outposts specifically.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Elana Apgar
Allspark Industries
#350 - 2015-03-23 13:50:50 UTC
Silana Hurtini wrote:
Quote:
Text advertisement, billboard replacement, being used as gigantic monuments with no purpose (except to show how big your e-peen is by showing the statue of your glorious alliance leader). Could also involve frozen corpses somehow.


I am not a woman, but I think that this type of language is not welcoming to them. Not that anybody who plays the game probably cares, but you'd hope the devs would at least.


I am a woman, and I have no problem with this. Most of the girls that play this game are used to hanging around with guys and used to how they talk.

Please don't talk for us gamer girls.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#351 - 2015-03-23 13:53:32 UTC
June Blindbird wrote:
Starbase defence (with guns control) and flying ships inside the forcefield (because cannot dock) don't seem to have replacement since Mooring means no pilot inside and docking means ship spinning and no view of space.

What are the plans for these ?


Docking could also mean having the view centered on the structure you are at, and still allow you to view your immediate surroundings. We don't necessarily need to have NPC station hangar view for those.
Elana Apgar
Allspark Industries
#352 - 2015-03-23 13:53:51 UTC
Eduardo'o wrote:
Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation

PS: great stuff


You know, you can create contracts anywhere in New Eden. So you can be in a wormhole and create a contract to sell your junk in a station that you can no longer access. You can also see about getting a logistics firm, like Black Frog, to move your stuff for you.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#353 - 2015-03-23 13:55:25 UTC
Chribba wrote:
Very interesting, I foresee a major logistics effort to replace all structures though, if I understood it correctly we would have to replace them with the new things?

Also looking forward on more details about the mooring system, the radius things and of course if this might mean we will be seeing supercaps for sale on the market.

Imagining an outpost gets destroyed, and all the content and stuff gets ejected into space for the owner to scoop within the time, could a massive amount of canisters affect lag or similar with many thousands of new objects in space?

/c


We will find ways around this not to have the servers die and beg for mercy. Ejected containers could have extremely large capacity so one is enough for each owner, or that you at least don't have 100 container for each possible owner. Also remember, those will not appear until the owner warps to the planet bookmark (like Planetary Launches), so this will spread the spawning as well.
Elana Apgar
Allspark Industries
#354 - 2015-03-23 13:55:51 UTC
Jennifer Maxwell wrote:
Silana Hurtini wrote:
Quote:
Text advertisement, billboard replacement, being used as gigantic monuments with no purpose (except to show how big your e-peen is by showing the statue of your glorious alliance leader). Could also involve frozen corpses somehow.


I am not a woman, but I think that this type of language is not welcoming to them. Not that anybody who plays the game probably cares, but you'd hope the devs would at least.

As a woman, I really don't care in the slightest if people use "this type of language". As a matter of fact, I'd be kinda pissed if I knew the devs felt they had to censor themselves just because a few people, men or women, got their panties in a twist.

You've got a right to be offended about things. But that doesn't mean that anyone else has to care if you're offended, and it sure as hell don't give you the right do be offended on anyone else's behalf, and especially not mine.


Amen.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#355 - 2015-03-23 13:59:24 UTC
xttz wrote:
Have you decided how ownership will work on an ongoing basis?

For example, if we launch a new structure and set it for corporation/alliance use, can a spy with the appropriate roles then come along and set it for personal or public use? If set for public use who can change it back again; anyone?

How would unanchoring structures work? I'm especially thinking for structures where players and dock or moor ships.


Using a structure is not the same as managing or owning it.

Example:

I'm setting a Ship Assembly Array to be set to public, anyone can use it to build ships. However not everyone can tweak its ownership or status settings (like changing roles or permissions). Only the owners or the guys set with specific roles can do so.


Large structures with ship docked could require extra security, that's a good point you are making. Either have a long countdown period before unanchor (that everyone with enough roles can see in the corporation) or have a 2 man rule to unanchor the most valuable structures could help fixing this.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#356 - 2015-03-23 14:02:27 UTC
Centurax wrote:
Really excited about the proposed changes, really happy good work!!

Some questions:

Arrow How fuel will be used and which types used with which structure?

Arrow The size of ships needed to deploy the XL Stations?

edit: Arrow Will it be possible to transfer the new structures, in a similar way to POCO's?

I think this direction is a vast improvement and I am looking forward to its development.



