Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 53 post(s) |
Lyron-Baktos
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
473
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:53:47 -
[91] - Quote
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 |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3902
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:54:56 -
[92] - 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 -
[93] - 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
|
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
237
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:56:43 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
For the reasons I listed above, pure timezone mechanics only are insufficient for wormhole space where access to your space can be controlled by third parties quite easily. Why introduce a lore-breaking "pirate NPC" mechanic that is likely to be gamed and just let the defenses be automated to the level that they can defend against harassing attackers but not repel a significantly organized force?
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
19
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:57:08 -
[95] - Quote
ok i have a legit question here. will it be possible to switch out these service modules from an anchored structure for something else? and can we turn of service modules that are not in use to save fuel? |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
550
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:57:24 -
[96] - Quote
Aryth wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. Reuse the impounding code that already exists. All your stuff back but some nasty tax. Like 25% of Est value.
I like that. Call it the Interbus Evacuation Fee.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
550
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:59:48 -
[97] - Quote
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.
I cannot give you enough tumbs for this, so I'll let Chuck speak for me: Chuck says Yes.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
100
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:00:32 -
[98] - Quote
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?
Cedric
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
237
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:02:11 -
[99] - Quote
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.
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate Together We Solo
242
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:03:33 -
[100] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.
Then I honestly don't see how these could be owned by an individual (or really small groups) as stated in the Dev bog. Unless the NPC reinforcement idea can bring at least the same level of defense the POS guns do now. |
|
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
100
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:03:36 -
[101] - Quote
Very happy to see a name change from Market Hub here. It never really made much sense due to it's multi purpose nature. I am very much looking forward to the changes and the shake up to the meta these will bring.
Concerning the art direction, will the fitting modules that are placed change the look of the Citadel like the first modular station concepts brought up?
If not, is there room to leave this as an available addition in later releases? I think if these things are going to be a big home base, then having a unique look to each could really resonate with it's residents. |
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1272
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:05:29 -
[102] - Quote
Scott Ormands wrote:But how would that work in WH space. If I can recruit Sleepless guardians to defend me I'm going to call it now and predict people farming off of an alt's defended tower.
inb4 Drifters defending alliance reaction farms.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1180
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:06:51 -
[103] - 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
|
|
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate
397
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:12:51 -
[104] - Quote
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?
QCATS is recruiting:-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3896299
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:14:52 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: 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.
I hope I'm clear that free-anchored structures require 100% overview, not overview if you have access. If a player cannot jump into a system and find the POS through dscan alone, then you are destroying a huge portion of wormhole space activity (covert operations). Anything other than warpable overview beacons for free anchored structures will require a scout to launch probes to survey the system and that will immediately alert anyone in the system to their presence.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1157
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:14:58 -
[106] - Quote
not a fan of forcefields.. surely having docking functions removes the need for these, 250km spread of structures you can fly through would be much cooler instead of a forced arbitrary forcefield which also has the annoying side effect of forcing you too use longer range weapons too shoot stuff, (renders frigs useless often)
Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
muhadin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
192
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:15:15 -
[107] - Quote
Obil Que wrote: 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, too 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 tying 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.
Who cares, w-space needs a metric fuckton of balancing, if anything some change would be great.
"Love the Life you Live, Live the Life you Love"
|
Makoto Priano
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
6989
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:16:03 -
[108] - Quote
Manssell; 'small' will exist for other purposes.
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:18:40 -
[109] - Quote
muhadin wrote:Obil Que wrote: 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, too 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 tying 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.
Who cares, w-space needs a metric fuckton of balancing, if anything some change would be great.
w-space isn't a null-sec style occupation of dozens of connected systems. It is an entire corporation putting all their assets on the line in a single space and often structure. To make it trivial to destroy said structure or to occupy or otherwise invade that space isn't balance. It would, however, ensure that w-space occupation goes the way of the dodo.
|
Valid Point
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
40
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:20:59 -
[110] - Quote
Please give us the ability to fit capital tractor beams used on the rorqual to our citadels :D |
|
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
100
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:21:59 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
You could allow yourselves time with this though. Seeing as you did just implement a new POS forcefield, just use it as a place holder while further development is done to ensure optimal coolness of the new system while getting the rest of the structure(s) out the door. |
muhadin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
192
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:22:15 -
[112] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.
I agree that all these new structures should be visible on the overview everywhere for many reasons. Roaming fleets can't catch unprepared people without having to probe these things down. Newer player roam fleets shouldn't need to have probes to find content around these new structures.
Having to probe them in wspace makes others know you're there, which is never a good thing.
On another note i am very interested to see how you guys decide to balance asset relocation in w-space. On one hand, evictions are pretty tedious to execute on a large scale. On the other hand you kill and take tons of assets, and force people to all in their fleet as a last stand. I am still partial to the latter.
"Love the Life you Live, Live the Life you Love"
|
Hicksimus
Xion Limited Resonance.
614
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:22:20 -
[113] - Quote
I would have just made the outposts launch bombs in random directions but most nullsec groups have members that already do that for them.
Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you?
Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1274
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:23:15 -
[114] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:w-space isn't a null-sec style occupation of dozens of connected systems. It is an entire corporation putting all their assets on the line in a single space and often structure. To make it trivial to destroy said structure or to occupy or otherwise invade that space isn't balance. It would, however, ensure that w-space occupation goes the way of the dodo.
w-space was never meant to be occupied. You should not be living there.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:24:47 -
[115] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Obil Que wrote:w-space isn't a null-sec style occupation of dozens of connected systems. It is an entire corporation putting all their assets on the line in a single space and often structure. To make it trivial to destroy said structure or to occupy or otherwise invade that space isn't balance. It would, however, ensure that w-space occupation goes the way of the dodo.
w-space was never meant to be occupied. You should not be living there.
I'll let you read CCPs thoughts on wormhole occupation yourself
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/into-the-known-unknowns/ |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6208
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:24:59 -
[116] - Quote
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.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
Scott Ormands
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:26:58 -
[117] - Quote
Soldarius wrote: w-space was never meant to be occupied. You should not be living there.
Because we always follow ccp's lead and do everything they want the way they want it right? after so long its now a legitimate way to live and play the game, you can't just discount it and say you shouldnt be there anyways, I dont like Null living but I dont attack that way of living. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1182
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:28:33 -
[118] - 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
|
|
Chirality Tisteloin
Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion
61
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:32:01 -
[119] - Quote
Good evening,
for clarification: docking in Citadels means the same as using the invulnerability link, right?
very interesting concepts! Thanx for sharing the blog.
See you at my blog: http://spindensity.wordpress.com/
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1182
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:34:23 -
[120] - 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |