EVE Information Portal

Finally. It's been a LONG wait.

Still, I see many details that need to be hashed out, possibly in play testing.


in no particular order:

a. weapons and AI using them are vital to larger structures -- as others point out, being present to defend a structure 24/7 kills game play. With Entosis taking only minutes to, at most, a few hours to make something vulnerable, continuous defense would be required. In my experience [I've been in EVE since very near the beginning], that'll kill motivation to build up anything because it's too easy for the aggressors to succeed.

b. consider making the nub of structures upgradable in size. Start at MDepot size and functionality, add upgrades to increase size and change functionality.

c. there is no reason that the smallest size need have any weapons capability, nor AI -- let those functions be added as the structure grows, and quite possibly in increments.

d. deathstars have a purpose and use. 8 weapons is nothing to a deathstar -- some easily have 30 or more online all at once.

e. deathstars are why we have dreads. let's not kill the dreads for lack of something to do.

f. AI should target any ship trying to use entosis first ... basic defense principle.

g. starbase gunners are important and useful -- however, the number of weapons/modules each can control needs to be doubled to make them more in line with ships.

h. outposts do not currently have weapons -- i'm for adding them. Maybe we change the mechanic so that entosis can't be used until all weapons have been disabled -- thus creating another reason to keep dreads and carriers around [since carriers could rep the weapons if they seize military control of the space].


whoops -- all that time allows atm -- I'll be back with more later.

uhu

What if one of the service slot modules allowed for AI targeting at a very small fuel cost?

And, expanding on that, what about a sentry platform structure built to house weapons and EWAR but not take up much physical space, and could also be fitted with AI targeting service modules? That way, you can choose the amount of defenses you want if you feel 8 weapons isn't enough, and the trade off is more fuel required, similar to using a large POS tower today for more guns.

Too bad you're wrong



So you're saying we shouldnt let them unanchor certain assets within 24 hrs of a war dec.

I agree.



a - you mean for the 4 hr period of your choosing...

d+e+f - Not so much under the proposed future sov system and unintelligent AI targeting is a good reason to have players online during the vulnerability period. Inactive groups with unguarded assets SHOULD lose their stuff easily. Thats the entire point.

g - there is no ship that can control 10x capital guns. But at least with these you can add weapon upgrades to your station guns which would likely make forming 'death stars' still possible, with perhaps even sebo's for mids, and that also provide services. who knows.

Perhaps what will replace death stars and **** stars will be a collection of structures with all their fittings tailored to maximum DPS and frustration. Perhaps there will be a structure module/rig which can modify Entosis time, improve ECM strength, improve weapon output, etc.

I would love to see the ability for a "member of the public" given certain rights be able to take control of the structures weapons, just like they were flying a spaceship. Now rather than 1 POS with 30 weapons of which 1 player can only control 5, you'll have 4 structures with 8 weapons, which a player can control one group of 8 (by assuming gunnery control of a structure/weapon platform).

Remember, part of the new system is the removal of anchoring restrictions.

If we could have "starbase gunners for hire" it would be easier to maintain effective defence of this infrastructure.

Please make the XL:s at least 10b, preferably 20b or more.

back with more -- [see above]

i. I've wanted player owned mobile sentry structures 'forever'. I suggest that size and effectiveness be limited by sov when erected. Proximity restriction to gates, wormholes, and npc stations -- offgrid only. A small one in high or low sec would nicely intimidate the solo ganker dude in his increasingly more effective ship and lead to more small gang action. {oh, my ... you could drop one at the entry to an anom, too -- at least get warning when someone not blue tries to enter ... hmm -- concept maybe needs work, eh?}

j. I've also wanted to be able to upgrade the cpu/pg of towers forever. with elimination of racial differences, makes sense.

k. faction nubs should also exist although I'd like them to offer weapons upgrades, or cpu/pg upgrades over standard T1 units.

l. strongly in favor of simple replacement for existing structures with a standard, pre-defined new one trying to serve same functions. There must be ten thousand plus POCOs deployed already and thousands of towers. Manually replacing them all would be grunt work, not game play. [It's different when you conquer a region -- you expect the grunt work and will get benefits from doing it -- but having to do all of the existing ones over all at once -- huge PITA.] {The number of emplaced weapons must be higher than even this ... 100,000 is not out of the realm of possibility.}

m. careful modeling will be required to balance Fuel consumption pre and post implementation to prevent wild swings in ice prices. After all, the number of ice fields is limited and the number of working miners can change only slowly.

n. pls also think out how to simplify the moon mining to reactions mechanism. {while you're at it, can you simplify PI setup? maybe use same interface?}


more as I think of 'em .... laters

What about Acceleration Gates? I always thought it would be cool if you could place them and have them launch me into a "private" deadspace pocket or something.

To those asking for the new structure anchoring to be allowed to anyone in a corp, all of the horror stories of corp bosses stealing stuff work the other way too. If leadership gives every Tom, **** and Harry the ability to anchor stuff, what stops them from messing with more important stuff? What stops an individual from locking everyone else out and using the structure to grief corp mates in some way?

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.

The real issue is that roles need to be separated and made granular from the current all or nothing approach. It looks like this is the direction CCP is going, which is great, but until we have both sides of the equation, the new corp interface and the new structures, it is hard to really get into debates on those situations.

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? How would control points work in WH space, where constellations are not connected and the connections move around (especially if you are rolling holes)?

Overall, good ideas. I like where this is all heading. I look forward to details and revisions on the new structures and the related corp and sov/entosis mechanics.

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.



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.