Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Silverbackyererse
The Church of Awesome
167
|
Posted - 2015.11.06 22:50:17 -
[31] - Quote
Looking at these as more opportunities for pew pew myself. Church are frequent users of POS' in enemy held systems and these have us really excited for the future.
It looks like they are going to be extremely vulnerable to attack during their 24 hour anchoring stage and I doubt that a limited invul window will prove to be much of a problem to those dedicated enough to removing them and maybe some glorious fights will evolve from an entity putting these up in 'enemy' held space. The opportunities for making non station systems relevant are going to prove to be extremely interesting for FW as already mentioned. I see only good coming out of these changes although as always it'll be down to the players use of the tools given to them.
Of course it's a shake up and will change things. Don't see that as a bad thing personally.
Don't mess with Citadels with these AI NPC's please. Stupid idea is just stupid. People make Eve what it is. NPC interaction has been and always will be ******* terrible. Most of us play this part of the game for the interaction with other people don't we?
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1575
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 02:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
What silver is trying to say, is that their vuln window wlll be between 6am and 9am eve time when there is litterally 3 gallente online. So ya its no wonder he is excited.
Cal mil and church of awesome in particular have no FCs willing and even less so the capability to fight any fleet with the capacity to attack such a structure. They have proven this time and again over many timers in the last year.
Silver is a prime example in my case. A small corp of plexers during other peoples downtime plexing up systems with minimal resistance, offering very little in the form of actual content.
Im not cinvinced that giving them and others an easier way to circumvent station lock outs is a good move. |
Silverbackyererse
The Church of Awesome
167
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 07:45:23 -
[33] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Shots fired.
You should open up a fish and chip shop mate. Great place to use up all that salt and vinegar stocks you have.
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1575
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 10:08:46 -
[34] - Quote
Silverbackyererse wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Shots fired. You should open up a fish and chip shop mate. Great place to use up all that salt and vinegar stocks you have.
Great response. Coincidently, im just off to the fish market. Now justify why a citadel in a hostile homesystem should be invulnerable most of the day while the actual station that has been there forever is vulnerable to shooting rats all day.
Actually, i can answer for you. 'Because there are no war targets in our vuln window so our stations will never be attacked'.
Im fine with ignoring a death star because logistically its hard to use. But having a citadel in a system that equats to a more secure station than the ones we have been fighting over for years makes no sense.
I think vuln windows are a bad thing in general, to protect whining nullbears. FW has proven they are not needed, but ccp felt the need to coddle nullbears who are quite happy to accept the reward of churning out supers, but not the fact that their space could be attack at any time.
The idea that certain areas of null are impossible for others to attack by nature of their opposing geographical locationa irl is absurd. |
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 14:18:16 -
[35] - Quote
I have not seen any arguments in favor of where you can anchor these, how many you can anchor, except for that they will be cool to launch an offensive campaign from. The rest has been unspecific approval, ambiguous and unhelpful, even if made from unicorn farts. The negative implications are very clear.
If we can only anchor one per system, within the war zone, then it must be tired to faction sov and the location must be singular: Sun or IHub. If it is the ihub, it might as well take its place and become awesome.
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Spaceship Bebop
434
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 15:58:20 -
[36] - Quote
Oreb Wing wrote:I have not seen any arguments in favor of where you can anchor these, how many you can anchor, except for that they will be cool to launch an offensive campaign from. The rest has been unspecific approval, ambiguous and unhelpful, even if made from unicorn farts. The negative implications are very clear.
If we can only anchor one per system, within the war zone, then it must be tired to faction sov and the location must be singular: Sun or IHub. If it is the ihub, it might as well take its place and become awesome.
Again, wrong line of thought. This can be easily exploited. Only one per system for the owning faction? Great, Snuff's Gal and Cal alt corps will anchor these all over the place, deny docking rights to both militias, have them shoot both militias, then laugh at us.
.
|
Arla Sarain
697
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 16:27:08 -
[37] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
I think vuln windows are a bad thing in general, to protect whining nullbears. FW has proven they are not needed, but ccp felt the need to coddle nullbears who are quite happy to accept the reward of churning out supers, but not the fact that their space could be attack at any time.
Highly doubt CCP is doing what they are doing to Citadel Timer for the sakes of catering to NS "whining".
They gave them the FW mechanic - it didn't work. NS folk are used to gathering up on timers.
FW mechanics aren't particularly good either, typically end up in one side plexing up and then the other side plexing down, with some on and off encounters. We are also a lot milder in terms of what activity we can muster. If all the NS people came to FW with the intention of actually "playing the game" and flipping system, they'd change hands over night, whilst ironically having no fight. It's gameable.
The point of either mechanic is to funnel pilots (and content) into a concentrated place. But plexs don't make people stay, whereas Citadels might.
Sure it might seem like Citadels are catering to the risk-averse, but if the intention to siege a Citadel becomes clear to both sides, then it will likely gather both sides on grid at the same time. FW mechanics allow sides to avoid each other. |
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 16:38:49 -
[38] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:Oreb Wing wrote:I have not seen any arguments in favor of where you can anchor these, how many you can anchor, except for that they will be cool to launch an offensive campaign from. The rest has been unspecific approval, ambiguous and unhelpful, even if made from unicorn farts. The negative implications are very clear.
If we can only anchor one per system, within the war zone, then it must be tired to faction sov and the location must be singular: Sun or IHub. If it is the ihub, it might as well take its place and become awesome. Again, wrong line of thought. This can be easily exploited. Only one per system for the owning faction? Great, Snuff's Gal and Cal alt corps will anchor these all over the place, deny docking rights to both militias, have them shoot both militias, then laugh at us.
That would be pretty hilarious. Limit one citadel per Corp and we can thank snuff for giving us a solid extra 6 war zone points after we upgrade the system.
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1575
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 18:43:52 -
[39] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:
I think vuln windows are a bad thing in general, to protect whining nullbears. FW has proven they are not needed, but ccp felt the need to coddle nullbears who are quite happy to accept the reward of churning out supers, but not the fact that their space could be attack at any time.
Highly doubt CCP is doing what they are doing to Citadel Timer for the sakes of catering to NS "whining". They gave them the FW mechanic - it didn't work. NS folk are used to gathering up on timers. FW mechanics aren't particularly good either, typically end up in one side plexing up and then the other side plexing down, with some on and off encounters. We are also a lot milder in terms of what activity we can muster. If all the NS people came to FW with the intention of actually "playing the game" and flipping system, they'd change hands over night, whilst ironically having no fight. It's gameable. The point of either mechanic is to funnel pilots (and content) into a concentrated place. But plexs don't make people stay, whereas Citadels might. Sure it might seem like Citadels are catering to the risk-averse, but if the intention to siege a Citadel becomes clear to both sides, then it will likely gather both sides on grid at the same time. FW mechanics allow sides to avoid each other.
Aae i have already mentioned. Squids simplly lack the capacity to fight at that level. It will simply be another content driver that results in gallente fighting one of 3-4 large null sec power blocks that cal mil batphone. Difference is, now these null sec power blocks are having a much larger effect on fw sov if they manage to force us off field.
Also. Vuln windows are indeed there to protect nullbears assets. Null has never had the raw fw mechanics as you suggest. Though you are correct about there being advantages to conflict driven by either one. The reason the always on battlefield is better, is that people have choices rather than being denied access to certai content simply by the enemy clcking a particular tz window in a menu somewhere. |
Silverbackyererse
The Church of Awesome
167
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 20:45:57 -
[40] - Quote
Crosi, I understand where you are coming from but the vulnerability windows for FW are probably not going to be nearly as large a problem as you make out.
There are still too many unknowns at the moment with respect to the defence capabilities of these things to make a call but consider..
The DPS cap on mediums and larges (I think we can safely rule out a FW entity dropping an XL) suggests that a small sized force of dreads could push these things into the next window in such a short period of time that even a small corp with a handful of dreads using a surprise attack could do the first timer regardless of when the invuln window is set. Of course the next timer(s) will not be quite so simple as the owners of the structure have some time to organise themselves. But that's what makes this more interesting!
Regardless, Galmil are not nearly as bereft of players in the Asian time zone as you say they are. Even if they were, some effort made into recruiting in the TZ you are deficient in would work no? Might even allow you remove that chip off your shoulder. It cuts both ways too mind - this batphone that you speak off would surely be less of a threat / deterrent in an off TZ?
The lack of any real loss when these things get taken out (and they will) however is far more of an issue. There is simply no reason not to put these things up. Maybe the risk of complete loss of docked assets like in wormholes if these things are forcibly removed would be a better mechanic if they are placed in FW space??
|
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1575
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 21:39:32 -
[41] - Quote
Indeed. The final straw for citadels is the zero risk to assets. Just bad design in null amplified imo in fw since they are also at odds with core conflict drivers. |
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.08 17:00:17 -
[42] - Quote
Le sigh. No one has drawn the connection (were the ihub idea fall through) that these could potentially provide a huge amount of LP for busting. +1 for IHub hats!
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Spaceship Bebop
435
|
Posted - 2015.11.10 16:40:09 -
[43] - Quote
Oreb Wing wrote:Le sigh. Has no one drawn the connection (were the ihub idea to fall through) that these could potentially provide an enormous amount of LP for busting. +1 for IHub hats!
If they provide too much LP for the other side and no benefit, then all the FW citadels will belong to neutral alt corps. Just saying....
.
|
Julius Foederatus
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
264
|
Posted - 2015.11.10 22:58:20 -
[44] - Quote
Why not tie system upgrades to the ability for an enemy faction to anchor citadels? Something like no anchoring at 5, only meds at 4, etc. |
Nicola Arman
Lacuna. AII ShaII Perish
59
|
Posted - 2015.11.11 13:24:56 -
[45] - Quote
Seems very silly and very unlike EVE to have your 'stuffs' magically saved when your Citadel explodes. Where's the risk? They're meant to be safer than a POS? I understand there will be an ISK investment but all the 'stuffs' should burn in a fire or drop as loot. This could potentially fix our FW issue a bit and keep to our EVE fundamentals.
Maybe even add a penalty to enemy militia Citadels in their systems: Less resists, less HP, something that makes them inefficient so the core system doesn't seem to break.
Allowing Docking Rights from an alt's Citadel should not be possible either if you are the enemy militia and none of the above is addressed.
I want to see these structures in FW space but magic loot ferrying doesn't make me feel good... seems safe. Too safe..
|
Kale Freeman
Dirt 'n' Glitter Habitual Chaos
46
|
Posted - 2015.11.11 14:18:20 -
[46] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:Why not tie system upgrades to the ability for an enemy faction to anchor citadels? Something like no anchoring at 5, only meds at 4, etc.
Always remember the neutral alt |
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.11 19:10:06 -
[47] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:Oreb Wing wrote:Le sigh. Has no one drawn the connection (were the ihub idea to fall through) that these could potentially provide an enormous amount of LP for busting. +1 for IHub hats! If they provide too much LP for the other side and no benefit, then all the FW citadels will belong to neutral alt corps. Just saying....
How can you say it has no benefit? Docking and every single station service you can imagine. Oh top of that, you slap guns on it and drop modules to affordable prices for those you allow to dock. The benefits are clear. The strategic value is there. Making them FW specific structures means there are no neutral Citadels in FW lowsec. They will either be orange or blue.
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.11 21:24:11 -
[48] - Quote
+1 for ihub hats!
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.12 02:18:31 -
[49] - Quote
And the greatest benefit of all: The fights they will bring.
Their introduction, in any other way, with any other ridiculous vulnerability window, will be a poor whimper by comparison; they will be a distraction instead of a focus. A bothersome structure grid instead of a sentinel of death and home. Oh well. Maybe I'm the only one that sees it.
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Dantelion Shinoni
SQUIDS.
20
|
Posted - 2015.11.12 04:41:22 -
[50] - Quote
May Arethusa wrote:Quote:If we don't allow pilots to dock in Citadels in hostile space at all, then FW continues to stagnate I disagree. This would actually provide currently stationless systems with a significant degree of strategic importance and help shift some of the focus away from home systems which are notoriously difficult to flip.
Underrated point right there!
Also whatever is decided to make those things work in FW will be a band-aid at best. Those things were clearly not designed with anything other than null-sec in mind, like things like Asset Safety, Vulnerability Windows, etc.. show, if CCP wanted the intuitive approach here, those things would have been limited to null, but now they are a Jesus feature instead, so they have to shoehorn'd everywhere. |
|
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.12 11:52:57 -
[51] - Quote
If there is no station in system, the assets should be forfeit.
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
338
|
Posted - 2015.11.15 14:16:12 -
[52] - Quote
System under siege? Enemy militia set up a citadel and are basing out of it?
Blow. It. Up. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
884
|
Posted - 2015.11.15 15:46:25 -
[53] - Quote
Oreb Wing wrote:If there is no station in system, the assets should be forfeit. Shouldn't be more harsh than nullsec IMO. There's no compelling reason for it.
And I think that a lot of folks miss that if you lose a Citadel in a system you're attacking, and don't have another one in system ready to receive your stuff, that stuff gets moved to the nearest NPC station - namely the one in the system you're attacking, that you don't own. You'll still lose access to your stuff unless you can flip the system after all.
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.15 16:57:42 -
[54] - Quote
vov It's eve. We like to make people lose things..
Besides. I still think the proliferation of these things is a detriment to FW, in that it introduces a foreign structure that completely ***** on home field advantages. Why should we even have docking restrictions with these present? A tower always created a kind of sadistic convenience; pos are hard to use and quickly ship out of in comparison to a station, which this thing is superior to in every way. Not integrating them into the body of FW, as I've said, makes them arbitrary and something of a nuisance. They will completely ruin the importance geography plays in war. That is a bad thing that reduces content quality and diversity. Sacrificing strategy and tactful thinking for the sake of new stuff is not good. Why can't you see that?
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
1175
|
Posted - 2015.11.15 18:41:30 -
[55] - Quote
Oreb Wing wrote:vov It's eve. We like to make people lose things..
Besides. I still think the proliferation of these things is a detriment to FW, in that it introduces a foreign structure that completely ***** on home field advantages. Why should we even have docking restrictions with these present? A tower always created a kind of sadistic convenience; pos are hard to use and quickly ship out of in comparison to a station, which this thing is superior to in every way. Not integrating them into the body of FW, as I've said, makes them arbitrary and something of a nuisance. They will completely ruin the importance geography plays in war. That is a bad thing that reduces content quality and diversity. Sacrificing strategy and tactful thinking for the sake of new stuff is not good. Why can't you see that?
This is why I am looking for discussion both for and against or just in general about these structures. I brought up the docking restrictions in the warzone and that a Citadel is a bit different from a POS. However, currently people can drop and stage from a POS. The take down mechanics are significantly different but are they different enough to warrant exemptions. In wormhole space the movement, access, and usage was enough.
Citadel are a game wide change. I could very well stand nose to nose with the development team and say "No!" That does not mean they will go, "Okay." I also look at what can be done to put these in the best place for FW when they do come.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.15 19:12:06 -
[56] - Quote
I desperately entreat CCP to deeply consider allowing these Tu function as POS in FW. If you are urged to create a thread to discuss the difficulties of new players coming into FW, you must see also how this structure, where it's headed, completely topples the balance in favor high SP and established entities to such a degree that there will not be an opposing forces that can dock in even the CLOSEST militia lowsec system. Only pity and laziness will keep this from happening.
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.15 20:49:17 -
[57] - Quote
On the other hand, if these can be made to bloom out of the ihub upon deployment when it is busted out after, it could turn out positive results that are the opposite of all this bad. Limit placement to one per Corp and small groups would flourish throughout the war zone, creating little homes for their militia gang. This can echo in null. It would be such a great thing instead of such a cluster **** of new problems and making so many other things obsolete.
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Silverbackyererse
The Church of Awesome
168
|
Posted - 2015.11.16 09:27:57 -
[58] - Quote
Vesk, you know that having assets in a hostile station can be gamed right. It'll be a minor inconvenience at most. Lot less trouble in fact than space taxi-ing sheet from a doomed POS would be.
Oreb, POS' are actually faster to reship from than stations. SMA use doesn't have the aggression timer that station docking does. No black screen of boredom when docking and undocking either.
There will be more advantages to Citadels than POS towers for sure though. Finding the right balance is nigh on impossible I think - and you know what, I don't think CCP view them as detrimental to FW or there would already be some wormholesque variation plan in place.
No offence Sugar but I think you're flogging a dead horse here. These will go ahead as is or with some inane system upgrade +/- ing that's just as useless as the crap we've already got for system upgrades. FW changes since Inferno have been few and far between (cloaky radius bollocks and ship restriction changes anyone) and I don't see it being our turn on the wheel for a long time again. If they won't / can't implement the small changes people have advocated for a long time such as the timer rollback, what chance of them putting some late changes into FW/Citadel/System boni? SFA chance I fear.
Folks are just going to have to adapt and deal with it. It's not like these things are indestructible and I still think they bring more to the table than they take with respect to gameplay options.
So long as there's more pew pew I don't really give a rat's clacker to be quite honest.
If it turns out to be terrible then we can always vote with our feet aye?! :)
Yes, I'm a bitter vet. No you can't have my stuff. |
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Spaceship Bebop
435
|
Posted - 2015.11.16 14:45:17 -
[59] - Quote
Templar Dane wrote:System under siege? Enemy militia set up a citadel and are basing out of it?
Blow. It. Up.
You cannot. The way the vulnerability timers work, the citadel won't be vulnerable for longer than it takes to siege the system.
.
|
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Spaceship Bebop
435
|
Posted - 2015.11.16 14:52:03 -
[60] - Quote
Silverbackyererse wrote:Vesk, you know that having assets in a hostile station can be gamed right. It'll be a minor inconvenience at most. Lot less trouble in fact than space taxi-ing sheet from a doomed POS would be. Oreb, POS' are actually faster to reship from than stations. SMA use doesn't have the aggression timer that station docking does. No black screen of boredom when docking and undocking either.
That is true for a small and organized group, like COA. However, POS reshipping doesn't scale. It becomes a PITA when you have to deal with 50 different corps and alliances all needing the PW, all needing ships, repairing modules, checking ammo, assembling and fiting ships, etc, etc. It's fine for COA where you do coordinated assaults with people that are all on the same page. Try it with 50 newbro's who rename ships, remove ammo, unfit mods, burn out mods, etc, etc and then put them back into the ship maintenance arrays.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |