EVE Search - Sticky:Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 53 post(s)

CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3889	Posted - 2015.05.12 15:13:31 - [1] - 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 Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3891	Posted - 2015.05.12 15:21:49 - [2] - 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 Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3891	Posted - 2015.05.12 15:29:12 - [3] - 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 - [4] - 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 - [5] - 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 - [6] - 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 Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3899	Posted - 2015.05.12 16:05:52 - [7] - 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 - [8] - 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 Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3902	Posted - 2015.05.12 16:45:08 - [9] - 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 Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3902	Posted - 2015.05.12 16:51:41 - [10] - 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 Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3902	Posted - 2015.05.12 16:54:56 - [11] - 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 Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 3940	Posted - 2015.05.13 10:01:31 - [12] - 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 - [13] - 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 - [14] - 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 - [15] - 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 - [16] - 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 - [17] - 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 - [18] - 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 - [19] - 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.