|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 53 post(s) |
|
CCP Logibro
C C P C C P Alliance
881
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 14:59:54 -
[1] - Quote
It's time for some more Structure talk with Team Game of Drones. This time, they're talking about the Citadel class structures, how they will work, and the ways in which it will be able to reach out and say "Hi!" to someone before blowing them up. If this catches your interest, then you should read the blog from the keyboard of CCP Ytterbium.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3889
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:13:31 -
[2] - Quote
Tetsel wrote:Could CCP Fozzie translate this please ?
I'm not saying anything, this is written text so you should be fine. Hell, we even had several people review this to make sure it was intelligible. |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1160
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:14:55 -
[3] - Quote
Remember we have a lot more developer blogs to come regarding these structures, but early feedback on this will be much appreciated!
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1160
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:15:45 -
[4] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ?
Se we can balance them separately, these weapons will have very different stats to existing ship weapons.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3891
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:21:49 -
[5] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:When do we get some news on these new structures and how or if they will interact in wormhole space?
We want most of those structures to be available in W-space, but with some special restrictions if need be. |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1162
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:27:10 -
[6] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Are these things intended to have offices and markets? I'm sort of puzzled by what looks like a deathstar pos replacement being in the 'old' office/market category and trying to wrap my head around what exactly this is going to do.
This will be the most easily defended structure, and have bonuses to office capacity and market functionality.
The intention is this is the best place to put all your stuff, hence it has the most fortress like appearance.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3891
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:29:12 -
[7] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Why not go ahead and allow capitals in the larges and supers in the XL? Coding or a game mechanics decision? Supercapital docking is long overdue and probably the #1 thing to sooth any future nerfs.
It's more of a game mechanics decision regarding supers. No final decision yet, we will need to weight that up as we move forward. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3896
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:35:54 -
[8] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Are these things intended to have offices and markets? I'm sort of puzzled by what looks like a deathstar pos replacement being in the 'old' office/market category and trying to wrap my head around what exactly this is going to do. This will be the most easily defended structure, and have bonuses to office capacity and market functionality. The intention is this is the best place to put all your stuff, hence it has the most fortress like appearance. So is this sort of a cross between a pos and an outpost? Is there any feel for if you're going to be able to, say, set up a capital staging citidel without spending what you would on an outpost replacement? I suppose a better question might be where is the main cost of this structure going to be: in the upgrades, or in the hull?
No definite price checks yet, but building an XL should have the same level of commitment as an outpost.
However, upgrading the thing with rigs is going to cost much more, since they're going to take over outpost upgrades / improvements.
Building and upgrading smaller structures will require far much less commitment and resources. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3896
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:40:45 -
[9] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:Is there a limitation to the distance between 2 structures and the distance between a sov structure and theses new structures ?
There will be deployment restrictions, yes.
Mainly to avoid people to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp / stations, to avoid having space where structure defenses overlap or have them hidden inside landmarks or other anomaly sites. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3899
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:59:24 -
[10] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:First, I have to say I am super excited about the path structures are taking!
The impression I get is that the defenses will have the option to be managed by a player to operate? Is that correct? If a player does interact with the defenses will they take standings loss for shooting something like they would if they were in a normal ship?
Example: AoE weapon is activated by myself with a mix of enemy and friendly ships/drones nearby (friendlies forgot to ball up, undocked, etc). Will my standings be absolutely torched?
Unlike existing Starbases, you won't need multiple guys to operate the weapons. Those structures will be like ships, so you will only need one guy to control them all. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be reworked into something else or refunded when Starbases are removed.
Regarding standings, this would in essence be the same situatin than launching a bomb into a pack of friendlies . Those are AoE weapons, be careful where you shoot them. |
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1165
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:01:56 -
[11] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:I can anchor them just for me personally (not corp, alliance), correct?
Why you want to scrap the force fields? It's a cool SciFi element, at least keep the visuals.
Yes we plan on allowing personal anchoring but you must be a player corporation, not NPC (so you can be wardecced).
We are creating a replacement for force fields which works better (tm) and looks cooler. You will have a lot of the same benefits that the force field provides.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1165
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:02:38 -
[12] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:Can someone explain to me why Citadels start at 'Medium'? What happened to small Citadels?
The small size is for the deployables / anchorables. So these new structures start at M and upwards.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3899
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:05:52 -
[13] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:Can someone explain to me why Citadels start at 'Medium'? What happened to small Citadels?
Small structures are going to be the old deployables (like containers, mobile tractor unit, bubbles etc...). But they won't be able to be fitted and won't have most of the advanced mechanics tied with M, L, X-L. They're deployables after all and are supposed to be very entry level to use.
So, technically, your "small citadel" would be a mobile depot, even if it doesn't really earn that title to be honest . |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3901
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:12:26 -
[14] - Quote
Isengrimus wrote:Isengrimus wrote:Two questions:
- How will "vulnerability" and "destructibility" interact? How would you protect a structure that you want to capture, rather than to destroy? Will you be able to do it at all? How will you avoid accidental killings?
- How will these changes affect NPC Stations in hisec, lowsec and nullsec? Umm... bump? Sorry to quote myself, but Dear CCP, I believe these are kinda valid questions. ;)
You would protect a structure by using the Entosis module to prevent the opposing party to attack it during its vulnerability window. Or you would use the defenses fitted to kill them all while laughing like a maniac.
Accidental killings are a tricky business. We may either want to forbid you from locking and shooting neutrals in high-sec (permanent safety mechanic), or, if we can do it, allow you to do so but have CONCORD show up and destroy your structure if you commit an act of aggression. Depends on technical and design difficulties, too early to say so far. In all cases AoE weapons will not be allowed in high-sec for obvious reasons.
It's too early to say how NPC stations will be affected. We want those structures to be more efficient than NPC stations though, which either means boosting them or nerfing NPC stations. |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1170
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:29:09 -
[15] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Thanatos Marathon wrote:First, I have to say I am super excited about the path structures are taking!
The impression I get is that the defenses will have the option to be managed by a player to operate? Is that correct? If a player does interact with the defenses will they take standings loss for shooting something like they would if they were in a normal ship?
Example: AoE weapon is activated by myself with a mix of enemy and friendly ships/drones nearby (friendlies forgot to ball up, undocked, etc). Will my standings be absolutely torched? Unlike existing Starbases, you won't need multiple guys to operate the weapons. Those structures will be like ships, so you will only need one guy to control them all. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be reworked into something else or refunded when Starbases are removed. Regarding standings, this would in essence be the same situatin than launching a bomb into a pack of friendlies . Those are AoE weapons, be careful where you shoot them. The lack of automated defenses is disconcerting specifically as it relates to wormhole space and smaller corporations trying to build up or start out in low-class wormhole space. Wormhole space has unique challenges related to system access that are not present in k-space. There is no option to med clone to your home system, cyno behind an enemy gate camp, or otherwise return to your structure if you are podded out from your wormhole. A small number of aggressors can effectively block out an equally small corporation from being able to effectively access their system after a minor skirmish of opportunity. And given that the aggressor need only bring small ships to reinforce structures, the lack of any kind of automated defense to discourage such griefing behavior is very concerning. These possibilities could essential force smaller entities to "bunker down" during their vulnerability window daily to avoid being locked out and to defend against a minuscule attacking force. I strongly believe that these structures need to have some level of automatic, even if marginally ineffective to deter casual reinforcement in wormhole space where defenders are at a distinct geographical disadvantage due to how wormhole space operates.
We have been discussing the idea of a module that recruits pirate spawns to defend against people entosis linking your structure, but ultimately how customizable the timezone mechanics are will be the key here.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1170
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:32:18 -
[16] - Quote
Vacant Glare wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Are these things intended to have offices and markets? I'm sort of puzzled by what looks like a deathstar pos replacement being in the 'old' office/market category and trying to wrap my head around what exactly this is going to do. This will be the most easily defended structure, and have bonuses to office capacity and market functionality. The intention is this is the best place to put all your stuff, hence it has the most fortress like appearance. How can it be the best place to put your market trade stuff if it can be destroyed. No marketeer is going to have 10's of billions in assets in a structure that can blow up while there on vacation
We have yet to release a lot of details about this, but there will be an element of asset safety so you don't lose everything when it explodes.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:38:48 -
[17] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:I like those designs a lot.
Would it be possible to have multiple designs for structures, so players can choose which one they want and make different systems have a different look to them, instead of seeing the same structure everywhere?
That is sort of the point with the different classes, each size and each class will be a different hull like ships.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:40:14 -
[18] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:will it be configurable if it should appear on the overview or not? One main purpose of it is the functionality as trade hub. And i guess there will be many of those structures around. Things like docking rights, availability of the trade module and visibility of the structure itself must be somehow communicated to the players.
Standing based visibility on the overview? Please don't make us open show info every time.
I would like to show them on the overview if you have access to them yes. We'll have to see if that is at all possible though.
Otherwise a structure browser would provide that functionality.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:41:04 -
[19] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:Will they require fuel?
Yes but the amount of fuel will depend on the fittings, and they will remain online without fuel (the services will go offline though).
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3902
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:45:08 -
[20] - Quote
Scott Ormands wrote:few questions.
1. Larges; if we cant dock caps in them then how will we keep them in WH space especially since it seems that XL's are going to replace stations and hence wont really be allowed in HW's, plus they are supposed to be very expensive.
2. Vulnerability window; how will that work in WH space where we cant claim SOV to boost our indicies to reduce our vulberability timer.
3. Will the office, cloning, and market functions work in WH space.
4. How will these structures accommodate or replace the current practice in WH's to have Squad POS's with members of each POS having a specific corp hanger division assigned to them and their alts.
EX. 10 members are living in a WH, each with multiple alts, there are two towers with 5 members assigned to each with secret passwords to restrict access to those assigned. In tower 1 Scott is assigned division 5 and the other members are assigned the remainder. Scott has 4 alts and each of them have the same hanger division assigned allowing for easy consolidation of modules and items such as PI and minerals/Ore. Will this functionality be preserved?
5. How will ship storage be maintained, will it be similar to the current SMA mechanics or will it be more like stations with hangers divided restricted to each character. Maybe a combination of each allow you the option to set up shared hangers?
Thanks
- You would still have the invulnerability link, but yes, you are right, that's one of the arguments in favor to allow capitals in the Large Citadels.
- What we are thinking so far is to have high-sec and W-space have higher indices that null-sec by default. So they will be naturally less vulnerable there. We are also thinking about modules, rigs and gameplay options to affect the vulnerability window, but at a price.
- It depends on which kind of gameplay we want to have in W-space. So far, office and market functions look fine, cloning does not. Again, not set in stone at this point.
- Sounds so complicated. How about we give you guys personal hangers instead, just like in NPC stations / outposts? And then, if you don't want people to dock in a specific structure you can set restrictions to do so.
- See above
|
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:45:15 -
[21] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Upkeep costs?
Which functions are built into the hull, and which functions are provided by fitting modules and rigs?
Anchoring restrictions concerning "deep" safes (incursion and mission bookmarks - they still can be more than 15AU off the nearest celestial).
Storage, security and fitting service will be on the hull. Corp offices, market, industry, clones etc will all be modules that have to be added and fueled.
We are considering showing all structures on the on board scanner / sensor overlay allowing you to either warp directly to them or atleast show you that structures are anchored in system so you can probe them down.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1173
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:48:54 -
[22] - Quote
Darirol wrote:what about courier contracts?
1. you can start and deliver courier contracts only from / to stations, does it work with those new things too?
2. freighter are capital sized. jumpfreighter and rorqual even more. are we supposed to stock the medium and large one with 50k m3 haulers?
3.how does the game mechanic react if there are courier contracts up and the destination "station" got destroyed / unanchored?
Couriers are a good question, and we don't have detailed answers for this yet.
If / when we do they will be a service module that you can add to access contracts. On destruction I imagine the contracts will be treated with the same asset safety mechanics as your inventory.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3902
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:51:41 -
[23] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Thank You CCP. Very excited to see this replace my old POS in WH, so here are some WH related (but also some general) questions about those new structures:
- Can I anchor them anywhere (appart from some proximity restrictions). Does it have to be moons or can I put them at any spot in space. Can I have more than one on one grid?
- Can I use market functionality in WH?
- Can I store ships and items inside just like in stations? Will those be in "corporate" hangar or will I get access to personal hangar like in stations.
- What about access to corp assets? Will it work like current (or similar to) corp hangar mechanics in stations?
- How will vulnerability window work for WH? We dont have system upgrades to reduce our window of vulnerability
- Will citadel be able to shot without anyone piloting the guns?
- Will there be fuell requirement. And if yes how will it work when structure go offile in terms of destroying it with entosis link? Today if I forgot to fuell my pos and some start to shoot it it will give me still some time to log back, fuell and online it (risking being killed ofc). How this will work with entosis link and offline structures?
- Will there be a way for attacker to know how many people are inside structure docked and in what ships? (i.e. warping to a pos and assessing defense forces)
- When docked will I be able to see space or will I have some sort of station intertior? (HINT: We want to be able to see our surrounding, even if optionally)
- X-L structures in WH?
- How will refitting work for structures? If I'm under attack or about to be attacked can I swap my guns or something? Will there be a delay before new setup will take effect?
- pls add some loot drop. Wormholeres dont attack poses for "production materials" and cant stay in system for weeks waititng for defenders to scoop loot
- WHEN????!!!!
I will answer the questions that don't overlap with my previous reply.
- So far, our plan is to have them anywhere yes, as long as proximity restrictions are respected.
- Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn.
- Fuel is so far only going to be needed to activate the service modules, those structure shouldn't use fuel on their own, please refer to our previous blog for more details.
- Not sure about being able to know docked people, may be part of scanning mechanics, but open to discussion.
- When docked you will see surrounding space.
- Yes, ideally we want all structure sizes and types everywhere. There may be gampeplay restrictions on them and / or their respective modules if needed however.
- Refitting will most likely drain capacitor (like on ships) so while you could do it in combat, this would not be advisable.
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1173
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:52:40 -
[24] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Papa Django wrote:Is there a limitation to the distance between 2 structures and the distance between a sov structure and theses new structures ? There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp / stations, to avoid having space where structure defenses overlap or have them hidden inside landmarks or other anomaly sites. I have to say I was hoping that the concept of linking structures had not been dropped, that creating structure "cities" or "encampments" in space would be possible. Basically, yes, restrictions on anchoring too close to other structures UNLESS you link them together. Each individual component would have so many hard points (depending on size) which could be used either for weapons OR as the necessary connection points. So if you want to build a complex structure in a given area then you would need to sacrifice weapons hard points on each section to use as attachment points to the rest of the structure. This would also allow for free form structures to evolve according to need and player taste. ... but this is good too.
We are thinking at least 250km away from everything else in the game (warp in points, belts, gates, other structures etc), but otherwise you can anchor anywhere.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3902
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:54:56 -
[25] - Quote
Centurax wrote:Nice work really excited about the new structures and the weapons :)
Will the structure be conquerable or is it kill only, was not too clear on that?
Also what kind of personalization will these structures have, so can you put Corp/Alliance logo holograms on them in the first version or that planned later also will there be skins similar to the ships planned for them?
Ideally we want the structures to have the same SKIN system than ships. |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1179
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:56:04 -
[26] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:was about to say that I'll miss sitting outside my pos in wh space but it seems like when docked, we'll still see outside. cool
Yeah it's going to be a new docked state, like a cross between docking in a station and sitting inside a POS shield.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1180
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:06:51 -
[27] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Papa Django wrote:Is there a limitation to the distance between 2 structures and the distance between a sov structure and theses new structures ? There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp / stations, to avoid having space where structure defenses overlap or have them hidden inside landmarks or other anomaly sites. I have to say I was hoping that the concept of linking structures had not been dropped, that creating structure "cities" or "encampments" in space would be possible. Basically, yes, restrictions on anchoring too close to other structures UNLESS you link them together. Each individual component would have so many hard points (depending on size) which could be used either for weapons OR as the necessary connection points. So if you want to build a complex structure in a given area then you would need to sacrifice weapons hard points on each section to use as attachment points to the rest of the structure. This would also allow for free form structures to evolve according to need and player taste. ... but this is good too. We are thinking at least 250km away from everything else in the game (warp in points, belts, gates, other structures etc), but otherwise you can anchor anywhere. This again is very disconcerting for wormhole space both from a defensive and offensive standpoint. Offensively in that unless you make them appear on the overview, the act of covertly scouting a system for structures and occupation will be impossible. You cannot implement free anchoring without 100% having all structures warpable on the overview. Defensively, allowing invaders to anchor structures at any point in space is, I feel, to strong of an advantage to an invading force, especially give the reliance on timezone windows for disposing of structures. You essentially give anyone wanting to set up shop in your space a free license to do so for multiple days AND they can set their structures to be vulnerable only in your off timezone to prevent an adequate defense. The act of typing structures to celestials is a key component in wormhole selection as well as the practice of moon-locking as a defensive measure. Removing this defensive posture is again hurting wormhole space in ways that will likely be very detrimental.
We are leaning towards just showing everything on the system overlay / onboard scanner with the ability to warp to them, or at the very least showing you how many structures of each size exist in system. They will show on the overview if you have access to them.
We aware of the concern of invaders setting up a beach head, and are discussing with the CSM various options for changing anchoring behavior in wormholes to help with this.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1182
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:28:33 -
[28] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn. This is a bit of a slippery slope eh? I know you want individuals to feel that they can use the medium structures, but relying on NPC pirates to provide defense is... questionable on a number of levels. No offense intended.
You would not rely in NPC defense at all, it would be a mild deterrent against a lone ship at best, the point is to show up for your timers and defend.
As I mentioned the balance will be how frequently this happens so that it's not a chore, but still provides opportunities for an interesting engagement.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1182
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:34:23 -
[29] - Quote
Chirality Tisteloin wrote:Good evening, for clarification: docking in Citadels means the same as using the invulnerability link, right? very interesting concepts! Thanx for sharing the blog.
No docking puts you inside and safe, but you still see the grid outside the station.
The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions) provides security while you are undocked and mobile around the structure.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
574
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:35:03 -
[30] - Quote
I was going to post this myself!
Heres the important part:
Quote:We are absolutely happy with how players have taken the wormhole feature and run with it over the last five years and we look forward to many more years of watching the adventures of the wormhole community with joy and awe. Anyone telling you otherwise is woefully mistaken. Personally I love wormhole space, and try to make sure all those crazy bob worshippers are always considered :)
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1186
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:51:24 -
[31] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:Overall, this looks awesome. A lot of my initial worries have been allayed for the time being.
1) However, will destroying these new M-XL class structures generate killmails?
2) When it comes to finding them in space, I agree with other posters that they should not necessarily need probes to scan down. However, maybe make this dependent on a fitted module or rig, where by default you can find the structure via dscan and directly warping to it, but players can customize them to require probes to find--for a cost. Say, a "dscan inhibitor rig" which has relevant drawbacks (e.g., maybe weakens the defenses or reduces the benefits the citadel gives) but then adds the requirement of combat probes to find the structure?
3) When it comes to giving player citadels benefits for trading above NPC stations, I would suggest (as a trader myself) raising the default NPC tax rate on stations. I think something this harsh is needed because it would be the only thing that would--personally--get a player like myself to trade in a player-run market, or start my own. However, how will it work in the market itself? Will public citadels in the region with sell orders--say, seeing nanite paste--appear on the market search, where I can then set destination to this public citadel?
4) Would it be possible to anchor two citadels close enough to one another so that they can fight each other? Citadel versus Citadel pvp??! That would be pretty fun and would open up a lot of gameplay options, especially in WH evictions.
5) Any thoughts yet about how the market will be seeded with the relevant structures and modules? Regular blueprint sales in NPC stations, for instance, or will there also be any BPCs that drop, say, for a Serpentis L Citadel which, like faction towers currently, give certain bonuses above the regular towers etc.?
1. Yes
2. I think we will show them on the onboard scanner to warp to.
3. Market will come a bit later and we'll have a detailed blog about how that will work but yes we reduced market tax will be a good incentive to use a player built market over the NPC ones.
4. No, because of so many reasons
5. That's a bit early to say, we have a lot of options for new industry here building the structures and all the modules.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1195
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:55:52 -
[32] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn. This is a bit of a slippery slope eh? I know you want individuals to feel that they can use the medium structures, but relying on NPC pirates to provide defense is... questionable on a number of levels. No offense intended. You would not rely in NPC defense at all, it would be a mild deterrent against a lone ship at best, the point is to show up for your timers and defend. As I mentioned the balance will be how frequently this happens so that it's not a chore, but still provides opportunities for an interesting engagement. I realize that is the ultimate goal, encouraging engagement.... and that at best a Citadel is supposed to only act as a force multiplier. When you are a solo player though, there isn't much force there to multiply. It gets a lot easier to defend a structure when you have a number of people in a corp or alliance able to do so... but for the primary user of the medium structure (that being the solo player) there is actually less reason for them to use this than in the current terrible POS system. I'm not trying to be overly critical, just trying to point out something that may have not been a focus during design. Why would a solo player that has a small POS now wish to give up the current system in favor of this system? If he cannot be available during the vulnerability timer one night this new structure is virtually defenseless compared to what he has now. I"m personally not affected by it, but once this truth settles in there will be a lot of "you hate solo players or even small groups" fallout that will be directed towards you... and accusation you are catering to large groups that will have the manpower to defend these STRUCTURES THAT CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES. I'm trying to offer extremely constructive criticism here, and warn you of potential (no, actually inevitable) fallout... so if I sounded like a jerk, please forgive. Was not the intention in the slightest.
Like I said, it depends a lot on the timers and I'm assuming if you're solo you are in high sec, so in part wardec mechanics too. Fortunately the asset safety means although you lose your structure, you won't lose everything inside it.
If you cannot defend your structure though, you won't be able to keep it, but we want to give you every reasonable chance to defend it including the more casual players.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1195
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:56:31 -
[33] - Quote
Chirality Tisteloin wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:
No docking puts you inside and safe, but you still see the grid outside the station.
The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions) provides security while you are undocked and mobile around the structure.
If these are two different forms of protection, does that mean that the INductive Victimization Upshot Liquidator (aka invulnerability link) will work on captial ships even for citadels where they are not allowed to dock up?
Yes.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1195
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:00:39 -
[34] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: 2. I think we will show them on the onboard scanner to warp to.
I haven't read the blog in its entirely yet, but how are these structures going to be deployed anywhere, if the only available points are the warpable solar system objects like the sun, moons, planets and all intersecting lines between them, i.e. someone will ALWAYS pass your structure in warp as it lies on the warp path between two objects, unless you deploy something like 2000 km off a planet's warp in point. In other words, you can't have positioning above the solar system's plane, unless you have old Deep safe spot bookmarks from many moons ago.
You can get to all sorts of interesting positions with careful bookmark-warp-bookmarking.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1207
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:11:05 -
[35] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: Like I said, it depends a lot on the timers and I'm assuming if you're solo you are in high sec, so in part wardec mechanics too. Fortunately the asset safety means although you lose your structure, you won't lose everything inside it.
If you cannot defend your structure though, you won't be able to keep it, but we want to give you every reasonable chance to defend it including the more casual players.
Whoa there!! Assuming solo players are in highsec is a SERIOUS faux-pas. Solo players and/or small corps abound in lowsec and nullsec, and we have POSs quite often. What ranger brings up is a vlaid point - there isn't always someone online every day to watch the entosis window. Currently it works for small groups because attacking a POS with intent to harm is a serious investment in either time or manpower. Devoting 20 minutes to circling a structure with an entosis link is a lot lower barrier than trying to defang even a small POS.
Vulnerability windows for structures will not necessarily be everyday, and the time to capture will vary depending on the structure and where it is anchored. We are very aware of the concerns of small groups having fewer people online to defend.
We will have more details about the capture timings and vulnerability windows etc in a later dev blog.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1218
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:45:23 -
[36] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn. This is a bit of a slippery slope eh? I know you want individuals to feel that they can use the medium structures, but relying on NPC pirates to provide defense is... questionable on a number of levels. No offense intended. You would not rely in NPC defense at all, it would be a mild deterrent against a lone ship at best, the point is to show up for your timers and defend. As I mentioned the balance will be how frequently this happens so that it's not a chore, but still provides opportunities for an interesting engagement. So, you now require anyone who wishes to be involved with structures to so arrange their lives such that they can be playing EVE every single day; 365 days per year?
Vulnerability will not necessarily be everyday, we are exploring options here so you are not forced to login a lot more frequently than you normally would.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1218
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:48:14 -
[37] - Quote
Redbull Spai wrote:Is there any benefit whatsoever from forcing to players to base their ships in one point, transport their mined ore to another to refine, then transport it to a third to build? Just looks like a way to punish industrialists that don't have a jump freighter.
We are going to allow you to fit manufacturing lines to citadels and refining to manufacturing structures etc. The base hull however will have bonuses to certain modules, so for industrialist who want to min / max a big operation then yes this is what they will be best to do.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1218
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:58:10 -
[38] - Quote
thebringer wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Lyron-Baktos wrote:When do we get some news on these new structures and how or if they will interact in wormhole space? We want most of those structures to be available in W-space, but with some special restrictions if need be. Bringing full docking into wh space will change the place entirely, one of the reasons to live there is to avoid dumb docking games and how intel gathering is important (finding poses, seeing what in them players/ships/structures). I would rather we stay with the current pos system (at least for wormholes) than this stupid capture the flag rubbish and no loot drops from structures. But you will do it anyway because who cares about wormholers... Just please dont break it too badly.
We're considering letting you scan who is docked inside these structures.
Also yes docking games suck, so do force field games. We're accepting input on how we can setup the docking / invuln link to improve this, for all of space not just WH.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3940
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 10:01:31 -
[39] - Quote
Dr Cedric wrote:Any word on how the transition will happen. If an alliance/corp already owns an outpost will it be auto-converted to the new citadel structure or will they need to build a new one? If the former, and the outpost has upgrades, will those modules be auto-fitted and prefueled? If the latter, what is the deploy time frame and where will assets already in the outpost go?
As mentioned in the previous blog and Fanfest presentation, we will most likely not replace outposts with those new structures. We will most likely reimburse outpost improvements and upgrades though. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3940
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 10:07:54 -
[40] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:How will the anchoring restrictions work with FW? Will we be able to anchor M or L structures in lowsec systems occupied by the opposing militia?
Clever girl, hadn't thought of that. Either we allow everyone to anchor structures or just the militia owning space. Whatever makes the most sense. We also have to consider what would happen if we allowed players in the FW militias to anchor structures - since there is no central authority to control who can do what it may result in a terrible mess. Thus we may only allow structure deployment for enlisted player corporations, not for FW corporation militias (like the Federal Defense Union, Tribal Liberation Force etc...).
Again, a bit early for details but that's a good point you're making. |
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3941
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 10:47:04 -
[41] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:Overall, this looks awesome. A lot of my initial worries have been allayed for the time being.
1) However, will destroying these new M-XL class structures generate killmails?
2) When it comes to finding them in space, I agree with other posters that they should not necessarily need probes to scan down. However, maybe make this dependent on a fitted module or rig, where by default you can find the structure via dscan and directly warping to it, but players can customize them to require probes to find--for a cost. Say, a "dscan inhibitor rig" which has relevant drawbacks (e.g., maybe weakens the defenses or reduces the benefits the citadel gives) but then adds the requirement of combat probes to find the structure?
3) When it comes to giving player citadels benefits for trading above NPC stations, I would suggest (as a trader myself) raising the default NPC tax rate on stations. I think something this harsh is needed because it would be the only thing that would--personally--get a player like myself to trade in a player-run market, or start my own. However, how will it work in the market itself? Will public citadels in the region with sell orders--say, seeing nanite paste--appear on the market search, where I can then set destination to this public citadel?
4) Would it be possible to anchor two citadels close enough to one another so that they can fight each other? Citadel versus Citadel pvp??! That would be pretty fun and would open up a lot of gameplay options, especially in WH evictions.
5) Any thoughts yet about how the market will be seeded with the relevant structures and modules? Regular blueprint sales in NPC stations, for instance, or will there also be any BPCs that drop, say, for a Serpentis L Citadel which, like faction towers currently, give certain bonuses above the regular towers etc.?
- Why shouldn't they generate killmails? We know how much you guys like your killmail states.
- Been answered before.
- You've heard it first here guys! If we end up raising taxing on NPC stations, you will have Sven Viko VIkolander to thank for it More seriously, player structures should be treated exactly like NPC stations if they're set as public, or if you have personal access to them.
- Short answer: no. Long answer: noooooooooooooooooo. Because those don't use HP mechanics to be taken down, thanks to the Entosis module, what would you achieve by having them shoot each other? They will not be affected by raw damage.
- We will most likely seed blueprints for Tech I versions from the NPC market. Faction variants will drop as loot and LP stores. Tech II variants can be invented. Those act as ships remember, thus they should be acquired in a similar way.
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3941
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 10:58:34 -
[42] - Quote
per wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: Unlike existing Starbases, you won't need multiple guys to operate the weapons. Those structures will be like ships, so you will only need one guy to control them all. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be reworked into something else or refunded when Starbases are removed.
any chances we will use current bpos/pos modules (or some of them) on those new structures or will there be completely new ones and those old ones will be removed once poses are done? just an idea: would be nice to be able upgrade from medium citadel to large one and from large one to xl - if the requirements and restrictions are met ofc, so some modularity between different sizes maybe?
Nah, new structures will uses a completely new set of blueprints. We'll get rid of the old starbase structure modules (and reimburse them somehow) otherwise it's going to be a mess.
We thought about upgrading smaller sizes into bigger ones, but it adds extra complexity and doesn't really makes sense. Should you be able to upgrade a frigate into a battleship if you put enough money into it? Both are built for different needs and purposes. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3941
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:00:13 -
[43] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:would be nice to give us a timeframe these roll out you know,
I mean folks gotta prepare for the transition into fozzisov.. and now these new structures.. you're putting a stress-test on the little guy that may have dreams of building these things..
so when is this rolling? are you just intentionally putting it out there when in fact it may be actually 6 months from now before it hits live??
or is this coming "this summer" during one of the weird expansion names..
eve online : structure-kana or something??
when?
when??
when????????
SoonGäó |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3941
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:03:09 -
[44] - Quote
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. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3943
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:08:58 -
[45] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:Sorry if this has been asked, been running round at work so can;t keep up with thread.
Are these going to be able to do reactions? or are they essentially just the pos equivalent storage hub?
Ultimately, it will depend on which kind of Service Module you fit on those structures. Want to do reactions? Fit the reactor module. May not be the best use of a Citadel though, since structures will have bonuses to specific fields, like ships, and Citadels will be bonuses towards defense, office and markets. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3944
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:35:13 -
[46] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:Are the structures limited to 8 (HML) slots?
Our current plan is to have a maximum limit of 8 high, 8 medium, 8 low, 8 service and 3 rig slot yes. That doesn't mean all of them will available at once (just like on ships) though. |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1261
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:14:18 -
[47] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:What if M sizes dont let capitals dock but you can access your personal ship Hangar(for transferring subcaps into the station) from space and allow to refit caps or all ships from space. That way caps can't be docked but still used. Also I love the ideas you presented in the devblog
L should let normal caps dock and XL the supers.
Yes our current thinking is that you can access personal storage from the structure by being within docking range, same as POS.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1263
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:29:49 -
[48] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:H3llHound wrote:What if M sizes dont let capitals dock but you can access your personal ship Hangar(for transferring subcaps into the station) from space and allow to refit caps or all ships from space. That way caps can't be docked but still used. Also I love the ideas you presented in the devblog
L should let normal caps dock and XL the supers. Yes our current thinking is that you can access personal storage from the structure by being within docking range, same as POS. I'm not sure if this was answered before, but will these Citadels have, at a minimum, storage like current NPC stations for storage of personal items, ships, etc. without the cruft of POS permissions that exist today? Or will we get some kind of modified POS/SMA/CHA/PHA type setup?
Yes all these structures will get personal hangars.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1264
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:30:34 -
[49] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Should we expect outpost upgrade reimbursements to be doled out before these hit. If not, would it be close so that outpost funds could be then spent on the new structures?
Really good question, and we would love feedback on exactly how would be best to do this.
Maybe uninstalling upgrades and reprocessing them?
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1266
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:21:54 -
[50] - Quote
Lord LazyGhost wrote:So if iam reading this right all my items i have in it if its destoryed are safe?
Then what is the point in attacking one risking ships for no loot other then a KM ?
sorry i just cant see the advantage atm.
Also not having guns automatic erm wtf..... for the guys that can only play for a few hours a day .
Log on o my pos is vunerable today for 2 hrs i need to go sit in my tower for the only 2 hrs i get to play incase some little troll in a ceptor desides today hes picking on my POS sounds like thrilling game play. even if its ever 3-4 days or so its still one days worth og game time doing nothing.
I for one will make my own little alt army of troll ceptor pilots for this thing. find small corps with muli Poses and hit them all at the same time with alts their small corp cant be everywhere at one time so yer.... sounds fun for them.
Hope you guys are going to create a new modual XXXXXL tear collector array becasue you are going to need it.
You won't be required to defend these everyday like sov, and the structure will drop fittings, fuel maybe in progress industry jobs etc.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1329
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 20:04:33 -
[51] - Quote
per wrote:hmm, long time no asnwer from dev around
btw how about letting the citadel defend intself like poses do atm (ability to repel trolls with enthosis) but if they will be manned their dmg will be much better (skills + focused fire)
Still reading, most of the questions have been answered by blue tags in the thread already (a lot of duplicate questions).
Some questions don't have answers from us yet, but we're noting everything down and discussing it all with the team. So thanks everyone for your feedback so far.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1339
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 09:55:46 -
[52] - Quote
Yes keep in mind we are not removing POS or Outposts or anything just yet. If you want to see details about how we will transition from the older structures over time you should watch CCP Ytterbiums presentation from Fanfest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo#t=38m47s
@ 38 minutes, 47 seconds
We are still a long way from removing POS from the game, and we will make sure any transition plan is announced in detail before it all happens.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1356
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 18:46:54 -
[53] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:So, still curious for a response; what sort of 'racial'/faction flavouring will there be?...
...hoping it doesn't involve "Good idea! Lets shaft Gallente again!"
Each class of structure (ie Citadel, Drilling Platform, Observatory) will belong to an NPC corporation which technically belong to a faction, but you wont see the usual Amarr, Minmatar, Caldari, Gallente stylings. We are creating a new style for each which more accurately reflects their purpose.
With that said, we are leaving the option open to have variations within each class + size, but only where we think we can give them meaningful bonuses.
Edit: I listed Gallente last :tinfoil:
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
|
|