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) |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
241
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:34:43 -
[121] - Quote
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.
In wormhole space, where an entire corporation's assets are potentially wrapped up in that single structure. I guarantee you that this will happen all the time. And while you can say that corporation should show up to defend, lowering the bar to attack to a single ship means that the deterrent that today's POSes present to casual attack will be so low in the new system that there will be no barrier for someone entering a system to attack. Combine this with how easy it is to become locked out of your system means that a corporation without extensive numbers would be insane to leave their structures during their vulnerability window for fear of being podded from their wormhole during other activities. I don't believe this is an acceptable level of balance for w-space structures.
|
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
574
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:35:03 -
[122] - 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
|
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6208
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:35:40 -
[123] - 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 think 205km is perfectly reasonable, just disappointed at not being able to form complexes and cities out of structures as was mentioned as a possibility a while back.
I know, idea's are great until the meet the cold, hard reality of the drawing board.
So yes, you certainly have my support and most everyone else's as well. We appreciate very much all of your hard work on the design, mechanics, and graphics involved.
Just please keep in the back of your mind that ultimately, we don't really want various sized structures that sit isolated... with strictly limited capabilities that make for easy balance.
I mean this is certainly great for now, but eventually we want to take the extremely logical step of connecting our structures in space, forming sometimes vast structures, creating designs that make defense easier (see your link in the blog to the star citadels) just by how they are laid out, or facilitate a huge industrial or trade base in one wing, and research in another.
We want to build according to our own designs, with you designing the shape/size/capabilities of the building blocks available to us.
I would suggest that what you are proposing is unacceptable in any way, it's great actually. Just please keep in the back of your mind when designing these mechanics and in game assets that eventually we'll want to connect the dots... and perhaps even walk around inside them as well.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
Makoto Priano
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
6989
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:37:01 -
[124] - Quote
As an aside, I absolutely love the old Homeworld 2 station concept art, and would never complain in the slightest if design elements were used wholesale as inspiration. >.>
Things like this, or this, or this.
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?
|
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
100
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:37:18 -
[125] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
Wait what! You can still see the grid while docked!? Did I miss that part? That's awesome! |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
447
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:38:04 -
[126] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions)
Shield Projector Citadel Parasite Protection System (CCPs)
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
14372
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:39:09 -
[127] - Quote
Suddenly the landscapes...
GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà
Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'
Twitter @Chribba
|
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
6066
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:40:33 -
[128] - Quote
I'm not sure I buy that wormholes should be a special case and more secure if you have someone taking up all the parking spaces. It's a bit of a quirky side effect of POSs only being anchorable at moons - which happens to be going away for everyone, not just wormholers.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
568
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:41:18 -
[129] - Quote
Dafuq.
I didn't read the blog, but I approve.
DEATH TO ALL CAPITALS
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:41:29 -
[130] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. Universal Stationing Quantum Tunneling Photon Emulator Link
USQ-TPEL
|
|
Elizabeth Norn
Nornir Research
574
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:44:39 -
[131] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
Therapeia link :p.
.
|
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
100
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:45:11 -
[132] - Quote
Obil Que 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. In wormhole space, where an entire corporation's assets are potentially wrapped up in that single structure. I guarantee you that this will happen all the time. And while you can say that corporation should show up to defend, lowering the bar to attack to a single ship means that the deterrent that today's POSes present to casual attack will be so low in the new system that there will be no barrier for someone entering a system to attack. Combine this with how easy it is to become locked out of your system means that a corporation without extensive numbers would be insane to leave their structures during their vulnerability window for fear of being podded from their wormhole during other activities. I don't believe this is an acceptable level of balance for w-space structures.
With several vulnerability timers to go through, I don't really see this as a problem.
I'm honestly on the side of the fence that believes wormhole space is pretty good right now, but could always be made a bit harder to survive there. Often times locking down a hole and tearing through those juicy escalations is just too safe. I'd like living and surviving there with the people you trust should be a badge of honour. Heck even docking seems too safe to me. I do think a lone roaming ship shouldn't rip a whole structure to shreds in one sitting, but to harass it is fine. |
Fzhal
Anoikis Vergence The Last Chancers.
18
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:45:59 -
[133] - Quote
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. So would this go down during the Vulnerability Time? Or would attackers take this down during the Vulnerability Time?
Please keep single-player corps in mind when designing capture mechanics for the Medium and maybe Large structures. Please don't expect us to be on every day during our vulnerability time...
Will basic compressing and Refining modules be available to fit on Citadel structures (even medium ones)?
<3 When docked you will see surrounding space. <3
|
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
100
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:47:16 -
[134] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:I'm not sure I buy that wormholes should be a special case and more secure if you have someone taking up all the parking spaces. It's a bit of a quirky side effect of POSs only being anchorable at moons - which happens to be going away for everyone, not just wormholers.
Agreed!
Although chucking up a new station in an occupied system should provide some of it's own difficulties. |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
349
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:48:00 -
[135] - Quote
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.? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6208
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:48:53 -
[136] - Quote
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.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
241
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:49:04 -
[137] - Quote
The Hamilton wrote:Obil Que 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. In wormhole space, where an entire corporation's assets are potentially wrapped up in that single structure. I guarantee you that this will happen all the time. And while you can say that corporation should show up to defend, lowering the bar to attack to a single ship means that the deterrent that today's POSes present to casual attack will be so low in the new system that there will be no barrier for someone entering a system to attack. Combine this with how easy it is to become locked out of your system means that a corporation without extensive numbers would be insane to leave their structures during their vulnerability window for fear of being podded from their wormhole during other activities. I don't believe this is an acceptable level of balance for w-space structures. With several vulnerability timers to go through, I don't really see this as a problem. I'm honestly on the side of the fence that believes wormhole space is pretty good right now, but could always be made a bit harder to survive there. Often times locking down a hole and tearing through those juicy escalations is just too safe. I'd like living and surviving there with the people you trust should be a badge of honour. Heck even docking seems too safe to me. I do think a lone roaming ship shouldn't rip a whole structure to shreds in one sitting, but to harass it is fine.
At first glance, I would think so also but this is not a mobile depot reinforcement timer here where it might be funny to reinforce it and then 2 days later see if someone else came along and finished the job.
I guarantee you that if you enter a wormhole where someone had reinforced it the day before and all you need is a single ship to reinforce it for the second round, you'll go for it. It is that excessively low bar to attack that is going to be very difficult for wormhole occupants as every passerby decides to take pot shots at your structures that refuse to defend themselves without dedicating a pilot to each structure everyday during the window.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
568
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:51:09 -
[138] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Take moni - all the moni. Gÿ£a++a¦ê+ä-£a¦êGÿ£a++
Propaganda centres better have more functionality and scope than the current billboards.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1186
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:51:24 -
[139] - 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
|
|
Chirality Tisteloin
Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion
61
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:54:30 -
[140] - Quote
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?
See you at my blog: http://spindensity.wordpress.com/
|
|
Scott Ormands
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:55:45 -
[141] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions) Citadel Parasite Protective Link System (CCPLs)
FTFY
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1195
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:55:52 -
[142] - 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 -
[143] - 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
|
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
568
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:58:06 -
[144] - Quote
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.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Papa Django
Lords of Fail
107
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:58:19 -
[145] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: I think 205km is perfectly reasonable, just disappointed at not being able to form complexes and cities out of structures as was mentioned as a possibility a while back.
I think 250km is not enough.
People will make grids of structures to protect (ok it depends on weapons optimal and falloff) them.
I don't want to see anarchic structures deployment like in Starwars Galaxies for thoses who have known this great MMO.
@CCP Devs
Is there a number of structures per solar system limitation like a slot fiting system planned ?
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1195
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:00:39 -
[146] - 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
|
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2848
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:03:14 -
[147] - Quote
First I would like to say , Hurray!
I like the name ch+óteau better than citadel also.
On the subject of drones as a weapon, I don't see why a medium structure should not be able to use fighters.
Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
568
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:03:19 -
[148] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
I agree that old bookmarks, temporary exploration site locations, Sansha incursion points - can all serve as viable locations.
But I'd prefer something like being able to warp to your Core Scanner Probes, though you'd probably have to limit how far beyond the solar system's plane you can reposition these.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
6067
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:05:21 -
[149] - Quote
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.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
per
Terpene Conglomerate
52
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:10:01 -
[150] - Quote
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?
|
|
|
|
|
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 |