These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[New structures] Item safety mechanics on structure destruction

First post First post
Author
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#321 - 2015-07-26 16:41:30 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
If destructible stations come, they should only be player built stations in 0.0. If they are destroyed, they need to have 50% of the contents get destroyed. The other 50% ends up in a huge, indestructible wreck, which players can salvage to recover the station's contents. Once all the contents have been salvaged, the wreck goes away.

All this cuddly little "SOE fairies magic it off to another station" has no place in Eve - once people have an opportunity to decide how much risk they want to take. It would not be an incentive to come back to Eve if you resubscribed to find all your stuff had been blown up.

For that reason, implementation of this system would be preceded by the option to have a one-time move of all your possessions to any single 0.0 or low sec station. Possessions belonging to inactive players automatically get moved to the closest non-destructible station prior to implementation.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Shallanna Yassavi
qwertz corp
#322 - 2015-08-04 02:23:11 UTC
If you're going to make things in null more destructible/possible to steal, you need to also answer this question:
Why would I leave my stuff there for someone to steal?

We already have half the answers:
Because I need to be able to fight off the people who are trying to steal the stuff out of my station (smaller ships, gear).
Because we've been mining, ratting, and tech 1 manufacturing, but haven't quite got everything ready to go to market/hisec storage.
Because I can't keep them anywhere else (caps).

I've also heard tech 2 production is mostly done in hisec precisely because that's a huge and complicated logistical system with a lot of opportunities for someone to stop it from working. If any job which required more skills than Industry required a player-owned facility to build, that would make POS very much worth keeping some stuff in, and maybe even worth stealing stuff from.

A signature :o

Borg Stoneson
SWARTA
#323 - 2015-08-04 05:00:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Borg Stoneson
My own thoughts.

People docked:
Players who are currently docked get moved to a spot in the system via "Station Emergency Evacuation Catapult System" (SEECS for short), those who are offline then dissapear, those who are online are now in space as normal, but away from the station.

Loot:
Anything in shared corp/alliance storage acts the same as in a current POS CHA.

Personal Storage:
Ship hanger drops ships the same way as a current SMA if the structure is destroyed.

New item for players personal hangers, an emergency asset evac container. Basicly something like the current station containers and in a variety of sizes.
They act like the special PL style containers that were mentioned in the original post, thing that are in them are "safe" things that are left behind drop in a manner similar to current CHA mechanics.


Other ideas, "SEECS" module/rig for ships? So that if they're unpiloted they act similar to the PL style containers. Rig would be better, means there's an actual cost to using it.


Despite what was said in the OP there is a "safety mechanic" of sorts for starbases, people can move around in the shield and have options when it comes to moving things out (DST with a MJD, Sneaky cov ops stuff, if there's bubble cage you can warp out and in in anything. Vastly different to what will essentialy be a station camp with the new structures.


Elenahina wrote:
Another (potential) issue.

What about people who have unsubbed? If stuff ends up in containers scattered around, you could be adding lots of objects to the servers over time that may never (?) go away.


While I don't know how CCP handles the information, it should just be stored data (which just sits there) rather than something using server processing power. After all, if the player is unsubbed and they don't physicaly spawn in space until they warp to it who's going to be looking it up? An unsubbed player with a bunch of stuff in these containers should be no different than an unsubbed player with a bunch of stuff scattered around in stations.
TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#324 - 2015-08-05 02:47:34 UTC
Suggestion:

Upon destruction of a station all hangar modules are ejected towards the planet the station was anchored on. After surviving reentry and killing a few thousand peasants down on the planet (are null-sec planets inhabited?) the hangar modules start broadcasting a beacon signal to their owner. Upon paying the surviving peasants a moderate fee for the trouble, the capsuleer may cherry pick their cargo through the use of a Customs Office in orbit around the planet, being able to only take as much as their ship is able to carry. Alternatively the capsuleer can pay an even bigger sum to some NPC mercenary deep space hauling service to ship the crash landed cargo to a station of their choosing. Price based on size of cargo and distance to drop-off location.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Borg Stoneson
SWARTA
#325 - 2015-08-05 09:15:11 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Suggestion:

Upon destruction of a station all hangar modules are ejected towards the planet the station was anchored on....


From what I understand the new structures wont be locked to moons or planets but rather can be placed anywhere
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#326 - 2015-08-05 12:09:18 UTC
Still convinced its technically not feasible for the code to change the location of all items in a station at one go. Haven't any of you ever seen what happens when 200 slowcats undock and deploy drones? We're talking MILLIONS of objects here. You are going to have TIDI so bad it'll reach -88 miles per hour and send you back to to 1984.
TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#327 - 2015-08-05 14:14:36 UTC
Borg Stoneson wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
Suggestion:

Upon destruction of a station all hangar modules are ejected towards the planet the station was anchored on....


From what I understand the new structures wont be locked to moons or planets but rather can be placed anywhere


Closest available planet then.

Quote:
Still convinced its technically not feasible for the code to change the location of all items in a station at one go. Haven't any of you ever seen what happens when 200 slowcats undock and deploy drones? We're talking MILLIONS of objects here. You are going to have TIDI so bad it'll reach -88 miles per hour and send you back to to 1984.


It's not remotely the same. Displaying and tracking entities in space is something completely different from moving database entries from one place to another. Server impact would be minimal.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#328 - 2015-08-05 14:58:16 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Borg Stoneson wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
Suggestion:

Upon destruction of a station all hangar modules are ejected towards the planet the station was anchored on....


From what I understand the new structures wont be locked to moons or planets but rather can be placed anywhere


Closest available planet then.

Quote:
Still convinced its technically not feasible for the code to change the location of all items in a station at one go. Haven't any of you ever seen what happens when 200 slowcats undock and deploy drones? We're talking MILLIONS of objects here. You are going to have TIDI so bad it'll reach -88 miles per hour and send you back to to 1984.


It's not remotely the same. Displaying and tracking entities in space is something completely different from moving database entries from one place to another. Server impact would be minimal.



Having been in a system where the inhabitants of a station started making contracts with the express purpose of generating lag, and succeeding, I would beg to differ.
TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#329 - 2015-08-05 15:13:26 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
Borg Stoneson wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
Suggestion:

Upon destruction of a station all hangar modules are ejected towards the planet the station was anchored on....


From what I understand the new structures wont be locked to moons or planets but rather can be placed anywhere


Closest available planet then.

Quote:
Still convinced its technically not feasible for the code to change the location of all items in a station at one go. Haven't any of you ever seen what happens when 200 slowcats undock and deploy drones? We're talking MILLIONS of objects here. You are going to have TIDI so bad it'll reach -88 miles per hour and send you back to to 1984.


It's not remotely the same. Displaying and tracking entities in space is something completely different from moving database entries from one place to another. Server impact would be minimal.



Having been in a system where the inhabitants of a station started making contracts with the express purpose of generating lag, and succeeding, I would beg to differ.


At worst the database move could always be done during downtime, but CCP is always improving their server infrastructure. If something like this is ever implemented I'm assuming they'll do it in a way that does not put insane strain on the server.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#330 - 2015-08-07 13:35:30 UTC
I imagine before something like this ever gets implemented, everyone will be selling off all but the most basic necessities. There's going to be a massive surplus of ships and modules re-injected into the trade hubs, and there will be a LOT more liquid isk being held onto. Don't think CCP would want either of those things to happen. The harbinger of this mechanic change will be inflation, coupled with the exponential decrease of content (ie ships sploding)
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#331 - 2015-08-15 19:31:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
To the newest dev blog I must say a few things:
First, players everywhere thank you for finding a happy medium on the loot pinata only dropping items that would have been normally just been lost in the normal destruction of a POS/build job. Players don't lose more than they would have normally, and the attackers can have some loot.
Second, love the way vulnerability is designed for these. THIS is what sov vulnerability should be changed into as well!



