These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rena'Thras
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#901 - 2016-11-27 01:37:52 UTC
Just wondering, I know you CCP guys seem to love bigger and bigger things but...what about people that want smaller things?

I know there was talk a while back about more things like the personal deployables because one of the issues with POSes when you guys took feedback was having to have a Corp/Alliance and there not being a lot of individual involvement. Has that idea been abandoned? Considering all these Upwell structures only come in Medium and up sizes (it's like fast food soft drink sizes all over again where there is no small!), there's not a real "entry" level structure for small groups.

I mean, can any of these structures fit in or be deployed from a Blockade Runner, like a small POS can? Of course not.

Additionally, there's no little complex of personal "houses" or purpose built bases for people. For example, why can't we set down little research stations that only have the function of being able to run a single research job at a time, but only cost 1 fuel block per hour to do so and can be anchored by an individual, Corp, or Alliance? That "small game" is really missing in all this Upwell stuff.

While POSes weren't super suited to that, either, Small POSes could be used in that vein for small groups (or wealthy soloers). It seems the new system...doesn't really have anything like that.

Before removing POSes, you guys seriously need to look into "Small" and "Super Small (personal)" sized structures. This is especially true when it comes to new players that just want to be able to build a small home to practice things in, like building or researching.
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#902 - 2016-11-27 15:23:30 UTC
Rena'Thras wrote:
.....................

I mean, can any of these structures fit in or be deployed from a Blockade Runner, like a small POS can? Of course not.

................


Yes, an Astrahus can indeed be accomplished using a Blockade Runner - done it - a few times now.

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Ocean Ormand
Bagel and Lox
#903 - 2016-11-28 14:40:23 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Opner Dresden wrote:
The docking restrictions are goofy and unintuitive to players. They should be Small, Medium, Large for consistency. I'm disappointed that CCP continues to push pilots into mega-alliance groups and encourage blue donut mentality by forcing the choice of coffining players in supers or joining those who can afford a Keepstar.

Today, you can store and build a supercapital in a 2b isk POS... now it's a 30b+ structure with no ability to store them? This is a horrible shift of power to larger groups.


Requiring a 30b+ structure to even build these ships, with huge vulnerability on top, hopefully means that super caps will become a bit more rare again over time. The ease with which you can build them today is kind of silly really. It should be the larger groups who have the power to build and wield these ships. That's the payoff for their investment into owning sov.

No longer can you throw down 20 relatively cheap POS's to keep your enemy guessing which one has a capital in build. Now you have to throw down a really expensive one and everyone can see what you're building there. I only see positives here. Less supercaps and more conflict drivers. There's really very little reason to attack an armed Keepstar. There will be ample reason to attack an armed Sotiyo.


It wont mean that they will become more "rare" - rather it will mean that the large entities will have a strangle hold on them - which fosters their continued control of eve.
Gyges Skyeye
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#904 - 2016-12-02 11:09:30 UTC
On the subject of supercapital production. Please give us a filter to manage access lists for just supercap production.

http://puu.sh/sBBwX/cd85b391af.png

also in thread
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6737317
Johnathen Hudson
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#905 - 2016-12-06 14:24:32 UTC
can u put on a clone and market
Hello Meow Kitty
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#906 - 2016-12-18 04:54:43 UTC
Meow,

Any word on building stargates for travel and being able to fit them.

That is all meow
Vixii Esiveii
Terra Firma Exploration Ltd
#907 - 2016-12-24 01:30:21 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
The large one must allow Rorqual docking.


Any updates on this?
Vixii Esiveii
Terra Firma Exploration Ltd
#908 - 2016-12-24 01:39:56 UTC
I could care less about Supercapitals, or their construction, but my multi-use Rorqual... er, freighter, hauler, miner, juicy target, etc was just dusted off a month ago and is now going back into storage because I don't want a Fortizar.
marly cortez
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#909 - 2017-02-04 21:46:31 UTC
The whole concept of 'Citadels' was borked from the start, I agree people are building and using them, in fact throwing them up like weeds in some systems, But they are seldom used as predicted and when you ask around as to why they are so reluctant to place there BPO's in them you get almost identical answers,

Inability to lock them down.

Risk of loosing them should the structure be destroyed.

Lack of trust in CCP's current strategy on these installations.

Having recently installed a T2 Sitoyo for research the only people using it are the Corp, looked around and soon established why, most people still prefer to use the stations for security, again CCP's cranky drop mechanics not being trusted to return stored items and the feeling that beneath all the hype at a whim they could simply remove what protection we already have for expensive libraries of BPO's resulting in the basic impression that keeping them in Empire and copy/research there being the safest option.

As to the intimated 'Massive' bonuses from these installations, well the least said there the better, CCP there an embarrassment, 3 plus billion for T2 rigs, gimped by lack of Calibration gives you the feeling that no matter what it is that CCP gives, The kick in the nuts is not worth to effort for the loss of utility Stations bring players.

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#910 - 2017-02-04 23:10:43 UTC
marly cortez wrote:
The whole concept of 'Citadels' was borked from the start, I agree people are building and using them, in fact throwing them up like weeds in some systems, But they are seldom used as predicted and when you ask around as to why they are so reluctant to place there BPO's in them you get almost identical answers,

Inability to lock them down.

Risk of loosing them should the structure be destroyed.

Lack of trust in CCP's current strategy on these installations.

Having recently installed a T2 Sitoyo for research the only people using it are the Corp, looked around and soon established why, most people still prefer to use the stations for security, again CCP's cranky drop mechanics not being trusted to return stored items and the feeling that beneath all the hype at a whim they could simply remove what protection we already have for expensive libraries of BPO's resulting in the basic impression that keeping them in Empire and copy/research there being the safest option.

As to the intimated 'Massive' bonuses from these installations, well the least said there the better, CCP there an embarrassment, 3 plus billion for T2 rigs, gimped by lack of Calibration gives you the feeling that no matter what it is that CCP gives, The kick in the nuts is not worth to effort for the loss of utility Stations bring players.



You do know that you can't lose a BPO if the structure is destroyed, right?

The lockdown is a known issue.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#911 - 2017-02-06 06:45:37 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
marly cortez wrote:
The whole concept of 'Citadels' was borked from the start, I agree people are building and using them, in fact throwing them up like weeds in some systems, But they are seldom used as predicted and when you ask around as to why they are so reluctant to place there BPO's in them you get almost identical answers,

Inability to lock them down.

Risk of loosing them should the structure be destroyed.

Lack of trust in CCP's current strategy on these installations.

Having recently installed a T2 Sitoyo for research the only people using it are the Corp, looked around and soon established why, most people still prefer to use the stations for security, again CCP's cranky drop mechanics not being trusted to return stored items and the feeling that beneath all the hype at a whim they could simply remove what protection we already have for expensive libraries of BPO's resulting in the basic impression that keeping them in Empire and copy/research there being the safest option.

As to the intimated 'Massive' bonuses from these installations, well the least said there the better, CCP there an embarrassment, 3 plus billion for T2 rigs, gimped by lack of Calibration gives you the feeling that no matter what it is that CCP gives, The kick in the nuts is not worth to effort for the loss of utility Stations bring players.



You do know that you can't lose a BPO if the structure is destroyed, right?

The lockdown is a known issue.
The fact you can't lose a BPO in one of the new structures is little compensation for the lack of usability of the new structures. (up to 3 minutes for industry interface to load, no remote access if your bpo's or build materials are in cans, among other things)

Yes the lock down issue is known and is being worked on at the same pace as other known issues - Very Very slowly (if at all) in complete secrecy.

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.