Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 53 post(s) |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 18:55:55 -
[721] - Quote
Rowells wrote:did we already check and see if current towers will fall under entosis mechanics when fozziesov drops? Or will they remain stront-based until the new structures come out? Given how old the POS Tower (legacy) code is, (speculation) the only reason they'll touch that old code is to make sure it doesn't break before the old towers are phased out. Anything more than that barely makes sense, when the effort would be better spent improving the new system. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1161
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 19:08:17 -
[722] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Draahk Chimera wrote:I am exceedingly sorry if I am reposting but I can not find the energy to trawl all 36 pages.
Are there any plans to deal with the problem of "zombiesticks", IE abandoned bases. I feel when moving to a new type of structure it would be a great time to address this issue. While I am well aware that the chateaux will have no anchoring restrictions I still feel that hundreds of abandoned structures in W-space and highsec will constitute problems - unique in each case.
I therefore humbly propose a "defense deterioration" timer to be imposed on the chateaux. Starting at the last point a player actually interacted with the structure a 7 day (invisible) timer will start. If no player access the structure until this timer has run it's course a new 48-hour visible timer starts. At the end of this second timer the structure shuts down all defenses, including ownership, and may be scooped up by anyone with sufficient cargohold. The entosis link solves this problem. Undefended structures are extremely vulnerable, so much so that a single person can take one down if it is undefended with only a minor grind. In fact, it seems like there will be no automated defenses at all, just a vulnerability window. The days of plopping down a tower and relying on its massive EHP to protect it are over. However, like the vulnerability window in nullsec, perhaps the citadel could have a scaling window based on occupancy. For example, in a occupied structure the window could be 2 (or 4, or whatever) hours a day, but this could gradually increase the less the structure is used. Or maybe, if no one has docked in the structure for 30 (or 90, or whatever) days, it could lose the protection of the vulnerability window and be open to attack by anyone, at anytime.
My understanding was that the vulnerabilty windo would increase with tower use not decrease otherwise single players/small corps would be written out. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 22:27:40 -
[723] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:My understanding was that the vulnerabilty windo would increase with tower use not decrease otherwise single players/small corps would be written out. That is definitely something that will have to be solved: How is the vulnerability window calculated?
I know the short answer CCP has given is that increased structure usage should make the vulnerability window smaller, but nothing more than that.
To treat all play styles equally, MANY things would have to be tracked and used to make this determination: Jobs running (building / researching...) Docked per day Docked and Active Services usage per day (market / repair / refine / hangar-use...) Time pilots in system (that use the structure)
Something that just occurred to me is to have vulnerability windows scale based on target jobs/people usage stats. For things with a finite amount of events you could have a minimum target, like building/researching jobs working X average hours per day, which could work well. For other things like services used per day, you could set a target of X per day per potential user.
EXAMPLE - If CCP's target was 3 services usages per day, like hangar use (per potential user), and the structure was open to only corp members: [Target Usage] = 3 [Potential Users] = [Corp Member Count] [Hangar Average Usage] = [Total Service Usage] / [Potential Users] [Hangar Usage %] = [Hangar Average Usage] / [Target Usage]
[Structure Usage %] = ( [Hangar Usage %] + [Market Usage %] + [Solar System Usage %] + [Docks/Day %]...) / {number of variables in parentheses so new services can be easily incorporated into calculations}
[Vacation Friendly Structure Usage %] = [30 Day Structure Usage %]
Vulnerability Times Based On [Vacation Friendly Structure Usage %]: > 100% = Smallest Vuln time 99-50 = Medium Vuln time 49-20 = Large Vuln time 19-10 = Very Large Vuln time 9-0 = 23/7 Vuln time
Of course there'd have to be some maximums set so that individuals couldn't game/macro the system... And target daily usages would have to be set low enough so that specialized POSs aren't at a disadvantage as well. But (IMHO) this could make it so that "Size, matters not." If the structure permissions GUI allowed people to grant individuals permissions (in or out of corp), the above vulnerability window calculation could be a pretty fair and easy to understand. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
257
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 23:47:05 -
[724] - Quote
Vigilant wrote: Well that's billions and billions of isk people are going to pissed about loosing! They need to convert to the something new item at least with Faction considered IMHO.
I plan to convert over to the new structures once they come out, so much of my stored inventory of POS things I have already sold off.
