EVE Information Portal

Overall this should make/keep things interesting, even though the crossover will probably be painful to many.

I've got a some questions, remarks and suggestions, mostly about POS class stuff:

1) How does this relate to highsec? I'm a high-sec industry player and really would like to keep my factory/lab there. Which structures will be useable in highsec?

2) Where would the new structures be anchorable? At moons like with a POS or at random locations in deep space? The latter would open up new possibilities for emergent play (shenanigans) and ease current location frustrations.

3) This is probably something best addressed in a corp overhaul, but I would really like it if I could grant structure access or even partial structure access (fuel bay forex) on a group/character basis. That way a structure owner could grant access only to members of ship building group 4 (if set up via corp roles) or directly to the pilots Lamplighter, Blue Bomber, Deicide, Purple Itch and Prionator, regardless of which corp/alliance they're a member of. Selective access would be one extra way to keep BPOs and materials somewhat more secure.

4) Will these structures be anchorable close to one another to provide fire support?

5) The new structures will apparently be constructable. Will the current POS structures be made recyclable to let people recoup their investments?

6) It might be interesting to have a structure that would hide (make almost impossible to scan down) everything, including itself, in a certain radius for a certain period but disallow certain items/module/structure activation (cyno, gate, maybe market, L&XL structures). The idea would be to allow the creation of a true outlaw 'hidden base' to annoy people with. Possibilities?

I really like the main proposal. The only thing that I would like to add is to have structures like Gates and Observatories influence Local. If I were to go through the monumental effort of constructing a Stargate, I'd want it to only relay who is in the system to the people holding Sov...

Then, Observatories (and Cov. Ops. possibly) could be used to hack into the Local feed to provide local to pilots in the same fleet or alliance. Actually, offensive observatories sounds like a logistical nightmare... So I think a better option would be to have system Stargates and Observatories hackable with the new Entosis Link. As long as POSs can't be anchored too closely to those two "sensitive" structures, I feel it could be a good mechanic.

AI Guns are one of these things that are very important to smaller groups. It's silly to expect players to man the guns 24/7 in case a hostile is on grid.

The AI doesn't have to be super effective, players might have to set up some basic tactics. A list of 10 responses to ships on grid that the AI will do or something. And if players don't bother setting up any tactics then the AI doesn't know how to respond.

Players should be more effective, player skill could add to the damage of the guns, and obviously is likely to be better targeting than a few simple AI tactics. That will provide enough incentive to actively control the weapons if the opportunity is there, without utterly wrecking small groups.



Be very careful with this. Null should NOT become 'End Game' space. It should be possible to be equivalent in high sec.

Since once structures are in space one can actually be at extreme risk in high sec because you don't have access to all the shiny null ores which you are handing to null on a plate now, or the officer loot, or the larger deadspace loot, etc etc. But are actually putting large structures at just as much risk with wardecs.

The War dec system is actually exceptionally powerful as soon as there are assets in space worth or requiring defending for a high sec corp. And it is very possible for a smaller high sec corp to be repeatedly grief decced by larger groups once assets are at risk.

So do not fall into the trap Null alliances like to put out about their 'high risk' when a small high sec corp can actually be faced with more real day to day risk than some Null alliances do, due to the player use of the sandbox. Yes Null has more mechanical risk, but player use dictates how much of that shines through.

I.E. High Sec should have the same refine rates as Null. Null has better ore to start with, even currently, and you are now planning to hand them near perfect ratio's of infinite ore simply because they couldn't handle mining asteroid belts like the rest of EVE does. This means Null already has a significant advantage on mineral production, and they don't need a further advantage in refining, which has allowed them to literally outprice highsec on buying ore. The only reason the critical nature of this hasn't really shown through is the massive stockpiles of minerals in highsec already.

So be brave, allow equality if High sec corps are prepared to make the same investment into structures, the difference in resource availability in Null sectors should be the draw, not bonuses that mean they automatically win at everything.

Ah, so you want a Themepark MMO where one 'zone' is end game, and everyone has to funnel out to that one particular area of space? Even if they are prepared to invest the SAME amount anywhere else.

I am not asking for NPC stations to match services. I am asking for a PLAYER BUILT structure in any area of space to be the same in the critical cost areas. When players have to spend the same amount of isk, they should be getting the same cost reward from it.
This was always the Null argument as to why outposts should be better "We invested Isk into it". Well guess what, now High Sec & Low Sec & WH should get the same option to invest Isk & defend it. And get the same results for their investment.

Since it's player built what's the problem, or is it just that people don't want to come out and be either your cattle or your prey so you keep wanting to force them to.

I have some comments on the "Back Into The Structure" article.
For structure combat, you say that you want it to be more exciting and not a static grind. I too would prefer that the fighting be exciting. However, historically, capturing fortifications/structures was a grind. That was the point of a fortress, to wear out your enemy, have his army die of disease and starvation. In addition, considering that pilots are online at different times and that many of us have lives outside of the game and can't instantly jump online and play for hours, it seems that structures should be safe from sudden onslaughts. Also, many pilots belong to small corporations that invest a great deal of time and effort creating star bases that are use for manufacturing and other processes beneficial to the game and players. To allow a large corporation to jump into high sec and knock out stations seems to be counter productive. The large alliances already have lots of advantages.

Creating a easy new way to build star bases seems like a good idea and I really like using the setup base on ship fitting. I do wonder how all the time players spent learning skills that are now unnecessary is going to be compensated. Making it easier for new players is a sound business move and good for the game I think. However, on the other hand, why should a new player get to do with minimal effort, what others spent significant time and isk learning how to do?

Getting rid of complex operations that don't add to game play is great. I hated positioning missile arrays and other stuff like that. I prefer keeping things simple. When it comes to your idea of making people fuel each array as it is used, I think you are moving in the opposite direction. Filling up the tower fuel depot once a month is simple and straight forward. How do you keep track of multiple pilots using the same arrays to build items with different requirements and time periods. Whose fuel gets used up first? What do I gain as a player for keeping track of fuel usage per my ship assembly and also research assembly and my ammunition assembly and my module assembly etc?

I understand the concept of following the ship fitting process, but why would rigs be destroyed if you want to change them? It's a building. You move things around, all more space, expand upward, downward, or sideways. No need to destroy parts of your structure. We are in space, not a narrow plot in downtown Manhattan. Again, what advantage or fun for me to have to destroy something I built so that I can grow my skills and capabilities?

You want to put Outposts in hi-sec, but reduce their capability. Why? Just give the star bases more things they can do.

You talk about specialization for service and manufacturing modules and rigs. I don't see the point. We already have over 10 different manufacturing arrays not counting research and development. The only point I can see is to force pilots to buy more stuff. It certainly makes it more complicated with no benefit to players. Then add in separately fueling every array when you use it. Again, going in the wrong direction. Certainly, I can see differentiating between tech I and tech II ships, that makes sense. But for most stuff, just have a basic manufacturing array. If you want, let pilots add different capabilities to the array. Then you can make anything that you installed the proper manufacturing cell for. You want imposing structures in space, wow a mile long manufacturing center. what a vista.

I don't understand your plans for changing research and development. Why would I have a facility that does research in my star base, only to have the research pop up in a can somewhere in the middle of nowhere? How does that make sense? What is realistic about that? Do the guys at the skunk works develop new planes only to have it show up in a can in the Artic? Don't think so. If I want to sell my datacores, I can take them to market. Or if you let us develop markets at our bases, I will sell it where I make it. Now that makes sense.

Taxes from NPCs on my star base seems unfair. I already pay a hourly license to build and use the star base. Why do we pay taxes to manufacture stuff in our own star base? I certainly can't see carrying that over to the new system.

I am not in favor of any kind of pollution gas clouds etc. It's a game, we don't need climate change or Al Gore. Certainly, you can't name a reason why any player would have fun dealing with that kind of stuff. I learned skills and paid isk for be able to build stuff in space, I don't need or want to worry about pollution. If I do, I can join a real political party and do that instead of gaming.

I like the idea about intelligence gathering and having some kind of observation systems to protect your bases. However, a couple of cautions. If you are looking for small fleets or individuals to be able to attack, raid, and hamper large corporations/alliances, this could stop them cold. Single ships and small groups can sneak around, too small a signal or aberration to detect. Large fleets get spotted right away and groups in the middle some percentage. I also like the idea if you are active in a system with bases and mining ops etc. that your system is stronger and more secure.

How are you going to compensate all of us that already have invested large amounts into our bases? Our current bases should be replaced with the current new functions equal to what we have, or we should be compensated. It sounds like you will have all new blueprints. Maybe we can research our current prints to get them up to the state of art for the new stuff. In any case, we should not just lose our investments and the new people who could not or would not build the old stuff get the new for the same or less effort and cost. I love the idea of individuals owning their own station.

I know this is back there a bit, but reading it.. I agree it should be One, not only due to simplicity... But aren't we cutting our dependence on the factions more with this system... storyline wise? So why keep us dependent on their fuel designs?

I do have to agree to an extent with this. When reading the proposed changes to sovereign mechanics, there were a lot of aspects I liked and there were some that were bizarre, and I don't mean just because it is a different system.

I think I understand where the desire is coming from to have less or remove structure grinds, but as much as structure grinds are boring and mind numbing and the vast majority of people would probably be happy to find an alternative, I am not sure the alternative is to flip the coin entirely. The grind acts as a deterrent and as the previous poster said, this dictates somewht the risk of investment. Do you build a station? Well there are some significant deterrents to take it off you and a random gang of inties are not going to reinforce an outpost while you are not online. Basically, It takes an organised fleet to take space.

When I read the entosis mechanics, it seems as though that has flipped entirely on its head. I have grave reservations about small gangs of inties being able to come and reinforce outposts and in this new world, XL Structures, in less time than it takes to eat my dinner. TS conversations are talking about small gangs running around great swathes of space reinforcing every structure they can find - why? Well not necessarily to take the space, but just to be a **** to everyone living in the area.

When you add in the prime time vulnerability, this causes even more issues. What the hell is prime time for my alliance? I play with people from at least 13 different time zones that I have so far counted, and the time zones all vastly different. We have managed to break it down to roughly two stretches of time that would be "EU prime" and "US prime", but choosing one over the other means effectively removing every single player in the alliance in the wrong TZ to be discluded from that activity, making them feel like crap for not assisting, or being kicked because they can't, and then on top of that, causing those that do play in that time zone to be on defence of their space, against small roaming gangs who can reinforce structures by throwing a feather at it, every single day they come to play.

I mean am I missing the concept entirely? Is the posts about the changes worded so badly I have completely confused how this is supposed to work? The description of the mechanic above I just wrote - had I heard that as I suggestion I would have laughed at the person. I just don't understand how this kind of structure mechanic is supposed to make living in null more interesting . Although scratch that, if you are in the roaming gang it might be more interesting, but to the people living in null, well they can go %$#@ themselves yes?

I am one of those people who loves the industry side of things. I will admit I am not a huge PvP person. I know living in null is a good place to PvP but you simply can't live there without good logistic and industry support, and the changes in the last 12 months seem to keep making my job much more difficult with seemingly no increased benefits. The jump changes made moving needed materials from high much harder, which would be fine if the materials were obtainable in null - but the moon goo simply isnt available everywhere, and even when you control several systems you are always missing 70% of the types of goo. Mineral shortages such as Mexallon living in drone space, not to mention trit means more importing is necessary, but you have not given the tools to help alleviate those issues - rather just taken them away and once again said go ^%$# to building in null.

Now don't get me wrong, I like the idea of some of these structures immensely, but what I see as an indy support, is more isk being placed in structures, more building needed to make and provide them, more fuel, more mineral requirements and still shafted on being able to provide it all. I am also seeing a greatly increased risk for assets with once again no benefit.

Right now I am managing 7 POS towers for reactions and moon goo and shortly this is going to increase to about 25. I see no assistance in this regard, just more costs and more risks. It seems the structures are going to be even more vulnerable which means I should pull back into more tightly protected areas - except doing that means even further restricting resources making building even more difficult.

Basically and TLDR, I see a lot of proposed changes and ideas and so far, all it says to me is more headaches, more difficulty, less protection, less resources, more cost and in the end, little to no benefits to me whatsoever. I have to say, I like the ideas, I like people discussing the issues, but god damn fix the industry side of null before trying make great sweeping changes to how everything works or you won't have the good fights you want in null because no one with half a brain cell is going to want to actually go to the effort of building the ships you want to blow up.

Except not everyone has aspirations to build an empire. In fact, if you talk to the WH crowd, many of them do that content specifically BECAUSE they are tired of the politics and posturing that comes with holding null-sov. Stop trying to funnel everyone into YOUR preferred gameplay style.

end-game should take place wherever players want to spend an investment making content. Yes, for some that's owning sov, for other's its basing out of low-sec or manufacturing everything they can at the edge of high-sec. All should be allowed, and all should be rewarded and encouraged.

I have little problem with SOV having other benefits to running structures based on the investment into the space(reduced running costs for Sov fuel bonuses, for example), but if equal investment is given to the STRUCTURE itself, it should have equal output within reason.

I also think you are mistaken about where risk is. lowsec is actually the most risky space since there's more people around. null has huge swaths empty of players where there are less roving bands of people who are going to come over and kick over your tower just for ***** and giggles because of the distance involved.

Dear CCP Fozzie, CCP Rise, CCP Phantom, CCP Manifest CCP whoever the crap is pushing this load of horse dung up hill with a rake,

here is another thought game for you to play with while considering how to "balance" entosis gameplay with the new L sized structures, and your lofty goal of removing structure grind entirely;

Lets say you live in a system. The system is for argument's sakes 80 AU across and no two planets are within d-scan of one another, and there are at least 4 planets.

Let's also assume, to make this easy, that you are in Sov Null, and you have sov space, and it's your ONLY alliance system have an Outpost, a TCU and an I-hub and your space is not upgraded. Entosis links therefore take 10 minutes to work.

You own ten POS-simulants, from labs to intel arrays, whatever it doesn't matter.

You are online in the prime time, so your structures are vulnerable.

All ten of your structures come under attack simultaneously, and someone also attacks the i-hub, TCU and Outpost with Entosis links.

You have 13 structures to defend, by yourself, being as you are the only person from your alliance in the constellation.

Do you,
a) choose to defend the Outpost
b) choose to defend the TCU
c) choose to defend the i-hub
d) defend POS #1
e) defend POS #2
f to m) defend POS #3 to POS #10

Can you see the problem with this? Merely by putting this naff and pathetic mechanism for vulnerability onto POSs, you have exponentially increased the vulnerability of all of your alliance's assets. Because none of your assets defend themselves, and you are the sole defender, you are going to lose at least 8-11 of those assets, depending on how fast you can dock at a station, man the guns, blap the link alt (regardless of the ship flying the Entosis link), undock (if you can), warp to the other objective, dock, repeat, etc,.

Essentially the collection of POSs are undefendable by one person because, without POS guns defending the POS with 4,000 DPS and without at least one hour's boring structure grind in front of them (at least) and with a ten minute vulnerability timer to overcome, there is literally no way to defend all your structures.

Even if you had two people defending 13 structures, you would still fail the majority of the defences.

if you fail the i-hub, TCU and Outpost, you now have ten more timers to defend throughout your constellation. If you had any other POSs in any other systems, they'd also be on the menu but you have to run gate camps possibly to attend those timers.

So you've got let's say, 8 POSs reinforced. You have 48 hours, and now you've got 2 non-RFed POSs and 3 sov structures. This is looking like a really fun 48 hours, isn't it?

This is the game you are creating for sov defenders. it is utterly stupid.

You know why FW is the way it is? Well, for the first year of this system, people fought in gangs and fleets. We had a hell of a lot of fun, killed a hell of a lot of ships. Then the alts started flipping systems, and the meatbods burned out on defending space at a tenth the LP efficiency of worthless warp stabbed cloaky heron alts grinding buttons. So people left, or gave up the FW game entirely, and it turned into a giant farm.

But it wasn't dead, because you ran an alt on the other militia and farmed at tier 5 while pew pewing with your main, who lived in highsec nextdoor.

In sov, there is no farming the winning side with an alt while living in highsec. in wormholes, there is no plexing one POS while your other ten burn down.

This is a patently stupid system, forcing people to play a game or lose everything. Forcing people to be present to defend space against meaningless, worthless attacks and if you screw up once - like BRAVE did in GE- last week - the vultures smell blood and blob you and you lose it.

have a good long think about this, CCP. I implore you. You're cheapening warfare in EVE to attention contests. Attention contests are won by people with alts, orbiting buttons and not caring about the losses. That's not good gameplay either.

I think we found the problem, captain.

Sov is for the places where your alliance lives.

m