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) |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3534
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:22:12 -
[241] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Dentia Caecus wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Aaril wrote:Are all current structures (other than the "smalls") going away? This is pertaining to both current POSs and Outposts. I do understand there is supposed to be a phase out period.
I know more details will be released about this, but now that we know a little of the function and form of the Citadels, I want to talk about protecting assets when a station is destroyed. To that end, please do the personal container "ejection" philosophy through something like the journal. At least from a roleplay standpoint that makes sense (station going down in flames, spew all the personal items randomly throughout the system with personal security attached to each container). Everyone who has assets in the Citadel should be able to warp to a container that has all of their personal belongings. they still have yet to come up with a thought process of how players would get their stuff out of space! I want you to name something that can haul.. lets say 10 fitted battleships, 20 cruisers, 100 frigates, 1000 modules, 100 billion m3 of minerals .. all in one ship... the personal container eject into space idea is broken as well, considering if the aggressor blows up the damn station and decides to camp the system with supers and titans and fleets.. how can one get their stuff back? name the ship that can haul all of that.. it surely isn't a jump freighter, and surely isn't a freighter. Agreed. As currently explained, it is a pie in the sky idea/mechanic. Moreover, once someone warps to the container, both it and the ship can be scanned, bubbled and killed. The invading entity gets a wonderful kill and each individual player's "stuff." which in turn means players will eventually get tired of this draconian HTFU type of game and leave.. I don't see this as gathering new subs but causing even more folks to leave. I don't buy the bullcrap P.R that eve is spiking in players.. just to have a mechanic like that introduced that rips you off.. too bad you had to go away cause your mother died, too bad you have to go away cause you have cancer, to bad you had to defend your country (ccp will say fawk the military bro's you snooze you loose your ****..haha).. just too damn bad you didn't have time to play 23/7 eve online protecting your own time investment. I hate this entire thought process, its making other games way more appealing then sitting here and giving these folks money.
You know what? CCP never asked why players didn't wanted to use structures. So they made a poll which only reflected the opinion of industrialists, nullseccers and the tiny percent who uses them without being forced to by industry mechanics.
I'd like to have a "home" in EVE. But not one which is ROFLstomped by NPC stations.
"This is your home in EVE... it's like a NPC station, but gives you a unique chance to lose all your assets at once for a extravagant price"
What oh WHAT could go wrong?
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
515
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:23:53 -
[242] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:just too damn bad you didn't have time to play 23/7 eve online protecting your own time investment.
I am pretty sure CCP don't expect one person to defend assets 23/7, that is why they made Eve a multi-player game. |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
509
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:24:17 -
[243] - Quote
What about capitals in WH. If You only get to store capitals in X-L (and like You mentioned You consider storing them also in Large structure) what about all those people that sits today on few capitals per character in wormholes. You are forcing them into higher structures.
Is the mooring mechanic still considered? As a replacment?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
thebringer
Raptor Navy Whatever.
21
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:28:30 -
[244] - Quote
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.
Why CCP...
|
Selto Black
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:31:47 -
[245] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:just too damn bad you didn't have time to play 23/7 eve online protecting your own time investment. I am pretty sure CCP don't expect one person to defend assets 23/7, that is why they made Eve a multi-player game.
Playing an MMO means that player interaction is unavoidable, not required. Forgive the rather faulty analogy, but its like having a kid. Interaction with the opposite sex is Unavoidable, dosent mean you cant tell them to **** off right afterwards. |
NovaCat13
Full Spectrum Inc Fidelas Constans
23
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:35:42 -
[246] - Quote
Mellianah wrote:Lore Question, mostly for giggles:
I read somewhere recently, that Titans in planetary-orbit were large enough to affect the tides of planets with seas...
Whether that's 'true' or not, these new structures utterly dwarf Titans. So...
If someone anchors one or two of these things at a highsec planet, can we look forward to stories of tsunamis wiping out entire populations? ;)
I believe tide affecting titans were the Iapetan Titans I'm not sure if the current gen Titans have that much mass. |
Tarek Raimo
Eleutherian Guard Villore Accords
24
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:35:50 -
[247] - Quote
Mellianah wrote:Lore Question, mostly for giggles:
I read somewhere recently, that Titans in planetary-orbit were large enough to affect the tides of planets with seas...
Whether that's 'true' or not, these new structures utterly dwarf Titans. So...
If someone anchors one or two of these things at a highsec planet, can we look forward to stories of tsunamis wiping out entire populations? ;)
Tidal forces are a function of relative mass and movement occurring when the gravity of one object affects another one unequally across its surface area or volume.
As long as those stations do not move around planets/moons but stay in a synchronous orbit, their effect will be very minimal.
I think CCP went a bit over the top with their description of Titans being so large that they cause tidal floods. That wiuld require a relative mass between the Titan and the affected planet similar to the relation between Earth and Moon. Our own moon has a mass billions of times higher than that of an Avatar or even an Iapetan Titan, but that still only amounts to less than 1.5% of the Earth's mass.
If you had a planet so small that a Titan could affect it with the same proportionate mass relation, the planet would be too small to hold an atmosphere, let alone liquid water. In fact, I would consider a Titan to be much more in danger from breaking apart if it passed by a planet too fast rather than it having an effect on the planet.
For an example of that happening check out what happened to comet Shoemaker Levy when it passed through the orbit of Jupiter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9
|
Memphis Baas
395
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:42:04 -
[248] - Quote
Are the structures limited to 8 (HML) slots? |
Blastil
Aideron Robotics
116
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:42:05 -
[249] - Quote
Given that these will have market functionality, how will you handle docking, and permissions? Will it be done the same way as our current docking system?
Personally I feel like the current standings-based docking system is kind of silly, since it ties a mechanic often used for determining who you do and do not want to shoot with a mechanic for who you're willing to trade with. For example, i'm fine trading with reds, as long as I can tax them more.
Could we investigate a better system of discriminating who's a welcome guest in my citadel?
If you do separate these two things, can we program certain rules of engagement into our citadels? IE only fire if fired upon, or judiciously settle all combat within X kilometers?
Could we maybe even make a citadel open only to a small list of approved individuals on a citadel by citadel basis?
I guess the reason why I ask these questions Is that I kind of want to run my own little mos-eisly of shady drug dealers and pirates and would love for this to enable that kind of game play. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
244
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:47:21 -
[250] - Quote
Selto Black wrote:IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:just too damn bad you didn't have time to play 23/7 eve online protecting your own time investment. I am pretty sure CCP don't expect one person to defend assets 23/7, that is why they made Eve a multi-player game. Playing an MMO means that player interaction is unavoidable, not required. Forgive the rather faulty analogy, but its like having a kid. Interaction with the opposite sex is Unavoidable, dosent mean you cant tell them to **** off right afterwards.
mmo means lots of players play online.. its doesn't mean lots of players are required to play with others online. single player content is always tied to an mmo for a reason
besides.. when P.L comes in and blows up your station and decides to biches slap you once again .. im going to laugh. run along young one.. run along.. |
|
Mellianah
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:48:36 -
[251] - Quote
Tarek Raimo wrote:Mellianah wrote:Lore Question, mostly for giggles:
I read somewhere recently, that ... [snip] Tidal forces are a function of relative mass and movement occurring when the gravity of one object affects another one unequally across its surface area or volume. As long as those stations do not move around planets/moons but stay in a synchronous orbit, their effect will be very minimal. I think CCP went a bit over the top with their description of Titans being so large that they cause tidal floods. That would require a relative mass between the Titan and the affected planet similar to the relation between Earth and Moon. Our own moon has a mass billions of times higher than that of an Avatar. Even an Iapetan Titan can not be that much larger. Still, the Moon only amounts to less than 1.5% of the Earth's mass. If you had a planet so small that a Titan could affect it with the same proportionate mass relation, the planet would be too small to hold an atmosphere, let alone liquid water. In fact, I would consider a Titan to be much more in danger from breaking apart if it passed by a planet too fast rather than it having an effect on the planet. For an example of that happening check out what happened to comet Shoemaker Levy when it passed through the orbit of Jupiter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9 Interesting, thank you :)
Re: The synchronous orbit... It was the 'suddenly appearing' prospect that had me wondering the most. Great points though. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5251
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:55:34 -
[252] - 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?
Good news
No need to.
A: The vulnerability window isn't necessarily going to be every day. B: you can let it slide one day, let it get reinforced, then save it phase 2. Or even 3.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Fzhal
Anoikis Vergence The Last Chancers.
21
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:57:50 -
[253] - 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. Umm. Don't POSs have bubble of invulnerability and guns now, and the new structures will too with in-space safe logout bubble. And POS hangar/array/etc can be looted after tower destroyed. Your point, and claim to being a wormholer, is refuted by THE MOST BASIC wormhole knowledge... |
Aaril
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:04:10 -
[254] - Quote
I have zero experience in sov null, other than sneaking in for explo, so this may be a terrible idea. Why not just make these (at least the dockable ones), indestructible just like Outpost today? What happens to someones ships/modules/etc today if they get ejected from a system and lose an Outpost?
Apparently these are supposed to be massive undertakings, I doubt there will ever be space clutter like we have with POS today if the requirements are that strict (I am only referring to the largest ones where people can dock). |
Chrome Veinss
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:05:19 -
[255] - Quote
what will be the point of stations after these structures are introduced. are we going to have both npc stations and citadels in npc null? why would an alliance living in npc null want to invest a lot of isk building a citadel where assets will be at risk instead of using the stations?
these changes dont make sense for npc nullsec unless they come tied with destructible npc stations |
Memphis Baas
395
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:06:52 -
[256] - Quote
Can we please have billboards outside the large structures? or ON the structures? |
Suede
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:11:36 -
[257] - Quote
CCP Logibro wrote: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.
are you going to let structures be able to warp or fly about slowly,
would be nice for a structures to be able to move in space at very slow speed, or some kind of structures which can move about in space
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
294
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:21:04 -
[258] - Quote
Will we be able to incapacitate the invulnerability link by entosis/shooting thereby leaving the tasty capitals ripe for shooting when it goes offline?
I think 250km is a good distance, if you build a base its good to see it. |
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
126
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:24:49 -
[259] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Structures will drop fitted modules through the same loot mechanic than ships, but corporate and personal stored items inside them will not be affected GÇô this will be handled through asset safety mechanic which we quickly explained in the previous Dev Blog and shall be more extensively tackled in a later blog. I thought you said that was only going to be used for the XL structures....or else there is very little incentive for those of us that like to bash HS towers to do it. We do it for the LOOTS, the extra build materials, blueprints, ect....we don't hit towers ONLY for the arrays that are anchored.
Not a happy camper right now. |
DaReaper
Net 7
2039
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:24:56 -
[260] - Quote
One more question not sure if this was asked:
I have ran a corp for years, from small to 120 man. Anyway, this Citadel, will it work like a corp hanger array or a psersonal hanger array?
Lets say me and billybob deploy in ls. After a few months billybob suddenly vanishes. I decide i am tired of running this thing and want to move it. Does billybob need to have his stuff cleared out before i unanchor? If not, then is his stuff lost if i unanchor (like a PHA) or as ceo can i empty his hanger to unanchor it? Or would i unancor, move, reanchor, and his stuff is still there? I'm thinking it will be like the PHA, but i'm curious
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
244
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:30:45 -
[261] - Quote
Suede wrote:CCP Logibro wrote: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. are you going to let structures be able to warp or fly about slowly, would be nice for a structures to be able to move in space at very slow speed, or some kind of structures which can move about in space
what do you want??? you want to go on pvp roam with a fawking STATION now! |
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
41
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:31:04 -
[262] - Quote
Will these new structures be designed in a way that allows for docking/undocking without a loading screen? |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
294
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:31:44 -
[263] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote: they still have yet to come up with a thought process of how players would get their stuff out of space!
How about you think of a way yourself? Ever heard the one about putting all your eggs in one basket? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1218
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:45:23 -
[264] - 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 -
[265] - 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
|
|
Winter Archipelago
Furtherance.
372
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:48:59 -
[266] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: 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.
and
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
and
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.
This makes me curious:
Will it be possible to set them to be available to everyone to show up on the overview? I can foresee some groups setting these up in strategic or otherwise useful systems for public use, perhaps at a cost (for example, setting up a structure in Jarkkolen, with its 50 belts and no stations, along with reprocessing and compression available and a small tax on their use).
Also,
CCP Nullarbor wrote:No docking puts you inside and safe, but you still see the grid outside the station.
This is bloody awesome. Any chance functionality like that would be made available for stations, as well? Or will those remain as "get a scout" sort of situations?
Planning a trip to Thera? Check out http://eve-scout.com/ for a list of the current connections.
Once you've made your choice, join the channels EVE-Scout or Furtherance Public and request a scout to make sure your connection is clear!
|
MukkBarovian
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
41
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:49:15 -
[267] - Quote
Can I buy one of these things, use it for the duration of a deployment, and then package it up and haul it to the next place I want to live? |
Selto Black
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:56:35 -
[268] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Selto Black wrote:IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:just too damn bad you didn't have time to play 23/7 eve online protecting your own time investment. I am pretty sure CCP don't expect one person to defend assets 23/7, that is why they made Eve a multi-player game. Playing an MMO means that player interaction is unavoidable, not required. Forgive the rather faulty analogy, but its like having a kid. Interaction with the opposite sex is Unavoidable, dosent mean you cant tell them to **** off right afterwards. mmo means lots of players play online.. its doesn't mean lots of players are required to play with others online. single player content is always tied to an mmo for a reason besides.. when P.L comes in and blows up your station and decides to biches slap you once again .. im going to laugh. run along young one.. run along..
If P.L. can drop supers in my wormhole i will give the guy with final blow all my assets in game and transfer all my toons to elise randolf. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1218
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:58:10 -
[269] - 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
|
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3406
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 00:06:08 -
[270] - Quote
Suggestion:
1) The Etosis link never destroys anything. It only allows capture. 2) All of these structures have a self destruct button. 3) The self destruct is non-operational if the structure is under the influence of a Etosis link, or reinforced, or vulnerable.
If you want to capture a structure, you can do so. If you want to destroy a structure, you capture it, then push the button. If you want to retreat from the enemy, and have a "scorched earth" policy, push the button. Just to so before the enemy shows up.
Question: How big an effort, in terms of building, cost, upkeep, and so on, do you foresee a medium Citadel being as compared to the current POSes? Like a medium? Or a large? Or what?
Will there be any place for small POS like structures in the future?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
|
|
|
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 |