These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
Nick Bete
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#721 - 2014-04-16 04:32:16 UTC
There's really no point in giving any "feedback"on any of this as it's a fait accompli and will be released as presented.

What I see here is a lot of stick and very, very little carrot. Looks like Dinsdale was right about the slow nerfing of high sec and CCP's dogged insistence on forcing players into low and null space.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#722 - 2014-04-16 04:36:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathalie LaPorte
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:


Now we are going to make the case that POSes have zero risk. I don't even know why I bother reading the garbage in these threads.


Running an empty POS in highsec is extremely low risk. Focusing on minutia is what creates the garbage in these threads. You ask for elaboration, then pick on one unimportant detail. You should be thanking him for answering your question, instead.


Nick Bete wrote:
]What I see here is a lot of stick and very, very little carrot.


I see a field where you can grow carrots, or sticks.

Perhaps we're each seeing what we want to see.

Why do you want to see a stick so badly?
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#723 - 2014-04-16 04:36:40 UTC
Boltorano wrote:
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
Grarr Dexx wrote:
While we're talking about unavoidable costs in 0.0 stations, is there a reason repairs can be set to 0? Who is paying the guys patching up your ships? What about the materials needed to bring back structural integrity? It makes no sense.


Nanites.


Where does the nanite paste come from? That stuff isn't cheap you know.

Considering that there are Remote Armor and Remote Hull Repair modules that run on Capacitor only, I don't think that it is a stretch to assume that free Repair in distant areas of space are based on the same mechanic :)
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#724 - 2014-04-16 04:42:04 UTC
Kethry Avenger wrote:
CCP please surprise me and respond to this post.


I really like almost all of this blog.

However.

STANDINGS.

this will be the second or 3rd change to standings that is removing an element from the sandbox.

I would like to see you give standings more meaning and importance. Especially in Highsec. I think it is an interesting mechanic that adds depth to the game-play and creates variety in identity and groups in the game.

It adds a value to the player or corp that has worked to gain standings to anchor a POS in highsec. It used to mean something in FW, and it used to be able to give RP players another layer to judge other players in game.

It seems in regards to standings you keep making the game easier (and I hate to say it but it certainly appears with the direct benefit of assisting the nullsec alliance players.) One of the good balance points was most Nullsec entities were limited in high sec or forced to use smaller alt corps or higher mercs to have a safe highsec POS or industry wing.

I absolutely think that there should be more risk and reward for all activities that occur in Nullsec, but they don't need easier access to run rough shod over highsec. Standings is a good mechanic to help vary the power bases into different areas of the game and I think you should reconsider this change.

Also I did not see you give any good reason for removing it and I think I have presented some good reasons for keeping it.


One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#725 - 2014-04-16 04:45:22 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Xaniff wrote:

2. I predict there will be even more abandoned POSes out hogging all the spaces next to the moons. There needs to be some mechanic for these to be abandoned and destroyed in a reasonable amount of time after running out of fuel and failing to be maintained (like the secure containers that are lost, whether they hold goods or not).


Yeah, that's a good point, we'll note that one down.

This is extremely important so please deliver some news on it.

Removing the standing requirement means it is trivial for a large alliance to simply drop an unfueled small pos on every single moon in highsec and starve people out. Wardec costs will be huge for anyone trying to remove the pos'es while the alliance doesn't have to spend a cent on fuel for them to lock down the slot.

So there needs to be a way a small corp can get a slot without paying a massive wardec fee.
If that is turning wardec costs on their head so that it's based on the size of your alliance, not the size of your target, so small corps can nibble cheaply around the edges of a large alliance. That works.
A hacking mechanic also works.
A decay mechanic also works.
All three of these idea's also work together.

But there needs to be something.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#726 - 2014-04-16 04:47:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
Caldari 5 wrote:
One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space.


You are aware that a nullsec alliance can simply pay a standings service a few ISK (200m is the going price IIRC) to get them to create a new corp with 7.0 faction standings, have a member that's trusted with 5b take complete control of that corp, set up the 20 or whatever number HS POSes the alliance wants, and then admit the corp to join the alliance?

That is - exactly the same process that most (in the know) highsec research POSes are established with too, minus the part about joining the alliance. Only difference is, a tower bearing the alliance ticker "Goonswarm Federation" is more likely to be subject to wardecs and attacks than one bearing the ticker "Mission BLITZ".

Which is fine, because Goons can (if they care enough to bother) mount a fairly serious POS defense in highsec.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Unkind Omen
Voyagers Inc.
#727 - 2014-04-16 04:59:09 UTC
That's quite a bunch of great changes there. However, would you be so kind to NOT remove empire standing requirements for POS installation in high-sec, but decrease those by 2 instead, so that you can anchor POS at 0.5 with 3, 0.6 with 4 and so on. Please don't dumb the current EVE meta around corporation trading and at least some effort to have a POS in high-sec. Otherwise you will see people dodging offwars by just moving between corporations with no risk involved in the process of manufacturing.

Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#728 - 2014-04-16 04:59:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Zifrian wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient?

It takes too long.
Roll 25 hours is “too long”? Yeah, no. You're going to have to come up with something far better than that. What you're saying here is that the solution is ample, but you're simply too impatient. That's your problem, and not sufficient reason to change anything.

Quote:
The pos is abandoned or the corp doesn't care enough about it to fuel it and online it. It is literally taking up space for no other reason than to "save a spot".
Yes? And? That's as good a reason as any. It's a resource, and they've claimed it. You can try to take it from them by starting a war, same as with any other large asset they have.

If you're in a rush, have you tried making an offer to the corp for the spot?

Quote:
Change the rules: Abandoned POSs can be attacked with suspect flag.
How do you determine what counts as “abandoned”?

It forces a pointless grind on the players for no benefit to any relevant party. It all makes sense, if the parties are actively defending it, since it gives them a chance to protect their assets and creates an opportunity for a fight between the attacker and the defender. An abandoned POS is an admission by neglect, that they have no interest in defending that asset and therefore the attacker is just forced to waste money and time on a grind, that doesn't make the game better, the attacker hates to do and the defender doesn't care about. The game will be better if there is a simpler and more convenient way to remove or re-purpose such assets by active players. There is a minor fringe where people might have temporarily forgotten their POS fuels and accidentally caused them to be "abandoned", but such cases could be easily handled by having a grace period before total defense shutdown on the POS, if you're inclined to cater to that fringe group.
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#729 - 2014-04-16 05:19:28 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Caldari 5 wrote:
One of the best reasons to keep standings based lockout of things in HS to keep out the NullSec Alliances that don't take the time to earn the right to them :) One of the main reasons that NS Corps running HS POCOs despite a lack of standings is a kick in the face for the HS Corps that have actually earned the right to control their area of space.


You are aware that a nullsec alliance can simply pay a standings service a few ISK (200m is the going price IIRC) to get them to create a new corp with 7.0 faction standings, have a member that's trusted with 5b take complete control of that corp, set up the 20 or whatever number HS POSes the alliance wants, and then admit the corp to join the alliance?

That is - exactly the same process that most (in the know) highsec research POSes are established with too, minus the part about joining the alliance. Only difference is, a tower bearing the alliance ticker "Goonswarm Federation" is more likely to be subject to wardecs and attacks than one bearing the ticker "Mission BLITZ".

Which is fine, because Goons can (if they care enough to bother) mount a fairly serious POS defense in highsec.

Personally I'd like to see that loophole closed, so that if a Corps Standings dropped below the required amount for more than 7 days then the Faction navy Turns up and starts shooting the POS(or other similar effect)
E6o5
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#730 - 2014-04-16 05:22:59 UTC
Quote:
Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course).


Are there still restircted to moons or how is anywhere defined exactly?
I don't agree with the removal of standing requrements:

  • it kills a mini profession (corp creation, tower setup service)
  • it removes consequences from the game (you can have terrible standings standings with a faction by having fought them for years but can setup a tower in their territory)
Zappity
Kurved Trading
#731 - 2014-04-16 05:32:03 UTC
E6o5 wrote:
Quote:
Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course).


Are there still restircted to moons or how is anywhere defined exactly?
I don't agree with the removal of standing requrements:

  • it kills a mini profession (corp creation, tower setup service)
  • it removes consequences from the game (you can have terrible standings standings with a faction by having fought them for years but can setup a tower in their territory)

Yes, still restricted to moons. Flick through the dev posts for confirmation.

I am very pleased standings are being removed. I don't like having to interact with any NPC in game, least of all the awful missions for grinding status. It is entirely artificial and a complete waste of time. NPC grinds is not what should define EVE.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

E6o5
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#732 - 2014-04-16 05:47:29 UTC
Tetania wrote:
Ok. I'm intrigued and I'll wait patiently for the rest of the plan to be unveiled.

As someone who builds Titans I'd just like to get another voice behind considerations for POS building.

Reducing copy time would certainly be viable for Hull Building after a brief delay to get copies started after the first post patch build that will be fine.

Components tho. Assuming a 1man corp which is going to be a must without lockdown. You still need to keep either 30Bil of BPOs in a POS anc choose betwen gambling on a successful defense or destroying around 20Bil in minerals to retrieve the BPOs while the POS is being reinforced. Or drastically increase your hauling from Refine minerals in station and haul to POS in system. To Refine minerals in Station and haul through a stargate to an Amarr station and then haul components from station to POS to build the ship off a BPC.

I already use 8 freighters multiboxed and consider the existing movement excessive. This would be hundreds of trips.

Upping the copies on a component BPC to 45-50 would be start as long as copy time is <= build time.

Otherwise allowing mineral recovery when jobs are cancelled would be an option but it forces a very very high attention level on POSes and makes eve a literal job to avoid catastrophic loss of assets.

I know supercap builders are the 1% but please don't make the extreme edge cases of ****** mechanics worse for us.


Death to all supers :P
Ming The Merciless
Orbital Reclamation Services
#733 - 2014-04-16 05:50:20 UTC
I tried really really hard to read all the comments up to this point. So please forgive me if I missed where any of my questions or points where answered.

We(my corp) own a lot of BPO's, and we've spent a very very large amount of time and Isk(fuel/bpo cost) researching the ME and PE of those BPO's(like a crazy amount of time/research). We currently have a research and production POS setup. The BPO's live in a station, and are free to use for the members of the corporation remotely at the POS. We(the corporation) own and bought them, and we(the corporation) did the research to get them to where they are today. They are extremely valuable. For that reason they are locked down, non-removable from the station where we have our corp office. Nobody besides the CEO is trusted to be able to take/move them.

It is my understanding that with the changes proposed, we will no longer be able to copy or research the BPO's using our POS without them being moved to the POS because the station were our corp office is does not have copy or research slots(and i didn't see anywhere in the current announcement that they where adding all flavors of slots to all stations, maybe 4th blog that happens). In fact, there are only 32 stations in all of the Metropolis region that have copy/ME or PE research slots. 32 stations out of 432 stations in the region.

I'm also going to guess that of those 32 stations a majority have their corp office rosters full or nearly full so moving to them is not currently really an option.

So if all of that is correct, what I see for my loyal employees and corp mates is an end to the way we operate. We will not be moving our BPO's to our POS - One extended illness or a two week holiday could result in returning to what has literally taken years and hundreds of man/woman hours to build and research destroyed by medical treatments or vacation.

We won't be moving our BPO's to a new corp office in another place because those places are few and far between, and I'm guessing the moons will be just as scarce in those systems.

Even if we moved the low value BPO's to the POS the "POS" isn't a thing, it's a collection of separate containers that would need blueprints moved around depending on what somebody was trying to do, ME/PE/Invent/Build because that's where the slots were/are open.(Future dev blogs may explain how that might be mitigated). As CEO I like my guys;however, i don't trust them as far as I can hit with 1400 artillery so I would have to be out there moving them around for them. Not what I signed into do all day in my "game".

So lucky me I guess. I(as CEO) will be the sole person who can use our BPO's with any semblance to the way things used to be. I can sneak them out to the POS and put them in a secured division hangar of whatever module I need them in, and use them and sneak them back to the corp office at the station when I'm done. But it will be me and me alone because...

1. Only a small number of stations can do copies/me/pe research, and we don't live at/near one.
2. Our POS would need the BPO's at it to do ME/PE/Copies and that isn't worth the risk or micro-management.

Did i interpret the proposed changes correctly based on my current scenario?

Not looking for non-constructive feedback from nullsec sov holding, blue doughnut living-in "industry guru's" I acknowledge ahead of time we play the game differently and that's Ok; However, I believe(maybe wrongly) that many high/low/nullsec small time Indy groups will be affected similarly.
Royaldo
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch.
Clever Use of Neutral Toons
#734 - 2014-04-16 05:51:12 UTC
Its good, industry needed some help. However, I am a little ... well not impressed.

Tbh it sounds like a boring expansion. "Volvo, its boxy but good". Kinda like that.

The last good expansion was the wormhole one. Cus it added new CONTENT. SEXY CONTENT.

Just saying, this is a bit dry and boring.
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#735 - 2014-04-16 06:11:18 UTC
Ming The Merciless wrote:
I tried really really hard to read all the comments up to this point. So please forgive me if I missed where any of my questions or points where answered.

We(my corp) own a lot of BPO's, and we've spent a very very large amount of time and Isk(fuel/bpo cost) researching the ME and PE of those BPO's(like a crazy amount of time/research). We currently have a research and production POS setup. The BPO's live in a station, and are free to use for the members of the corporation remotely at the POS. We(the corporation) own and bought them, and we(the corporation) did the research to get them to where they are today. They are extremely valuable. For that reason they are locked down, non-removable from the station where we have our corp office. Nobody besides the CEO is trusted to be able to take/move them.

It is my understanding that with the changes proposed, we will no longer be able to copy or research the BPO's using our POS without them being moved to the POS because the station were our corp office is does not have copy or research slots(and i didn't see anywhere in the current announcement that they where adding all flavors of slots to all stations, maybe 4th blog that happens). In fact, there are only 32 stations in all of the Metropolis region that have copy/ME or PE research slots. 32 stations out of 432 stations in the region.

I'm also going to guess that of those 32 stations a majority have their corp office rosters full or nearly full so moving to them is not currently really an option.

So if all of that is correct, what I see for my loyal employees and corp mates is an end to the way we operate. We will not be moving our BPO's to our POS - One extended illness or a two week holiday could result in returning to what has literally taken years and hundreds of man/woman hours to build and research destroyed by medical treatments or vacation.

We won't be moving our BPO's to a new corp office in another place because those places are few and far between, and I'm guessing the moons will be just as scarce in those systems.

Even if we moved the low value BPO's to the POS the "POS" isn't a thing, it's a collection of separate containers that would need blueprints moved around depending on what somebody was trying to do, ME/PE/Invent/Build because that's where the slots were/are open.(Future dev blogs may explain how that might be mitigated). As CEO I like my guys;however, i don't trust them as far as I can hit with 1400 artillery so I would have to be out there moving them around for them. Not what I signed into do all day in my "game".

So lucky me I guess. I(as CEO) will be the sole person who can use our BPO's with any semblance to the way things used to be. I can sneak them out to the POS and put them in a secured division hangar of whatever module I need them in, and use them and sneak them back to the corp office at the station when I'm done. But it will be me and me alone because...

1. Only a small number of stations can do copies/me/pe research, and we don't live at/near one.
2. Our POS would need the BPO's at it to do ME/PE/Copies and that isn't worth the risk or micro-management.

Did i interpret the proposed changes correctly based on my current scenario?

Not looking for non-constructive feedback from nullsec sov holding, blue doughnut living-in "industry guru's" I acknowledge ahead of time we play the game differently and that's Ok; However, I believe(maybe wrongly) that many high/low/nullsec small time Indy groups will be affected similarly.


Not to mention having to lock/unlock 100s of BPOs everytime you decide to move because of changes in prices or whatnot,

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands
#736 - 2014-04-16 06:22:57 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Alyxportur wrote:
You didn't explain how the price scaling will or will not be implemented for sovereignty nullsec. Does this mean that outposts will be forced into this pricing scheme? or will they remain a manually specified cost? or will we have the ability to choose between one or the other since, as it is nullsec, we own the outpost.

They did: outposts have the same cost scaling mechanic and that part goes into a sink, the station owner can also manually specify a cost.

What was not specified is how fast they scale up - if, say, an amarr station with 100 simultaneous jobs has the same cost as a highsec station with 100 or if its lower, and I assume that will be mentioned when they also mention what they're doing with the slot bonus upgrades.


Perhaps the upgrades reduce the scaling costs by a %.

It would be nice if players were able to use the mechanic to dynamically calculate fees though. It would mean an empire's income could automatically adjust to wherever production and research occurs in their space stations. Such income doesn't compare to renter or moon income, so it doesn't seem likely to cause too much contention. Even if players don't get to use it, I suppose many of us are curious to know the actual algorithm for calculating the ISK sink fees.
Zappity
Kurved Trading
#737 - 2014-04-16 06:31:35 UTC
At the risk of giving poor Dinsdale an aneurism, what about allowing TCUs (or whatever) in highsec? These would not affect gameplay in any way other than giving the TCU holder a share of the industry fees that currently go to NPCs. For bonus points, allow the TCU holder to apply an additional percentage above the weighted 0-14% rate defined by usage.

It would definitely fuel highsec conflict.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Zappity
Kurved Trading
#738 - 2014-04-16 06:33:00 UTC
Royaldo wrote:
Its good, industry needed some help. However, I am a little ... well not impressed.

Tbh it sounds like a boring expansion. "Volvo, its boxy but good". Kinda like that.

The last good expansion was the wormhole one. Cus it added new CONTENT. SEXY CONTENT.

Just saying, this is a bit dry and boring.

You have clearly not done much industry. It badly needed an expansion. Or two.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

George Wizardry
Asian P0RN
#739 - 2014-04-16 06:35:47 UTC
Hi, I think modifying the game to allow more is great but........

To my untrained MMO eye it appears as if all the latest changes/additions to Eve are pushing more and more towards a pure PvP environment and so far away from the true sandbox of equal mix PvP/PvE as possible.

Creating POS's in all high sec just gives the PvP's a chance to wardec your corp and blow them up.

Variable costing of jobs sounds good but have a hard coded upper limit or make it that each job type will take a specific amount of time e.g copying takes 1 week + 1 day per copy


If CCP really wants to have more PvP in the game that's ok I'll stop playing but I have a better idea :)

With-in High/low and null-sec create solar systems ( preferably chained together so it is possible to avoid them ) dedicated PvP and PvE and mixed area's. PvP high sec has a timer that takes concord 2 or 3 times as long to respond and low and null sec the same as now. The PvE high/low/null area's players are unable to shoot at any other player unless shown as a criminal red tag. But the pirates/npc's are exponentially harder than the existing mixed area's e.g high sec gets pirate cruisers as standard, low sec gets pirate bc's and null gets pirate battleships along with making missions more difficult etc

For me this makes a lot more sense in that the sandbox is still open to all and includes all the changes you want to make while making a lot more ppl in both PvP and PvE groups happy :)

Just my $0.02isk worth

Within the EVE universe I have no interest or desire to kill other players, real life is a different story......

Zappity
Kurved Trading
#740 - 2014-04-16 06:44:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Querns wrote:
El 1974 wrote:
No need to remove offline POSses. Allow players to shoot them without a wardec and they will clear them. Perhaps make attackers suspect, but keep concord out. Give players a chance, you can always remove POSses later if that doesn't work.

If offline pos spam is a concern, this is an elegant solution.

Why isn't the wardec solution sufficient?

Because it clearly isn't sufficient right now. Have you ever gone out and looked at the number of offline POS in highsec?

EHP also needs to come down. The clutter in wormhole space tells us the problem is not limited only to highsec protection.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.