These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
nezroy
Nice Clan
#81 - 2016-12-15 01:26:54 UTC
Eric Lemmonte wrote:
Why not introduce a "Small" size that is comparable? A structure that would be considered small wouldn't have much in the way of fittings and would fill the niche for solo, day trips, and small corps to various areas.


You mean mobile depots?
mkint
#82 - 2016-12-15 05:22:27 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:

I just want to clarify my statements

these types of high level functions make no mention of details such as cost,

we hope to provide exciting, engaging and balanced gameplay for all,



Well, it's nice to know that "all" means "become nullbear pets or get out."

I left EVE because there were no more adventures worth pursuing. I played for 5 years, left for 3, still Alpha. You're telling us right here, right now, with this "clarification" that unless I want to fall in line and be an NPC in someone else's adventure, I'm not welcome in this game. Can we get THAT put into an official statement, so we can all officially give up on EVE forever?

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
Together We Solo
#83 - 2016-12-15 18:11:10 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Thanks for all the replies here,

I just want to clarify my statements on feature parity in the context of Structures, as I don't want anyone to feel like they've been mislead! When I'm speaking about feature parity I'm generally talking about the broad high-level functionality. Let me give you a few examples of what that means:

- Provide storage for individuals, corporations and alliances.
- Allow the insurance of ships
- Allow the manufacture of T3 ships
- Allow materials to be harvested from moons

These are all examples of functionality that we're looking to replicate. You will no doubt note that these types of high level functions make no mention of details such as cost, timescales or security, to name a few. While some of these things may be matched, these aren't what we are discussing when we say feature parity. Such details are often things that we need to be able to change for balancing purposes.

I hope this makes sense to everyone. We really appreciate the passion that people have for structures old and new, and we hope to provide exciting, engaging and balanced gameplay for all, even if it won't always precisely match the way things were.

Thanks again


I thank you for getting back to us, and while I completely understand CCPs position on this it does appear you are wildly out of touch with the small gang/solo community in regards to the new structures, or just do not care (which may be a design decision). Many of us had been hoping that the new structures would expand player interactions with them and become a tool where even smaller entities could feel they have a stake as advertised originally (the whole build your home thing). But instead you are raising the bar significantly for structure ownership and it’s clear that by “hope to provide exciting, engaging, and balanced gameplay for all” you mean a lot of groups that currently own structures will only be able to engage in that ‘gameplay’ in the future by docking in someone else’s ‘home’ if they are allowed to.

And I understand why that would be the case, but please in the future stop ‘marketing’ these towards ‘small and solo entities’ as you keep doing so in presentations since it’s coming off as condescending to a lot of people in those communities. Just be honest and you won’t get as much of the rabble back at you. (especially when you do make that step to remove POS's!)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#84 - 2016-12-16 07:47:02 UTC
Dreamer Targaryen wrote:

  • Amarr Outposts are still the only way to get bonuses to system cost index multipliers.



  • Well this is just false currently you can get a 51% reduction w/o one
    Sabriz Adoudel
    Move along there is nothing here
    #85 - 2016-12-18 21:23:00 UTC
    CCP Lebowski wrote:
    Thanks for all the replies here,

    I just want to clarify my statements on feature parity in the context of Structures, as I don't want anyone to feel like they've been mislead! When I'm speaking about feature parity I'm generally talking about the broad high-level functionality. Let me give you a few examples of what that means:

    - Provide storage for individuals, corporations and alliances.
    - Allow the insurance of ships
    - Allow the manufacture of T3 ships
    - Allow materials to be harvested from moons

    These are all examples of functionality that we're looking to replicate. You will no doubt note that these types of high level functions make no mention of details such as cost, timescales or security, to name a few. While some of these things may be matched, these aren't what we are discussing when we say feature parity. Such details are often things that we need to be able to change for balancing purposes.

    I hope this makes sense to everyone. We really appreciate the passion that people have for structures old and new, and we hope to provide exciting, engaging and balanced gameplay for all, even if it won't always precisely match the way things were.

    Thanks again



    I don't think it's appropriate to term something as feature parity when many typical users cannot attain feature parity because of cost.

    There is still nothing even close to a substitute for a small POS.

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

    TakinYourIsk
    Paranormal Phenomena
    #86 - 2016-12-19 04:19:58 UTC
    When might we know about turning in old outposts and outpost upgrades for iskies, or items?
    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #87 - 2016-12-19 04:57:48 UTC
    TakinYourIsk wrote:
    When might we know about turning in old outposts and outpost upgrades for iskies, or items?



    Just after it's been long enough that no one cares anymore and the demand for it drops low enough ccp doesn't feel it needs to do it
    Astrador
    Falcon Agency
    #88 - 2016-12-21 04:45:20 UTC
    Andreus Ixiris 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.

    Seriously, for Structures 2.0 to be at feature parity with the old system, I would very much appreciate it if we could get CCP clarification for how the following issues will be addressed:

    • Price point. For the new structures to reach feature parity with starbases, you need to have a structure that does everything that could be done in a small POS in a package that costs roughly the same as a small POS, and the same is true of medium and large POSes as well. Now obviously there's things you can do with the new structures that could never be done with a POS: docking, cloning, tethering, markets, contracts, infinite hangar space. However, you can't scale up the price by too much or you put them beyond the reach of at least some individuals and corps who currently run starbases.

    • Fuel consumption. Heavily related to price point, obviously, but the same principle applies - the fuel cost for what can be done in a POS should be the basis for the fuel cost of what you do in the new structures. By current calculations, depending on fitting, it can cost nearly as much per month to run a small engineering complex than it does to run a large POS. Again, there's not an exact equivalency because it has infinite manufacturing slots and functionality a POS doesn't, but again, if you can't find a solution to this, it's going to shut a lot of people out of private manufacturing.

    • Scalability. Both of the above problems relate in some way to the loss of granularity in the way structures are configured. Starbases could have one manufacturing array or many, meaning you could customise your POS' manufacturing capacity based on what you needed. New structures, by comparison, have either zero or infinite slots, with the only granularity being the rigs and the cap/supercap manufacturing modules.

    • Reconfigurability. Structure rigs, like normal rigs, inexplicably crumble to dust when you pull them out (it might be time to re-examine that entire mechanic, but I won't go into it here). This is a massive issue since a starbase can be reconfigured at no permanent cost - switch out the modules and you've got a totally different starbase. Obviously, new structures can be reconfigured instantaneously which is a distinct advantage over old starbase structures which had a lengthy anchoring and onlining process. However, there is a very significant permanent cost to reconfiguring new structures.

    • Defensibility. This comes down to the fact that citadel defenses are very much weaker than starbases in general, but also more specifically that weapons do not scale. You get (a few) more slots for each size upgrade, but you're always using the same launchers. While I'm not advocating for a system whereby you can create an invincible doom fortress, deathstar POSes allowed smaller groups an equalising element in fights against larger groups. The low defensibility of engineering complexes is particularly worrisome. It also makes sense that economically vital structures have so little defense while citadels - which have little value other than as staging and power projection - have vast defense grids.

    I look forward to CCP's address of these concerns.


    All this.

    In Addition:

    * Visibility: Should not be visible in Overview when not public. Dscan and Probe-Scan is ok.

    * Repackable: What if you want/Need to move to somewhere else? A Pos can be repacked and be brought to an other System.

    Sorry but without this changes i have to say: Nothing for me.
    Cade Windstalker
    #89 - 2016-12-21 15:17:43 UTC
    Astrador wrote:
    All this.

    In Addition:

    * Visibility: Should not be visible in Overview when not public. Dscan and Probe-Scan is ok.

    * Repackable: What if you want/Need to move to somewhere else? A Pos can be repacked and be brought to an other System.

    Sorry but without this changes i have to say: Nothing for me.


    The actual benefit of POSes not showing up on the overview is pretty minimal.

    Citadels can be torn down and moved, you just lose any rigs attached to them. This is a cost of the increased power Citadels offer and incentivizes players to keep their Citadels in more permanent locations, as opposed to POSes which can be very very quickly torn down and put back up.
    Astrador
    Falcon Agency
    #90 - 2016-12-21 23:14:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Astrador
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Astrador wrote:
    All this.

    In Addition:

    * Visibility: Should not be visible in Overview when not public. Dscan and Probe-Scan is ok.

    * Repackable: What if you want/Need to move to somewhere else? A Pos can be repacked and be brought to an other System.

    Sorry but without this changes i have to say: Nothing for me.


    The actual benefit of POSes not showing up on the overview is pretty minimal.

    Citadels can be torn down and moved, you just lose any rigs attached to them. This is a cost of the increased power Citadels offer and incentivizes players to keep their Citadels in more permanent locations, as opposed to POSes which can be very very quickly torn down and put back up.


    For you may visibility is no matter - for me it is. Because i will not put it in low-sec and the next bad boy strikes it to dust while i am not online for some days. And when it is said it shall be like a pos it shall be visible like a pos.
    Nox Caelo
    Boljsevisti
    #91 - 2016-12-22 03:32:48 UTC
    Hello!
    What about faction POS BPC found in relic/data sites? Were they removed and replaced by something as valuable?
    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #92 - 2016-12-22 03:38:25 UTC
    Nox Caelo wrote:
    Hello!
    What about faction POS BPC found in relic/data sites? Were they removed and replaced by something as valuable?


    can you even read...


    POS != outpost
    Andreus Ixiris
    SergalJerk
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    #93 - 2016-12-23 18:03:51 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Citadels can be torn down and moved, you just lose any rigs attached to them. This is a cost of the increased power Citadels offer and incentivizes players to keep their Citadels in more permanent locations, as opposed to POSes which can be very very quickly torn down and put back up.

    But when starbases are removed, you will need to replace them with a facility that can be quickly put up and torn down.

    Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

    Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

    Andreus Ixiris > ...

    Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

    Ncc 1709
    Fusion Enterprises Ltd
    Badfellas Inc.
    #94 - 2016-12-23 22:44:19 UTC
    Still unable to lock BPO's down in structures

    Any eta on this being fixed?
    Marcus Binchiette
    Federal Vanguard
    Federation Uprising
    #95 - 2017-01-08 06:33:23 UTC
    Am I correct in understanding that the eventual direction for Upwell citadels will also be to replace the POS and control towers?

    I rather like the new Citadels, though, I still think there are some functional aspects of POS which are not fully covered and that some additional citadel types would need to be introduced to cover these. Such as:

    1. Moon Mining Platform
    2. Ice/Ore Short term Mining base
    3. Short term defensive base.

    With the small and medium POS control towers the anchoring time is very short, and the cargo size is also quite small. Such that a small POS and Compression array can easily be contained within the fleet hangar of an Orca for self-compression mining operations. This is a functionality of the POS which would be sadly lost if they were to be replaced with the existing Citadels. As the citadels are designed to be longer term installations.

    Also too, the idea of mounting a small control tower specifically as a defensive hard point could also potentially be lost. Not to mention the moon mining applications as well. Though, a lunar equivalent of the POCO could be developed to assume that role. So as to bring the gameplay for moon resources somewhat inline with PI.

    Anyway, these are just my ideas. If we are really heading down the path of phasing out the POS. Then I would suggest creating some small sized Upwell structures, with short anchoring times, to provide that functionality. Whether the defensive, and mining support bases are treated as separate structures and given their own model. Or whether they are the same structure and are specialised by means of modules. I think there is a need for a structure of this size.
    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #96 - 2017-01-09 14:55:46 UTC
    Marcus try reading up on the subject.

    Citadels are just one of mant structures that together will be replacing pos' pos' will stay in the game until all functions are covered by at least one structure
    Cenwarde
    Mos Eisley Miners
    Perfect Dark
    #97 - 2017-01-26 04:36:05 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey everyone.

    As part of this release we are also ending the NPC market seeding of Outpost Construction Platform blueprints, Outpost Improvement Platforms and Outpost Upgrade Platforms, and it will no longer be possible to build new Outpost Construction Platforms. Any remaining blueprints and items in these groups that are not consumed before the December 13th downtime will be eligible for a form of reimbursement in the future. More information about this reimbursement plan will be provided at a later date.


    What about the Outpost Construction skill/skillbook? Is this skill going to be reimbursed or repurposed?
    esquimo leviticus
    Space Mutts
    Solyaris Chtonium
    #98 - 2017-04-22 09:05:38 UTC
    "Any remaining blueprints and items in these groups that are not consumed before the December 13th downtime will be eligible for a form of reimbursement in the future. More information about this reimbursement plan will be provided at a later date."

    When is this happening? Know it's not probably high on your list but please get it sorted CCP.
    Jan Irvam
    Capital Munitions
    #99 - 2017-06-21 22:56:04 UTC
    Really happy about this. I'm really happy about the cleanup that is happening this year. This thread has involved a lot of complaining about lack of functionality in the new structures, and a lot of the observations are good (repairs, remote contracts and orders, etc.). However I wrote a blog post advocating NOT putting the current full API functionality into the new structures. It might be worth a read.