Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:12 -
[361] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
- Outpost and their upgrades / improvements is going to be tricky though due to them changing hands so often.
I dunno GÇö-áseems pretty simple to me. Whoever owns the outpost at the time of the refund gets the money. :sun:
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
290
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:16 -
[362] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Eduardo'o wrote:Any chance for the veterans amongst us to move all stuff locked up and gathered over the years in multiple 0.0 outposts, to be moved to the closest low sec station? I got tons of stuff all over 0.0 and no chance to get to it anymore now. Many amongst us must be in this situation
PS: great stuff Outpost destruction is a long time away still, and we will need to come up with some special case handling especially for inactive accounts. Ejected contents safed up in journal entries from destroyed Outposts with a 1 year timer before it expires might be one way for example.
Few thoughts:
How about copying the sleeper technology? (Sleeper caches) In an emergency situation (explosion imminent!) a structure jettisons escape pods with the loot and those will be cloaked, nullified and everything and hide the loot somewhere in the system.
They could stop functioning over a period of time to enhance the explorer gameplay. E.g. not EXACTLY 1 year after the outpost was destroyed something appears, but gradually as those pods run out of energy. Then there would be some special exploration sites spawning and every time something is recovered from those sites, it will be removed from the loot table. (potentially also if the site despawns without being scanned & hacked) Previous owners can only find their remaining stuff through bookmarks that has NOT yet been stolen.
Addition: There could be player-manufactured containers that are more durable and keep the stuff hidden for longer times. Cautious players could store their valuable assets in these containers. Such containers could also address another problem. If an outpost is destroyed and a player comes back to evacuate his stuff from the wreckage using a special bookmark... I imagine he would typically find hundreds of thousands of m-¦. Very unlikely he would be able to evacuate everything in one go. Limited size containers and multiple bookmarks (possibly with the container name) would not have the problem. They could just work like the cans from PI launches nowadays.
In general I really like the idea. Former battlefields would become special locations to fight over again after a while. They would be valued by explorers AND the spacescape would dynamically and gradually change back as loot is being removed. Maybe players would specialize in this kind of lore and become historians in New Eden to keep track. :-D |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1071
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:23 -
[363] - Quote
EX Winet wrote:So i have two simple questions
1 - There has been alot of talk coming out of the round table with regards to replacement or reimbursement for Towers/mods/structures/BPC, however nothing has been said about Stations. Will stations be replaced via isk or the new structures. Or as it seems is being hinted but not outright said, will they just become obsolete and thus destroyable leaving alliances out of pocket?
2 - There is really only one major benefit to Sov holding, reduced fuel bills. Will the new structures have this applied or did CCP just sneak it out without anyone actually being aware.
1. We need to have a long think about Outpost + Outpost Upgrade reimbursement, particularly because they have such a long history of investment form multiple previous owners. If you have any ideas on how to do this fairly please share your thoughts.
2. We want some functionality and bonuses to be limited to sov holding space to incentivise holding yes. In particular we are thinking of having rigs which modify their bonus depending on where the structure is deployed.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
VolatileVoid
ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
56
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:15:59 -
[364] - Quote
Just a question.
Where will be the room for part time players with or within a corp?
With the current sov system and stations it is highly possible that your stuff is still accessible if you login next weekend. With the new sov system and destructible big containers it is highly possible that your stuff isn't accessible next weekend and blown up the week after. Therefore part time players can't have reasonable stuff in sov null anymore including any kind of industrial activity.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10348
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:16:21 -
[365] - Quote
I know yall gotta iron out the details. I'm just saying iron faster because this stuff is awesome lol. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
724
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:17:23 -
[366] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: As mentioned by CCP Nullarbor somewhere in this thread, we need to plan for proper reimbursement for existing Starbase structures, blueprints and various assets tied to the stuff we already have. Outpost and their upgrades / improvements is going to be tricky though due to them changing hands so often.
I don't think it will be tricky: refund the owner at the time the upgrades are made useless. When we upgrade an outpost, we take the risk that someone will come and take it from us. We have to accept that risk in order to do it, so there's no reason we would need to be compensated for upgrades that someone else took away from us. However, those people now put in considerable effort to secure their new outpost: they fought to take it and as a result of their efforts secured an upgraded outpost. If that outpost is suddenly made useless (or the upgrades are suddenly made useless), it's that party that should be compensated, not the original builder. If you compensate the original builder, they get a windfall they'd never have gotten without the change, while the conqueror loses out.
My feeling is that the owning corporation should be rebated the cost of the upgrades+fillings - either in kind (the new replacement structure in a station somewhere) or more likely just the isk cost, directly to the owning corp's wallet. The isk method makes everything simpler and an assurance that something like this would happen lets us continue to at least consider upgrades - without that, the chance to install new upgrades is essentially taken out of the game early. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1706
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:18:02 -
[367] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:EX Winet wrote:So i have two simple questions
1 - There has been alot of talk coming out of the round table with regards to replacement or reimbursement for Towers/mods/structures/BPC, however nothing has been said about Stations. Will stations be replaced via isk or the new structures. Or as it seems is being hinted but not outright said, will they just become obsolete and thus destroyable leaving alliances out of pocket?
2 - There is really only one major benefit to Sov holding, reduced fuel bills. Will the new structures have this applied or did CCP just sneak it out without anyone actually being aware. 1. We need to have a long think about Outpost + Outpost Upgrade reimbursement, particularly because they have such a long history of investment form multiple previous owners. If you have any ideas on how to do this fairly please share your thoughts. 2. We want some functionality and bonuses to be limited to sov holding space to incentivise holding yes. In particular we are thinking of having rigs which modify their bonus depending on where the structure is deployed.
I am going to assume you don't track who upgraded a station then?
If not, the only fair thing is to reimburse the current holder. Which might kick off some hilarious wars prepatch.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3764
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:18:31 -
[368] - Quote
Samsara Toldya wrote: No racial towers - no racial fuel?
- Racial fuel will most likely be spread among the various structures, or merged into one, not sure yet. Up to discussion, like everything else.
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1071
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:19:09 -
[369] - Quote
VolatileVoid wrote:Just a question.
Where will be the room for part time players with or within a corp?
With the current sov system and stations it is highly possible that your stuff is still accessible if you login next weekend. With the new sov system and destructible big containers it is highly possible that your stuff isn't accessible next weekend and blown up the week after. Therefore part time players can't have reasonable stuff in sov null anymore including any kind of industrial activity.
That is the reason for the proposed ejection mechanics which will keep your personal assets safe for a period of time for you to collect.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1706
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:20:39 -
[370] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Samsara Toldya wrote: No racial towers - no racial fuel?
- Racial fuel will most likely be spread among the various structures, or merged into one, not sure yet. Up to discussion, like everything else.
Merge it into one. This is already something that should be done with compressed ore too. Eliminate needless complexity.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
724
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:20:56 -
[371] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Fuel blocks will most likely be the main resource for service modules to operate. No longer need Strontium for Reinforced period (or whatever capture system we end up with). Also no longer need fuel blocks just to keep the structure in space, if all goes according to plan. Bit early to say so far.
This is a very minor point but if you eliminate stront for starbases, you've got to do something with it - it's already basically junk. Either rebalance ice asteroids to have far less, or add in something that eats stront. |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
275
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:22:34 -
[372] - Quote
What is the plan wit regard to wspace? In particular will we be allowed to have "L" structures? What about "XL" structures? Building a sandcastle could be fun. |
Idgarad
Yulai Guard Yulai Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:22:56 -
[373] - Quote
Simple solution for the "structure destroyed, what to do with everyones ****" solution. Throw it into impound and charge a per m3 free to get it out of impound with the first 50,000m3 free of charge (or whatever m3 value is appropriate). They can go to any station and get their stuff but charge a fee to prevent creative item transferring over a distance. Moored ships fair game.
To further temper the impound solution have it transfer only Xm3 per hour. Someone with 300,000,000m3 of cargo in a station might have to pay (say for argument and easy math 10isk per m3) would fork over 3,000,000,000 isk to get it all out but only 1,000,000m3 per hour so you'd be looking at 3000 hours (128 days) to get it all out of impound. (Obviously tweak those numbers to something appropriate).
It prevents someone loading up a crap ton of capitals and blowing their own POS up to quick move stuff around while giving people the ability to get their loot from a station that got whacked while there were gone.
Think of it as Interbus handling the salvaging of the massive wrecks. Hell let those on the killmail get a % cut of the impound fee as compensation.
Moored ships I would assume are normal fair game but this seems a simple, lightweight solution and compromise. Nothing worse then someone who only plays say in the winter, and comes back after 4 months. |
Noriko Mai
2110
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:23:33 -
[374] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:VolatileVoid wrote:Just a question.
Where will be the room for part time players with or within a corp?
With the current sov system and stations it is highly possible that your stuff is still accessible if you login next weekend. With the new sov system and destructible big containers it is highly possible that your stuff isn't accessible next weekend and blown up the week after. Therefore part time players can't have reasonable stuff in sov null anymore including any kind of industrial activity.
That is the reason for the proposed ejection mechanics which will keep your personal assets safe for a period of time for you to collect. But wouldn't this require a whole freighter fleet per member? Everyone would grab highest value, lowest volume items and leave.
"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3766
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:28:25 -
[375] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:One thing that I would like to see is overview availability of structures BASED ON STANDINGS. As in, you can warp to a structure without having to scan it down or get a bookmark if its configured to allow you based on being in a corp/alliance or having standings. If you DONT have standings to see it from anywhere in system, you've gotta probe that **** down yourself or get a bookmark. AN EXAMPLE: I decide I want a base of operations for just me. I anchor a personal large "station thing" or whatever, and set it to personal use, and use personal standings to decide who can access it. Since I only have my alts set to personal +10, this new structure shows up on all their overviews anywhere they are in system, and lets them warp to, dock, moor supers/caps, and access everything in and on it. Nobody else in my alliance, corporation, or any other randoms can see this structure if they aren't on grid or running combat probes. That's the vision I'm seeing. I want that. Give that.
An interesting idea, thanks for that. We are considering to have some of the structures visible by default on the overview, especially if they take over Outpost role (so most likely the XL structures) but this has an intriguing take on it. |
|
Miss Iniquitous
Razing Demolitions
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:31:00 -
[376] - Quote
Hello, I manage 6 POS Moon Mining, running Reactions and manufacturing T2 Components all mixed together across the 6 POS in low sec.
Will I still be able to run the same or similar operation on these structures after the change?
It took me many months to acquire these moons and figure out the reaction system.
Due to the above I am anxious about the transition period.
I am certainly not looking forward to being told to unanchor all of this to replace with the new structures and mods only to continue my industry.
Will CCP replace my anchored reaction chain structures with the new ones or will I as feared have to do this myself all over again?
I definitely need more information on the transition in order to be sufficiently prepared for this. I am going to have a lot of EVE chores to do, I am not excited about this!
I am excited about these changes though!! |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3766
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:32:51 -
[377] - Quote
Mnemonyss wrote:If the new structures are fittable, will they also have drone bays and allow for drones to be deployed when under attack?
We want them to be like ships, so if there is good gameplay behind it, there is no reason why they shouldn't use drones, or fighter / fighter-bombers at the largest sizes. We do not like gun automation though, so it's likely those will have to be manually controlled if they ever make it in, again, like ship drones. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3766
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:33:39 -
[378] - Quote
Kel'Taran wrote:So with the Large size structures (New POS) only being attackable via entosis (look at the pics in the blog attack method all says entosis) you have gone and taken away the primary use for dreads once new sov goes into effect and carriers have no more repping use either.
That's something that was also brought up during the Fanfest structure round table which needs to be taken care of, yes. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:41:13 -
[379] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Mnemonyss wrote:If the new structures are fittable, will they also have drone bays and allow for drones to be deployed when under attack? We want them to be like ships, so if there is good gameplay behind it, there is no reason why they shouldn't use drones, or fighter / fighter-bombers at the largest sizes. We do not like gun automation though, so it's likely those will have to be manually controlled if they ever make it in, again, like ship drones. Valkyrie tie-in detected. :haw:
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Elana Apgar
DarkMatter-Industries Upholders
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:45:28 -
[380] - Quote
Idgarad wrote:Simple solution for the "structure destroyed, what to do with everyones ****" solution. Throw it into impound and charge a per m3 free to get it out of impound with the first 50,000m3 free of charge (or whatever m3 value is appropriate). They can go to any station and get their stuff but charge a fee to prevent creative item transferring over a distance. Moored ships fair game.
To further temper the impound solution have it transfer only Xm3 per hour. Someone with 300,000,000m3 of cargo in a station might have to pay (say for argument and easy math 10isk per m3) would fork over 3,000,000,000 isk to get it all out but only 1,000,000m3 per hour so you'd be looking at 3000 hours (128 days) to get it all out of impound. (Obviously tweak those numbers to something appropriate).
It prevents someone loading up a crap ton of capitals and blowing their own POS up to quick move stuff around while giving people the ability to get their loot from a station that got whacked while there were gone.
Think of it as Interbus handling the salvaging of the massive wrecks. Hell let those on the killmail get a % cut of the impound fee as compensation.
Moored ships I would assume are normal fair game but this seems a simple, lightweight solution and compromise. Nothing worse then someone who only plays say in the winter, and comes back after 4 months.
I like this idea |
|
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:45:34 -
[381] - Quote
Most of the suggestions the Devs came up with I like and I have no problem with.
Seems really interesting..
There is however, one structure that I think will be the most pain, open for general abuse by players and break the way the game is currently played. The "Observatory arrays".
"Dedicated to intelligence gathering. GÇóService module possibilities: Being able to increase, decrease or block Star Map filters in the solar systems theyGÇÖre deployed, act as solar system wide D-scan blockers, disrupt ship intelligence in the solar system, take over player tracking capabilities from NPC agents or be able to affect or pinpoint cloak users. We are considering basing their effectiveness through a network coverage (like cell phones) so that a single one may not be that useful, but maintaining a bunch of them in space could give a significant advantage. GÇóRigs possibilities: anything affecting the duration or effectiveness of whatGÇÖs mentioned above."
I hate the idea of decreasing the Star Filters for anyone. This would severely hurt the lone explorer pilot game play and would only give advantage to the large alliance blocks power.
D-Scan blocking would make finding and killing the home alliance much more difficult for the people that make things in nullsec blowup. Which CCP wants.
Also hate the cloak user pinpointing. Again. This will make the large alliance, with the system as their home, more powerful and people will be less likely to venture into these SOV systems.
I promise if you make Observatory Arrays with this abilities as described that there will be a lot less smaller PVP in nullsec (which is already pretty anemic) and will shrink pvp down to large alliance fleet battles. Small group raiders will be the most negatively affected by this structures abilities.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1177
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:46:32 -
[382] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Kel'Taran wrote:So with the Large size structures (New POS) only being attackable via entosis (look at the pics in the blog attack method all says entosis) you have gone and taken away the primary use for dreads once new sov goes into effect and carriers have no more repping use either.
That's something that was also brought up during the Fanfest structure round table which needs to be taken care of, yes.
Wasn't a fan of pospreys, nor carriers repairing pos stuff (kinda a crap job for them).
Adding in structure grinds isn't a positive thing nor a good role for dreads. We're trying to get away from that. I'm not sure what it should turn into though.
Yaay!!!!
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1684
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:51:58 -
[383] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: 1. We need to have a long think about Outpost + Outpost Upgrade reimbursement, particularly because they have such a long history of investment form multiple previous owners. If you have any ideas on how to do this far
I'd suggest reimbursing the corp wallet of the corp who dropped it? The longer the station was in space, the smaller the reimbursment.
About the transfer of structures, it seems like a much needed functionality in my opinion. You could create emergent gameplay for the hauling role: People installing structures for you. And you would allow diplomatic deals to be made, that kind of stuff. Or people moving away from eve for a while and wanting other people to own it to manage it if needed.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3767
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:53:56 -
[384] - Quote
Brain Gehirn wrote:Questions:
- How are you going to handle multiple structures affecting the same system wide effects? - How are you going to deal with the amount of structures in space that this is going to generate? (imagine systems near Jita.. the amount of structures on each) - Why the total removal of the shield forcefield? This is still better than mooring for supercaps unless you want they all to die at some point - What is the strategical benefit of this system over the old system in combat situations? - What is the limit of on grid structures? Otherwise we could just build a giant lag city of hell to protect ourselfs since there is no forcefield - How would you handle the pain that is going to be for players if we start to spam systems with little market hubs? Am I going to warp 20 times inside the same system to fit a ship? - Why a player will prefer the new system over outposts since his itens are (by far) better 'defended' inside outposts? Isnt this going to nerf nullsec A LOT instead of making people a little more happier?
- It is most likely only one structure will provide the system wide effect per solar system. Remember, those will be delivered through service modules, not the structure themselves, so we can tell the user another module of this type is already active and that needs to be taken care of (destroyed, disabled or whatever) before you can install yours. Those could also work with a large cooldown, so you cannot online another service module providing the same system wide effect while the other one is on cooldown. There are ways to solve this particular problem.
- We don't want to provide hard caps for structure, but we don't want everyone to anchor structures in the same solar system either. We will most likely have soft barriers, like fuel cost, or NPC taxes going up the more player structures there are within the same solar system for instance. Another way to do this is to have finite resources. For instance, only 20 caches of datacores could exist per solar system, so if you have 200 structures with this datacore service module installed not many of them are going to spawn anything.
- Forcefield mechanic has issues that we want to remove in the new system, if possible. The (super)capital issues are indeed something that needs to be discussed, a thread was created for that purpose there.
- Strategical benefit is simple: we want structure gameplay to involve players and not bore them to tears. To this end structures need to be a lot more enjoyable to use, which led us to have them fitted and used like ships (without movement).
- Yeah, there is going to be a limit, it depends what the range is going to be on the structure weapon themselves, since we would like to avoid structures shooting other structures (especially if they can only be taken down from the Entosis module). We also need the limit due to the rendering graphical toll on your computer, having too many of them will cause your GPU to melt while begging mercy.
- Market is a very important upgrade, and maybe not something that we are going to allow on the smaller structures. Remember, service modules will have CPU and PWG requirements, and those can be balanced to fit on specific sizes. On the same example, we are not going to allow Supercapital Ship Assembly capabilities on a small structure.
- That is why we need to make stored items relatively safe and give players a chance to defend their assets. The current issue we have is the over-proliferation of outposts - since they are not destructible there is less and less of a reason to build them in the first place. We want emergent content and to this end structures being destroyed really is something we feel attached to.
|
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
724
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:56:21 -
[385] - Quote
Altrue wrote: I'd suggest reimbursing the corp wallet of the corp who dropped it? The longer the station was in space, the smaller the reimbursment.
Why? Neither of these make sense. Why should we get compensated for outposts we lost, and why should our compensation depend on how long it was in space? If the asset suddenly becomes worthless due to a patch change, that's still money directly out of our pocket.
It would be bizzare if we got a refund on this outpost we dropped in 2008 and lost in 2009: http://evemaps.dotlan.net/outpost/46DP-O, but not outposts we currently own and have owned for years but did not drop ourselves. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3769
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:58:30 -
[386] - Quote
And by the way guys, proper discussion threads are now up in the Feature and Ideas subforum.
Feel free to comment there as it will be easier for everyone to filter the topics that way. |
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:59:22 -
[387] - Quote
Wow, a lot of great ideas and looking forward to all the changes.
I would like the "rigs for structures" to be divided a bit: There should be modifications that are chosen at the time the structure gets put into space and "anchored" and which cannot be modified until the entire thing gets torn down again (if at all possible for the XL thingies). On the other hand regular rigs should work the same as they do for ships (replaceable at any time but destroyed upon being removed). I imagine the thing like T3-Subsystems, but without swapping after the entire thing is assembled (meaning the "subs" or "permanent rigs" modify the base attributes the structure brings to the field and provide bonuses or modifiers that cannot be gained by regular rigs).
Therefore I think an additional phase when setting up structures would make sense: Introduction of gantries similar to the one used for POCOS. They come in the sizes M,L and XL (usable for all structures of the corresponding type), requiring a rather small amount of materials. When put into space they allow the placement of 1 unit of structure into it. In addition a few PI materials should be needed in order to put up a structure of size M upwards (having an automatic cost associated with tearing down and setting up again, not counting potential rigs which might be lacking, would encourage players to keep stuff in space and defend it instead of dodging every bit of danger). Ofc the amount should not go overboard and scale with the size and type of structure that is about to be anchored. Besides that all the gantry would provide a couple of slots for "permanent rigs" defined by the structure placed into it. Those rigs are consumed together with the gantry, the structure and the additional materials once the final building process is initiated. After that the structure sits in space with its base attributes and the optional permanent modifiers from those extra rigs, ready to be fitted with regular mods/rigs.
This would encourage specialization of structures and discourage structure spam, since even the step of putting a structure in space would automatically incur costs that cannot be recovered. The additional gantry phase however would (or at least 'could in theory') prevent players from making big mistakes, since they have another step where they need to make a "yes I really DO want to do this"-decision (and it allows for sanity checks whether or not a planned combination of effects would even be possible in the first place in the current system, see below).
By splitting basic structures and their potential permanent bonuses into different sources, CCP would have more fine grained balancing tools. They can make 1 and only 1 base version of each structure type in every size the type is required and then instead of making faction or racial versions of the base structure, split and move those "faction features" into above mentioned permanent rigs or subs (like e.g. bonuses to certain types of guns or a more powerful reactor or fuel catalyst to save fuel, etc...). To prevent overpowered combinations some constraints should be placed, like e.g. associating those rigs with a type and restricting max number of rigs per type. Ah, and I would put all really, really strong effects, especially strong system wide ones, into this kind of system.
Just a few of my thoughts to what I imagine the biggest and greatest change to eve since I started :> |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3769
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:01:27 -
[388] - Quote
Justa Hunni wrote:Nyctef wrote:
tl;dr being able to put together a small town of individual structures would make me feel more like I'm building a home rather than just renting someone else's
I really like the changes but I'm quoting above as I had a totally different understanding of what is being contemplated. Right now I can have my POS do almost anything I want it to do (within PG and CPU) but your new structures seem to be role dependent. Does this mean I'll have to have separate research, manufacturing and refining "arrays" within my WH system rather than a single or two POS with all the necessary current arrays (with all the extra fueling etc headaches that enforces)?
You could have the a single or two structures with what you need, but those will not be as effective as having them on the proper bonuses structures.
Example:
- If you have enough fittings, you could have a reprocessing, research ME and TE service modules on a Assembly Array structure
- However it will not be as effective as having the reprocessing module on the Drilling Platform, and the research ME and TE modules on the Research Laboratory.
Exact definition of "effective" is up to discussion at this point. I could be pure efficiency, reduced fitting costs, fuel costs, rig calibration costs etc...
EDIT: remember that rigs will be the main slots to provide specialization bonuses as well, and due to their limited nature, you will not be able to reach the same generalization you currently enjoy with a single Starbase indeed. As mentioned in the blog, we would like to allow you to specialize further in a specific field should you choose to. |
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:02:08 -
[389] - Quote
Maybe consider a thread for discussions on the capture mechanic, as that seems to be a big part of the discussion, although that of course also depends on how newsov play testing shakes out.
Have you considered a combination of entosis and hotpoint/damage on a single structure? IE entosis once through a structures shields? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
724
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:02:55 -
[390] - Quote
What are the problems that CCP sees with rebating outposts/outpost upgrades when they're made useless? Is it simply who gets the compensation (the dropper or the current holder) or are there other issues of concern we should be thinking about? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |