Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
332
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 03:24:03 -
[211] - Quote
Nicola Romanoff wrote:Will the construction of citadels involve any of the P4 PI products? Also, and I may have asked this before but donGÇÖt recall, once citadels come out will POS be defunked or will POS still be a thing?
The inputs for BPO's were release din a blog some months ago, yes P4 is a huge input
POS will eventually go away replaced by structures, Citadels is the first of 9 new structures that will replace POS and outposts |
Alex Harumichi
Icecream Audit Office
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 07:48:39 -
[212] - Quote
Any info on whether jump freighters will be able to dock into medium citadels, or if that requires a large one?
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1625
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 19:34:36 -
[213] - Quote
Tau Rollard wrote:As a wormhole resident i can understand the reason why citadels in wormhole will not be allowed clone jumping/medical clones as we have them in highsec but i would prefer there be some wiggle room. A compromise.
Make the clone jump system one way. From high sec to wh or the reverse. the point is to allow us wormhole dwellers the ability to come back and forth, while still maintaining a degree of difficulty.
Or in the case of allowing clone jumping why not make it so we cannot install clones in the bay but leave a clone like we do in stations without clone bays that we jump out of.
Or instead of allowing any clone, only allow clones without implants to be used in a special clone bay for wormhole.
Either way i would accept any ridiculous difficulty if it allows us wh residents the same chance to enjoy what citadels can do. This citadel "light" or "diet" approach leaves a bad taste and makes it almost pointless to bring a citadel into wh space. And the point of citadels is to propel us to actually colonize space!
Make it difficult, but let us actually enjoy it!
i myself have no objection to jumping out of a hole but you should not be able to jump in ever sieges are going to be hard enough with podding ppl out going to be one of the only options
from what i understand we will be able to swap clones in the citadel just not jump out of it
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1625
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 19:35:24 -
[214] - Quote
Alex Harumichi wrote:Any info on whether jump freighters will be able to dock into medium citadels, or if that requires a large one?
read the quote at top of this page
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Grotest the1st Panacan
Independent Miners Guild Care Factor
3
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 17:46:58 -
[215] - Quote
Lyra Gerie wrote:I believe the main point of these structures should be to make resources more available but also less secure. The overall goal should be greater production than low or high sec space, even possibly wormhole space. However it should come at the cost of security. In high sec or even low sec it makes sense that there is empire protection over some resources, after all it's space owned by the empires. However these new structures should be focused on extracting the maximum amount of resources while being able to be raided or stolen from. I don't mean just by use of something gimicky like a siphon but rather making these structures more similar to the ESS in nature.
This would mean that while structures collect more, especially when manned, unmanned they are extremely vulnerable, like an unpiloted ship. Anyone could take partial control and raid it's contents perhaps with a simple hacking game or two. All the contents could not be taken in one raid however, maybe something like 10-25% depending on how successful hacks were and such. but given that their main strength would be obtained when manned, if groups really wanted to procure as much resources as possible they should be consistantly manned rather then auto gathering.
This would encourage conflict around boarder systems and give pirate raiders in lowsec an additional reason to venture outside of low. It would also give smaller entities the ability to hurt larger ones that are less organized or have renters that are less reliable for defense. Further this gives little reason to truely destroy many of these kinds of structures as they can be more profitable to keep alive unless the attackers are planning on taking sov or really want to hurt enemy production.
Well not everyone is in large alliances or corps. Furthermore not all corps feature 90% combat pilots.
Personally i can't stand the combat in eve, but i love the system build around miners/industrialists/haulers with everything included(ganks, intel and so on). When citadels hits though i'm gonna be screwed big time.
Since i don't have many combat pilots in my corp and POS shields are a thing of the past, i won't see any rorq's, orca's hell i wouldn't even fly my skiff. Everytime i get ganked in null(3 times so far because i wasn't paying attention) thats 3 full loads for a proc, 30 for a skiff and a small eternity for a rorq/orca. My alliance won't come to save me so the discussed invoulnerability module might as well be dupped "useless button" that will only extend my life a few minutes.
Adding something like this would mean most industrialists/miners would retreat to highsec because the large risk proposed does not corrispond to the increase in profit.
Citadels are still getting fleshed out i know, and my oppinion might be unpopular but i don't want my playstyle to be removed from null.
Once you go slack, you never go back.
Team is meat spelled backwards.
Distrustfull, Paranoid and Compulsive Miner
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2309
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 00:15:44 -
[216] - Quote
Grotest the1st Panacan wrote:
Since i don't have many combat pilots in my corp and POS shields are a thing of the past, i won't see any rorq's, orca's hell i wouldn't even fly my skiff. Everytime i get ganked in null(3 times so far because i wasn't paying attention) thats 3 full loads for a proc, 30 for a skiff and a small eternity for a rorq/orca. My alliance won't come to save me so the discussed invoulnerability module might as well be dupped "useless button" that will only extend my life a few minutes.
If your alliance won't come help you save a Rorqual, you might want to find a new alliance.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Grotest the1st Panacan
Independent Miners Guild Care Factor
3
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 12:27:10 -
[217] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote: If your alliance won't come help you save a Rorqual, you might want to find a new alliance.
Think you're missing the point here. Ally's would like to help, maybe they can help me if it's just a single or a small gang, but a fleet is simply gonna kill me.
These changes means a mid or low sized player organisations are gonna be forced into high or assimilate into other's.
Once you go slack, you never go back.
Team is meat spelled backwards.
Distrustfull, Paranoid and Compulsive Miner
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
294
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 18:03:16 -
[218] - Quote
Grotest the1st Panacan wrote:FT Diomedes wrote: If your alliance won't come help you save a Rorqual, you might want to find a new alliance.
Think you're missing the point here. Ally's would like to help, maybe they can help me if it's just a single or a small gang, but a fleet is simply gonna kill me. These changes means a mid or low sized player organisations are gonna be forced into high or assimilate into other's.
You're in Care Factor mate, when I lived in 1-1 we often had to run to assist them. That is the one downside of living in provibloc and its politics. For the most part you are all independents and only at the risk of Sov will the forces roll out. If you want a group that will protect your Assets I would head GFA , VOLT, -7- any of your versatile groups. Also You are in a Coalition, the problem isn't the factor of you having Small or Large or even combat pilots in your alliance or corp, the problem is no true communication or cohesion is done. It's one of the many reasons I ditched provi and shifted my operations to PB.
These Citadel changes arent going to be your issue. Your problem will be AOE links not a reinforce mode. Our Rorqs/orcas/booster of choice will soon be On-Grid only. If you are in X-radius of booster you receive bonus. If you are a Mining group in Null/Low/Hi/WH space is no different. Your booster will be on grid and your fleet near it. That Reinforce timer is built so if you DO get hit in the belt.. you can Hopefully get a fleet over to you. Contact one of the FC's, grab someone from Golden fleet, find anyone to come to your aid. 5 minutes is a long time on grid for a PVP group. It's also ample time to get a response fleet to you, pending your location and how well your liked. If you are in a good group, It's all hands on deck when a capital is tackled (depending on capital and reason of how). If tethering and reinforce are already causing issues, you're in for a world of shock soonGäó |
Thalesia
System lords Collective
10
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 15:21:49 -
[219] - Quote
Is there going to be a sov restriction on super capital production? or station sieze restriction? |
Soltys
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
114
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 02:26:32 -
[220] - Quote
In context of item safety (I think I mentioned it in one of the older threads), I'd suggest perhaps a mixed approach:
Instead of flat 10% of item value retrieval cost, subject the items to specific loot fairy rules while removing magic transport fees altogether
- HS: some flat value between 1% and 5% (TBD) - so each stack has that chance to be dropped on citadel's destruction, the rest is transported as per devblog rules (no fees)
- LS: depending on security, from 6% (0.4) to 9% (0.1) - as above
- NPC null: 10% - as above
- SOV null: to be perfectly honest, if w-space enjoys 100% loot fairy rule, I see little reason why this should be any different in those regions of space; either way - something notably larger than 10%
The advantages I can see from this:
- proper carrot for attackers (and really big carrot for serious alliance vs alliance warfare) - blowing your own stuff (as someone mentioned earlier) to get magic courier service looks much less interesting
Jita Flipping Inc.: Solmp / Kovl
|
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 17:18:18 -
[221] - Quote
I'm not sure I recall seeing it specifically mentioned.....
But can you engage targets in range from a Citadel outside it's vulnerability window? ie - can a Citadel's weapons be used offensively?
I suspect not - but would suggest that we can - but with a penalty:
- if you use a Citadel aggressively, then an immediate 3 hr vulnerability period commences
It seems rather silly to have a Citadel that looks and feels like an other wise normal ship when you sit in it, but can't then use it/them if a battle is occurring on grid with you. However, it would be wrong to be able to engage with it, if it cannot be shot in return.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Archeras Umangiar
CRY.NET Nihilists Social Club
28
|
Posted - 2016.04.05 11:54:59 -
[222] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5604286#post5604286
"... NPC agent spread ..."
what does this mean? more specificly? Hire Npc agents to be at your *administrative structure*? Will those be low/null-sec only? (wormhole maybe?) |
Alexander Otium
Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel
6
|
Posted - 2016.04.06 09:13:03 -
[223] - Quote
I'd just like to share that I think Citadel E-war should really be AoE to some degree, otherwise it's sort of silly because enemies will be attacking you in large groups, so jamming/painting/whatever single individual targets isn't too useful I feel. |
Edwin Zavut
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.06 14:53:44 -
[224] - Quote
I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system. |
Jaqueline Geoliere
M4gnum P.I.
2
|
Posted - 2016.04.14 20:59:55 -
[225] - Quote
I do agree I think Clone bays should actually work in Wormholes |
Alexander Otium
Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel
10
|
Posted - 2016.04.14 22:34:41 -
[226] - Quote
BIGASS STRUCTURE OFFENSE/DEFENSE CRITIQUE
I've been piddling about with the stats on SiSi and, to be frank, I'm underwhelmed by the capabilities of a Fortizar citadel for defending itself.
These are all with level 4 in all structure skills.
Subcap Missiles
Anti-small: 80.2 dps per launcher.
This actually I don't think is too bad. Frigates aren't much of a major physical threat to the Citadel itself and would usually be serving more of a support role, i.e. E-war. The Citadel shooting at Frigates wouldn't be something that happens particularly often.
Anti-medium: 160.5 dps per launcher.
Now we're getting into something that has some trouble, I feel. With logi repping, 481.5 dps, reduced by the weak application of the Citadel missiles (250m/s explosion velocity), is negligible. A Tech1 battleship gets around twice as much DPS, with T3C's going even higher, that's simply absurd. There's no reason for a structure to be able to put out less damage than a tech 1 battleship that costs an infinitesimal fraction of the cost, and is mobile.
Anti-Large: 535 dps per launcher.
With a total of 1605 dps with 3 launchers, we're now around twice the dps of a single tech1 battleship, while only being able to apply damage effectively to a battleship. There's many battleships that can tank this damage, then you throw in logi support and the Citadel can't even kill anything, even with the highest-damage missiles. T3C's can even dish out more damage than this.
GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉ
Save the anti-small missiles, all of these need a buff across the board. Personally, I'd like to see burst damage remain low, but up the firing rate immensely. Repping the primary but seeing his health gradually tick down anyways would be a much more interesting effect than seeing him bursted into his pod.
Bombs:
Anti-Small: 2000 burst, 100 dps
This is mainly intended for killing frigates, so as with the anti-small missiles earlier, I'm not too concerned about their current stats. The Citadel focusing on killing frigates is something that won't happen particularly often, and when it does it's unlikely to be because those Frigates are a threat to the Citadel itself.
Anti-Medium: 5800 burst, 193.33 dps
This one, though, is underwhelming to me. Currently it doesn't have an explosion velocity, so I'll assume that doesn't factor in to application. It also doesn't have an effective radius listed, so I can't comment on that.
The burst damage against T1 cruisers, which the application points towards being its minimum target size, seems pretty good. A Caracal gets around 25k EHP, so a single bomb can burst about 23% of its HP. This damage is applied to every ship in range, as well, meaning blobs will end up with their logi being forced to spread reps, reducing their survivability.
Against targets other than a T1 cruiser though, the damage, percentage-wise, becomes really low. T3C's, battleships, etc all end up with a small, single-digit percentage of their health being affected by the bomb.
GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉ
Bomb damage output needs a buff as well. It is my opinion that, while missiles serve for gradual DPS, bombs should be for burst damage. Taking on a structure should be a costly endeavor, and with how the stats are now it would be possible to take one on with 0 casualties. Citadels shouldn't be a solo castle of doom that can stand entirely on its own without any ship support, but it should be able to go down swinging even if it has no support.
Side note, Citadel E-war needs to be AoE. That includes warp scrams and webs. Jamming or painting a single target doesn't mean jack when you're defending yourself against a fleet. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2089
|
Posted - 2016.04.14 22:47:45 -
[227] - Quote
Edwin Zavut wrote:I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system.
problem with this is it then becomes very very hard to evict anyone from the WH as they will have superior firepower when it comes to capitals and they can just keep spawning while your guys have to keep getting back in. the clone swapping mechanic is more than enough
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Quesa
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
97
|
Posted - 2016.04.15 04:33:32 -
[228] - Quote
Edwin Zavut wrote:I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system.
Yeah, no. Wormholes weren't supposed to be used as permanent homes, despite how they are used today. There needs to be that disconnect. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2167
|
Posted - 2016.04.16 19:20:59 -
[229] - Quote
Quesa wrote:Edwin Zavut wrote:I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system. Yeah, no. Wormholes weren't supposed to be used as permanent homes, despite how they are used today. There needs to be that disconnect.
I don't agree with this reasoning if players have found a better way too experience an aspect of the game even if unintended ,then there is nothing wrong with building on that
Balance is the reason it should not be allowed
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2167
|
Posted - 2016.04.16 19:23:54 -
[230] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:I'm not sure I recall seeing it specifically mentioned.....
But can you engage targets in range from a Citadel outside it's vulnerability window? ie - can a Citadel's weapons be used offensively?
I suspect not - but would suggest that we can - but with a penalty:
- if you use a Citadel aggressively, then an immediate 3 hr vulnerability period commences
It seems rather silly to have a Citadel that looks and feels like an other wise normal ship when you sit in it, but can't then use it/them if a battle is occurring on grid with you. However, it would be wrong to be able to engage with it, if it cannot be shot in return.
You can do everything but warp disrupt and there is no need for a penalty if your not attacking the structure then don't fight on their front lawn citadels are doing a lot to limit station games. (My favorite is you can't dock or tether if pointed
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
biz Antollare
Suddenly Carebears
137
|
Posted - 2016.04.16 20:57:09 -
[231] - Quote
I apologize in advance if this has been talked about already but i couldnt find it.
a Dev post specifically said: "A Medium structure hull may be deployed from an Industrial, Large and X-Large require a freighter. Yes, we do are aware this make things more complicated to deploy a Large or X-Large structure in low class wormhole space. This is intended."
So are the Large Citadels going to be increased in size from 80,000 so they cant be launched from Orcas?
I have level 1 industrial command ships (crappiest orca pilot) and i can fit an orca with the ability to hold 84,799 m3 which is more than enough to launch a large citadel.
Is this an oversight? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2168
|
Posted - 2016.04.16 21:11:25 -
[232] - Quote
biz Antollare wrote:I apologize in advance if this has been talked about already but i couldnt find it.
a Dev post specifically said: "A Medium structure hull may be deployed from an Industrial, Large and X-Large require a freighter. Yes, we do are aware this make things more complicated to deploy a Large or X-Large structure in low class wormhole space. This is intended."
So are the Large Citadels going to be increased in size from 80,000 so they cant be launched from Orcas?
I have level 1 industrial command ships (crappiest orca pilot) and i can fit an orca with the ability to hold 84,799 m3 which is more than enough to launch a large citadel.
Is this an oversight?
No they have since alerted it so that lagers can fit into orcas after people pointed out it was a bit ridiculous that they needed freighters and not just when it came to wh
Citadel worm hole tax
|
biz Antollare
Suddenly Carebears
137
|
Posted - 2016.04.16 21:29:20 -
[233] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:biz Antollare wrote:I apologize in advance if this has been talked about already but i couldnt find it.
a Dev post specifically said: "A Medium structure hull may be deployed from an Industrial, Large and X-Large require a freighter. Yes, we do are aware this make things more complicated to deploy a Large or X-Large structure in low class wormhole space. This is intended."
So are the Large Citadels going to be increased in size from 80,000 so they cant be launched from Orcas?
I have level 1 industrial command ships (crappiest orca pilot) and i can fit an orca with the ability to hold 84,799 m3 which is more than enough to launch a large citadel.
Is this an oversight? No they have since alerted it so that lagers can fit into orcas after people pointed out it was a bit ridiculous that they needed freighters and not just when it came to wh
thats lame. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2172
|
Posted - 2016.04.16 21:44:19 -
[234] - Quote
biz Antollare wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:biz Antollare wrote:I apologize in advance if this has been talked about already but i couldnt find it.
a Dev post specifically said: "A Medium structure hull may be deployed from an Industrial, Large and X-Large require a freighter. Yes, we do are aware this make things more complicated to deploy a Large or X-Large structure in low class wormhole space. This is intended."
So are the Large Citadels going to be increased in size from 80,000 so they cant be launched from Orcas?
I have level 1 industrial command ships (crappiest orca pilot) and i can fit an orca with the ability to hold 84,799 m3 which is more than enough to launch a large citadel.
Is this an oversight? No they have since alerted it so that lagers can fit into orcas after people pointed out it was a bit ridiculous that they needed freighters and not just when it came to wh thats lame.
Lol why it was just unwieldy to move larges that way you still need freighters for xl
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Alex Davies
Nucleotide
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.18 15:00:10 -
[235] - Quote
My first ever forum post.so go easy on me
I have noticed that the structure components to build the Citadel hull are 100,000m3 is this "in progress" or will they stay that size a medium needs AFAIK 11 structure parts can I assume they will compress significantly when the hull is built? |
Alexa Sabezan
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.18 16:50:59 -
[236] - Quote
Been searching around but couldn't find anything so sorry if this is a repeat.
With Citadels coming out with reprocessing services, are the POS reprocessing arrays going to be loosing their bonuses with this release, or is that going to wait till more of the new structures are released later? On SISI at the moment the bunuses are still there but wanted to ask since one of the dev blogs mentioned a plan to remove bonuses from the POS modules when their functions were implemented in the new structures.
Thnanks in advance |
Edwin Zavut
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.18 19:26:39 -
[237] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Edwin Zavut wrote:I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system. problem with this is it then becomes very very hard to evict anyone from the WH as they will have superior firepower when it comes to capitals and they can just keep spawning while your guys have to keep getting back in. the clone swapping mechanic is more than enough
Thats true. So wormhole revival should be limited by time - for example, one per day. That is awesome to overcome random death, but not a massive advantage of defenders. Looks like its the only reason for wh citadel, because trade, titan docking and other functions are useless. |
Ligraph
Metallurgy Incorporated
11
|
Posted - 2016.04.18 20:11:17 -
[238] - Quote
Edwin Zavut wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Edwin Zavut wrote:I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system. problem with this is it then becomes very very hard to evict anyone from the WH as they will have superior firepower when it comes to capitals and they can just keep spawning while your guys have to keep getting back in. the clone swapping mechanic is more than enough Thats true. So wormhole revival should be limited by time - for example, one day of delay before next one. That is awesome to overcome random death (drifters...), but not a massive advantage of defenders. Looks like its the only reason for wh citadel, because trade, titan docking and other functions are useless.
I like that. Maybe start at 3 days and have rigs/modules to decrease time. Although it would be a niche rig/module.
Fuzzy cloaking
Wormhole Stabilizer citadels
Cloaky Fleet Transport
|
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
727
|
Posted - 2016.04.18 23:57:00 -
[239] - Quote
I just wondered whether Citadels (specifically in wormholes) will have the "trash it" functionality. Where you can destroy a huge pile of items forever and completely with one click. Was this addressed somewhere?
On the one hand it's very useful to quickly get rid of worthless junk and clean up the hangar. But in wspace it would make it extremely easy to nuke everything when hopelessly sieged. Currently, loot denial at least requires some work on the part of the defender, blowing up ships one by one. I hope it will not be possible to just burn all of one's own assets with one click when sieged.
Maybe this functionality (and possibly other ways to destroy assets, like self-destruct) could be frozen whenever a Citadel is either being shot at, in repair state or in-between vulnerability phases after a successful assault.
.
|
Captain Semper
OEG Freedom Among the Stars
113
|
Posted - 2016.04.19 08:19:39 -
[240] - Quote
Does new citadels have reinforced mechanics like outposts? Or it can be destroy fully by one strike? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |