These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

FW: I-hub and system upgrades

First post First post
Author
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#61 - 2012-05-24 04:59:41 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
... A system's upgrades should be exciting enough to defend. Plain and simple.

Whatever do you mean? Are you saying that cheaper clones and more indy slots are not good enough?!?!?!?! .. . Hahahahahahahaha.

Upgrade bonuses are pretty much like having an knitting machine as competition prize at an arm wrestling contest .. junk.
Fidelium Mortis
Minor Major Miners LLC
#62 - 2012-05-29 17:51:08 UTC
2 Big issues with the current implementation of iHub.

1. Other than the LP store, the rest of the bonuses have little/no desirably for most people in FW. Also upgrade options for systems with no stations is pointless.
2. Upgrading systems except for main hubs essentially feeds the opposing faction LP, there's really little incentive for defensive plexing outside of primary hub systems.

ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon

Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#63 - 2012-05-31 14:51:08 UTC
CCP Ytterbium - can you tell us if any of these ideas are striking your fancy at all? This thread is shockingly high on quality and low on troll.
Noriko Mai
#64 - 2012-06-04 03:38:13 UTC
It will be the same as every HighSec system. No copy or research slots Sad Manufactoring slots are availible everywhere in HS so why should someone move to LowSec for manufacturing? I produce only in HighSec, it's full of stations with 10+ manufacturing slots.
The only industry thing that LowSec offers for me is (if I'm lucky) a copy slot with less than 12 days queue.
The lower Tax seems kinda silly. This would be interesting in Jita 4-4 and not LowSec.

I don't know, maybe it's only me, but lower tax or more slots will not move my production or my produced stuff to LowSec (I will not haul the stuff in Low for a few more isk). I only use it to get the copys and the research done, move everything out of Low and then do the invention and production in HighSec.

IMHO the only reason to spend LPs for upgrading the systems is half LP cost in the LP store.

And yes I do FW (for Minmatar) with my main.

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein

CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#65 - 2012-06-04 14:31:20 UTC
Hey folks,

Just a quick update on this; there are good ideas thrown so far, some stuff we like:


  • Reducing manufacturing / research times for jobs in upgraded systems
  • Increasing numbers of slots given in upgraded systems further, 5 max is nothing to write home about
  • Moving the docking-lockout from being automatic when system is captured to level 3 upgrade and higher
  • Reducing repair costs in upgraded systems
  • Reducing refining costs in upgraded systems
  • Iterating at the I-hub bleed out next to captured sites
  • Bringing back the cyno jammer, but make sure its use is very short by nature not to totally lockout the system - again this needs to be carefully designed
  • Think again on how to upgrade systems that have no stations



Thanks for your time and ideas people!
Noriko Mai
#66 - 2012-06-04 15:19:31 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hey folks,

Just a quick update on this; there are good ideas thrown so far, some stuff we like:


  • Reducing manufacturing / research times for jobs in upgraded systems
  • Increasing numbers of slots given in upgraded systems further, 5 max is nothing to write home about
  • Moving the docking-lockout from being automatic when system is captured to level 3 upgrade and higher
  • Reducing repair costs in upgraded systems
  • Reducing refining costs in upgraded systems
  • Iterating at the I-hub bleed out next to captured sites
  • Bringing back the cyno jammer, but make sure its use is very short by nature not to totally lockout the system - again this needs to be carefully designed
  • Think again on how to upgrade systems that have no stations



Thanks for your time and ideas people!

LowSec, I'm coming!!!!!!

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein

Fleet Warpsujarento
Doomheim
#67 - 2012-06-04 15:19:47 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • Increasing numbers of slots given in upgraded systems further, 5 max is nothing to write home about


  • The problem is not that there aren't enough extra slots. It's that the ones already there weren't being used in the first place.

    Hans Jagerblitzen
    Ice Fire Warriors
    Wild Geese.
    #68 - 2012-06-04 15:39:18 UTC
    Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • Increasing numbers of slots given in upgraded systems further, 5 max is nothing to write home about


  • The problem is not that there aren't enough extra slots. It's that the ones already there weren't being used in the first place.




    Well yes, but if low sec becomes a faster and more efficient place to manufacture goods when compared to high sec (as it should be) than you'll see those slots fill up fast.

    CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

    Bienator II
    madmen of the skies
    #69 - 2012-06-04 16:03:53 UTC
    i don't understand why system lockout should be part of the upgrade mechanics. The system has been contested, the infrastructure hub has been taken, the system changed owners. The fight is over (for now). Scotty is now on someone else' payrole.

    I have nothing against the idea to make the upgreade levels more interesting by adding more "nice to haves". But this seems like a regression to me.

    how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

    Zarnak Wulf
    Amarrian Vengeance
    Team Amarrica
    #70 - 2012-06-04 16:53:08 UTC
    I'd prefer a system upgrade to lock out those with poor standing towards the militia. WT lockout should be automatic.
    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
    #71 - 2012-06-04 17:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    ...

    So the beast CCP is not hearing impaired after all .. what a relief! Lol
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Think again on how to upgrade systems that have no stations

    There is a major overhaul of POS in the pipe-line, one that will allow all sorts of fancy stuff for players to do with them, no?

    Answer: POS in upgraded system have their fuel supplied by militia (ie. 100% reduction in fuel consumption) and depending on actual POS changes perhaps some bonus grid/cpu to install a critical module.
    Zarnak Wulf wrote:
    I'd prefer a system upgrade to lock out those with poor standing towards the militia. WT lockout should be automatic.

    The beauty of tying it to upgrade level is that it "forces the issue" with regards to keeping the LP sink constantly churning as well as it puts a lot more pressure on defenders to prevent too many plexes from being lost, lest the enemy establish a beachhead with reships on-site ..
    Has a much greater chance of curtailing the snowballs than anything else on the table as it will in the end come down to total available manpower rather than merely one TZ to rule them all with a skeleton crew running interference the other 16 hours of the day.
    Noriko Mai
    #72 - 2012-06-04 18:10:48 UTC
    Veshta Yoshida wrote:

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Think again on how to upgrade systems that have no stations

    Answer: POS in upgraded system have their fuel supplied by militia (ie. 100% reduction in fuel consumption) and depending on actual POS changes perhaps some bonus grid/cpu to install a critical module.

    Maybe +5% reduced/increase fuel need per Level? So you have to recapture the system and/or upgrade it to get the benefit.

    "Meh.." - Albert Einstein

    bornaa
    GRiD.
    #73 - 2012-06-04 18:43:38 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Hey folks,

    Just a quick update on this; there are good ideas thrown so far, some stuff we like:


    • Reducing manufacturing / research times for jobs in upgraded systems
    • Increasing numbers of slots given in upgraded systems further, 5 max is nothing to write home about
    • Moving the docking-lockout from being automatic when system is captured to level 3 upgrade and higher
    • Reducing repair costs in upgraded systems
    • Reducing refining costs in upgraded systems
    • Iterating at the I-hub bleed out next to captured sites
    • Bringing back the cyno jammer, but make sure its use is very short by nature not to totally lockout the system - again this needs to be carefully designed
    • Think again on how to upgrade systems that have no stations



    Thanks for your time and ideas people!


    Haw about making it so it use fuel.
    So if you want to keep it up 24/7 it wont be cheap.
    And you can do it for one or two systems... but cyno jamming more systems would push you to bankrupt.
    [Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
    
    Julius Foederatus
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #74 - 2012-06-05 20:53:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Julius Foederatus
    Zarnak Wulf wrote:
    I'd prefer a system upgrade to lock out those with poor standing towards the militia. WT lockout should be automatic.


