These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

CCP, can we get a quick comment on new structures in j-space?

Author
Hatshepsut IV
Un.Reasonable
#1 - 2015-03-21 17:03:53 UTC
Exactly what title says. Doesn't have to be much. Just an inkling of how we relate to your structure plans.

Public Channel | Un.Welcome

Proclus Diadochu
Mar Sarrim
Red Coat Conspiracy
#2 - 2015-03-21 17:09:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Proclus Diadochu
I recorded the second wormhole roundtable and asked Fozzie this specifically. It was an open ended answer, and I'll check the recording later to see if it recorded alright.

Basically, he said that the new structures can have limitations on location and they will be continuing to see how they will apply to shattered and normal wormholes. For now, they are working the broader scope of structures for the moment it would seem.

Minister of High Society | Twitter: @autoritare

E-mail: diogenes.proc@gmail.com

My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/

The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe

Witchway
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2015-03-21 17:37:24 UTC
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the ability to remove permanent dwellership over wormholes was achieved though these new mechanics. Not considering wormholes at this stage in the game is what got us in the situation we are in now.

Official Shit Talking Captain, Bastard of Hard Knocks Inc.

Paul Vashar
CTHS
#4 - 2015-03-21 18:30:28 UTC
I particularly despise the idea of "mooring" my ship at a POS and allowing my enemies to sit on my ship at 0
JTK Fotheringham
Ducks in Outer Space
#5 - 2015-03-21 19:30:58 UTC  |  Edited by: JTK Fotheringham
CCP Nullarbor wrote:


Oh and for the wormholers, yes you will be able to anchor some (or maybe all of these structures). However there will be some activities / bonuses that remain tied to sovereignty. The exact details of this need to be discussed with the wormhole community to see what best fits their needs and play style.


Here.
Lisa Nardieu
Overload This
Escalation Theory
#6 - 2015-03-21 19:33:26 UTC
JTK Fotheringham wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:


Oh and for the wormholers, yes you will be able to anchor some (or maybe all of these structures). However there will be some activities / bonuses that remain tied to sovereignty. The exact details of this need to be discussed with the wormhole community to see what best fits their needs and play style.


Here.

good thing, that we have a wormhole csm.
Nadine Altair
Doomheim
#7 - 2015-03-21 20:15:26 UTC
Lisa Nardieu wrote:
good thing, that we have a wormhole csm.

Yeah, good thing we have one... oh, wait...
We have SB pilot who has probably never seen a POS from the inside and a Goon with some w-space farming alts.
Docking games incoming!
Witchway
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2015-03-21 20:26:37 UTC
Nadine Altair wrote:
Lisa Nardieu wrote:
good thing, that we have a wormhole csm.

Yeah, good thing we have one... oh, wait...
We have SB pilot who has probably never seen a POS from the inside and a Goon with some w-space farming alts.
Docking games incoming!

but this is a game, I am sure it will all be okay.....


Straight

Official Shit Talking Captain, Bastard of Hard Knocks Inc.

Hipqo
Tyde8
#9 - 2015-03-22 01:28:49 UTC
Its gonna be real interesting to see how this evolves for W-space!
Exciting times ahead :D

A life is best lived, to not step into your grave in a well preserved body. Instead, to slide in side ways, all battered and bruised, screamming, "Holy SH**! What a ride!"

Adriana Nolen
Sama Guild
#10 - 2015-03-22 02:04:43 UTC
I sincerely hope force fields are an option for w-space.
Pissfat
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#11 - 2015-03-22 02:22:02 UTC
Adriana Nolen wrote:
I sincerely hope force fields are an option for w-space.


They are not, they have said many times that they are technically impossible or too hard basket. What we will have is the mooring thing which will have a an area of safety around it. What concerns me about that is we have current **** cage options that is spread over a large area and will we have the same area of safety?

And the larger your corp/alliance then you will need more of these and with the new fitting window for pos's what limitations will that pose in itself.

I am Winthorp you might remember me from such films as i got CCP to make signature ID's persistent through DT for their love of AU bros.

Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#12 - 2015-03-22 09:24:01 UTC
Indeed, interesting times ahead. I hope the changes are thought through for all players using structures though and not just the k-space inhabitants. Some of the proposed changes make me raise an eyebrow.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#13 - 2015-03-22 10:25:35 UTC
I only have 1 thing to say on POS changes: The force field is the single best structure mechanic in eve. Any new system that removes them is one I am going to not want.

PS: dont give me the 'it's too hard' crap, it isnt. FFs have existed for a decade now and theyre very good.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2015-03-22 10:33:26 UTC
Like I put in the other thread, my main concerns are some of the 'ideas' regarding these structures. First things that come to mind.

- Observatory arrays: Block system wide D-Scan. How will this work in Wormholes? Pinpoint cloaked ships, significant as well.
- Gates: Affect WH spawning behavior. This needs a lot more elaboration.
- No loot after wrecking the structure. This seems a bit in contrast with risk vs. reward when it comes to evictions.

The whole mooring idea seems a little funky as well. I'd like some more information on that too before I make up my mind on it. :P
Pissfat
Tactically Challenged
The Initiative.
#15 - 2015-03-22 10:33:57 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
I only have 1 thing to say on POS changes: The force field is the single best structure mechanic in eve. Any new system that removes them is one I am going to not want.

PS: dont give me the 'it's too hard' crap, it isnt. FFs have existed for a decade now and theyre very good.


This and the fact that loot will never drop from a pos is what concerns me the most.

I am Winthorp you might remember me from such films as i got CCP to make signature ID's persistent through DT for their love of AU bros.

Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#16 - 2015-03-22 11:51:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
I doubt they'll totally remove the forcefield as they just remade the graphic.

I would like to see the system in total before suggesting going back to the literal blueball known as forcefields.

Yaay!!!!

calaretu
Honestly We didnt know
#17 - 2015-03-22 11:54:24 UTC  |  Edited by: calaretu
nvm. quoted post was altered
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#18 - 2015-03-22 13:20:40 UTC
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Like I put in the other thread, my main concerns are some of the 'ideas' regarding these structures. First things that come to mind.

- Observatory arrays: Block system wide D-Scan. How will this work in Wormholes? Pinpoint cloaked ships, significant as well.
- Gates: Affect WH spawning behavior. This needs a lot more elaboration.
- No loot after wrecking the structure. This seems a bit in contrast with risk vs. reward when it comes to evictions.

The whole mooring idea seems a little funky as well. I'd like some more information on that too before I make up my mind on it. :P


My guesses on this:
-Anything that blocks d-scan will work in a manner similar to howmobile scan inhibitors already work.
-They don't have any details yet, it's a pie-in-the-sky idea. I'd guess things like "+1 random wormhole connection every X hours" but it's probably a dartboard feature.
-IIRC the loot idea they discussed was for XL structures that are equivalent to stations. So essentially it's not hugely divergent from the current setup whereas L-size structures (similar to POSes now) won't have this mechanic.

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#19 - 2015-03-22 19:21:13 UTC
Witchway wrote:
Nadine Altair wrote:
Lisa Nardieu wrote:
good thing, that we have a wormhole csm.

Yeah, good thing we have one... oh, wait...
We have SB pilot who has probably never seen a POS from the inside and a Goon with some w-space farming alts.
Docking games incoming!

but this is a game, I am sure it will all be okay.....


Straight


Don't heff to be mad, is only gaem. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#20 - 2015-03-22 23:14:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Trinkets friend
CCP Greyscale was dead against the forcefield because it had no mechanism for aggression. In other ords, he hated forcefield kiting games, and wanted an aggro timer put in the mechanic so that you can't come out, shoot a dude and scuttle back inside like a coward.

That's a fine idea, but would just result in docking games where you can see what's inside the impregnable fortress.

I think the thing to remember about the talk at Fanfest was that it was just a bunch of random thought bubbles interspersed throughout a barely coherent "plan" for structures. The problem is that these thought bubbles mostly contained rancid farts as far as i'm concerned.

I think the biggest issue will be handling intelligence / comms arrays and resisting any efforts to put in area effect or system wide decloaking. Even a small deployable which provides a 20km or 50km decloak field would be pretty much death to covert combat anywhere in EVE.

System-wide decloaking arrays to combat AFK cloakers? Like, seriously, how pathetic does the game have to get in pandering to unskilled, lazy, can't-or-won't learn diddly squat untermesch?

However, my biggest concern lies in the change to POS defences. I like the fitting screen and POS fits idea - i did in fact propose this to TraitorCSM Corbexx (j/k, you go girl) when he put about his questionairre. But here's the thing.

My current C4 POS has an unfeasible amount of damps on it. Like, it's actually gone beyond ridiculous to a transcendent level of stupid. It has 23 active guns. Ewar. Webs. Points. Apparently 43% omni resists and spare hardeners. I can let some idiots waste days of their lives attempting to cripple it and RF it, and just jack up a full dullstar resist fit at the absolute last moment, and prolong their agony. it is the most ridonkadonk thing I have ever created in EVE, even moreso than the LSE Svipul. But this could all be gone, replaced by a box in space which some **** can Entosis link in a few hours.

or...or...oh! maybe i can fit giga pulse lasers to my POS. Dread guns. no one could EVER kite those in a bomber! Without a forcefield, you could effectively get at zero on the guns (which would have to use the 0m of the medium sized station to calculate tracking) and be immune to it. Or are they going to be 150km off and as weaksauce as current lowsec sentry guns? That's no better at all, because i really look forward to the day when people can camp my POS undock in Vigilants with execquror backup.

So, yeah, fart bubbles so far, but the trajectory of CCP's thinking is definitely heading towards an EVE universe where EHP and structure grinds are gone (yay, I suppose) and where conflict is driven by the desire to make your enemies recover their precious loot from secret cans scattered around space or something. Which is awesome. not. And you'll see people Entosis hacking at each other's POSs or something.

But, on the plus side, I'm hoping we will see POSs evolve beyond oh hey here's a giant space bauble with 80M shield hp" into possibly active tanked Amarr POSs with 8 lows jammed with capital armour reps. Or Minmatar POSs with shield boosters. Gallente POSs with, it seems, hull tanks. Etcetera.

POCOs with guns. That would be fun. I'd be DTF POCO guns.
123Next page