These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#401 - 2015-03-23 15:47:03 UTC
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.


This picture is absolutely just a mockup. We don't have that level of detail to share with you yet. Sorry if that was misleading.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#402 - 2015-03-23 15:48:20 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
EX Winet wrote:

2 - There is really only one major benefit to Sov holding, reduced fuel bills. Will the new structures have this applied or did CCP just sneak it out without anyone actually being aware.



  • We could have Sov holding provide reduced fuel bills for service modules yes. Depends what we want to do with Sov, I need to talk about that one with Fozzieboy.



service modules need to be flat out better for sov owners. and we are not talking about fuel cost, we are talking about reward for the additional risk of putting something in low/null/wh vs putting something in highsec.

reduced fuel cost is a drop in the ocean here. we need to talk about giving a much bigger advantage here.

10% ME for lowsec, 20-25% for nullsec before it's actually worth to build something in null/low for export.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#403 - 2015-03-23 15:51:11 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:

service modules need to be flat out better for sov owners. and we are not talking about fuel cost, we are talking about reward for the additional risk of putting something in low/null/wh vs putting something in highsec.

reduced fuel cost is a drop in the ocean here. we need to talk about giving a much bigger advantage here.

10% ME for lowsec, 20-25% for nullsec before it's actually worth to build something in null/low for export.

You are adorable.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Banko Mato
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#404 - 2015-03-23 15:56:15 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
... I'm more concerned that with only 8 high slots, structures will be severely lacking in fire-power. ...


Well, there are no infos as of yet on what kind of weapons structures will be able to fit into those "mere 8" high slots... Could be everything from little laz0rs for smaller structures up to capital guns, DD-like "deathstar rays" for XL-structures or even a somewhat reduced version of the DDs of old. It's imho a bit early to talk about lack of fire-power. Just imagine one of those 8 guns pulverizing a marauder (or bigger) or the likes every 15s and soon 8 guns are quite a bit of fire-power....
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#405 - 2015-03-23 15:57:46 UTC
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:
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.



The sov capture mechanics copied verbatim will have difficulty scaling downwards to small corps and solo players. We are waiting to see how all that discussion plays out before deciding what of that system makes sense for structures.

We are definitely aware of the fact that smaller groups have different defence requirements to large sov holding alliances.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Banko Mato
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#406 - 2015-03-23 15:58:46 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
10% ME for lowsec, 20-25% for nullsec before it's actually worth to build something in null/low for export.


Since ME bonuses seem to be pandora's box for CCP, I'd rather have all areas get the same ME treatment and simply allow null or low to spew out stuff much faster ;)
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#407 - 2015-03-23 15:59:37 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
EX Winet wrote:

2 - There is really only one major benefit to Sov holding, reduced fuel bills. Will the new structures have this applied or did CCP just sneak it out without anyone actually being aware.



  • We could have Sov holding provide reduced fuel bills for service modules yes. Depends what we want to do with Sov, I need to talk about that one with Fozzieboy.



service modules need to be flat out better for sov owners. and we are not talking about fuel cost, we are talking about reward for the additional risk of putting something in low/null/wh vs putting something in highsec.

reduced fuel cost is a drop in the ocean here. we need to talk about giving a much bigger advantage here.

10% ME for lowsec, 20-25% for nullsec before it's actually worth to build something in null/low for export.


We are proposing that rigs can receive bonuses that work better in nullsec / sov systems.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#408 - 2015-03-23 16:01:05 UTC
I may well have missed it, but there's something I have yet to see a clear answer for:

Currently one of the primary roles for starbases is as a strategic base. During invasions and longer-term skimishes they're often dropped as a staging location to support fleets in various ways. While most of the specific functions here do seem to be covered, the proposed structure roles list doesn't include an obvious analogue for a military base.

What are we expected to deploy for supporting members during a war in enemy territory? Offensive drilling platforms? Aggressive research labs? Hostile market hubs?

I can't be the only one who thinks that seems a bit silly.
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#409 - 2015-03-23 16:04:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
I do have a questions about structures, notifications, and SOV.

If I recall correctly, under the current Dominion SOV mechanics, structures such as POS towers, when anchored in SOV space, give a free, effortless, and perfect intel notification that Allaince XYZ is anchoring a POS in a system you own. This has really been a huge annoyance for groups that want to stage covertly out of opposing space as the opposing side knows instantly where you are. Another big issue with this system is that is it one of the big causes for groups to own lots of space as the more space you own the more security these free, effortless, and perfect intel notifications provide.

I hope you can understand that I would very much like to have these notifications go away. That way I can anchor and use structures to adversely affect my enemies without them getting a free, effortless, and perfect intel notification of what I am doing. So will these types of notifications be going away?
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#410 - 2015-03-23 16:04:33 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.


This picture is absolutely just a mockup. We don't have that level of detail to share with you yet. Sorry if that was misleading.


I beat you to that reply. Nice try though, kangarooboy P
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#411 - 2015-03-23 16:08:24 UTC
Jezra Tanaka wrote:
I personally like the current anchoring mechanic.
the way this is described makes me think that the new structures will be overly vulnerable because you are limited to 8 defenses. some places you need a deathstar with 12 Large pulse lasers and an array of supporting equipment just for defense, and only online the production modules you actually need at the moment.

in others you can leave just a little E-War up and be mostly fine as long as you check on it.

Point is that POS need to be more flexible then this model shows.

I do like the idea they fielded of having reppers on a structure.
I can see the use of having a triage pos, but I'd rather that exist under current mechanics similar to the use of guns/E-war.


1 weapon slot can mean 6 guns place at the end of each 3 dimensional axis. You should have 360 degree defences since you cannot move or spin around or arrange them at all.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
PsychoBitch
Playboy Enterprises
Dark Taboo
#412 - 2015-03-23 16:09:04 UTC
First, if this is half the abortion the industry update was - this will not be pleasant.

Second, I sincerely hope that they are going to have an automated conversion of the current POS's and not force the customers to shoulder the burden of these changes.
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#413 - 2015-03-23 16:09:42 UTC
xttz wrote:


What are we expected to deploy for supporting members during a war in enemy territory? Offensive drilling platforms? Aggressive research labs? Hostile market hubs?

I can't be the only one who thinks that seems a bit silly.


Propaganda towers ofc. ;-)
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#414 - 2015-03-23 16:09:55 UTC
xttz wrote:
Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.

By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even conquering effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good.


Quoting myself because I'd love to hear what the devs are thinking on this.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#415 - 2015-03-23 16:12:05 UTC
PsychoBitch wrote:
First, if this is half the abortion the industry update was - this will not be pleasant.

Second, I sincerely hope that they are going to have an automated conversion of the current POS's and not force the customers to shoulder the burden of these changes.

The industry update was one of the best things that CCP has ever put out. I hope the same thinking that went into the industry revamp gets applied to structures. Structures need that out-of-the-box thinking and willingness to take significant risk to be successful.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#416 - 2015-03-23 16:13:59 UTC
PsychoBitch wrote:
First, if this is half the abortion the industry update was - this will not be pleasant.

Second, I sincerely hope that they are going to have an automated conversion of the current POS's and not force the customers to shoulder the burden of these changes.

aside from the lack of thought that went into some of the team mechanics (sniping, mostly), the industry update was an unvarnished success
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#417 - 2015-03-23 16:14:53 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Mnemonyss wrote:
If the new structures are fittable, will they also have drone bays and allow for drones to be deployed when under attack?


We want them to be like ships, so if there is good gameplay behind it, there is no reason why they shouldn't use drones, or fighter / fighter-bombers at the largest sizes. We do not like gun automation though, so it's likely those will have to be manually controlled if they ever make it in, again, like ship drones.


