These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
The Tallman
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#461 - 2015-03-24 02:41:32 UTC
What are we doing with all the modules, hangers, labs, etc. That we have all spent significant amount of isk on putting into our current pos's?

Does that investment just disappear? Can we trade in or get compensated for the switch over to new structures?
Lelira Cirim
Doomheim
#462 - 2015-03-24 02:45:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lelira Cirim
Ned Thomas wrote:
EDIT: I am most curious how frozen corpses will be tied into advertising.

A salvage drone, a nail gun, and 100 of your closest friends. Twisted

Akii wrote:

Mooring looks like anyone with eyes on the structure can see all ships stored there.
Is this really what is going to be achieved?
From the dev blog
...
I feel like NPC stations are looking like the safer option for small corps...

I guess I'm not sure of how this changes any mechanic drastically from tower forcefields. If you're mooring your capital, you've left it parked, open to Dscan and eyes. If you want to hide it, you've logged off in your coffin. Same as now, isn't it? On SISI I was stuffing Titans in XLSMAs, so losing that "hiding" feature could be a bummer but it isn't a great use of a hangar mechanic.

Do not actively tank my patience.
The Tallman
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#463 - 2015-03-24 02:47:22 UTC
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:
John McCreedy wrote:
It's a common theme lately with them isn't it? Want to defend sov? Full time job. Want to defend your structures? Full time job. Want to defend your space? Full time job. Strangely enough, CCP, most of us already have full time jobs and those pay us real life money which we use to be your customers with. When we log on we want to play. We don't want to spend hours traveling or days sitting on our arses defending stuff, we want to mine or rat or blap stuff in the hour or two we have each evening.


So do that then. No one is forcing you to hold high level assets.


A POS isn't a high level asset.

Anyway, CCP will feel it in their wallets if they screw this up and end up making owning/living in a POS a pain in the ass.
Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#464 - 2015-03-24 03:09:47 UTC
davet517 wrote:
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.



I disagree small corportations/alliances will not be able to man a constant watch and provide a constant defence, this old money will not be affected either way. they will have the manpower either way. What you are asking for is just to make greifing easier for the greifers.

If this greifer route continues- systems will roll. Ihubs and infrastructure will blow up, do this a few times and people quite trying to invest their time into the game.

No one building, no one to provide content for pvp.
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#465 - 2015-03-24 03:51:23 UTC
The Tallman wrote:
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:
John McCreedy wrote:
It's a common theme lately with them isn't it? Want to defend sov? Full time job. Want to defend your structures? Full time job. Want to defend your space? Full time job. Strangely enough, CCP, most of us already have full time jobs and those pay us real life money which we use to be your customers with. When we log on we want to play. We don't want to spend hours traveling or days sitting on our arses defending stuff, we want to mine or rat or blap stuff in the hour or two we have each evening.


So do that then. No one is forcing you to hold high level assets.


A POS isn't a high level asset.

Anyway, CCP will feel it in their wallets if they screw this up and end up making owning/living in a POS a pain in the ass.

A POS already is a PITA to own/live in, yet people are still subbed. Although the ones operating POS are a certain breed of masochist but whatever.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
volo ratio
Spinstate Dynamics
#466 - 2015-03-24 04:30:59 UTC
Please consider a way to retain the amazing complexity that POS setup can provide. The idea of some simplistic "fitting" replacement with docking rather than the shield... very underwhelming. The ability to deploy sub-structures in a certain spatial configuration can lead aggressors into traps or allow smart attackers to exploit a weak setup. Similarly, being able to online systems in real-time provided some flexibility. These tactical considerations add depth to combat which should be retained and expanded on. The concept of a volumetric area of shielded space can be viewed in an analogous fashion.

I understand wanting to make EVE easier for the console kiddies, but this is going way too far. How about retaining the concept of spatial complexity and making it even more tactically important rather than just making certain that a trained gerbil can deploy a structure? From inception, meaningful complexity has been at the core of EVE. PLEASE stop dumbing down the game.


With respect - volo
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#467 - 2015-03-24 05:41:39 UTC
volo ratio wrote:
Please consider a way to retain the amazing complexity that POS setup can provide. The idea of some simplistic "fitting" replacement with docking rather than the shield... very underwhelming. The ability to deploy sub-structures in a certain spatial configuration can lead aggressors into traps or allow smart attackers to exploit a weak setup. Similarly, being able to online systems in real-time provided some flexibility. These tactical considerations add depth to combat which should be retained and expanded on. The concept of a volumetric area of shielded space can be viewed in an analogous fashion.

I understand wanting to make EVE easier for the console kiddies, but this is going way too far. How about retaining the concept of spatial complexity and making it even more tactically important rather than just making certain that a trained gerbil can deploy a structure? From inception, meaningful complexity has been at the core of EVE. PLEASE stop dumbing down the game.


With respect - volo



Please send the rest of us your bank account details, so that you can pay for the RSI which the current system induces when we attempt to set up POS'es.
Thank you for your time.

Otherwise, lets not be stupid about an amazing development to ease strain and fighting the interface that lets us get on with the important stuff quickly.
Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#468 - 2015-03-24 07:19:15 UTC
Random question. Most of these use anchoring + some new skills depending on specialization. What will happen to the Star Base Defense Management skill?
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#469 - 2015-03-24 07:22:17 UTC
There are a lot of specific things I want to address in their own threads, but there's one little thing you could do to make a lot of people happy: enable cargo scanners (for all contents regardless of personal hangars etc., including in progress job stuff since you have plans for that) and ship scanners (for the structure "fits") on all new structures.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#470 - 2015-03-24 08:04:19 UTC
Can someone explain me what is the idea behind datacores magically emerge in those new structures? Cores can be found in exploration sites (datas) as far i can see it will end in even less profit after this proposal. Constant changes to loot value in exploration, after another, half of sites will be just covering in dust. What the point of keeping useless content in game? You can't rid of NPC activity completely. NPC empires are not lead by players and i hope they'll never be.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#471 - 2015-03-24 08:26:00 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


  • Forcefield mechanic has issues that we want to remove in the new system, if possible. The (super)capital issues are indeed something that needs to be discussed, a thread was created for that purpose there.


    • Can we finally know what are those "issues with forcefield"?


    It's built on very old legacy code that's very hard to maintain. Forcefields also weren't written with any of the modern EVE features in mind, and this has lead to all kinds of exploits over the years which have been 'fixed' with various inelegant hacks.

    However the most important issue is that GMs have no accurate way to tell from the logs if a ship is within a forcefield or not. That makes them a nightmare for exploit / reimbursment matters.
    Scatim Helicon
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #472 - 2015-03-24 08:59:48 UTC
    I asked this in the Item Safety thread but it may be more appropriate here: what is the 'endgame' for existing outposts beyond the 'cannot build new' stage of the transition plan? Will they ultimately be converted into the new equivalent XL structures, or left in place in their current form, or deleted?

    Some outposts have been around for almost 10 years and a lot of past and present players have assets locked away which will, regardless of how long your transition period is set at, not be evacuated before you reach this point.

    Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
    Scatim Helicon
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #473 - 2015-03-24 09:12:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
    One thing I would be interested to see is a mechanic by which undefended structues can be captured intact by an invader, rather than having to blow everything up and start from zero when taking territory. Generally in real-world warfare you only engage in general destruction if your conquest is being fought over, and walking in unopposed to plant your flag doesn't usually involve destroying everything in sight in the process. Any thoughts?

    Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
    Oxide Ammar
    #474 - 2015-03-24 09:19:05 UTC
    Can someone confirm or deny if XL sizes (of each new structure) are only nullsec exclusive or can be deployed in hisec/lowsec also ?

    Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
    Ioci
    Bad Girl Posse
    #475 - 2015-03-24 09:39:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ioci
    I have a large investment in faction POS and POS modules and while it might not match a large alliance investment it's my investment.

    Investment is the reason most people stay in EVE and this isn't a grr, grr, rage quit response. It's a please stop putting nails in that coffin response.

    I like the looks of this in concept but I'd like you to consider investment when you start nuking our stuff. Flipping all my Meta 4 to meta 1 is one thing. This is much larger.

    And then there is this.
    Scatim Helicon wrote:
    I asked this in the Item Safety thread but it may be more appropriate here: what is the 'endgame' for existing outposts beyond the 'cannot build new' stage of the transition plan? Will they ultimately be converted into the new equivalent XL structures, or left in place in their current form, or deleted?

    Some outposts have been around for almost 10 years and a lot of past and present players have assets locked away which will, regardless of how long your transition period is set at, not be evacuated before you reach this point.


    If this is a less than overt way to delete outposts? You really need to think this through in terms of transitions because my small cry in the dark will seem comical in the history books of EVE.

    Additions: BPO stuff for POS and mods is easy, NPCs buy them back. For faction, if I have a Dark Blood Tower, I don't care about what ever PI you want me to gather to create a new one but I'd like a BPC for the new version. Most of that can be handled by supplying those of us who invested in the first place with basic rebuild material.

    Outpost conversion without wiping out a lot of people? I got nothing. That's on a whole other level.

    R.I.P. Vile Rat
    Isengrimus
    V0LTA
    WE FORM V0LTA
    #476 - 2015-03-24 09:42:02 UTC
    Scatim Helicon wrote:
    One thing I would be interested to see is a mechanic by which undefended structues can be captured intact by an invader, rather than having to blow everything up and start from zero when taking territory. Generally in real-world warfare you only engage in general destruction if your conquest is being fought over, and walking in unopposed to plant your flag doesn't usually involve destroying everything in sight in the process. Any thoughts?


    That's a valid point when you have in mind the Entosis link mechanics. Some people claim it is addressed in the Devblog, but I fail to see it - how will these two mechanics interact? Should we assume (or even better, can some DEV confirm it) that L and XL structures will be either conquerable or destructible only after the full Entosis capture event for tjhem is won? So the winner can decide whether they flip the XL structure (say, Administrative Outpost), or start to blow it up?

    If it is so, then your point about capturing intact structures should be easily addressed.

    Or is the Entosis Link only a temporary solution?

    My concern is that if not coordinated with the new Fozziesov ssytem, the destrcutible structures will, at the end of the day, lead us to the point where we are now - i.e. who brings a bigger blob, wins.
    xttz
    GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
    Goonswarm Federation
    #477 - 2015-03-24 10:20:55 UTC  |  Edited by: xttz
    Isengrimus wrote:
    Scatim Helicon wrote:
    One thing I would be interested to see is a mechanic by which undefended structues can be captured intact by an invader, rather than having to blow everything up and start from zero when taking territory. Generally in real-world warfare you only engage in general destruction if your conquest is being fought over, and walking in unopposed to plant your flag doesn't usually involve destroying everything in sight in the process. Any thoughts?


    That's a valid point when you have in mind the Entosis link mechanics. Some people claim it is addressed in the Devblog, but I fail to see it - how will these two mechanics interact? Should we assume (or even better, can some DEV confirm it) that L and XL structures will be either conquerable or destructible only after the full Entosis capture event for tjhem is won? So the winner can decide whether they flip the XL structure (say, Administrative Outpost), or start to blow it up?

    If it is so, then your point about capturing intact structures should be easily addressed.

    Or is the Entosis Link only a temporary solution?

    My concern is that if not coordinated with the new Fozziesov ssytem, the destrcutible structures will, at the end of the day, lead us to the point where we are now - i.e. who brings a bigger blob, wins.


    With so much in flux right now, this is an opportunity for a fundamental rethink. What if there were multiple options to handle structures, each with different benefits. Consider this:


    • An Entosis Link is still used as currently proposed to contest and deactivate a structure. Once deactivated, a new owner is free to establish their own claim to a system by deploying a new structure. The old structure could potentially be reactivated via Entosis, but in the case of sov structures it would only be if the new owner's claim has been disrupted first.

    • These disabled structures could be salvaged, with some form of advantage for the former owner (perhaps it takes 50% longer for an enemy to salvage the structure). This allows an opportunity to recover investment in upgrades. If not salvaged within a certain time (perhaps a month), they would eventually degrade and collapse.

    • Alternatively, a structure can be destroyed by applying sufficient damage to it once deactivated. This is a more permanent solution that involves more risk for an attacker, but can be useful in denying an opponent a chance to recover.

    • Finally there's the capture option. Rather than deploying a new structure an attacker could elect to conquer a disabled structure, although obviously this would involve the most risk as they'd be trying to acquire an established location. This could potentially be a new role to help reinvent a ship class. What if Supercarriers became Motherships again, only now they are troop carriers specialised for boarding operations and conquering structures? The size and level of upgrade investment in a structure would dictate how long was needed to take it over.


    This leaves all sorts of different avenues for content. Invaders can operate a 'scorched earth' policy, simply purging an area of any activity before moving on. They could set traps, shutting down structures and waiting for the owners to return and restore or salvage them. Then of course we have the traditional approach of invading space to conquer it, which makes heavily upgraded territory a prime target.
    Phoenix Jones
    Small-Arms Fire
    #478 - 2015-03-24 10:37:11 UTC
    Keskora Yaari wrote:
    My corp currently lives in a wormhole with 29 active POSs. My chief concern is that we can continue to live and operate in our wormhole without having to fear for our assets every time we go outside. If forcefields are going away, I would like these structures to still have solid enough defenses to prevent anyone from just waltzing in and taking it out. I think being able to anchor multiple structures on the same grid would be very good for this. If a giant marketing structure doesn't have the slots available to adequately defend itself, allow other structures to be nearby and react to aggression. Maybe not a ton of them on one grid... but enough to be a substantial enough force that defenders and residents feel safe and a big enough challenge that attackers with sizable enough fleets can take on the challenge to destroy them.

    Also i think from an aesthetic point of view being able to have a giant floating space colony sounds AMAZING.

    Another thing... please please please don't let the observatories block out the d-scan in a wormhole system. That will ruin wormhole pvp and force all pilots to use combats to so much as see if a wormhole is inhabited. It kills all the surprise and danger that makes wormhole space so amazing.

    The other concern I have is what happens to assets when a structure is destroyed. A big staple in wormhole PVP is structure bashing and having no loot drop from dead structures eliminates the motivation to attack them in the first place. Every wormholer knows that there is always a possibility of getting your POS taken out and loosing your assets. It's part of the risk of getting into wormhole space and I don't think that should go away completely.

    I am still so excited for these changes though. Having to manage all of our POSs with as many members as we have has gotten more and more ridiculous with the limited roles they have available right now. Guess it won't be much of a POS Party without POSs anymore though :/


    Kes, you have 29 pos's, somewhere in the realm of 400 members. Just how much defense do you need :-P

    I get the concern, but it shouldn't be able to build the Wall Of China in your wormhole.

    Yaay!!!!
    Phoenix Jones
    Small-Arms Fire
    #479 - 2015-03-24 10:49:18 UTC
    Valterra Craven wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Samsara Toldya wrote:

    No racial towers - no racial fuel?



    • Racial fuel will most likely be spread among the various structures, or merged into one, not sure yet. Up to discussion, like everything else.


    I think a fuel block should require some of each type. That way space that doesn't contain a certain type of ice still needs to import something in the new mechanic.


    Fuel blocks.... Might have to redo blocks. Instead of 4 types, just one block that takes all 4 isotopes to build. Also make them smaller and more condensed. Something as simple as 4 blocks to fuel a starbase an hour (yes it would take the current amount of pi, isotopes, etc it does now to make.

    If you make a service block specific, you begin pandering to certain sectors of space (specifically gallente and caldari fuel).

    Fuel cannot be confusing. It also cannot be segmented for a general pos. either combine it into one type, or figure out a way to get blocks working on a non racial platform but still require racial ice.

    Maybe change the jump formula for ships from using isotopes to using fuel blocks. You would have to make fuel blocks physically smaller though for ships to carry. A combined fuel block from all 4 races (starbase fuel), can cover the base itself.

    I'm spitballing a few concepts of fuel because else, if you make market hubs all require caldari ice, you've just made it the most valuable ice for wspace in total

    Yaay!!!!
    Marox Calendale
    Xynodyne
    The Initiative.
    #480 - 2015-03-24 11:12:14 UTC
    There is something I´m pretty sure I noticed at the Eve Fanfest Keynote but can´t it on the Dev Blog. Poses and Outposts are currently restricted to be only deployed at moons (Pos) and planets (Outposts).

    Is it true that these restriction are gonna be deleted to deploy them all over the solar system?

    If yes, what other restrictions do you think about?

    Will it be possible to anchor Poses in shattered holes?

    Will Structure Weapons need to be fuled up?