    +1 for this Idea. I don't think anyone but the tiny, vocal minority still is against station lockouts. Having that absolute penalty does give much more impetus to the willingness to plex, and that is what has been driving the fights lately. The problem with upgrades is that, at least on the Gallente front, upgrades are too easily stripped away. It's become a meaningless isk sink that can be undone with a few t1 frigs and some time.
    Cearain
    Plus 10 NV
    #75 - 2012-06-05 21:05:03 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Hey folks,

  • Moving the docking-lockout from being automatic when system is captured to level 3 upgrade and higher


  • Thanks for your time and ideas people!


    I would prefer if the system lockout rule be removed.

    Or perhaps it only worked in completely decontested systems.

    Lets say we make a move on a system that is level 1. We plant allot of plexing ships there so we can plex. As soon as the enemy sees that can they just put lp into the system locking us out of the stations.

    From my perspective this won't be enough of an incentive for me to start moving my ships back into the war zone.

    Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

    Cearain
    Plus 10 NV
    #76 - 2012-06-05 21:11:17 UTC
    Julius Foederatus wrote:
    Zarnak Wulf wrote:
    I'd prefer a system upgrade to lock out those with poor standing towards the militia. WT lockout should be automatic.


    +1 for this Idea. I don't think anyone but the tiny, vocal minority still is against station lockouts. Having that absolute penalty does give much more impetus to the willingness to plex, and that is what has been driving the fights lately. The problem with upgrades is that, at least on the Gallente front, upgrades are too easily stripped away. It's become a meaningless isk sink that can be undone with a few t1 frigs and some time.


    How many of the people who are against the station lockout are still around is questionable. But that is the question. Plenty of people are against the lockouts.

    You have no basis to say it has been driving the fights. The huge economic advantages have been driving the fights and plexing. The station lockouts have done more to reduce the pvp than increase it.

    There are 2 fronts Caldari/gallente and Minmatar/amarr.

    CCP should just let one front keep the lock out rule and remove the lockout rule from the other front.

    Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

    Hans Jagerblitzen
    Ice Fire Warriors
    Wild Geese.
    #77 - 2012-06-05 22:44:08 UTC
    Cearain wrote:
    The station lockouts have done more to reduce the pvp than increase it.


    And do you have any statistical basis for this, either?

    Cearain wrote:
    There are 2 fronts Caldari/gallente and Minmatar/amarr.

    CCP should just let one front keep the lock out rule and remove the lockout rule from the other front.


    This idea just seems silly. CCP is not going to make game design decisions just to cater to personal taste. Having special rules for one warfront just for the sake of being different than the other would be incredibly hard to justify, I sincerely doubt you'll ever reach ANY kind of player consensus over which warzone should have lockout or shouldn't.

    The Caldari / Gallente warfront involves FAR more multi-jump travel and it is currently teeming with small gang roams. The Amarr / Minmatar front is the most compact, most connected to highsec, and has two bastions of factional power in adjacent systems. The idea that someone is forced to live out of the back of a Jump Freighter, moving their ships around constantly in order to get anything done, just doesn't hold water, and much less in our own warzone.

    With as many people as are out having fun right now, taking plexes, getting kills, seizing space, getting solo fights, small gang fights, as well as big fleet battles, and just about every activity in between, the argument that these changes have killed one activity or another dwindle every day. For every pilot that says "I can't do this anymore" there's a half dozen others that are doing exactly that, and having fun at the same time.

    That doesnt mean FW is in a perfect place, it doesn't mean there aren't problems, and it doesn't mean anyone's about to stop improving the system. But this notion that station docking has crippled anyone or anything is going to need some actual evidence before either the CSM or CCP take the complaints seriously.

    CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
    #78 - 2012-06-06 12:42:07 UTC
    Julius Foederatus wrote:
    +1 for this Idea. I don't think anyone but the tiny, vocal minority still is against station lockouts. Having that absolute penalty does give much more impetus to the willingness to plex, and that is what has been driving the fights lately. The problem with upgrades is that, at least on the Gallente front, upgrades are too easily stripped away. It's become a meaningless isk sink that can be undone with a few t1 frigs and some time.

