These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[New structures] Mooring and docking features

First post First post
Author
Callic Veratar
#201 - 2015-03-24 23:54:10 UTC
What I have not seen suggested (though I may have missed it) is a specific Moor structure. Something similar to an acceleration gate that sends all the supers off into shielded deadspace that cannot be entered without using the mooring gate. As many titans and supers can be packed into the spaces as you like (it could created multiple grids if one fills), you can probe it down to get a good look, but you can't get in to bump or even fly in because there's NEVER a password to get in.

When someone undocks, the desired ship is jumped back to the mooring gate and the pilot gets to sit in it going at undocking speed.
grumpychops
The Farting Unicorns
#202 - 2015-03-25 01:19:00 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
What I have not seen suggested (though I may have missed it) is a specific Moor structure. Something similar to an acceleration gate that sends all the supers off into shielded deadspace that cannot be entered without using the mooring gate. As many titans and supers can be packed into the spaces as you like (it could created multiple grids if one fills), you can probe it down to get a good look, but you can't get in to bump or even fly in because there's NEVER a password to get in.

When someone undocks, the desired ship is jumped back to the mooring gate and the pilot gets to sit in it going at undocking speed.


You've missed it.

The mechanic CCP has floated is mooring directly to one of these structures, at the structure.
Cade Windstalker
#203 - 2015-03-25 01:44:30 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
This is effectively just docking supers, protection with no intel is the same as docking, but maybe it's time to allow that?


Since this is intended as a replacement for the current "flying Coffin" status of Super Capitals it should offer about the same intel value. Right now you can figure out who owns a Super Capital and run a Locator Agent on their pilot to figure out where the Super is. You can also figure out how many Supers are in-system in a similar fashion even if they're cloaked.

If we accept that removal of "Flying Coffin" status is desirable enough to not be considered a buff for balance purposes then there's nothing wrong with maintaining roughly the same level of intel capability here, which means there should be some way of determining where Supers are located and stored, but that it should require some cost (like a locator agent) though not enough to discourage intel gathering.

Maybe have Supers either enter some kind of shielded bubble or cloak when Moored, which also helps explain the invulnerability, but you can use some kind of Bomb (something deployed from a Bomb launcher, not something that does damage), Probe, or scanner, that you deploy or use on a Mooring facility to determine what's docked there in more detail.

This also has the advantage of making intel gathering on Super Capitals a more active activity, rather than simply having a one-day Alt with high standings stuck in a station with a Locator Agent.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#204 - 2015-03-25 02:08:11 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Querns wrote:
CCP seems pretty adamant about removing force fields. I would begin to shape your understanding around this critical fact.

You sure? Check out the 8th one down here.


yes potentially in this form http://i.imgur.com/LCL8QTb.png
Cade Windstalker
#205 - 2015-03-25 02:26:46 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Querns wrote:
CCP seems pretty adamant about removing force fields. I would begin to shape your understanding around this critical fact.

You sure? Check out the 8th one down here.


yes potentially in this form http://i.imgur.com/LCL8QTb.png


That's for the upcoming update, and will be in the game well before the new Structures system comes into play. It's also a fairly minor amount of work assuming it's just a new effect over the old "skin" and the new effect will likely see some use in the new system somewhere.

Given that CCP flat out stated they want to remove forcefields I'd say Querns is correct.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
This is meant as a replacement for Starbase forcefield which currently has a certain number of issues.

Callic Veratar
#206 - 2015-03-25 03:21:40 UTC
grumpychops wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
What I have not seen suggested (though I may have missed it) is a specific Moor structure. Something similar to an acceleration gate that sends all the supers off into shielded deadspace that cannot be entered without using the mooring gate. As many titans and supers can be packed into the spaces as you like (it could created multiple grids if one fills), you can probe it down to get a good look, but you can't get in to bump or even fly in because there's NEVER a password to get in.

When someone undocks, the desired ship is jumped back to the mooring gate and the pilot gets to sit in it going at undocking speed.


You've missed it.

The mechanic CCP has floated is mooring directly to one of these structures, at the structure.


I got that bit, but it has finite mooring capabilities. There's only so much space a single structure can support. The intent I had was to allow theoretically unlimited ships to moor at a single station. (You know like how S, M, and L are listed as finite storage and XL is infinite?)

Even using a bunch of bubbles and MJDing the caps into the spheres 200km away from the station in a bunch of directions would work, since they'd still be visible but not restrict mooring to a certain number of ships.

Unless you like managing 50 stations to moor 300 supercaps.
Ramases Purvanen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#207 - 2015-03-25 04:48:50 UTC
Another way to make another class of capital ship useless (The Rorqual)

Take away POS shields and no more boosting from a POS with an Orca or Rorqual (awesome job CCP)
Cade Windstalker
#208 - 2015-03-25 05:05:56 UTC
Ramases Purvanen wrote:
Another way to make another class of capital ship useless (The Rorqual)

Take away POS shields and no more boosting from a POS with an Orca or Rorqual (awesome job CCP)


These changes are far enough in the future it's likely that we'll also get capital ship changes, including the Rorqual, before that, along with the long promised removal of Off Grid Boosting, making the entire point moot anyway.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#209 - 2015-03-25 05:10:36 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
These changes are far enough in the future it's likely that we'll also get capital ship changes, including the Rorqual, before that, along with the long promised removal of Off Grid Boosting, making the entire point moot anyway.

I think that's a more than reasonable expectation at this point.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#210 - 2015-03-25 08:25:13 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:




  • Having (super)capitals visible from space, even if invulnerable to direct assault, is going a huge intelligence boost to opposing forces.
  • Having (super)capitals traceable in such a manner could allow third parties to ambush (super)capital pilots as soon as they remove moorings to destroy the ships before they can escape.
  • Having a fixed mooring capability on those structures will create problems if the structure mooring capability is full when another (super)capital pilot tries to use it under pressure.




Make supers cloaked when they "Moor" = no free intel.



This is effectively just docking supers, protection with no intel is the same as docking, but maybe it's time to allow that?



Yep i think it is, It Hurts the little guy's, because it's easy to track Supers in big coalitions since they ususaly hold them in staging systems.

But if a small allaince would hold theire titan on this structure i guess it would look like easy target.

And with, I think i would be cool to REMOVE the watchlist, if you don't approve it.

This free intel is way too powerfull. Some small Ali got theire titan moored; Structure got destoyed. Pilot is watchlisted. He logs in and hunt is on : (

I think this mechanic is bad, kills a lot of suprise; Watchlisting without approvement should be removed.
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#211 - 2015-03-25 08:26:34 UTC
Ramases Purvanen wrote:
Another way to make another class of capital ship useless (The Rorqual)

Take away POS shields and no more boosting from a POS with an Orca or Rorqual (awesome job CCP)



Rorqual is to be balaced, to be able do deploy some thing like pos shields Cool so don't worry.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#212 - 2015-03-25 09:19:54 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:
Someone help me if I'm wrong,

From what I've seen on the Dev-blog, certain structures will allow anchoring (does that mean mooring?), others not. Some will allow docking and anchoring (mooring?).

Generally the ones that allow anchoring/docking also have high slots available.

As far as I can tell, you can equip guns to the high slots of these structures, so...

I'm supposing that if a group is able enough to launch one of these larger structures, and fit guns to it, and moor their supers at it, then that structure will be able to blap bubbles that are anchored in their general vicinity, and will also shoot at bad guys that are trying to camp in a super.

I feel like this point hasn't been brought up in the conversation yet, so I wanted to mention it. If I've missed something big, please fill me in. On the other hand, if I've got a decent grasp of this, then the only real issue left is the intel issue still under discussion.


What are remote reps?
Helevi Mernian
Black Wall Industries.
#213 - 2015-03-25 13:55:03 UTC
Short question on the Graphics side here.

Playing since pretty much 2003 i got quite used to the old hangar views... and... i don't think they are something to keep around if you completly redo the whole docking system.

What about removing the old hangar viewes in the docking mode.
The current views are different for all racial stations/hangars and as the new structure system is going to be more unified, it would make sense to create a new one (or maybe more) for the unified designs.
They should then be more immersive and could (potentiaonally) show the scale much better, as we are not bound to the usuall zoom-out-and-in details problem we have anywhere else in space.

Thinking of something like you showed us in the "Future of Structures Presentation" - The Hangar Artwork with the "docked" Minmatar BC.

I Know this is a minor point and all the game design is much more in focus for now, but would this be something to consider?

Great shoutout to the whole structures Team, your work is awesome so far and your replys are pretty good, it really feels like our discussions here matter!

Greetings
Cade Windstalker
#214 - 2015-03-25 15:02:46 UTC
Helevi Mernian wrote:
Short question on the Graphics side here.

Playing since pretty much 2003 i got quite used to the old hangar views... and... i don't think they are something to keep around if you completly redo the whole docking system.

What about removing the old hangar viewes in the docking mode.
The current views are different for all racial stations/hangars and as the new structure system is going to be more unified, it would make sense to create a new one (or maybe more) for the unified designs.
They should then be more immersive and could (potentiaonally) show the scale much better, as we are not bound to the usuall zoom-out-and-in details problem we have anywhere else in space.

Thinking of something like you showed us in the "Future of Structures Presentation" - The Hangar Artwork with the "docked" Minmatar BC.

I Know this is a minor point and all the game design is much more in focus for now, but would this be something to consider?

Great shoutout to the whole structures Team, your work is awesome so far and your replys are pretty good, it really feels like our discussions here matter!

Greetings


CCP can't remove ship-spinning or the player-base will riot and burn all the stations to the ground.
Gfy Trextron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2015-03-25 15:08:08 UTC
Well there are obviously things I do not understand behind several of the why's.

I would have imagined that mooring would have been for the opportunity to get out of a super during online times without concerns of theft, and in my wildest dreams the ability to sell it via market or contract. I would think that you would still want to store it by safe log off.
I have no idea why the hate for force fields. If it is a code or server issue, I can live without actually seeing it. But at least in low sec, we rely on them for a tremendous amount of staging, most importantly bridging and safe spot when logging on/off supers. Most other needs can be done from an NPC station, but if there is no station then I can see a definite need for miners and industry toons to have a safe area to land.

CCP has gone to great lengths to explain that bumping out of a POS today is such a haneous offence a player can be banned for it, but now you are indicating that the ship will be fair game to bump away or hic point if not moored. So very confusing.

We need the safety and the ability to use ship mods currently allowed within pos structures today to reasonably function.
Helevi Mernian
Black Wall Industries.
#216 - 2015-03-25 15:11:24 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Helevi Mernian wrote:
Short question on the Graphics side here.

Playing since pretty much 2003 i got quite used to the old hangar views... and... i don't think they are something to keep around if you completly redo the whole docking system.

What about removing the old hangar viewes in the docking mode.
The current views are different for all racial stations/hangars and as the new structure system is going to be more unified, it would make sense to create a new one (or maybe more) for the unified designs.
They should then be more immersive and could (potentiaonally) show the scale much better, as we are not bound to the usuall zoom-out-and-in details problem we have anywhere else in space.

Thinking of something like you showed us in the "Future of Structures Presentation" - The Hangar Artwork with the "docked" Minmatar BC.

I Know this is a minor point and all the game design is much more in focus for now, but would this be something to consider?

Great shoutout to the whole structures Team, your work is awesome so far and your replys are pretty good, it really feels like our discussions here matter!

Greetings


CCP can't remove ship-spinning or the player-base will riot and burn all the stations to the ground.



Ofc, WITHOUT removing shipspinning (again) ! Important point! thy m8 :)
Cade Windstalker
#217 - 2015-03-25 15:22:10 UTC
Gfy Trextron wrote:
Well there are obviously things I do not understand behind several of the why's.

I would have imagined that mooring would have been for the opportunity to get out of a super during online times without concerns of theft, and in my wildest dreams the ability to sell it via market or contract. I would think that you would still want to store it by safe log off.
I have no idea why the hate for force fields. If it is a code or server issue, I can live without actually seeing it. But at least in low sec, we rely on them for a tremendous amount of staging, most importantly bridging and safe spot when logging on/off supers. Most other needs can be done from an NPC station, but if there is no station then I can see a definite need for miners and industry toons to have a safe area to land.

CCP has gone to great lengths to explain that bumping out of a POS today is such a haneous offence a player can be banned for it, but now you are indicating that the ship will be fair game to bump away or hic point if not moored. So very confusing.

We need the safety and the ability to use ship mods currently allowed within pos structures today to reasonably function.


Forcefields just generally cause a lot of potential for exploits, edge-case behavior, and other issues. Just to list two that come to mind: "Garage Door force-fields", that let you Cyno in and then turn on the shield, significantly mitigating risk to your ship and risk-free escape from a bubbled POS by resetting the forcefield to fling the ships clear of the bubble cage. Add on issues with bumping, sitting next to the field to do something then just moving 5 feet and being "safe" again, and probably a few other things I'm not thinking of right now and it's not hard to see why CCP might want to get rid of forcefields.

As to modules that can be used inside a POS, the only thing that comes to mind with significant game effect is Boosts, and since Off-grid Boosting is going away at some point, probably along with this re-work, that's a null concern here.

Staging and other uses should be taken up by some sort of station analogue or the new Mooring system. It's important to remember that these structures are not going to all be exclusive to Null Security space (though obviously some will be) so if you have a reasonable use-case then outline it and make a case for how and why it should be covered by a new structure in Low Security space.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#218 - 2015-03-25 15:56:10 UTC
Enta en Bauldry wrote:
In W-Space, intel is gathered by d-scanning and looking on-grid (at POSes) to see if any players are active and what kind of ships they're in.

Do you intend to permit docking in W-Space? This would make intel gathering much harder unless mechanics are put in place to see what the docked players are doing. This is my biggest concern with the proposed "anchor any structure anywhere" philosophy you outlined at the fanfest presentation.

ships in w-space can already 'dock' with being stored in the maint array. P
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#219 - 2015-03-25 15:56:34 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Forcefields just generally cause a lot of potential for exploits, edge-case behavior, and other issues. Just to list two that come to mind: "Garage Door force-fields", that let you Cyno in and then turn on the shield, significantly mitigating risk to your ship and risk-free escape from a bubbled POS by resetting the forcefield to fling the ships clear of the bubble cage. Add on issues with bumping, sitting next to the field to do something then just moving 5 feet and being "safe" again, and probably a few other things I'm not thinking of right now and it's not hard to see why CCP might want to get rid of forcefields.

yeah, people have spent years edge-casing all sorts of **** with pos shields, from pos bowling, to safe cynoing, to skynet, etc, it's just asking for trouble in a game like eve

it is immensely more exploitable if you're no longer restricted from only anchoring those force fields at specific points at a moon
Cade Windstalker
#220 - 2015-03-25 16:14:13 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
yeah, people have spent years edge-casing all sorts of **** with pos shields, from pos bowling, to safe cynoing, to skynet, etc, it's just asking for trouble in a game like eve

it is immensely more exploitable if you're no longer restricted from only anchoring those force fields at specific points at a moon


Yup. It's much easier to regulate edge-cases if the safety feature is now something you have to manually toggle, rather than being a function of distance. Now you can say "You just Cyno'd in, we're still degaussing your engine coils (or something) so you can't Moor your ship yet, sorry!" since it's going to be a hotkey or right click or something.

Seriously though, get physics involved in any game ever and the exploit list goes through the roof... just ask any GM who's ever had a player bring a physics text to the table and try to use it as a core rulebook...