There needs to be a degree of automation otherwise fitting weaponry because pointless in many situations, especially for personal structures. Are players expected to be around 23/7 to defend them?
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#418 - 2015-03-23 16:17:46 UTC
xttz wrote:
xttz wrote:
Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.

By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even conquering effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good.


Quoting myself because I'd love to hear what the devs are thinking on this.

Structure grinding is bad and scales horribly. If you don't realize this by now, you have not been paying attention. Blink

Unless you are a new bro. In that case; history has proven that structure grinding is not good game play. Do a bit of research and you will see all the bad stuff it causes. And of course, welcome to EVE new bro! Smile
Mac O'Neal
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#419 - 2015-03-23 16:19:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mac O'Neal
Ok, I liked a lot of ideas put out there but I am a bit worried about their implementation a bit.

First off I am a Wormholer, thats what I do and thats what I love. If these changes drastically change how I am able to defend my structures and use them to make ISK I am fairly concerned. I had already had my infastucture for T3 production turned on its head after years of skilling to make them, harvesting the needed gasses, running the reactions, stocking up on parts, doing the reverse engineering, building my complex spread sheets needed for materials management and and production cost estimation only to have it all changed in a patch making almost all of what I have in place rendered useless and loss cost efficient by nerfs to invention and materials requirements... but I'm still here.

I now rely on PI as well as reactions going at my towers for making ISK... I dont remember seeing anything in the post about reactions for POS structures... are you going to eliminate my other means of ISK making?

Also I'd like more clarification on what ships can be used with what structures. Our corp has invested billions in Towers and Caps in our WH with the intent of staying in and holding our little bit of J space, from having towers on every moon to deter evictions and having caps set for defense as well as use for escalations etc... What happens to us?

Logistics is a pain for us as it is and has taken us a significant amout of time to move in our assets and set up for ourselves, if the system is revamped with these grace periods will we have to move billions of isk out to sell it to a station to buy new items then start all over again from scratch? Does that mean we have to leave our caps out and vulnerable while we transition and risk what we already own to transport it and change it to the new system? If we have to buy new modules will they be at a fixed price for a bit so those with infrastructures dont have to wait for new items to be produced and wait till prices marginalize before we can buy them?

Dont get me wrong I would like to see POS's look more intimidating for sure... I remember when I first started I wanted to own a structure like a High sec station in space and have it be MINE... then I learned the game doesn't work quite like that. So changes to appearance are intriguing to me...

The idea of fitting a POS like as ship is interesting, BUT If all I can fit is XL weapons whats to keep a group of fast T3's with high DPS from flying under the guns and hammering it? What will you do to replace the redundant weapons idea on some POS's where you invest the time to anchor extra weapons to online when one is incapped whiled your controlling them to defend a POS?

Then the shield... oh the shield... I hope it stays... but I guess time will tell, I think I saw one on the size concept chart but if it goes... Not sure what we will do. Not to say I'm a shield hiding care bear BUT I do like to pick my fights based on who may be on in the corp and what skills we have to run a fleet etc...

I dont know, I am a little on edge of what this will mean for smaller corps such as ours with casual players. I don't want a game to be like a JOB I want it to be a game for fun. I like to put in time and enjoy myself, I dont want to have to have set times for people to be on, drop everything in my real life to run a defense etc.

One more side note: I know POS controls and managment of permissions is a pain, why not fix that versus completely revamp the structures etc?
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#420 - 2015-03-23 16:21:31 UTC
PsychoBitch wrote:
First, if this is half the abortion the industry update was - this will not be pleasant.

Second, I sincerely hope that they are going to have an automated conversion of the current POS's and not force the customers to shoulder the burden of these changes.



wat ?

there are four things wrong with indu as we have it today.

1. corp mechanics

2. structures

3. ties with sov

4. the ease of T2 invention, especially for modules.

1-3 are actively being worked on

4 is a relatively easy fix. just increase ranks for modules. and that's an easy fix

other than that, the indu changes were amazing