  • Fuel blocks will most likely be the main resource for service modules to operate. No longer need Strontium for Reinforced period (or whatever capture system we end up with). Also no longer need fuel blocks just to keep the structure in space, if all goes according to plan. Bit early to say so far.

  • We want XL structures to feel like a proper commitment (they're taking over Outpost gameplay after all), so it'll most likely be a large ship and most likely not a small frigate.

  • Structure transfer was brought up during the Fanfest round table, we don't see any reason why not so far. Do you have any reason why we should not allow structure transfer? Twisted
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#357 - 2015-03-23 14:10:42 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
Three things I'm worried about:

1. What is my extensive pos blueprint collection going to be good for?

2. The datacore thing. I don't really see the point. Why do you think it needs change?

3. How am I supposed to deal with the fact that a french accent is going to trigger a sizeable nerdboner for the foreseeable future?

Don't **** this up please, the implications on many other game systems are massive



  1. As mentioned by CCP Nullarbor somewhere in this thread, we need to plan for proper reimbursement for existing Starbase structures, blueprints and various assets tied to the stuff we already have. Outpost and their upgrades / improvements is going to be tricky though due to them changing hands so often.

  2. Ideally we would really like players to take over most NPC services in game as possible. EVE is a sandbox, and the further we can push this concept the more emergent gameplay occurs, which makes us happy.

  3. Ah yes, ze french accent nerdboner issues. Well the best way to deal with this is to start wearing a beret, let your armpit hair grow and wear very tight pants. That way when other french people talk and notice the nerdboner, they can say: "Is that a baguette in your pants or are you just really happy to see me"? P



We'll do our best not to **** this up too much, which is why we're calling for your feedback early on guys Blink.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#358 - 2015-03-23 14:12:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Tzar Sinak wrote:
Please consider:

If the owner of containers that are injected into space (as a result of structure destruction) does not retrieve them WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME, these containers should become scannable and hackable. This will provide additional and logical game play. The destroyed structure will become a beacon of possible loots to be had for explores as we travel from system to system.


Yes this was how we imagined the can ejection should work, at least the scanning part. It also lets us play with the timing on how long the can is safe. The big XL structures might have quite a long time period before the journal entry expires vs a small structure which only gives you a few days to try to recover your assets (for example).


Veri naise.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • Ideally we would really like players to take over most NPC services in game as possible. EVE is a sandbox, and the further we can push this concept the more emergent gameplay occurs, which makes us happy.


    • Yes. Big smile

    // [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

    [Cruisers Online]
    Noriko Mai
    #359 - 2015-03-23 14:13:16 UTC
    I would like to see mooring being some kind of structure extension that can be build up to X times to extend slots. If a parking lot of a super market is full, we build a bigger/second parking lot, not a second super market.

    "Meh.." - Albert Einstein
    CCP Ytterbium
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #360 - 2015-03-23 14:15:00 UTC
    Nyctef wrote:
    I love almost everything about these ideas -- good work! I can't wait to play around with some of these structures.

    That said, I have a few reservations based on what's been presented so far:

    With some of the examples for assembly arrays or research laboratories, there aren't entries listed for the smaller sizes. Is this a deliberate decision at the moment? I think it would be a good idea to have small, affordable entry-level structures for people who are just starting out

    At least with the examples presented so far, it feels like most of the fitting options are to do with combat capabilities -- I think it would be cool to have more industrial upgrades for some of the other structures (things like more research slots or mining yield bonuses come to mind)

    The biggest problem for me is service slots. It feels really weird to change the role of a structure by adding something to it - like changing a frigate into a hauler by adding a module. It sounds like the intent is to have one-size-fits all structures, and to discourage stacking several structures in the same area. I'd love to go in the opposite direction - separating out structure roles into individual structures that players could arrange in their own way and fly around would add a lot in terms of customisability and immersion. Undocking from a mooring structure and heading over to the insurance structure would feel a lot more like being a space pilot rather than just pressing buttons in a station services menu. I also think making structures smaller and more focussed would make them more flexible and easier to iterate on individually in the future.

    tl;dr being able to put together a small town of individual structures would make me feel more like I'm building a home rather than just renting someone else's


    Those are good points, however we want to be careful with the structure spam. Having a design that requires you, the players, to have a **** ton of them spread in space essentially brings us back to Starbases. We do plan on having smaller, more affordable progression of structures if there is gameplay for it yes. So for instances, we could have an Assembly Array that is size M, with less fitting capabilities than L, but still giving you a glimpse of what's to come.