These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Shake my Citadel

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#681 - 2015-05-18 21:29:19 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ?


Se we can balance them separately, these weapons will have very different stats to existing ship weapons.




I am sure that part of the reason for this question is the issue of transitioning or exchanging old guns for new.

I am pretty CCP isn't going to just give everyone with a stock of old POS guns a lump of ISK. Though if they did a fair price would be equal to the highest EVE market sales average for that item in the 3 months prior to announcement that new structures were coming in the summer of 2015.


If CCP follow recent practice for module rebalance CCP will map many old weapon types to a few new weapon classes then swap old items for new. Which is great if you only have stuff from the low end cost and capabilities of old items that are mapped to a given new item. But usually there is no real parity for older items at the higher end of a mapped exchange group -- just a huge ISK and capacity loss.

I suspect the argument is that only the richest folk have the items at the top of the mapped group. But unless you are talking items of truly cosmic cost increase (e.g. officer or rare faction gear) EVE often does not work that way. That is the small POS owner DOES own a couple large artillery modules and not just small blasters modules. Maybe they are just collecting good buys for a planned medium POS or maybe they hung a stupid defense array on a small POS.
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#682 - 2015-05-18 21:30:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
Proddy Scun wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ?


Se we can balance them separately, these weapons will have very different stats to existing ship weapons.




I am sure that part of the reason for this question is the issue of transitioning or exchanging old guns for new.

I am pretty CCP isn't going to just give everyone with a stock of old POS guns a lump of ISK. Though if they did a fair price would be equal to the highest EVE market sales average for that item in the 3 months prior to announcement that new structures were coming in the summer of 2015. Or at least the current average manufacturing cost of such items. I think most EVE players would prefer this. Yeah got to be careful of announcing ISK for market sales price before new manufacture is turned off and "insiders" or early actors on first announcements could make huge windfall on market too. But I suspect CCP fears that much liquid ISK might not get sunk back into structures but maybe largely get spent on PLEX or T3 or officer gear and unbalance the game. Personally I see that as unlikely and also very short term and not that great a magnitude.

CCP could just leave the recycling model up for old items while killing new manufacture. Of course then the best people could get would be about 50% and then only if you had free access to maxed out recycling skills. That MIGHT actually be better than what CCP will probably do.

If CCP follows recent practice for module rebalance CCP will map many old weapon types to a few new weapon classes then swap old items for new. Which is great if you only have stuff from the low end cost and capabilities of old items that are mapped to a given new item. But usually there is no real parity for older items at the higher end of a mapped exchange group -- just a huge ISK and capacity loss.

I suspect the argument is that only the richest folk have the items at the top of the mapped group & this is a good time to let air out of creeping EVE inflation at top end of players. But unless you are talking items of truly cosmic cost increase (e.g. officer or rare faction gear) EVE often does not work that way. That is the small POS owner DOES own a couple large artillery modules and not just small blasters modules. Maybe they are just collecting good buys for a planned medium POS or maybe they hung a stupid defense array on a small POS.
unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#683 - 2015-05-18 22:05:37 UTC
Citadel weapons will be fit like a ship fitting. But will we be able to target them individualy and incapacitate them like the current pos systems or will it be like a ship, working until the citadel is destroyed(or overheat damage)?

No local in null sec would fix everything!
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#684 - 2015-05-18 22:33:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
Gilbaron wrote:
why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ?


I like the new structure model BUT....

Ugh! Like many others I see huge issues with transition from old POS to new structures on day ZERO.

How does CCP plan to fairly map current widely varied external weapons battery deployment to a very few internal variations under the new ship like model?

I suppose there are 3 major approaches.

(1) Unfeasible. Send everyone's POS and stored gear to nearest friendly outpost or station. Make everyone redeploy from scratch and fight over spot and sovereignty. I believe CCP already rejected this due to projected lynch mob and 80% loss of business.

(2) Set everyone up with basic structure functionality and defenses. Modules inside structure map more cleanly and most advanced capability modules can generally be plugged in automatically until slots are filled. Consider all defense modules outside force field as extra optional capability. Put all exchanged "old for new" items in structure corporate storage when they cannot be auto-plugged. (assumption that worst case fits). Let users choose to add stored optional modules to structure as they log on. So Deathstar is not Deathstar until someone customizes but it has average defenses. Problem: module exchange induced market glut due to far few slots than modules for weapons and certain other swaps (e.g. manufacturing storage tanks, hangars, corp storage, maybe refineries, etc)

(3) Pre-planned structure customization in advance of day zero. As one time good deal CCP has a corp pop-up window to determine how old gear on the spot gets swapped for new gear & instantly deployed. Might share code with final long term structure deployment interface but not instant DT deployment of day ZERO. Problem: needs to be available days if not weeks before day ZERO transition and needs way to hand offline POS of idle corps (yeah EVE has semi-abandon or low use POS esp in hi sec and WH). I guess option 2 above could be default for those not ready before ZERO Day change.

(2a) I suppose a minor variation on option 2 exists where CCP "power rates" old defense or functions vs "power rating" of new structures then automatically plugs new modules for closest match. Could even avoid market glut issues of unused modules by discarding all extras or simply giving nominal ISK/mineral value. Probably not as happy as solution value-wise but more seamless change for common POS in operation. Gonna miss a little on some unusual purpose POS but there is not a perfect solution.


P.S. Option #3a: almost as ugly as #1 in terms of popularity. Let corps actually set up new POS replacement structures in temporary second orbit spot as non-functional but powered up and in special extended invulnerable mode. On Day ZERO the old POS goes non-functional and the new structure goes functional. Huge Problem: Corp must have ISK to buy new structures before recycling or selling old POS parts. I suppose some sort of special contract certificates of advance sale/recycling could be issued.

P.P.S. Option #3b I suppose CCP could actually let old and new structures coexist for 30 days or so. Any old structure modules would transform when unanchored (no deployment of old structures possible). Issue temporary second orbital structure slot usable only by same corp: one orbital slot for old POS and the other for NEW structure. At the end of the two orbital slot period only the newest anchored hull structures would remain anchored and any extra or old structures would unanchor (old transform) and be left floating in space. Thus a corp could custom deploy their new POS equivalent structures for only the cost of the central "tower"/ hull structure. Or less if they just risked unanchoring the old. Still a burden to corp with tight finances. But they would also have the option of temporarily anchoring a small structure hull temporarily to serve as core of a Deathstar structure to hold parts unanchored from old POS. Then after unanchoring old tower they would be able to re-anchor the transformed hull and rapidly refit it from temporary second Deathstar structure. Possible windfall for drilling structures so I'd shut that old function off immediately. But I'd let current industry/research jobs run to completion if possible but disable submission of new industry/research jobs at old POS.
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#685 - 2015-05-18 23:32:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Proddy Scun
unimatrix0030 wrote:
Citadel weapons will be fit like a ship fitting. But will we be able to target them individualy and incapacitate them like the current pos systems or will it be like a ship, working until the citadel is destroyed(or overheat damage)?


Already answered in part. Weapons disabled by Entosis as a station function. Or at least I assume that is just another station function. Though maybe that is only at slot level of supplementary defense modules.

Meaning certain defense capability built into bare hull itself might not be disabled by Entosis until structure hull goes into reinforce or maybe not at all. Interesting question from hull reinforce/capture viewpoint. That would actually be fair exchange for loss of force field coverage for defending ships. invulnerability granted by docking with blind undock or fixed mooring with no initial maneuver options are not equivalent to force field advantage that worked even at reinforced POS. Also consider that forcefields kept enemy ships at distance while maneuvering to warp etc & now enemies can be at point blank and ready to scramble range. So a certain basic level of persistent firepower from hull itself might be good compensation.
mufasa73
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#686 - 2015-05-18 23:44:07 UTC
Really, all these sov changes are, imho, pretty much this
Fzhal
#687 - 2015-05-18 23:58:58 UTC
The first or second Dev blog said they would old and new POSs would coexist for an unspecified amount of transition time.

My preference would be for CCP to have an equivalency matrix for POS items and let you right-click convert them. Something like, you empty, offline, and optionally scoop everything but the tower. Right click tower to convert it to new equivalent. Bring your old POS items into the station, right click them to convert to new equivalents. Anything that doesn't have an equivalent should refund the ISK value from a month before fanfest. (Refunding minerals for everyone would cause mineral costs to plummet for a bit causing diminishing returns for POS owners.)

(Optional) If a tower isn't manually converted move all tower assets into a corp hanger in the nearest NPC station and add a journal entry.

This way many corps/alliances wouldn't have the IMMENSE amount of work of disposing of their existing POSs before the time came when old POSs are taken out of the game completely.
Udonor
Doomheim
#688 - 2015-05-19 00:14:43 UTC
Stealth ship going to be immune to the front porch (undock) bug zapper on structures?

Because it would be great if I could sit stealth in WH space and run up my kills by bombing ships as they undocked. Lots of low activity corps to victimize and drive back to hi sec.


Or at least make sure that the light show is spectacularly visible, noisy and closely timed to undock. Its more effort but a good signal to starting stealth warp into my hit and run bookmark for bomb launch will be just as helpful.
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#689 - 2015-05-19 00:27:19 UTC
Fzhal wrote:
The first or second Dev blog said they would old and new POSs would coexist for an unspecified amount of transition time.

My preference would be for CCP to have an equivalency matrix for POS items and let you right-click convert them. Something like, you empty, offline, and optionally scoop everything but the tower. Right click tower to convert it to new equivalent. Bring your old POS items into the station, right click them to convert to new equivalents. Anything that doesn't have an equivalent should refund the ISK value from a month before fanfest. (Refunding minerals for everyone would cause mineral costs to plummet for a bit causing diminishing returns for POS owners.)

(Optional) If a tower isn't manually converted move all tower assets into a corp hanger in the nearest NPC station and add a journal entry.

This way many corps/alliances wouldn't have the IMMENSE amount of work of disposing of their existing POSs before the time came when old POSs are taken out of the game completely.



Autoconvert on Unanchor would be lots better for anyone with lots of POS modules at various locations. Matrix convert would be nicest for corps and individual with only single POS and few spare modules. Even then transporting modules to NPC stations and back could be painful and very risky. I can see a pirate windfall on that month.

Plus no nullsec corp wants to have their moon mining spot up for grabs for however long it takes to logon and haul parts back from an NPC station. Can you imagine the hundreds of POS disappearing and the race to erect them again potentially 0-20 jumps away? No concentration of escorts possible unless you possibly concede some systems and orbital slots as lower priority...so lots of dead haulers carrying structures.

WH POS would be even worse situation. Cause I assume all WH POS would go back to Jita as best definition of closest NPC station for unknown space.
Proddy Scun
Doomheim
#690 - 2015-05-19 00:33:27 UTC
Fzhal wrote:
The first or second Dev blog said they would old and new POSs would coexist for an unspecified amount of transition time.

My preference would be for CCP to have an equivalency matrix for POS items and let you right-click convert them. Something like, you empty, offline, and optionally scoop everything but the tower. Right click tower to convert it to new equivalent. Bring your old POS items into the station, right click them to convert to new equivalents. Anything that doesn't have an equivalent should refund the ISK value from a month before fanfest. (Refunding minerals for everyone would cause mineral costs to plummet for a bit causing diminishing returns for POS owners.)

(Optional) If a tower isn't manually converted move all tower assets into a corp hanger in the nearest NPC station and add a journal entry.

This way many corps/alliances wouldn't have the IMMENSE amount of work of disposing of their existing POSs before the time came when old POSs are taken out of the game completely.




Well coexisting side by side orbital structures would solve much of this. That would give corps quick place to store stuff from old POS. Convert on unanchor would do away with hassle and danger of round trip transporting back to station. Many of those converted modules could be installed as soon as a new hull was anchor - thus reducing purchases needed.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#691 - 2015-05-19 01:10:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Justin Cody
Proddy Scun wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ?


I like the new structure model BUT....



Obviously you either can't read or simply haven't read the roadmap.

There will be a period of transition where both systems exist simultaneously. You will have ample opportunity to put up a replacement over a few months. relax man.

its in the DEV BLOG (but I made it easy for you)
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#692 - 2015-05-19 01:13:25 UTC
mufasa73 wrote:
Really, all these sov changes are, imho, pretty much this


Ouch - But pretty accurate.
FozzieSov, in a nutshell

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Fzhal
#693 - 2015-05-19 04:16:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Fzhal
Sgt Ocker wrote:
mufasa73 wrote:
Really, all these sov changes are, imho, pretty much this


Ouch - But pretty accurate.
FozzieSov, in a nutshell

Translation: Iterative design is a lie. If I can find "potential flaws" in the system, of which I have an overview without details, then it can never be changed to be better than what my imagination tells me it will be.

Hey everybody! Let's play "Count the Logical Fallacies!"
ChromeStriker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#694 - 2015-05-19 07:43:33 UTC
So what happened about the idea of space villages?

Atm space is pretty barren, especially in WH space (as it should be) however i was looking forward to having a number of structures in a cluster... making a hub of activity for a corp or similar.... We would make our own trafic, actually see people outside of a fleet.... refineries whiring away to themselfes etc.

Think it would be a missed oportunity...

Maybe restrict types of structure being too close... one citidel for example, but you could have a number of the smaller refineries, advertisments, labs, assembilies....

No Worries
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
#695 - 2015-05-19 08:29:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenneth Fritz
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
handige harrie wrote:
I like those designs a lot.

Would it be possible to have multiple designs for structures, so players can choose which one they want and make different systems have a different look to them, instead of seeing the same structure everywhere?


That is sort of the point with the different classes, each size and each class will be a different hull like ships.



I like this, but even then each class's citadels shouldn't look the exact same. Now if what you mean when you say "like ships" is that there will be several models of each class them I'm all for it. If not, a small(?) addition would be to take the newly implemented skins feature for ships and expanding it to include the citadels. Make them LP items from NPC corporations, some ridiculous amount or other. Then once applied to the citadel you(r) corporation/alliance is granted a small 1-3 LP everyday (occurs at the end of each day's down time) to each member of the citadel's owning entity.

Edit: I saw the post made a page or two past where I was reading this. And realized I just rehashed what was said.

Who's your end of the world buddy?
thowlimer
Roprocor Ltd
#696 - 2015-05-19 09:38:43 UTC
Fzhal wrote:
The first or second Dev blog said they would old and new POSs would coexist for an unspecified amount of transition time.

My preference would be for CCP to have an equivalency matrix for POS items and let you right-click convert them. Something like, you empty, offline, and optionally scoop everything but the tower. Right click tower to convert it to new equivalent. Bring your old POS items into the station, right click them to convert to new equivalents. Anything that doesn't have an equivalent should refund the ISK value from a month before fanfest. (Refunding minerals for everyone would cause mineral costs to plummet for a bit causing diminishing returns for POS owners.)

(Optional) If a tower isn't manually converted move all tower assets into a corp hanger in the nearest NPC station and add a journal entry.

This way many corps/alliances wouldn't have the IMMENSE amount of work of disposing of their existing POSs before the time came when old POSs are taken out of the game completely.



Refunding ISK would actually be worse than refunding minerals, refunding minerals would just move allready existing
ISK around while refunding isk would create huge amounts of ISK out of thin air.

Slightly better(but not good) would be to have some kind of intermediary bilding block that each fo the old structures
can be decomissioned into, then you build whatever new structures you want/need out of those, this would of course
lead to large stockpiles of said components so that market would take a long time to balance out.

Also you still have the issue of non-standard towers/items returning less than their perceived value but that will
probably never have a solutionthat that satisfies everyone.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#697 - 2015-05-19 10:16:48 UTC
thowlimer wrote:
Fzhal wrote:
The first or second Dev blog said they would old and new POSs would coexist for an unspecified amount of transition time.

My preference would be for CCP to have an equivalency matrix for POS items and let you right-click convert them. Something like, you empty, offline, and optionally scoop everything but the tower. Right click tower to convert it to new equivalent. Bring your old POS items into the station, right click them to convert to new equivalents. Anything that doesn't have an equivalent should refund the ISK value from a month before fanfest. (Refunding minerals for everyone would cause mineral costs to plummet for a bit causing diminishing returns for POS owners.)

(Optional) If a tower isn't manually converted move all tower assets into a corp hanger in the nearest NPC station and add a journal entry.

This way many corps/alliances wouldn't have the IMMENSE amount of work of disposing of their existing POSs before the time came when old POSs are taken out of the game completely.



Refunding ISK would actually be worse than refunding minerals, refunding minerals would just move allready existing
ISK around while refunding isk would create huge amounts of ISK out of thin air.

Slightly better(but not good) would be to have some kind of intermediary bilding block that each fo the old structures
can be decomissioned into, then you build whatever new structures you want/need out of those, this would of course
lead to large stockpiles of said components so that market would take a long time to balance out.

Also you still have the issue of non-standard towers/items returning less than their perceived value but that will
probably never have a solutionthat that satisfies everyone.


In the absence of any sensible way to map structures like for like the structure to be removed should be refunded to the owning corp as 100% refined into it's constituent parts. At least then there is no new ISK in the system and the owning corp doesn't lose out either.
Meque
#698 - 2015-05-19 13:30:27 UTC
The timezone restriction is going to decrease conflict between players dramatically.
Fzhal
#699 - 2015-05-19 14:42:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Fzhal
thowlimer wrote:
Refunding ISK would actually be worse than refunding minerals, refunding minerals would just move already existing
ISK around while refunding isk would create huge amounts of ISK out of thin air.
I don't agree. Items were ISK, and are ISK when resold... ISK doesn't have to be transported like minerals to be worth something, or saturate the mineral market, because ISK is the fundamental currency. With minerals, you have an extra step of converting it to ISK before you can do what you want with it. The huge amount of ISK boost would primarily go to corporations, which are less likely to spend it frivolously, and maybe use it to move into null.

Meque wrote:
The timezone restriction is going to decrease conflict between players dramatically.
To a degree, but I'd bet that most vulnerability timers will be around 4-6 hours, leaving some room for TZs +-3. I'm hopeful that the main benefit of the timers will be a drastically decreased pvp-player burnout rate.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#700 - 2015-05-19 16:22:36 UTC
Meque wrote:
The timezone restriction is going to decrease conflict between players dramatically.


Because you get so many good spontaneous off timezone fights from people while they are sleeping?