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) |
|
CCP Logibro
C C P C C P Alliance
881
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 14:59:54 -
[1] - Quote
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.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro
|
|
Tetsel
Heretic Army
195
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:05:55 -
[2] - Quote
Could CCP Fozzie translate this please ?
Loyal servent to Mother Amamake.
@EVE_Tetsel
Another Bittervet Please Ignore
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
549
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:12:04 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Maximum Cats
Best Dev Name Ever.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
984
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:13:12 -
[4] - Quote
I feel like you should have gone with shooting instead of entosis to maybe give dreads a use or something like that
Otherwise looks cool |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3889
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:13:31 -
[5] - 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. |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1785
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:14:17 -
[6] - Quote
why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ?
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1160
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:14:55 -
[7] - Quote
Remember we have a lot more developer blogs to come regarding these structures, but early feedback on this will be much appreciated!
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1160
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:15:45 -
[8] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ?
Se we can balance them separately, these weapons will have very different stats to existing ship weapons.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Radgette
EVE Irn Bru Distribution
97
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:17:01 -
[9] - Quote
Mate I want my space ch+óteaux, it inspires so much more grandeur and just plain sounds awesomer ( thats totally a word :P )
Also french words just sound sexier ;) |
Lyron-Baktos
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
473
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:20:18 -
[10] - Quote
When do we get some news on these new structures and how or if they will interact in wormhole space? |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3891
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:21:49 -
[11] - 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. |
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1721
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:22:14 -
[12] - Quote
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.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1074
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:24:41 -
[13] - Quote
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. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
235
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:25:16 -
[14] - Quote
Are these weapon systems automated similar to how existing POS weapons operate? As you mention, they will be more effective when operated by a live person with fleet support but will these structures be capable of some level of unattended defense? This is especially critical to wormhole space due to the isolated nature of the structures.
|
Kalmanaka
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
32
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:25:45 -
[15] - Quote
...but will we be able to walk in them? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1162
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:27:10 -
[16] - Quote
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.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3891
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:29:12 -
[17] - 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. |
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1074
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:32:07 -
[18] - Quote
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? |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1059
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:32:24 -
[19] - Quote
Looks good - in particular seems to sooth some of the concerns over Supercapital security (especially if docking gets the go-ahead), and some of those weapon systems sound damn good (in particular the aoe missiles, point defences, and structure doomsdays).
I agree that it seems a little odd that these are being touted as the "market/office structure" given that it feels more like a military staging base, but I'll trust you know what you are doing there.
In all, and encouraging start. |
Isengrimus
Call of the Wild C0VEN
28
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:33:04 -
[20] - Quote
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? |
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1723
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:35:37 -
[21] - Quote
Any thoughts on the deployment mechanics. Are these things going to have huge initial timers to construct?
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3896
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:35:54 -
[22] - 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. |
|
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
892
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:36:46 -
[23] - Quote
(AoE) defenses....
>:D yes please...
No Worries
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1061
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:36:47 -
[24] - Quote
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?
Heh, it will need to be a very clear system given that, generally speaking, eve players are stupid.
"Don't shoot the can" "Don't shoot the can" "Don't shoot the can" "Just to be clear, absolutely no-one shoot the can" ... *sigh* "Who shot the can?"
|
Papa Django
Lords of Fail
107
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:38:13 -
[25] - Quote
Is there a limitation to the distance between 2 structures and the distance between a sov structure and theses new structures ? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3896
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:40:45 -
[26] - 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. |
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
447
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:41:03 -
[27] - Quote
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? |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
397
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:41:29 -
[28] - Quote
Quote:They are going to require a new line of skills to operate, but most likely use existing gunnery and / or missile support skills. More details as we get them. Will they also require the Starbase Defense Management skill in some form? |
Isengrimus
Call of the Wild C0VEN
29
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:42:31 -
[29] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen 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?
Heh, it will need to be a very clear system given that, generally speaking, eve players are stupid. "Don't shoot the can" "Don't shoot the can" "Don't shoot the can" "Just to be clear, absolutely no-one shoot the can" ... *sigh* "Who shot the can?"
Bah, given the AoE defences, I can perfectly imagine a situation where the Citadel kills itself with a well-aimed torpedo to a knee... I mean the nearest battleship or something. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1074
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:44:30 -
[30] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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.
Gotcha, thanks. You mention that things like cloning/offices/market is an upgrade. Are those the rig sort of upgrades you mention? Or are they going to be balanced primarily by fitting, where the more outpost-like the less defenses it gets? Or will they sort of be default stuff that any normal XL has, once you've verified they work well enough to start taking them out of outposts? |
|
Steven Hackett
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
134
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:46:39 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Remember we have a lot more developer blogs to come regarding these structures, but early feedback on this will be much appreciated! Only early feedback I am able to come with is that these structures seems like a nice idea for NS while they seem to completely and utterly ruin W-space. I hope these aren't the only kind of structures you are working on to replace POSes. (No bumping free zone, docking, personal storage - this is all stuff that will ruin at least my way of life in EVE Online.)
I do feel that all these dev blogs only focus on Null-sec gameplay. It would be nice if you would explain how these structures act in a sov free enviroment. |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
18
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:47:44 -
[32] - Quote
Is there a possibility to get an ETA for when we get this thing on to the test server so we can start testing the damn thing? |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
7587
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:49:26 -
[33] - 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.
Please let me build all the structures. I have spent 2 years developing Origin and really want to be able to build it up into an awesome space civilisation. Do not kneecap wormhole space just for the sake of making it different, I beg of you.
Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
|
Pestilen Ratte
Artimus Ratte
18
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:56:39 -
[34] - Quote
Looks like some really good work being done by this team.
Thanks! |
Elizabeth Norn
Nornir Research
573
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:57:42 -
[35] - Quote
Will freighters/jump freighters/Orcas/Rorquals be able to dock at Medium/Large structures?
.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
365
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:59:19 -
[36] - Quote
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.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3899
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:59:24 -
[37] - 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. |
|
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
396
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:59:37 -
[38] - Quote
No amount of details can ever be enough. But this all looks amazing.
Please keep W-space in your thoughts when designing these and the mechanics. When POSs retire, I still want to be able to live in a wormhole in maybe one of the mediums.
Also: Towers with drones is just... like the coolest thing. I want it now. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
447
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:01:13 -
[39] - Quote
OMG DRONES! YES MORE DRONES! Can we have Valkyrie characters pilot those fighters!?! |
Jessica Danikov
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
444
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:01:16 -
[40] - Quote
Can someone explain to me why Citadels start at 'Medium'? What happened to small Citadels? |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1165
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:01:56 -
[41] - Quote
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.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:02:35 -
[42] - Quote
Exciting changes for Eve. Would be nice to see planets become more parts of the game too once this phase is done. I know, I dream.
Question: Has cloaking possibilities ever been discussed for say small "piratey" structures? Say someone or a small corp might want to operate a pirate base in deep space or wormholes. I would imagine, uncloaking and cloaking would take a considerable amount of time, leaving the structure vulnerable to detection during the cloaking/uncloaking time. But it seems like this might open up some interesting gameplay possibities. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1165
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:02:38 -
[43] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:Can someone explain to me why Citadels start at 'Medium'? What happened to small Citadels?
The small size is for the deployables / anchorables. So these new structures start at M and upwards.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
6066
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:03:13 -
[44] - Quote
I like it so far...
Citadel - good name, and a good starting place for which type to choose. AOE - weapons, yes please! Doomsday on XL - Niiice.
Questions: 1) You mentioned these would act as force multipliers... in what way? The closest thing I saw was the inclusion of ECM, but I was mentally picturing some sort of fleet bonuses, or potentially logistical repair within X kilometers.
2) Will some of these defenses be self-activating if nobody is around to defend the POS during vulnerability?
3) Can these structures be captured or only destroyed? The mechanic description seemed a bit vague to me - it could be that I'm reading from work though and not 100% focused.
4) Does the destruction come automatically after 2-3 successful entosisizing sessions, or do you then get/have-to shoot them too?
5) Can we have space chapeaus to wear in our space ch+óteau? :)
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
447
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:03:58 -
[45] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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.
You know that means FW Alliances/Corps will basically be restricted to not fitting the AoE weapon then and/or risk getting kicked out of FW? Just like we can't use Smartbombs except with Alts to firewall/clear drones without massive risk.
Oh well, still a long ways off and still very excited! |
Isengrimus
Call of the Wild C0VEN
30
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:04:46 -
[46] - Quote
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. ;) |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3899
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:05:52 -
[47] - 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 . |
|
Demeisen Atreides
Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society Black Legion.
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:05:53 -
[48] - Quote
I don't know if I like that these new structures also use the entosis link to enter reinforcement. I feel like if a structure can shoot me and do damage to me I should be able to shoot it back. Also once these replace POSes what is the point of dreads going to be? Are they going to get some kind of an upcoming buff so they aren't useless in today's cruiser meta? |
stoicfaux
5574
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:07:51 -
[49] - Quote
Any chance we'll see any improvement in docking/undocking times with citadels?
The question is a bit odd, but if you all are overhauling core mechanics, I figured I'd ask. For noooooooooo particular reason.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
bigbillthaboss3
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:08:12 -
[50] - Quote
Saede Riordan 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. Please let me build all the structures. I have spent 2 years developing Origin and really want to be able to build it up into an awesome space civilisation. Do not kneecap wormhole space just for the sake of making it different, I beg of you.
Time to change that backstory. |
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
447
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:09:53 -
[51] - Quote
Demeisen Atreides wrote:Also once these replace POSes what is the point of dreads going to be?
Helping you to control the grid? Shooting ships with a dread is way more fun than shooting structure with it imo. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
4873
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:11:44 -
[52] - Quote
A couple of questions:
1) Will the same loot mechanics apply to w-space as k-space versions? 2) It sounds like there is no unanchor timer, right? So once I wait out the vulnerability timer, I can scoop the structure, right? 3) What happens to the stuff inside when I do this? 4) Will there be tools to enable structure owners to monitor/remove stuff kept in the structure for when they want to take it down? 5) Any provision to enable players to check activity levels from the outside, especially in w-space? 6) Any chance of more details on the "invulnerability link"? What sorts of radius are you thinking? I assume invulnerable ships will be unable to target anything, just like current FF mechanics?
CSM 7 Secretary
CSM 6 Alternate Delegate
@two_step_eve on Twitter
My Blog
|
Tyr Dolorem
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
50
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:11:49 -
[53] - Quote
Lowsec availability of these structures, and of their area of effect and doomsday weapons? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3901
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:12:26 -
[54] - 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. |
|
Makoto Priano
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
6988
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:16:23 -
[55] - Quote
Ytterbium; silly question, but seeing as these structures don't appear to have racial/factional leanings, will we be able to skin them? ;) This would, of course, be very useful once an alliance can have its own skins...
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
237
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:17:35 -
[56] - Quote
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. |
Sho Menao
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
12
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:18:15 -
[57] - Quote
How much HP are the AOE missiles going to have. Coming from a static structure they'd be trivial to firewall for a fleet if they don't have sufficient strength. |
Vacant Glare
Ghost Recon Inc
11
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:22:37 -
[58] - Quote
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
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate Together We Solo
240
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:23:44 -
[59] - Quote
So I'll be the guy.
When we have three sizes of something can we just bloody call them "small", "medium", and "large" please. This whole "medium", "large", "X-large" just ads to any confusion and feels like your really trying to either upsize me into buying the bigger soft drink or trying to make me feel better about needing small cloths by lying to me about their size.
I mean unless you have plans for even smaller structures then if the "medium" is in fact the smallest one to be offered then it is really the "small" size by definition right.
And yes, I am that guy who has this argument in fast food lines and convenience stores with employees who really just want me to buy stuff and leave.
Oh and the rest of this looks fraking amazing! |
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:27:52 -
[60] - Quote
Manssell wrote:So I'll be the guy.
When we have three sizes of something can we just bloody call them "small", "medium", and "large" please. This whole "medium", "large", "X-large" just ads to any confusion and feels like your really trying to either upsize me into buying the bigger soft drink or trying to make me feel better about needing small cloths by lying to me about their size.
I mean unless you have plans for even smaller structures then if the "medium" is in fact the smallest one to be offered then it is really the "small" size by definition right.
And yes, I am that guy who has this argument in fast food lines and convenience stores with employees who really just want me to buy stuff and leave.
Oh and the rest of this looks fraking amazing!
I agree. I think the naming will tend to confuse people more. Make it small, medium & large please. And leave room for "ridiculously large" (RIDL) for later expansions. |
|
Scott Ormands
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:28:28 -
[61] - Quote
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 |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1170
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:29:09 -
[62] - Quote
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.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:30:11 -
[63] - Quote
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 I think I recall either in the last fanfest or in a blog that your stuff will not be destroyed if the structure is destroyed. Your personal containers will be jettisoned out into space and only you or I suppose authorized players will be able to pick it up. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1170
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:32:18 -
[64] - Quote
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.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
507
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:32:43 -
[65] - Quote
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)
- WHEN????!!!!
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
7588
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:33:22 -
[66] - Quote
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.
They could just let us jump clone into wormholes at long last?
Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
459
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:33:31 -
[67] - Quote
BadAssMcKill wrote:I feel like you should have gone with shooting instead of entosis to maybe give dreads a use or something like that
I'm not sure you understand the entire purpose and premise of the structure/e-link overhaul.
Suffice to say, if they had made this choice, they would have no work to do, because it already exists. |
Scott Ormands
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:35:00 -
[68] - 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.
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.
|
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
306
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:36:43 -
[69] - Quote
I like those designs a lot.
Would it be possible to have multiple designs for structures, so players can choose which one they want and make different systems have a different look to them, instead of seeing the same structure everywhere?
Baddest poster ever
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3289
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:37:26 -
[70] - Quote
will it be configurable if it should appear on the overview or not? One main purpose of it is the functionality as trade hub. And i guess there will be many of those structures around. Things like docking rights, availability of the trade module and visibility of the structure itself must be somehow communicated to the players.
Standing based visibility on the overview? Please don't make us open show info every time.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
447
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:37:40 -
[71] - Quote
Will they require fuel? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:38:48 -
[72] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:I like those designs a lot.
Would it be possible to have multiple designs for structures, so players can choose which one they want and make different systems have a different look to them, instead of seeing the same structure everywhere?
That is sort of the point with the different classes, each size and each class will be a different hull like ships.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3289
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:40:07 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.
a module which ejects a corpse every now and then to bait drifters :P
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:40:14 -
[74] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:will it be configurable if it should appear on the overview or not? One main purpose of it is the functionality as trade hub. And i guess there will be many of those structures around. Things like docking rights, availability of the trade module and visibility of the structure itself must be somehow communicated to the players.
Standing based visibility on the overview? Please don't make us open show info every time.
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.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6205
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:40:19 -
[75] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Looks good - in particular seems to sooth some of the concerns over Supercapital security (especially if docking gets the go-ahead), and some of those weapon systems sound damn good (in particular the aoe missiles, point defences, and structure doomsdays).
I agree that it seems a little odd that these are being touted as the "market/office structure" given that it feels more like a military staging base, but I'll trust you know what you are doing there.
In all, and encouraging start. Which is probably why they are calling them Citadels instead now.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:40:53 -
[76] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:Will they require fuel? For the X-Large station I heard Amarr stations will require capsuleer corpses. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:41:04 -
[77] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:Will they require fuel?
Yes but the amount of fuel will depend on the fittings, and they will remain online without fuel (the services will go offline though).
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
154
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:41:41 -
[78] - Quote
Upkeep costs?
Which functions are built into the hull, and which functions are provided by fitting modules and rigs?
Anchoring restrictions concerning "deep" safes (incursion and mission bookmarks - they still can be more than 15AU off the nearest celestial). |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3902
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:45:08 -
[79] - 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 Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1171
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:45:15 -
[80] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Upkeep costs?
Which functions are built into the hull, and which functions are provided by fitting modules and rigs?
Anchoring restrictions concerning "deep" safes (incursion and mission bookmarks - they still can be more than 15AU off the nearest celestial).
Storage, security and fitting service will be on the hull. Corp offices, market, industry, clones etc will all be modules that have to be added and fueled.
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.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
Darirol
FEROX AQUILA
11
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:46:01 -
[81] - Quote
what about courier contracts?
1. you can start and deliver courier contracts only from / to stations, does it work with those new things too?
2. freighter are capital sized. jumpfreighter and rorqual even more. are we supposed to stock the medium and large one with 50k m3 haulers?
3.how does the game mechanic react if there are courier contracts up and the destination "station" got destroyed / unanchored?
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1173
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:48:54 -
[82] - Quote
Darirol wrote:what about courier contracts?
1. you can start and deliver courier contracts only from / to stations, does it work with those new things too?
2. freighter are capital sized. jumpfreighter and rorqual even more. are we supposed to stock the medium and large one with 50k m3 haulers?
3.how does the game mechanic react if there are courier contracts up and the destination "station" got destroyed / unanchored?
Couriers are a good question, and we don't have detailed answers for this yet.
If / when we do they will be a service module that you can add to access contracts. On destruction I imagine the contracts will be treated with the same asset safety mechanics as your inventory.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Centurax
Dracos Dozen Unsettled.
65
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:50:17 -
[83] - Quote
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? |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1724
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:50:54 -
[84] - Quote
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.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6205
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:51:20 -
[85] - Quote
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.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1074
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:51:40 -
[86] - Quote
How exactly do these defenses protect against a lone trollceptor if they don't auto-fire at all? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3902
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:51:41 -
[87] - 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.
|
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1074
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:52:26 -
[88] - Quote
Aryth wrote: Reuse the impounding code that already exists. All your stuff back but some nasty tax. Like 25% of Est value.
god no, its buggy as all hell |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1173
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:52:40 -
[89] - Quote
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.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Vacant Glare
Ghost Recon Inc
11
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:53:03 -
[90] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Bienator II wrote:will it be configurable if it should appear on the overview or not? One main purpose of it is the functionality as trade hub. And i guess there will be many of those structures around. Things like docking rights, availability of the trade module and visibility of the structure itself must be somehow communicated to the players.
Standing based visibility on the overview? Please don't make us open show info every time. 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. Would be nice if system owners could see these on the overview but for none blues then hacking the system navigation array (or similar) would turn off a hidden statement letting everyone know where they are.
|
|
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
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1207
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:11:05 -
[151] - Quote
War Kitten wrote: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.
Vulnerability windows for structures will not necessarily be everyday, and the time to capture will vary depending on the structure and where it is anchored. We are very aware of the concerns of small groups having fewer people online to defend.
We will have more details about the capture timings and vulnerability windows etc in a later dev blog.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Dradis Aulmais
RW Vindicator Connection Phoebe Freeport Republic
797
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:11:18 -
[152] - Quote
Can we free port these structures and if we have a XL can we free-port but prevent non alliance supers from mooring
Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896
Free The Scope Three
|
Narcotic Gryffin
Tiny Titans
49
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:16:18 -
[153] - Quote
Wanted some clarification are the citadel structures only going to be limited to nullsec like current outposts? Or will a say medium citadel structure be able to be deployed in lowsec or wh space?
http://www.sortius-is-a-geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/history-channel-hd-aliens-thumb.jpg
|
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
399
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:18:18 -
[154] - Quote
War Kitten wrote: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 1 brings up is a valid 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. Quite accurate. Right now, as a solo player, I can afford to field a pretty stout tower in wormhole space that wouldn't be at all vulnerable to the equivalent of one guy in an Entosis linked ship. Without automated defenses, a fully fueled and stronted tower is just waiting to be reinforced every single day. I can't always be on every single day.
A moderately defended POS right now can deter a small gang of attackers just by being fully armed and armored. If you're saying that functionality can't be replicated with one of the new Citadels... That's a huge loss.
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
6072
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:19:11 -
[155] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:War Kitten wrote: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. Vulnerability windows for structures will not necessarily be everyday, and the time to capture will vary depending on the structure and where it is anchored. We are very aware of the concerns of small groups having fewer people online to defend. We will have more details about the capture timings and vulnerability windows etc in a later dev blog.
Ok, that sounds a little more promising.... The devblog just mentioned vaguely that these would work like the sov entosis captures - and those are vulnerable daily.
Assumptions... always making an ass out of u and mptions. ;)
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Takeo Yanumano
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:19:27 -
[156] - Quote
So, the way I'm understanding this is that you do not wish wormhole dwellers to be able to continue dwelling in wormholes the same way they do now, correct?
In other words, a solo wh-dweller (why he is solo is besides the point; imagine for example he is solo because most of his corp is taking a brief hiatus) who manages to keep two POS fueled by himself would be made effectively an impossible playstyle, yes? Or at very least, he'd have to put even more time into the game than he currently is, as I understand it. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
242
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:20:10 -
[157] - Quote
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???????? |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate Together We Solo
244
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:22:43 -
[158] - 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.
What! I know dozens and dozens of solo players personally, all in low or null sec.
One of the great promises of these new structures was that they be a great new tool for those brave enough to eke out a living in low and null sec solo, not condemn them to live in high sec to use them. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6209
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:23:16 -
[159] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. Appreciate the reply... although I must point out I am not a solo player in high sec. Yes, asset safety mitigates the risk to a degree.... but that really wasn't my point.
There will be a LOT of solo and small corp players who will look at the small POS that they have now, which CAN defend itself against modest threat at all times... and they will compare it to the medium citadels proposed that cannot defend themselves at all unless someone is physically there.... and there will be a great deal of discontent.
The reality is that the assets inside are perhaps better protected than they currently are in some ways. Vulnerability windows and asset safety (depending on how it is implemented) are powerful passive protection for your belongings.
However, EVE players don't care much for passive safety nets like that. The want to build death stars with automated defenses that only get better when players are actually present, but aren't solely dependent on someone being there.
It's a perception thing more than anything else... and I'm concerned about the backlash undermining what is actually a very good concept.
Heck, even it it could only activate an EW defense on it's own that would go a long way... as that would ensure that a couple of guys in interceptors won't be able to keep trolling you into reinforced mode.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
Dradis Aulmais
RW Vindicator Connection Phoebe Freeport Republic
798
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:23:36 -
[160] - 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????????
Soon(TM)
Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896
Free The Scope Three
|
|
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
1220
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:24:01 -
[161] - 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.
This one ccp nullabor mentions now is also being discussed by the csm. Its good ccp nullabor is open about the intention behind no pos or structure guns firing with no player active in control off them. Cause its a major change from current mechanisms. If u add the possibility too it from the structures then u can see a attack with hundreds of timers generated in 1 evening. Being it ton of structurs hit, systems hit with the link spawns to defend, and a buttload of reffed station services. Cause all these attacks have been removed from ehp grind, u can generate a insane amount of timers, which isnt possible under the current system.
Like nullabor said the trolling element is being watched and considered, however the mass storm of a attacker,blitzing a region, and the next hulkageddon being a posgeddon is one the csm is very much in discussion with CCP , and raises once more the debate, why be in null, why own sov. Only to lose it. Personally as a player and a csm i hope a fase 3 would follow the structures and the sov remoddeling. One where owning sov actually benenfits in a way thats both rewarding isk wise, but even more so fofilling deeper drivers. A model where buidable sov and upgrades are earned and can be applied by sovowners too give more sense of ownership would be for me personally, the way forward. |
Ijesz ToKolok
Harmless People
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:27:23 -
[162] - Quote
Quote:Structures having a solar system wide-effect or otherwise impacting some kind of area will be publicly visible in space and in the overview
Are Citadels such structures?
Quote:We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay.
I don't think wormhole space gameplay requires such towers to be warpable. WH folks, is it important? |
Dradis Aulmais
RW Vindicator Connection Phoebe Freeport Republic
798
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:28:00 -
[163] - Quote
Will each empire have its own version? or will this be a one type to begin with and lets see if it works thing
Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896
Free The Scope Three
|
Takeo Yanumano
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:31:08 -
[164] - Quote
Ijesz ToKolok wrote:Quote:Structures having a solar system wide-effect or otherwise impacting some kind of area will be publicly visible in space and in the overview Are Citadels such structures? Quote:We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay. I don't think wormhole space gameplay requires such towers to be warpable. WH folks, is it important?
Depends. Since wh-ers depend on POS being moon-bound as an important aspect of defense and intel-gathering currently, it would follow that having some way to find the citadel is needed. However, having it directly warpable from the on-board scanner makes that intel basically free, which is contrary to wh principles of skillful utilization of d-scan. |
Scott Ormands
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:31:13 -
[165] - Quote
Ijesz ToKolok wrote:Quote:We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay. I don't think wormhole space gameplay requires such towers to be warpable. WH folks, is it important?
I'm not psyched about HK QEX and LZHKs or anyone really jumping into my system and INSTANTLY knowing where I am and being able to warp there but they definitely should be scout able and warpable with some effort commensurate to D-scanning them down to a certain accuracy. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:31:22 -
[166] - Quote
Ijesz ToKolok wrote:Quote:Structures having a solar system wide-effect or otherwise impacting some kind of area will be publicly visible in space and in the overview Are Citadels such structures? Quote:We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay. I don't think wormhole space gameplay requires such towers to be warpable. WH folks, is it important?
Warpable from the overview? Maybe not Discoverable and warpable to without launching probes? Yes, 100%
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
946
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:32:17 -
[167] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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
1. This would definitely need to be the case in order for wspace. Leaving capital ships floating, or almost as bad forcing pilots to log off in the capital ship is a non-starter given that this won't be the case is all other capital ship capable space (00 / low / and I'd imagine high with regards to freighters, jump freighters and Rorquals).
2. Would need more detail on how this might play out. But the lack of any automated defense system, even one as bad as the current, is not a good thing for wpsace. Player counts are very limited compared to others areas where structure attack/defense happens. This makes TZ coverage very challenging.
3. I'd be inclined to swap markets and cloning in your statement. I can't think of many reasons why clone swapping (not jumping) would be a negative in wspace. It opens up multiple new combat opportunities. As for the market, I honestly don't see anyone setting up a market in wspace for business outside of their corp/alliance and logistics in wspace really doesn't lend itself well to mass shipping of goods or even mass manufacture of anything other than T1 hulls and mods and T3 hulls and subs. T1 hulls aren't used very much in the scheme of things in wspace PvP and T3 hulls don't exploded frequently enough in all space to need a "market" in a wspace system to sell them form. Imo
4. Personal Hangars for items and ships wouldn't be bad at all. That said, one of the only benefits of currently wspace sieges, aside from the removal of an opponent, is the potential for looting the structures. I'm concerned that the plan as stated "...assets would be safe/saved via methods tbd..." (paraphrased) reduces the spoils of war to a very low probability.
5. Same as 4
I'm right behind you
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
245
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:36:00 -
[168] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:This one ccp nullabor mentions now is also being discussed by the csm. Its good ccp nullabor is open about the intention behind no pos or structure guns firing with no player active in control off them. Cause its a major change from current mechanisms. If u add the possibility too it from the structures then u can see a attack with hundreds of timers generated in 1 evening. Being it ton of structurs hit, systems hit with the link spawns to defend, and a buttload of reffed station services. Cause all these attacks have been removed from ehp grind, u can generate a insane amount of timers, which isnt possible under the current system.
Like nullabor said the trolling element is being watched and considered, however the mass storm of a attacker,blitzing a region, and the next hulkageddon being a posgeddon is one the csm is very much in discussion with CCP , and raises once more the debate, why be in null, why own sov. Only to lose it. Personally as a player and a csm i hope a fase 3 would follow the structures and the sov remoddeling. One where owning sov actually benenfits in a way thats both rewarding isk wise, but even more so fofilling deeper drivers. A model where buidable sov and upgrades are earned and can be applied by sovowners too give more sense of ownership would be for me personally, the way forward.
While I have no doubt that this is being brought forward to the CSM, I will state again here that this effect is massively amplified when your entire corporation or alliance assets are wrapped up in that single structure as is the case in wormhole space for many small to mid-sized corporations. Asset safety mechanisms are all fine and good in k-space but these w-space systems are not systems I can return to at my leisure after being removed from them. A journal entry telling me my stuff is floating in J123456 does me zero good after I have been permanently removed. This is no different than the risk I take today in my POS except that the level of attacking force needed to remove my POS is exponentially more than the level of force needed under Entosis mechanisms especially since the new structures refuse to defend themselves.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
573
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:36:10 -
[169] - Quote
Takeo Yanumano wrote:Ijesz ToKolok wrote:Quote:Structures having a solar system wide-effect or otherwise impacting some kind of area will be publicly visible in space and in the overview Are Citadels such structures? Quote:We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay. I don't think wormhole space gameplay requires such towers to be warpable. WH folks, is it important? Depends. Since wh-ers depend on POS being moon-bound as an important aspect of defense and intel-gathering currently, it would follow that having some way to find the citadel is needed. However, having it directly warpable from the on-board scanner makes that intel basically free, which is contrary to wh principles of skillful utilization of d-scan.
You won't know the configuration of the station once you do warp in there.
TL;DR Station scanning equipment? (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç
With a cycle time longer than the target lock + scramble time to your internet spaceship. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
445
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:37:23 -
[170] - Quote
I assume in addition to sizes, there will be Racial versions right? And if so, will there be Faction versions? Like a Blood one that has a bonus to Vamp, or Serpentis that has a bonus to IN YOUR FACE PAWNAGE?
Love the idea of Fighters and Drones for them. This just makes sense, given it's supposed to be a STATION. It would be nice if for these to have mods to increase Bandwidth, so they could have more drones/fighters out, rather than fitting other weapons.
I'd like to see AI Defense.. even if it doesn't use the DD's and other special weapons, give them some anchorable turrents and such that would act like a current POS to defend itself even when you're away.. But like a current POS, they can be Pop'd.
Now, as for dealing with if it goes boom. Here's my suggestion, Asset Insurance. Kinda like household insurance. Higher you pay, the more you get. Station goes boom, lets say 50% Drop 50% Destroyed. The 50% Destroyed is covered by basic insurance, you get the Items [NOT ISK] at your "Home" station, or nearest NPC Station. Note, not FREE Insurance, but a basic entry level. The 50% Dropped, based on insurance level chosen above basic, can be paid out. Won't be cheap, has ISK Cap's, not % cap's.
Anyway those are my few cents. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6212
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:38:04 -
[171] - Quote
corebloodbrothers 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. This one ccp nullabor mentions now is also being discussed by the csm. Its good ccp nullabor is open about the intention behind no pos or structure guns firing with no player active in control off them. Cause its a major change from current mechanisms. If u add the possibility too it from the structures then u can see a attack with hundreds of timers generated in 1 evening. Being it ton of structurs hit, systems hit with the link spawns to defend, and a buttload of reffed station services. Cause all these attacks have been removed from ehp grind, u can generate a insane amount of timers, which isnt possible under the current system. Like nullabor said the trolling element is being watched and considered, however the mass storm of a attacker,blitzing a region, and the next hulkageddon being a posgeddon is one the csm is very much in discussion with CCP , and raises once more the debate, why be in null, why own sov. Only to lose it. Personally as a player and a csm i hope a fase 3 would follow the structures and the sov remoddeling. One where owning sov actually benenfits in a way thats both rewarding isk wise, but even more so fofilling deeper drivers. A model where buidable sov and upgrades are earned and can be applied by sovowners too give more sense of ownership would be for me personally, the way forward. Interesting point, but if timers can't be started because guns shoot the entosis vessel (or at least breaks their lock with EW) then I don't see an issue unless it is indeed a wide scale assault with significant forces devoted to each and every structure.
Actually, the way forward in Null has always been rather simple, and this system is veering somewhat drunkenly in that direction (which is a huge step forward by the way).
The larger a Sov holding entity is, the more profitable his space becomes AND the more difficult it is to successfully defend.
Advantage to the defender should work for small entities, not large ones. Financial gain is the reward for the big boys if they are smart enough to hang onto it for a while. Wealth is fleeting.
The new Sov system looks likely to get us a lot closer to that state, which is a very good and healthy thing for the game.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
Takeo Yanumano
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:40:34 -
[172] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Takeo Yanumano wrote:Ijesz ToKolok wrote:Quote:Structures having a solar system wide-effect or otherwise impacting some kind of area will be publicly visible in space and in the overview Are Citadels such structures? Quote:We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay. I don't think wormhole space gameplay requires such towers to be warpable. WH folks, is it important? Depends. Since wh-ers depend on POS being moon-bound as an important aspect of defense and intel-gathering currently, it would follow that having some way to find the citadel is needed. However, having it directly warpable from the on-board scanner makes that intel basically free, which is contrary to wh principles of skillful utilization of d-scan. You won't know the configuration of the station once you do warp in there. TL;DR Station scanning equipment? (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç With a cycle time longer than the target lock + scramble time to your internet spaceship. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç
They've already said that cargo scanners and ship scanners would work on citadels, iirc. |
Dalic Thunderer
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:41:01 -
[173] - 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. Eve Gold tagging - so useful http://i.imgur.com/57Z2n15.png |
Tyr Dolorem
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
50
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:41:05 -
[174] - Quote
what about lowsec.... |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
6072
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:46:26 -
[175] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: When people think "Strong defense fortification" they don't tend to think of an appointment calendar... they think about automated defensive batteries.
I'm sorry, but the appointment calendar is full this week, try your attack next week.
...if you can find a parking spot.
:)
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
575
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:46:39 -
[176] - Quote
Takeo Yanumano wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:You won't know the configuration of the station once you do warp in there. TL;DR Station scanning equipment? (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç With a cycle time longer than the target lock + scramble time to your internet spaceship. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç They've already said that cargo scanners and ship scanners would work on citadels, iirc.
The Rifters. The Reapers. THE INVASION.
Our time has come. For 8 years, we prepared. We grew stronger. While you rested in your cradle of power, believing your people were safe... and protected. You were trusted to lead the new EraGÇöbut you were deceived, as our powers of the Rifter have blinded you. You assumed no force could challenge you... and now... finally... We have returned.
You were deceived. And now, your Citadels shall fall.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Ariete
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
44
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:47:57 -
[177] - Quote
If a person docks in a station, they will be able to see out but would you be able to see them inside from the outside?
So CSM IX ????
|
Takeo Yanumano
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:53:31 -
[178] - Quote
Ariete wrote:If a person docks in a station, they will be able to see out but would you be able to see them inside from the outside?
Only if they leave the lights on. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3229
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:54:09 -
[179] - Quote
Papa Django wrote:[quote=Ranger 1]Is there a number of structures per solar system limitation like a slot fiting system planned ?
Oh wow. This gives me a ridiculously awesome (or possibly just ridiculous) idea.
Fitting slots for celestial bodies. Using the characteristics of a planet or moon to affect the number or characteristics of structures placed around it. Terraforming projects to fundamentally alter the features of a celestial body and the resources available from it.
(this is probably way outside the scope of this particular blog but is way too big to not mention, I may write something up and post it in F&ID later)
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:57:19 -
[180] - Quote
If I understand the blog correctly, the new structure guns will use existing gunnery and / or missile support skills.
1. Does this mean that a player, who, for whatever reason, is a gunnery pilot only will be a poor or ineffective structure missile user and vice versa for pure missile pilots for structure guns?
2. Does this also hold true for the drones/fighters/fighter bombers proposed later in the blog? Does a player have to be able to use drones/fighters/fighter bombers on a ship to use them from a structure or will the structure drone skills present a new set of skills to train?
Regarding capital docking, please consider the case of the rorqual and orca. Both are capital ships. Many small and medium alliances depend on these vessels for economic survival and need to be able to dock them to both keep them safe-ish and use their toons for other purposes. Players who use these vessels frequently should not find these ships relegated to space-coffin status.
Please allow these classes of ship to be docked in the large citadel structure. |
|
Takeo Yanumano
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:59:02 -
[181] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Papa Django wrote:[quote=Ranger 1]Is there a number of structures per solar system limitation like a slot fiting system planned ?
Terraforming projects to fundamentally alter the features of a celestial body and the resources available from it.
WTB planetary subsystems. |
Atum' Ra
Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx
72
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:00:19 -
[182] - Quote
Great ideas! Eve will not die with such ideas! From now I'm waiting only new structures! Everything else is dust.
-ÿ -ü-+-Ç-+-ü-+-+ -¦-¦-+: -¦-¦-¦ -é-¦-¦-¦ -+-+-Å? -ÿ -+-+ -ü-¦-¦-+-¦-+ -¦ -+-é-¦-¦-é: -+-¦-¦-+-+-+ -+-+-Å -+-+-¦, -+-+-é-+-+-â -ç-é-+ -+-¦-ü -+-+-+-¦-+ (-£-¦, 5:9)
|
Fzhal
Anoikis Vergence The Last Chancers.
18
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:00:19 -
[183] - Quote
Alundil wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Scott Ormands wrote: 3. Will the office, cloning, and market functions work in WH space.
- 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.
3. I'd be inclined to swap markets and cloning in your statement. I can't think of many reasons why clone swapping (not jumping) would be a negative in wspace. It opens up multiple new combat opportunities. As for the market, I honestly don't see anyone setting up a market in wspace for business outside of their corp/alliance and logistics in wspace really doesn't lend itself well to mass shipping of goods or even mass manufacture of anything other than T1 hulls and mods and T3 hulls and subs. T1 hulls aren't used very much in the scheme of things in wspace PvP and T3 hulls don't exploded frequently enough in all space to need a "market" in a wspace system to sell them form. Imo CCP Game Of Drones: I'm wondering why you're leaning towards structures with built-in functions (Market/Office) instead of giving them bonuses to specific modules just like ships? Why not have the Citadel have "ship" bonuses for Market rates and fitting/effectiveness/damage, which could be static or possibly based on indices? That would make more sense to me with all structures. That way you could have someone who is very cautions, opt to use a Citadel for research because he would prefer greater safety than research bonuses? |
Daenna Chrysi
Omega Foundry Unit The Ditanian Alliance
111
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:01:34 -
[184] - Quote
trying to think of a name or two for the invulnerability link.
Sanctuary extension emitter.
Haven Link
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:03:10 -
[185] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Storage, security and fitting service will be on the hull. Corp offices, market, industry, clones etc will all be modules that have to be added and fueled.
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.
When you talk about fuel, I'm hoping you will be keeping the block mechanic and not going back to the old system. If so will the new structures be tied to a single race or will you move to something like medium/large/extra large fuel blocks?
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6214
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:04:36 -
[186] - Quote
Dentia Caecus wrote:If I understand the blog correctly, the new structure guns will use existing gunnery and / or missile support skills.
1. Does this mean that a player, who, for whatever reason, is a gunnery pilot only will be a poor or ineffective structure missile user and vice versa for pure missile pilots for structure guns?
2. Does this also hold true for the drones/fighters/fighter bombers proposed later in the blog? Does a player have to be able to use drones/fighters/fighter bombers on a ship to use them from a structure or will the structure drone skills present a new set of skills to train?
I believe they said the existing "supporting" skills would be helpful, so a pilot that has a lot of ancillary missile combat skills would have advantages using missile based defense systems on your Citadel, where a pilot with no missile supporting skills would be using default values.
However it is quite likely there will be new skills to learn to use those defensive batteries to begin with, unless they can re-purpose existing POS related skills instead. I'm betting on some new skills for the basic ability to use the gun/launcher.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
jason hill
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
786
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:05:39 -
[187] - Quote
can we have the option to look out the station windows to watch the pretty light shows ? |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
575
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:06:23 -
[188] - Quote
Can't go wrong with new Skills. Can't ever go wrong with new Skills introduction in Eve.
Ten million Citadel station Gunnery Skillpoints.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6215
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:06:42 -
[189] - Quote
Daenna Chrysi wrote:trying to think of a name or two for the invulnerability link.
Sanctuary extension emitter.
Haven Link
Harbor Control.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
allfonso Hekard
Boa Innovations Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:08:28 -
[190] - 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.
|
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
6075
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:10:13 -
[191] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Daenna Chrysi wrote:trying to think of a name or two for the invulnerability link.
Sanctuary extension emitter.
Haven Link
Harbor Control.
Aggression Insta-Dampening Sphere
"We can't attack him, he's got AIDS from that citadel"
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
DaReaper
Net 7
2039
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:11:31 -
[192] - Quote
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?
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Dradis Aulmais
RW Vindicator Connection Phoebe Freeport Republic
798
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:11:52 -
[193] - Quote
Military Interference Logistical Field
"The XL Citidal has a better MILF"
Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896
Free The Scope Three
|
Kossaw
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
132
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:12:14 -
[194] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:[quote=Thanatos Marathon]The Starbase Defense Management skill will be reworked into something else or refunded when Starbases are removed.
So we can take this as a statement that you intend to remove POS entirely at some point. Good, they are horrible.
The price points of citadels mean that they are however completely unsuitable as "staging points". Right now, a few hundred million ISK gets you a disposable staging POS in a friendly or hostile system where you can store sub-caps, capitals and supercaps and assemble an attacking or defending force.
What structures do you intend players to use for staging fleets in, and what do you see as a viable ISK cost for those structures ?
WTB : An image in my signature
|
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
102
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:17:00 -
[195] - 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.
Mooring Field
Mooring Clamp
Cold Laser Atmospherice Maintenance Pulse (CLAMP)
Phase Operated Ship Stasis Handling and Inductive Emergency Locking Device (POS SHIELD)
More to come
Cedric
|
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS Shadow Cartel
675
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:22:06 -
[196] - Quote
Is it possible to do that people are able to dock only if around the docking perimeter? Its a bit silly to be able to dock if you are on top of the station and the dock is below, some 50km away.
Or design station with more docking perimeters.
BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
|
Biterno Sintaph
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
75
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:22:26 -
[197] - Quote
ESS modules have a prompt on activation that ask about sharing or stealing. What about a prompt on a successful capture that asks about capture/destroy? Leave it up to the attacker, not the structure type placed by the defender, to decide what happens to it. |
Lars Erlkonig
Discrete Solutions Ltd.
16
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:23:46 -
[198] - Quote
Regarding the Defenses, will there be a way to incapacitate some of the online modules in a way similar to how POS guns get incapped now?
Will the vulnerability window be static at anchoring, or mutable? If you can change the vulnerability time, what mechanic will prevent players from adjusting the vulnerability timer continuously so that no one will ever be able to shoot it?
Some POS towers are setup to take advantage of COSMOS sites - particularly nasty in low sec where the COSMOS NPC's spawn at a certain moon. Will this functionality be retained? Could we setup a market in a low sec belt, and use it to shoot NPC's or people that fly in? As an immediate market for ore that gets mined?
I could easily see lots of markets at each highsec belt that people use in lieu of orcas or jet cans that get onlined sporadically to take in their ORE, not really something I care to have cluttering up space and it removes some of the 'thief' professions from the game. Similarly I would like the option to have some the the new Medium-XL structures be hidden from the overview. Right now, people need to be intelligent to scout a POS tower, and players can set up defensive snares at the moon warpins. Some players even select moons based on the distance between the tower and the warp-in location. Will there be a way of rewarding smart behavior and structure placement for players that take environment into effect when setting up these new deployables?
|
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises
18294
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:26:45 -
[199] - Quote
Firstly- no one's talking about how the DD is more or less Jamyl Sarum's Terran Superweapon??
Secondly- I love "Haven Link" for the invulnerability link:
Daenna Chrysi wrote:trying to think of a name or two for the invulnerability link.
Sanctuary extension emitter.
Haven Link
Haven - "a place of safety or refuge". And "Link" sounds much more along-the-purpose of what they're aiming for than "field", "emitter", etc.
"Haven Link"
"A City made of Dreams...is built in heaven" - GÖâ-
GPƒ U-Ç+¬ß¦ç-ƒ's Sߦ¢ß¦Å-Ç-Å
|
Acks
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
78
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:32:07 -
[200] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Torgeir Hekard wrote:Upkeep costs?
Which functions are built into the hull, and which functions are provided by fitting modules and rigs?
Anchoring restrictions concerning "deep" safes (incursion and mission bookmarks - they still can be more than 15AU off the nearest celestial). Storage, security and fitting service will be on the hull. Corp offices, market, industry, clones etc will all be modules that have to be added and fueled. We are considering showing all structures on the on board scanner / sensor overlay allowing you to either warp directly to them or at least show you that structures are anchored in system so you can probe them down.
If corp offices and industry functionality are tied to fueled modules, if the fuel runs out would corps renting offices still have access to the storage since that is tied to the hull and not the module?
Would industry jobs pause until the module comes back online?
If these are used as trade hubs for example (Especially relevant in HS), and the owner goes AWOL or for whatever reason is not available and fuel runs out, is there some mechanic in place for citadel service renters to fuel the offline modules to be able to access corp assets / complete jobs in progress other than war decking the owner and capturing the facility?
Thanks in advance for any responses. |
|
Fzhal
Anoikis Vergence The Last Chancers.
19
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:32:14 -
[201] - Quote
Alternative names for the Invulnerability Field:
Asylum Field noun 1.an institution for the maintenance and care of the mentally ill, orphans, or other persons requiring specialized assistance. 2.an inviolable refuge, as formerly for criminals and debtors; sanctuary: 3.International Law: a refuge granted an alien by a sovereign state on its own territory. a temporary refuge granted political offenders, especially in a foreign embassy. 4.any secure retreat.
Sanctum Projection Field: an inviolably private place or retreat. (SPF. "Good luck attacking them. They're using SPF 50!)
Elysian Fields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium |
Syna Anima
SYNDAX CORPORATION Yulai Federation
42
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:33:16 -
[202] - Quote
Meh... as a bitter vet I fail to get hyped by what CCP presents in blogs.
All nice, but we know CCP and I'd be surprised if they actually implement half of that in 1-2 years...
This is a big change and will take a long time. Plus they are changing sov and other things that will require a lot of time and optimizing... I wish them the best, but I'd not be excited until I see them in space and actually working as intended.
Gÿà Join us today! Gÿà
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
6077
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:35:39 -
[203] - Quote
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:Firstly- no one's talking about how the DD is more or less Jamyl Sarum's Terran Superweapon?? Secondly- I love "Haven Link" for the invulnerability link: Daenna Chrysi wrote:trying to think of a name or two for the invulnerability link.
Sanctuary extension emitter.
Haven Link
Haven - "a place of safety or refuge". And "Link" sounds much more along-the-purpose of what they're aiming for than "field", "emitter", etc. "Haven Link"
That does sound pretty good.
Harmonized Aggression, Vandalizaiton and Encroachment Negator
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Marsha Mallow
2111
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:42:18 -
[204] - Quote
Quote:take a seat by the campfire and grab some marshmallows
Looks good so far. Love the guns and \o/ for AOE.
I'm not keen on dockable supers personally, but if the structure can be killed with a few in I suppose it'll be entertaining.
Also not keen on that Interbus reference. I didn't watch the presentation so apologies if this is incorrect, but I vaguely remember something mentioned about some sort of NPC teleportation system for goods? Moving goods needs to stay player run ideally.
I'm surprised you haven't added space for a corp/alliance logo or holo like the sov structures. Will there be SKINs for these too?
Benny Ohu wrote:
fire up the argument calibrators set phasers to outraged overheat keyboards reinforce the thread
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
459
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:44:30 -
[205] - Quote
Takeo Yanumano wrote: Depends. Since wh-ers depend on POS being moon-bound as an important aspect of defense and intel-gathering currently, it would follow that having some way to find the citadel is needed. However, having it directly warpable from the on-board scanner makes that intel basically free, which is contrary to wh principles of skillful utilization of d-scan.
I'm fairly certain that CCP is slowly and systematically working to phase out dscan entirely. They'll never admit to this I'm sure. But they have in the past alluded to the simple technical performance issues it causes (in the way it violates the efficiently segregated grid boundaries). Not to mention that it is, at its heart, a terrible gameplay mechanic (not the hunting aspect, but the defensive mashing it constantly aspect). |
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
359
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:45:59 -
[206] - Quote
I would be more than a little curious to know what the anticipated fuel consumption would be, for a Citadel running at full-steam, compared to a Large POS, in the current system. |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1096
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:46:15 -
[207] - Quote
Fzhal 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. 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...
These structures aren't meant for solo players, let alone single player corps. The entire idea of a single player corp is an abomination and I hope CCP never ever does anything to encourage them. You're playing an MMO, the hell are you doing in a single man corp...
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Oma Lorche
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
15
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:48:54 -
[208] - Quote
I still dont understand. Are those all thingies modular? Can I attach Assembly thingy to Research thingy and have on side of Citadel and Market thingy? Or I will have to anchor each of them 50km apart. And spend day hauling BPC's from Research thingy to Assembly thingy and components from Market thingy to Assembly thingy and then ready product from Assembly thingy back to Market thingy?
I understand where you come from. But for simple guy like me, I rather have my POS where I keep everything together and can manage it remotely to provide me income while I blow stuff up. I think that by trying to provide us with all those modules you force on us having to choose between accessibility and efficiency in what we want to achieve and it doesn't align with current small scale industrialists. I'm afraid that instead of easing out all process you will put many of us out of business, because having full production chain will require fuelling multiple structures at the same time and adds hours of senseless hauling. Unless I am wrong somewhere please clarify.
|
Daenna Chrysi
Omega Foundry Unit The Ditanian Alliance
111
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:49:32 -
[209] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:These structures aren't meant for solo players, let alone single player corps. The entire idea of a single player corp is an abomination and I hope CCP never ever does anything to encourage them. You're playing an MMO, the hell are you doing in a single man corp...
Alt Corp? and just because it is a one man corp, it could still be in an alliance. |
NovaCat13
Full Spectrum Inc Fidelas Constans
20
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:49:45 -
[210] - Quote
Now I'm genuinely interested in structures. And structures with drones? You made my Gallente parts tingle.
TigerXtrm wrote:Fzhal 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. 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... These structures aren't meant for solo players, let alone single player corps. The entire idea of a single player corp is an abomination and I hope CCP never ever does anything to encourage them. You're playing an MMO, the hell are you doing in a single man corp...
Um...
Quote:Medium sized Citadel structures will be around 5-25km in diameter and are tailored for individual or small groups of players. They will be able to fit some appropriate defenses to offer resistance against most kind of assaults including capital ships. Moreover, players can dock inside them with sub-capital ships. |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1147
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:53:19 -
[211] - Quote
Call it the Curtain Wall or the Bailey, in keeping with the old scholl naming. Call the tower itself the Keep. |
Selto Black
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:53:52 -
[212] - Quote
I would like to see the drone function of the citadels used as the passive defense mechanism. With one caveat, new drones can only be deployed by players.
So for example, you have a M citadel with a drone mod installed. This allows it to have ~15 un-bonused light or medium drones to defend your structure while you're offline. However, if an attacker manages to kill off the drones he is then free to entosis your struct and reinforce it. I would also recommend that while not in combat damaged drones return to close orbit and receive slow repairs inside the H.A.L.O. ( Hadron Amplified Leidenfrost Overlay) aka pos shield. |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
249
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:56:27 -
[213] - Quote
I like what I am reading about this update.
I do hope that capitals and super capitals can be moored/docked even by small groups (so I do hope to see mooring in L-size citadels), so that the game does not require a toon to be exclusively allocated to such ship. This will open up this end-game play to smaller entities that can't afford the luxuries of these specialized cap toons.