Below are a few concerns and what I feel is an acceptable adaptation:

1- Delivery of personal/corp assets

5-20 days is seriously way too long, especially for a service you're telling us we need to pay for (based on market values we all know are never correct). I suggest the following:
-Flat rate based on distance to station/structure being delivered to.
-Free xfer: 2 weeks
-Paid xfer: 48 hours (delivery fee)
-Rush paid xfer: 1 hour (X% market + delivery fee)

Remember EVE is still a game. You are asking players in some areas to literally stop playing the game for 5-20 days after losing a battle. A 48 hour lockout simply makes more sense as "punishment" for not defending your structure, anything more than that is simply kicking a player while they're down and encouraging them to look elsewhere for their entertainment. And some players keep most of their wealth in assets, given the time limit to made a decision a free option that keeps them locked out for an extended period before delivery makes sense where as those in a rush to receive some of their items ASAP may pay for rushed delivery.
I say this with emphasis on WH players who will be living out of these structures. Telling them they effectively can't play for 5 days even after they rebuild the structure will not go over well.


Secondly, any sort of delivery service for destroyed structures can and will be "abused" by larger entities with massive amounts of isk. But designing mechanics to avoid such abuse to the detriment of the individual player is still bad game design. Remember you have the power to leave such fringe abuse cases possible and make a statement warning that abuse will result in bans and loss of alliance assets and leave it at that.


2- *edit* misread the time to move assets as having a time limit. so this point is null.


3- Super cap relocation
If you lost the fight for a timer, the likelihood of your being able to return to that space and construct a new XL structure in that same system is extremely unlikely. You are effectively saying it's gone forever.
Simply put, you need to allow the option for these to be thrown into the nearest alliance XL citadel or to be picked up from a cloaked container a random location in space placing it's location within the player's journal.

Again, CCP you can take a stance against abuse cases they won't be hard to identify. You need to design mechanics around what is fair for the individual player keeping in mind limited playtime, and the time and effort the individual had to put into obtaining these assets to begin with. You need to give them a fair -not perfectly safe- chance at recovery.



Just those three things need looking at in my opinion. And raising awareness to the problems now will do us a lot of good so it doesn't become another jump fatigue or aegis sov fiasco where Tranq become test server 2.0.
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#332 - 2015-08-15 20:25:34 UTC

Nasar Vyron wrote:

I say this with emphasis on WH players who will be living out of these structures. Telling them they effectively can't play for 5 days even after they rebuild the structure will not go over well.


Errr... WH'ers dont get loot transfer, we need to rebuild citadel to get stuff back. Also, most WH'ers I know actually advocate for full hardcore where loot drops for the victor.



Nasar Vyron wrote:

Secondly, any sort of delivery service for destroyed structures can and will be "abused" by larger entities with massive amounts of isk. But designing mechanics to avoid such abuse to the detriment of the individual player is still bad game design. Remember you have the power to leave such fringe abuse cases possible and make a statement warning that abuse will result in bans and loss of alliance assets and leave it at that.


You cant choose where it goes, but indeed You can predict based on Your location which one will be chosen as closest npc station. To have NAY usage of that (uninterrupted stuff transport) You need in the first place to get that stuff into Your citadel, so whatever it was You could as well move to low sec Yourself. 20 days timer makes it even less plausible. Ofc we will probable see some fringe usages but I except them to have minor usage.

Nasar Vyron wrote:

2- Time limit on claiming personal assets
People will always have to step away from the game for extended periods of time; be it deployment/family emergency/hospitalization/etc. You currently start the timer for 5 days after structure destruction. This must be changed to 1 week from return of player.

There simply is no discussing this matter. You cannot punish a player who had to leave for reasons out of their control.


What time limit, cant find anything about it in the blogs. Only time limit is based on when EARLIEST You can move Your stuff.


Nasar Vyron wrote:

3- Super cap relocation
If you lost the fight for a timer, the likelihood of your being able to return to that space and construct a new XL structure within 5 days of it's destruction is extremely unlikely. You are effectively saying it's gone forever.


Again - What 5 days? Cant find anything in blog saying You have to do it in 5 days.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#333 - 2015-08-15 21:59:46 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:

Again - What 5 days? Cant find anything in blog saying You have to do it in 5 days.


You are 100% correct on that, I reread those blogs three times and each time I kept reading 5 days to make a choice. I'm terribly sorry and made the edit.

And I never said you can choose where it goes, but the act of making a structure and throwing everyone's assets into a single corp tab then killing the structure with an alt alliance to quickly transport goods is abuse of the system and what I am referring to.
Grorious Reader
Mongorian Horde
#334 - 2015-08-19 22:41:38 UTC
Some suggestions with regard to citadels in WH space...

The current itteration of the asset safety rules laid out in the recent dev blogs really seem to leave WH space as an afterthought. CCP seems to have just gone with "well, that won't work in WH. Meh." as their solution. Here are my ideas for making citadels more WH friendly.

First; clone bays as they are in k-space won't work in WH for obvious reasons. But with a couple tweaks they would work fine.

  1. Restrict the clones to medical clones only. No jumping in and out of WH with jump clones.
  2. You have to get podded in the same system as your medical clone or you go back to a k-space clone. No podding yourself back into your WH system.


This allows you to actively defend WH systems. Without these, anyone who gets podded defending a WH has to make a potentially very lengthy and dangerous trip just to get back to the citadel they're trying to defend. This amounts to a whole lot of time not defending. Without clones, this will make for very short defenses when the attacker has superior numbers or firepower. Under the current POS system this isn't such a problem because POSes take a long time to reinforce. The process is much faster with the entosis model, and that's going to make defending WHs harder.

The second issue is asset safety.
Part of the reason for attacking POSes is to get loot from the hangars and silos. Just destroying it all is such a huge waste, and not rewarding at all for the attacker. Perhaps a better system would be to allow the alliance that destroys a citadel to build their own citadel in that system and have the loot (maybe just some of it, like a regular loot drop) delivered to their citadel after 7 days (2 days beyond the victim's 5 day minimum wait time). That gives the defender plenty of time to try to retake their system, but if they can't then to the victor go the spoils.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#335 - 2015-08-20 11:12:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Masao Kurata
EDIT: should post in the thread that actually might be read.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#336 - 2015-08-21 00:41:19 UTC
I have a better idea than anyone.

Station gets destroyed - you can move your stuff to another citadel in the same constellation once with no penalty within 24 hours. Once all in the constellation are destroyed or the 24 hour timer runs out...the citadel wreck spawns a bunch of satelite wrecks with all that juicy leftover lewtz on it. Ships just drop in space and float there. 100% drops.

get risky!
get some more dank memes!
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#337 - 2015-08-22 19:19:18 UTC
I just thought of a funny idea.


You get some cheaper citadel and ask allies to put it up in your system, then load it with all your pyerite... and BOOM... it's in the lowsec in 5 days.

Cheapest jump freighter service ever.
Grognard Commissar
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#338 - 2015-08-31 02:56:52 UTC
Orca Platypus wrote:
I just thought of a funny idea.


You get some cheaper citadel and ask allies to put it up in your system, then load it with all your pyerite... and BOOM... it's in the lowsec in 5 days.

Cheapest jump freighter service ever.

actually... that's the best problem with this system yet... you found an exploit before it was even deployed!
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#339 - 2015-09-05 12:22:17 UTC
One way to approach this feature would be to get a new line of containers, specifically for the hangars and inventory with emergency jumpdrives, which will bring the stuff to nearest npc station.

Blueprints and manufacturing leaves the Security of assets in the hands of the players, and even how much of the assets to be secure.
This will leave unsecure assets for drops if station gets blown.

Second feautre of this line of containers could be, if allowed trough the assets menu, to be retrived
In cases where stations are flipped, inactivity which turnes the area hostile or just moving out.
This will also remove asset movements from GM's, and allow players going afk a quick route out of harms way.

Yes, this will interfere a small bit with jf's role, but not so much as you would think as it is a one jump to npc.
You can also consider fuel requirments, towards what range these "liferafts" need to go, to balance things off.

Hope this makes sence to some.
Tycho VI
Horde Armada
Pandemic Horde
#340 - 2015-09-17 22:08:14 UTC
If supercaps could be docked on them in the future, and the citadel itself is destroyed with supers docked, should they really be given a nearly free pass with no pilot interaction?

What do you think the difference would be between whether they are safely moved or not in the bigger picture?