These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Are POS's being removed from the game??

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ivant Sumboodi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#41 - 2015-05-25 01:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ivant Sumboodi
Null is truly the new HS, no troll for real.

It's better to build there.

It's better to pvp there than LS.

It's better to live there.

It's better to not affect your sec there.

Why do anything else?



edit: incursions ovbbut that's alt stuff that everybody needs to do these days
Joe Atei
Aes Dei Asher
#42 - 2015-05-25 16:24:23 UTC
While I will use the "only for me" box, that's a lame feature that goes against the core values of this game I believe. Awfully reminiscent of BoP items in other games. Oh well, it's the direction people think the game needs to head into. Personally, it's a turn off.
CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#43 - 2015-05-25 19:06:05 UTC
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:
The most recent (over a week ago) response was the token "We're noting things, thanks for your feedback." Which is usually CCP speak for, "we don't believe you, we're doing it our way because we know best." Occasionally it doesn't mean that, but more often than not, that's what happens.

Of course they can't answer your questions, they haven't finished their design yet.

Note that if they'd held the dev blog until they had all the answers and the feature were about to be released, your (valid) complaint would likely be that they hadn't ever consulted players for input.

CCP Darwin  •  Senior Software Engineer, Art & Graphics, EVE Online  •  @mark_wilkins
Joia Crenca
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#44 - 2015-05-25 21:15:55 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:
The most recent (over a week ago) response was the token "We're noting things, thanks for your feedback." Which is usually CCP speak for, "we don't believe you, we're doing it our way because we know best." Occasionally it doesn't mean that, but more often than not, that's what happens.

Of course they can't answer your questions, they haven't finished their design yet.

Note that if they'd held the dev blog until they had all the answers and the feature were about to be released, your (valid) complaint would likely be that they hadn't ever consulted players for input.




True, true. And we need to remember that when 'still in development, send feedback' is very noted in the blog.

You know, they forgot to consult me before they removed the Quafe Station/Pleasure Station background from the game. Gallente NPC stations have been less interesting, with only that green towered one, ever since. Sad
Lijah
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Memento Moriendo
#45 - 2015-05-26 12:38:39 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
As new structures and service modules for those structures are release, old structures will be phased out.

An example given in the fanfest presentation:

A new manufacturing facility (and the service modules to make it work) is released. The Old structures will continue to work for a while, but their bonuses will be removed. A while after that, they will cease to function. A while after that, they will be removed in some fashion. (refunded, allowed to be reprocessed, something. That's not detailed yet)



will the old defunct POS's not be 'allowed'? ie, the in game items will be removed? That makes POS structures as they are now, next to worthless, and prices should bottom out.

Or will they 'change' into these new things?

Will POS fuel still be required? or will PI become laregly pointless for all the POS fuel elements?
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#46 - 2015-05-26 13:30:37 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Except they should be able to encap the weapons to make that entosising thing be able to entosis.

We really don't know how the implementation will work.

You will still need the apoc fleet.


You wont be able to encap the guns because you wont be able to shoot the guns independently of the new pos. They are replacing the old pos with a structure that is built like a ship with mods that are fitted from a fitting window. For all intents and purposes, all you will see is a big red x that you shoot at. In short, complexity of game play is being sacrificed to simplicity.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Oracle of Machina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2015-05-26 21:36:12 UTC
What happens to wormhole corps if POS's are removed? Are they forced to build citadels from now on?
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#48 - 2015-05-26 22:07:32 UTC
Oracle of Machina wrote:
What happens to wormhole corps if POS's are removed? Are they forced to build citadels from now on?


yep

face it.. you will have to adapt.. pos's are going away at some point in time..
Oracle of Machina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2015-05-26 22:19:53 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
Oracle of Machina wrote:
What happens to wormhole corps if POS's are removed? Are they forced to build citadels from now on?


yep

face it.. you will have to adapt.. pos's are going away at some point in time..


Actually, I don't live in a hole anymore. I was just curious if they might have more specific plans for holes.
Commander Spurty
#50 - 2015-05-31 11:21:05 UTC
Oracle of Machina wrote:

Actually, I don't live in a hole anymore. I was just curious if they might have more specific plans for holes.


MOAR HOLES

"Pat'ch Notes" wrote:
Exploration:

New systems are available that can be accessed via the Unidentified wormholes. (Unidentified wormholes can be found in systems that contain the Jove Observatory)

Patch Notes

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2015-05-31 11:53:58 UTC
My same response here as in other threads on this (I like to be consistent :) ):

I hate the idea of the entosis link for structure combat. For flag capture ops in sov warfare? Fine. But for destroying massive heavily armed and armoured structures? Don't be daft...it makes no sense!

The entosis link should maybe be used to disable repair modules/ECM or to reduce resists (my preferred option) to cut the EHP grind. However such structures should need to be beaten down with heavy firepower, likewise they should be able to deploy such firepower in defence.
E1ev1n
Big Sister Exploration
#52 - 2015-05-31 23:32:28 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Lil' Brudder Too wrote:
The most recent (over a week ago) response was the token "We're noting things, thanks for your feedback." Which is usually CCP speak for, "we don't believe you, we're doing it our way because we know best." Occasionally it doesn't mean that, but more often than not, that's what happens.

Of course they can't answer your questions, they haven't finished their design yet.

Note that if they'd held the dev blog until they had all the answers and the feature were about to be released, your (valid) complaint would likely be that they hadn't ever consulted players for input.