    The reason why plexing has gone through the roof is that people are being paid like robber barons for their time now .. has very little to do with docking.

    Not sure if putting it at level 3 is "good", perhaps 2 or even 1 is better .. have to run the numbers .. should be hard enough for an assault to take an effort before opening up stations and give defence a reasonable time to respond.
    Reason why I support lock-outs as part of the upgrade path is that it will effectively remove the ability of a single faction from dominating through alts .. if enemy is allowed to plex in a system you had damn well better be there to kick his ass or he will breed like Brutor.

    With regards to upgrades being a massive sink .. we have been discussing this elsewhere and the idea of awarding a partial "repair amount" from defensive plexes is gaining traction .. as is the idea of some kind of reward for defensive work in general.
    Example: Enemy takes a medium thus knocking off 8750LP (50% of 17.5k) of the upgrade pool. He is discovered and killed/bought/run off and defensive crews take the minor and major , repairing half of what the same sites would have caused in damage (25% of 10k+25k = 8750LP) and in the process get the same amount (25%) of the LP value of the sites (provided system is contested).

    System should be fashioned in such a way that defensive work feels like a necessity (worthwhile upgrades, keeping enemy from docking) while not feeling like work .. since the timer system makes it feel like work, some kind of compensation is in order .. doesn't have to huge as defence is a newcomer/alt occupation except when enemy is insistent Smile

    The thread in Warfare-Tactics on the topic of plexes and NPCs is gravitating towards the idea of plex timers automatically resetting over time when no enemy is present. Benefit of such a system is that defenders get to focus on killing/evicting the attackers who in turn will never have to experience the glory of the speed-bumped plex (timer run to a few seconds) .. this idea alone has the potential to create enormous amounts of pew as one can't just plex a bit everywhere and pick up the next day in whichever system wasn't decontested .. also makes the multi-pronged attacks a lot more valuable and risky.
    Note: With such a system there will/should be no rewards for defensive work of any sort .. to control space, you have to patrol space or invest in tissues.
    Fidelium Mortis
    Minor Major Miners LLC
    #79 - 2012-06-07 18:50:36 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Hey folks,

    Just a quick update on this; there are good ideas thrown so far, some stuff we like:


    • Reducing manufacturing / research times for jobs in upgraded systems
    • Increasing numbers of slots given in upgraded systems further, 5 max is nothing to write home about
    • Moving the docking-lockout from being automatic when system is captured to level 3 upgrade and higher
    • Reducing repair costs in upgraded systems
    • Reducing refining costs in upgraded systems
    • Iterating at the I-hub bleed out next to captured sites
    • Bringing back the cyno jammer, but make sure its use is very short by nature not to totally lockout the system - again this needs to be carefully designed
    • Think again on how to upgrade systems that have no stations



    Thanks for your time and ideas people!


    Would you consider converting the bunkers into a POS-like structure that has some rudimentary services like a repair facility, LP store, and fitting array? No docking functionality needed, and if there's storage options, have all items dropped/destroyed when the bunker is destroyed. This will make non-station systems somewhat desirable. The bunker should remain without cover to discourage using it as a central base of operation, and services should be tied to system levels. This way, all systems can be upgraded into a temporary forward base.

    Cyno jammers would be a nice addition, though I think it should temporarily block all traffic, and require a significant investment to bring online/use.

    ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon

    Hans Jagerblitzen
    Ice Fire Warriors
    Wild Geese.
    #80 - 2012-06-07 19:49:46 UTC
    Veshta Yoshida wrote:
    Julius Foederatus wrote:
    +1 for this Idea. I don't think anyone but the tiny, vocal minority still is against station lockouts. Having that absolute penalty does give much more impetus to the willingness to plex, and that is what has been driving the fights lately. The problem with upgrades is that, at least on the Gallente front, upgrades are too easily stripped away. It's become a meaningless isk sink that can be undone with a few t1 frigs and some time.

    The reason why plexing has gone through the roof is that people are being paid like robber barons for their time now .. has very little to do with docking.

    Not sure if putting it at level 3 is "good", perhaps 2 or even 1 is better .. have to run the numbers .. should be hard enough for an assault to take an effort before opening up stations and give defence a reasonable time to respond.
    Reason why I support lock-outs as part of the upgrade path is that it will effectively remove the ability of a single faction from dominating through alts .. if enemy is allowed to plex in a system you had damn well better be there to kick his ass or he will breed like Brutor.

    With regards to upgrades being a massive sink .. we have been discussing this elsewhere and the idea of awarding a partial "repair amount" from defensive plexes is gaining traction .. as is the idea of some kind of reward for defensive work in general.
    Example: Enemy takes a medium thus knocking off 8750LP (50% of 17.5k) of the upgrade pool. He is discovered and killed/bought/run off and defensive crews take the minor and major , repairing half of what the same sites would have caused in damage (25% of 10k+25k = 8750LP) and in the process get the same amount (25%) of the LP value of the sites (provided system is contested).

    System should be fashioned in such a way that defensive work feels like a necessity (worthwhile upgrades, keeping enemy from docking) while not feeling like work .. since the timer system makes it feel like work, some kind of compensation is in order .. doesn't have to huge as defence is a newcomer/alt occupation except when enemy is insistent Smile

    The thread in Warfare-Tactics on the topic of plexes and NPCs is gravitating towards the idea of plex timers automatically resetting over time when no enemy is present. Benefit of such a system is that defenders get to focus on killing/evicting the attackers who in turn will never have to experience the glory of the speed-bumped plex (timer run to a few seconds) .. this idea alone has the potential to create enormous amounts of pew as one can't just plex a bit everywhere and pick up the next day in whichever system wasn't decontested .. also makes the multi-pronged attacks a lot more valuable and risky.
    Note: With such a system there will/should be no rewards for defensive work of any sort .. to control space, you have to patrol space or invest in tissues.


    Thanks, Veshta, for the good post! I also like the idea of a passive decontesting of plexes in theory, but I hadn't put much though into discussing / promoting this as I always though this favored those who already owned space too much, and made it more difficult for the underdog to slowly chip away and make progress.

    My fear is that it will increase the pew pew during an actual system takeover (must be done in one big risky push like you pointed out) but not do anything to encourage small gangs or solo pilots from reaping the benefits of their casual roaming and plexing, other than the LP payout itself. At least under the current system, taking a plex here and there (if you can't log on for very long) has some lasting impact, instead of plexing only affecting warzone control when your faction can do enough of it to flip a system in a single effort.

    There is an intriguing idea being proposed in F & I about reversing defensive and offensive plexing, and tying warzone control to LP payout multipliers instead of pricing multipliers. In other words, the advantage for holding space is that you could run plexes in your own systems and earn LP for doing so, and the advantage for taking space is that it increases your payouts when you do earn LP. This way there is a real incentive to own and upgrade systems, not just incentive to seize a system with no reason to actually keep it. The underdog wouldn't have to go outside their own space and risk station lockout in order to earn an income, but they could risk doing so if they wanted to profit more for their efforts.

    Otherwise, I fear we'll continue to see what we have now where factions intentionally lose space in order to have more ability to earn LP, which is kind of backwards conceptually. Only rewarding the system transfer itself (instead of in the keeping of space) may not be sustainable in the long run, and lean to intentional system trading instead of a real battle to protect your own sovereign territory.

    Something for everyone to stop by and consider at least, should make for a good discussion assuming everyone keeps things civil and constructive.

    CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary