These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Back Into the Structure

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
O'nira
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#201 - 2015-03-22 02:28:06 UTC
How does this affect wh space?

are these replacing poses or just outposts?
Gorongo Frostfyr
#202 - 2015-03-22 02:30:31 UTC
Last step removing 98% of the npc stations?
Madd Adda
#203 - 2015-03-22 02:32:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Madd Adda
Aphsala wrote:
These announcements really got me excited, that is until he said basically "can be build,manufactured and deployed in empire"

Now unless you are going to be really shaking up how empire works, just why?

These structures when i seen them filled me with the need to go to null sec an become part of something, now saying that im back to, meh why bother.

These structures, for me, could have/should have, been the carrot on the end of the stick to get ppl to move there an participate, become part of something bigger sort of thing.

Now if your getting rid of empire (which i doubt) i understand, but if not i have to question the why of allowing all this in hi-sec.

Sorry for being a downer an probably missing something so damn obvious but well i just do not understand why hi-sec, as it is, needs these structures or even should be able to construct them in the first place, these should be exclusive to null/wh space an if you want to participate in the construction of them, well then move there an get out of hi-sec.

Just the thoughts of some not so understanding random carebear tbh


how is that fair to hi sec players? why deny us equal usage these structures? What if we don't want to fight the big alliances who would just steamroll us first chance because we're too small/ill prepared to go to null? I understand some structures ought to be sov/null only and what not, but don't make it so we're forced to go somewhere that we would flatten with little effort.

Honestly i don't understand the appeal of forcing people to null beyond "we can shoot them without consequence"

I understand your feelings of being a part of something and building these structures, but you should realize, you can still do that even in hi sec.

Carebear extraordinaire
Yilaina
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#204 - 2015-03-22 02:32:48 UTC
The transition plan could do with some thought about buyback or conversion schemes for existing assets and BPOs. NPC orders which allow corps to resell the redundant structures at a time of their own choosing might work, while conversion of BPOs to the new structures should be relatively trivial.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#205 - 2015-03-22 02:43:17 UTC
Structures will "work" for me when I can issue courier contracts with POCOs or similar infrastructure as begin and end points, allowing me to manage my PI infrastructure in Metropolis while I'm busy grinding standings in Devoid.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Memphis Baas
#206 - 2015-03-22 02:48:10 UTC
Please set up a system whereby the structure owner can label the mooring spots with some visible text message. Because I'd rather see "Don't park here, CEO's spot" than have to listen to a session of "WHO TOOK MY PARKING SPOT, GET YOUR STUPID IBIS OUT OF MY PARKING SPOT OR YOU'RE KICKED" over teamspeak.
Tajic Kaundur
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#207 - 2015-03-22 02:52:12 UTC
As long as Dscan isn't blocked by the Observatory, I'm happy with it. I feel like Dscan is a bit different than the rest of the things it can effect, since not only must you be in system to use it, while you can look at the map out-of-system- Dscan also requires you to be very active to use it.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#208 - 2015-03-22 03:11:39 UTC
Wow this is bold guys! sheesh!

i would say it has the potential to totally revolutionise the game, but also there are some very sizeable traps that you can fall into that'd make a lot of people very concerned and liable to take some serious action if they feel they're being marginalised.

Quote:
We are striving towards making our largest new structures as imposing and as visually rewarding as possible to reflect on the massive effort required to deploy them


firstly awesome that you're really giving a size increase to XL(outpost) Structures from 45km to 100km. so long as the 100km ones are still somewhat bulky and not super skinny. i Am somewhat unsure how you're going to transition from 1 to the other here without either replacing totally during a downtime or allowing multiple nullsec outposts.

Quote:
... we are taking a different approach by making structures fittable, just like ships, with all the repercussions this implies.


i love the structure fitting screen! tbh i proposed and made a mockup of something similar 2 & 1/2 years ago under the modular pos threads, but the implementation of this is so much better (for obvious reasons - you guys are professionals after all!)

this was my original post for context: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1818171#post1818171

Service Slots
One aspect of the service slots, 'roles' and structure sizes in their various forms are a little confusing.
In the introduction part when describing service slots you refer the reader to the 'various structure roles' below as examples of what service slots can be filled with.
However the manner with which you present the roles seem to describe them as individual structures and not service modules. This gets slightly more confusing when each structure on the various 'structure lines' have a service slot attribute on them seemingly indicating how many service slots those structures have.

See if they're the structures with the service slots to fill, what do you fill them with? sorry if im being pedantic about it.

However the variety and scope of the types of services is a real breath of fresh air!


Specific service slots:

I would recommend though that certain aspects of some service slots are made a little more complex as to not seem like things are magically 'appearing' in game complete and fully formed, eg the datacore spawning that could be turned into a form of raw material detection, collection and manufacture.


Love the idea of Ship insurance defined by Corporation. But, and this is a big but... anything of that form should have to be designed with a requirement that an actual player (with specific roles defining him as a SRP officer) has to rubber stamp each loss, approving it for additional insurance above and beyond regular Ship Insurance. Otherwise corporation wallets will be drained dry with people abusing the system to gain ISK under dubious circumstances.


Interbus Shipping sounds like a novel idea but i cannot see it working at all for the risk/reward players would have to put in. by that i dont mean personal risk of being killed themselves but the very real possibility of almost anyone intercepting shipments if they are to travel traditionally (gate to gate). unless the shipments are done similarly to how red frog/black frog do thier shipments. but then again an artificial game mechanic being injected here would pretty much obliterate player opportunities to provide services to others, black frog being a prime example.


With regards to mining and drilling platforms, nullsec is screaming out for a way to mass collect low end ores in sufficient quantity and speed to make importing less of a thing. and if only to allow the poaching of high end ores out of mining sites to not be seen as a total negative. Mining low ends in a max yield hulk is still pretty low isk per hour especially considering the other things he could be doing for money to feed either pvp activity or the purchase and importing of assets to sell to others for pvp activities. This is why the 'siege' mode idea for the rorqual, activating a massive high speed high quantity collector for low ends has been such a hit on the forums.


The ideas and proposals for Observatories and gates need to be rethought however, and can be significantly improved with regards to intel networks, sov based local with abilities to disrupt, hack steal or otherwise modify data that sov holders gleam from such structures and their interplay with ships in space uncloaked around them. Most activity metrics in the starmap are too vague to be utilised by nullsec alliances, this is why Intel channels are a thing, alongside web based apps that utilise copy/paste parsing of data into a shared pool of indexable contextualised intelligence on threats - yes its a thing too! internet space ships is serious business!


The inclusion of installable NPC agents into sov nullsec is something that should have been done ages ago, however their implementation shouldnt be all encompasing. By that i mean a Null Sec Organisation who's members consistently kill Blood raider ships should not be able to install a Blood Raider Agent in their structures. Details like this add compexity but also add realism by respecting logical premisses.


TBC...
Grimmash
New Jovian Exploration Department
New Jovian Collective
#209 - 2015-03-22 03:12:24 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Grimmash wrote:
For high sec, it makes sense that you need to be in a corp to use structures. Anchoring in the NPC corp gives you an unassailable structure, which is not really a good design choice. No risk for the reward.


NPC corp members can already anchor MTUs and Mobile Depots. Why should other structures be different? They're not "unassailable". The plan for the future is to be able to burn everything to the ground.

Grimmash wrote:
From a wormhole perspective, we also need more info on entosis and how that will settle out. For small to mid size WH corps, I can see many of them avoiding larger structures they could otherwise afford and use if the timezone issues around the proposed entosis modules remains. Especially if defenses have to be manned to do anything. Why let my opponents have a window to sov zap my large/XL structures when I can make them grind the mediums?


Who says you'll be able to anchor large/XL structures in unknown space? You'll be able to get the same level of functionality out of a collection of medium structures. Medium structures only have a "damage" rather than Entosis or Entosis + Site combat mechanism.


To the first, comparing an MTU to POS or similar structure (that provides industry services, ship protection, etc) is not an apples to apples comparison. If an MTU or MD had shield, that might make it comparable. You can't wardec an NPC corp, so how would you get at the bigger structures in any reasonable way?

To the second, based on comments CCP has made, I would wager that they are going to keep some similar function to the POS for WH dwellers, if not improve certain aspects of it. If they remove functionality or make it more complicated, I will be very shocked. The point of my comment was if the big structures have the entosis functionality as it currently works, I see a lot of people just not using them, and I would like any future CCP WH design decisions to actually be conscious ones :). But we are still missing a lot of info to really have any sort of meaningful debate.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#210 - 2015-03-22 03:43:00 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
The Impending sh*tstorm that is Housing...
so yah i expect a LOT of very polarised views on this mainly because the people who will be highly against the:

Quote:
Fate of stored items on structure destruction


Specifically moored items. Now considering the value of the items currently in a freeform 'mooring' in POS's any significant reduction to the safety of those assets when moving from the current system to this new system will be met with significant resistance, and rightly so in my opinion.

considering that further on in the devblog it reads:

Quote:
...if your e-peen is too large for docking, mooring will be preferred option.

...Wreck: when a structure is destroyed ... Moored ships would however become vulnerable and up for grabs by anyone.


im paraphrasing slightly but the intent is pretty obvious from what i see. This goes entirely against the 1st Improvement Goal set out at the start of the devblog and states:

Quote:
Support and enhance existing gameplay


this change does not improve or enhance gameplay, it removes gameplay options and endangers assets owned by players when they may not even be logged in. which is entirely unfair.
Im not going to lie, for people hunting moby swinging d*cks its fantastic news, and is why i fully expect some severe polarisation of views on this.

My personal opinion on what should be done with regards to logged off supers that arent aggro'd but are moored onto a structure thats about to die, is ripped right from Battlestar Galactica's RAZER mini-movie, where by a ship cuts off mooring ties and 'blind' jumps to a random location in a randomised system.

In terms of specific eve context this random location could be within base jump range attribute of the super from its previous location, and due to its blind jump there's would be no cyno to speak of. Its Jump would be conducted from within the mooring forcefield that counteracts any warp disruption field around it. This action could not and should not be available to an active player or in any other situation except the cataclysmic destruction of the structure containing the mooring service.
Once the jump is completed the super e-warps off using base attributes for the ship in terms of align speed and warp. The blind jump direction and distance is trackable due to how eve jump portals work, so it does give a hint of its direction. Knowledge of this and the configuration of nearby star systems can be key to planning a trap with sufficient skill, knowledge and preparation, alongside a good amount of luck.

This would also add to the necessity of strategic placement of supercapital mooring pens.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#211 - 2015-03-22 03:56:03 UTC
i assume the new structures will have access right and service fee customization options. For example standing based sell orders on market hubs, player set taxes etc.

Will you start with the old-new deployables like mobile depots and give us things like deploy-for-corp after all?

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
Justa Hunni
State War Academy
Caldari State
#212 - 2015-03-22 04:15:09 UTC
Javani wrote:


I snippet from the Round Table:

1. ) The Hull sould not be limited to sec status / wh. only the rigs for specalistation. (no supers for wh )
2. ) No AI would fire back. only player can fire back. currently they are looking for timezone and capture machanics at sov 5.0
3. ) L and XL will evently have simillar machanics like the new sov system
4. ) highsec etc. will be currently limited by usable rigs wich will be limiting the me/te boost etc. no size limit. also there will be a thukker rig for low sec capital producement.
5. ) If i heard it right. there will no race specific structures only meta or maybe t2 variations
6. ) They said the first set (assambly or sience or ... which is currently not selected) should hit TQ this year
7. ) After fan-fest good :) thanks


No AI defence? so much for small single TZ corps in wormholes. Can someone remind CCP that this is a game, not our occupationUgh
Justa Hunni
State War Academy
Caldari State
#213 - 2015-03-22 04:19:20 UTC
RainReaper wrote:
Justa Hunni wrote:
Nyctef wrote:


tl;dr being able to put together a small town of individual structures would make me feel more like I'm building a home rather than just renting someone else's


I really like the changes but I'm quoting above as I had a totally different understanding of what is being contemplated. Right now I can have my POS do almost anything I want it to do (within PG and CPU) but your new structures seem to be role dependent. Does this mean I'll have to have separate research, manufacturing and refining "arrays" within my WH system rather than a single or two POS with all the necessary current arrays (with all the extra fueling etc headaches that enforces)?

isent it possible to just change the gear when you want it to do something else? you can store the things in the pos's storage right?


I was under the impression that with the different types of "arrays" which appear to be destined to replace POS, that they all seem very specialized (manufacturing, mining, research) and wasn't there something in the blog about "they can be fitted to do anything but not as well as the specialized ones" or words to that effect. Could you make a generalized small system C&C structure?
Michael Ruckert
Hohere Kavallerie-Kommando
#214 - 2015-03-22 04:24:54 UTC
I think this sums up proposed structure changes.

http://imgur.com/5ygjD55

"No matter how well you perform there's always somebody of intelligent opinion who thinks it's lousy." - Laurence Olivier
Astecus
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#215 - 2015-03-22 04:28:21 UTC
Will you be able to 'ship scan' these structures to see how they are fitted?

Reloaded Main: Astevon | Creator of the Anti-ganking channel, Anti-ganking.net and AstralServices.net
FuriousPig
IronPig
Sev3rance
#216 - 2015-03-22 04:40:43 UTC
While these changes seem interesting & appealing, an obvious question springs to mind:

What is the impetus for Smaller Alliances/Corps to invest Billions in these Mega Structures if the Larger Alliances can drop in & destroy them on a whim? I am pretty sure that after this has happened a couple of times, no one will build them.

To think that this ‘Sandcastle Kicking’ won’t occur frequently is naïve at best & the danger here is that 0.0 becomes bereft of appeal & content to smaller entities.

With the system as is, there is a drive to re-take your assets but if they are destroyed I would imagine the less wealthy Alliances will be thinking ‘What’s the point?’ bearing in mind the same thing can happen every week.

The only way around this would be to join these larger Alliances which is counter to the scenario CCP is hoping to achieve.
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#217 - 2015-03-22 04:58:46 UTC
The bit on this during the Eve keynote was really kick ass. I got pretty stoked about it.

Reading the dev blog, however, there are 2 or 3 points of concern.

1. We are also considering giving those a tax advantage next to NPC stations (either by increasing NPC taxes or having tax reductions on the player-made variations).

Please don't nerf an existing system to make the new shinies feel shinier. This has happened a lot of times in Eve and it always adds a sour taste to what should have been a positive experience. Stick with tax reductions on the new stuff, not tax increases on the existing NPC stations.

2. As such our plan is to:

Progressively cut functionalities from existing structures. This would match new structures arrival that provide an overlapping gameplay. For instance, deploying the new Assembly Arrays would cause existing Starbases and Outposts to lose their manufacturing bonuses at first, then their manufacturing capability.
Give ample time for players to evacuate their assets from existing structures and adapt to the changes.

I notice it wasn't mentioned in the dev blog, but you should also give full reimbursement for the value of those existing structures that will be made obselete and removed, as a minimum. Don't shortchange people.

3. Service modules possibilities: Research ME, research TE, copy, Tech II invention, Tech III invention and datacore spawning. We want those new structures to ultimately replace our existing Datacore system – one way of doing so would be to have Datacore caches spawn near the Research Laboratory that refill at various intervals. Those caches could be set to be looted by anyone, but with a specific tax set up by the structure owners.

So the research teams are working hard and recording their findings on datacores, and what? The janitor is dumping them out the window by the bucket-full? I know I'm being harsh here, but my point is, try to find a way to do this so that it's believable from an in-game, in-character perspective. When in-game mechanics require meta-gaming concepts to make sense, it really takes something away from a game. I'm not a roleplayer. Damned far from it. But breaking immersion is bad. The mechanics should all make sense from a in-game perspective. (I might mention here, that's one of the weak points of the current military and industrial upgrades. Zero effort was put into writing a fitting description for any of them. You don't have to be that clever to pull it off, either, is the thing. It's freaking easy to do, but instead they have meta-gaming-style descriptions on the show info. I just haven't seen that in the other games I've played. It's a very low standard of quality that is a stark contrast to most of the rest of what's in Eve.)

Other than that, this stuff looks pretty damned awesome. I'll repeat what I said in another thread this morning, Eve just keeps getting better and better!

Do not run. We are your friends.
Richecko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2015-03-22 04:58:55 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Structures will "work" for me when I can issue courier contracts with POCOs or similar infrastructure as begin and end points, allowing me to manage my PI infrastructure in Metropolis while I'm busy grinding standings in Devoid.


+1
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#219 - 2015-03-22 04:59:28 UTC
If you plan on getting rid of outposts even very far down the road then I will be moving any non-essential stuff out of null. I won't leave null but I will definitely lower my foot print. This includes stuff that I stock pile and my market stuff. I'll be using null just for making isk everything else will get moved to high sec.

The station experience that you get with null sec outposts where you have a place that you know your stuff will always be safe at it one of the factors that drives null. Removing that safety net will be a negative from a mental aspect. Even if it does not introduce that much more risk it will be perceived as much more risk.

I think perceived risk = lowered activity.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli
EX Winet
Doomheim
#220 - 2015-03-22 05:05:38 UTC
So i have two simple questions

1 - There has been alot of talk coming out of the round table with regards to replacement or reimbursement for Towers/mods/structures/BPC, however nothing has been said about Stations. Will stations be replaced via isk or the new structures. Or as it seems is being hinted but not outright said, will they just become obsolete and thus destroyable leaving alliances out of pocket?

2 - There is really only one major benefit to Sov holding, reduced fuel bills. Will the new structures have this applied or did CCP just sneak it out without anyone actually being aware.