These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#41 - 2015-03-21 16:49:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Rigs will be the means to deliver on that vision, either by having different rigs which can only be used in separate security status areas, or by having rigs bonuses change depending on its parent hull location.

i think sec related bonuses or restrictions on rigs is rather odd and questionable way of buffing 0.0/lowsec.
i think a size restriction is perhaps a simpler way of doing this.

high sec - L size limit
0.0/lowsec - can use XL and the hull bonuses should be the of the XL being bigger than the L should be the buff

OR maybe have special variations that are only usable in 0.0/lowsec.

on observatory structures, im assuming there for 0.0, but perhaps having NPC versions in high sec too take over from stations in regard for locator agents, thus in a war (assuming an alt isn't used) would involve some risk being in space too use them.
also it would be nice too see more structures in high sec space in general especially as 0.0 will have the vast majority of them.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2015-03-21 16:50:20 UTC
So we get all of this on the next downtime right?

RIGHT?!

I neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed this in my life right now!!! Twisted
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#43 - 2015-03-21 16:55:58 UTC
I have a few questions.

1. Wh deployment / sizes allowed.
2.. Defenses. Currently there are major deathstars protecting the larger investments, how will we protect our investments now with only 8 guns? Are there plans for mobile sentry structures or something like that?
3. What bonuses will the base platform give to defenses? looking at that test set up, it looks like fodder for a group of bombers.
4. High sec, low sec, null, and wh space. What will be allowed what wont be allowed?
5. Are we going to have a variation for each faction say minmatar mining, caldari mining, amarr mining? Or will it kind of be based on the outpost model for variations.
6. Can I has them now please?
7. How you doin?

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#44 - 2015-03-21 16:58:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Not so much worried about the transition of structures, as ONCE AGAIN losing billions of ISK and countless amount of time researching structure BPO, and making copies.

CCP, please, I beg you, come up with a better way to transition BPO / BPC than just NPC cost & deleting them!
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#45 - 2015-03-21 17:06:00 UTC
An enormous +1 from all of this from us. It sounds like corporation roles & permissions in conjunction with POS use will be fixed at the same time. So wonderful news. Possibility of outposts in high sec sounds like great fun. I love the corpse covered billboards idea as well. Will the 'heavy drilling' be available in all areas including high sec systems ? Big smile

The industry expansion made use of POSes for science and industry largely redundant - we alone have billions in POS infrastructure lying dormant in hangars. So if all this comes to pass I think it will make POSes viable again not just for industry but for other............'stuff' as well. Big smile

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#46 - 2015-03-21 17:06:05 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
I have a few questions.

5. Are we going to have a variation for each faction say minmatar mining, caldari mining, amarr mining? Or will it kind of be based on the outpost model for variations.


I'd go one further and ask - could use the new 'SKIN' tech on these structures?

Also interested to know - what about exisiting outposts, assuming they will be removed once the new structures are in a decent state? If/when the go is there going to be a reimbursement and if so who gets it - the original builders or the current holders or someone else?
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#47 - 2015-03-21 17:14:13 UTC
Jason Bouchard wrote:
Omega Tron wrote:
I watched the TWITCH channel presentations about these new structures and their designs and functions. The one thought I had was that it seems that there is a trend to over analyze how these will be used. My suggestion is to push out on SISI and let it be tested for an extended period of time.


I very much agree with this, not only for adjusting balance (which will be an issue now similar to ships because of fitting modules) but because I imagine POSes and outposts get A LOT of industry usage across New Eden as a whole, so any bad bugs or poor design of the capabilities of assembly arrays, research labs, and drilling platforms when they go live could have a strong effect on the economy, at least in the short term.

Having seen the UI Modernization Panel, I know SiSi is intended for next-release features only, so if you could get Duality available to us as soon as prototypes are available would be super-awesome!

My own comments and suggestions:

I support the idea of Admin Hubs replacing TCUs, especially if you could absorb iHubs into them, too. I know with Sov 5.0 you guys want Sov and iHub benefits able to be separately controlled, but I think that the more consolidated the administrative systems of a null-sec system is, the better (this isn't coming from someone involved in managing a sov-holding alliance, but I'd imagine those people would agree). Plus it seems strange that you could have separate owners of the TCU and the iHub, meaning the supposed "owners" of the system could have no way of upgrading their own space, but yet the iHub indices control the rate of capture for the TCU.

I am however a little concerned with the idea of Office/Market Hubs replacing POCOs. If they have docking/mooring capabilities, assuming the POCO functionality would be usable while docked, this will reduce the danger of warping to a fixed, universally-accesable point in the system to import/export PI materials. Whether or not the POCO functionality would be accessible from the inside of the Office/Market Hub, if the Hub had any sort of production service installed (possibly regardless of structure bonuses, depending on how large of a bonus the Assembly Arrays will get), you'd have a similar effect: players would stay inside to use the Hub as a one-stop shop for picking up PI materials and using them in traditional station-based industry. At best you could undock, pick up PI materials, dock back up, produce a higher-tier good (likely buying other components through the market service), and then sell the new product on the market. At worst you could stay docked/moored while doing this, perfectly safe the entire time. While no serious industrialist will advocate for being vulnerable to ganking, and I have no idea how common ganking at POCOs actually is, making industrialists too safe will take away some degree of gameplay opportunities and in any case, risk, which is a fundamental aspect of EVE gameplay as a whole. If Market Hubs are merged with POCOs it should be done in such a way to retain some risk for those people who will use them primarily as POCOs.

EDIT: Also want to voice my support for service-based fuel consumption over time, I think this will definitely help out smaller, less well-financed characters/groups who want to use these structures.

Samsara Toldya wrote:

Vulnerable to entosis links... would entosis trigger CONCORD when used without a wardec in highsec? Will there be a 4h prime-time, too?


^Same question, and I am in favor of a prime-time window of some length (or whatever new system CCP may decide on after looking at the timezone survey responses) for any structure that interacts with Entosis Links, seeing as we already get reinforcement timers for current POS, POCOs, even Mobile Depots.

Third, docking/mooring, jump clone services, and possibly even ship repair services at structures deployed in wormhole space should be taken into account.


POCO themselves are always being destroyed but I doubt there is that much ambushing of haulers emptying POCOs.

The likes of Shadow Cartel etc are going to love this though as it will enable them to fully lockdown planets.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
MuppetsSlayed
Angelus.Mortis
ISK.Net
#48 - 2015-03-21 17:14:46 UTC  |  Edited by: MuppetsSlayed
I want to reiterate a point someone else mentioned.

A lot of indy characters build stuff they cant fly.
In eve we have always had to run multi accounts to get anywhere.

With the new mechanics about destructable outposts, etc.
How they hell do our indy toons loot what they cant fly?

Is there any thought beign put into the fact that most of us are two, three or four characters in game.
And we need our "group" of characters to be able to loot our wreck cans.

Some thought needs to be put into how you allow a designated person, or your corp/alliance to help loot your stuff.
Or you will be introducing a scenario where an indy toon in zero must be able to fly what they build or be at a disadvantage.
This is somethign that I see favoring older toons with many years of skill points who are likely to be less specialised than younger characters.
22000
Compostition No. 12.35
#49 - 2015-03-21 17:21:05 UTC  |  Edited by: 22000
Wow Amazing

Edit:

This game did need a update to fundamental concepts of indy etc still amazing Drilling Outpost
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#50 - 2015-03-21 17:24:23 UTC
Rainus Max wrote:
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
I have a few questions.

5. Are we going to have a variation for each faction say minmatar mining, caldari mining, amarr mining? Or will it kind of be based on the outpost model for variations.


I'd go one further and ask - could use the new 'SKIN' tech on these structures?

Also interested to know - what about exisiting outposts, assuming they will be removed once the new structures are in a decent state? If/when the go is there going to be a reimbursement and if so who gets it - the original builders or the current holders or someone else?



I dont think outposts will be removed, if they are they will probably be converted to XL facilities free of charge, but hard to say with CCP. These guys are replacing pos towers, so there will be a need for an outpost still as is.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
Ethikos
Doomheim
#51 - 2015-03-21 17:27:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ethikos
First, I would like say that I am very, very excited about the direction CCP is taking with these structure concepts. My gaming background and favorite type of game prior to finding EvE was 4x Strategy Games such as Civilization. I have always looked at EvE as the greatest example of this type of game when viewed from the 10,000 Foot level.

Your organization / group being representative of the "player" in the classic 4x Strategy Game. You have individuals, resources, and abilities to utilize as you seek to accomplish your goals. The truly awesome part though, is that unlike 4x Games each "unit" or function is a real player or preformed by a real player. Thus adding in all the meta that makes EvE so addicting.

What has been missing in the past is the ability to truly develop your space. You can plant a structure or two, but you cant build up a system like you could build up a city or planet in a 4x Game. CCP is now working to give us that ability with what looks like some truly valuable bonuses / abilities that come from building up your system. In addition, it gives you a reason to truly care about a given system.

If you have decided to stage out of System "X" and spent the time to fully develop it, losing "X" should hurt. It should go beyond having to re-stage everyone out of a new system and all the fun that comes with moving massive amounts of people / ships. It should reflect the pain that comes from your losing a main city / base / planet in a 4x game. Conversely, the defense / manufacturing / etc bonuses for building up System "X" should justify all the effort invested and possible risk involved.

From what I could tell, that is the direction CCP is trying to go and I am very excited about it. I believe it will add in whole aspects of game play, both on the tactical and on the strategic level. Combine this with the new Sov Mechanics and I am very excited to see how EvE moves forward. Sorry for the wall of text, but believe something as deep and far reaching as these changes deserves it.

Station Destruction:
I understand the need to reach a happy medium when looking at something as far reaching as Station Destruction. Personally I would like it work just like losing your ship does (random variable on what drops). However, I can very easily understand why that could be sub-optimal from a game design standpoint. CCP seems to be working on a happy medium by dividing between sub-caps and capitals / supers. Sub-caps safe while capitals / supers are up for grabs.

I would offer an option to take this a step further. You have a station and your basing out of it. It gets taken and destroyed. A wreck appears with all the sub-caps / stuff safely inside (caps and supers already up for grabs per current thoughts). A timer then starts on that wreck. You have say two weeks to get back there get some of your stuff out. At the end of two weeks, your other stuff is now up for grabs.

This could work with either the wreck or the stuff in orbit around planet idea. Frankly I like the idea of the stuff in orbit around planets more if the timer idea is accepted (station explosion threw stuff out into space). That way the conquerors have to put some effort into locking down the whole system and scanning down all the containers. While the defeated guys have some hope of getting their stuff back instead of having to converge on a single wreck.

Sniggwaffe (Waffles)
Adrian Dixon
Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction
-affliction-
#52 - 2015-03-21 17:31:04 UTC
To me this seems really exciting and well thought out. Some people already mentioned concerns over valuable researched blueprints of current structures.
Cr Turist
Arcana Noctis
#53 - 2015-03-21 17:32:57 UTC
I think getting rid of the force field could be supplemented with just making it smaller. maybe instead if you made it half a sphere that covers the bottom or top of a structure. this would still allow bridging in a similar mechanic as we know now. and would make supercapital pilots happy as they would not have to worry about a massive bounce every time they tried to warp safe to log off. warping into the field and then slow-boating to a mooring station would be pretty cool and allow for weapons timer cool downs and give time to cap up. you could even make the shield a module that must be fitted and would take up a large amount of available cpu or power grid then you would cover your risk vs reward aspect.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#54 - 2015-03-21 17:40:53 UTC
Cr Turist wrote:
I think getting rid of the force field could be supplemented with just making it smaller. maybe instead if you made it half a sphere that covers the bottom or top of a structure. this would still allow bridging in a similar mechanic as we know now. and would make supercapital pilots happy as they would not have to worry about a massive bounce every time they tried to warp safe to log off. warping into the field and then slow-boating to a mooring station would be pretty cool and allow for weapons timer cool downs and give time to cap up. you could even make the shield a module that must be fitted and would take up a large amount of available cpu or power grid then you would cover your risk vs reward aspect.


I imagine the new system will probably coincide with the removal of off-grid boosting and boosting from within POS shields. If a ship was docked up at a POS it wouldn't be able to be piloted and running links etc after all. Plus with null-sec being made fully self-sufficient there has to be a negative to go with the increased positives.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#55 - 2015-03-21 17:42:31 UTC
With regards destruction of structures and what happens to assets;

Have you considered simply letting anyone salvage/loot from the wreck (going back to controlling the space around it), but in parallel, expanding the role of insurance, so players could pay a premium to provide some cover for assets stowed in the structure?

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Henry Montclaire
Guild of Independent Pilots
DammFam
#56 - 2015-03-21 17:44:37 UTC
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
"#6 Fate of stored items on structure destruction
This is again a hot topic that needs to be addressed. We are currently discussing the following options:

Wreck: when a structure is destroyed, it could leave behind a non-destructible wreck. This wreck houses all the items the structure possessed at its destruction, and only the respectful owners could salvage them back. Players docked inside the structure would still remain docked inside the wreck (and still be invulnerable to attack), but will be unable to do so again should they choose to undock. Moored ships would however become vulnerable and up for grabs by anyone.


Containers: when a structure is destroyed, all assets are moved into special containers. A container exists for each individual that stored items in the structure, as well as corporation entities and are spread around planets. When this happens, an entry would appear on the owner journal giving a warp-in point to go to. Please note such containers would not be destructible at all, and could not be scanned until the rightful owner comes to retrieve his or her loot. The duration at which those entries would stay remains entirely dependent to the structure type and player condition when it was destroyed (logged off, account lapsed etc…). Player docked inside the structure would be spread around the solar system, while moored ships would become vulnerable and up for grabs. "


As someone who lives and stores his items in Null I find this mechanic stupid... I'm sorry and I live in the playground everyone loves to shoot in... But if a group took the time, got the members together, brought the big toys out, played with all these new mechanics... I should NOT have a safe passage to get my ****. It should be open to all like if any Starbase structure died. IF you are going to make something destroyable.. add RISK to the game.. ADD IT.

You want to see Balls to the walls fights then make them occur. People are going to group up for these fights if they CAN'T get those items back in safety. If all these new structures are going to be larger versions of the starbases, treat them the same. If I form 500-1000 people or an some Super cap Monster group of 100-200 people. Those people should be rewarded for showing up to the fights and winning it. Not giving safe passage and specific player access only cans. Loot show goto the Victor or the brave can raider. Who snuck in as it exploded.

Either Bring Risk as you describe... or don't.


Something to consider though. If you allow the owners sole salvaging rights, they still need to evacuate those assets after the fact. So there is still risk, if the attacker maintains military dominance in the region they can ambush salvage convoys and wreak havoc. If the defenders manage to muster a successful defense fleet for their convoys and salvage without getting attacked they deserve to get those assets out safely.

Now instead of one all-or-nothing battle over a station, you have two! One to defend the station itself, and one over its salvage.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#57 - 2015-03-21 17:45:12 UTC
As observed by others, there are a host of issues associated with the destructible stations, but the way you are implementing sounds like you are taking a step in the right direction.

With that said, if I have to take an extended break from Eve, for any reason, I guess I will be loading everything I own into an NPC station. Warping back to the same spot repeatedly to recover multiple capital ships and thousands of cubic meters worth of stuff is not going to end well if anyone competent is watching.

Personally, I would completely remove all existing outposts (refunding the costs to the current owners by giving them the egg for the new version). Then set up a one time transfer option per character for all assets located in a player outpost. This option would apply the first time the character logged in to the game under the new system. Upon logging in, they could designate one station (in low security or 0.0 space) to move all their stuff from all their outposts.

Such a massive reset would create an interesting "gold rush" or "Oklahoma Sooners" situation as players worked to reestablish a space empire.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Alundil
Rolled Out
#58 - 2015-03-21 17:48:06 UTC
Very interesting read. Thank you. Many of these concepts are pretty well thought out so far. I really like the "Acquisition" section as it stands to make the structures useable by the "purchaser"; something that has been missing in wspace since forever.

I'm also very, very interesting to know more about the possible changes/effects these new structures will bring to information gathering/warfare/etc.

Thank you.

I'm right behind you
Cr Turist
Arcana Noctis
#59 - 2015-03-21 17:52:44 UTC
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
Cr Turist wrote:
I think getting rid of the force field could be supplemented with just making it smaller. maybe instead if you made it half a sphere that covers the bottom or top of a structure. this would still allow bridging in a similar mechanic as we know now. and would make supercapital pilots happy as they would not have to worry about a massive bounce every time they tried to warp safe to log off. warping into the field and then slow-boating to a mooring station would be pretty cool and allow for weapons timer cool downs and give time to cap up. you could even make the shield a module that must be fitted and would take up a large amount of available cpu or power grid then you would cover your risk vs reward aspect.


I imagine the new system will probably coincide with the removal of off-grid boosting and boosting from within POS shields. If a ship was docked up at a POS it wouldn't be able to be piloted and running links etc after all. Plus with null-sec being made fully self-sufficient there has to be a negative to go with the increased positives.



let me be a little more clear. i am saying it be used for bridging, getting safe, and organization. in no way should it be used for off-grid boosting.
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#60 - 2015-03-21 17:57:50 UTC
One thing that I would like to see is overview availability of structures BASED ON STANDINGS. As in, you can warp to a structure without having to scan it down or get a bookmark if its configured to allow you based on being in a corp/alliance or having standings.
If you DONT have standings to see it from anywhere in system, you've gotta probe that **** down yourself or get a bookmark.
AN EXAMPLE: I decide I want a base of operations for just me. I anchor a personal large "station thing" or whatever, and set it to personal use, and use personal standings to decide who can access it. Since I only have my alts set to personal +10, this new structure shows up on all their overviews anywhere they are in system, and lets them warp to, dock, moor supers/caps, and access everything in and on it. Nobody else in my alliance, corporation, or any other randoms can see this structure if they aren't on grid or running combat probes.
That's the vision I'm seeing. I want that. Give that.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.