But how, exactly, they plan to handle the modules and towers once they remove them is a good question. Will some become collectors items like the System scanning array or mines? Will CCP just remove them from your inventory and refund the value of it back to you? Maybe allow them to be recycled at 100% of their building cost if they do not confiscate them?
All things to be hashed over... but with no immediate rush since the phase in of the new structures will overlap the phase out of the old ones. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1162
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 23:58:36 -
[725] - Quote
If CCP genuinely want solo players to want and be able to use these structures the vulnerabilty window needs to balance around one character performing the maximum manufacturing, inventions and a reasonable number of refines, compressions and repairs a day. Above that each action(or number of actions depending on balancing) would add a certain nimber of seconds to the total vulnerability counter up to a maximum. A single player should be vulnerable every few days to once a week maybe. A small corp should be every 1-3 days. Medium corp would be vulnerable every day. A large corp or very busy station for trading etc would be increasingly vulnerable on a daily basis requiring greater and greater defence. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2206
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 00:32:00 -
[726] - Quote
Doesn't really matter what the vulnerability window is, the structure needs to defend itself on AI, because expecting people to log on at a very specific time just to babysit their structure 'in case' is a step back to the old days of alarm clock skill queues. As well as a step back from our current POS which do have AI defence (Though it's much better when player targeted).
People should be free to play as and when suits them. Not on a strict schedule. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1162
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 00:38:45 -
[727] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Doesn't really matter what the vulnerability window is, the structure needs to defend itself on AI, because expecting people to log on at a very specific time just to babysit their structure 'in case' is a step back to the old days of alarm clock skill queues. As well as a step back from our current POS which do have AI defence (Though it's much better when player targeted).
People should be free to play as and when suits them. Not on a strict schedule.
Totally agree here. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
257
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 01:36:11 -
[728] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:If CCP genuinely want solo players to want and be able to use these structures the vulnerabilty window needs to balance around one character performing the maximum manufacturing, inventions and a reasonable number of refines, compressions and repairs a day. Above that each action(or number of actions depending on balancing) would add a certain nimber of seconds to the total vulnerability counter up to a maximum. A single player should be vulnerable every few days to once a week maybe. A small corp should be every 1-3 days. Medium corp would be vulnerable every day. A large corp or very busy station for trading etc would be increasingly vulnerable on a daily basis requiring greater and greater defence.
Agreed. A solo player should not be locked out because they are a solo player and cannot always be available or online at the same time of day everyday. Likewise, no one should feel like a slave to the game. So lets look at a few options here:
1 - vulnerability based on corp size: As there are more players (not characters) in a corp, the more reasonable an increase in vulnerability both daily and minute by minute becomes. Some of that could be tied to the corporation level last applied by the CEO. A solo player with a couple of accounts could successfully manage a couple of Citadels and expect to defend them on a predictable level.
The problem with this is that it can be gamed easily: A large group creates a small corp to manage hundreds of POSes. The only people in the corp are those interacting with the structure to fuel it (think: moon mining operation). Thus a large group can severly limit the vulnerability window of a structure by having the entire corp managed by a small number of players/Alts in it. All they have to do is monitor the alerts and call for help in X system should it fall under attack. All the defender has to do is pilot ECM ships to the location or even join the corp under attack for the time to man the guns.
2 - Vulnerability based on usage. The main issue with usage based increases to vulnerability is that it can backfire against the smaller entities more than the larger entities. Given some people might take a few days off of EVE to travel about, they might increase their activity prior to those days to set up jobs, order defenses, fuel the structure, etc. The result is that they could effectively increase the vulnerability window to include the time they had planned to be away from the game.
This can be gamed by larger entities - especially ones where the usage is specialized such as in moon mining, by simply having the structures in a single corp and only visiting to fuel them. Meanwhile the small guy, the one this mechanic is meant to help, is instead hurt by it.
3 - Vulnerability based on number of structures. The vulnerability window is set by the number of Medium and Large Structures a corporation has anchored. A solo player can reasonably expect to defend one or two. A small corp with a dozen players or so can defend more, but in each case, the increase of structures in space increases the vulnerability of all the structures, by day and time.
Personally, I prefer the last option since it is least likely to be successfully gamed and falls in better with what people can reasonably expect to defend. An actual solo player will be using one or two structures on a regular basis and while a larger group could create many smaller corps to manage their moon mining and thus try to avoid having too many vulnerability windows: that is a heck of a lot of corporations to keep track of. Not to mention the sheer number of alts you would have to have. I think this last option best benefits and rewards the groups based on their size without punishing them for using it while it limits gaming by making the process more and more complicated and costly to manage. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 03:45:43 -
[729] - Quote
I feel like some people are thinking that structures will be connected to Sov, which I'm pretty sure CCP doesn't want anymore.
Your 1 and 3 are basically the same.
2 sounds like your saying the more you use it, the more vulnerable you make it. This is the opposite of what should happen.
I still think my usage calculations above work better, but think there needs to be an additional component. As structure size increases, so does vulnerability frequency. Keep in mind the number of users each structure is intended to support. Minimum vulnerability frequency (at 100% usage): Medium - 1 per week Large - 3 per week X-Large - 10 per 2 weeks |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
257
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 06:52:21 -
[730] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:I feel like some people are thinking that structures will be connected to Sov, which I'm pretty sure CCP doesn't want anymore.
Your 1 and 3 are basically the same.
No, they are not the same.
#1 depends on the number of people in a corp #3 depends on the number of structures anchored.
BIG difference. |
|
Mikhem
Taxisk Unlimited
280
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 16:07:52 -
[731] - Quote
There is probably going to be option to use jump clones in Citadels. I got idea about that. If installation containing jump clone is under attack owner of jump clone receives message that installation is under attack. This allows jump clone owner make decision to defend installation or evacuate it.
Comments are welcome for my idea. This would be great conflict driver.
Mikhem
Link library to EVE music songs.
|
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 17:50:37 -
[732] - Quote
Petrified wrote: No, they are not the same.
#1 depends on the number of people in a corp #3 depends on the number of structures anchored.
BIG difference. (Paste) 3 - Vulnerability based on number of structures. The vulnerability window is set by the number of Medium and Large Structures a corporation has anchored. A solo player can reasonably expect to defend one or two. A small corp with a dozen players or so can defend more, but in each case, the increase of structures in space increases the vulnerability of all the structures, by day and time. edit: and no, I don't think they are tied to Sov mechanics like XL.
For sov, wasn't talking about you.
But you also say that 3 scales with corp size... |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
257
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 21:17:41 -
[733] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:Petrified wrote: edit: and no, I don't think they are tied to Sov mechanics like XL.
For sov, wasn't talking about you. But I guess I am now. They want XL able to be put in high sec, so that means not sov dependent.
Quite right. I got sucked into that misconception, thank you.
If the vulnerability was adjusted by number of structures in space one could also assign a point value to the sizes. Based on the point value, the vulnerability window will increase for anchored structures by that corp. Since vulnerability is tied neither to usage nor number of members/size of a corp, the vulnerability window is then based on reasonable expectation of what can be defended. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 22:19:54 -
[734] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Fzhal wrote:Petrified wrote: edit: and no, I don't think they are tied to Sov mechanics like XL.
For sov, wasn't talking about you. But I guess I am now. They want XL able to be put in high sec, so that means not sov dependent. Quite right. I got sucked into that misconception, thank you. If the vulnerability was adjusted by number of structures in space one could also assign a point value to the sizes. Based on the point value, the vulnerability window will increase for anchored structures by that corp. Since vulnerability is tied neither to usage nor number of members/size of a corp, the vulnerability window is then based on reasonable expectation of what can be defended. I don't think we want a mechanic that discourages people from being in large corporations. Your suggestion would mean that larger corporations would spend more time being forced to PvP than smaller ones. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2210
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 22:39:12 -
[735] - Quote
Fzhal wrote: I don't think we want a mechanic that discourages people from being in large corporations. Your suggestion would mean that larger corporations would spend more time being forced to PvP than smaller ones.
Except given you will only need one person to defend most of the time as an 'in case' measure, per person larger corps would still have less time defending.
Or to put it the other way If a Small corp has the largest window, not only do they have more total hours but they have fewer people to manage those hours with. And are less likely to be able to be on at exactly those hours. Something that is not a problem with current POS since a single person can't troll a defended POS easily. |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 23:36:55 -
[736] - Quote
So what of HS Citadels? How do they work....
Does a HS Citadel become all RISK and must be guarded by active players 23/7?
Too many grey area right now IMHO. We need to know the mechanics in all security (High/Low/NULL/WH) not just what it does for SOV.
Honestly I could give two f'lying f's who it effects CFC or Imperium what ever they wish to be call this week! |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5291
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 00:11:59 -
[737] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:So what of HS Citadels? How do they work.... Does a HS Citadel become all RISK and must be guarded by active players 23/7? Too many grey area right now IMHO. We need to know the mechanics in all security (High/Low/NULL/WH) not just what it does for SOV. Honestly I could give two f'lying f's who it effects CFC or Imperium what ever they wish to be call this week!
No details have, yet, been released about the vulnerability mechanics for non-sov structures.
That's still up for discussion (and it is being discussed)
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 00:31:39 -
[738] - Quote
I don't get this "leaving out the solo player" when it comes to vulnerability windows. If I put up a POS by myself as it stands, it can be attacked ANYTIME, come out of reinforced ANYTIME depending on when its hit. And you got 1 chance to save it afterwards, or it dies
New changes makes it so much easier for the solo player. Only vuln at a time of your choosing, comes out in the time area of your choosing, and you have multiple chances to save it.
As for non automated defenses, current smalls can be reinforced in a decent amount of time by a single person. Even if defended, mods are easily incapped by drones, and orbiting at 200. Which means constantly trying to rep up your mods, or buy more, and haul them, and set them up constantly. And guess what? There's not a damn thing that can be done about it if you aren't there to defend it.
Now your mods are safe, if you get reinforced I would assume your mods would be available for the next round. No hauling, no repairing, less bullshit. And even if you aren't there for the first time they hit, or the second, you still have a third. And if you don't show up for three, then welcome to Eve, don't drop a citadel if you can't be bothered defending it.
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
257
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 01:05:44 -
[739] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:Petrified wrote:Fzhal wrote:Petrified wrote: edit: and no, I don't think they are tied to Sov mechanics like XL.
For sov, wasn't talking about you. But I guess I am now. They want XL able to be put in high sec, so that means not sov dependent. Quite right. I got sucked into that misconception, thank you. If the vulnerability was adjusted by number of structures in space one could also assign a point value to the sizes. Based on the point value, the vulnerability window will increase for anchored structures by that corp. Since vulnerability is tied neither to usage nor number of members/size of a corp, the vulnerability window is then based on reasonable expectation of what can be defended. I don't think we want a mechanic that discourages people from being in large corporations. Your suggestion would mean that larger corporations would spend more time being forced to PvP than smaller ones.
I don't think it would discourage anyone from being in a large corporation. It would simply discourage corporations made largely of Alts from putting up more POSes than they can cover.
If a corporation has a large number of players, not characters, then the corporation can reasonably cover a larger window of vulnerability as they should have more players available and better coverage over time.
I do like the vulnerability windows in and of themselves that you propose earlier, but I think the tie needs to be to the number of structures as opposed to the usage of a structure (how do you really measure it?) or the number of players/characters in a corp.
Fzhal wrote: Minimum vulnerability frequency (at 100% usage): Medium - 1 per week Large - 3 per week X-Large - 10 per 2 weeks (So they can have a chance to go on the offensive)
So we tweak the window of vulnerability by not increasing days but time of vulnerability to a hard cap. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2119
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 04:53:18 -
[740] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Vigilant wrote:So what of HS Citadels? How do they work.... Does a HS Citadel become all RISK and must be guarded by active players 23/7? Too many grey area right now IMHO. We need to know the mechanics in all security (High/Low/NULL/WH) not just what it does for SOV. Honestly I could give two f'lying f's who it effects CFC or Imperium what ever they wish to be call this week! No details have, yet, been released about the vulnerability mechanics for non-sov structures. That's still up for discussion (and it is being discussed) I'm quite interested in this topic. It would be very easy to greatly unbalance highsec risk by removing the incentive to attack highsec structures (ie loot pinatas without fuel or defences). It would be sad to see this happen.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
Flaming Butterfly
Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion.
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 05:21:44 -
[741] - Quote
With the massive scale of these structures, will there be selectable undock points available after pressing undock?
Will we continue with the silly bulls4it of being able to fire through them or will there be "Target Obscured by Station" messages?
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1040
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 06:09:33 -
[742] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Vigilant wrote:So what of HS Citadels? How do they work.... Does a HS Citadel become all RISK and must be guarded by active players 23/7? Too many grey area right now IMHO. We need to know the mechanics in all security (High/Low/NULL/WH) not just what it does for SOV. Honestly I could give two f'lying f's who it effects CFC or Imperium what ever they wish to be call this week! No details have, yet, been released about the vulnerability mechanics for non-sov structures. That's still up for discussion (and it is being discussed) I'm quite interested in this topic. It would be very easy to greatly unbalance highsec risk by removing the incentive to attack highsec structures (ie loot pinatas without fuel or defences). It would be sad to see this happen.
Indeed. If you remove loot drops and allow them to be taken down after a war is declared there is no reason left to attack them. You would not be able to attack them for profit, and allowing a corp to evade a war by taking down the structure means you cannot even use them to force a fight.
The fact that they can be placed anywhere even removes the niche conflict they might drive over limited/valuable moons.
What is the point of adding something to the sandbox that other players can only interact with by shooting a entosis beam at for no reason or reward? I mean it is nice they are easier to destroy if left undefended than the current POSes, but why would anyone bother spending the time in the first place attacking them?
This isn't going to drive much, if any, player-driven conflict if added this way. They need to drop something, even if it is just some valuable fittings, and removing them should not be an option in the case of a war. Or at least the attackers should get a chance at one vulnerability window to reinforce the structure before it can be taken down so that users of this structure actually have to show up to at least one fight.
Or better yet, remove CONCORD protection from them completely like the other small deployables so that wardecs are not necessary. Attackers would just go suspect. That would drive more player conflict and get us closer to CCP Seagull's vision where everything is destroyable. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2119
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 06:14:30 -
[743] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Or better yet, remove CONCORD protection from them completely like the other small deployables so that wardecs are not necessary. Attackers would just go suspect. That would drive more player conflict and get us closer to CCP Seagull's vision where everything is destroyable. That could be a decent compromise - lower value drops but easier to attack. I really like the idea of moving away from wardecs as a key to highsec aggression. Wardecs are just trouble. Setting people suspect for attacking is a solid model which has worked for other structures.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1165
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 10:02:14 -
[744] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Zappity wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Vigilant wrote:So what of HS Citadels? How do they work.... Does a HS Citadel become all RISK and must be guarded by active players 23/7? Too many grey area right now IMHO. We need to know the mechanics in all security (High/Low/NULL/WH) not just what it does for SOV. Honestly I could give two f'lying f's who it effects CFC or Imperium what ever they wish to be call this week! No details have, yet, been released about the vulnerability mechanics for non-sov structures. That's still up for discussion (and it is being discussed) I'm quite interested in this topic. It would be very easy to greatly unbalance highsec risk by removing the incentive to attack highsec structures (ie loot pinatas without fuel or defences). It would be sad to see this happen. Indeed. If you remove loot drops and allow them to be taken down after a war is declared there is no reason left to attack them. You would not be able to attack them for profit, and allowing a corp to evade a war by taking down the structure means you cannot even use them to force a fight. The fact that they can be placed anywhere even removes the niche conflict they might drive over limited/valuable moons. What is the point of adding something to the sandbox that other players can only interact with by shooting a entosis beam at for no reason or reward? I mean it is nice they are easier to destroy if left undefended than the current POSes, but why would anyone bother spending the time in the first place attacking them? This isn't going to drive much, if any, player-driven conflict if added this way. They need to drop something, even if it is just some valuable fittings, and removing them should not be an option in the case of a war. Or at least the attackers should get a chance at one vulnerability window to reinforce the structure before it can be taken down so that users of this structure actually have to show up to at least one fight. Or better yet, remove CONCORD protection from them completely like the other small deployables so that wardecs are not necessary. Attackers would just go suspect. That would drive more player conflict and get us closer to CCP Seagull's vision where everything is destroyable.
This could make the structures too easy to randomly troll though. I think it would be better to have a cool down period greayer than 24 hours on structures where systems are gracefully shut down for unanchoring. All non-combat services would be taken offline during this period but defensive modules would be unnaffected to allow for fights.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1040
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 10:23:33 -
[745] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:This could make the structures too easy to randomly troll though. I think it would be better to have a cool down period greayer than 24 hours on structures where systems are gracefully shut down for unanchoring. All non-combat services would be taken offline during this period but defensive modules would be unnaffected to allow for fights.
