EVE Information Portal

if you're talking to xttz without realizing who xttz is, you probably shouldn't be trying to talk down to people by implying your vast knowledge of eve history

especially on anything related to pos, sov warfare, sov mechanics, or really anything about eve mechanics

Yeah, even an individual like myself, who considers himself to be superior to all other thought leaders in Eve: Online, defers to xttz's expertise in the area of sovereignty and POS.

Well, I'm new in business.

Does corps can adjust the interior appearance for structures which allow docking inside?
Nothing against a unique Gallentean appearance of labs for instance. But it would be really cool to have SKINs for structures too. Outside AND inside...

---

I really like the planned new visuals of POS forcefields. But why this great structure should be removed? Which issue is breaking down a "shield tower"?

Why not have medium sized structures which provide opportunities for small and medium gangs temporarily?
I would like to have medium sized modules for structures and medium and or large sized modules for ships which allow to create forcefields while anchored temporarily. Modules consuming fuel depending on size and field size and type.

Means:
- fleet shield with force field (EHP)
- fleet "cloak" (reducing sig radius significantly) -> large scan inhibitor (no forcefield EHP instead)
- counter measures for scan ships or observatories creating or reducing echoes of fleets (no forcefield EHP instead)
- webbing tower (no forcefield EHP)
- energy neutralizer tower (no forcefield EHP)
- eWar system (no forcefield EHP)
- ships for temporary/ninja moon mining
- highslot disabling inside the field (no forcefield EHP)
- industry ship siege system (i.e. forcefielded Rorqual for on-grid support)
- jammer (no forcefield EHP)
- impulse decloaker with cooldown (no forcefield EHP)
- lowsec or 0-sec anchored jumpbridge into highsec i.e. for smugglers

Means not:
- Replacement of siege modules

Of course you should not be able to fire weapons or activate harvesting eqipment inside a field like that. You cannot project a bubble around static obstacles of all kind (i.e. within belts).

However... I'd like to see shield towers and forcefields in future too. But they should get a downgrade in fuel usage and become fast-anchorable medium deployables.

Opposite this you have to think about reward for killed structures.

If all assets are gone, no one likes to bring them there again. If no assets could be claimed by the aggressor, aggression makes no economical sense.

Structures should be destructable. So far it's ok. There should be a way to bring all 0.0 players together for that issue what creates a real reason discrepancy between aggressing and defending parties. But not alone for 0.0 space.

Yep, use this thread for now.

My corp currently lives in a wormhole with 29 active POSs. My chief concern is that we can continue to live and operate in our wormhole without having to fear for our assets every time we go outside. If forcefields are going away, I would like these structures to still have solid enough defenses to prevent anyone from just waltzing in and taking it out. I think being able to anchor multiple structures on the same grid would be very good for this. If a giant marketing structure doesn't have the slots available to adequately defend itself, allow other structures to be nearby and react to aggression. Maybe not a ton of them on one grid... but enough to be a substantial enough force that defenders and residents feel safe and a big enough challenge that attackers with sizable enough fleets can take on the challenge to destroy them.

Also i think from an aesthetic point of view being able to have a giant floating space colony sounds AMAZING.

Another thing... please please please don't let the observatories block out the d-scan in a wormhole system. That will ruin wormhole pvp and force all pilots to use combats to so much as see if a wormhole is inhabited. It kills all the surprise and danger that makes wormhole space so amazing.

The other concern I have is what happens to assets when a structure is destroyed. A big staple in wormhole PVP is structure bashing and having no loot drop from dead structures eliminates the motivation to attack them in the first place. Every wormholer knows that there is always a possibility of getting your POS taken out and loosing your assets. It's part of the risk of getting into wormhole space and I don't think that should go away completely.

I am still so excited for these changes though. Having to manage all of our POSs with as many members as we have has gotten more and more ridiculous with the limited roles they have available right now. Guess it won't be much of a POS Party without POSs anymore though :/

If you dislike the proposed changes and on the other hand like structure shooting... there still is that monument in front of Jita 4-4. Excellent opportunity to team up with a few corp mates and spend a night or two. ;-)

One intresting thought if the entosis mechanics are going to be used further down the size scale, is how is the new whack-a-mole capture system going to work in Wormholes? You cant exactly spawn capture nodes in random wormhole systems and say "find em yourself", and if they all spawn in the system with the structure, WH guys are getting a free pass at defending their stuff compared to everyone else. Hows it going to work (Are we going to see some silly crap like random spawn nodes in to other systems with permanent statics until the structure is captured)?

Above, I suggested the idea of allowing us to make intermediate size structures, that is, a structure between a medium and a large, but sticking two mediums together. The method would be to deploy a second medium at the same location as an existing one, and the two end up docked to each other. The two structures would still be treated as separate structures in terms of slots, grid, and CPU. They could share inventory, or at least allow easy movement of inventory between the two.

Any thought on allowing something like this?

Another question: Many corps deal with war and structures by turtling. That is, take down the structure for the duration. In a way, it givers an unopposed win to the aggressor. For such corps, the new structures become quite uninviting. When taken down, the rigs are lost.

How about: Unanchored and scooped structures stay rigged? They only lose the rigs if repackaged for sale. That way any corp, even those with no interest in war, will find the new structures inviting. They just have to deal with the consequence of having to take down, lose the use of, and re-deploy the structure each and every war.

the 6 gun thing is really just a visual part. its 1 gun at the end of the day. shooting at one thing. taking away one slot. having the stats of one gun.

i am also curious how you want to compute the tracking and falloffs. since you can't just see it as a ship and compute everything from the center of a 100km large structure. POS was already inconsistent how it worked