It's encouraging to see you fine gentlemen addressing concerns from the public, perhaps answering some of the questions would lend capsuleer support or derision to the ideas and help devs put them up in the manner that would be best for everyone. Again I am certainly pleased you guys are responding.
E1ev1n
Big Sister Exploration
#53 - 2015-05-31 23:35:21 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
My same response here as in other threads on this (I like to be consistent :) ):

I hate the idea of the entosis link for structure combat. For flag capture ops in sov warfare? Fine. But for destroying massive heavily armed and armoured structures? Don't be daft...it makes no sense!

The entosis link should maybe be used to disable repair modules/ECM or to reduce resists (my preferred option) to cut the EHP grind. However such structures should need to be beaten down with heavy firepower, likewise they should be able to deploy such firepower in defence.

I personally believe that the entosis link is a terrible idea for RFing player owned structures of any kind in any location other than in Null Sec, where the whole sov system is funny anyways.
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#54 - 2015-06-01 03:38:04 UTC
E1ev1n wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
My same response here as in other threads on this (I like to be consistent :) ):

I hate the idea of the entosis link for structure combat. For flag capture ops in sov warfare? Fine. But for destroying massive heavily armed and armoured structures? Don't be daft...it makes no sense!

The entosis link should maybe be used to disable repair modules/ECM or to reduce resists (my preferred option) to cut the EHP grind. However such structures should need to be beaten down with heavy firepower, likewise they should be able to deploy such firepower in defence.

I personally believe that the entosis link is a terrible idea for RFing player owned structures of any kind in any location other than in Null Sec, where the whole sov system is funny anyways.



nobody asked for this link crap, no one, not on the CSM its not their idea.. look who came up with it and did it and pushed it forward.. fozzie.. the entire idea is whacked out.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#55 - 2015-06-01 06:03:45 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:

nobody asked for this link crap, no one, not on the CSM its not their idea.. look who came up with it and did it and pushed it forward.. fozzie.. the entire idea is whacked out.

Except for you know, the fact that it's the best idea so far anyone has managed to come up with that addresses Sov.

The problem is it seems to be likely to be applied very poorly to non sov space, resulting in indefensible structures without any occupancy bonus for defenders to get there, and the lack of AI defenses that a current POS does have, meaning that a single frigate will easily swan by and RF your structure in 20 minutes while no-one is around, and once it's on a timer it's easy for people to just drop a Blob.

But for a Sov solution it's great.
E1ev1n
Big Sister Exploration
#56 - 2015-06-27 18:01:59 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Milla Goodpussy wrote:

nobody asked for this link crap, no one, not on the CSM its not their idea.. look who came up with it and did it and pushed it forward.. fozzie.. the entire idea is whacked out.

Except for you know, the fact that it's the best idea so far anyone has managed to come up with that addresses Sov.

The problem is it seems to be likely to be applied very poorly to non sov space, resulting in indefensible structures without any occupancy bonus for defenders to get there, and the lack of AI defenses that a current POS does have, meaning that a single frigate will easily swan by and RF your structure in 20 minutes while no-one is around, and once it's on a timer it's easy for people to just drop a Blob.

But for a Sov solution it's great.

You are correct IMO, and I think for an entosis link to work on a structure there really should be a need for sov to be in place (not to place a structure just to rf with an entosis link).
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#57 - 2015-06-27 19:05:11 UTC
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
Kashadin wrote:
They have already said several times that they are planning on making sure that a single ship with a entosis link WON'T be able to take down a Citadel structure as long as that structure has some kinda defenses, even if they aren't manned. That being said you will nee to defend against a dedicated force attacking you, but seeing as how the defenses of the things are going to be made to be able to defend against Caps, you should be ok unless they show up with a lot of stuff.

Stop lying to the poor dude.
He was asking SPECIFICALLY about a corp of him and his alts in hisec.
That means the window time frame thing will be like 18hrs cuz only null can upgrade the system to get a smaller engagement window hour.
Also the citadel will be able to repel a SINGLE ship. Not several with entosises while the dude is asleep. And if he gets wardecced for one week, im sure the attackers will show up to the timers and if dude misses one cuz of work or sleep or real life anything, goes to next timer.

I.e. a corp in hisec filled with only alts CAN NOT STOP A CITADEL LOSS FROM WAR.


Nor should it be able to.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Hal Morsh
Doomheim
#58 - 2015-06-27 19:23:12 UTC
Cyborg Girl86 wrote:
a fleet of 20+ Apocs



Did you check if he was botting?

Oh, I perfectly understand, Hal Morsh — a mission like this requires courage, skill, and heroism… qualities you are clearly lacking. Have you forgotten you're one of the bloody immortals!?
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#59 - 2015-06-27 19:31:55 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
My same response here as in other threads on this (I like to be consistent :) ):

I hate the idea of the entosis link for structure combat. For flag capture ops in sov warfare? Fine. But for destroying massive heavily armed and armoured structures? Don't be daft...it makes no sense!

The entosis link should maybe be used to disable repair modules/ECM or to reduce resists (my preferred option) to cut the EHP grind. However such structures should need to be beaten down with heavy firepower, likewise they should be able to deploy such firepower in defence.


The entosis link thing is a bad idea in general - but if it was limited to sov warfare it wouldnt be that bad. What I had hoped to see was the hacking skill be allowed to be used on pos - if a player successfully hacks a pos (using the mini-game) they are able to disable some of the defenses or change rf timers - that would be cool and immersive - not like this entosis circle a button with a magic light thing that they are proposing.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Hal Morsh
Doomheim
#60 - 2015-06-28 00:54:41 UTC
How about a competitive hacking mini game.

Oh, I perfectly understand, Hal Morsh — a mission like this requires courage, skill, and heroism… qualities you are clearly lacking. Have you forgotten you're one of the bloody immortals!?