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) |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
726
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:24:26 -
[421] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Structure grinding is bad and scales horribly. If you don't realize this by now, you have not been paying attention. Unless you are a new bro. In that case; history has proven that structure grinding is not good game play. Do a bit of research and you will see all the bad stuff it causes. And of course, welcome to EVE new bro! if you're talking to xttz without realizing who xttz is, you probably shouldn't be trying to talk down to people by implying your vast knowledge of eve history
especially on anything related to pos, sov warfare, sov mechanics, or really anything about eve mechanics |
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1004
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:30:41 -
[422] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:xttz wrote:xttz wrote:Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.
By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even conquering effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good. Quoting myself because I'd love to hear what the devs are thinking on this. Structure grinding is bad and scales horribly. If you don't realize this by now, you have not been paying attention. Unless you are a new bro. In that case; history has proven that structure grinding is not good game play. Do a bit of research and you will see all the bad stuff it causes. And of course, welcome to EVE new bro!
You dumb **** xttz has been playing EVE since you were in diapers. He basically owns structure warfare. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1502
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:35:33 -
[423] - Quote
Yeah, even an individual like myself, who considers himself to be superior to all other thought leaders in Eve: Online, defers to xttz's expertise in the area of sovereignty and POS.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Phig Neutron
Rubicon Cubism
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:53:42 -
[424] - 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.
You're blowing off his concern. Not everybody has a jump freighter alt that they want to put at risk every other weekend, or a carrier/bowhead to pick up a bunch of fitted ships in a war zone. Under this new system, no one is going to bring more than one or two ships into 0.0 at a time, and forget about anybody bringing materials and doing industry! You will see many more people based out of NPC space and just going into 0.0 on roams. I strongly recommend you think about some mechanic for "cold storage" of assets, perhaps on planet or moon surfaces, so that you can build up assets over time in nullsec. |
Madeleine Lemmont
Divide et Impera DE
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:09:55 -
[425] - Quote
Well, I'm new in business.
Does corps can adjust the interior appearance for structures which allow docking inside? Nothing against a unique Gallentean appearance of labs for instance. But it would be really cool to have SKINs for structures too. Outside AND inside...
---
I really like the planned new visuals of POS forcefields. But why this great structure should be removed? Which issue is breaking down a "shield tower"?
Why not have medium sized structures which provide opportunities for small and medium gangs temporarily? I would like to have medium sized modules for structures and medium and or large sized modules for ships which allow to create forcefields while anchored temporarily. Modules consuming fuel depending on size and field size and type.
Means: - fleet shield - fleet "cloak" (reducing sig radius significantly) -> large scan inhibitor (no forcefield EHP instead) - counter measures for scan ships or observatories creating or reducing echoes of fleets (no forcefield EHP instead) - ships for temporary/ninja moon mining - highslot disabling inside the field (no forcefield EHP) - industry ship siege system (i.e. forcefielded Rorqual for on-grid support) - jammer (no forcefield EHP) - impulse decloaker with cooldown (no forcefield EHP) - eWar system (no forcefield EHP)
Means not: - Replacement of siege modules
Of course you should not be able to fire weapons or activate harvesting eqipment inside a field like that. You cannot project a bubble around static obstacles of all kind (i.e. within belts).
However... I'd like to see shield towers and forcefields in future too. But they should get a downgrade in fuel usage and become fast-anchorable medium deployables. |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:11:07 -
[426] - Quote
ok i have one question. will it be possible for us to place these structures close to eachother and with that build like a city of structures??? with that we could build build like a small city in the stars. with difrent uses ofcourse |
Madeleine Lemmont
Divide et Impera DE
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:20:14 -
[427] - Quote
Phig Neutron wrote:... I strongly recommend you think about some mechanic for "cold storage" of assets, perhaps on planet or moon surfaces, so that you can build up assets over time in nullsec. Opposite this you have to think about reward for killed structures.
If all assets are gone, no one likes to bring them there again. If no assets could be claimed by the aggressor, aggression makes no economical sense.
Structures should be destructable. So far it's ok. There should be a way to bring all 0.0 players together for that issue what creates a real reason discrepancy between aggressing and defending parties. But not alone for 0.0 space.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3238
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:34:52 -
[428] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. I notice there is no "Structures: General" Thread. That is one for comments that cover all structures. Or should we use this thread for that?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1091
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:39:39 -
[429] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. I notice there is no "Structures: General" Thread. That is one for comments that cover all structures. Or should we use this thread for that?
Yep, use this thread for now.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
611
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:44:00 -
[430] - Quote
Btw there should totally be a ton of sexy skins available for structures, so people can personalize their homes and not have every station be the same, which would look and feel just terrible. Ideally there should be even variable shapes, but I realise thats not really doable because of art resources.
and we should be able to build little complexes and cities, probably
W-Space Realtor
|
|
Keskora Yaari
POS Party Low-Class
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:49:36 -
[431] - Quote
My corp currently lives in a wormhole with 29 active POSs. My chief concern is that we can continue to live and operate in our wormhole without having to fear for our assets every time we go outside. If forcefields are going away, I would like these structures to still have solid enough defenses to prevent anyone from just waltzing in and taking it out. I think being able to anchor multiple structures on the same grid would be very good for this. If a giant marketing structure doesn't have the slots available to adequately defend itself, allow other structures to be nearby and react to aggression. Maybe not a ton of them on one grid... but enough to be a substantial enough force that defenders and residents feel safe and a big enough challenge that attackers with sizable enough fleets can take on the challenge to destroy them.
Also i think from an aesthetic point of view being able to have a giant floating space colony sounds AMAZING.
Another thing... please please please don't let the observatories block out the d-scan in a wormhole system. That will ruin wormhole pvp and force all pilots to use combats to so much as see if a wormhole is inhabited. It kills all the surprise and danger that makes wormhole space so amazing.
The other concern I have is what happens to assets when a structure is destroyed. A big staple in wormhole PVP is structure bashing and having no loot drop from dead structures eliminates the motivation to attack them in the first place. Every wormholer knows that there is always a possibility of getting your POS taken out and loosing your assets. It's part of the risk of getting into wormhole space and I don't think that should go away completely.
I am still so excited for these changes though. Having to manage all of our POSs with as many members as we have has gotten more and more ridiculous with the limited roles they have available right now. Guess it won't be much of a POS Party without POSs anymore though :/ |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3238
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:57:00 -
[432] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:xttz wrote:Have you decided how ownership will work on an ongoing basis?
For example, if we launch a new structure and set it for corporation/alliance use, can a spy with the appropriate roles then come along and set it for personal or public use? If set for public use who can change it back again; anyone?
How would unanchoring structures work? I'm especially thinking for structures where players and dock or moor ships. Using a structure is not the same as managing or owning it. Example: I'm setting a Ship Assembly Array to be set to public, anyone can use it to build ships. However not everyone can tweak its ownership or status settings (like changing roles or permissions). Only the owners or the guys set with specific roles can do so. Large structures with ship docked could require extra security, that's a good point you are making. Either have a long countdown period before unanchor (that everyone with enough roles can see in the corporation) or have a 2 man rule to unanchor the most valuable structures could help fixing this. 2 man rule? So, in this game of alts, that would be me, myself, and I? Or are you going to make it so it has to be two separate actual players, not just two different pilots? To do so, you would have to make it a EULA requirement that all players disclose all their accounts to CCP.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Edward Olmops
DUST Expeditionary Team Good Sax
293
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 18:04:21 -
[433] - Quote
xttz wrote:xttz wrote:Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.
By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even conquering effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good. Quoting myself because I'd love to hear what the devs are thinking on this.
If you dislike the proposed changes and on the other hand like structure shooting... there still is that monument in front of Jita 4-4. Excellent opportunity to team up with a few corp mates and spend a night or two. ;-)
|
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 18:08:24 -
[434] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: I notice there is no "Structures: General" Thread. That is one for comments that cover all structures. Or should we use this thread for that?
Yep, use this thread for now.
Any comments on the proposal of pushing a part of the flexibility/decision-making/costs to the "launch and anchor" phase of a structure's life cycle? Granted it doesn't work for every kind of structure, but for those with a serious impact on their environment/system it might imho provide useful. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
913
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 18:19:08 -
[435] - Quote
One intresting thought if the entosis mechanics are going to be used further down the size scale, is how is the new whack-a-mole capture system going to work in Wormholes? You cant exactly spawn capture nodes in random wormhole systems and say "find em yourself", and if they all spawn in the system with the structure, WH guys are getting a free pass at defending their stuff compared to everyone else. Hows it going to work (Are we going to see some silly crap like random spawn nodes in to other systems with permanent statics until the structure is captured)? |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
330
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 18:25:51 -
[436] - Quote
This looks amazing! Can't even imagine all the posibilities. Hype train warms engine again! |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3238
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 18:36:08 -
[437] - Quote
Above, I suggested the idea of allowing us to make intermediate size structures, that is, a structure between a medium and a large, but sticking two mediums together. The method would be to deploy a second medium at the same location as an existing one, and the two end up docked to each other. The two structures would still be treated as separate structures in terms of slots, grid, and CPU. They could share inventory, or at least allow easy movement of inventory between the two.
Any thought on allowing something like this?
Another question: Many corps deal with war and structures by turtling. That is, take down the structure for the duration. In a way, it givers an unopposed win to the aggressor. For such corps, the new structures become quite uninviting. When taken down, the rigs are lost.
How about: Unanchored and scooped structures stay rigged? They only lose the rigs if repackaged for sale. That way any corp, even those with no interest in war, will find the new structures inviting. They just have to deal with the consequence of having to take down, lose the use of, and re-deploy the structure each and every war.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
133
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:43:21 -
[438] - Quote
Querns wrote:Yeah, even an individual like myself, who considers himself to be superior to all other thought leaders in Eve: Online, defers to xttz's expertise in the area of sovereignty and POS. I have done a fair amount of reading and never heard of him. I just thought he was new to the game due to him wanting structure grinding when there has been scores of people listing why it is bad. His post just had a new bro feel to it. I meant no harm.
I would love to read up on his expertise on the subject of structures and sovereignty. Please mail and or list some links. I'm always eager to learn. Apologies to xttz.
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with valid a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3212
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:57:35 -
[439] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Jezra Tanaka wrote:I personally like the current anchoring mechanic. the way this is described makes me think that the new structures will be overly vulnerable because you are limited to 8 defenses. some places you need a deathstar with 12 Large pulse lasers and an array of supporting equipment just for defense, and only online the production modules you actually need at the moment.
in others you can leave just a little E-War up and be mostly fine as long as you check on it.
Point is that POS need to be more flexible then this model shows.
I do like the idea they fielded of having reppers on a structure. I can see the use of having a triage pos, but I'd rather that exist under current mechanics similar to the use of guns/E-war. 1 weapon slot can mean 6 guns place at the end of each 3 dimensional axis. You should have 360 degree defences since you cannot move or spin around or arrange them at all.
the 6 gun thing is really just a visual part. its 1 gun at the end of the day. shooting at one thing. taking away one slot. having the stats of one gun.
i am also curious how you want to compute the tracking and falloffs. since you can't just see it as a ship and compute everything from the center of a 100km large structure. POS was already inconsistent how it worked
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy Caldari State
202
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:21:58 -
[440] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Re reimbursement: this is an interesting idea, will discuss it with the team.
Re racial types: the new structures wont be following the standard racial variants ie Caldari, Gallente etc
Maybe you need to "tear down" your outpost over time to get the resources? Might be a new use for the salvaging skill. Every successful cycle, you have a chance of getting something. Would make for a lot opportunity for fights and ninja salvagers :)
|
|
Albert Spear
Non scholae sed vitae
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:28:21 -
[441] - Quote
I think I like it, subject to details to follow - including slot counts, modules, and supporting blueprints.
I would hope that the smallest modules and structures would be accessible to manufacture to newer players - so that the gameplay spreads across as much of the player base as possible. |
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
116
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:32:58 -
[442] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. At this point its not exactly "if you so chose" but more like....""as you are forced to"....
Maybe a basic structure that can be more generalized and NON-specialized as each and every one of them is atm....if a "choice" isn't actually a "choice".....then how is it we were able to chose anything? |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:37:32 -
[443] - Quote
Oxide Ammar wrote:CCP, what is the idea behind your insist of manning the POS guns to defend and not make like the current system we have right now ? This is game guys why you we have to feel it is full time job game to defend ourselves by having corp members 24/7 online to be rdy to man the guns if we got attacked ? reasons ?
It's a common theme lately with them isn't it? Want to defend sov? Full time job. Want to defend your structures? Full time job. Want to defend your space? Full time job. Strangely enough, CCP, most of us already have full time jobs and those pay us real life money which we use to be your customers with. When we log on we want to play. We don't want to spend hours traveling or days sitting on our arses defending stuff, we want to mine or rat or blap stuff in the hour or two we have each evening.
11 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy Caldari State
202
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:40:52 -
[444] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:It's a common theme lately with them isn't it? Want to defend sov? Full time job. Want to defend your structures? Full time job. Want to defend your space? Full time job. Strangely enough, CCP, most of us already have full time jobs and those pay us real life money which we use to be your customers with. When we log on we want to play. We don't want to spend hours traveling or days sitting on our arses defending stuff, we want to mine or rat or blap stuff in the hour or two we have each evening.
So do that then. No one is forcing you to hold high level assets. |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi
193
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:45:38 -
[445] - Quote
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:John McCreedy wrote:It's a common theme lately with them isn't it? Want to defend sov? Full time job. Want to defend your structures? Full time job. Want to defend your space? Full time job. Strangely enough, CCP, most of us already have full time jobs and those pay us real life money which we use to be your customers with. When we log on we want to play. We don't want to spend hours traveling or days sitting on our arses defending stuff, we want to mine or rat or blap stuff in the hour or two we have each evening. So do that then. No one is forcing you to hold high level assets.
11 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
555
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:53:43 -
[446] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Querns wrote:Yeah, even an individual like myself, who considers himself to be superior to all other thought leaders in Eve: Online, defers to xttz's expertise in the area of sovereignty and POS. I have done a fair amount of reading and never heard of him. I just thought he was new to the game due to him wanting structure grinding when there has been scores of people listing why it is bad. His post just had a new bro feel to it. I meant no harm. I would love to read up on his expertise on the subject of structures and sovereignty. Please mail and or list some links. I'm always eager to learn. Apologies to xttz.
Uh yeah I may have been around here for a little while.
Structure grinding is bad when it's mandatory and/or abused. This was the issue with Dominion sov, as the effort required to remove hostile structures was the same in every situation, regardless how much the space is used or what was invested in it. This in turn creates a barrier for entry into null-sec; you have to be able to inflict obscene amounts of damage which in turn means caps and supercaps.
The flipside of this is that key enemy structures should require an element of risk to take out. Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. This is a fantastic avenue for content, with defenders setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE. |
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 22:36:28 -
[447] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Re racial types: the new structures wont be following the standard racial variants ie Caldari, Gallente etc
Would it be possible to use the new SKIN ship painting system on these new structures? Granted the configuration of all these structures will add a bit of variation but everyone having the same structures is going to get a bit boring.
|
Pesadel0
the muppets Void..
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 23:26:49 -
[448] - Quote
xttz wrote:I may well have missed it, but there's something I have yet to see a clear answer for:
Currently one of the primary roles for starbases is as a strategic base. During invasions and longer-term skimishes they're often dropped as a staging location to support fleets in various ways. While most of the specific functions here do seem to be covered, the proposed structure roles list doesn't include an obvious analogue for a military base.
What are we expected to deploy for supporting members during a war in enemy territory? Offensive drilling platforms? Aggressive research labs? Hostile market hubs?
I can't be the only one who thinks that seems a bit silly.
This is a very important question , because per example my corp is a small gmt corp that lives in WH space , our pos are death-stars to deal with the foes , with this change me and my corp mates will wake up and see all our stuff destroyed because :
1-No one was there at 4 eve time to man the guns.
I mean really=? |
Akii
The Shell Subsidary Home Front Coalition
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 23:38:18 -
[449] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: So a few points worth noting:
1) Structures should be destroyed more often than they currently do (easy thing to say for Outposts obviously) which means more opportunities for looting.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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.
Mooring looks like anyone with eyes on the structure can see all ships stored there.
Is this really what is going to be achieved? From the dev blog
Quote: 5. Housing
Proper housing of player items and ships is a critical must-have if we wish those structures to be used over NPC stations. As such, we have different ideas up our sleeves to make that happen.
I feel like NPC stations are looking like the safer option for small corps... |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
498
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 23:57:41 -
[450] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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.
Can we finally know what are those "issues with forcefield"?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
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 |