Isn't that exactly what everyone in nullsec said when they first saw the details of FozzieSov?
Like or not, that is the direction CCP is taking the game. I see no reason why the poor folk living in nullsec should be the only ones forced to show up and defend anytime someone knocks on the door, whether or not the aggressor is just trolling or really looking for a fight.
It won't be that bad though. The vulnerability window and the multiple reinforcements will keep most of the "trolls" away, and allow you to respond at a time that is convenient for you. And even if you are away for some reason and lose your structure, most of your assets will be safely waiting for you when you get back from vacation.
|
Mikhem
Taxisk Unlimited
280
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 11:25:26 -
[746] - Quote
I run one man corporation to keep up custom offices in null sec. Can I do that too in new structure system? It is this Entosis Link system that scares me. It sounds like Entosis Link makes it too easy to capture structures. Old custom offices needed quite large amount of firepower to destroy. Also new structures don't have automatic defences.
Mikhem
Link library to EVE music songs.
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
133
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 13:29:18 -
[747] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:It won't be that bad though. The vulnerability window and the multiple reinforcements will keep most of the "trolls" away, Does someone need to explain "troll" to you? If it inconveniences you more than them...which it will as it will likely take ~20 minutes of their time to RF the thing solo...then they will do it. That is their nature. I know personally, if i find a tower in a WH or Low that doesn't have anyone sitting at it, and it appears i can relatively safely RF it with my single ship...you better bet i'm going to do it. Unless CCP changes how the structures defend themselves, or how long it will take outside of boosted Sov. |
Cyborg Girl86
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 17:50:13 -
[748] - Quote
Sorry for the re-post from another thread, but CCP Darwin suggested I post this here to get some answers and generate a discussion. Thus, here I am!!
Here's what I posted earlier in a GD thread:
Quote:I wonder how these new structures and their mechanics are going to affect small-scale manufacturers/indy groups consisting of only 1 or 2 players like myself in times of a war and how the offlining/repackaging/deploying mechanics will work.
A RL example of how the current POS mechanics saved my hide: I got wardecced by a griefer/wardeccer corp a month ago and immediately after finding out, tore down and stored my POS during the 24hr grace period. To my amusement, every other corp in my system got systematically wardecced by the same corp, and sure enough a fleet of 20+ Apocs showed up and began wiping out all of the other corps' POS's one-by-one until nearly two thirds of all the POS's in my home system were wiped out. I seemed to be the only smart person other than the wardeccer corp in that system that day Lol Let's just say I saved myself quite a bit of ISK
Being in a tiny one-man corp consisting of a handful of Alts with absolutely no ability to defend against something like a fleet of POS-bashing Apocs, I used brains over brawn. Will the new structure mechanics still allow this? I ask because if they don't, they seem to me to only favour larger corps/alliances with the manpower to defend them, while little corps like myself who relied on the current POS mechanics to make some money have just lost out on a bunch of industry options available.
TL;DR - Will the new citadels/structures/whateverthef***they'llbecalled be easy to tear down as a last-resort security measure to protect one's structures in the face of ridiculous odds against an unbeatable threat after a tiny 1-3 man corp has been wardecced? |
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
359
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 19:52:45 -
[749] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Dradis Aulmais wrote:Will each empire have its own version? or will this be a one type to begin with and lets see if it works thing No factional variation. You won't have an Amarr, Caldari, Gallente or Minmatar variations. We want types to exist if they have a good role by themselves, not to fit some factional flavor. That doesn't mean they won't be influenced by some specific NPC corporation or faction, but they will not mandate structure number themselves.
What are your plans for the existing Racial Fuel Blocks? |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2129
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 20:46:50 -
[750] - Quote
Cyborg Girl86 wrote:TL;DR - Will the new citadels/structures/whateverthef***they'llbecalled be easy to tear down as a last-resort security measure to protect one's structures in the face of ridiculous odds against an unbeatable threat after a tiny 1-3 man corp has been wardecced? Of course you should be able to. But no details.
One thing I'm finding unclear about these threads is the broader design goals in empire. Are the devs seeking to just replace structures but leave the status quo regarding risk/reward alone? This would be a safer design strategy in my opinion.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |