|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 53 post(s) |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2084
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:31:11 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. This doesn't sound completely thought through yet. It has the potential to greatly unbalance the current highsec risk meta - if you don't have the prospect of good drops then these things won't get attacked. It might be your aim to shift the highsec risk meta but it should be deliberate and thought through, not accidental.
Do you want to make whatever replaces current POS safer? Because if the drops aren't good that is what you will do. An offline POS right now is a juicy target. If only in progress jobs dropped then I certainly wouldn't bother with a wardec to take one down.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2119
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 04:53:18 -
[2] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Vigilant wrote:So what of HS Citadels? How do they work.... Does a HS Citadel become all RISK and must be guarded by active players 23/7? Too many grey area right now IMHO. We need to know the mechanics in all security (High/Low/NULL/WH) not just what it does for SOV. Honestly I could give two f'lying f's who it effects CFC or Imperium what ever they wish to be call this week! No details have, yet, been released about the vulnerability mechanics for non-sov structures. That's still up for discussion (and it is being discussed) I'm quite interested in this topic. It would be very easy to greatly unbalance highsec risk by removing the incentive to attack highsec structures (ie loot pinatas without fuel or defences). It would be sad to see this happen.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2119
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 06:14:30 -
[3] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Or better yet, remove CONCORD protection from them completely like the other small deployables so that wardecs are not necessary. Attackers would just go suspect. That would drive more player conflict and get us closer to CCP Seagull's vision where everything is destroyable. That could be a decent compromise - lower value drops but easier to attack. I really like the idea of moving away from wardecs as a key to highsec aggression. Wardecs are just trouble. Setting people suspect for attacking is a solid model which has worked for other structures.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2129
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 20:46:50 -
[4] - Quote
Cyborg Girl86 wrote:TL;DR - Will the new citadels/structures/whateverthef***they'llbecalled be easy to tear down as a last-resort security measure to protect one's structures in the face of ridiculous odds against an unbeatable threat after a tiny 1-3 man corp has been wardecced? Of course you should be able to. But no details.
One thing I'm finding unclear about these threads is the broader design goals in empire. Are the devs seeking to just replace structures but leave the status quo regarding risk/reward alone? This would be a safer design strategy in my opinion.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
|
|