During Fanfest, CCP released a new devblog talking about their plans for the future of castle-building throughout all
space, but particularly in null-sec.
Digesting all of this was a daunting prospect, and I admit I wasn’t
eager to dive into it. It’s dense. There are a lot of consequences I see. And I knew I’d need time to sift through it
all.
CCP's goals fit into the categories,
“Be engaging”, “Be valuable”, “Be simple”, and “Look Awesome”. These all make sense, but honestly, if
something was missing from a list of goals as large as this, it’d signify
serious problems. Which of these is a
priority over all the others? I suspect “enhancing
existing gameplay” will be the key element that wins out, but it will do so in
a way that ties in nicely with the new sov mechanics.
While a lot of folks will likely focus on the new fitting function of
these structures, to me that’s a needed by not particularly interesting element. Every pilot in Eve is familiar with ship
fitting after their first week, and it seems quite reasonable to utilize that
same system for deployable structures.
It creates options without forcing players to learn yet another
interface setup, and it should reduce the player-knowledge barrier to entry for
deployable mechanics.
By this point, you may have noticed my terminology. Normally, I’d have said, “POS mechanics”
instead of “deployable mechanics”, but this new plan for deployables really
stands out because it unifies all of the various deployables, from mobile
tractor units and mobile depots at the smallest scale to stations and stargates
at the largest. They will all require the
same set of skills to deploy, and be categorized and scale based on their purpose. That’s a great call on CCP’s part, and is one
that is desperately needed. By unifying
current individual deployables, POSes, and sov stations, CCP is bringing
everything together in an orderly, efficient way that reduces complexity without
reducing variety. The fact that this
principle is woven into the thinking behind this Deployables Plan is a great sign. The details may (will) change, but that
guiding principle – reducing complexity without reducing variety – is a solid
one.
Lots of Places to Hide
Nowhere did the devblog call out one of the most far-reaching
consequences of these deployable changes, though. Every category of structure includes options
with limited functionality, options that have greater functionality and permit
players to anchor their ships, and options that allow wide functionality and
permit docking.
That’s right. From all
appearances, this plan would allow multiple “stations” in null-sec. And it would allow player-created “stations”
in low-sec. It’s about time. If this implication is accurate (ie. CCP
doesn’t limit XL structure sizes to 1 per system), then this is a huge change
for null-sec. Hellcamping would be far
more difficult against an alliance that intelligently spread its resources out
across the system. Multiple locations
could have repair services, making it necessary to fully scout out and burn
down multiple structures to purge an enemy.
And let’s not forget about our dear wormhole friends. The existence of a unified set of structures
that replace POSes and contain docking options means wormhole players will
finally be able to utilize markets, fitting services, repair services, clone
bays, and all the good features of stations they’ve been missing for so
long. This was a glaring absence that made
life frustrating for wormhole corporations.
Now – unless CCP’s considering a WH exclusion that would be inconsistent
with the unified, simplified structure plan laid out here – Anoikis can enjoy
the same quality-of-life features that known space does. It sounds like CCP is finally embracing the
fact that players will continue to live in WH space, a behavior CCP didn’t
anticipate happening. Have they perhaps learned to stop worrying and
love the Bob?
All in all, the changes to gameplay that players will be able to enjoy because
of this decision to fold small deployable units, POSes, and station services under
a simpler, scalable, and flexible system are considerable, and solve a lot of
problems players have had with POSes and the disjointed mechanics over the
years.
New Features, New Functions
The #3 point in this devblog – where CCP lays out the various functions
they propose for these deployable structures – contains even more Eve-shattering
mechanic changes under the guise of pure simplification. Networks of observatory arrays could counter
afk cloakers, serve as locator agents, block d-scan (or perhaps even allow
alliances to customers visibility in local?), and conceal statistics from the
starmap (often used to identify busy systems for aggressive roaming gangs and
systems with cynos to find common stops for capital ships). Drilling platforms hint at changes to moon
mining and resource procurement.
Stargates may provide more than just the ability of alliances to select
destinations, but also affect the speed of ships, the range of capitals (awesome),
or affect how often wormholes spawn. And
if you’re tired of farming Guristas and would like to kill some Sansha
instead? It sounds like Administration Hubs
would allow players to claim NPC space on behalf of another NPC faction.
The Assembly Arrays, Marketing Hubs, and Research Laboratories pretty
much replace existing POS and station functionality, and while they tease at
new options – modifiers to ships on grid with them, changes to datacore
spawning, modifiers to the success and efficiency of these operations – those possibilities
are just at the idea stage now. A lot
can change, and these possibilities are too vague on details for players to
really comment on them. I’m sure each
one of these will spawn threadnaughts of their own as the details flesh out.
But they do hint at a new game design strategy focused on providing effectiveness
modifiers that would increase the viability of various activities, particularly
in null-sec where the devblog hints the effects would be greatest. One of the common complaints about the Phase
1 sov changes reducing travel and the Phase 2 changes affecting disruptability
is that null-sec will become too difficult to live in. I could see positive modifiers granted to
production, defense, and intelligence-gathering go a long way to overcoming
this objection and creating a customizable competitive advantage for null-sec
alliances to locally supply themselves.
And this would, in turn, give some life to the promise of null-sec
having a place for all walks of life – traders, producers, miners, ratters,
murderers, and administrators. I see
potential, but whether null-sec realizes that potential depends on a lot of specific
numbers and implementation mechanics that CCP isn’t ready to release yet. Time will tell, but the future has some real
bright possibilities in it
The Elephant In the Room – POS Management
Not only do the XL versions of these structures allow the possibility
of docking and system services in wormholes, but the very end of the devblog
lays out some options affecting the management of POSes, giving some relief to
the players who have been clamoring for revised POS management for years –
years!
While a discussion of roles wasn’t explicitly mentioned, CCP Ytterbium wrote,
“the manager only has to type names of players or groups he wishes to configure…” Including “names of players” would suggest
that players will be able to create customizable rights for individual players,
not specifically tied to corporation roles.
This would suggest that individual players could, for instance, set up a
deployable for their own use without having the rights to access critical
strategic corporation/alliance structures.
No longer would you need to create an alt corp to govern your personal
POS.
For years, players have heard that changing the way POSes work would be
a complex project with so many ramifications that changing it in the near
future was not feasible. But, based on
this structure plan, it sounds like junking the existing mechanics and re-envisioning
the whole thing is easier. And that’s a
very, very good thing for anyone who has ever set up and managed a POS.
But it’s not just roles that this proposed management system would
fix. The screenshots CCP Ytterbium
provided are telling, too. Differentiated
costs based on standings. Sets of
policies that can be quickly applied to multiple or new structures. Easy fuel management. All of these provide that same flexibility
without providing additional complexity.
That’s exactly how Eve should be… understanding how to do it should be
easy, but optimizing it should take skill and knowledge. Like chess.
A Better-Than-Expected Step
It’s obvious from this devblog that CCP desperately wants to create
player-centered customization and flexibility without introducing a whole range
of headache mechanics that are complex and unwieldy. This is consistent with their plans for the
New Player Experience to eliminate that learning cliff Eve currently
faces. They want an Eve that is easy to play
casually, but which has additional layers of complexity that allows power-users
to refine their game through the years.
Spreadsheets will still have a place – a critical place if you want to
maximize your profits, enjoyment, and efficiency – but they won’t be absolutely
necessary for a cursory playing of the game.
And that’s a very good thing. Some
players bemoan efforts to improve accessibility, but they don’t realize that
their game is drastically improved because of that accessibility. Eve is still an incredibly complex game, and
flexible deployables will only expand it.
But it expands the complexity by standardizing the rules. What used to be POSes will be an extension of
ship fitting and personal deployables.
And sov management will be an extension of POSes. They’ll all use the same rules and further
the principles as you increase in deployable size.
The best complexity builds on the knowledge players gain early on in
their gameplay experience. Previously,
this wasn’t true of Eve. This plan looks
to aim to make it so. Whether it
succeeds or not depends on the specifics, most of which are absent from this
devblog. They’ve got good ideas… now
they need to implement on them.
If they do it well, the benefits could very well be a) a vibrant, customizable
null-sec with changing dynamics, a place for all types of players, b) significant
easing of the hardships of wormhole players and POS managers, and c) new
dynamics for low-sec players that takes unofficial “owning” of space to a new
level and provides real benefits to corps that make low-sec their homes.
This is a great start.
There was also mention of launching stuff for personal access only.
ReplyDeleteI'm Steve Ronuken, and this is my Crib. I mean XL manufacturing structure. ;)
That's something that really stuck out to me. POS security in WHs will improve regardless of which sizes of structures can be anchored there.
DeletePlus, we may not have as much need of alt corps anymore, and that's great from a time-efficiency perspective, too.
And, by the way, congrats on the election!
DeleteWe have no idea what anchoring restrictions we will get, do we want to keep wormhole space different and difficult or do you want wormhole markets and millions of M3 storage space where you can store a year's supply of fuel blocks and spare ships?
ReplyDeleteIt would make things esier for people living in wormholes. (good/bad?)
It would reduce the need to interact with others since there is less need for resupply runs. (bad)
It would diminish the unique flavor of wormhole space. (bad)
My first response is that I hope wormhole space will remain unique enough.
My second thought: hmm new structure info, so how might this impact new space and the player-build stargates mentioned a year ago?
I agree... keeping WH space unique is definitely an important factor to keep in mind. I'd sure love to be able to reduce the hassle without ruining the experience, though. I don't feel like WH groups get much value out of k-space interactions as a result of supply runs.
DeleteI suspect WH corps will explore their chains just as much if they could stock large quantities of supplies in the home WH. Ratting options, roaming options, and finding other WH gangs to fight all seem like they're the primary motivator for doing so now.
I agree... keeping WH space unique is definitely an important factor to keep in mind. I'd sure love to be able to reduce the hassle without ruining the experience, though. I don't feel like WH groups get much value out of k-space interactions as a result of supply runs.
DeleteI suspect WH corps will explore their chains just as much if they could stock large quantities of supplies in the home WH. Ratting options, roaming options, and finding other WH gangs to fight all seem like they're the primary motivator for doing so now.
Speaking as a wormhole denizen (though not speaking for all of Anoikis, just me), part of what gives w-space it's allure is the frontier vibe. The instability of never knowing when you'll get a viable highsec connection coupled with the real storage limitations is part and parcel of that vibe.
DeleteWhat are your thoughts about stations, or specifically market hubs? Is it something the community wants?
DeleteIn a word, nonononononononononononononononononononononono!
DeleteThe longer answer is: sort of. The problem we have is that it's hellishly hard to exchange goods between people in a wormhole. Both have to be online at the same time in order for it to work in a timely fashion, and even then, the gymnastics one has to go through just to complete the transaction are sub-optimal.
I've longed for just the ability to contract things between players in a POS. I think that functionality is what 's needed. Having a market accessibly to anyone who comes through is asking to be griefed, so that option would be automatically discarded by most sensible groups. What we need is a corp/alliance/standings-based system that allows us to put items up for sale where the items will be transferred as they are on the regular market.
It's still not clear to me if the market hub will allow us to do that. If it ends up working like markets in null, where people can still buy up items even from stations they can't access, that won't work in wormholes because no one will use it. The risk of losing supply caches is too great.
The other major, huge question mark is, how will these structures be anchored? Will we be able to tightly group them as we do now or will they be 20, 30, 100km apart? If they can't be grouped as now, that, too, will be sub-optimal.
If I had to guess I would assume the CCP will restrict anchoring based on the size of the structure so they could ensure no XL 'station' structures in W space.
ReplyDeleteSeems like a good set of ideas to me, I'll admit that dev blog is probably the most exciting/fundamental thing CCP have done in my playing career (closely followed by null sec changes).
I suspect you're right, but I really would like it if they allowed dockable objects in WHs. And I do completely agree... this change has the potential of clearing up a lot of existing problems and creating some nice options for a range of security status categories!
DeleteDocking is bad for w-space.
ReplyDeletePeople no even call thera not w-space because of the docking.
I realy hope they get the mooring right.
Because docking in a local less environment is a big loss of functionality. You can not see if People are online, assembling a Fleet and in wich direction they align.
This is the main thing people need in w-space.
It helps us find content, how else are you going to see who is online and active?
Great point. I hadn't considered that!
Delete