These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[December] Ending the deployment of new outposts and upgrades

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
#41 - 2016-12-08 15:25:40 UTC
Tom Stonehoof wrote:
Have you not read this thread? And are you still continuing to insult your playerbase by playing the fool? Welcome to the winter of rage.
Good sir, with the utmost respect, have you read this thread?

So far it's had under 40 characters posting, and out of those I count less than 10 responses that could be called negative. Most of those are along the lines of "Please don't remove outposts before you provide new structures with the features they are missing", which as I said above, we've already promised!

Tom Stonehoof wrote:
1) Never insult one of your players.
2) Never insult the intelligence of one of your players
3) If you're going to insult one of your players, be prepared for them to fire back with your company's own disclosures from fanfest, fanfest keynotes, all sponsored eve gatherings.
I had absolutely no intention of insulting you, I simply pointed out that what you said wasn't factual. On top of that, the quotes you posted corroborated my point precisely!

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! P

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#42 - 2016-12-08 15:27:56 UTC
Tom Stonehoof wrote:
I don't even know...

New structures are so much better than POS or outposts. What are you talking about? We just need the bugs ironed out and basic stuff like insurance added. (Seriously, add insurance please.)

I don't think player sentiment is on your side here.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#43 - 2016-12-08 15:35:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Manssell
CCP Lebowski wrote:


Tom Stonehoof wrote:
There are changes that much of the playerbase did not think relevant to the gameplay or longevity of this game.
If you could point me towards all this negative sentiment towards removing POS's and Outposts I'd be very interested to read it. For what I've seen the response have been mostly understanding.


Not related to outpost, but every single feedback thread for Citadels and the manufacturing arrays so far has been filled with complaints that they are not a replacement for small POS’s in price point, utility, stealth, and mobility for small corps and solo people especially. Groups you keep specifically saying will love these. I would point you to these, but it really is every single thread about them has this discussion. Not only have ya’ll ignored all these concerns you continue to just say ‘will be great for small corps and solo people’ in every public statement about them while the actual community of small entities loudly begs to differ. It's been a bit dismissive and insulting both by CCP and the CSM.

I have suggested before that what’s need is something like a roundtable with small corps and solo people to actually hear and address these concerns. But you won’t even acknowledge these concerns in the feedback threads. This entire thread practically past page 3 is all about wether these new structures can actually be used by small corps and solo people as you keep promising, but none of CCPs replies have anything to do with that. (the most 'liked' post are all about that)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=495425&p=4

As I have said, if CCP is going to raise the bar for structure ownership in game fine. But you need to come out and just SAY that. Stop playing this coy game where you just ignore the small entities elephant in the room while saying everything will be the same. Or if you don’t actually think you are raising the bar significantly for structure ownership by small entities as compared to POS’s then you really do need to engage with that community on some level because that is wildly out of touch.
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort
#44 - 2016-12-08 15:43:50 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Tom Stonehoof wrote:
Have you not read this thread? And are you still continuing to insult your playerbase by playing the fool? Welcome to the winter of rage.
Good sir, with the utmost respect, have you read this thread?

So far it's had under 40 characters posting, and out of those I count less than 10 responses that could be called negative. Most of those are along the lines of "Please don't remove outposts before you provide new structures with the features they are missing", which as I said above, we've already promised!

Tom Stonehoof wrote:
1) Never insult one of your players.
2) Never insult the intelligence of one of your players
3) If you're going to insult one of your players, be prepared for them to fire back with your company's own disclosures from fanfest, fanfest keynotes, all sponsored eve gatherings.
I had absolutely no intention of insulting you, I simply pointed out that what you said wasn't factual. On top of that, the quotes you posted corroborated my point precisely!

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! P


You're not taking crazy pills. You are just attempting to reason with an annonomous person on a forum who clearly has his own views about things and thinks they apply to the player base as a whole.

As for the rest of this thread's original purpose, we have known for a while where everything was heading. Yes there are a few things still missing, but those a limited mostly to POS functions that are missing.

To be honest, the only complaint I could possibly give on this announcement was the relatively short time/notice given lol, but that is not a serious issue at all really considering the time it would take to prep anyways.
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
#45 - 2016-12-08 15:47:01 UTC
Manssell wrote:
Not related to outpost, but every single feedback thread for Citadels and the manufacturing arrays so far has been filled with complaints that they are not a replacement for small POS’s in price point, utility, stealth, and mobility for small corps and solo people especially. Groups you keep specifically saying will love these. I would point you to these, but it really is every single thread about them has this discussion. Not only have ya’ll ignored all these concerns you continue to just say ‘will be great for small corps and solo people’ in every public statement about them while the actual community of small entities loudly begs to differ. It's been a bit dismissive and insulting both by CCP and the CSM.

I have suggested before that what’s need is something like a roundtable with small corps and solo people to actually hear and address these concerns. But you won’t even acknowledge these concerns in the feedback threads. This entire thread practically past page 3 is all about wether these new structures can actually be used by small corps and solo people as you keep promising, but none of CCPs replies have anything to do with that. (the most 'liked' post are all about that)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=495425&p=4

As I have said, if CCP is going to raise the bar for structure ownership in game fine. But you need to come out and just SAY that. Stop playing this coy game where you just ignore the small entities elephant in the room while saying everything will be the same. Or if you don’t actually think you are raising the bar significantly for structure ownership by small entities as compared to POS’s then you really do need to engage with that community on some level because that is wildly out of touch.
Thanks for that response, appreciate you taking the time to highlight that again. I'll bring this up with the team and see if we can get some traction on it, at the very least in the form of an official statement on this subject.

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2016-12-08 15:53:33 UTC
Tom Stonehoof wrote:
We had the summer of rage (2012), guess it's time for the winter of passive aggressiveness/Mild Rage (2016).

This is basically Incarna all over again in regards to resource allocation and implementing features that the player base has had rather vocal opposition to.

the player base, with tiny exceptions, has been strongly pro-cits and pro-ecs
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2016-12-08 15:58:05 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Thanks for that response, appreciate you taking the time to highlight that again. I'll bring this up with the team and see if we can get some traction on it, at the very least in the form of an official statement on this subject.

im going to be real blunt here: the reason that the team hasn't been responding to these guys is because they are not going to be happy with anything short of the best highsec production facilities for 100m isk that are completely wardec-immune

small pos as production is broken as all hell and everyone who looked at it knows it, and there's no lack of clarity. there's just a small group of people complaining they're not getting what they want
Cade Windstalker
#48 - 2016-12-08 16:31:23 UTC
Manssell wrote:
CCP Lebowski wrote:


Tom Stonehoof wrote:
There are changes that much of the playerbase did not think relevant to the gameplay or longevity of this game.
If you could point me towards all this negative sentiment towards removing POS's and Outposts I'd be very interested to read it. For what I've seen the response have been mostly understanding.


Not related to outpost, but every single feedback thread for Citadels and the manufacturing arrays so far has been filled with complaints that they are not a replacement for small POS’s in price point, utility, stealth, and mobility for small corps and solo people especially. Groups you keep specifically saying will love these. I would point you to these, but it really is every single thread about them has this discussion. Not only have ya’ll ignored all these concerns you continue to just say ‘will be great for small corps and solo people’ in every public statement about them while the actual community of small entities loudly begs to differ. It's been a bit dismissive and insulting both by CCP and the CSM.

I have suggested before that what’s need is something like a roundtable with small corps and solo people to actually hear and address these concerns. But you won’t even acknowledge these concerns in the feedback threads. This entire thread practically past page 3 is all about wether these new structures can actually be used by small corps and solo people as you keep promising, but none of CCPs replies have anything to do with that. (the most 'liked' post are all about that)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=495425&p=4

As I have said, if CCP is going to raise the bar for structure ownership in game fine. But you need to come out and just SAY that. Stop playing this coy game where you just ignore the small entities elephant in the room while saying everything will be the same. Or if you don’t actually think you are raising the bar significantly for structure ownership by small entities as compared to POS’s then you really do need to engage with that community on some level because that is wildly out of touch.


It's less that threads have been filled with negative feedback and more that a few people who like the changes stop in to say a short bit and walk away, and the people who really don't like it stick around arguing for 20-30 pages either with each-other or a few people who feel like arguing a point. This pattern has held fairly constant for every feedback thread for... basically ever.

On top of that people who don't like an idea will tend to mentally discount or dismiss arguments to the contrary, so the mental weighting looks like "Oh man, look at all of these people who agree with me about how horrible this idea is!" vs "why do these few idiots defend this crap!?!?"

What you actually have is the people who like the idea mostly staying silent, while the people who don't like it are very vocal.

Best example ever of this was the Marauder changes, which went through three different major iterations. A first iteration, a second iteration after that first one got a lot of negative feedback, and then a third iteration that was very similar to the first after that second iteration got *way more* negative feedback from all the people who liked the second one more and were more than happy to say so... as soon as the idea looked like it wasn't going to happen.

Yay false consensus and mental biases! Big smile
Circumstantial Evidence
#49 - 2016-12-08 17:29:58 UTC
Feature parity: a few items.

A control tower does not broadcast its presence in a solar system with an in-space icon visible to all players. When jumping into a new system, without needing to click d-scan, we can look in space for blue icons, and quickly determine that a new Citadel has started anchoring.

Separately, Overview (not in-space) Citadel icons are not supposed to be visible to players who are not in the access list. But (I think) due to the order of operations that occur in a session change, we frequently get to see all the citadel icons on the overview for just a second, until they are quickly removed from view because we don't have access.

A control tower can be online, with guns anchored able to defend itself in much less than 24 hours. The fact Citadels require 24 hours to anchor has been very good for conflict generation, but made them much harder to sneak into a solar system un-noticed, when compared to a small control tower. Especially when combined with icons visible in space.

A control tower increases its defense ability with each new player able to control its anchored weapons. That is traditional MMO game design: more players is better. I understand the decision the team made to simplify the control scheme and make it just like a ship, and its a very cool experience for the ONE player who can get to do it, in a battle at a Citadel.
KoS Check
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#50 - 2016-12-08 17:32:17 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Thanks for that response, appreciate you taking the time to highlight that again. I'll bring this up with the team and see if we can get some traction on it, at the very least in the form of an official statement on this subject.

im going to be real blunt here: the reason that the team hasn't been responding to these guys is because they are not going to be happy with anything short of the best highsec production facilities for 100m isk that are completely wardec-immune

small pos as production is broken as all hell and everyone who looked at it knows it, and there's no lack of clarity. there's just a small group of people complaining they're not getting what they want



There's just a small group of homeless bees crying in a threadnaught that other people are upset because they aren't getting what they want, all the while crying foul about getting booted from their home sov and having a fortizar full of hostiles anchored right outside their last remaining bastion of ship spinning safety.

Don't worry, once that station becomes destructible, you won't have to hide anymore.... I mean you won't have anywhere to hide anymore.
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#51 - 2016-12-08 17:59:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Edward Olmops
For those cases where an Astrahus is not suitable:

Maybe a huge Mobile Depot with a ship hangar and a gun on top might do?

(and if that's not stealthy enough, give it a cloaking device or at least D-scan immunity :-D)
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#52 - 2016-12-08 18:27:13 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Feature parity: a few items.

A control tower does not broadcast its presence in a solar system with an in-space icon visible to all players. When jumping into a new system, without needing to click d-scan, we can look in space for blue icons, and quickly determine that a new Citadel has started anchoring.

Separately, Overview (not in-space) Citadel icons are not supposed to be visible to players who are not in the access list. But (I think) due to the order of operations that occur in a session change, we frequently get to see all the citadel icons on the overview for just a second, until they are quickly removed from view because we don't have access.

A control tower can be online, with guns anchored able to defend itself in much less than 24 hours. The fact Citadels require 24 hours to anchor has been very good for conflict generation, but made them much harder to sneak into a solar system un-noticed, when compared to a small control tower. Especially when combined with icons visible in space.

A control tower increases its defense ability with each new player able to control its anchored weapons. That is traditional MMO game design: more players is better. I understand the decision the team made to simplify the control scheme and make it just like a ship, and its a very cool experience for the ONE player who can get to do it, in a battle at a Citadel.

a control tower emails its location to the sov owner as soon as you anchor it, and the guns on a pos might as well not exist for all the good they do in any actual combat
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#53 - 2016-12-08 22:06:57 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Thanks for all the responses everyone!

Without going into timescales or the nitty gritty details, I can say that we still plan to ensure that new structures (Citadels, Engineering Complexes and beyond) reach full feature parity with POS's and Outposts before we remove either of them.

As the original post mentioned, plans for reimbursement will be announced when we're closer to the time.

Thanks again!


CCP Lebowski, I really want to believe you when you say "full feature parity with POS's". I really really do. In particular, the feature of fast setup and fast removal. I can do both of these with a small POS in a single play session. I cannot go so with ANY new structure.

Please, please truly give us "full feature parity with POS's".

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#54 - 2016-12-08 22:19:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Petrified
CCP Lebowski wrote:

Tom Stonehoof wrote:
There are changes that much of the playerbase did not think relevant to the gameplay or longevity of this game.
If you could point me towards all this negative sentiment towards removing POS's and Outposts I'd be very interested to read it. For what I've seen the response have been mostly understanding.


As a long term user of POSes I can attest to this:
1 - they need to be replaced.
2 - The direction you are going with the new structures is meeting my expectations and more to wit:
3 - They are meeting my overall needs as far as player owned structures are concerned.

Are they perfect? I have a few gripes, (parity of services not withstanding) such as being locked into modules when the structure is damaged. I can appreciate not swapping with a combat timer, but not being able to swap when you do not have a weapons timer or at least between vulnerabilities is no where near parity with POSes.

Vincent Athena wrote:

CCP Lebowski, I really want to believe you when you say "full feature parity with POS's". I really really do. In particular, the feature of fast setup and fast removal. I can do both of these with a small POS in a single play session. I cannot go so with ANY new structure.

Please, please truly give us "full feature parity with POS's".

And this is the other gripe: A viable structure one can deploy, dock in, store things in, have defenses usable, and then remove within a 24 hour period.


Edit to add: The structure would not have an invulnerable phase. It would be considered vulnerable all the time and have one 24 hour reinforce period. It would have a 15 minute deploy and 15 minute take down. No service modules but a built in capacity to compress ore. It would have 3 high slots, 2 mids, and 1 lows with no rig slots, no fighters/drones, nor service module slots. Give us something with beams, not just missiles, maybe Standup Pulse and Standup Beam. It should all be able fit into a max expanded deep space transport (for the structure and 3 highs).

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Cade Windstalker
#55 - 2016-12-09 03:24:14 UTC
Petrified wrote:

Are they perfect? I have a few gripes, (parity of services not withstanding) such as being locked into modules when the structure is damaged. I can appreciate not swapping with a combat timer, but not being able to swap when you do not have a weapons timer or at least between vulnerabilities is no where near parity with POSes.


If I had to guess this is to make the fitting choices on the Citadels more meaningful, since unlike a POS it's very very easy for a Citadel to store multiple sets of complete fittings and very easy to change them out, so in order for the initial fitting choices to mean something (since first attacks often aren't defended anyway) they lock you in to your fitting at the time of the attack, so you can't just fit for maximum industry and then re-fit for combat when you get reinforced once, either out of fittings in the Citadel or by bringing in a Jump Freighter.

This kind of touches on something that bugs me a little, "feature parity" doesn't mean "will function exactly like POSes with all of the strengths and weaknesses these old things had" it means "fills most of the same niches and meets all the needs a POS did within reason".

No where in any of the designs has CCP said they wouldn't use this as a chance to iterate on the basic POS concept, one of the oldest pieces of Eve's design, and find ways to both make it more interesting and better.
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#56 - 2016-12-09 03:42:00 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Petrified wrote:

Are they perfect? I have a few gripes, (parity of services not withstanding) such as being locked into modules when the structure is damaged. I can appreciate not swapping with a combat timer, but not being able to swap when you do not have a weapons timer or at least between vulnerabilities is no where near parity with POSes.


If I had to guess this is to make the fitting choices on the Citadels more meaningful, since unlike a POS it's very very easy for a Citadel to store multiple sets of complete fittings and very easy to change them out, so in order for the initial fitting choices to mean something (since first attacks often aren't defended anyway) they lock you in to your fitting at the time of the attack, so you can't just fit for maximum industry and then re-fit for combat when you get reinforced once, either out of fittings in the Citadel or by bringing in a Jump Freighter.

This kind of touches on something that bugs me a little, "feature parity" doesn't mean "will function exactly like POSes with all of the strengths and weaknesses these old things had" it means "fills most of the same niches and meets all the needs a POS did within reason".

No where in any of the designs has CCP said they wouldn't use this as a chance to iterate on the basic POS concept, one of the oldest pieces of Eve's design, and find ways to both make it more interesting and better.


Most POSes serious about defense have multiple weapon modules offlined and ready to online should they be needed. Additionally, modules can still be anchored and onlined (once the reinforce period is over) even during battle. Anyone throwing away the first defense of their citadel by not being there is not serious about defending their citadel or simply baiting for a fight.

Additionally, there is no such thing as this: "maximum industry and then re-fit for combat" as far as modules are concerned. Rigs, yes. High Slot, Medium, and Low Slot: no - they have 0 impact on industry. Service modules, no - they have no impact on citadel defense - except cloning.

So lets fine tune my gripe to be more precise: High, Medium, and low slots should be changeable despite damage to the struture - they simply cannot be changed while you have a weapon timer. Rigs and service modules are locked into place while the structure is damaged. Now you have a structure where you can change between defending against capitals or sub-capitals etc. but if they were industry minded in their Rigs, they are locked in and they cannot 'save' their service modules.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#57 - 2016-12-09 09:44:41 UTC
Several off topic posts have been removed, as well as, other posts that violated our forum rules. Please keep it civil, constructive and on topic. Thank you!

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#58 - 2016-12-10 00:16:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Arronicus
Tom Stonehoof wrote:


Have you not read this thread? And are you still continuing to insult your playerbase by playing the fool? Welcome to the winter of rage.

Edit: I can't unscrew this quoting mess since I can only quote 5 times per post. So people will have to be smart about figuring this out... *throws hands in air at the forum design*



What? I'm with him on this one; the amount of negativity toward these changes has been practically non-existent, with most concerns being along the lines of wanting to make sure players don't lose the ability to do much of what they do now. You're going full-Gevlon here, Tom. There won't be any winter of rage, because there is no range. Nullsec, lowsec, and highsec alike are on-board with these changes, and the way they are happening. Hell, even w-space residents seem to be pretty pleased with the way the new structures have been coming out, what with their ability to swap clones now, and there being no asset safety.
Sales Alt negrodamus
Sanctuary of Shadows
#59 - 2016-12-10 00:58:04 UTC
just to add my voice, i am utterly satisfied with the way the new structures are working out. once a few minor-but-important issues are resolved they will be better than POS/station trash by a significant margin.

**** still needs to be fixed but the issues there are all well known.

i can't wait for masterplan to delete pos and outpost code
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#60 - 2016-12-10 08:51:34 UTC
On the removal of POSes:

I personally will be fine operating out of an engineering complex.

But, three years ago when I didn't have a good fraction of a trillion ISK behind me, I'd have balked at paying ~1b for a destructible engineering complex that broadcasts its location.

I think there is a need for something smaller than the lowest tier engineering complex, even if it is limited to tech 2 modules and tech 1 ships. Somewhere that a player with two billion in working capital can start to cut their teeth in manufacturing.

Presently I feel the smallest engineering complex requires you to have five to ten billion in working capital to justify its expense. The smallest POS works with two to three billion in working capital and that niche needs filling.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com