Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Mo Fizzle
The Player Haters Corp
2
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 01:29:12 -
[151] - Quote
Why are you showing this convoluted entosis crap down our throats? It looks so uninteresting that I haven't the willpower to even bother learning the process and I cannot simply ignore it any more since it's spreading from sov nullsec
Magic want structure destroying is painfully immersion breaking, especially when done by some little ship. If you must have it, just limit it to first reinforcement or have it disable stuff or something.
Also, say something concrete about caps and supers ASAP because many subscriptions are hanging by a thread waiting for this. Leaving it too late, past the point where people have given up on waiting and caring, will be, I dare say impossible to entice accounts back. |
Mo Fizzle
The Player Haters Corp
2
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 02:29:45 -
[152] - Quote
You mention just one type of fuel? Can you expand on this please. Are you saying removal of racial fuel blocks? |
Kage S3kkou
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 03:01:24 -
[153] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Maria Kitiare wrote:5 cent
CCP suggests a system where vulnerability windows are decided by the defending group. I donGÇÖt think this system will be used to make vulnerability windows match when you can defend. I see this being used to make the siege as painful as possible for the attacking team, causing them to get tired(like we see it happen all over null sec already). I suggest that structures are always vulnerable, but the defending player should be able to choose at what time of the day, the reinforce timer will end. That way you can still choose when you will be able to defend, but you wonGÇÖt have a system that is gamed with the objective of making your opponent hate him self and the game. You might not even be able to attack a group because their vulnerability timer is in the russian timezone, and you are required to attack in that timezone 3 times on different (work)days.
CCP suggests reinforcement timers that spend over weeks. No. Just no. If you canGÇÖt take down the structure within a 3 day period(a weekend), then there is no use. No one wants to keep hole control for 300+ hours straight. I canGÇÖt ask my players to skip school and work to take part in the most boring gameplay in EVE today(Sitting still, scanning for new sigs while watching a movie) for weeks. If it canGÇÖt be done in a weekend, then evicting will become less happening, which will remove content from W-space. In w-space 1 reinforce timer would be enough, 2 or even 3, would just be irrelevant boring grinding that adds no interesting gameplay. CCP have said that they don't intend these structures to take weeks to shoot down, read the blogs, read CCP's comments and replies already. Exactly how it will work for timers is still a little vague.
Actually, it is kinda explained, but isn't. In the example given in the dev blog, Reinforcement timers are based on the what GMT time the structure successfully enters reinforced mode 1 - 23. Say, you set your vulnerabilty window cover the hours 9 -13 GMT & someone attacks the structure & it enters reinforced mode at 11 GMT, then the window is calculated by the owner, by looking at how they have set up their vulnerabilty windows and adding 11 to it. It is not 11 + 11 = 22, but rather you look at the spread of when you have set your vulnerability windows and add 11 to the time at which the structure entered reinforce mode, to the vulnerabilty hours, which of course could be set over multiple days. However like currently, a count down timer will still appear against the structure. So in that way, yes, it could take a week before the structure exits its first phase of reinforcement and susceptible to be pushed into phase 2 or 3. However where the dev blog runs into trouble is here: "Reinforcement duration may change depending on the structure type and size GÇô larger structures may have a reinforcement timer set to half the vulnerability window, while smaller ones may have longer reinforcement timers to give owners more time to react." Which suggests there is a alternate way to change the length of the reinforcement timer, but it is not explained further in the blog.
It also hits trouble with The Entosis link contest; "[A structure that is partially contested with an entosis link will delay the vulnerability or deployment timer indefinitely, until such time where the owner uses his own entosis link to remove the contested status[, or an attacker chooses to fully attack it. The duration will however count toward the vulnerability or deployment timer GÇô a structure that needs 4 hours to be deployed, but is stuck in a contested state for 5 days can be immediately deployed if the owner removes this particular status with his own entosis link."
So right here CCP acknowledge the timers can be kited, by keeping it in a contested state, but if the attacker pushes it into reinforcement mode, the timer will still be worked against the vulnerabilty window schedule, set by the owner. So you can push the timer outside of the vulnerabilty window in which you choose to attack, say using the above example to 16 GMT, but then the calculation would use 16 instead of 11. Or alternately you could hold a group to ransom by keeping the structure in contested mode indefinitely, So this needs, more explaination and thought given to it because there is nothing to stop this happening in any of the phases, which amounts to bad game play.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2384
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 03:36:51 -
[154] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: No that was something left out of this blog, but the time between vulnerability windows will be shorter for the smaller structures, and our rough estimates on this would be a week in total from start to finish. This is something we want a lot of feedback on though, exactly how many hours and the times between cycles.
<---- RTFM, or rather Read the Dev replies. And you won't end up making assumptions. |
Grognard Commissar
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 03:42:34 -
[155] - Quote
Quote:Will Citadel weapons be automated? No. that's is THE DUMBEST thing i've ever heard from ccp... i mean, seriously? CODE. will just fly around in trollceptors now, and reinforce all the things. don't even try to argue about concord. they'll just wardec all the alt structure corps out there. also, hisec wardeccers will have a heyday with all this. currently, possed can have enough guns to fend off anyone that isn't serious about taking down the POS... as it should be. not everyone can keep an alt logged in through every vulnerability. ll it does is add another boring job in the game. |
danile666
Peripheral Madness
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 03:53:09 -
[156] - Quote
I am still curious about the NPC null stuff that the devs keep avoiding.
How will occupancy be decided for NPC null? Are you giving us no option to shorten our vulnerability window there? Or are you doing automatic max occupancy?
An answer on the direction there would be nice. |
Kage S3kkou
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 03:54:27 -
[157] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: No that was something left out of this blog, but the time between vulnerability windows will be shorter for the smaller structures, and our rough estimates on this would be a week in total from start to finish. This is something we want a lot of feedback on though, exactly how many hours and the times between cycles.
<---- RTFM, or rather Read the Dev replies. And you won't end up making assumptions.
Yes, the key part of that being "smaller structures". What we have here, is a dev blog that defines the amount of time for vulnerability windows for structures & the formula for the calculation of when a structure exits reinforced mode. In order to achieve the "our rough estimates on this would be a week in total from start to finish" the formula has to be changed so it can be applied to larger structures equally or else the concerns of it possibly taking weeks & the ability to keep a structure in the contested state, stands. |
Kage S3kkou
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 04:00:58 -
[158] - Quote
Grognard Commissar wrote:Quote:Will Citadel weapons be automated? No. that's is THE DUMBEST thing i've ever heard from ccp... i mean, seriously? CODE. will just fly around in trollceptors now, and reinforce all the things. don't even try to argue about concord. they'll just wardec all the alt structure corps out there. also, hisec wardeccers will have a heyday with all this. currently, possed can have enough guns to fend off anyone that isn't serious about taking down the POS... as it should be. not everyone can keep an alt logged in through every vulnerability. ll it does is add another boring job in the game. I don't play EvE to babysit a structure for hours, so, without non-automated defenses, screw a citadel, i'll just do all my production in a station. it's not even worth the bonuses at that point.
Not arguing with you, but you do realise that these structures are going to replace stations and even NPC stations will be changed or removed at some point in the future (although not now), as hinted at in the dev blog.
"So, we quickly decided that our new structures would need to be destructible, especially since they are going to be available everywhere from high-security to wormhole space. However, this introduces another problem: we want our structures to be used, but one of the deterrents against that goal is the fact they compete against existing NPC stations and player outposts (before we nuke them that is).". |
ISD Supogo
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
504
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 05:12:27 -
[159] - Quote
Removed an off-topic post.
Quote:Forum rules27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
ISD Supogo
Lieutenant Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 07:39:11 -
[160] - Quote
Dear CCP,
Why no medical bays in WH's?
Accidental bug circumvented the standings requirement, shortly after bug got promoted to feature. Can we have the same team who decided that the bug shall not be a bug anymore working on WH citadels? |
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
279
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 08:12:17 -
[161] - Quote
It seems to me that this whole timer system was thought of over pizza and vast quantities of beer, and by the one who had drunk the most
It's just waaaay overcomplicated to probably bother with as a small industrialist, and especially as a solo one who has a rl to live as well.
I get the idea behind them, and yeah a new structure would be great. But without the mandatory ties built in.
But every single time I read about the timers it just fries my brain a little more, guys, it's a game...get a grip.
Ok in hs apparently it would still need a wardec and we would be able to take it down, but if it's a public one that will cause so much grief for the guy on holiday with stuff stored in it, it wouldn't even be funny.
So much for trying to make alternate market places
What's this partially contested state as well? If a link is disrupted does that mean it stacks with someone coming along and adding another 20 mins until they hit the whole amount of time needed? Much better would be for it to reset if it's not done in one hit.
|
Eryn Velasquez
107
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 09:18:22 -
[162] - Quote
Just some thoughts about this whole entosis and destruction thing:
1. Create Entosis Links for ship classes, S, M, L, XL, 2. For every stage leading to the destruction of a XL structure, more entosis power is needed, regardless of the time needed through index levels.
For example: To entose a XL structure into stage 1, only a small ship is needed, for stage 2 a small group of cruisers, for stage 3 a small fleet of battlecruisers or battleships and for the final destruction you'll need to field a group of capitals or a big bs fleet.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
273
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 10:04:18 -
[163] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Absent Sworn wrote:So, no mention of some minimal level of automated defense structures to prevent the lone entosing trollceptor. The CSM FAQ simply says "No", is that still the case and planned direction? Correct there will be no automatic guns, but the concerns about trollceptors have been heard loud and clear. I don't see how that could possibly work - there needs to be a degree of automated defence.
Granted, much less effective than having a human directing it, but at least some minimal defence to shoo away entosis trolling attempts. These aren't going to be 'throwaway' TCUs people are putting up.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Horus V
The Destined
99
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 10:42:47 -
[164] - Quote
I think people start missing old Pos system even before they take it away.
V
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
234
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 11:18:17 -
[165] - Quote
Horus V wrote:I think people start missing old Pos system even before they take it away.
haha true;
what's worse, under this new proposed system, CCP is taking away our KILLMAILS. yea, i know the dead structure will genarate a kill, but on it only the guy with theflashlight will appear... i don't think CCP realize that there are allot of ppl that play this game for killmails. they will spend, some time, hours and hours shooting stuff for one killmail, and leaving 99% of the fleet out of the killmail will do nothing to improve theyr game experience |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14136
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 11:36:38 -
[166] - Quote
gascanu wrote:Horus V wrote:I think people start missing old Pos system even before they take it away. haha true; what's worse, under this new proposed system, CCP is taking away our KILLMAILS. yea, i know the dead structure will genarate a kill, but on it only the guy with theflashlight will appear... i don't think CCP realize that there are allot of ppl that play this game for killmails. they will spend, some time, hours and hours shooting stuff for one killmail, and leaving 99% of the fleet out of the killmail will do nothing to improve theyr game experience
Moreso when the possibility of loot is dropping to near zero.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
425
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 12:21:55 -
[167] - Quote
Overall i quite like the new system. However no auto guns is really lame. Just have each gun target randomly like now and no auto AoE guns. This is effective against trolls, but even a half organized small group with logi would have no problems. this also gives a higher relative cost to fitting powerful AoE weapons as you lose the slot.
I also have learnt that people can't read and love to demonstrate that ignorance by immediately posting. And
Dam some people really spend a LOT of time claiming to be doing things they hate. Why are you still here? Most of you have been foaming at the mouth with the same rhetoric for years, just leave already and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Grognard Commissar
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 15:21:43 -
[168] - Quote
Kage S3kkou wrote:Grognard Commissar wrote:Quote:Will Citadel weapons be automated? No. that's is THE DUMBEST thing i've ever heard from ccp... i mean, seriously? CODE. will just fly around in trollceptors now, and reinforce all the things. don't even try to argue about concord. they'll just wardec all the alt structure corps out there. also, hisec wardeccers will have a heyday with all this. currently, possed can have enough guns to fend off anyone that isn't serious about taking down the POS... as it should be. not everyone can keep an alt logged in through every vulnerability. ll it does is add another boring job in the game. I don't play EvE to babysit a structure for hours, so, without non-automated defenses, screw a citadel, i'll just do all my production in a station. it's not even worth the bonuses at that point. Not arguing with you, but you do realise that these structures are going to replace stations and even NPC stations will be changed or removed at some point in the future (although not now), as hinted at in the dev blog. "So, we quickly decided that our new structures would need to be destructible, especially since they are going to be available everywhere from high-security to wormhole space. However, this introduces another problem: we want our structures to be used, but one of the deterrents against that goal is the fact they compete against existing NPC stations and player outposts (before we nuke them that is).". yeah, that's true. people just won't use structures, aside from sovnull people. I certainly won't. I like the revised permissions and such, but the whole idea that you need to babysit the structure all the time, is just dumb. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2685
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 15:25:09 -
[169] - Quote
You could have 100% vulnerability in highsec, because it won't matter anyway - whoever doesn't spot the war coming 24 hours out won't be able to schedule 4 hours of their day to empty the thing out and unanchor it. Lame.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
14138
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 16:41:55 -
[170] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:You could have 100% vulnerability in highsec, because it won't matter anyway - whoever doesn't spot the war coming 24 hours out won't be able to schedule 4 hours of their day to empty the thing out and unanchor it. Lame.
If only your vulnerability period wasn't a mere 3 hours a week, and invisible to the attackers to begin with.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
May O'Neez
Flying Blacksmiths
46
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 18:14:03 -
[171] - Quote
Hello, I am not sure to understand this sentence:
Quote:On top of the points above, all structures, no matter their size or role, will have warpable signatures like cosmic combat anomalies. None of them will need to be probed to be warped to, even if the user doesnGÇÖt not have direct access to them. This will ensure pilots can quickly see whatGÇÖs happening in their surroundings without having to use probes, and thus not having to give their position away to the inhabitants.
Does that mean that anyone just look at the signatures without any scan or scouting and can see at once the corporations, their structures type, sizes and positions in a system, even in a wormhole ? Exploration and scouting gets even more dumbified IMHO.
I have also questions about the structures defense, to me the entosis link seems to be a easy way to attack (or defend also), before you had to bring a sheer force of ships depending on POS size and layout, bash some time (yes I know, booooring) but now it looks like:
- on some situations you may only need 1 ship that sits almost idle waiting for the cycles to finish (and pushing d-scan, probably), even on large structures, - ewar and guns are capped to 8/8 (which is lower that some dissuasive POS layouts) - and are manual only, which means that for some corporations of small to med size they may not encounter at all the attacker (personnaly I am not convinced by the window system) - it also removes the use of lots of ships and fittings that were related to POS attack and defense, including RR and siege doctrines.
BTW, if I understand well the Starbase Defense skill will be voided (thus anchoring V & co is useless now). Is there any skill transfer or refund planned for this matter ? |
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
45
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 19:11:50 -
[172] - Quote
I noticed that defending a structure is the same (10 minutes) regardless of where the indexes are. It should take longer to defend if you have no/low indexes. Let's say 20 minutes.
Also....it was stated that supers would have to be xfered to another Citadel in the same system upon citadel destruction. But what happens if we have no other citadel In system? Usually if we lose the fight/war, we aren't going to build another one....so my super will be in purgatory with me being unable to access it in this situation? That's not ok.
I'm not saying xfer it to a station in lowsec. But I should be able to recover it in that system without needing another citadel. Treat it like a spaceport launch where only I can warp to it when the citadel is destroyed. Or, xfer it to the closest XL station owned by alliance. Either way, players should have access to their stuff, indefinately locking access to it is bad mmmmk. |
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
143
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 20:16:19 -
[173] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:................... Either way, players should have access to their stuff, indefinately locking access to it is bad mmmmk.
And if players actually end up with not beeing able to access their stuff - why not just give it to the victor?? |
Chen Chillin
Deep Structure Industries The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 20:19:18 -
[174] - Quote
This system looks surprisingly good, with the exception of not having some minor auto attack response.
I would change the third vulnerable stage to include actually shooting the station to kill it though... the last entosis round totally burns out it's electronic defenses and the fleet now destroys the structure (which could have 0 shield, and 1/3 of its current armor and leaving the current structure or slightly reduced HP's).
I mean you bring a fleet to kill a structure like that and all they do is stand around with their thumb up their ass while one person hits the self destruct button? What moron installs a self destruct anyway?
also it would be nice if ALL invulnerable stations in 0.0 went away... yes this means NPC Stations... if the fleas are going to bite at least make them vulnerable..... or if you don't want to remove them, make their ship hold limit 1 ship, and item hanger limit 5,000 m3 or some small like that since the only reason they are really there is to supply pirate and ore bpo's, bpc's and asundry items.
|
Binadas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 22:18:07 -
[175] - Quote
#wormholelivesmatter
CCPlease, if you are going to nerf our unique and emergent playstyle (for the second time after cutting down c5-residents' Nullsec roaming exits), then I'd like to think it was intentional and for rational reasons, rather than as a side-effect of changes you made without even considering us.
|
Leila Numanor
Sleeper Protection Agency SL33PERS
33
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 02:39:54 -
[176] - Quote
This thread is pretty small. hmm.. must be a shortage of players. :D |
Merior
Class D In Space Weyr Syndicate
7
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 02:40:30 -
[177] - Quote
Sequester Risalo wrote:[quote=Aeril Malkyre] I predicted tha low class wormholes - the home of single player corporations will become deserted wastelands. And I predicted that CCP will not achieve the goal described in http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/ : "Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack." I know plenty people who would want to use to use a structure bunt won't do so. because doing it would be stupid under the new rules.
I have already started emptying POS's owned by separate corps in response to the scheduled plans. I will not be wasting my time with Citadels that are unnecessarily complicated and involve too much commitment to defence. I really don't understand what is so difficult about building a structure that can have automatic defences and have their vulnerability rebalanced in a release if the mechanics favour PVP excessively or Industrialists excessively - just think of it as a giant ship with new modules. By all means tidy the POS into one structure but don't ruin my game to the extent where I leave wormholes, if not the game, for all time.
|
Leila Numanor
Sleeper Protection Agency SL33PERS
34
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 03:02:38 -
[178] - Quote
Merior wrote:Sequester Risalo wrote:[quote=Aeril Malkyre] I predicted tha low class wormholes - the home of single player corporations will become deserted wastelands. And I predicted that CCP will not achieve the goal described in http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/ : "Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack." I know plenty people who would want to use to use a structure bunt won't do so. because doing it would be stupid under the new rules. I have already started emptying POS's owned by separate corps in response to the scheduled plans. I will not be wasting my time with Citadels that are unnecessarily complicated and involve too much commitment to defence. I really don't understand what is so difficult about building a structure that can have automatic defences and have their vulnerability rebalanced in a release if the mechanics favour PVP excessively or Industrialists excessively - just think of it as a giant ship with new modules. By all means tidy the POS into one structure but don't ruin my game to the extent where I leave wormholes, if not the game, for all time.
welcome to the club, we already did. |
Grognard Commissar
EVE University Ivy League
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 03:16:01 -
[179] - Quote
Chen Chillin wrote:This system looks surprisingly good, with the exception of not having some minor auto attack response.
I would change the third vulnerable stage to include actually shooting the station to kill it though... the last entosis round totally burns out it's electronic defenses and the fleet now destroys the structure (which could have 0 shield, and 1/3 of its current armor and leaving the current structure or slightly reduced HP's).
I mean you bring a fleet to kill a structure like that and all they do is stand around with their thumb up their ass while one person hits the self destruct button? What moron installs a self destruct anyway?
also it would be nice if ALL invulnerable stations in 0.0 went away... yes this means NPC Stations... if the fleas are going to bite at least make them vulnerable..... or if you don't want to remove them, make their ship hold limit 1 ship, and item hanger limit 5,000 m3 or some small like that since the only reason they are really there is to supply pirate and ore bpo's, bpc's and asundry items.
i like that idea... except for the part about npc station, unless you're talking sovnull. in npcnull, that would make it basically impossible for soloer's to live out there, as well as difficulty for smaller corps. |
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 16:01:17 -
[180] - Quote
I am going to echo myself and ask again why not allow medical bays in WH citadels when the new system takes over?
Considering the fact that in order to defend a citadel someone has to be inside to man the guns I don't see a reason why not.
Otherwise make the defenses automated. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |