These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Building Dreams: Introducing Engineering Complexes

First post First post First post
Author
KenFlorian
Jednota Inc
#841 - 2016-11-06 01:23:41 UTC
@Nevyn

Lucid.

Thank you.
Mark Phoenixa
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#842 - 2016-11-06 03:26:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Phoenixa
So, i haven't seen anyone address a number of concerns with the citadel system as a whole. Forgive me if i simply missed them being answered and please point me towards the relevant post.

First and most immediate concern is the number of service mod slots that is available on Raitaru. Its 3. That means that i wont be able to run all the industry mods and a reprocessing mod at the same time. The implications of that are pretty obvious for anyone who lives and mines in a remote system, like wormholes. You would need to swap mods or have a second structure in system. Very annoying.

Second concern kind of interlaces with the first one and was also partially dressed. Fuel costs. They were lowered recently to acceptable levels. However another change that may still be viable would have been the removal of startup costs for service modules. I mean, why are they there? To make it so that people cant turn on mods to do things and then turn them off for fuel saving? If that's the case, then its dumb. The only 2 modules that are exploitable like that are 'Clone bay' and a 'Reprocessing mod'. The other mods need to be turned on continuously to do anything considerable. And even exploitable mods are not that protected by that mechanic. You simply need to do your things once in 4 days to save fuel. I would not even have an issue with 3 mod slots on Raitaru if there were no startup costs. I could do my industry in batches, but now i cant simply because it costs too much.

Third concern is not an immediate one. I feel like there are too many structures coming. Different structures for different purposes. That are not limited by the number of moons in the system. If there will be more structures for other functions like reactions and those Drilling Platforms, whatever they do, we will have a logistical nightmare on our hands. These structure will have to be fueled, protected. You will have to remember what does what. And it will still cost to set them up. Also with these structures being fundamentally different like that they offer a lot less flexibility than POSes(as much as i dislike POSes for their UI). You simply can not have a single or even 2 structures that are specialized for your particular needs. And that may be solvable by cooperating with other people and using their structures. But that's not a solution for wormholes, because our system is our own and hardly a solution for k-space, because people like to have their own space home. New structures simply don't offer much flexibility.

This inst a separate concern, just separating thoughts as i have droned on quite a lot in a previous paragraph. What i would have done about the whole structure thing is:
1)Have them still orbit moons, we have to have some kind of restriction there. simply because these structures are affordable for anyone who can get battleships on regular basis.
2)Have them be customisable the same way T3 cruisers are. Simply make their role be chosen by player in accordance to his need by 'subsystems' and only further improved by 'rigs'. And if you make the subsystems interchangeable with maybe a few hour delay then we can have an engineering structure be transformed into something defensible, like a POS entering a 'death-star' mode. It still would remove the stupid safety mechanic of a POS being unanchorable in case of wardec AND give people a chance to defend it. Engineering complexes are paper structure and no one would want to put them up if they can be casually teared down by a single well fit battleship. The subsystem mechanic will also offer more interaction and gameplay, thats at least engaging, because you will be continuously choosing what you need NOW, as opposed to being set with what you buy. Because frankly, you CCP may have not created the service modules for ECs at all, since who the **** would fit anything else on this structure, geared towards 1 thing only - Engineering.

I'm done, i may have gotten carried away by the end of it. Please forgive me if i have gotten a little emotional there. No offence, i still like EVE. What i don't like is the needless structures that will be all over space, resembling a forgotten graveyard.
Jeronica
Mogul Holdings
Mogul Financial
#843 - 2016-11-06 04:33:37 UTC
Mark Phoenixa wrote:
So, i haven't seen anyone address a number of concerns with the citadel system as a whole. Forgive me if i simply missed them being answered and please point me towards the relevant post.

First and most immediate concern is the number of service mod slots that is available on Raitaru. Its 3. That means that i wont be able to run all the industry mods and a reprocessing mod at the same time. The implications of that are pretty obvious for anyone who lives and mines in a remote system, like wormholes. You would need to swap mods or have a second structure in system. Very annoying.

Second concern kind of interlaces with the first one and was also partially dressed. Fuel costs. They were lowered recently to acceptable levels. However another change that may still be viable would have been the removal of startup costs for service modules. I mean, why are they there? To make it so that people cant turn on mods to do things and then turn them off for fuel saving? If that's the case, then its dumb. The only 2 modules that are exploitable like that are 'Clone bay' and a 'Reprocessing mod'. The other mods need to be turned on continuously to do anything considerable. And even exploitable mods are not that protected by that mechanic. You simply need to do your things once in 4 days to save fuel. I would not even have an issue with 3 mod slots on Raitaru if there were no startup costs. I could do my industry in batches, but now i cant simply because it costs too much.

Third concern is not an immediate one. I feel like there are too many structures coming. Different structures for different purposes. That are not limited by the number of moons in the system. If there will be more structures for other functions like reactions and those Drilling Platforms, whatever they do, we will have a logistical nightmare on our hands. These structure will have to be fueled, protected. You will have to remember what does what. And it will still cost to set them up. Also with these structures being fundamentally different like that they offer a lot less flexibility than POSes(as much as i dislike POSes for their UI). You simply can not have a single or even 2 structures that are specialized for your particular needs. And that may be solvable by cooperating with other people and using their structures. But that's not a solution for wormholes, because our system is our own and hardly a solution for k-space, because people like to have their own space home. New structures simply don't offer much flexibility.

This inst a separate concern, just separating thoughts as i have droned on quite a lot in a previous paragraph. What i would have done about the whole structure thing is:
1)Have them still orbit moons, we have to have some kind of restriction there. simply because these structures are affordable for anyone who can get battleships on regular basis.
2)Have them be customisable the same way T3 cruisers are. Simply make their role be chosen by player in accordance to his need by 'subsystems' and only further improved by 'rigs'. And if you make the subsystems interchangeable with maybe a few hour delay then we can have an engineering structure be transformed into something defensible, like a POS entering a 'death-star' mode. It still would remove the stupid safety mechanic of a POS being unanchorable in case of wardec AND give people a chance to defend it. Engineering complexes are paper structure and no one would want to put them up if they can be casually teared down by a single well fit battleship. The subsystem mechanic will also offer more interaction and gameplay, thats at least engaging, because you will be continuously choosing what you need NOW, as opposed to being set with what you buy. Because frankly, you CCP may have not created the service modules for ECs at all, since who the **** would fit anything else on this structure, geared towards 1 thing only - Engineering.

I'm done, i may have gotten carried away by the end of it. Please forgive me if i have gotten a little emotional there. No offence, i still like EVE. What i don't like is the needless structures that will be all over space, resembling a forgotten graveyard.


Sounds like you need to upgrade to an Azbel, if you want it to do more. The medium structures are designed by nature to be very specialized, and at <1bil cost you can't expect much more out of it. As far as defense, you shouldn't risk anything you're not able to lose. If you want to deploy structures you should be able to defend your assets. If they're not offering a purpose/revenue that warrants defense, then why are you anchoring it?

EVE-MOGUL.COM

Trade Profit Tracking&Analytics

Offering Sotiyo Services In

New Caldari | Ashab

IPOs & Investments

Mark Phoenixa
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#844 - 2016-11-06 04:45:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Phoenixa
Quote:

Sounds like you need to upgrade to an Azbel, if you want it to do more. The medium structures are designed by nature to be very specialized, and at <1bil cost you can't expect much more out of it. As far as defense, you shouldn't risk anything you're not able to lose. If you want to deploy structures you should be able to defend your assets. If they're not offering a purpose/revenue that warrants defense, then why are you anchoring it?


No, you are right about being able to defend it if you want to anchor it, however there has to be a reasonable toughness of anything you defend. Raitaru is simply not defensible. You can easily waste an Astrahus, we actually did it and we are FAAAR from combat oriented pilots. And well, not ALL about POSes is bad. The UI is horrendous, the one who thought of it should be fired. Anchoring times are kinda dumb. But the customization options are what offered a lot of gameplay to them. It is true that POSes cant be both industry oriented AND defencible. But it can be one or the other and that is what made you assess the risks on a daily basis. Anchoring a rigid structure like a citadel makes you assess the risks on a much larger scale and plan for months or quarters even. And for many people EVE is not a game that you play THAT seriously. And that is cutting a lot of gameplay off for more casual players. I like living in a wormhole and i pay to keep playing in it. Please don't make it overly tedious to play like i enjoy. Not hard or challenging. Tedious.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#845 - 2016-11-06 11:44:59 UTC
Jeronica wrote:
Mark Phoenixa wrote:
So, i haven't seen anyone address a number of concerns with the citadel system as a whole. Forgive me if i simply missed them being answered and please point me towards the relevant post.

First and most immediate concern is the number of service mod slots that is available on Raitaru. Its 3. That means that i wont be able to run all the industry mods and a reprocessing mod at the same time. The implications of that are pretty obvious for anyone who lives and mines in a remote system, like wormholes. You would need to swap mods or have a second structure in system. Very annoying.

Second concern kind of interlaces with the first one and was also partially dressed. Fuel costs. They were lowered recently to acceptable levels. However another change that may still be viable would have been the removal of startup costs for service modules. I mean, why are they there? To make it so that people cant turn on mods to do things and then turn them off for fuel saving? If that's the case, then its dumb. The only 2 modules that are exploitable like that are 'Clone bay' and a 'Reprocessing mod'. The other mods need to be turned on continuously to do anything considerable. And even exploitable mods are not that protected by that mechanic. You simply need to do your things once in 4 days to save fuel. I would not even have an issue with 3 mod slots on Raitaru if there were no startup costs. I could do my industry in batches, but now i cant simply because it costs too much.

Third concern is not an immediate one. I feel like there are too many structures coming. Different structures for different purposes. That are not limited by the number of moons in the system. If there will be more structures for other functions like reactions and those Drilling Platforms, whatever they do, we will have a logistical nightmare on our hands. These structure will have to be fueled, protected. You will have to remember what does what. And it will still cost to set them up. Also with these structures being fundamentally different like that they offer a lot less flexibility than POSes(as much as i dislike POSes for their UI). You simply can not have a single or even 2 structures that are specialized for your particular needs. And that may be solvable by cooperating with other people and using their structures. But that's not a solution for wormholes, because our system is our own and hardly a solution for k-space, because people like to have their own space home. New structures simply don't offer much flexibility.

This inst a separate concern, just separating thoughts as i have droned on quite a lot in a previous paragraph. What i would have done about the whole structure thing is:
1)Have them still orbit moons, we have to have some kind of restriction there. simply because these structures are affordable for anyone who can get battleships on regular basis.
2)Have them be customisable the same way T3 cruisers are. Simply make their role be chosen by player in accordance to his need by 'subsystems' and only further improved by 'rigs'. And if you make the subsystems interchangeable with maybe a few hour delay then we can have an engineering structure be transformed into something defensible, like a POS entering a 'death-star' mode. It still would remove the stupid safety mechanic of a POS being unanchorable in case of wardec AND give people a chance to defend it. Engineering complexes are paper structure and no one would want to put them up if they can be casually teared down by a single well fit battleship. The subsystem mechanic will also offer more interaction and gameplay, thats at least engaging, because you will be continuously choosing what you need NOW, as opposed to being set with what you buy. Because frankly, you CCP may have not created the service modules for ECs at all, since who the **** would fit anything else on this structure, geared towards 1 thing only - Engineering.

I'm done, i may have gotten carried away by the end of it. Please forgive me if i have gotten a little emotional there. No offence, i still like EVE. What i don't like is the needless structures that will be all over space, resembling a forgotten graveyard.


Sounds like you need to upgrade to an Azbel, if you want it to do more. The medium structures are designed by nature to be very specialized, and at <1bil cost you can't expect much more out of it. As far as defense, you shouldn't risk anything you're not able to lose. If you want to deploy structures you should be able to defend your assets. If they're not offering a purpose/revenue that warrants defense, then why are you anchoring it?

Come on Please;Do you really think these things will come in under a bil?
Either your deluded or you honestly have no grasp on the game you log in to.
Medium Citadels were meant to be under 1 bil - They are still a long way from that.

The option of going a size up for flexibility - You just showed you have no grasp on Eve or industry as a whole. 10+ bil for a large structure that is as easily destroyed as one worth 1.5, that requires 3X times as much time to defend; what a super option.

Why do people who obviously have little to no understanding of small group, individual Industry setups (most industrial undertakings in eve), post in industry threads on how easy it is just to go bigger?

So far CCP has made a LOT of mistakes with structures, especially EC's - Time will show just how wrong they got it...
Right now, aside from rich super builders (those who don't mind not making a profit for a year or three) there is no valid reason to switch to more expensive to purchase and run, more vulnerable with less defenses, EC's.

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.

Mark Phoenixa
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#846 - 2016-11-06 13:17:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Phoenixa
And the structures themselves have even less appeal when you remember that they cant do reactions or moon mining. And that future structures will have those modules to most probably be kept fueled. Right now i can run t2/t3 production in a single medium POS. For 20 blocks an hour. It is valnurable as **** and cant do anything else but run 1 hybrid reaction array(including silos), design laboratory/experimental laboratory, component assembly and ship assembly. and it all costs about 500 mil. Why would i want a structure that simply CANT run the same thing on its own. Like, seriously, if gas reactions will be a separate service mod, it will be impossible to run all that in 1 Raitaru. And honestly? Having a separate reprocessing service mod is just plain stupid. I can hoard my materials and reprocess them once a month. All at once. Just leave reprocessing rigs to boost repro efficiency. The rig will occupy a rig slot and this will be a natural downside to having it over some other useful one.

Honestly there are just so many things wrong with these structures. And im not speaking out of some addiciton to POSes, i havent played long enough to get addicted to them and when i intitally put up one - I hated it. I looked forward to having citadels until the introduction of ECs... Until i realised that to keep the funtionality of ONE medium POS i will need to put several structures that are essentially gigantic space colonies. How dumb is that a structure that is basically a space CITY is unable to do the same thing as a strucure that looks like our current Earth space stations? Sans the shield of course, our stations dont have that.

Now, i get it the reason for these restrictions are large structures. Fortizar, Keepstar, other big EC have to be better than their smaller counterparts. Otherwise whats the point? I also get that simply increasing its durability is not answer, since no matter how much tougher large structures are it wouldnt warrant their price over a smaller but able to do the same thing structure. But CCP, limiting low-level structures like Astrahus and Raitaru like you do, to intorduce a clear efficiency improvement per structure size is bad game design. You have the upper limit of functionality, i get it. L and XL strucutres cant be too good, or rich players witll make small time ones literally unable to compete with them. But you also have a lower limit of functionality, the one you are ovestepping now. Dont make smaller structures worse to show how good bigger ones are. Just make the difference less obvious, or if you cant do that yet, scramble bigger structurees until you CAN.
Mark Phoenixa
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#847 - 2016-11-06 13:31:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Phoenixa
Mark Phoenixa wrote:
And the structures themselves have even less appeal when you remember that they cant do reactions or moon mining. And that future structures will have those modules to most probably be kept fueled. Right now i can run t2/t3 production in a single medium POS. For 20 blocks an hour. It is valnurable as **** and cant do anything else but run 1 hybrid reaction array(including silos), design laboratory/experimental lab, component assembly and ship assembly. and it all costs about 500 mil. Why would i want a structure that simply CANT run the same thing on its own. Like, seriously, if gas reactions will be a separate service mod, it will be impossible to run all that in 1 Raitaru. And honestly? Having a separate reprocessing service mod is just plain stupid. I can hoard my materials and reprocess them once a month. All at once. Just leave reprocessing rigs to boost repro efficiency. The rig will occupy a rig slot and this will be a natural downside to having it over some other useful one.

Honestly there are just so many things wrong with these structures. And im not speaking out of some addiciton to POSes, i havent played long enough to get addicted to them and when i intitally put up one - I hated it. I looked forward to having citadels until the introduction of ECs... Until i realised that to keep the funtionality of ONE medium POS i will need to put several structures that are essentially gigantic space colonies. How dumb is that a structure that is basically a space CITY is unable to do the same thing as a strucure that looks like our current Earth space stations? Sans the shield of course, our stations dont have that.

Now, i get it the reason for these restrictions are large structures. Fortizar, Keepstar, other big EC have to be better than their smaller counterparts. Otherwise whats the point? I also get that simply increasing its durability is not answer, since no matter how much tougher large structures are it wouldnt warrant their price over a smaller but able to do the same thing structure. But CCP, limiting low-level structures like Astrahus and Raitaru like you do, to intorduce a clear efficiency improvement per structure size is bad game design. You have the upper limit of functionality, i get it. L and XL strucutres cant be too good, or rich players witll make small time ones literally unable to compete with them. But you also have a lower limit of functionality, the one you are ovestepping now. Dont make smaller structures worse to show how good bigger ones are. Just make the difference less obvious, or if you cant do that yet, scramble bigger structurees until you CAN.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#848 - 2016-11-06 18:11:49 UTC
exiik Shardani wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Example: Azbel (large)
* High [4]: Two anti-subcapital launchers
* Mid [3]: Warp Scrambler, Target Painter, Webifier
* Low [2]: 2x Ballistic Control System
* Service [5]: Manufacturing, Research, Invention, Reprocessing

are not subcapital launchers and ballistic control just wasting of ISK's? 3x guardian in attack fleet and they mitigate all damage even on your fit Azbel. current large poses can be near to voley any logi, but not two structures subcap launchers...


I pretty much like to have option to fit two hardeners or plates or capacitor power relay or so into low slots. because actual low slots are only worth when you fit anti-capital launchers.
if I want be fun I just say "subcapital launchers has similar effect like festival launchers"Big smile

Of the 4 potential starbase assault fleets (they never attacked after seeing we'd defend) on my large hisec POS over the past 7 years, no attack has had logi.

The last group, however, did use a lone third-party Osprey when they attacked another tower in the same system.

Most attacks seem to be "opportunity" attacks, and are looking for AFK-able targets. This might not be the same for EC, which are considerably weaker, but the three multi-day timers are even more annoying.
Andreve en Distel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#849 - 2016-11-06 18:20:53 UTC
Judging from the fact CCP Fozzie indicated that the Drilling Platforms are the intended bonused structure for reprocessing, I'd say it's very deliberate that the Raitaru is designed to use only 3 service module slots. It's all part of the overall vision CCP has for the new structures system, forcing players to have a more focused/specialized setup than the current POS system. Note all the different rigs planned to make ECs have very specific roles for maximized efficiency. Consider that different structures only give fuel bonuses for
"their" service modules (neither citadels or ECs grant a fuel bonus on the reprocessing module, for example).

It seems pretty clear to me, at least, that if you are a small corp and have plans to establish vertical integration in industry (from mining to market), you are expected to have at least one of each of the following: Drilling Platform (possibly more than 1, since these are likely to serve as platform for both reprocessing and moon mat reactions, and we don't have info yet on how exactly that will work), Raitaru Engineering Complex (to research and build whichever specific product lines you intend to maximize efficiency for), and Fortizar Citadel (if you plan to maintain your own market, otherwise an Astrahus is sufficient to handle things like a clone bay and serve as a separate base of operations from the EC if you need one).

If you plan to establish horizontal integration in industry, you change that model up to have multiple structures for whichever aspect you plan to focus on; multiple ECs to maximize efficiency on multiple item types, multiple Drilling Platforms to support your mining/reprocessing/reactions activities, etc. And if you are a larger corp, or your corp really wants to go to town, then you're upgrading from medium structures to Large or Extra Large structures.

The point being (and I'm not saying this is superior to the current system, just my interpretation of the way CCP has intended the new system), you HAVE to have multiple structures now. It's up to you as the individual or corporation to decide the level of structures you need to make your operations successful.

If you like your POS, you can keep your POS. For now. But I think the common misunderstanding is that some players think that ECs are supposed to be some sort of buff or upgrade to the POS system. I've never once seen a post from CCP stating anything of the sort. This is simply a new system to replace the current one...the only "improvement" involved is that it appears to better fit CCP's vision for the game as a whole. So anyone concerned with the new structure system should be less worried about "how does this compare to my current POS" and more worried about "why is this CCP's vision for the game instead of what my vision for how this should work?"
Mark Phoenixa
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#850 - 2016-11-06 19:51:00 UTC
I guess you are right about them not being an improvement over POSes, but a replacement for them. And thats fair, we will deal. But i really don't like the necessity for multiple structures as opposed to a higher modularity of a single one. Its just going to grow annoying and it really raises the isk bar for single or small group industrials. With how rigid ECs are, space will grow into a junkyard. Bleh. At least introduce a limit per system.
exiik Shardani
Imperial Spacedrill and Logistics
#851 - 2016-11-06 20:21:40 UTC
some systems are already a junkyard (full of Astrahuses) ...


CCPlease Sotyo with Doomsday device (but with strongly reduced base damage). XL things should have these funny thingsSmile

sry for my English :-(

klana depp
Tr0pa de elite.
Pandemic Horde
#852 - 2016-11-06 23:26:43 UTC
can i get a clarification on something?

the rig list image ( http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70592/1/Engineering_Complexes_-_Rigs.jpg ) explicitly lists "ship rigs" for the equip manuf. rigs,

and it also lists "Structure Components", "Structure Modules", "Upwell Structures", "Starbase Structures", and "Fuel Blocks" for the struct manuf. rig.

nowhere does it mention "(upwell/standup) structure modifications", ie the rigs for citadels and the new EC.

will there be a way to get bonused build for those, or do we have to use upgraded amarr outposts / poses to build them?

like, it would be nice if i could build an m-set structure manuf eff rig and fit it to a Raitaru, to then build an xl t1/t2 rig there.....
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#853 - 2016-11-07 04:43:52 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
exiik Shardani wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Example: Azbel (large)
* High [4]: Two anti-subcapital launchers
* Mid [3]: Warp Scrambler, Target Painter, Webifier
* Low [2]: 2x Ballistic Control System
* Service [5]: Manufacturing, Research, Invention, Reprocessing

are not subcapital launchers and ballistic control just wasting of ISK's? 3x guardian in attack fleet and they mitigate all damage even on your fit Azbel. current large poses can be near to voley any logi, but not two structures subcap launchers...


I pretty much like to have option to fit two hardeners or plates or capacitor power relay or so into low slots. because actual low slots are only worth when you fit anti-capital launchers.
if I want be fun I just say "subcapital launchers has similar effect like festival launchers"Big smile

Of the 4 potential starbase assault fleets (they never attacked after seeing we'd defend) on my large hisec POS over the past 7 years, no attack has had logi.

The last group, however, did use a lone third-party Osprey when they attacked another tower in the same system.

Most attacks seem to be "opportunity" attacks, and are looking for AFK-able targets. This might not be the same for EC, which are considerably weaker, but the three multi-day timers are even more annoying.

Interesting that FozzieSov was put in place (without being very well thought through) to remove the *Grind* from structures and sov.
Then 5 minutes later, we get a bunch of new structures which while having less overall EHP have DPS caps to keep you grinding AND multiple timers over days (nearly a weeks worth) to keep you coming back - for more structure grinding.

And the fun part (not) in all this - There is a lot more of these grind fest structures to come. CCP when introducing these new structures spoke about player groups building cities in space - Reality is, we are being forced to build multiple individual structures that need to be spread out over whole solar systems and can only be interacted with by flying from one to the other - Has to be the stupidest way to build a city ever.

Citadels - Should be the main structure for operations, with the EC, Drilling Platform, etc attached to it. Then you have what might pass for a city in space.

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.

Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#854 - 2016-11-07 05:24:18 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
CCP when introducing these new structures spoke about player groups building cities in space - Reality is, we are being forced to build multiple individual structures that need to be spread out over whole solar systems and can only be interacted with by flying from one to the other - Has to be the stupidest way to build a city ever.

Citadels - Should be the main structure for operations, with the EC, Drilling Platform, etc attached to it. Then you have what might pass for a city in space.

We've been promised "cities in space" many times over many years. No sign of a delivery on that promise yet.

The reason for keeping the structures so heavily separated has been said to be a balance one: that it's easy to balance structure defences when they know there will only ever be one of them involved in any one combat at any one time, but impossible to balance them if a theoretically infinite number could be anchored on one grid.

So I don't know why they didn't leave defences off of the ECs (and future structures) entirely and just allow you to anchor them within weapons range of a Citadel, that way you'll have the option of using Citadel defences (but only ever one Citadel at a time) to protect all the other structure classes. You then have the ease of balancing defences on only one structure class and just balancing vulnerability, EHP and DPS cap on all the others. This would mean the ECs would be defensively weak and dependent on either fleets or nearby Citadels for their defence and it would also allow us to build those cities in space that we were promised. It would also allow us to balance our defensive, economic and industrial needs by choosing different size classes of each structure accordingly.

You want an XL Citadel sitting in the middle of your cluster of ECs, drilling platforms and other things so that you have maximum defence... go for it!

You're a small industrialist in HS and feel that an M Citadel will be sufficient and cost effective to defend your M EC and M drilling platform from occasional threats... go for it!

You feel you can do without a Citadel entirely and just rely of passive EHP, war dec mechanics or fleets to defend them... go for it!

You could still allow some short range weapons on the non-Citadel structures, but keep a short minimum anchoring distance restriction that excludes an overlap on those weapons. So the point defenses could be allowed on all structures with no overlap being possible due to a small anchoring exclusion zone around every structure, but all the long range Citadel only defences would still be able provide an umbrella to protect all other structures within their range.

This idea would also allow M and L Citadels to be up-powered a bit to fulfill this role effectively without making them ridiculous and without making any gulf of performance between them and the non-Citadel structures, because the Citadels are there to be tough, to provide defence and provide a flexible centerpiece to any structure cluster.

Having that kind of system, with those kinds of choices and the reality of building your own structure cluster of whatever size your needs, purse and ego demand would be awesome. But sadly we've been given this unambitious cop out instead.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#855 - 2016-11-07 05:57:32 UTC
To expand upon my idea, this is what I would suggest CCP do now to save the new structures from being so mediocre:

Leave Citadels as they are, but plan a balance/iteration pass for the future once all the other structures are out.

Change ECs so they can be anchored within weapons range of Citadels (but Citadels still cannot be anchored within range of another Citadel). Have a shorter exclusion range between ECs to prevent congestion, walls of structures or the overlap of any short range weapons that may be allowed on them.

Change ECs so that M, L and XL only have ONE high slot. Restrict the options for that high slot to the close range point defence battery (which isn't available in HS) and add a selection of relatively weak short range single target weapons (one for each racial flavour would be great) that can fill that slot in HS situations or in other sec if they are desired.

Change ECs so they have ZERO midslots.

Change ECs so they have 1, 2 and 3 low slots respectively.

Change ECs so they have ZERO fighter tubes.

Now you don't have to balance the fitting requirements on ECs around the potential for defence, just the potential for industry.

Now you can build cities in space and have much more fun and engaging structure gameplay.

Follow this design through to the other non-citadel structures.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#856 - 2016-11-07 06:51:05 UTC
Andreve en Distel wrote:
Judging from the fact CCP Fozzie indicated that the Drilling Platforms are the intended bonused structure for reprocessing, I'd say it's very deliberate that the Raitaru is designed to use only 3 service module slots. It's all part of the overall vision CCP has for the new structures system, forcing players to have a more focused/specialized setup than the current POS system. Note all the different rigs planned to make ECs have very specific roles for maximized efficiency. Consider that different structures only give fuel bonuses for
"their" service modules (neither citadels or ECs grant a fuel bonus on the reprocessing module, for example).

It seems pretty clear to me, at least, that if you are a small corp and have plans to establish vertical integration in industry (from mining to market), you are expected to have at least one of each of the following: Drilling Platform (possibly more than 1, since these are likely to serve as platform for both reprocessing and moon mat reactions, and we don't have info yet on how exactly that will work), Raitaru Engineering Complex (to research and build whichever specific product lines you intend to maximize efficiency for), and Fortizar Citadel (if you plan to maintain your own market, otherwise an Astrahus is sufficient to handle things like a clone bay and serve as a separate base of operations from the EC if you need one).

If you plan to establish horizontal integration in industry, you change that model up to have multiple structures for whichever aspect you plan to focus on; multiple ECs to maximize efficiency on multiple item types, multiple Drilling Platforms to support your mining/reprocessing/reactions activities, etc. And if you are a larger corp, or your corp really wants to go to town, then you're upgrading from medium structures to Large or Extra Large structures.

The point being (and I'm not saying this is superior to the current system, just my interpretation of the way CCP has intended the new system), you HAVE to have multiple structures now. It's up to you as the individual or corporation to decide the level of structures you need to make your operations successful.

If you like your POS, you can keep your POS. For now. But I think the common misunderstanding is that some players think that ECs are supposed to be some sort of buff or upgrade to the POS system. I've never once seen a post from CCP stating anything of the sort. This is simply a new system to replace the current one...the only "improvement" involved is that it appears to better fit CCP's vision for the game as a whole. So anyone concerned with the new structure system should be less worried about "how does this compare to my current POS" and more worried about "why is this CCP's vision for the game instead of what my vision for how this should work?"

Ahh Drilling Platforms (the one structure,with 4 different specializations + a few other roles thrown in) The be all and end all for miners, manufacturers - Only problem is, that thread is over a year old and has never had ANY followup. Leaving me wondering - What exactly are Drilling platforms, what will they do and how much is it going to cost me to do it...
If drilling platforms go into use as suggested in that thread - There will need to be literally hundreds of them in each constellation, what an over the top waste.

Devs have gone out of their way to introduce new structures that, 1. limit small group and individual opportunities. 2. cost more and more to buy and operate. 3. are more and more vulnerable.
EC's are just a bad idea in their current guise, Drilling Platforms could well turn out to be the nail in the coffin. So if your right and having what could be done in a 1 bil isk pos now be done in 3 or 4 or more structures which add more and more pvp grinding for those wishing to kill them, more and more time spent online (more than many want to commit to for a game) is CCP's "vision" for what was once a great game - Then yes this is that vision (with all available information and the blanks that are yet to come, it is a really bad one)..

Sadly, it isn't a very good or well thought out one - Or, CCp is just being CCP and not bothering to inform its customers about their plan.

I hope a bunch of F2P kids will keep CCP's doors open because I can see all these overly cumbersome structure sets encouraging a lot of veteran players out of the game or at least to become less involved in it (same thing really).

Finally and I don't know how many times this has been stated - CCP, not everyone wants to belong to a nulsec blob alliance, try designing the game for your player base and stop trying to force everyone to fit your idea of what New Eden (supposedly a SandBox) should be. Every new structure set removes a bit more from the sandbox.

Want to see for yourself how systems can become junk yards for structures - Go to Perimeter,

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.

George Gouillot
MASS
Pandemic Horde
#857 - 2016-11-07 06:57:11 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Very good ideas


CCPls
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#858 - 2016-11-07 07:45:44 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
To expand upon my idea, this is what I would suggest CCP do now to save the new structures from being so mediocre:

Leave Citadels as they are, but plan a balance/iteration pass for the future once all the other structures are out.

Change ECs so they can be anchored within weapons range of Citadels (but Citadels still cannot be anchored within range of another Citadel). Have a shorter exclusion range between ECs to prevent congestion, walls of structures or the overlap of any short range weapons that may be allowed on them.

Change ECs so that M, L and XL only have ONE high slot. Restrict the options for that high slot to the close range point defence battery (which isn't available in HS) and add a selection of relatively weak short range single target weapons (one for each racial flavour would be great) that can fill that slot in HS situations or in other sec if they are desired.

Change ECs so they have ZERO midslots.

Change ECs so they have 1, 2 and 3 low slots respectively.

Change ECs so they have ZERO fighter tubes.

Now you don't have to balance the fitting requirements on ECs around the potential for defence, just the potential for industry.

Now you can build cities in space and have much more fun and engaging structure gameplay.

Follow this design through to the other non-citadel structures.

I agree entirely, this is what New Eden inhabitants deserve.
Although, defenses on a medium citadel are mediocre at best so my thinking would be; Each segment of a space city could add offensive slots to its defender (the citadel it is attached to).
Eg; Medium Citadel with medium EC (module) attached - Would gain 1 weapon highslot and 1 fighter tube, up to a maximum of 4 weapon highslots and 5 fighter tubes (light and support fighters only). The EC and other modules would take on 60% of the defensive capabilities (shield, armor, hull) of the citadel it is attached to, so all it needs is rig slots (limited to manufacturing, reprocessing etc) and service modules.
Each module can be destroyed, so a medium citadel with 2 EC modules attached would yield 3 killmails.

Large and Xlarge could be treated the same way, with only the defensive/offensive capabilities needing to be kept in balance.

Citadels are home and EC's, Drilling Platforms (whatever they are) and anything else Devs decide is needed to replace pos's, become modules and New Eden residents get to build cities in space..

Vulnerability times could be increased slightly to somewhere between current Citadel times and proposed (overtaxing) times of EC's.

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.

Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#859 - 2016-11-07 08:33:54 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Although, defenses on a medium citadel are mediocre at best so my thinking would be; Each segment of a space city could add offensive slots to its defender (the citadel it is attached to).

I entirely agree that the M and, to a lesser extent, the L citadels are underpowered both for CCP's current "vision" and for my "rescue plan".

However, I wouldn't support your specific solution, as I feel it would be a little too complex, a little too clunky and moves in the direction that CCP wish to avoid by pushing clusters of structures towards a critical mass where they might become excessively difficult to attack.

The strongest defence for any structure must always be the fleet of pilots, no amount of mass structure grouping or clever fitting can ever be allowed to devalue that.

I would instead suggest that the current fitting systems can provide much of the benefit you are looking for without additional mechanics or excessive N+1 structure dynamics.

If a player or player group decide to build a cluster of structures, then the abilities of the non-Citadel structures will naturally free up the slots, services, rigs and fittings of the defensive Citadel without the mechanic you suggest. If CCP were to allow for more low-slot and rig-slot fitting choices for Citadels, giving more flexibility and variety in the defensive configurations possible, then I feel that much of what is lacking in the M and L sizes will be compensated for.

I do however feel that the M and L class should receive a balance/iteration pass after the full structure lineup has been implemented and I expect this will involve an improvement in their overall combat capacity. Better, possibly faction orientated, modules or rigging could allow for increased effective range for weapons, tackle and E-War, which I feel is needed under the rescue plan since they will be responsible for defending a greater total value of structures.

The addition of resistance, HP or vulnerability modifying items for low slots and/or rig slots would give the buffs you need to EC durability and give more interesting choices for the Citadels too.

I also believe that remote structure repair modules, limited to Citadel high slots only, would provide the additional defense you desire for the clustered structures without being unbalanced. Since such a module could only be used by a Citadel to augment the defence of other clustered structures and the capacitor requirements of using such a module would force a trade off and interesting tactical considerations between defence of the central Citadel and defence of the structures clustered around it.

One of the great things about such a design is that it all works exactly like ships and so you don't have to learn the intricacies of lots of different mechanics and special cases.
YeuxVerts Belle
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#860 - 2016-11-07 08:54:44 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
To expand upon my idea, this is what I would suggest CCP do now to save the new structures from being so mediocre:

Leave Citadels as they are, but plan a balance/iteration pass for the future once all the other structures are out.

Change ECs so they can be anchored within weapons range of Citadels (but Citadels still cannot be anchored within range of another Citadel). Have a shorter exclusion range between ECs to prevent congestion, walls of structures or the overlap of any short range weapons that may be allowed on them.

Change ECs so that M, L and XL only have ONE high slot. Restrict the options for that high slot to the close range point defence battery (which isn't available in HS) and add a selection of relatively weak short range single target weapons (one for each racial flavour would be great) that can fill that slot in HS situations or in other sec if they are desired.

Change ECs so they have ZERO midslots.

Change ECs so they have 1, 2 and 3 low slots respectively.

Change ECs so they have ZERO fighter tubes.

Now you don't have to balance the fitting requirements on ECs around the potential for defence, just the potential for industry.

Now you can build cities in space and have much more fun and engaging structure gameplay.

Follow this design through to the other non-citadel structures.


Terrible idea.

Basically, you're making it so that all non-citadel structures are either bound to a citadel (thus multiplying the price of any industry operation) or just a target. Today, they have a moderate potential to be a force multiplier.
A much simpler idea than the one you describe, with a similar result, is to give more bonuses and service slots to citadels so they can do every piece of industry.

I like where CCP is taking us.

The above message presents my opinions on the topic at hand. If there is a conflict between my views and reality, consider reality to be correct until proven otherwise.