These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#481 - 2015-03-24 11:24:01 UTC
There seems a bit of a conflict between the - ultimately planned (?) - conversion of outposts into XL structures and the 'freeport' part of the new entosis link mechanism.

Is that going to be addressed?
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
#482 - 2015-03-24 12:00:19 UTC
Some thoughts to mix in..... Style and Preference, Visual and Personal Interest

I'm sure that many of us enjoy our empire-themed control towers, if only for appearance and imagined fealty, just like our ships. So, isn't it possible that current control towers could be 'reprocessed' (redesigned) for use into the new system?

I think it would be really nice if they could still serve as general-purpose base-type structures; maybe no special bonuses for scanning or manufacturing or research but still capable of several common activities, and maybe ship-like bonuses to certain offensive and defensive systems that we can choose from (and maybe not, because seeing lasers and missiles coming out of a minmatar tower would look pretty badass) ..... And even if we can't see a continuation of our current control towers, having empire-styled equivalents to proposed structures would really REALLY be nice.

As cool as the general sci-fi look of those new structures is, we have a lot of cool sci-fi style in the existing ships and structures in EVE based on the empires! This glorious stylization and variety is really part of what makes EVE look so COOL.


Fuel Block Thoughts

Having empire-typed structures would also give purpose to having the four types of fuel blocks, keeping the fuels market varied and interesting. Maybe add as some suggest a new generic(?) fuel block type that uses all of the isotopes equally and the new non-empire-typed structures could use that.

OR MAYBE (idea just struck me!) one type of [probably mandatory] module for larger structures could be a "Power Plant" that uses one of the four (or five) fuel block types to supply power to the structure ... for example: Amarr Power Plant I can be loaded as a module with charge type 'Amarr Fuel Block' and uses said fuel to supply power to the structure (because electricity in the wire doesn't care whether it was generated from coal or a wind turbine, right?) aaand as a module it could possibly have meta and T2 variants that have properties such as having a larger fuel capacity or slghtly reduced fuel consumption .... and maybe also size variants to apply to different sizes of structures.


Think about it? :3

Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
Ragnar Snowed
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#483 - 2015-03-24 12:28:31 UTC
Hello,

I would like to propose an idea for "Fate of stored items on structure destruction"

Why didn't use an insure mecanism ? like my house burn, I've got an insurance contract for my stuff in it.

For the "Moored ships would however become vulnerable and up for grabs by anyone" does insurance contract function if the ship is stolen ?

thanks
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#484 - 2015-03-24 12:53:13 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
This was something missing from the blog but we discussed in our roundtable at Fanfest today. We will make sure you get some reasonable value back from your old structures and not just nerf them until they don't do anything. This includes the tower, modules and blueprints to build them.

We did a similar thing during the industry expansion.

More "some" than "reasonable".

That aside I'm looking forward to more news. Sounds promising.

Remove standings and insurance.
Felter Echerie
Profit Prophets
#485 - 2015-03-24 12:54:08 UTC
as a wh resident i'm really excited about the new possibilities of having a whole plethora of structures to choose from. i like the idea of having wh markets and overall more things to do in space. i gotta ask... can we choose if our structures will appear in overview? because you'd want a market to appear in overview, but not so much your mining station. how's that gonna be balanced; I'd also like to see some sort of mechanich that makes it easier for setting up freeport stations in dangerous space; mainly markets. because it can drive all sorts of interesting emergent gameplay; even more if it's acessible enough to new players to roam these places; also... can we have concord protecting markets? so i can, for instance, have a market in my wh that's safe enough for anyone who's passing by to trade; and safe enough for us in the wh to be worth having something like that in our home system. i think we're lacking an incentive for cooperation in eve... i mean cooperation between neutrals and just people who are not enemies overall. i also think that this new structures could in some way tie in with the fps universe; even if it's in the way of eve items we have in cargo holds that correspond to spawn tickets in the fps world; so the assimetry would come in how many spawns each side has, and eve players would be responsible for the logistics of battles; transporting soldiers across the galaxy. making it difficult to defend areas far from empire... unless you have a structure to train dust soldiers... XD
it'd be good to see separate entities cooperating for a common goal; without having to form an alliance or hold sov space... just making it worth while to cooperate to create content. capitals would fall into a mobile structure sort of role; but loosing completely the bridge capabilities in the process... but i dunno... maybe smaller ships could *dock* in capitals or something... that would make sense with the new sov system; since attackers could stage in a capital and it would fit the ship style better imo.
but i digress...
so that means we can make our own thera? i like the idea of whs having their own markets and empire like structures; because theyre constantly changing location; but i think that there has to be some safety incentive to make these markets lively, maybe some sort of commerce free pass; or some concord npcs that are strong enough to desincourage random ganks near such markets; but not strong enough to impede that sort of action... in a way the ones who live in that system would still be responsible for securing it, but i'd like to see it beeing safe enough to make the 2week old toon exploring in his\her heron feel confortable enough to dock and buy some probes and that sort of stuff.
other than that, fanfest brought great news to all new eden cheers to all ccp pilots; hope i've provided helpful feedback o7
Felter Echerie
Profit Prophets
#486 - 2015-03-24 12:55:34 UTC
Ragnar Snowed wrote:
Hello,

I would like to propose an idea for "Fate of stored items on structure destruction"

Why didn't use an insure mecanism ? like my house burn, I've got an insurance contract for my stuff in it.

For the "Moored ships would however become vulnerable and up for grabs by anyone" does insurance contract function if the ship is stolen ?

thanks

+1 to insurance
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#487 - 2015-03-24 13:52:46 UTC
Zappity wrote:
What about abandoned structures? Please take the opportunity to fix that flaw of POS design. They should be hackable or something to prevent the current clutter.

And I imagine the Observatory will have effects on Local?


Yeah good point, we need to figure out ways to remove abandoned structures. We had a few options in store for Control Towers, may be time to have a look and adapt them.
grumpychops
The Farting Unicorns
#488 - 2015-03-24 13:52:52 UTC
xttz wrote:
Isengrimus wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
One thing I would be interested to see is a mechanic by which undefended structues can be captured intact by an invader, rather than having to blow everything up and start from zero when taking territory. Generally in real-world warfare you only engage in general destruction if your conquest is being fought over, and walking in unopposed to plant your flag doesn't usually involve destroying everything in sight in the process. Any thoughts?


That's a valid point when you have in mind the Entosis link mechanics. Some people claim it is addressed in the Devblog, but I fail to see it - how will these two mechanics interact? Should we assume (or even better, can some DEV confirm it) that L and XL structures will be either conquerable or destructible only after the full Entosis capture event for tjhem is won? So the winner can decide whether they flip the XL structure (say, Administrative Outpost), or start to blow it up?

If it is so, then your point about capturing intact structures should be easily addressed.

Or is the Entosis Link only a temporary solution?

My concern is that if not coordinated with the new Fozziesov ssytem, the destrcutible structures will, at the end of the day, lead us to the point where we are now - i.e. who brings a bigger blob, wins.


With so much in flux right now, this is an opportunity for a fundamental rethink. What if there were multiple options to handle structures, each with different benefits. Consider this:


  • An Entosis Link is still used as currently proposed to contest and deactivate a structure. Once deactivated, a new owner is free to establish their own claim to a system by deploying a new structure. The old structure could potentially be reactivated via Entosis, but in the case of sov structures it would only be if the new owner's claim has been disrupted first.

  • These disabled structures could be salvaged, with some form of advantage for the former owner (perhaps it takes 50% longer for an enemy to salvage the structure). This allows an opportunity to recover investment in upgrades. If not salvaged within a certain time (perhaps a month), they would eventually degrade and collapse.

  • Alternatively, a structure can be destroyed by applying sufficient damage to it once deactivated. This is a more permanent solution that involves more risk for an attacker, but can be useful in denying an opponent a chance to recover.

  • Finally there's the capture option. Rather than deploying a new structure an attacker could elect to conquer a disabled structure, although obviously this would involve the most risk as they'd be trying to acquire an established location. This could potentially be a new role to help reinvent a ship class. What if Supercarriers became Motherships again, only now they are troop carriers specialised for boarding operations and conquering structures? The size and level of upgrade investment in a structure would dictate how long was needed to take it over.


This leaves all sorts of different avenues for content. Invaders can operate a 'scorched earth' policy, simply purging an area of any activity before moving on. They could set traps, shutting down structures and waiting for the owners to return and restore or salvage them. Then of course we have the traditional approach of invading space to conquer it, which makes heavily upgraded territory a prime target.


CCP, I think the idea xttz listed above should be looked at by your working group. It retains the entosis mechanism that you guys like so much, but it also provides a compromise to allow supers a role.

This will also give the players a chance to evaluate the worth of the decisions and give CCP feedback on the preferences and how they affect the game- instead of being tied to one mechanic.

This will also allow supers to retain a role, at least until the working group figures out what their purpose will be.
grumpychops
The Farting Unicorns
#489 - 2015-03-24 14:08:20 UTC
This may equally belong in the mooring ideas thread, but I'll put it here for now.

The new structures cause issues for 2 ships in particular, the Rorqual and the Titan.

This is because both ships have roles that were previously made feasible with POS shields (bridging and sieging).

The new structure mechanics appear to tip the risk/reward assessment away from these roles being feasible (see the 400+ comments above for explanations)

Solution: Add a mobile shield structure.

- While the structure has a shield effect for visual purposes, the structure uses a mooring mechanic.
- This mechanic limits the number of ships allowed to simultaneously use the structure.
- This allows the server to properly log its use.

- The structure could use the current mechanics based on size for the other structures.

- The shields could be online and offlined. When online, the structure's fuel consumption peaks drastically. Perhaps providing only 4-6 hours of continuous shield use.

- Shields must be offline to refuel.

- Structure may be online only in space where you own Sov.

- You have no ability to activate active modules or project DPS from the structure.

- Modules like the Industrial Core and the Jump Portal Generator to function.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#490 - 2015-03-24 14:09:47 UTC
xttz wrote:
I may well have missed it, but there's something I have yet to see a clear answer for:

Currently one of the primary roles for starbases is as a strategic base. During invasions and longer-term skimishes they're often dropped as a staging location to support fleets in various ways. While most of the specific functions here do seem to be covered, the proposed structure roles list doesn't include an obvious analogue for a military base.

What are we expected to deploy for supporting members during a war in enemy territory? Offensive drilling platforms? Aggressive research labs? Hostile market hubs?

I can't be the only one who thinks that seems a bit silly.


Are you saying you don't like offensively drilling platform into other people faces? Which kind of madness is this?

More seriously, yes, military platforms are something we are considering.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#491 - 2015-03-24 14:18:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Re reimbursement: this is an interesting idea, will discuss it with the team.

Re racial types: the new structures wont be following the standard racial variants ie Caldari, Gallente etc


Maybe you need to "tear down" your outpost over time to get the resources? Might be a new use for the salvaging skill. Every successful cycle, you have a chance of getting something. Would make for a lot opportunity for fights and ninja salvagers :)


Actually, within the database, there are salvage items (wrecked PI items iirc) for destroyed structures. I imagine these will be used for structure rigs.

As a proud owner of edit: almost every rig BPO in the game, I'm looking forward to expanding my collection.

Wait a tick... does this mean we will be able to pew pew all those abandoned POSes and maybe take some moons?

Or does CCP have a plan to deal with all the abandoned POSes that have lain dormant for more than a certain period of time? This seems like an excellent opportunity to do some much needed spring cleaning.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
FistyMcBumBardier
State War Academy
Caldari State
#492 - 2015-03-24 14:21:49 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Zappity wrote:
What about abandoned structures? Please take the opportunity to fix that flaw of POS design. They should be hackable or something to prevent the current clutter.

And I imagine the Observatory will have effects on Local?


Yeah good point, we need to figure out ways to remove abandoned structures. We had a few options in store for Control Towers, may be time to have a look and adapt them.


Hacking abandoned structures along with hackable bubbles would be a great use of the hacking minigame
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#493 - 2015-03-24 14:33:14 UTC
Soldarius wrote:

Actually, within the database, there are salvage items (wrecked PI items iirc) for destroyed structures. I imagine these will be used for structure rigs.

those exist in-game and were a hack to undo the "whoops, you could reprocess npc cynojammers seeded at like 5m for like 80m in p4s and everyone just destroyed our new PI feature by reprocessing a billion"
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#494 - 2015-03-24 14:37:02 UTC
xttz wrote:
What if there were multiple options to handle structures, each with different benefits.

This is something I'd be very interested in seeing. Before I started in Eve one of my games of choice was Total War, and I always enjoyed the idea that there was more than one method of taking control of territory - by bringing siege engines to the enemy walls, or blockading the hostile city to starve the defenders out, or sending saboteurs to weaken the defences, or simply engaging and defeating the occupants on the battlefield. It's something Eve would very much benefit from if there were multiple paths to victory.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#495 - 2015-03-24 14:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Soldarius wrote:

Actually, within the database, there are salvage items (wrecked PI items iirc) for destroyed structures. I imagine these will be used for structure rigs.

those exist in-game and were a hack to undo the "whoops, you could reprocess npc cynojammers seeded at like 5m for like 80m in p4s and everyone just destroyed our new PI feature by reprocessing a billion"


Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Learned something new.

Scatim Helicon wrote:
xttz wrote:
What if there were multiple options to handle structures, each with different benefits.

This is something I'd be very interested in seeing. Before I started in Eve one of my games of choice was Total War, and I always enjoyed the idea that there was more than one method of taking control of territory - by bringing siege engines to the enemy walls, or blockading the hostile city to starve the defenders out, or sending saboteurs to weaken the defences, or simply engaging and defeating the occupants on the battlefield. It's something Eve would very much benefit from if there were multiple paths to victory.


+1. Multiple paths to victory seems very in-concept for Eve-O.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#496 - 2015-03-24 16:42:33 UTC
Removing dead sticks (abandoned pos's) is very high on my wish list

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Saturday Beerun
Lost Ark Enterprises
#497 - 2015-03-24 16:49:42 UTC
I can see current skills being useless and new ones required.Also small corps will get shafted by the expense of all the new gear needed.ccp will not reimburse all our old kit.Having our own place will disappear from the universe.

I Want The Black Vindicator Back
OverlordY
Interspan
#498 - 2015-03-24 16:56:57 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Removing dead sticks (abandoned pos's) is very high on my wish list

m



Or just war dec them and kill it?

Anyway.

As a long term POS user, i feel the changes here will be "devastating" to small / med corps. These changes just seem to cater to 0.0 allys and sov holders. With no thought to the little guys.

I can't help but notice the total lack of a defensive / military structure similar to POS at the moment. I hope this is fixed with a near POS like new structure.

Over the years I have used POS as war staging areas, safe places to refit, ops bases, building and refining areas
. Giving you a pretty safe place to operate from is "essential in eve" . In WH , and in high sec.
The force field mechanic is pretty essential also.

I also get the impression that i am going to wake up one morning and see 4 people in noob ships taking my billion ISK structures.
Seems like it's going to be way to easy too take the new stuff. It should be harder...
Oma Lorche
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#499 - 2015-03-24 17:20:45 UTC
I wouldn't like Idea of keeping assembly arrays separate from research laboratories. Especially now when BPs have to be on hangar floor. I understand that it would add risk to owners of multi-billion worth BPOs. But for us small scale industrialists its daily hassle of moving dozens of t2 BPCs.
Lelira Cirim
Doomheim
#500 - 2015-03-24 18:36:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Lelira Cirim
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Can someone explain me what is the idea behind datacores magically emerge in those new structures? Cores can be found in exploration sites (datas) as far i can see it will end in even less profit after this proposal. Constant changes to loot value in exploration, after another, half of sites will be just covering in dust. What the point of keeping useless content in game? You can't rid of NPC activity completely. NPC empires are not lead by players and i hope they'll never be.

Speaking purely from a lore standpoint, datacores are a "generated" item through research agents. When they're not working for capsuleers assumedly they (and many more planetside) work for the empires. One assumes that they end up as exploration loot from being leftover by pirate faction researchers. It makes lore sense that capsuleers could now purchase facilities capable of manufacturing datacores, and download the same information into them.

It is a case of giving capsuleers access to the same tools as NPCs, which is very much in line with the storyline goals of power shift, and I think your concerns are unfounded. I have a highsec toon working with 4 research agents at literally zero cost to me aside from the skill(book) requirements. This feature is about self-sufficiency, and will come with a cost that my toon doesn't spend.

Off topic, exploration loot tables can be changed at the snap of a finger, once the decision is made that loot there is no longer valuable enough. I wouldn't worry about one specific item type becoming no more valuable than metal scraps. CCP can do whatever it wants to make loot tables a particular value for explorers, generally it's all very boring stuff except for BPCs, and they could work harder to choose more interesting loot.

-edit yay 500!

Do not actively tank my patience.