I hope that the new mechanics for structures will allow small groups to be able to attack smaller class WH settlements, while limiting the size of what can be built into this space according to the mass size of the WH leading into or out of it. Will there be size limits on deploying citadels based on a WH's class?
Is there is anything planned regarding capitals being build in low class wormholes, while none can be brought in due to mass limitations? This situation, if allowed to continue unhindered, will transform some of the low-class WHs into fortresses that simply can't be conquered anymore, which is contrary to what Eve stands for.
For the WH citadel defense discussion, I'd prefer if guns were to fire automatically like pos guns do now, but energy drain, E-war, stasis, scramble modules should not be automated, and have to be manned to be useful.
I do hope that citadels will all become beacons. I do not care too much about the d-scanning skills, that will still be necessary to locate ships, but it is important to maintain the covert recon aspect without needing probes to find any of the citadels in a system, regardless of ownership.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1147
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:59:10 -
[214] - Quote
In terms of gameplay I like the concept, I like being able to 'pilot' the station as a battleship but I'm really not keen on the entosis link idea. Fine for capturing sov points but for destroying a massive station? Just seems very low effort to take out such a large investment.
With regards to BPO's etc, what will happen to the old POS structure ones? And any structures you currently have? Will the new structures still be built with PI goods? What about the rigs and modules?
I would be against the idea of being able to capture these stations, destruction drives the market so they have to go boom! |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
249
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 19:59:41 -
[215] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote: These structures aren't meant for solo players, let alone single player corps. The entire idea of a single player corp is an abomination and I hope CCP never ever does anything to encourage them. You're playing an MMO, the hell are you doing in a single man corp...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but CCP Seagul always take care of mentioning solo players in her appearances (see my sig below). Solo play is very valid, and way more common that you'd like I am sure. That does not mean they do not contribute to the MMO aspect of the game....
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Oma Lorche
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
15
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:03:57 -
[216] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Fzhal 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. 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... These structures aren't meant for solo players, let alone single player corps. The entire idea of a single player corp is an abomination and I hope CCP never ever does anything to encourage them. You're playing an MMO, the hell are you doing in a single man corp...
Who are you to tell anyone what should be allowed and what not? I think you would be surprised how many play this game solo. As long as they pay their bit, they deserve to be looked after not less then null-bears deserve perfect sov system. No matter if someone plays 3 months, year, 12 years. As long as they pay - me, you and everyone else needs them. Unless CCP comes up with subscription numbers and proves that that part of Eve population is 0.01% your opinion about something being abomination doesn't hold |
Archea Bastanold
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:11:31 -
[217] - Quote
In regard to the replacement of the current starbase structures with the new ones to come, what is happening to the current starbase structures; are we just getting the base isk value back? Is it the same for current faction structures? |
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
359
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:17:03 -
[218] - Quote
When the racial-split was made to the Battlecruiser skill, players who'd trained it up were given equivalent skill-levels in the new racial versions of the skill - if the Starbase Defense Management skill is going to be binned, would it be possible to do something similar for the new 'XXXXXL' weapons? |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp The Bastion
35
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:18:53 -
[219] - 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.
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?
|
Redbull Spai
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:19:28 -
[220] - Quote
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. |
|
Dentric Crendraven
DarkMatter-Industries Upholders
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:19:35 -
[221] - Quote
Saisin wrote:
Is there is anything planned regarding capitals being build in low class wormholes, while none can be brought in due to mass limitations? This situation, if allowed to continue unhindered, will transform some of the low-class WHs into fortresses that simply can't be conquered anymore, which is contrary to what Eve stands for.
Building Capitals in low class holes is not a bad thing. and even with current mechanics if you take the time and spend the money you can make a POS that is absolute hell to deal with especially with POS gunners.
The things with wormholes is the lower the class the safer it generally is which makes sense. And smaller groups often time will need capital support to be able to fend off the invasion fleets of the larger entities. The defender should always have a homefield advantage of some kind and it makes sense that this advantage is lessened when you enter the higher class wormholes which are considered much more dangerous.
As far as POSes go you can make fortresses in any hole if you know what you doing. Secondly Having capitals doesn't make you unconquerable. We've killed several capitals in C2's and even C1's. Its knowing how to use the Capital and when to deploy it that make them powerful defensive ships. But they must also be supported. a Single or small group of capitals will die to subcaps as they should. Several people have and will continue to make this mistake and lose their capitals in low class space.
Citadels as they are currently confirmed do not make your system any less conquerable, honestly, they make them possibly more vulnerable.
With how our hole currently is you would need either and insanely large fleet or to keep hole control for the week or two to build the capitals. Otherwise it would just take absolutely forever to evict us. (We determined 6+ hours per POS and we have several POSes outfitted like this.) We have also been in this hole for a very long time and spared no expense on many of the main towers to the point we actually heavily drained the market for a short time on Faction POS mods. Is this difficult? Hell yes. But we aren't even close to the amount of people some like Hard Knocks/LZHX/SSC can regularly field in a fleet. Without capitals we have no hope at all to kick them out of home or prevent them from staging a POS and building capitals. |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp The Bastion
35
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:21:17 -
[222] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:................... The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions) provides security while you are undocked and mobile around the structure.
'Mooring Tether' or perhaps 'Bowline'?
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2152
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:23:04 -
[223] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.
AI using the defensive modules is a MUST! Can't stress this enough. Otherwise no-one but a massive Null corp will be able to use any of these structures since it will be vastly too easy to take them. The Vulnerability window is far too massive for any small corp to handle and turns Eve into a job not a game at that point.
Additionally, High Sec stations will need to be locked into Concord rules. Otherwise it's too easy to get billions of isk of OTHER PEOPLES stuff destroyed. It would become the new Awox, join the corp, blow all their stations up with concord after shooting your alt in a newbie ship. |
Xendoh
Luv You Long Time
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:34:21 -
[224] - Quote
With the changes, implementing Citadels, and removing POS's, I have a few concerns..
1. without the POS force field to safe up - how do you intend to provide Supers/ Titans with an "Invulnerability Field" to protect them, or least give them the opportunity to stay protected while moving from one area to another? Seeing they can't currently dock, and there is no answer as of yet to if they will be allowed to dock in the X-Large citadel.
2. With the new implementation of Citadels will ppl still have the ability to light cyno's on the new Citadel's as they do on stations in low/null that can dock? Will there be a predetermined invulnerability area or a similar type of docking radius? How will the work in conjunction with the new Structure mechanics?
3. When does CCP plan on releasing a dev blog about the "State of Super Capitals" within the new system? I think most people who have interests in larger coalitions / alliances are lingering in suspense as to the answer to this question, many ppl already know a bunch of ppl who have "mothballed" their Supers/Titans, unsubbed those accounts and are really in a holding pattern as to the direction CCP are going here. "Bitter Vets" in particular being the longevity and mainstay within eve, which in large part have lot to do with the injection of the new player base with them recruiting from RL. (That's how I got started)
My concern is those "Bitter Vets" that recruited me from RL have since the announcement of the new "Fozzie Sov" have pretty much been afk from EVE and it's not just my EVE environment, You can read articles on any EVE propaganda page about the CFC playing other games, or other well known Coalitions participation numbers dropping.
Ignoring the question doesn't answer it, if anything not answering it makes ppl draw conclusions that hurt the EVE community as a whole.
|
Lurifax
Shiva Nulli Secunda
25
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:37:09 -
[225] - Quote
Why do you want the XL Citadel if you still need to go capture the nodes 2-3 times? why put all does guns on the station and how will the guns work in freeport mode. |
Katabrok First
Apukaray Security
87
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:45:18 -
[226] - Quote
What about agents in our citadels? Maybe we could contract them from a corporation with which we have good standings? |
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:57:37 -
[227] - 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.
So we can't walk in them, our assets are not safe in them and they serve no purpose other than fight over them. Why should the Entrepreneurs, Traditional and Social players bother with them, then?
What are you doing for those players, CCP? Take their money and hand all the new toys to Professional and Agressor players?
She strutted into my office wearing a dress that clung to her like Saran Wrap to a sloppily butchered pork knuckle, bone and sinew jutting and lurching asymmetrically beneath its folds, the tightness exaggerating the granularity of the suet and causing what little palatable meat there was to sweat, its transparency the thief of imagination.
|
Tarus Echerie
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 20:58:20 -
[228] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:I can anchor them just for me personally (not corp, alliance), correct?
Yes we plan on allowing personal anchoring but you must be a player corporation, not NPC (so you can be wardecced).
So, you have to be in a player corp to deploy the structure, but does this prevent NPC chars from using the structures?
ex. What if you have new people on a Trial (not join corp but just fly with us a few days) with your corp/alliance; could they interact with corp/alliance structures? Will it require some standings mechanic? Would you have to allow "freeport" access? |
kyoukoku
The Scope Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:00:23 -
[229] - Quote
Small request, the image links on the dev blog only go to lowish res images. Any chance this was a mistake & we could see them in higher res please? a++ püñ Gùò_Gùò a++püñ |
Mister Ripley
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:21:16 -
[230] - Quote
Damn barbarians! |
|
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
49
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:26:21 -
[231] - Quote
Sounds cool as usual
Questions: - Citadel models are the plans for multiple per size category or just the one? - If so will they be faction specific or just random and if random do we get to pick? - Will they have the SKIN options too? - The weapons, do they need to be manned to operate? - Will all the different mods have hard points? I'd love to see a little hanger bay hard point for the drones to use - Any thoughts on rough costing for the different sizes or is it a bit early? |
Fzhal
Anoikis Vergence The Last Chancers.
21
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:32:53 -
[232] - Quote
Lurifax wrote:Why do you want the XL Citadel if you still need to go capture the nodes 2-3 times? It still only takes one time were the intosis modil manages to hit the station or does takes 2-3 times with entosis links and nodes ?
why put all does guns on the station and how will the guns work in freeport mode.
He has a point. At first I was going to refute him, but it seems that the problem goes a bit deeper.
Why put guns on something that is taken without the combat mechanics (for the most part)? Ships with Entosis links can't receive remote reps or help of any kind. That means that automated defenses (if implemented) can't be powerful enough to take out one ship (perhaps of any size) unless that ship is stationary. But even if someone has to pilot the structure's guns, the attackers needs to be able to survive 2 Entosis cycles because they can't be repaired or warp away. It sounds like there is a strange balance situation where structure offenses, manned or not, have to be balanced so that they cannot destroy ships too quickly. That is, unless the attackers are expected to have overwhelming numbers.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong! I want guns on my POSs! |
Mellianah
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:36:20 -
[233] - Quote
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? ;) |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
243
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:36:57 -
[234] - Quote
Since you dev's are head strong on destroying every structure
will you provide insurance rates for them? |
Aaril
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:37:47 -
[235] - Quote
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. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
243
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:46:18 -
[236] - Quote
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.
|
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:54:09 -
[237] - Quote
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."
|
Aliventi
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
853
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:54:27 -
[238] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. I would love to this to greatly affect NPC stations. One of the big issues with NPC space is the distinct lack of customization of the stations and station services. To take NPC 0.0 as an example there are only three station systems in Outer RIng, three station systems in Great Wildlands, and six systems in Stain that have cloning facilities. Unfortunately the lack of stations and services are a big issue with the useage of this space.
This system should allow us as players to build and develops highsec, lowsec and NPC nulsec as we wish. Allow us to build Player-Generated NPC-Administered Citadels in NPC space. have us build and anchor the structures, have them be administered by a chosen NPC group (the anchoring party paid or crowd sourced upkeep costs would be a must), and perform efficiency-wise inversely proportional to the security space they are anchored in (SOV stations have better upgrades than NPC nulsec stations which have better upgrades that lowsec stations which have better upgrades than highsec stations.) From there slowly take away NPC stations as they currently exist and allow us as players to replace them with Player-Generated NPC-Administered Citadels (and other structures to come) of our choosing. The biggest issue is how to deal with the removal of these structures to prevent the space from getting cluttered with Player-Generated NPC-Administered Citadels. I am sure a fine solution can be generated through player input and CCP's design goals. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2397
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 21:55:24 -
[239] - Quote
Will anchorable bubbles fall under the new structures as small or are those being left untouched? |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
243
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:08:33 -
[240] - Quote
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. |
|
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
|
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2320
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 00:07:59 -
[271] - Quote
@CCP;
You have basically got the general gist of what a POS 2.0 structure should be.
I am glad you've made them self-defending.
Given the preliminary nature of this work, my only comments are;
IF, hypothetically, one cannot get an XL Citadel into a wormhole, then you have answered whether or not a L sized citadel can dock capitals. It's simple logic.
You say that the POS will need supporting EWAR to be effective at defending itself. Immediately I remind you, gently, of
a) the current stae of POS missile batteries vs interceptors, or anything really
b) medium and large POS guns vs Interceptors, therefore consider the possibility that
c) linked up Entosis carrying ships vs the proposed Citadels insofar as you need to ensure that a Citadel cannot therefore be trolled by something aside from a trollceptor.
d) compound a) and c) - Caldari Citadels with missile defences may be particularly vulnerable to trollceptors or atack simply because if POS guns use Dreadnought-sized weapons which "require webs and TP's supplied by a fleet to be effective' then I am sure us crafty buggers will metagame it so tha we can effectively troll the Citadel
Also, on that note, you have to consider whether POS guns and modules are affected by wormhole system effects, as they should be. You may find that tracking-nerfed Magnetar guns would be particularly terrible, and Red Giant smartbomb POS zomg. Etcetera.
Also, you may want to think about what an effective AOE EWAR effect would do. I invite you o snoop the P7 M2 POS in J130253 and consider attacking it with subcaps, and mentally wargame why I have chosen to go this route, which basically creates a grid-sized Dampener effect that will affect every hostile on field. AOE EWAR is going to be a challenge.
Finally, AOE weapons vs drones might be the only good thing to counter drone meta vs structures. Suck it ishtards.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
164
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 00:29:12 -
[272] - Quote
1) With the idea that the structure won't defend itself, for small groups, what you are saying is that they are REQUIRED to have someone POS sitting 23/7 if they don't want their structure reinforced by some tiny roaming gang with an Entosis Link. I can see people doing this even if only for trolling. Yes I understand they will have an opportunity to show up to defend during the window when it comes out of reinforce, but they won't have the ability to prevent that reinforce from happening UNLESS someone POS sits 23/7. The current system allows for small groups/solo players to set up their POS in such a way that it can't be reinforced by a couple random stray passer-bys, this system actually encourages reinforcement trolling.
2) Being listed in the scan window. BAD IDEA. Part of the current system of hiding/protecting a POS is to put it up in a system with a metric ton of moons. Yeah you can warp to all the moons, but until you get there you don't know which ones for sure have POS's at them without running d-scans on each one (presuming their are in d-scan range). This just sounds like it is just helping the random trolls and hunters by making everything clearly listed without having to hunt through the moons. Please please if you do decide that you need to make it easier for people to find stuff (like all those anoms/sites that became insta warpable), at least make it to where you can't see the owner or anything about it simply by warping into the system/WH.
3) Seems with all these proposed mechanics you don't want/expect any solo players or even small groups to set up a structure, ever. With the current system a POS can be setup to deter all but very serious attempts to reinforce it, but with this, a single troll can take down any structure he wants. Yeah I understand you can let it ride for a couple of reinforcement cycles before you catch it to actually mount a defense, but we really need/want the ability to not have to get to that point to begin with. If the reinforcement cycles make the structure worse off than the one before, how is that a good idea at all? Thats like saying that current POS owners should have a preferred defense mechanism of letting their tower get reinforced, and then hit again and into structure before being able to consider defending it or warding off even lone attackers.
I'm sure I had more but this is just too ridiculous, I like the ideas, but the implementation is terrible... esp no loot, I earn part of my living off planning profitable POS hits, and this is going to take a good portion of that away. I can no longer steal dozens of billions from a poor guy who had too much ISK and didn't know how to properly use a POS.
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
164
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 00:38:54 -
[273] - Quote
4) A current large POS in full dickstar mode with neuts/guns to handle marauders can take on a large fleet of targets... without anyone there to tell it what to do before it gets reinforced. What will the new structures be capable of? |
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
5096
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 00:43:59 -
[274] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.
Initial thought was 1000km would be much more appropriate. That would ensure you need to warp to them if you are on grid with any other location of note, and that you can't set one up 251km above a belt with long range weapons, and another 251km below the belt, and shoot anyone that mines there.
Yes, if given the opportunity, my alliance WILL do this, in highsec, and WILL wardec people to make it happen. It will be hilarious for us, but (IMO) a broken mechanic.
On further thought, I thought the distance should actually be higher than that - perhaps 10^5 km - to ensure that they cannot be placed in areas hidden behind permanent acceleration gates. Consider someone that replicates that with a research POS located 9950km from the beacon in a COSMOS complex with a 10000km radius deadspace around the beacon. An attacker cannot warp to a probe hit on that structure, and probably cannot find its exact location via any other means. But the owner can warp to a bookmark located 10001 km from the beacon whenever they need to bring fuel or change blueprints at the POS (or, if it's a production POS not a research one, bring a freighter in).
You could declare that an exploit after the fact, but IMO it's a better option to address the problem now with a 10^5 km anchoring limitation.
Shoot everyone. Let the Saviour sort it out.
I enforce the New Haliama Code of Conduct via wardec ops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - read about requirements for highsec miners at www.minerbumping.com
|
Nikolai Agnon
Dirt 'n' Glitter
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 00:44:12 -
[275] - Quote
Structures and Factional Warfare.
Can we expect FW infrastructure bonuses to Citadels and/or other deployables? Since FW is pretty similar to what lowsec sovereignty would be, can we look forward to seeing indices based on ihub upgrades, and/or lower fuel demands?
I've been waiting for a long time for mobile depot-like ship storing, that way I can personally 'deploy' to a system for a few days to a week at a time. It'll be hella cool to use these new Citadels as forward staging bases, on both personal and corporate scales. That said, FW has been in need of some upgrades for quite some time, and giving FW some structure-oriented love and care can help go a long way. I understand the primary focus here is on the structure mechanics, but similar to how WH space may need special cases and how there are plans for sov bonuses to structures, so too does FW need some implementation attention.
A few specific suggestions on how Citadels and/or other structures could be affected by FW ihub upgrades: + Lower fuel consumption rates for setting up in friendly-militia-controlled systems (rewards 'stronghold' systems at corporate/coalition/militia levels) + Fuel penalties for deploying in enemy-militia-controlled systems + Additional timers for friendly systems (for example, +1 timer for IHUB levels 1, 3, and 5; total count decided upon the first successful attack) + Similar to "paid pirates for protection", Minor defensive support from Empire navy (I'm not personally keen on this idea, but it'd be a minor level of defense that prevent contestion unless actual (minor) effort is applied, similar to plex rats)
Rewards and penalties could then be scaled according to the system's ihub upgrade level. With fuel for instance, 5-10% reduction in fuel demands per ihub level: instead of going away entirely, the cost would be absorbed into investing LP into the ihubs and maintaining them by shooing away enemy plexers (the FW equivalent to defending systems in Sov).
Lowsec/FW will be affected by these new structures just as much as anywhere else in the game. It'd be cool to see some implementation consideration :)
Nikolai Agnon |
LCdr Shepard
Nolen Transportation Group
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:01:53 -
[276] - Quote
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite blog on the citadel. |
Scott Ormands
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
15
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:05:03 -
[277] - Quote
LCdr Shepard wrote:I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite blog on the citadel.
Stolen from reddit |
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
389
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:06:07 -
[278] - Quote
Current Large POS's, can easily defend against large groups because they can have enough offensive modules to spread across the attacking fleet. This is especially handy in HS warfare. How many different things will will the new system be able to 'handle'. It seems like maybe a dozen at max, this needs to be up'ed.
So far there seems to be a big desparity between the defensive and 'offensive' capabilities of the new system and old system at the same comparable 'size'.
The new system BETTER be able to handle small groups on its own, like the size that will troll the crap out of the new system.
http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...
|
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R
72
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:07:42 -
[279] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:When do we get some news on these new structures and how or if they will interact in wormhole space?
Quote: All structures will show on D-scan, can be probed, and will be scannable to see their fittings and contents. We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay.
again... ...to preserve Wormhole space gameplay.
Could, would CCP Somethehellbody PLEASE explain how this is seen as affecting much less 'preserving' Wormhole space gameplay??? Sov style structure gameplay in holes preserves nothing.
I ask again, with all due respect... we all know Nullsec is "The End Game of EVE" (personal opinion withheld) and for the foreseeable future CCP is onna All-Nullsec-All-The-Live-Long-Day binge (personal opinion withheld)... but damnit man... please tell those of us who have forsworn taking knee to the Lords of Nullsuc (personal opinion allowed to slip out a little), those of your paying playerbase who have actually made our homes in Anoikis... tell us how you see these new structures panning out in W-Space...
Please.
TurAmarth ElRandir
Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro
and Unrepentant Blogger
Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)=
http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3406
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:20:00 -
[280] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. Just make sure that you do it in a way that everyone can make money. If ONLY the min/maxers can make money, then most players will get shut out of industry. Its sort of like the old production efficiency skill. You had to have it at 5 to be competitive, so there was no interesting game play surrounding it. Don't do the same thing with structure bonuses.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
254
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:21:14 -
[281] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
It is already obvious that you guys want to avoid docking games with the T2 entosis link, by forcing the brawl 250km from the structure, but I am very glad to hear it spelled out so clearly!
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
81
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:25:29 -
[282] - Quote
People are saying that are not a fan of the medium, large, and x-l naming convention.
Could we change the naming scheme slightly and have something along the line of Keep = Medium, Chateau = Large, and Citadel = XL It would give variety and also make it easier to know what you are going up against. It doesn't have to be that it could be something more sci-fi I just do not have any good examples.
Other then that I really like what I have seen so far and am waiting for more information as I think some people have raised good points. |
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
454
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:27:35 -
[283] - Quote
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
you shall all bow and pray BoB
|
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
81
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:28:37 -
[284] - Quote
Saisin wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. It is already obvious that you guys want to avoid docking games with the T2 entosis link, by forcing the brawl 250km from the structure, but I am very glad to hear it spelled out so clearly! Could you not make this part of the stations built in self defense that repulses any ships that perform a hostile act within a 5k radius out to 15k.
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
245
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:32:43 -
[285] - Quote
Terranid Meester wrote: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?
I have.. and ive checked and there is none
bowhead - nada cant fight 100's of ships in a customer's hanger.. plus it cant jump freighters - yeah tons of m3 cargo hold space.. cant haul fitted battleships or caps or much in reference to the enormous container that would be spat out into space.. slow as rocks and don't give me that webbing mess..due to not only having to retrieve my own stuff.. I would have to retrieve perhaps 100's of individuals items..
blockade runner --.. hahaha not enough room
itheron or other haulers - negative on cargo space and no way even feasible to use in an op like that during a hot-zone of aggressors laughing their behinds off camping a system where they just blew up a freaking station and drooling at the mouths attempting to hunt down those that are trying to get their things.
we need a "place all eggs in the basket" supreme capital hauler that can perform and out perform anything we have in the game.
unless they decide to compress all items and ships into some cube so the little guy can get stuff out for the big guys.. while the big guys are crying, raging, and kicking puppies.
we need an evac hauler! |
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:35:58 -
[286] - Quote
I have been waiting for this blog for a while now and I am super excited again. I figured you would have worked backwards and started with drilling platform or research observatory. first making the arrays independent of the control tower but, your going straight for the Control Tower. No more stick around a moon, I'm going to own a space station. Awesome.
Not much was said in the blog, so not much to say right now other than love the visuals, especially the part about Drones defending your station. Thumbs up there, you made a lot people happy with that call.
I see this taking 6-8 months till we see it live. So how about a little something to tie us over. I was thinking in two releases from now, can you remove the mechanic that requires a P.O.S. to be anchored around a moon and let us anchor it anywhere since that feature is coming anyways. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
579
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:55:10 -
[287] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Takeo Yanumano wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:You won't know the configuration of the station once you do warp in there. TL;DR Station scanning equipment? (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç With a cycle time longer than the target lock + scramble time to your internet spaceship. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç They've already said that cargo scanners and ship scanners would work on citadels, iirc. The Rifters. The Reapers. THE INVASION. Our time has come. For 8 years, we prepared. We grew stronger. While you rested in your cradle of power, believing your people were safe... and protected. You were trusted to lead the new EraGÇöbut you were deceived, as our powers of the Rifter have blinded you. You assumed no force could challenge you... and now... finally... We have returned.
You were deceived. And now, your Citadels shall fall.
Raising the issue of current Ship Scanners being inadequately balanced with their 2 sec cycle times and 50 km range.
Gaining crucial intel via such trivial mechanics needs to be looked at and rectified, perhaps, with an introduction of a separate Citadel scanning module.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2070
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:56:51 -
[288] - Quote
I have to say CCP Ytterbium writes the best blogs... i like his style
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2070
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 02:00:29 -
[289] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Gilbaron wrote:why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ? Se we can balance them separately, these weapons will have very different stats to existing ship weapons.
plz give them cool names like found in Master of orion 2.
I want stellar converters and mass drivers and Zeon Missiles...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31457
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 03:04:04 -
[290] - Quote
Regarding the possibility of a CQ and hangar view delete, it might seem like a great idea to keep players in space, even when docked... but there is a sense of being grounded when you can see your ship or avatar in a station. I get that deleting CQ and hangar is a practical thing to do in a revamp like this, but I recommend living out of a POS while you still can, to get a sense for what happens when you never get a respite from space. It's as if you never have a floor under your feet. If structures are treated as giant POSes, it's important you understand this.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
245
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 03:51:04 -
[291] - Quote
1 - I am curious why you are abandoning such a basic mechaic that a POS has with these new structures: Automated defenses.
Hiring pirates to defend your structure.... who defends them now? If I have to pay a manufacturing/research fee based on system indices (because there is no 100% automation so I am paying someone to work) will this mean we don't have to pay these fees for the new structures? After all, surely someone can be hired to likewise "man the guns". If the issue is simply: nothing for free: then have this automation certainly use fuel but with less effectiveness than if a player was using the guns themselves. This leads to a sub-question: why does POS fuel not include food for the npcs that apparently live on it - especially in Wormholes?
ie: It is understandable that the guns would be less effective for a non-capsuleer to operate them, but that they can only be operated by a capsuleer seems a gross design oversight. Please reconsider this.
2 - What happens to personal assets in a Citadel if it is offlined? Do these get destroyed or will they fall under the Asset Safety rule that would kick in should the Citadel have been blown up? I would suggest the latter since no one likes losing assets due to someone clicking offline by accident or intent.
3 - I like the idea that they show up on D-Scan. I do not like the idea that you can otherwise warp directly to them. If it is not a system effecting structure and does not otherwise fall into a permissible access category, you should only be able to warp to it if you have probed it down. D-scan simplifies things, making them warp-able by default OVER-simplifies it.
4 - How will moon mining work - I assume you will utilize a "slot" of sorts to prevent multiple Structures mining the same moon for resources.
5 - Are we really going to have to wait 2 hours to offline a structure or was that an example? Might I suggest that offlining is much quicker if there is no threat to the structure IE: no one has reinforced it or using an Entosis link on it.
Overall I am very happy with the direction Structures are going.
> There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people
> to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp
- CCP Yitterbium
|
The Mach
STEEL CITY. Illuminati Confirmed.
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 04:10:59 -
[292] - Quote
Can i walk in them? Will the "Door" be open? |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3291
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 04:30:04 -
[293] - Quote
will the weapon systems be targetable? Will they still work after the RF cycles but before the final takeover/destruction?
Currently, if you want to kill a pos, you usually take out the most annoying defenses first before shooting the tower. Once the tower is RFed many modules will automatically go offline (points and ewar for example). Since its not mentioned in the blog i guess you would have to tank the structure while doing the entosis capturing without an option to deal with the defenses first?
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Kyoko Sakoda
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Multicultural F1 Brigade
219
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 04:33:28 -
[294] - Quote
In the First Time, the great Tranquility core was found. With it came the gift of interstellar travel, and the Yulai trade routes were established, uniting the galaxy in ISK... |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3291
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 04:41:43 -
[295] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: 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.
relative simple solution regarding docking games: separate the docking area from the undocking area
if you warp to a new structure you would land at the docking area where you can dock. If you leave the structure you exit at the undocking exit. This is esp feasible with the new structures since like you wrote in the devblog you see the surrounding all the time. You don't need invulnerability timers after undock and you also don't need the option to redock right away since you can make a educated decision if undocking is safe or not. If you want to redock you would have to fly to the docking area.
#dockingGamesFixed
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Sabirah Seldanar
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 04:54:03 -
[296] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
I've two main concerns about this:
First, are you sure it's going to be a good idea to allow these structure everywhere? Other games that allowed free building ruined their own landscapes. In place like high sec we have already the "problem" of abandoned or mothballed POSses, are you sure it's good idea to have also these structures, possibly in time being owned by inactive corps and/or players, everywhere without a proper decay mechanic? What about a mechanic to prove owner is still active and if not they became conquerable by anyone?
Second, are you sure having fuel usage per module is a good idea? We had already in the past POSses using different quantity of fuel based on what they had online, and we moved away from it since people were onlining / offlining modules all the times, what is going to be different this time with these structures? What is going to forbid me to online, let's say, the fitting modules only when I need it, or the insurance, just to put it offline when I'm done?
Thanks in advance
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
245
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 06:05:50 -
[297] - Quote
Sabirah Seldanar wrote: I've two main concerns about this:
First, are you sure it's going to be a good idea to allow these structure everywhere? Other games that allowed free building ruined their own landscapes. In place like high sec we have already the "problem" of abandoned or mothballed POSses, are you sure it's good idea to have also these structures, possibly in time being owned by inactive corps and/or players, everywhere without a proper decay mechanic? What about a mechanic to prove owner is still active and if not they became conquerable by anyone?
Second, are you sure having fuel usage per module is a good idea? We had already in the past POSses using different quantity of fuel based on what they had online, and we moved away from it since people were onlining / offlining modules all the times, what is going to be different this time with these structures? What is going to forbid me to online, let's say, the fitting modules only when I need it, or the insurance, just to put it offline when I'm done?
Thanks in advance
1 - I think the current war dec mechanics would deal with this nicely. Also, considering you won't be structure grinding, it should be very do-able with an Alt.
2 - if there is a limited window to attack, unlike current POSes, then adding decay mechanic based on usage of the structure might be the best solution since these are larger structures than deployables which decay over hours and days. Over time, the medium to large structures will become vulnerable 24/7 - but that would take several months of non-activity: not docking or running jobs at the structure.
> There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people
> to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp
- CCP Yitterbium
|
Vendictus Prime
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 06:09:41 -
[298] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:handige harrie wrote:I like those designs a lot.
Would it be possible to have multiple designs for structures, so players can choose which one they want and make different systems have a different look to them, instead of seeing the same structure everywhere? That is sort of the point with the different classes, each size and each class will be a different hull like ships.
The concept art looks great and scale looks very good based on the art details, but I think it was asked earlier, are there going to be variants based on the 4 primary races? The current concept art looks very Caldari in design, which is not really a bad thing.
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
511
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 06:36:06 -
[299] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. Since we ha thus invul thing that will act as force field look-alike nit much should change from current situation. So what a player can play docking games uf he simpky goes in and out of invul area just like old force field. So im not worried about docking games unless this invul area works different than ff because we already have ff games and there are ways to dwal with them.
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
921
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 06:43:14 -
[300] - Quote
A lot to take in, I also speed read all the posts until now.
The first point I would like to make is to do with the weapons systems not allowed in hisec, my suggestion is that you remove Citadels from CONCORD action, the space they are put in is effectively their own and as you are making it so they cannot be within 250 km of something else that should be enough to prevent griefing. Wouldn't that be a better more elegant solution and go with the premise of people owning their own bit of space. In affect the grid around these Citadels becomes CONCORD free space.
In terms of automated defences they need to be, and it should be possible to set them to kill anything not blue for example even in hisec.
It is important to me because after reading your comments on these Citadels being on the overview I realised that this was now worse than having a POS next to a moon in terms of making it easy for people to find.
I realise that what I would ask for is different to what WH player would want as they block other people from putting towers up as part of their defensive strategy, so the put anywhere mode removes one of their defences, but in reality if they get clone bays they get a big improvement to their defence. You cannot please everybody and have to point out the other areas in which they have improvements which balance against the negatives like no longer being able to control all the areas where structures could be placed.
Ella's Snack bar
|
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3535
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 06:51:08 -
[301] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Terranid Meester wrote: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? I have.. and ive checked and there is none bowhead - nada cant fit 100's of ships in a customer's hanger.. plus it cant jump freighters - yeah tons of m3 cargo hold space.. cant haul fitted battleships or caps or much in reference to the enormous container that would be spat out into space.. slow as rocks and don't give me that webbing mess..due to not only having to retrieve my own stuff.. I would have to retrieve perhaps 100's of individuals items.. blockade runner --.. hahaha not enough room itheron or other haulers - negative on cargo space and no way even feasible to use in an op like that during a hot-zone of aggressors laughing their behinds off camping a system where they just blew up a freaking station and drooling at the mouths attempting to hunt down those that are trying to get their things. we need a "place all eggs in the basket" supreme capital hauler that can perform and out perform anything we have in the game. unless they decide to compress all items and ships into some cube so the little guy can get stuff out for the big guys.. while the big guys are crying, raging, and kicking puppies. we need an evac hauler!
Now take a deep breath (not a popular sport in EVE, though).
You could not defend your station albeit it had X defense trinkets.
So, what makes you think you could defend your evacuation??
CCP have pretty much placed themselves between a rock and a hard place with that thing. The sensible answer is obvious (spawn assets in the nearest neutral NPC station) but CCP will never agree to it, so they will come up with some convolute and ultimately useless system which will fail to perform its task of avoiding total loss of assets in the event that a player fails to defend the station.
Now, take a second look at where this is going. CCP plans to add new space to the game, and obviously the structures are a part of that plot. And we know that 62% of EVE players will not go there because that would mean PvP. And yet CCP (CCP Seagull) haves no "plan B" for players who don't give a rat's ass of "space colonization". Which are, remember, 62% of the playerbase.
Good job, CCP Seagull. Effin' good job you're doing here. *slow clap*
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...
|
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
153
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 07:05:18 -
[302] - Quote
Thanks for putting devblogs about this important issue out long before making final designdecisions. Some questions I came up with:
1.Will the structures have a predefined undock? Will you be able to bump ships within the invullinked area? What ranges are you plaining for the linked areas? 2,5 like docking or 20 like a FF? Will it work like the invultimer upon undocking so the player can decide when to break it or will you be autolinked if within range like a FF now?
2.Unless you are able to bring capitals (c1-4 or highsec, where most of the small corps live) or completely stupid numbers the timeinvestement to RF a well defended (resi-,****- or deathstar) is 2-5 hours. This is more to stop people from even thinking about it than actual defense. Will the entosistime be along the same numbers, the nullnumbers so far suggest no. The current POSdefenses and mechanics are hugely imbalanced towrds the defender in smaller conflics. But this is also the reason why smaller groups, especially in lowend WHs, can survive and have fun without getting facerolled just because they are there (like in sov-nullsec).
3.T2 entosis has 250 km range so structureweapons and ewar have to have a range higher than that to be of any use. That just sounds wrong. I could also entosis from the undock of next structure over.
4.Placing them everywhere would include inside of static DED pockets.
5.What will be the cynorestrictions near structures? None like stations or far away like a POS?
6.If you don-¦t limit them to number of moons how do you plan on keeping them on a handable level? I can see 200+ of those strucs in jita just because we can. And there is no UI that works well on those numbers. Most Whs of larger corps have already 50+ towers in system.
7.Scanning the structures equals uncloaking, getting spotted and being blabbed by structureguns. Are scanners that work while cloaked a possibility?
8.Drones as weapons, I do not like. Not just because I hate the current drones everywhere meta but because I think a station should not launch some small throwaway drones to defend but starships.
9.Will the citadels have captain-¦s quarters? |
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
41
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 07:05:57 -
[303] - Quote
A few feedback points:
Market Hubs should look like they are the homes of corporate offices and financial districts right? We're talking big money here, and big money would find a way to integrate their sizable defenses into a sleek, luxurious design. They wouldn't make their offices look like a reclaimed military base.
After winning a structure fight, I should have the option to 'capture' or 'destroy' the structure. Sometimes we will want the asset. Other times we'll just want to blow it up. But it's imperative that we be given the option, rather than all structure fights ending in destruction.
3 vulnerabilities sure feels like a major structure grind.
I think the structures defenses should work regardless of whether the structure is 'piloted' or not. Just have penalties applied to the weapons when structure is un-piloted. Much better solution than hiring NPCs which are terrible at killing players.
Structures having their own drones/fighters. Love it.
What are the restrictions going to be? 1 Market hub/System? 10? one of each size? Unlimited?
Exciting stuff guys, keep up the good work. |
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
8313
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 07:15:53 -
[304] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:3 vulnerabilities sure feels like a major structure grind.
Looks like they exchanged structure grind to entosis hit and run trolling.
Custom ship skins | Since 2014 | Character creator style "repaint" | Bring back the dream
|
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
153
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 07:20:21 -
[305] - Quote
One suggestion for the corphangars in those citadels. Add a inventory-tab called donations to it where everybody can put in but it saves the ownership of the items. If someone takes somethig out he gets a "donate" popup where he can decide how much the things he took are worth. That money then goes to the previous owner. Would allow groups to share a big range of items up to ships and deadspacemodules without the hassle of working, maintaining and searching a million marketorders or contracts. Right now we only have the extremes of above mentioned hassle or giving it away for free ( which you still can do, but most people are willing to pay for their stuff). |
Gunz blazing Ronuken
Insane's Asylum Pride Before Fall
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 07:39:52 -
[306] - Quote
Please allow for defences to be automatically activated when players are not at their citadel! Its a vital function to have some small defence against attacks for smaller teams that don't have 300 players and 24/7 coverage. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
921
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 07:49:30 -
[307] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Now take a deep breath (not a popular sport in EVE, though).
You could not defend your station albeit it had X defense trinkets.
So, what makes you think you could defend your evacuation??
CCP have pretty much placed themselves between a rock and a hard place with that thing. The sensible answer is obvious (spawn assets in the nearest neutral NPC station) but CCP will never agree to it, so they will come up with some convolute and ultimately useless system which will fail to perform its task of avoiding total loss of assets in the event that a player fails to defend the station.
Now, take a second look at where this is going. CCP plans to add new space to the game, and obviously the structures are a part of that plot. And we know that 62% of EVE players will not go there because that would mean PvP. And yet CCP (CCP Seagull) haves no "plan B" for players who don't give a rat's ass of "space colonization". Which are, remember, 62% of the playerbase.
Good job, CCP Seagull. Effin' good job you're doing here. *slow clap*
To be blunt I am with you in terms of just putting the assets in NPC stations, when They reduced the jump range I had 35bn worth of assets in deep Stain and no way to get them back apart from WH's. I will never make that mistake again...
Lots of us want our own space Empire, we just do not want to get rolled over easily, I would like to know what their plan B is for those players that want a space Empire but do not want to be the football for those that like kicking things just because they can, CCP have a chance to get out of their death spiral with Eve, will they take it? Looking at these things being on overview etc., the answer is likely to be NO...
Sorry guys I like the premise and scale what you are doing, but the reality is that you have to look at the player base in Eve and how that sits, you have a very deep game that is ruined by people blowing stuff up because they can and for no other reason than that. While that ethos runs the game you have an issue, we see it with the API / CREST detailing all Sov details, we have it with the overview showing all of these new structures.
Why would I even try when there will be a queue of people ready able and willing to kill these things just because they can and you make it easy to find them, its boring as hell to play a game full of people who want to make the world burn because they can, I wanted something deeper but all I can see if this type of attitude: "Your Grief = Our Happiness" as one US TZ war dec alliance has on their alliance details, how do you make it so that people can put these up and hope to defend them against people who want to make the world burn, why would I even bother?
Now that is where you guys can make a major change to the game if you are brave, will you do it?
Ella's Snack bar
|
Atum' Ra
Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx
74
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 08:02:16 -
[308] - Quote
Gunz blazing Ronuken wrote:Please allow for defences to be automatically activated when players are not at their citadel! Its a vital function to have some small defence against attacks for smaller teams that don't have 300 players and 24/7 coverage. You can rent NPC fleet to defend your citadel & space. That will be enough for all)
I'm dreaming about NPC supercarriers at the orbit of my citadel
-ÿ -ü-+-Ç-+-ü-+-+ -¦-¦-+: -¦-¦-¦ -é-¦-¦-¦ -+-+-Å? -ÿ -+-+ -ü-¦-¦-+-¦-+ -¦ -+-é-¦-¦-é: -+-¦-¦-+-+-+ -+-+-Å -+-+-¦, -+-+-é-+-+-â -ç-é-+ -+-¦-ü -+-+-+-¦-+ (-£-¦, 5:9)
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
321
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 08:08:06 -
[309] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: (shooting neutrals) We may [...] allow you to do so but have CONCORD show up and destroy your structure if you commit an act of aggression.
Wow, that's a huge trolling magnet you're considering there :) |
JanSVK
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 08:29:35 -
[310] - Quote
Shake my Citadel wrote: All structures will show on D-scan, can be probed, and will be scannable to see their fittings and contents.
Don't like the see their contents part.
Do I understand correctly that by scanning you will be able to see all the assets in the structure? This is not possible with the current mechanic.
|
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
511
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 08:30:36 -
[311] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. Can i scan while cloaked?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Niden
Moira. Villore Accords
168
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 08:36:35 -
[312] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
When docked you will see surrounding space.
Wait whaaat? Explain this to me please!
/N
Moira corp | Villore Accords | Gallente militia |-á Lowlife on Crossing Zebras | @Niden_GMVA
|
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
3
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 08:53:56 -
[313] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: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.
I-¦ll start off with the above post, just to avoid to come over a lot more "jerky" myself ... XD
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Now take a deep breath (not a popular sport in EVE, though).
You could not defend your station albeit it had X defense trinkets.
So, what makes you think you could defend your evacuation??
CCP have pretty much placed themselves between a rock and a hard place with that thing. The sensible answer is obvious (spawn assets in the nearest neutral NPC station) but CCP will never agree to it, so they will come up with some convolute and ultimately useless system which will fail to perform its task of avoiding total loss of assets in the event that a player fails to defend the station.
Now, take a second look at where this is going. CCP plans to add new space to the game, and obviously the structures are a part of that plot. And we know that 62% of EVE players will not go there because that would mean PvP. And yet CCP (CCP Seagull) haves no "plan B" for players who don't give a rat's ass of "space colonization". Which are, remember, 62% of the playerbase.
Good job, CCP Seagull. Effin' good job you're doing here. *slow clap*
The above OPs hits some very valid points, but from the answers so far the devs dont seem to be able or wanting to pick it up! No matter what nice eyecandy and fluffy words about these new structures you spread in the end its clear that funtionality and flexibility (of setups) for these "Citadels" will be inferior to the current POS in a way that obstructs several uses and playing styles a considerable portion of your player base uses it for atm. Quite a number of soloplayer corporations or even small corporations with real players will find themselves gobsmacked by this new system. As these often very little "interact" with others ingame I feel they are also rarely represented in the fanboy chorus of the forums. Even if many here seem to have a notion of looking down on these players, cause the dont "really" play the game - in the end they are all part of eves (industrial) foundation and in their own way bring content to this universe (even if its only as a vendor or target^^). Not to speak about paying CCPs wages ...
CCP by thoughtlessly cutting down on historically grown funtionalities and playstyles will definitly loose a (small?) portion of their playerbase.
Putting my rant into perspective I-¦m running with a small corp that colonized a wh system and really put some effort in there ... dont expect me to be happy when the work of a long time gets questioned by discontinuing fundamental concepts like POS. -.-
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1013
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 09:23:08 -
[314] - Quote
Just to clear up somethings regarding highsec structures and CONCORD. I assume the entosis module cannot be used without CONCORD getting involved. If so, will a corporation be able to pull down their structures before a war goes live like current POSes, or will the structures be stuck in space like POCOs currently are? Will offlining a structure put it into vulnerability in highsec that is independent of CONCORD or will the structure still be protected? |
Sequester Risalo
Significant Others
130
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 09:36:07 -
[315] - Quote
I'm sorry I only made it through the first 14 pages before posting and everything I wanted to offer has already been said. However I still want to point out that the taking away of self defense mechanism is breaking the new structures for me.
Let me remind you of your aims:
"Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack." (Back into the structure)
"Medium sized Citadel structures will be around 5-25km in diameter and are tailored for individual or small groups of players. They will be able to fit some appropriate defenses to offer resistance against most kind of assaults including capital ships. Moreover, players can dock inside them with sub-capital ships." (shake my citadel)
In my opinion there is no way individual players with a functioning brain will use structures in low class wormholes. Individuals should not be forced to have an appointment with Eve every day, or every week or whatever timeframe you consider aedequate. I would like to still be able to go on vacation. I would like to keep my job which requires me to travel several times a year. This means that a lot of my stuff would be sitting vulnerable in space while I am not able to do anything to defend it.
The instant the change hits I will be moving out. As low class wormholes do not support a force strong enough to guarantee sufficient attendance at all times I'm sure plenty others will do the same.
So with the implementation you will turn low class wormholes into a barren wasteland only interesting for day trippers. So you will not make structures as widely used as possible while making a portion of space uninhabited in the process.
You might wish to reconsider the change. An option would be to require a char with sufficient starbase defense skills be docked at the station in order to activate self defense. |
Anthar Thebess
1019
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 09:43:28 -
[316] - Quote
I wonder how big prices for this structures will be , will they use fuel etc. CCP please small version for small groups of players something that will cost around 1-3b.
Currently Outposts cost around 20bil - they are indestructible , their role will be taken by new structures that should be cheaper as they can be easily destroyed. So let say : 8-12b for XL 6-8b for L 3-5b for M 1-3b for S
Can we have the possibility to make covert versions of those facilities , so fighting deep behind enemy lines will be possible?
Can we get one having jump drive? ( it is unable to jump using gates ) but let say 3LY drive open new possibilities for true nomadic groups.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
StuRyan
Space Mutts Dramatic Exit.
54
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 09:43:42 -
[317] - Quote
All these changes are overwhelming me.
I can't keep up and it feels that you could be changing an awful lot all at the same time. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3940
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 10:01:31 -
[318] - 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 -
[319] - 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. |
|
Sturmwolke
644
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 10:38:50 -
[320] - Quote
Please think about multiple dock/undock points, ideally separated enough that bubbles or camping undocks have a limited effect. It's about time this mechanic is introduced and perhaps retroactively added to all the other NPC stations. |
|
Nikolai Agnon
Dirt 'n' Glitter
11
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 10:41:34 -
[321] - Quote
Sequester Risalo wrote: In my opinion there is no way individual players with a functioning brain will use structures in low class wormholes. Individuals should not be forced to have an appointment with Eve every day, or every week or whatever timeframe you consider aedequate. I would like to still be able to go on vacation. I would like to keep my job which requires me to travel several times a year. This means that a lot of my stuff would be sitting vulnerable in space while I am not able to do anything to defend it.
You do realize that the planned structure overhaul is actually MORE friendly to 'not every day' gameplay than current POS's? They'll have multiple timers rather than the single strontium-based timer. Nowhere in EVE are you able to deploy structures for indefinite periods of time without checking up on them every so often.
With POS's right now, if people have been watching your habits in a wormhole and waiting for the right time to strike (say, when you go to bed), you'd wake up to a reinforced tower, incapacitated guns, and access to almost nothing other than your ship maintenance array. You'd then be aware that you have x number of hours until part 2 happens, which could mean as soon as six hours from when you next logged on, depending on your habits (if you only log on after work, for instance, and put 36 hours of stront, making you choose: do you want your pos and alarm clock to defend it, or get a good night's sleep?).
With the new structure mechanics, you would only be vulnerable during your playtime, and you'd have MULTIPLE timers with which you can respond to the assault. Will a coordinated eviction attempt put you at great risk? Always. Unless the enemy can respond to your vulnerability window reliably, though, you're actually safer this way. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3941
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 10:47:04 -
[322] - 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.
|
|
Anthar Thebess
1019
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 10:57:55 -
[323] - Quote
Look on this side. In order to reinforce a tower in WH you need tons of DPS , and ability to survive DPS. Now to reinforce this structure you need a 1! frigate(ship) able to kite incoming DPS from this citadel.
So let say Tech 3 destroyer , best active tank you can get , max speed and T2 entosis link ( links and implants included ).
This is really downside of all those structures - finding a hole in system is very easy, as abusing it later.
Lets assume this kind of setup ( bit more advanced ). 1. Place links in a system 2. Get well active tanked Tech 3 armor ship, like before having best possible speed and T2 entosis link. 3. Put energy vampires in structure , and have 3-4 cap buddy ships.
Warp to structure , start reinforcing it , while capping up your T3 cruiser from assisting ships ( vampire is offensive , so we are not talking about remote AID )
You are fast, so you migrate most of the dps, and Tech 3 cruisers can take tons, tons of damage.
But wait , our tank is not holding - what we will do! Move away from the structure few kilometers - and you are out of the grid and safe ( as we don't know how to manipulate the grid )
Next Tip : Guns usually have limited ammo, so why not make them use their ammo by shooting orbiting interceptor? They are quite cheap, and you can do it afk - people already do it to negate pos guns DPS before real operation.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3941
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 10:58:34 -
[324] - 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 -
[325] - 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 -
[326] - 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. |
|
Lurifax
Shiva Nulli Secunda
25
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:04:13 -
[327] - Quote
Will we be able to trade in our current Faction towers and faction guns etc. for the new stuff or are their value reduced to 0? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3943
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:08:58 -
[328] - 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. |
|
Sequester Risalo
Significant Others
131
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:30:10 -
[329] - Quote
Nikolai Agnon wrote:You do realize that the planned structure overhaul is actually MORE friendly to 'not every day' gameplay than current POS's? They'll have multiple timers rather than the single strontium-based timer. [..] With the new structure mechanics, you would only be vulnerable during your playtime, and you'd have MULTIPLE timers with which you can respond to the assault. Will a coordinated eviction attempt put you at great risk? Always. Unless the enemy can respond to your vulnerability window reliably, though, you're actually safer this way.
To be frank I didn't really understand what they meant with multiple timers. The example given was e bit confusing as I thought of a solar system with different structures naturally having different timers. So you mean to say that a successful capture of a large structure will take at least a week given the vulnerability windows are seven days apart and success needing two successful entosis attacks? That would indeed be less risky.
Oh by the way. will I receive any royalties for the invention of citadel structures which I suggested here? |
Anthar Thebess
1019
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:34:32 -
[330] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. Can we link some structures.
Ok 4 citadels sitting near each other will have just tons of DPS, but 5 reactor farms connected will be just easier to manage. Forcing players to put 5 different structures 0.01 AU from each other will be just annoying. You want to create super shipyard ? Why not just connect 10 capital construction arrays.
Can we get possibility to construct something like this
| Trade Hub | _____|_______ |Large Citadel|- -| Ship Yard | - -| Ship Yard | - -| Ship Yard | _____I_______ | Ship Mooring |
So you will expand services around the citadel. It is almost like putting eggs in one basket , but you can build few Citadels all around the system and split the services. Expanding citadel this way could be also used to add additional timers.
For example XL Citadel have possibility of this kind upgrade scheme :
{U1}{U1}{U1} {U0} {U0}{U0} {U0}[XL]{U0} {U0} {U0}{U0} {U1}{U1}{U1}
So in order to destroy Citadel you need to first reinforce/destroy U1 upgrades, then do the same to U0 and at the end Citadel itself.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3944
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:35:13 -
[331] - 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. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Bio Troll Surely You're Joking
753
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:37:20 -
[332] - 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.
Whats keeping you from putting up all three structures in the same system?
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Anthar Thebess
1019
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:46:50 -
[333] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:] 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. Whats keeping you from putting up all three structures in the same system? It is not about putting but the need of transporting between those structures.
Right now you can: - refine/build /store on POS - refine /build/ store / Trade on Station.
What CCP is proposing will lead to : - fly to refinery - fly to production facility - fly to market hub
For small guys like me this will not be big issue , but when you are talking about people building big stuff. You can bring 1 freighter of compressed ore to refinery , but after this you much , much more freighters of minerals that needs to be moved.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:50:04 -
[334] - Quote
I strongly dislike the 'asset safety'. Maybe I got it wrong, but to me it contradicts the harsh-eve environment. I really don't understand where someone would take the effort to down a structure and get "comparebly nothing". On the other hand, why would someone fight to defend it's structure?
Well, okay - do whatever. We'll see. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5254
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:56:37 -
[335] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:] 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. Whats keeping you from putting up all three structures in the same system?
Or even fitting your citadel as an industrial center?
Sure, you won't get the bonuses you would with the industry specific structures, but there's been no specific limit on which you'll be able to put in.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1327
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:59:20 -
[336] - Quote
Currently there is a Enormous network of alts in each system, all minimally skilled mostly used for moon goop collection or intel. What stops that single alt from logging into the system being linked, arming the defenses and shooting the enemy with a battle station? I am probably missing something but this is currently done with the Siphon units. A API call (or intel), notifies that this pos has a siphon on it, someone logs an alt on, mans a gun, pops it, shoots the logi, and logs off.
I suppose people can do that now with POS's, except dreads usually come to blow it to hell.
Yaay!!!!
|
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
461
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:59:49 -
[337] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. Just 1 thing (for now at least). The entosis link is designed for alliance sov warfare and vulnerability windows set by an alliance with duration determined by alliance activities. The Citadel structures can be deployed by an individual or corp, so where does that leave vulnerability windows? An individual or corp can't set a vulnerability window, is this likely to change?
Sorry 2 things; As these are replacing stations and outposts in sov space will they ever include an ihub type mechanic so a corp could technically take sov. Just seems a bit odd an individual or corp can establish a citadel but not gain any benefits of living in the space. Or will personal and corp use be restricted to un-stationed NPC and Wormhole space?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Anthar Thebess
1021
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 12:07:01 -
[338] - Quote
Jon Hellguard wrote:I strongly dislike the 'asset safety'. Maybe I got it wrong, but to me it contradicts the harsh-eve environment. I really don't understand where someone would take the effort to down a structure and get "comparebly nothing". On the other hand, why would someone fight to defend it's structure?
Well, okay - do whatever. We'll see.
From very simple reason. 95% of players will just say "it is not worth it"
This is game , and in many cases it can be already threated as a second job. CCP needs to find balance.
Look at this from this perspective. You have 80bil on in a citadel - 10 freighters of stuff , and 20 carrier loads (fitted ships) , you go for holiday / to hospital / your computer dies ... and when you login after a week you have nothing.
What CCP propose is already to annoying , think that under new system you will need to move all this stuff from some debris cloud. I moved 95% of my stuff to NPC station. When CCP will decide that NPC stations can be destroyed and someone will do it , well this will be my last day of subscription - i am not the ~all day logistics~ type of guy, like many people that i know.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Ovv Topik
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
713
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 12:17:02 -
[339] - Quote
Tetsel wrote:Could CCP Fozzie translate this please ? D1ck
"Nicknack, I'm in a shoe in space, on my computer, in my house, with a cup of coffee, in't that something." - Fly Safe PopPaddi. o7
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31457
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 12:21:29 -
[340] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: (shooting neutrals) We may [...] allow you to do so but have CONCORD show up and destroy your structure if you commit an act of aggression. Wow, that's a huge trolling magnet you're considering there :) **** no. Make them Entosis **** for hours like everyone else.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
258
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 12:22:52 -
[341] - Quote
Nikolai Agnon wrote:Sequester Risalo wrote: In my opinion there is no way individual players with a functioning brain will use structures in low class wormholes. Individuals should not be forced to have an appointment with Eve every day, or every week or whatever timeframe you consider aedequate. I would like to still be able to go on vacation. I would like to keep my job which requires me to travel several times a year. This means that a lot of my stuff would be sitting vulnerable in space while I am not able to do anything to defend it.
You do realize that the planned structure overhaul is actually MORE friendly to 'not every day' gameplay than current POS's? They'll have multiple timers rather than the single strontium-based timer. Nowhere in EVE are you able to deploy structures for indefinite periods of time without checking up on them every so often. With POS's right now, if people have been watching your habits in a wormhole and waiting for the right time to strike (say, when you go to bed), you'd wake up to a reinforced tower, incapacitated guns, and access to almost nothing other than your ship maintenance array. You'd then be aware that you have x number of hours until part 2 happens, which could mean as soon as six hours from when you next logged on, depending on your habits (if you only log on after work, for instance, and put 36 hours of stront, making you choose: do you want your pos and alarm clock to defend it, or get a good night's sleep?). With the new structure mechanics, you would only be vulnerable during your playtime, and you'd have MULTIPLE timers with which you can respond to the assault. Will a coordinated eviction attempt put you at great risk? Always. Unless the enemy can respond to your vulnerability window reliably, though, you're actually safer this way.
What you are missing is that the current system requires a reasonably large force to 1) tank DPS. 2) apply DPS. Under the new system it requires 1) A ship with an Entosis link
That's it.
So yes, while you may have multiple reinforcement timers/periods, the attacks do not have to come from a single party. How many times have POCO timers been acted on in wormholes just because someone flying through sees the timer will go off in an hour? Your structure vulnerability window plus the minimal requirement to attack it will near guarantee that it is attacked very frequently if you are not there during each and every window to defend it with an active player in each and every structure in your system. And those attacks won't come from the same party each time, it will frequently be attacks of lolopportunity primarily because there is also no other reason to do it because any assets present during the attack are safely put into containers.
|
x psy
Starfleet Engineers
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 12:31:00 -
[342] - Quote
Citadel defense systems sounds like a pandora box ready to be opened. I would be happier if you guys knew what to do wtih the contents of the Citadel when they are destroyed for example. A cool idea would be to allow the Citadel to have emergencies pods that would scatter its contents around the system inside a cloaking field.
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 12:39:34 -
[343] - Quote
Thinking about the original function you were working around "office and market hubs", or similar to Gallente Outposts now, how much thought has been put into the actual purpose of offices and potential changes there?
With the "death cloning" change, one purpose for offices is now gone. The main advantage now is a corp hangar. Some corps really benefit from this, others don't.
One area where it's a huge benefit is sharing blueprints among multiple industry characters. The contradiction is, assuming the Citadel office bonus will be number of offices like Gallente Outposts now, it can often be difficult to find enough office space in an industrial bonused station. |
Captain Zorg
Capitoline Research and Development
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 12:40:41 -
[344] - Quote
"Hey, we are going out tonight drinking beer and having sexy time with the ladies. Are you coming?"
"Sorry, I'd love to but I've got to stay in and make sure my Citadel doesn't get taken down... Again."
|
Anthar Thebess
1021
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 12:52:31 -
[345] - Quote
x psy wrote:Citadel defense systems sounds like a pandora box ready to be opened. I would be happier if you guys knew what to do wtih the contents of the Citadel when they are destroyed for example. A cool idea would be to allow the Citadel to have emergencies pods that would scatter its contents around the system inside a cloaking field.
Have you asked yourself , how much "fun" you will have picking this up and moving to your new staging / living point? Wherever you live , you accumulate tons of stuff , to much to move. When i look at my assets i need to scroll for quite long time just to get list of stations where i have something.
Just before jump changes hit i moved 15 full freighters of stuff to NPC stations , and burned 1mil of fuel on a carrier just to move fitted ships.
Ask yourself what will you , or any one else do if after some holidays , first thing you need to do is to gather 10 freighters of stuff because people attacking you did not have holidays in this period.
You cannot call some place home without ability to keep most of stuff in this place.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas DARKNESS.
73
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 12:57:40 -
[346] - Quote
I did not read every post until now, but I read all Dev post. Looks like to me that several people are in doubt between the choose of an Outpost or the new Citadel.
Would be possible list the differences from one to another? Like price, numbers per systems, customizations, etc. I think this will enlighten people, and stop question like GÇ£why should I move from the safety of an Outpost to a destructible Citadel?GÇ¥ |
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1639
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 13:12:11 -
[347] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:x psy wrote:Citadel defense systems sounds like a pandora box ready to be opened. I would be happier if you guys knew what to do wtih the contents of the Citadel when they are destroyed for example. A cool idea would be to allow the Citadel to have emergencies pods that would scatter its contents around the system inside a cloaking field.
Have you asked yourself , how much "fun" you will have picking this up and moving to your new staging / living point? Wherever you live , you accumulate tons of stuff , to much to move. When i look at my assets i need to scroll for quite long time just to get list of stations where i have something. Just before jump changes hit i moved 15 full freighters of stuff to NPC stations , and burned 1mil of fuel on a carrier just to move fitted ships. Ask yourself what will you , or any one else do if after some holidays , first thing you need to do is to gather 10 freighters of stuff because people attacking you did not have holidays in this period. You cannot call some place home without ability to keep most of stuff in this place. I think if you start from 'Citadel can be destroyed' you won't have lots of stuff there. So there will be no such problem anyway.
However if you look at sov-0.0 space you will see that since Outposts were implemented this 'wild, dark and unsettled' space became filled by these indestructible beasts. Just for past month players have built and installed 5 new outposts. Check dotlan for details. Stuff MUST BE destructible else you will have no free space in the game after some time.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Dradis Aulmais
RW Vindicator Connection Phoebe Freeport Republic
810
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 13:15:15 -
[348] - Quote
If we set our citidel to public letting outsiders in can we limit them based on standing like we can do now with stations? Can we Limite ship classes that can dock? Such as letting in Sub Caps but no Cap ships with the XL
Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896
Free The Scope Three
|
Oxide Ammar
199
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 13:32:46 -
[349] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Do Citadels differ in shape based on the current fitted modules ? I mean not big graphical change but I mean if I warp to Citadel from the look of it I can know what services can do from its look ?
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
54
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 13:40:36 -
[350] - Quote
What if M sizes dont let capitals dock but you can access your personal ship Hangar(for transferring subcaps into the station) from space and allow to refit caps or all ships from space. That way caps can't be docked but still used. Also I love the ideas you presented in the devblog
L should let normal caps dock and XL the supers. |
|
Rthulhu Voynich
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 13:41:28 -
[351] - Quote
One rule for the Entosis Link is: GÇPNo remote repGÇ¥ How is it possible to reinforce a structure with guns that will shoot enemy ships? Every ship is killed before the warm-up cycle is complete.(?) |
Anthar Thebess
1022
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 13:49:28 -
[352] - Quote
March rabbit wrote: I think if you start from 'Citadel can be destroyed' you won't have lots of stuff there. So there will be no such problem anyway.
However if you look at sov-0.0 space you will see that since Outposts were implemented this 'wild, dark and unsettled' space became filled by these indestructible beasts. Just for past month players have built and installed 5 new outposts. Check dotlan for details. Stuff MUST BE destructible else you will have no free space in the game after some time.
I totally agree about this. Thats why i suggested more than once that only thing that is indestructible anywhere are NPC made stations. We are talking about 1 or 2 stations per region.
You cannot also deny that if you cannot live somewhere without having tons of stuff there. This is a game, when you know that you need to move it - you will do every thing possible to do it, but again this is a game. Sometimes you cannot do it because RL is more important. Current situation leaves you with trapped assets , new situation will leave you with tons of stuff you need to move. Now will you spend a month moving this stuff using cloaky transports or just find another game where you can have fun for this and next months - this is the real question.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp The Bastion
35
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 13:51:00 -
[353] - Quote
Rthulhu Voynich wrote:One rule for the Entosis Link is: GÇPNo remote repGÇ¥ How is it possible to reinforce a structure with guns that will shoot enemy ships? Every ship is killed before the warm-up cycle is complete.(?)
And this is probably why CCP would rather have the structure defences only work when there is a defending 'gunner' to man them.
'Capture the Flag' is a fine game mechanic that may well work - but only if both 'teams' are actually playing - NOT, however, if the 'defender' is: at work; on holiday; 'playing' RL; being a parent; has their PC break and not have a handy spare; etc; etc.
It would seem that the future desires of players to have their own semi-permanent 'big' structures will only be possible if they actually join/ally with a significant number of other players that can commit to having someone always available.
Plenty of things in EVE for solo and small group play - but perhaps not Sov-owning; or L & X-L permanent structures. I could, potentially, understand this.
|
Anthar Thebess
1022
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 13:51:50 -
[354] - Quote
Rthulhu Voynich wrote:One rule for the Entosis Link is: GÇPNo remote repGÇ¥ How is it possible to reinforce a structure with guns that will shoot enemy ships? Every ship is killed before the warm-up cycle is complete.(?) This way. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5741863#post5741863
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1640
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:13:31 -
[355] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: You cannot also deny that if you cannot live somewhere without having tons of stuff there.
people 'live' in WHs already having totally destructible POSes. Other people 'live' in FW areas where they can lose access to the station when enemy captured the system.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1261
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:14:18 -
[356] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:What if M sizes dont let capitals dock but you can access your personal ship Hangar(for transferring subcaps into the station) from space and allow to refit caps or all ships from space. That way caps can't be docked but still used. Also I love the ideas you presented in the devblog
L should let normal caps dock and XL the supers.
Yes our current thinking is that you can access personal storage from the structure by being within docking range, same as POS.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
81
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:20:44 -
[357] - Quote
Rthulhu Voynich wrote:One rule for the Entosis Link is: GÇPNo remote repGÇ¥ How is it possible to reinforce a structure with guns that will shoot enemy ships? Every ship is killed before the warm-up cycle is complete.(?)
Shoot Ze Guns. I would hope CCP allows guns on stations to be incapped the same way as gun on POS are currently. That way you can incap and then entosis. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
259
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:23:06 -
[358] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:H3llHound wrote:What if M sizes dont let capitals dock but you can access your personal ship Hangar(for transferring subcaps into the station) from space and allow to refit caps or all ships from space. That way caps can't be docked but still used. Also I love the ideas you presented in the devblog
L should let normal caps dock and XL the supers. Yes our current thinking is that you can access personal storage from the structure by being within docking range, same as POS.
I'm not sure if this was answered before, but will these Citadels have, at a minimum, storage like current NPC stations for storage of personal items, ships, etc. without the cruft of POS permissions that exist today? Or will we get some kind of modified POS/SMA/CHA/PHA type setup? |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1730
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:24:36 -
[359] - Quote
Should we expect outpost upgrade reimbursements to be doled out before these hit. If not, would it be close so that outpost funds could be then spent on the new structures?
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1263
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:29:49 -
[360] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:H3llHound wrote:What if M sizes dont let capitals dock but you can access your personal ship Hangar(for transferring subcaps into the station) from space and allow to refit caps or all ships from space. That way caps can't be docked but still used. Also I love the ideas you presented in the devblog
L should let normal caps dock and XL the supers. Yes our current thinking is that you can access personal storage from the structure by being within docking range, same as POS. I'm not sure if this was answered before, but will these Citadels have, at a minimum, storage like current NPC stations for storage of personal items, ships, etc. without the cruft of POS permissions that exist today? Or will we get some kind of modified POS/SMA/CHA/PHA type setup?
Yes all these structures will get personal hangars.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1264
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:30:34 -
[361] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Should we expect outpost upgrade reimbursements to be doled out before these hit. If not, would it be close so that outpost funds could be then spent on the new structures?
Really good question, and we would love feedback on exactly how would be best to do this.
Maybe uninstalling upgrades and reprocessing them?
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Solecist Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
24314
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:35:45 -
[362] - Quote
Excuse me, please.
Although this seems to be offtopic, it is actually very connected and relevant.
Please note the wording. It's a simple Yes/No question, but of course do I not mind a more verbose answer.
With these new structures hitting highsec ... ... combined with the Drifter storyline ... ... and empirial changes in NullSec ... ... is it reasonable to assume that ... ... you will revamp wardecs, or remove them all together for something different?
Not asking when, or how. Doesn't matter.
A simple Yes or No is absolutely sufficient.
Thanks! :D
S.O.L. GANKING4GOOD
Abolish Rookiecorps.
|
Laina Okaski
My Little Pony Club Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:43:27 -
[363] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Maybe uninstalling upgrades and reprocessing them?
Getting 55% back is kind of a bad way to reimburse the massive amount of isk and time spent to upgrade an outpost.
|
Kameloso
Starstuff Industrial Providence Initiative
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:45:34 -
[364] - Quote
Laina Okaski wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Maybe uninstalling upgrades and reprocessing them?
Getting 55% back is kind of a bad way to reimburse the massive amount of isk and time spent to upgrade an outpost.
Unless CCP provides 100% reprocess ;) technically, possible, as they would do that database-side anyway. |
stoicfaux
5574
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:56:16 -
[365] - Quote
I have concerns about the viability of medium citadels in high-sec for "individual or small groups of players."
If medium citadels are worth more than the price of a war-dec, and if is practical for attackers to not incur significant losses/expenses (i.e. citadel guns don't work unless a defender is online, or if the NPC mercs are easily defeated or tanked) then it could be profitable to war-dec medium citadels owned by one-man or small corps, which would potentially make medium citadels of dubious value to one-man/small corps.
Meaning, if organizations can make a steady income/profit/business out of war-dec'ing medium citadels owned by one-man/small corps, then medium citadels won't be very useful for the target audience.
Furthermore, if it is profitable to war-dec medium citadels owned by one-man/small corps, then there are a several implied bounds on the price of a medium citadel: * the price of an empty medium citadel is too high if (captured citadel sell price > war-dec price) * the price of a destroyed medium citadel is too high if (salvage price > war-dec price) * the price of a ransomed medium citadel is too high if (citadel price > ransom price > war-dec price) * the amount of stuff you can "safely" put in a medium citadel is too low. (dropped loot > war-dec price) i.e. we're back to the "how much isk value of stuff can you put in a freighter before it becomes worthwhile to gank" equation. * the number of citadels a one-man/small corp can own will be limited by price as well, i.e. (captured/destroying/looting X citadels during one war-dec > price of war-dec.)
Probably the only thing saving the medium citadel for one-man/small corps from becoming a business venture for attackers is being able to tear down a citadel during the 24 hour war-dec grace period, but even that incurs a two hour vulnerability window. But this isn't exactly a fun mechanic for either party.
disclaimer: just thinking aloud, criticism won't hurt my feeling.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Daerrol
Quantum Singularities Half Massed
154
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 14:56:59 -
[366] - Quote
Obil Que wrote: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. Take a deep breathe. Remove tinfoil hat and repeat: CCP is not activily destroying wormholes. These structures appear as anomalies so yes, they can be easily D-scanned. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1075
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:02:01 -
[367] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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. Are there going to be separate structures bonused to manufacturing, or are citadels taking over both the role of a manufacturing outpost and an industry pos? |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1075
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:09:56 -
[368] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Aryth wrote:Should we expect outpost upgrade reimbursements to be doled out before these hit. If not, would it be close so that outpost funds could be then spent on the new structures? Really good question, and we would love feedback on exactly how would be best to do this. Maybe uninstalling upgrades and reprocessing them? Upgrades can't be reprocessed. They're bought from NPCs for (900m/1.8b/3.6b) and placed into foundations bought from npcs (3.6b/7.2b/14.4b) along with some filling stuff (all worthless, except the construction blocs and minerals, just a pain in the ass). You'd basically need to refund the base cost, plus the fillings. It would make the most sense to refund the base cost in isk, but refunding it (plus the outpost itself, which can be built) in P4s would help alleviate the massive supply crunch that will happen when everyone and their dog needs a few hundred billion isk in p4s for their replacement pos/outposts. |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp The Bastion
35
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:12:08 -
[369] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:............. Are there going to be separate structures bonused to manufacturing, or are citadels taking over both the role of a manufacturing outpost and an industry pos?
I think I'm right in saying that the 'Citadel' range of structures is just the first in a whole slew of structure ranges - the Citadel just happens to be the one optimised for Offices & Market and, most importantly, defence.
From what's been intimated, however, we may also get access to many of the proposed 'Structure Modules' & 'Structure Optimising Rigs' that will enable Manufacture, Refining, Research, et al. However, future structures will be optimised in other ways.
If right, then it could be suggested that the 'Citadel' is a 'replacement' for the Caldari range of POS and Outposts.
|
Lord LazyGhost
Bear Bones Brigade The Bastards.
487
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:17:32 -
[370] - Quote
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. |
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1731
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:20:19 -
[371] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Aryth wrote:Should we expect outpost upgrade reimbursements to be doled out before these hit. If not, would it be close so that outpost funds could be then spent on the new structures? Really good question, and we would love feedback on exactly how would be best to do this. Maybe uninstalling upgrades and reprocessing them?
There are basically going to be two reimbursements. One, ISK, for the station itself, the other P4s/PI. If you don't cash out the P4s you are going to spike the market to hell all at once. Any supply glut will be gobbled up by spec anyway.
The ISK portion should just go to the exec master wallets of each alliance. Or a corp wallet of the owning corp. P4s into the hanger of the station itself.
The only danger here is glutting PI for a short period but I don't consider that a risk as ISK will flood in to gobble anyway. Especially since everyone has to buy these up.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Justin Cody
Tri-gun
267
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:20:26 -
[372] - 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.
I have this weird boner right now |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1266
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:21:54 -
[373] - Quote
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.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1075
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:23:48 -
[374] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:............. Are there going to be separate structures bonused to manufacturing, or are citadels taking over both the role of a manufacturing outpost and an industry pos? I think I'm right in saying that the 'Citadel' range of structures is just the first in a whole slew of structure ranges - the Citadel just happens to be the one optimised for Offices & Market and, most importantly, defence. That's what I thought before the discussion of reactions on these, so that's why I ask: it is not clear to me anymore what roles this fills and what other structures there will be, and if there's overlap what sort of tradeoffs are being considered. |
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
327
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:33:40 -
[375] - 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.
Dont screw up J-Space. We dont need that entosis crap in wormholes. |
Albert Spear
Non scholae sed vitae
57
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:35:52 -
[376] - Quote
As a high sec industrial player and a member of a small corporation. I think I am going to sit on the side lines and wait to see what actually happens with the mechanics.
I am very concerned that I will end up investing my whole net-worth in a structure and find that I am war-dec'ed in a week and it is gone.
Until I see how the structures are used and the mechanics the ganker corps come up with to take it away from me, I am not interested in investing in a structure. If this means un-subscribing for until this sorts itself out, then that is what I may have to do.
If this sounds "care bear" - you are right, I have only a couple of hours a week to play, so building isk takes time.
I suspect that if the medium is too easy to gank, or too expensive - then this will be yet another barrier to new players staying subscribed.
I understand the concerns for Nul, Low and WH space.
Right now I am going to take a "wait and see" attitude and continue to do what I do, when I have the time.
I hope this goes well, I think it offers a lot of future play for many people.
|
Jherik
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:37:12 -
[377] - Quote
WRT flipping or destroying the structures. i think it would be an interesting mechanic if towards the end of the first timer the attackers were presented with a choice. They may then either continue using the entosis link and go for a straight flip of the structure, or at that point break out the big toys, and start chewing through HP and go for the big explosion, KM and all that. The choice of which would then lock the attacking side in for the 2nd and 3rd timer.
This would allow dreads to retain some of thier intended purpose and allow for interesting gameplay around capital escalations and maybe end up with another B-r in which the bloody station blows up in the end. |
Lord LazyGhost
Bear Bones Brigade The Bastards.
487
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:42:02 -
[378] - 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.
Thank you very much for your quick reply.
thats good to know that their will be loot. Let the troll ceptors fly freely :) |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
82
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:42:55 -
[379] - Quote
Altirius Saldiaro 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. Dont screw up J-Space. We dont need that entosis crap in wormholes.
So by your same thought process wormholers shoudnt be able to entosis null members. Yeah you cant have it both ways. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
676
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 15:49:19 -
[380] - Quote
Some items and ships need to drop from citadels or why would we bother attacking them? Or why would anyone bother defending them if all they stand to lose is the value of only the citadel itself.
Wormholers currently have 100s of bilions worth of ships in their POSes and its one of the things that drive the massive fights we can witness every now and then - attackers want to destroy/loot them, defendes want to keep them. Compared to that, cost of the citadel itself will be peanuts and noone will bother fighting over it.
Please consider some drop mechanic, or maybe salvaging of the loot over time. IE the citadel wrecks slowly decay over time and shed loot (ships, modules, whatever) as salvage for anyone who shows up to get it. This could even spark some activity around old wrecks of mighty and rich citadels, as scavengers would come in search of riches.
W-Space Realtor
|
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6644
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 16:02:21 -
[381] - Quote
Making them not drop anything as a means to prevent them being loot piniatas will fail because of the "kill everything" game play.
Making them drop stuff means profit. The latter would be closer to the game intention, but as usual, like Dictor Bubbles in Thera, if there is one thing "for the grief", then that one thing becomes "the" thing and it's basically over before it starts.
And the meh continues. 5 years ago these Drifters would have been such epic content introduction there would be a body count from the nerdgasms. Not now.
Also.... why no self destruct? Does every loss have to be somebody's killmail?
In the end, we can argue that yes, the game is all about sand castles and knocking them down. But it's like trying to build them on the beach with lifeguards putting huge red flags on the castles and then giving rides to the kids who want to knock them down. It's always all gain for one side, all loss for another.
So I would not be surprised if, after the introduction of Citadels, CCP allows dreads in highsec. Sometimes I suspect that CCP has in internal civil war going on between an old guard that wants harshness for everybody and an SA infestation that wants to kill it via harshness for only the "pubbies".
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
19
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 16:05:44 -
[382] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:Some items and ships need to drop from citadels or why would we bother attacking them? Or why would anyone bother defending them if all they stand to lose is the value of only the citadel itself.
Wormholers currently have 100s of bilions worth of ships in their POSes and its one of the things that drive the massive fights we can witness every now and then - attackers want to destroy/loot them, defendes want to keep them. Compared to that, cost of the citadel itself will be peanuts and noone will bother fighting over it.
Please consider some drop mechanic, or maybe salvaging of the loot over time. IE the citadel wrecks slowly decay over time and shed loot (ships, modules, whatever) as salvage for anyone who shows up to get it. This could even spark some activity around old wrecks of mighty and rich citadels, as scavengers would come in search of riches.
This.
The safety net is multiple timers and the fact that the entosis links cannot be remote repped. So if you fail to defend with the huge defenses at your disposal to kill ships that cannot be assisted / or ecm them out then you should deserve to lose your stuff. Just make the stuff drop like ships drop their cargo: chance based in containers, first come, first serve.
Can we please limit the volume of docked ships / corp + personal hangers? One reason for doing this was getting some more realism into the game mechanics. It would be kinda ridiculous to have 50 carriers ( 3km axis ) dock in a 100 km space ( since they will be manoeuvering there as well. Second reasoning behind this: you want these to be very strong, so just drop an xl one in enemy space, tank it to hell, dock your complete super fleet and when the enemy show up undock them all....
Question regarding your design: Is it your intention that you can kill any enemy attacking your structure with these guns ( even at max range with T2 entosis link ) or should people still be forced to undock to repel enemies.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5256
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 16:20:30 -
[383] - Quote
Lord LazyGhost wrote: 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.
Or you could let the first timer go passed without defence, and be there for the second. Or third.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Atum' Ra
Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx
74
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 16:22:53 -
[384] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:Some items and ships need to drop from citadels or why would we bother attacking them? Or why would anyone bother defending them if all they stand to lose is the value of only the citadel itself.
That's a good idea. Some items can be destroyed some can be looted! Why do someone need to have citadels? Because citadel is a part of "claim" structure. Many isk will be destroyed - that's good for CCP. More plexes will be bought! More adrenalin for defenders!
But one problem is here... What to do when you can't login for a week? because you are with family somewhere at the ocean.
-ÿ -ü-+-Ç-+-ü-+-+ -¦-¦-+: -¦-¦-¦ -é-¦-¦-¦ -+-+-Å? -ÿ -+-+ -ü-¦-¦-+-¦-+ -¦ -+-é-¦-¦-é: -+-¦-¦-+-+-+ -+-+-Å -+-+-¦, -+-+-é-+-+-â -ç-é-+ -+-¦-ü -+-+-+-¦-+ (-£-¦, 5:9)
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
294
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 16:30:29 -
[385] - Quote
So what happens to the items in outposts and pos's when they go poof?
Moved to the closest npc station? |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
83
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 16:32:25 -
[386] - Quote
Atum' Ra wrote:Axloth Okiah wrote:Some items and ships need to drop from citadels or why would we bother attacking them? Or why would anyone bother defending them if all they stand to lose is the value of only the citadel itself.
That's a good idea. Some items can be destroyed some can be looted! Why do someone need to have citadels? Because citadel is a part of "claim" structure. Many isk will be destroyed - that's good for CCP. More plexes will be bought! More adrenalin for defenders! But one problem is here... What to do when you can't login for a week? because you are with family somewhere at the ocean.
I feel these shouldn't be single player options. Also what happens when a POS gets attacked during the week you are with your family at the ocean? People are making these sound like right now we have no structures in game that can be lost in less then 2 weeks time. Dont put everything you own into this or be part of a group. |
Atum' Ra
Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx
74
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 16:36:10 -
[387] - Quote
Terranid Meester wrote:So what happens to the items in outposts and pos's when they go poof?
Moved to the closest npc station?
As for now items will drops somewhere in the system. Coordinates will be knowk only for owner. No one else can't acsess them anyhow.
-ÿ -ü-+-Ç-+-ü-+-+ -¦-¦-+: -¦-¦-¦ -é-¦-¦-¦ -+-+-Å? -ÿ -+-+ -ü-¦-¦-+-¦-+ -¦ -+-é-¦-¦-é: -+-¦-¦-+-+-+ -+-+-Å -+-+-¦, -+-+-é-+-+-â -ç-é-+ -+-¦-ü -+-+-+-¦-+ (-£-¦, 5:9)
|
Kynric
Sky Fighters
305
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 16:49:59 -
[388] - Quote
Perhaps instead of evaluating them relative to how they perform in wormhole evictions we should look at them in terms of what produces more ships moving in space. Ships moving in space is content every day while evictions are rare and generally not very fun events. With that standard it seems like there will be more ships in space with this plan. The asset protection feature will both make for ships shuffling about picking up goods and give a measure of perceived safety that might help grow the population in our neighborhood. For me at least it would also save me the 20 minutes at the end of my night when I log in the carrier and orca alts and scoop every last valuable/ship into them followed by a similar 20 minutes at the start of my night when they unload the goods. Skipping that would give me more time to fly in space which is content for all compared to the logged off alts that are content for nobody. The logoff trick was neccessary for both asset protection as if the tower were reinforced the CHA would be sealed and to assure that neccessary siege items are still accessible in the event of a suprise siege. The thought of losing those daily tasks is a happy one. I am pretty happy with the proposed change as it will likely result in more time in space for me and more other ships moving about as well. |
stoicfaux
5577
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 16:50:03 -
[389] - Quote
Atum' Ra wrote: That's a good idea. Some items can be destroyed some can be looted! Why do someone need to have citadels? Because citadel is a part of "claim" structure. Many isk will be destroyed - that's good for CCP. More plexes will be bought! More adrenalin for defenders!
But one problem is here... What to do when you can't login for a week? because you are with family somewhere at the ocean.
Take them offline, scoop them, and transport the citadel, cargo, materials, ships, etc., to an NPC (or trusted allied) citadel/station. Just add that step to your things-to-do-to-get-ready for vacation checklist. Or join a larger corp/alliance that has enough people you trust to defend each other.
=/
I for one, am looking forward to our "High-Sec Alliance for Mutual High-Sec Citadel Defense for Unaffiliated One-Man/Small Corps Pax CareBearus" alliance overlords. But seriously, it would be amusing if all of high-sec carebears put their citadels under a single alliance to limit war-decs by citadel hunters. I nominate Chribba for the position of Most Supreme CareBear Overlord and Executor of the aforementioned alliance. Will anyone second to motion?
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
127
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 16:51:00 -
[390] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. So what your saying is, the absolute max number of things you would ever conceivably engage with one of these structures would be 16. As opposed to the current Large POS's ability to engage well over 40 if set up right. This sounds like a defense nerf.
Doesn't sound like you'll be able to jam all the logi while killing the dps ships with these new things. Please do not make it a 'one for one' set of modules/weapons as that severely limits their defensibility. |
|
Lilliana Stelles
1387
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 17:07:19 -
[391] - Quote
Will these things require fuel? Or only certain sizes?
Not a forum alt.-á
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1148
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 17:10:20 -
[392] - Quote
Lilliana Stelles wrote:Will these things require fuel? Or only certain sizes?
Apparently the towers won't but the modules will require fuel. Details to be confirmed. |
Atum' Ra
Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx
74
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 17:11:55 -
[393] - Quote
Lilliana Stelles wrote:Will these things require fuel? Or only certain sizes?
structure - no fit - yes
-ÿ -ü-+-Ç-+-ü-+-+ -¦-¦-+: -¦-¦-¦ -é-¦-¦-¦ -+-+-Å? -ÿ -+-+ -ü-¦-¦-+-¦-+ -¦ -+-é-¦-¦-é: -+-¦-¦-+-+-+ -+-+-Å -+-+-¦, -+-+-é-+-+-â -ç-é-+ -+-¦-ü -+-+-+-¦-+ (-£-¦, 5:9)
|
Ocean Ormand
Bagel and Lox
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 17:12:37 -
[394] - Quote
Am I wrong that these changes just make the structure bash even worse?
Now, under the current system, if you want to bash a pos you have folk show up to bash the pos, they shoot the tower and the tower may shoot back. You could mitigate some of the incoming fire by incapping the guns and other defensive systems. The attackers are obligated to appear at least once and maybe a second time if the tower has been stronted.
After the changes, you will have to have folk show up for a mandatory 2 times and maybe a mandatory 3 times. The structure will get to shoot at the attackers, but the attackers cant shoot back; why? because its pointless to shoot the structure since it can only be taken by the entrosis system. Worse you cant mitigate the incoming damage because you cant shoot the defensive structures as they have all been turned into one big red x. So in the current system you have someone circle the button shooting a magic light at a big red x while the big red x shoots back at you.
Basically, it seems to me that CCP has taken the worst features of fw and old time exploration (circling a button while flashing a magic light at it, while you wait for a timer to count down) and grafted them onto pos'es. Hell if this mechanic was considered so bad in exploration that they had to introduce the minigame to fix it, why is it being reintroduced for structure grinds?
And to add insult to injury, when you kill a new pos, all of the players stuff is magically saved in magic bubble containers, which is drastically different from today, where if you use a pos all of your stuff is at risk. In fact, much of the meta of pos'es and the use of pos in wh in particular, is focused around the idea of bashing pos for loot, but under the new system, much of the reason to go about pos bashing is lost.
All in all, it strikes as if these changes are taking steps backward instead of giving everybody the POS 2.0 that they want. At the very least, CCP should leave the entrosis system to sov structures and let people at least have the satisfaction of shooting at the new giant red x's. |
Metal Icarus
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
740
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 17:12:59 -
[395] - Quote
Will there be faction and officer/empire variations of station fittings? |
Ocean Ormand
Bagel and Lox
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 17:14:24 -
[396] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Lord LazyGhost wrote: 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.
Or you could let the first timer go passed without defence, and be there for the second. Or third.
So structure bashes have just been made worse since now attackers have to show up for a mandatory 2 or three times instead of the 1 or 2 times before? |
The Tallman
Krannon of Sherwood Carthage Empires
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 17:16:17 -
[397] - Quote
Here is something I think CCP needs to address for WH space.
When a corp lives in a C5 or C6 WH they HAVE to own and operate capital ships. If CCP decides that a Large structure can not doc capitals and forces WH residents to use the XL structure only if they have capitals, the risk/cost vs reward for the C5 & C6 WH's may no longer pay off.
This may not be important to some but what is the point of having space in this game that is unusable?
Please keep in mind that living in a structure which in some parts of this game people are required to do, you have problems that should be resolved with this update.
Corp theft in shared ship and asset folders (solution better control over access or treat it like a HS station with hangers only it's owner can see)
Enough space for ships/modules that are required to live in remote areas of this game (Large structures WILL NEED TO DOC CAPS)!
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
128
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 17:21:41 -
[398] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Lord LazyGhost wrote: 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.
Or you could let the first timer go passed without defence, and be there for the second. Or third. That is such a terrible plan. Is that really THE REASONING behind this idea? What you are suggesting is like taking a ship into a fight, but deciding, since you have 3 'levels' of tank (shield armor and hull) that you really shouldn't be concerned about fighting back or turning on your tank until you are halfway through hull.
If i'm not mistaken, isn't there supposed to be progressively worse consequences for each RF timer?
Another analogy of your suggested defense method.
Some bloke is attacking me with a sword...eh no big deal i gots plenty of time to defend myself...oh he just chopped off one of my arms...meh i don't need to defend myself yet...oh there went my left leg...no worries, i'll be fine i still have lots of time...whoops, my other arm is gone now...well, i guess i can still defend myself with my right leg...hmm...thats gone now too...well, i guess i could bite him...oh whats that...he's stabbing me through the chest.
How is that ever a good strategy for solo/small corps? |
Mr McGregor
Solar Bird
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 17:21:44 -
[399] - Quote
Are there going to be multiple undock points? These things are so big that it makes sense... |
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 17:48:41 -
[400] - Quote
I hope the Eve sandbox allows for all kinds of gameplay. So that those who do want to play Eve like a "carebear" in hi-sec are allowed to do so. And those who want a no rules kind of game can play in nul-sec.
I think you limit your options if you make all areas of space a "no rules" kind of setting like nul-sec. And in the end, you will just get a bunch of humungous alliances and game playing dictators making the rules for all the rest of the players. I don't think that will be conducive to a real sand box.
Space is a big place - there's room for everyone and all kinds of gameplay. |
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
263
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:05:46 -
[401] - Quote
Daerrol wrote:Obil Que wrote: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. Take a deep breathe. Remove tinfoil hat and repeat: CCP is not activily destroying wormholes. These structures appear as anomalies so yes, they can be easily D-scanned.
I don't believe they are. The OP said nothing about structures as anomalies. After pressing, CCP has said maybe they will make them warpable. My point is that covert investigation of a wormhole upon entering is a key activity taken by nearly all wormhole entities. If structures are not celestial bound in wormholes and if they are only overview warpable to those that have access, then that covert investigation is not possible and thus something has been taken away from wormholes that is very core to the environment. I don't see it as active agression against wormhole play but a possibly unforseen side effect of the desire for free-anchoring structures which I still struggle to see a benefit of.
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:05:48 -
[402] - Quote
Morn Hylund wrote:I hope the Eve sandbox allows for all kinds of gameplay. So that those who do want to play Eve like a "carebear" in hi-sec are allowed to do so. And those who want a no rules kind of game can play in nul-sec.
I think you limit your options if you make all areas of space a "no rules" kind of setting like nul-sec. And in the end, you will just get a bunch of humungous alliances and game playing dictators making the rules for all the rest of the players. I don't think that will be conducive to a real sand box.
Space is a big place - there's room for everyone and all kinds of gameplay.
True, but there should be consequences for staying in a safe environment ( no capital ships, no high end ores, less valuable ded sites etc etc ). So some services might only be available in low and null sec ( higher ME production slots ... ).
And, all player build structures in high sec should be vulnerable to attack ( as are pocos and posses today ).
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
263
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:08:12 -
[403] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Lord LazyGhost wrote: 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.
Or you could let the first timer go passed without defence, and be there for the second. Or third.
I'll repeat. In wormhole space especially, you are linked to many random entities over the course of days or weeks through your wormhole connections and the resulting chain. It is very likely that those entities will take every opportunity to entosis structures that lack a warm body in them. Thus your first, second, or third timer will be set upon by the connection of the day putting you and your structure under constant active threat.
The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.
|
The Tallman
Krannon of Sherwood Carthage Empires
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:15:30 -
[404] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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
I am totally shocked that there is any "debate" about letting caps dock in Large Structures!! ARE YOU KIDDING?
Do any of the people who are in this debate at CCP live or have lived in a C5 or C6 WH??? For that matter in 0.0? Your simple answer that this is "one of the arguments" honestly is a joke. There is no argument, if you can't dock a cap in a Large structure there will be no way to keep them in WH space unless your willing to pay an extra 15 bucks per month per character to do nothing but sit in the cap ship.
Seriously - what a JOKE that your even considering NOT letting caps dock in a Large.... Clueless "argument"
|
per
Terpene Conglomerate
52
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:16:10 -
[405] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:per wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: .......
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.
yeah i understand it adds more complexity / more work to do .. still thx for the answer ... really looking forward for the final product ;) and btw it actually makes sense if you ask me, i wouldnt upgrade my car to truck (frigate > bs) but i surely would add some floors/rooms to my house quite easily (small station > bigger station) ;) plp like modularity, just saying ;)
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1013
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:19:46 -
[406] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.
Isn't it? If you can't have a single person show up to defend your structure during the small window of vulnerability, with multiple chances to do so, do you really deserve that structure? |
Takeo Yanumano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:29:34 -
[407] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Obil Que wrote:The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.
Isn't it? If you can't have a single person show up to defend your structure during the small window of vulnerability, with multiple chances to do so, do you really deserve that structure?
The problem is the ease with which the window of vulnerability is triggered. The tower doesn't just need to be babysat at the windows of vulnerability, but 24/7 if one wishes to prevent said windows of vulnerability since there are apparently no automated defenses on these structures. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
264
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:30:20 -
[408] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Obil Que wrote:The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.
Isn't it? If you can't have a single person show up to defend your structure during the small window of vulnerability, with multiple chances to do so, do you really deserve that structure?
It isn't about having 1 person on any given day. The point is that you are *required*, under this new system, to have a person in that tower, every timer period to prevent attack. There is no other deterrent. Take your group out to roam and get podded? Sorry, your tower just got entosis'ed. Try to fly back when you get the notification? Oh, you just got bubbled on the way back and you're out. Tower entosis'ed. Yes, you can log on an alt and go sit at the tower again but are you going to risk that toon now? Nope. Wait until the timer is over. It's not good gameplay. |
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
103
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:43:27 -
[409] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
So once the transition is complete... all the outposts will still be there, in addition to the new structures? Like a glorified hangar with no functionality? Seems like a weird thing to have them still floating around. Not to mention, if they're still out there, and can't be flipped, can't be destroyed and have nothing to do with new sov, doesn't that make them the most secure place to store stuff?
I think once the Citadels have been planted, corps/alliances should have the option to self-destruct their outpost and make some kind of ceremony out of it.
Cedric
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
581
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:47:35 -
[410] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Jove technology Supreme.
I liek it.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
581
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:51:55 -
[411] - Quote
Rthulhu Voynich wrote:One rule for the Entosis Link is: GÇPNo remote repGÇ¥ How is it possible to reinforce a structure with guns that will shoot enemy ships? Every ship is killed before the warm-up cycle is complete.(?)
Bring moar ships for the Citadel to focus fire on.
BRING BATTLESHIPS WITH ENTOSIS. ( -í~ -£-û -í-¦)
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 18:57:36 -
[412] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Aryth wrote:Should we expect outpost upgrade reimbursements to be doled out before these hit. If not, would it be close so that outpost funds could be then spent on the new structures? Really good question, and we would love feedback on exactly how would be best to do this. Maybe uninstalling upgrades and reprocessing them?
I do not believe the above idea is either the proper or equitable means to reimburse upgrades, as implementation of this idea will give a windfall to the current station owner, which is not necessarily the installer of the station upgrades. If the game records the corporation that upgraded the station, then that entity should receive a direct refund from CCP the day stations are removed from the game, whenever that may occur, not the current holder of a station irrespective of whether the original, upgrading corp is active. The isk trail should begin and end at the corp that installed the upgrade. Active holding corps should be tightly controlled in terms of roles, so alliances who utilized alliance isk to field upgrades via a holding or executor corp will recoup their investment if corp roles are managed properly. However, the more interesting case is a corp that directly built, fielded and upgraded a station while members of an alliance. These entities, however rare, spent significant time and isk to build and deploy or upgrade stations and may or may not be members of alliances that currently hold stations. Allowing the current owner to rip out an upgrade and take it to market is not a justifiable solution. Giving isk to the owner de jour rewards the capture of the station, a benefit already realized by the conquering entity in terms of potential isk generation, docking of ships and projection of strength. A double bonus is not necessary.
Current thinking will not reimburse builders of un-upgraded stations. I vehemently disagree with this thought process. Not all stations are upgraded or need to be upgraded for various reasons. Gallente and Caldari stations sometimes remain in their original, un-upgraded state due to their unenhanced bonuses. Alternatively, an alliance may already hold an upgraded station a few jumps away form a place where they field another station and upgrading a station in close proximity to a previously upgraded station does not make financial sense. In essence, the proposed idea punishes builders of stations which are un-upgraded for making a smart strategic or smart financial decision.
Bottom line: If an entity undertook the monumental task to build/buy and deploy a station, the same original deploying entity should be reimbursed for the colossal amount of time, isk and/or and resources it invested. Often this will reach back many years. This could be a good thing. Station eggs are expensive in terms of time and materials used to build or even buy them and the PI and minerals dumped into the eggs at lunch represent an large amount of time and isk. This isk could restart dormant corps or allow people who are in the game the chance to field the new citadels. Alternatively, the isk cold potentially fund new alliances, as corps who realize the benefit of refunded isk from deployed stations start their own, smaller alliances. This is in line with CCP's current thinking of the occupation of nullsec by smaller entities. Moreover, this could provide content in terms of politics and eventual fighting.
CCP should undertake a two-step process when they issue reimbursements. First, the each stationGÇÖs original builder should be reimbursed for the both the price of the station egg and additionally, minerals and PI necessary for launch. Upgrades present a slightly more complicated process because upgrading a station itself is a two-step process, at a minimum. The upgrading entity should be reimbursed for the appropriate platform(s) they purchased and the minerals and PI necessary launch the platform. They should also be reimbursed for the actual upgrade and the minerals and PI used to install the upgrade into the station. Is this more work on the part of CCP? Yes, it is. However, players undertook a substantial amount of work to build and upgrade stations and implementing a knee-jerk, quick fix does not square with either the massive change in the landscape of Eve implemented by the eventual elimination of stations or the significant investment of time by players.
The original builders of all stations, not just upgraded stations should be reimbursed for the massive undertaking in terms of time and isk. The potential and tangible benefits to both players and corps are sizable, will likely create content across several levels and represents a highly equitable solution by CCP.
|
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
84
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:00:01 -
[413] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Obil Que wrote:The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.
Isn't it? If you can't have a single person show up to defend your structure during the small window of vulnerability, with multiple chances to do so, do you really deserve that structure? It isn't about having 1 person on any given day. The point is that you are *required*, under this new system, to have a person in that tower, every timer period to prevent attack. There is no other deterrent. Take your group out to roam and get podded? Sorry, your tower just got entosis'ed. Try to fly back when you get the notification? Oh, you just got bubbled on the way back and you're out. Tower entosis'ed. Yes, you can log on an alt and go sit at the tower again but are you going to risk that toon now? Nope. Wait until the timer is over. It's not good gameplay.
What makes this different from null sec. We have to do the same things you are, but null is not complaining about this. We need to be active and protect our systems not just a single point in a wormhole. WH are making way more of a deal out of this then need be, it sounds the same as when WH were changed and people claimed up and down that WH would be unlivable after the fact but yet I still see billions of isk making its way out of these every day. Stop complaining about things until it is risk free and adapt to the new meta and make it work for you. |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
84
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:04:57 -
[414] - Quote
Dentia Caecus wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Aryth wrote:Should we expect outpost upgrade reimbursements to be doled out before these hit. If not, would it be close so that outpost funds could be then spent on the new structures? Really good question, and we would love feedback on exactly how would be best to do this. Maybe uninstalling upgrades and reprocessing them? I do not believe the above idea is either the proper or equitable means to reimburse upgrades, as implementation of this idea will give a windfall to the current station owner, which is not necessarily the installer of the station upgrades. If the game records the corporation that upgraded the station, then that entity should receive a direct refund from CCP the day stations are removed from the game, whenever that may occur, not the current holder of a station irrespective of whether the original, upgrading corp is active. The isk trail should begin and end at the corp that installed the upgrade. Active holding corps should be tightly controlled in terms of roles, so alliances who utilized alliance isk to field upgrades via a holding or executor corp will recoup their investment if corp roles are managed properly. However, the more interesting case is a corp that directly built, fielded and upgraded a station while members of an alliance. These entities, however rare, spent significant time and isk to build and deploy or upgrade stations and may or may not be members of alliances that currently hold stations. Allowing the current owner to rip out an upgrade and take it to market is not a justifiable solution. Giving isk to the owner de jour rewards the capture of the station, a benefit already realized by the conquering entity in terms of potential isk generation, docking of ships and projection of strength. A double bonus is not necessary. Current thinking will not reimburse builders of un-upgraded stations. I vehemently disagree with this thought process. Not all stations are upgraded or need to be upgraded for various reasons. Gallente and Caldari stations sometimes remain in their original, un-upgraded state due to their unenhanced bonuses. Alternatively, an alliance may already hold an upgraded station a few jumps away form a place where they field another station and upgrading a station in close proximity to a previously upgraded station does not make financial sense. In essence, the proposed idea punishes builders of stations which are un-upgraded for making a smart strategic or smart financial decision. Bottom line: If an entity undertook the monumental task to build/buy and deploy a station, the same original deploying entity should be reimbursed for the colossal amount of time, isk and/or and resources it invested. Often this will reach back many years. This could be a good thing. Station eggs are expensive in terms of time and materials used to build or even buy them and the PI and minerals dumped into the eggs at lunch represent an large amount of time and isk. This isk could restart dormant corps or allow people who are in the game the chance to field the new citadels. Alternatively, the isk cold potentially fund new alliances, as corps who realize the benefit of refunded isk from deployed stations start their own, smaller alliances. This is in line with CCP's current thinking of the occupation of nullsec by smaller entities. Moreover, this could provide content in terms of politics and eventual fighting. CCP should undertake a two-step process when they issue reimbursements. First, the each stationGÇÖs original builder should be reimbursed for the both the price of the station egg and additionally, minerals and PI necessary for launch. Upgrades present a slightly more complicated process because upgrading a station itself is a two-step process, at a minimum. The upgrading entity should be reimbursed for the appropriate platform(s) they purchased and the minerals and PI necessary launch the platform. They should also be reimbursed for the actual upgrade and the minerals and PI used to install the upgrade into the station. Is this more work on the part of CCP? Yes, it is. However, players undertook a substantial amount of work to build and upgrade stations and implementing a knee-jerk, quick fix does not square with either the massive change in the landscape of Eve implemented by the eventual elimination of stations or the significant investment of time by players. The original builders of all stations, not just upgraded stations should be reimbursed for the massive undertaking in terms of time and isk. The potential and tangible benefits to both players and corps are sizable, will likely create content across several levels and represents a highly equitable solution by CCP.
Lol did you upgrade a lot of space and then lose it? People take over stations and get the benefits of owning and using upgrades. You should not get reimbursed for items you no longer own control.
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
265
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:08:20 -
[415] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Obil Que wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Obil Que wrote:The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.
Isn't it? If you can't have a single person show up to defend your structure during the small window of vulnerability, with multiple chances to do so, do you really deserve that structure? It isn't about having 1 person on any given day. The point is that you are *required*, under this new system, to have a person in that tower, every timer period to prevent attack. There is no other deterrent. Take your group out to roam and get podded? Sorry, your tower just got entosis'ed. Try to fly back when you get the notification? Oh, you just got bubbled on the way back and you're out. Tower entosis'ed. Yes, you can log on an alt and go sit at the tower again but are you going to risk that toon now? Nope. Wait until the timer is over. It's not good gameplay. What makes this different from null sec. We have to do the same things you are, but null is not complaining about this. We need to be active and protect our systems not just a single point in a wormhole. WH are making way more of a deal out of this then need be, it sounds the same as when WH were changed and people claimed up and down that WH would be unlivable after the fact but yet I still see billions of isk making its way out of these every day. Stop complaining about things until it is risk free and adapt to the new meta and make it work for you.
There are some clear differences mostly related to geography. My one single WH system can be rendered inaccessible to me through simple combat. My med clone cannot be in my home system. Null-sec does not have this risk. In addition, once I am removed, my known route home (if I have one) can be completely and irrevocably destroyed. The only true way to then ensure that you can be present to combat the timer is to do nothing else during the window that could risk your pod/person being removed from your system.
This is not that different than the situation today except for 1) the exceedingly low bar set for attack of structures under the new system: 1 entosis ship and 2) the lack of any kind of structure based automated defense to that attack. These combined with the vulnerable window will create the environment by which prudent structure owners will have to devote their entire vulnerable window to structure sitting. This is again related somewhat specifically to WH space where all our assets are at risk in a single structure/system with the previously mentioned unique geography limiting our access.
|
Kynric
Sky Fighters
305
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:09:33 -
[416] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: Yes all these structures will get personal hangars.
How large will the hangars and ship storage be? Will they be small like a pos ir large like a station? |
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:21:56 -
[417] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Dentia Caecus wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Aryth wrote:Should we expect outpost upgrade reimbursements to be doled out before these hit. If not, would it be close so that outpost funds could be then spent on the new structures? Really good question, and we would love feedback on exactly how would be best to do this. Maybe uninstalling upgrades and reprocessing them? I do not believe the above idea is either the proper or equitable means to reimburse upgrades, as implementation of this idea will give a windfall to the current station owner, which is not necessarily the installer of the station upgrades. If the game records the corporation that upgraded the station, then that entity should receive a direct refund from CCP the day stations are removed from the game, whenever that may occur, not the current holder of a station irrespective of whether the original, upgrading corp is active. The isk trail should begin and end at the corp that installed the upgrade. Active holding corps should be tightly controlled in terms of roles, so alliances who utilized alliance isk to field upgrades via a holding or executor corp will recoup their investment if corp roles are managed properly. However, the more interesting case is a corp that directly built, fielded and upgraded a station while members of an alliance. These entities, however rare, spent significant time and isk to build and deploy or upgrade stations and may or may not be members of alliances that currently hold stations. Allowing the current owner to rip out an upgrade and take it to market is not a justifiable solution. Giving isk to the owner de jour rewards the capture of the station, a benefit already realized by the conquering entity in terms of potential isk generation, docking of ships and projection of strength. A double bonus is not necessary. Current thinking will not reimburse builders of un-upgraded stations. I vehemently disagree with this thought process. Not all stations are upgraded or need to be upgraded for various reasons. Gallente and Caldari stations sometimes remain in their original, un-upgraded state due to their unenhanced bonuses. Alternatively, an alliance may already hold an upgraded station a few jumps away form a place where they field another station and upgrading a station in close proximity to a previously upgraded station does not make financial sense. In essence, the proposed idea punishes builders of stations which are un-upgraded for making a smart strategic or smart financial decision. Bottom line: If an entity undertook the monumental task to build/buy and deploy a station, the same original deploying entity should be reimbursed for the colossal amount of time, isk and/or and resources it invested. Often this will reach back many years. This could be a good thing. Station eggs are expensive in terms of time and materials used to build or even buy them and the PI and minerals dumped into the eggs at lunch represent an large amount of time and isk. This isk could restart dormant corps or allow people who are in the game the chance to field the new citadels. Alternatively, the isk cold potentially fund new alliances, as corps who realize the benefit of refunded isk from deployed stations start their own, smaller alliances. This is in line with CCP's current thinking of the occupation of nullsec by smaller entities. Moreover, this could provide content in terms of politics and eventual fighting. CCP should undertake a two-step process when they issue reimbursements. First, the each stationGÇÖs original builder should be reimbursed for the both the price of the station egg and additionally, minerals and PI necessary for launch. Upgrades present a slightly more complicated process because upgrading a station itself is a two-step process, at a minimum. The upgrading entity should be reimbursed for the appropriate platform(s) they purchased and the minerals and PI necessary launch the platform. They should also be reimbursed for the actual upgrade and the minerals and PI used to install the upgrade into the station. Is this more work on the part of CCP? Yes, it is. However, players undertook a substantial amount of work to build and upgrade stations and implementing a knee-jerk, quick fix does not square with either the massive change in the landscape of Eve implemented by the eventual elimination of stations or the significant investment of time by players. The original builders of all stations, not just upgraded stations should be reimbursed for the massive undertaking in terms of time and isk. The potential and tangible benefits to both players and corps are sizable, will likely create content across several levels and represents a highly equitable solution by CCP. Lol did you upgrade a lot of space and then lose it? People take over stations and get the benefits of owning and using upgrades. You should not get reimbursed for items you no longer own control.
Not, at all. Sir. CCP Nullarbor asked for a means to facilitate reimbursement; therefore, I undertook to design a methodology that is fair, provides much requested potential content and may bring people back to the game. I spend a fair amount of time designing, rethinking, drafting and redrafting a workable solution to a complex problem and look forward to equally thoughtful feedback both from the community and CCP.
I very much look forward to suggestions on how to better refine and implement this idea, as I believe the eventual elimination of stations as we know them presents a unique opportunity for CCP to reengage older players that may not be as involved in Nullsec as they once were. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3293
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:27:08 -
[418] - Quote
blog:
Quote:Unlike existing Outposts, nothing is to prevent us from having the new structures destroyed after a successful Entosis capture.
i am not actually sure if i understand that correctly. What happens after the capture? Do you own it or does it explode? Or can you choose?
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2084
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:31:11 -
[419] - 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.
|
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
459
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:32:30 -
[420] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:CCP have pretty much placed themselves between a rock and a hard place with that thing. The sensible answer is obvious (spawn assets in the nearest neutral NPC station) but CCP will never agree to it, so they will come up with some convolute and ultimately useless system which will fail to perform its task of avoiding total loss of assets in the event that a player fails to defend the station.
That's because the proper EVE fix would be to change all NPC stations to destructible player-driven targets as well. The Empire's are losing control. Rise of the capsuleers. If I want to go to war with the Caldari Navy and blow up Jita 4-4 it should be entirely possible to do so. Well not me, but an entity the size of Goonswarm SHOULD be able to pull this off.
You have correctly identified the imbalance that exists between NPC stations and player citadels. The proper fix, however, is not the one you think it is...
|
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
329
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:34:51 -
[421] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Altirius Saldiaro 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. Dont screw up J-Space. We dont need that entosis crap in wormholes. So by your same thought process wormholers shoudnt be able to entosis null members. Yeah you cant have it both ways.
I am talking about structure warfare in wormhole space. Never said anything about kspace. |
Takeo Yanumano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:39:49 -
[422] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:CCP have pretty much placed themselves between a rock and a hard place with that thing. The sensible answer is obvious (spawn assets in the nearest neutral NPC station) but CCP will never agree to it, so they will come up with some convolute and ultimately useless system which will fail to perform its task of avoiding total loss of assets in the event that a player fails to defend the station. That's because the proper EVE fix would be to change all NPC stations to destructible player-driven targets as well. The Empire's are losing control. Rise of the capsuleers. If I want to go to war with the Caldari Navy and blow up Jita 4-4 it should be entirely possible to do so. Well not me, but an entity the size of Goonswarm SHOULD be able to pull this off. You have correctly identified the imbalance that exists between NPC stations and player citadels. The proper fix, however, is not the one you think it is...
The proper fix would be to somehow make NPC stations destructible, but ultimately that is also broken unless players are allowed in some way to fight alongside the NPCs to defend the stations if they wish. Maybe that's where CCP is eventually going with all this stuff though. |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
85
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:42:14 -
[423] - Quote
Dentia Caecus wrote:
Not, at all. Sir. CCP Nullarbor asked for a means to facilitate reimbursement; therefore, I undertook to design a methodology that is fair, provides much requested potential content and may bring people back to the game. I spend a fair amount of time designing, rethinking, drafting and redrafting a workable solution to a complex problem and look forward to equally thoughtful feedback both from the community and CCP.
I very much look forward to suggestions on how to better refine and implement this idea, as I believe the eventual elimination of stations as we know them presents a unique opportunity for CCP to reengage older players that may not be as involved in Nullsec as they once were.
You are missing the point on null sec though and providing a way for users that have been out of area for years on end to end up with isk. This is not a good design. There are risks involved in null sec and losing a station that you put time effort and isk into is one of these. If you have never lived out in null sec or understand what life is like out here maybe you should not be the one coming up with ideas on how to refund upgrades for stations. Or if you do want to weigh in with an idea make sure you fully understand the area in which you are commenting on. What you proposed makes no sense in the way null sec works with risk vs reward and the ability to lose vast fortunes. |
EnternalSoul
Flame's Shadow Brothers of Tangra
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:42:34 -
[424] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: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.
For the Rorqual, right now it sits in the POS shield and activates the Industrial Core and happily gives great Bonuses to the miners. Right now this is all it is good for because we have compression arrays.
Will it still be protected while it has the Industrial Core active (cant move cant jump but is safe because it is in the POS shield)?
|
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
85
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:44:58 -
[425] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:
What makes this different from null sec. We have to do the same things you are, but null is not complaining about this. We need to be active and protect our systems not just a single point in a wormhole. WH are making way more of a deal out of this then need be, it sounds the same as when WH were changed and people claimed up and down that WH would be unlivable after the fact but yet I still see billions of isk making its way out of these every day. Stop complaining about things until it is risk free and adapt to the new meta and make it work for you.
There are some clear differences mostly related to geography. My one single WH system can be rendered inaccessible to me through simple combat. My med clone cannot be in my home system. Null-sec does not have this risk. In addition, once I am removed, my known route home (if I have one) can be completely and irrevocably destroyed. The only true way to then ensure that you can be present to combat the timer is to do nothing else during the window that could risk your pod/person being removed from your system.
This is not that different than the situation today except for 1) the exceedingly low bar set for attack of structures under the new system: 1 entosis ship and 2) the lack of any kind of structure based automated defense to that attack. These combined with the vulnerable window will create the environment by which prudent structure owners will have to devote their entire vulnerable window to structure sitting. This is again related somewhat specifically to WH space where all our assets are at risk in a single structure/system with the previously mentioned unique geography limiting our access.
What makes this different from today?
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
266
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:54:20 -
[426] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:[What makes this different from today?
Today it takes a considerable force to attack a tower, even one undefended in terms of both time, pilots, and resources. Under the new system it takes 1 entosis equipped ship
That is a massive difference in the level of commitment you have to bring to reinforce a structure. So much so that it becomes almost lol-worthy just to do it to every structure you see that doesn't have someone sitting in it. Much like groups will get together half a dozen ships to "stront check" a tower without defenses if you find one in your chain but only if you have enough people to make the grind needed not so lengthy as to take an entire day. Under the new system, the commitment is too small given the size and relative value of the structure. See my previous comments about why this is somewhat unique to w-space geography.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31459
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:59:20 -
[427] - Quote
I just feel like all these Entosis issues could be solved if the structures moved to analog.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Ocean Ormand
Bagel and Lox
3
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:01:12 -
[428] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:[What makes this different from today? Today it takes a considerable force to attack a tower, even one undefended in terms of both time, pilots, and resources. Under the new system it takes 1 entosis equipped ship That is a massive difference in the level of commitment you have to bring to reinforce a structure. So much so that it becomes almost lol-worthy just to do it to every structure you see that doesn't have someone sitting in it. Much like groups will get together half a dozen ships to "stront check" a tower without defenses if you find one in your chain but only if you have enough people to make the grind needed not so lengthy as to take an entire day. Under the new system, the commitment is too small given the size and relative value of the structure. See my previous comments about why this is somewhat unique to w-space geography.
I dont think this is correct - the blog specifically stated that they are giving the towers defensive structures to ward of solo folk trying to reinforce towers. Moreover, you can solo a tower today, even a large one, if you are willing to put in the time and effort, it just takes a while. There is no indication as to how long you will have to circle the tower with your magic beam on before you capture it. So in short, it appears that CCP is designing the towers to make it so that groups of folk are required to capture it and the new meta may very well take the same time or longer (since they are requiring up to three reinforcement cycles) then is currently in use. |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
514
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:04:41 -
[429] - 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.
Can You elaborate? Does this mean the vulnerabilty timer will be every few days or what?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
266
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:10:20 -
[430] - Quote
Ocean Ormand wrote:Obil Que wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:[What makes this different from today? Today it takes a considerable force to attack a tower, even one undefended in terms of both time, pilots, and resources. Under the new system it takes 1 entosis equipped ship That is a massive difference in the level of commitment you have to bring to reinforce a structure. So much so that it becomes almost lol-worthy just to do it to every structure you see that doesn't have someone sitting in it. Much like groups will get together half a dozen ships to "stront check" a tower without defenses if you find one in your chain but only if you have enough people to make the grind needed not so lengthy as to take an entire day. Under the new system, the commitment is too small given the size and relative value of the structure. See my previous comments about why this is somewhat unique to w-space geography. I dont think this is correct - the blog specifically stated that they are giving the towers defensive structures to ward of solo folk trying to reinforce towers. Moreover, you can solo a tower today, even a large one, if you are willing to put in the time and effort, it just takes a while. There is no indication as to how long you will have to circle the tower with your magic beam on before you capture it. So in short, it appears that CCP is designing the towers to make it so that groups of folk are required to capture it and the new meta may very well take the same time or longer (since they are requiring up to reinforcement cycles) then is currently in use.
Defensive structures that require someone to man the guns. It will not automatically defend itself. Your "solo" tower attacking ship today is far different than the one needed to fit an entosis link and orbit the tower. It doesn't appear that anything is pointing towards a group of people required to take a tower *unless* it is occupied. It is the requirement for active occupation coupled with the vulnerability window and the unique geography of w-space that will lead people to have to structure sit during their windows in order to provide adequate defense.
|
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
448
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:12:59 -
[431] - Quote
To those complaining about how you are gonna be blaped by the stations weapons while running your Entosis Link cause you can't shoot the guns like at a POS.. You're forgetting something.
Now DD's and such are gonna mess you up, so you best be in a Super to run the link.. but for the other weapons, TD, and Firewalling should still be an effective way to keep the ship running the link safe(ish)..
Also the Entosis Link II is a 250km Range.. who knows how much firepower it can put out at that range. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3293
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:17:08 -
[432] - Quote
another thing: i assume if your station has a fighter bay, they won't be able to warp, right?
you don't want to create built-in skynet support
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1154
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:26:39 -
[433] - Quote
Vacant Glare wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Bienator II wrote:will it be configurable if it should appear on the overview or not? One main purpose of it is the functionality as trade hub. And i guess there will be many of those structures around. Things like docking rights, availability of the trade module and visibility of the structure itself must be somehow communicated to the players.
Standing based visibility on the overview? Please don't make us open show info every time. 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. Would be nice if system owners could see these on the overview but for none blues then hacking the system navigation array (or similar) would turn off a hidden statement letting everyone know where they are.
How would that work in HS / WH's though?
I like the concept though. Maybe have hiding them be something more easily done in 0.0? |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
253
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:27:03 -
[434] - Quote
So, if certain sized structures are to get 'structure doomsdays', does this also mean they will be doomsday'able themselves?....
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
461
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:36:24 -
[435] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Dentia Caecus wrote:
Not, at all. Sir. CCP Nullarbor asked for a means to facilitate reimbursement; therefore, I undertook to design a methodology that is fair, provides much requested potential content and may bring people back to the game. I spend a fair amount of time designing, rethinking, drafting and redrafting a workable solution to a complex problem and look forward to equally thoughtful feedback both from the community and CCP.
I very much look forward to suggestions on how to better refine and implement this idea, as I believe the eventual elimination of stations as we know them presents a unique opportunity for CCP to reengage older players that may not be as involved in Nullsec as they once were.
You are missing the point on null sec though and providing a way for users that have been out of area for years on end to end up with isk. This is not a good design. There are risks involved in null sec and losing a station that you put time effort and isk into is one of these. If you have never lived out in null sec or understand what life is like out here maybe you should not be the one coming up with ideas on how to refund upgrades for stations. Or if you do want to weigh in with an idea make sure you fully understand the area in which you are commenting on. What you proposed makes no sense in the way null sec works with risk vs reward and the ability to lose vast fortunes. Easy fix for removal of existing stations. Convert them to XLarge Citadels OR (my preference) 1 month after XL Citadels are introduced all Stations/Outposts in sov nul become destructible. Capital ships are given a 100% bonus to jump range for 60 days or until only 1 station is left. Last standing station becomes a monument to days gone by and has a searchable list of all those who engaged in the destruction of every other station. List who destroyed each station with kills and losses as part of the monument.
No reimbursement needed except for blueprints. Tons of content for big and small ships. Massive kill/loss mails of all types.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1154
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:37:37 -
[436] - Quote
Ranger 1 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. I think 250km 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 they 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 not 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.
So much this. Having a massive fortress is conceptually much cooler than having a smattering of strangely isolated structures. In addition if the structures end up being isolated then each structure would need to be fairly powerful defensively (not necessary as powerful as the citadels obviously) otherwise they simply get steam rolled by the first invader.
As a hostile entity I'm not entirely opposed to this model, I'd gladly troll my victims by destroying every one of their structures except their Citadel, while they scramble feebly to defend structures spread out across the entire system.
From a defender and empire builder standpoint though, that doesn't sound like much fun.
|
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
944
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:37:42 -
[437] - Quote
So is this supposed to be the replacement for generic POSes used as bases, eg. deathstars and dickstars?
Might I ask why the old outposts are going to remain as is rather than be turned into the new structures, and what will be happening to POS towers?
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. Aww bummer, I was hoping the deployables would be reworked to fit under the new mechanics. For instance a MTU would become a generic harvesting structure with a tractor beam fitted and a role bonus service that buffs tractor beams |
Metal Icarus
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
741
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:39:21 -
[438] - Quote
Empress Jamyl Sarum's Judgement
An example Officer doomsday for XL Citadels
Just saying |
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:42:03 -
[439] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Dentia Caecus wrote:
Not, at all. Sir. CCP Nullarbor asked for a means to facilitate reimbursement; therefore, I undertook to design a methodology that is fair, provides much requested potential content and may bring people back to the game. I spend a fair amount of time designing, rethinking, drafting and redrafting a workable solution to a complex problem and look forward to equally thoughtful feedback both from the community and CCP.
I very much look forward to suggestions on how to better refine and implement this idea, as I believe the eventual elimination of stations as we know them presents a unique opportunity for CCP to reengage older players that may not be as involved in Nullsec as they once were.
You are missing the point on null sec though and providing a way for users that have been out of area for years on end to end up with isk. This is not a good design. There are risks involved in null sec and losing a station that you put time effort and isk into is one of these. If you have never lived out in null sec or understand what life is like out here maybe you should not be the one coming up with ideas on how to refund upgrades for stations. Or if you do want to weigh in with an idea make sure you fully understand the area in which you are commenting on. What you proposed makes no sense in the way null sec works with risk vs reward and the ability to lose vast fortunes.
I understand that I will never change your opinion, Mr. Wolf, however flawed it may be, and I will not try. Instead, I will address the points he raises in the hope that I might find the ears of less close minded individuals.
In response to Mr. Wolf points:
It is the considered opinion of this author, a multi-year veteran of nullsec life, that Mr. Wolf is correct when he states there are inherent risks in nullsec, including risk of major or catastrophic loss. However, his repetition of this truism is utterly irrelevant, as is his tiresome reliance on the risk/reward analogy. Furthermore, his argument typifies the thinking that resulted in both the big blue doughnut and stagnation in nullsec that CCP has taken great pains to eliminate.
Mr. Wolf's misses or ignores much of the thrust of my argument and further misses one of the extraordinarily obvious, salient issues I present: removal of stations is a once in a game opportunity to bring newly formed entities into nullsec or bring people back into null who have been missing for a long time. Either result brings more entities into nullsec, further diversifying it and creating more opportunities for both economic pvp and traditional pvp content.
Returning to the point at hand, to both enrich and entrench current residents simply because they are there is a small point compared to the potential advantages of implementation of my proposal. In a majority of cases, at the time of removal and reimbursement for stations, the builders and entities who upgraded stations will be the current owners, rendering Mr. Wolf's points moot. However, sometimes they will not be the owners. To overlook the huge opportunity to bring more people into nullsec would be a tragic waste of a unique point in time in Eve. |
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
1154
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 20:50:46 -
[440] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: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.
Is current discussion leaning towards this depending on anything? Like sec status of the area, owner member count etc? If it's everywhere it could certainly alleviate some of the blitzkrieg issues 0.0 alliances could face.
|
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1070
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 21:08:10 -
[441] - Quote
Dentia Caecus wrote: Mr. Wolf's misses or ignores much of the thrust of my argument and further misses one of the extraordinarily obvious, salient issues I present: removal of stations is a once in a game opportunity to bring newly formed entities into nullsec or bring people back into null who have been missing for a long time.
In a very aloof and condescending manner, you are basically saying "give me isk, not the people who put in the effort to beat me". You lost your station, if you could not be bothered to put in the effort to defend it, you don't deserve the winners spoils of war. You deserve exactly what you have now, nothing.
|
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
86
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 21:10:08 -
[442] - Quote
Dentia Caecus wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:Dentia Caecus wrote:
Not, at all. Sir. CCP Nullarbor asked for a means to facilitate reimbursement; therefore, I undertook to design a methodology that is fair, provides much requested potential content and may bring people back to the game. I spend a fair amount of time designing, rethinking, drafting and redrafting a workable solution to a complex problem and look forward to equally thoughtful feedback both from the community and CCP.
I very much look forward to suggestions on how to better refine and implement this idea, as I believe the eventual elimination of stations as we know them presents a unique opportunity for CCP to reengage older players that may not be as involved in Nullsec as they once were.
You are missing the point on null sec though and providing a way for users that have been out of area for years on end to end up with isk. This is not a good design. There are risks involved in null sec and losing a station that you put time effort and isk into is one of these. If you have never lived out in null sec or understand what life is like out here maybe you should not be the one coming up with ideas on how to refund upgrades for stations. Or if you do want to weigh in with an idea make sure you fully understand the area in which you are commenting on. What you proposed makes no sense in the way null sec works with risk vs reward and the ability to lose vast fortunes. I understand that I will never change your opinion, Mr. Wolf, however flawed it may be, and I will not try. Instead, I will address the points he raises in the hope that I might find the ears of less close minded individuals. In response to Mr. Wolf points: It is the considered opinion of this author, a multi-year veteran of nullsec life, that Mr. Wolf is correct when he states there are inherent risks in nullsec, including risk of major or catastrophic loss. However, his repetition of this truism is utterly irrelevant, as is his tiresome reliance on the risk/reward analogy. Furthermore, his argument typifies the thinking that resulted in both the big blue doughnut and stagnation in nullsec that CCP has taken great pains to eliminate. Mr. Wolf's misses or ignores much of the thrust of my argument and further misses one of the extraordinarily obvious, salient issues I present: removal of stations is a once in a game opportunity to bring newly formed entities into nullsec or bring people back into null who have been missing for a long time. Either result brings more entities into nullsec, further diversifying it and creating more opportunities for both economic pvp and traditional pvp content. Returning to the point at hand, to both enrich and entrench current residents simply because they are there is a small point compared to the potential advantages of implementation of my proposal. In a majority of cases, at the time of removal and reimbursement for stations, the builders and entities who upgraded stations will be the current owners, rendering Mr. Wolf's points moot. However, sometimes they will not be the owners. To overlook the huge opportunity to bring more people into nullsec would be a tragic waste of a unique point in time in Eve.
Answer me one question. Why should someone be rewarded for something they no longer own? |
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 21:27:20 -
[443] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Dentia Caecus wrote:
I understand that I will never change your opinion, Mr. Wolf, however flawed it may be, and I will not try. Instead, I will address the points he raises in the hope that I might find the ears of less close minded individuals.
In response to Mr. Wolf points:
It is the considered opinion of this author, a multi-year veteran of nullsec life, that Mr. Wolf is correct when he states there are inherent risks in nullsec, including risk of major or catastrophic loss. However, his repetition of this truism is utterly irrelevant, as is his tiresome reliance on the risk/reward analogy. Furthermore, his argument typifies the thinking that resulted in both the big blue doughnut and stagnation in nullsec that CCP has taken great pains to eliminate.
Mr. Wolf's misses or ignores much of the thrust of my argument and further misses one of the extraordinarily obvious, salient issues I present: removal of stations is a once in a game opportunity to bring newly formed entities into nullsec or bring people back into null who have been missing for a long time. Either result brings more entities into nullsec, further diversifying it and creating more opportunities for both economic pvp and traditional pvp content.
Returning to the point at hand, to both enrich and entrench current residents simply because they are there is a small point compared to the potential advantages of implementation of my proposal. In a majority of cases, at the time of removal and reimbursement for stations, the builders and entities who upgraded stations will be the current owners, rendering Mr. Wolf's points moot. However, sometimes they will not be the owners. To overlook the huge opportunity to bring more people into nullsec would be a tragic waste of a unique point in time in Eve.
Answer me one question. Why should someone be rewarded for something they no longer own? Edit: Also if you are going to talk about your multi-year vet of nullsec life post with someone that has been out there. I have a feeling that if you did you would be part of a group that had everything taken away and are using this a a cleaver shield to get some of your lost investment back.
I did, twice. You just do not like the answer, Sir. |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
86
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 21:30:36 -
[444] - Quote
Dentia Caecus wrote:
I did, twice. You just do not like the answer, Sir.
No you never answered the question you just used the same old terms blue doughnut and other memes. You never flat out said why any group or person should be given something for which they no longer own.
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
245
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 21:50:47 -
[445] - 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.
From the Dev blog we have this: Quote: We have established Citadels need to be able to take care of themselves in a fight.
As such they should:
Repel trolling attempts from a single player trying to capture them with an Entosis module
How can the Citadel be able to take care of itself in a fight and repel trolling attempts from a single player IF it requires someone to man the guns? The Dev blog implies that the guns are automated like a POS when not manned.
> There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people
> to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp
- CCP Yitterbium
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. No Not Believing
1716
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 21:52:53 -
[446] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:Some items and ships need to drop from citadels or why would we bother attacking them? Or why would anyone bother defending them if all they stand to lose is the value of only the citadel itself.
Wormholers currently have 100s of bilions worth of ships in their POSes and its one of the things that drive the massive fights we can witness every now and then - attackers want to destroy/loot them, defendes want to keep them. Compared to that, cost of the citadel itself will be peanuts and noone will bother fighting over it.
Please consider some drop mechanic, or maybe salvaging of the loot over time. IE the citadel wrecks slowly decay over time and shed loot (ships, modules, whatever) as salvage for anyone who shows up to get it. This could even spark some activity around old wrecks of mighty and rich citadels, as scavengers would come in search of riches. Really like this idea.
Two Q's:
1. With these new structures and the entosis link removing the primary utility of dreads (POS, SBU, Outposts), should we expect a rebalance of that ship class to orient it more to anti-ship combat rather than anti structure?
2. These new Citidels seem much more compelling than outposts. If you're not entirely replace outposts with these citadels, what will be the differentiation?
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."
-Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM
Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com
|
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 21:54:55 -
[447] - Quote
Limit the Citadel Structures to one per region, or bare minimum, one XL per region to regulate its use. It should, at most, be regulated to one tower per region, period, regardless of size. It should be treated as a capital POS, and not be used as common equipment. Since it is limited to low and null only, its only fair, it should be limited in scope of its deployment as well.
Allowing it to be used unregulated and unchecked would subsequently cause unpredictable blowback and possibly cause large regions of space to stagnate, the mega alliances that now exist already have far too much opportunity and power to solidify their monopolies and strangleholds over their space.
Providing these structures in an unlimited capacity is far from being a good idea, especially when its OP weaponry, and multi-stacking invulnerability for both structures and ships is examined.
This is closer to GM equipment then it is sandbox. |
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 22:00:03 -
[448] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Dentia Caecus wrote: Mr. Wolf's misses or ignores much of the thrust of my argument and further misses one of the extraordinarily obvious, salient issues I present: removal of stations is a once in a game opportunity to bring newly formed entities into nullsec or bring people back into null who have been missing for a long time.
In a very aloof and condescending manner, you are basically saying "give me isk, not the people who put in the effort to beat me". You lost your station, if you could not be bothered to put in the effort to defend it, you don't deserve the winners spoils of war. You deserve exactly what you have now, nothing. EDIT - And lets not forget, you are suggesting something that could massively effect existing alliances (whilst claiming your selfish motive is "for the good of the children"). Just look at Pheobe Freeport Alliance, Brave, and many other new spaceholders. These people live in space they have taken that was already developed. You are suggesting these stations are taken down, and the means to replace them being given to inactive holder corps of years-dead alliances. How are these new groups supposed to survive if you take away what they have, and do not give them the means to, at the very least, replace what has been lost like-for-like. Its foolish.
Mr. Cormallen,
As an aside, and before I begin to address your argument, please understand that I am trying to maintain an objective, wide and far reaching viewpoint the face of name calling and knee-jerk reactionary thinking. In that same vein, please stay on the original substance of my argument instead of arguing against a distortion of my points or an outright red herring.
While I must admit that I find it both utterly and sidesplittingly hilarious that you attempt to justify your argument on the basis of preservation of the above referenced alliances, I should say thank you. By crafting your argument in such a way, you, too, drive home one of the important points of my argument: that creation of newer alliances such as Brave, PFR, et.al have been wonderful for the game that we all clearly love. Potential creation of additional new alliances is also a good thing for the game.
Yes, if stations are removed by CCP, then yes, original builders and upgraders should be reimbursed. No, that will not kill the Imperium or anyone else. On reimbursement day, could someone steal billions from a corp from a wallet which isn't properly locked down, leave and start a new entity, thus massively effecting existing alliances? Yes. Is it likely to be widespread if CCP tells us they are doing this? No. Every major change finds people ripping out their collective hair while predicting the end of times, meanwhile some become rich, some become poor and some make changes to the face of the game that help to improve quality of life for nullsec. I hope to bring more people into nullsec. It seems you are more interested in creating additional spoils for work you have already accomplished.
|
EnternalSoul
Flame's Shadow Brothers of Tangra
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 22:02:11 -
[449] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:Limit the Citadel Structures to one per region, or bare minimum, one XL per region to regulate its use. It should, at most, be regulated to one tower per region, period, regardless of size. It should be treated as a capital POS, and not be used as common equipment. Since it is limited to low and null only, its only fair, it should be limited in scope of its deployment as well.
Allowing it to be used unregulated and unchecked would subsequently cause unpredictable blowback and possibly cause large regions of space to stagnate, the mega alliances that now exist already have far too much opportunity and power to solidify their monopolies and strangleholds over their space.
Providing these structures in an unlimited capacity is far from being a good idea, especially when its OP weaponry, and multi-stacking invulnerability for both structures and ships is examined.
This is closer to GM equipment then it is sandbox.
XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them.
see post #22 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5739567#post5739567 |
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 22:03:33 -
[450] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Dentia Caecus wrote:
I did, twice. You just do not like the answer, Sir.
No you never answered the question you just used the same old terms blue doughnut and other memes. You never flat out said why any group or person should be given something for which they no longer own.
Mr. Wolf,
Please see my response to Mr. Cormallen. |
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
553
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 22:14:46 -
[451] - Quote
EnternalSoul wrote:Deep Nine wrote:Limit the Citadel Structures to one per region, or bare minimum, one XL per region to regulate its use. It should, at most, be regulated to one tower per region, period, regardless of size. It should be treated as a capital POS, and not be used as common equipment. Since it is limited to low and null only, its only fair, it should be limited in scope of its deployment as well.
Allowing it to be used unregulated and unchecked would subsequently cause unpredictable blowback and possibly cause large regions of space to stagnate, the mega alliances that now exist already have far too much opportunity and power to solidify their monopolies and strangleholds over their space.
Providing these structures in an unlimited capacity is far from being a good idea, especially when its OP weaponry, and multi-stacking invulnerability for both structures and ships is examined.
This is closer to GM equipment then it is sandbox. XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them. see post #22 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5739567#post5739567
LOL. Someone said the same thing about Titans once, I bet.
That said, there's no reason to artificially cap them since they can be destroyed.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Justin Cody
Tri-gun
268
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 22:18:29 -
[452] - 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.
Marry me? |
Justin Cody
Tri-gun
268
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 22:19:20 -
[453] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:Limit the Citadel Structures to one per region, or bare minimum, one XL per region to regulate its use. It should, at most, be regulated to one tower per region, period, regardless of size. It should be treated as a capital POS, and not be used as common equipment. Since it is limited to low and null only, its only fair, it should be limited in scope of its deployment as well.
Allowing it to be used unregulated and unchecked would subsequently cause unpredictable blowback and possibly cause large regions of space to stagnate, the mega alliances that now exist already have far too much opportunity and power to solidify their monopolies and strangleholds over their space.
Providing these structures in an unlimited capacity is far from being a good idea, especially when its OP weaponry, and multi-stacking invulnerability for both structures and ships is examined.
This is closer to GM equipment then it is sandbox.
get out. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
459
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 22:20:42 -
[454] - Quote
Petrified wrote:How can the Citadel be able to take care of itself in a fight and repel trolling attempts from a single player IF it requires someone to man the guns? The Dev blog implies that the guns are automated like a POS when not manned.
The dev blog implies that if you own a citadel and are alive to use it, you can repel a solo troll 100% of the time. You don't need to be a good pilot, or have expensive ships, or be a PvP wizard... you just need to get into your citadel and push the "fire big guns make bad people go away" button.
It in no way implies that we go back to the days of absentee landlordism where you can drop down a dozen structures that defend themselves. If you are there using the structure it will be trivial to repel anything that is not an actual attempt to take the structure. If you are not there using the structure than it will (intentionally) be vulnerable to a solo troll in a newb-ship.
Again, occupancy-based concepts here. Provide powerful tools to people actually using an area through structures while simultaneously making it trivial to clear out crap left behind by people no longer present without requiring a giant structure HP grind. |
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 23:07:31 -
[455] - Quote
It needs to have a set number that can be placed either by system or by region. Allowing the unlimited placement of these structures would all but eliminate conquest.
Its overpowered doomsday weapons systems alone are enough to destroy a squad of sub-caps or a fleet of ships sent to destroy one, just one, nevermind an entire system wracked with them.
These would cause the null to stagnate, once implemented, by causing conquest to stagnate, it is obvious how, in that it would provide much needed, and timely, damage control, specifically for wounded empires, that are beginning to fail and lose space, allowing them to harden up remaining systems against attack, draw back, hunker down, and defend their space with indestructibly guarded and armed POS systems. It murders strategic conquest. How it is currently presented is far overpowered, that much is obvious to an experienced player without an agenda.
It needs regulation.
|
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 23:10:23 -
[456] - Quote
EnternalSoul wrote:Deep Nine wrote:Limit the Citadel Structures to one per region, or bare minimum, one XL per region to regulate its use. It should, at most, be regulated to one tower per region, period, regardless of size. It should be treated as a capital POS, and not be used as common equipment. Since it is limited to low and null only, its only fair, it should be limited in scope of its deployment as well.
Allowing it to be used unregulated and unchecked would subsequently cause unpredictable blowback and possibly cause large regions of space to stagnate, the mega alliances that now exist already have far too much opportunity and power to solidify their monopolies and strangleholds over their space.
Providing these structures in an unlimited capacity is far from being a good idea, especially when its OP weaponry, and multi-stacking invulnerability for both structures and ships is examined.
This is closer to GM equipment then it is sandbox. XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them. see post #22 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5739567#post5739567
It would only limit them to empires and mega-alliances. Everyone else is out, meaning this is bias and specifically meant for entrench and enchanc the power of standing empires, keeping the status quo and allowing no further opportunity for any other foreign corp advancement.
Broken idea is broke. Needs overhaul on tweaking and devastating nerfing if it is to survive. |
Ripblade Falconpunch
Centurion Logistics
126
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 23:48:47 -
[457] - Quote
Dentia Caecus wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:Dentia Caecus wrote:
I did, twice. You just do not like the answer, Sir.
No you never answered the question you just used the same old terms blue doughnut and other memes. You never flat out said why any group or person should be given something for which they no longer own. Mr. Wolf, Please see my response to Mr. Cormallen.
I've read all of your posts so far, and they are all dumb. You lost your **** because you couldn't defend it, get over it. All the attempts at formal speech and snarky attempts at being respectful and pretending to take the high road aren't making your real intentions any less transparent.
I would bet that many existing stations were originally built by alliances that literally dont even exist anymore, or have been inactive for years. So who exactly would get compensation? A non-existent alliance wallet? A holding alliance wallet held by a single account that hasn't been subscribed or logged in for 5 years? This is why your idea is dumb. So dumb you should go post it in the "Bad Advice" thread in GD. |
Romel Erata
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 00:25:05 -
[458] - 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.
Not sure if anyone has brought this up yet but does this mean I can set essentially a stationary pipe-bomb with an XL Citadel and a bubble? |
Flamespar
WarRavens
1321
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 00:29:49 -
[459] - Quote
Since there will be no racial variations for these structures, perhaps there should be racial skins that also apply small geometry changes to the structure.
For example
Minmatar skin = Rust paint and smoke stacks Amarr = Gold and statue of religious figure Caldari = Gunmetal grey and military livery Gallente = Green and something with boobs.
EVE Chronicle: An audio drama set in the EVE universe
http://evechronicle.blogspot.com.au/
https://twitter.com/Flamespar
|
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 01:03:32 -
[460] - Quote
Quote:XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them.
Yes, it would Limit them specifically to huge alliances and powerful corperations, which money and resources are no object for.
They would be mass manufactured and inevitably it would be abused by organizations to augment and solidify their already staggering power, forever sealing null against any type of incursion from almost any type of outside force, not grand fathered in. |
|
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 01:08:29 -
[461] - Quote
Quote:LOL. Someone said the same thing about Titans once, I bet.
That said, there's no reason to artificially cap them since they can be destroyed.
Guessing someone may have said something once is asinine.
That said, the reason to cap them is because, as is, they are practically impossible to destroy, not to mention when an actual fleet shows up to defend the Mega-POS, it would be impossible to defeat them, nevermind taking the tower.
Limiting its use is still the best option to avoid critical abuse and deifying alliances. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1075
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 01:17:31 -
[462] - Quote
Dentia Caecus wrote: Not, at all. Sir. CCP Nullarbor asked for a means to facilitate reimbursement; therefore, I undertook to design a methodology that is fair, provides much requested potential content and may bring people back to the game. I spend a fair amount of time designing, rethinking, drafting and redrafting a workable solution to a complex problem and look forward to equally thoughtful feedback both from the community and CCP.
I very much look forward to suggestions on how to better refine and implement this idea, as I believe the eventual elimination of stations as we know them presents a unique opportunity for CCP to reengage older players that may not be as involved in Nullsec as they once were.
the only thing you spent a lot of time on was stuffing as many words as possible in to disguise the rattling of your tin can as you begged for handouts from devs
"you should give me money, loads of money, for things i don't own because...uh..." |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1075
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 01:18:32 -
[463] - Quote
Ocean Ormand wrote: I dont think this is correct - the blog specifically stated that they are giving the towers defensive structures to ward of solo folk trying to reinforce towers.
they then said the defenses must be manually controlled, which means solo folk reinforce them easily |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1075
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 01:21:02 -
[464] - Quote
Dentia Caecus wrote: It is the considered opinion of this author, a multi-year veteran of nullsec life, that Mr. Wolf is correct when he states there are inherent risks in nullsec, including risk of major or catastrophic loss. However, his repetition of this truism is utterly irrelevant, as is his tiresome reliance on the risk/reward analogy. Furthermore, his argument typifies the thinking that resulted in both the big blue doughnut and stagnation in nullsec that CCP has taken great pains to eliminate.
to boil down: "risk and reward is all well and good, as long as when i lose i get the reward instead gimme gimme gimme gimme the way to bring new players into null is to give massive isk handouts to old players who lost the stations years ago, that will really help the new people gimme gimme gimme oh god gimme" |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31459
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 01:43:33 -
[465] - Quote
Flamespar wrote:Since there will be no racial variations for these structures, perhaps there should be racial skins that also apply small geometry changes to the structure.
For example
Minmatar skin = Rust paint and smoke stacks Amarr = Gold and statue of religious figure Caldari = Gunmetal grey and military livery Gallente = Green and something with boobs.
This is one of those suggestions that once implanted into devs minds can never be retrieved.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 02:02:30 -
[466] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Lord LazyGhost wrote: 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.
Or you could let the first timer go passed without defence, and be there for the second. Or third. I'll repeat. In wormhole space especially, you are linked to many random entities over the course of days or weeks through your wormhole connections and the resulting chain. It is very likely that those entities will take every opportunity to entosis structures that lack a warm body in them. Thus your first, second, or third timer will be set upon by the connection of the day putting you and your structure under constant active threat. The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.
THIS
adding some personal notes on general details: the whole "vulnerability window" concept is artificial and superflous bullshit, a misconception born from the dillema of on the one hand wanting to lower the attack threshold and on the other hand trying to give defenders some break ... it feels totally out of tune with the game as i know it and actually diminishes and restricts gameplay artificially. similiar feelings towards the whole entosis stuff .... originally brought up to aim for problems with sov now its coming to every ******* POS (substituting structures) and troubles me in whs where the concept of sov doesnt even exist - tyvm NOT worst of all: the "asset safety" some genius came up with when my POS/structure gets blown up ... seriously devs, have you totally lost it ?? This goes against the core fundamentals that make up this game and set it apart from the competition. If someone blows up my fortress HE DESERVES the loot!
I see EVE at a critical juncture at the moment, the devs trying to change to many things at once and in many aspects out of touch with the existing game. "Meant well" and "done well" are entirely different concepts in the end ... |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31459
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 02:44:55 -
[467] - Quote
That's a valid sentiment but I'm guessing you're not an industrialist.
Industry involves a practically unmanageable volume of materials, and it's nearly impossible to evacuate everything in a matter of two timers. A month, even. Caches of ships and materials that you really have no place else to put them, other than NPC stations. If you don't make considerations for assets, it would be a profound nerf to player owned structures.
Materials accumulate quickly, by way of buy orders and several players filling them. Not just ore or minerals.
There are a lot of situations where it requires tens or hundreds of freighter loads to build just one thing. If you have a freighter pilot, you can get a sense of this on Sisi by joining up with Wedge Rancer. He builds supers for players. I had ten freighter pilots ferrying materials from station to POS for hours, and there's no end to that. I did it just for the perspective, and I think you should too.
Structures can, will, and do accumulate more stuff than can be moved by a corporation or alliance... coalition even, in a short period of time.
If you ask me, players are already going to be up a creek in the new destructible structure system even with the considerations their assets are being given.
I think a better solution would be an emergency Interbus moving service that is invulnerable to player attack, but costs ISK and time. More than the ISK or time cost, though, displacing assets would be the real consequence for losing a structure, and I think that's enough. Otherwise, Industry and market become a casualty of structure / system / Sov ownership, and I don't think you want that. Personal assets, too. They need to be removed from at-risk-in-space-combat gameplay. The fantasy hardcore EVE you are asking for is one that would destroy itself.
The PVP playstyle would destroy all others, and that's a bit OP.
About the Interbus moving service thing... if assets are moved to the next-closest owned structure or nearest NPC station (for free?)... chasing a group's war and industry materials in this way isn't a wasted effort.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
461
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 03:05:53 -
[468] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:Limit the Citadel Structures to one per region, or bare minimum, one XL per region to regulate its use. It should, at most, be regulated to one tower per region, period, regardless of size. It should be treated as a capital POS, and not be used as common equipment. Since it is limited to low and null only, its only fair, it should be limited in scope of its deployment as well.
Allowing it to be used unregulated and unchecked would subsequently cause unpredictable blowback and possibly cause large regions of space to stagnate, the mega alliances that now exist already have far too much opportunity and power to solidify their monopolies and strangleholds over their space.
Providing these structures in an unlimited capacity is far from being a good idea, especially when its OP weaponry, and multi-stacking invulnerability for both structures and ships is examined.
This is closer to GM equipment then it is sandbox. This would be ok, as long as only one alliance resides in each region. Who gets to have the best if more than one alliance reside side by side?
Multiple alliance living in one region may continually fight for control - Who gets the biggest boom stick?
One per region per alliance, makes sense.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Fzhal
Anoikis Vergence The Last Chancers.
22
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 03:57:49 -
[469] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:adding some personal notes on general details: the whole "vulnerability window" concept is artificial and superflous bullshit, a misconception born from the dillema of on the one hand wanting to lower the attack threshold and on the other hand trying to give defenders some break ... it feels totally out of tune with the game as i know it and actually diminishes and restricts gameplay artificially. similiar feelings towards the whole entosis stuff .... originally brought up to aim for problems with sov now its coming to every ******* POS (substituting structures) and troubles me in whs where the concept of sov doesnt even exist - tyvm NOT worst of all: the "asset safety" some genius came up with when my POS/structure gets blown up ... seriously devs, have you totally lost it ?? This goes against the core fundamentals that make up this game and set it apart from the competition. If someone blows up my fortress HE DESERVES the loot! I see EVE at a critical juncture at the moment, the devs trying to change to many things at once and in many aspects out of touch with the existing game. "Meant well" and "done well" are entirely different concepts in the end ... (Personally, I would prefer a 15% buyback insurance and 10% drop.)
Your post amazes me. Yes, I am amazed at how a person can play a sci-fi game with FTL travel/communication, shields, lasers, wormholes, cynos, and clone swapping... Oh, and spaceships! How this person can be okay with all of those things, yet find it unrealistic for someone in EVE to invent a system to fit into a FIFTY KILOMETER STRUCTURE that would safeguard items in the event of a catastrophic hull breach...
News flash! CCP tracks asset loss and can easily see how many die-hard pvpers, like you, quit after losing a significant portion of their stuff... But no, lets design a game around your bias and feelings. |
Nikolai Agnon
Dirt 'n' Glitter
14
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 05:17:13 -
[470] - Quote
Would just like to re-emphasize that FW would appreciate some attention, and given the role Citadels are to play in wars, some consideration for militia use would be fantastic. If indices affect timers in sov, ihub upgrades in FW should also affect structures.
Fuel consumption and reinforcement timers would be great candidates for ihub upgrade bonuses. It'd be well balanced by the LP that would need to be invested in the ihub, and that players would be encouraged for their corp's sake to help keep home systems stable or lowly contested. |
|
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
881
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 05:17:46 -
[471] - Quote
iLIKE |
Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
437
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 05:53:03 -
[472] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:Some items and ships need to drop from citadels or why would we bother attacking them? Or why would anyone bother defending them if all they stand to lose is the value of only the citadel itself.
Wormholers currently have 100s of bilions worth of ships in their POSes and its one of the things that drive the massive fights we can witness every now and then - attackers want to destroy/loot them, defendes want to keep them. Compared to that, cost of the citadel itself will be peanuts and noone will bother fighting over it.
Please consider some drop mechanic, or maybe salvaging of the loot over time. IE the citadel wrecks slowly decay over time and shed loot (ships, modules, whatever) as salvage for anyone who shows up to get it. This could even spark some activity around old wrecks of mighty and rich citadels, as scavengers would come in search of riches.
This.
These things should drop all the ships and loot, otherwise why bother to knock them over outside of sov space? For w-space they should dump everything, as dictated by the Loot Fairy chances. Make it different between w-space and k-space if need be to reduce complaints from k-space.
EVE is dark and dangerous, and its first design principle is (or was?) that losses should matter. Leaving stuff where you can come back and get it once taken down is counter to that principle.
First Law of EVE: Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
First Wormhole Codicil of the First Law: Once you fly it into the hole, consider it lost.
Author of Interstellar Privateer
Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary
|
Ben Ishikela
30
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 05:54:20 -
[473] - Quote
Morn Hylund wrote:Exciting changes for Eve. Would be nice to see planets become more parts of the game too once this phase is done. I know, I dream.
Question: Has cloaking possibilities ever been discussed for say small "piratey" structures? Say someone or a small corp might want to operate a pirate base in deep space or wormholes. I would imagine, uncloaking and cloaking would take a considerable amount of time and fuel, leaving the structure vulnerable to detection during the cloaking/uncloaking time. But it seems like this might open up some interesting gameplay possibilities. oh yes! cloaky stations :) but only and i mean it IF there is some way to uncloak an enemy structure if you know that there is one and where. After all there are these jove observatories (+sleeper stashes) that were cloaked all that time. Not much used recently, but "cloaked"! That tech migth be harvestable....
Add new modules or ships that can use tactics and strategies to beat the current meta or use totaly different gameplay to do so! yay :)
|
Ben Ishikela
30
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 06:50:22 -
[474] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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. [/list]
- Docked: only revealing the number of docked pilots on "cargo"-scanning it. could be an interesting option. (item: capsuleer - notyet corpsefied)
- See sourroundings: much needed and waited for. thanx
- X-L@WH: Supers are not allowed in WH. Why should X-L? atm WHs are more like villages with shared-houses. dont make them crowded cities (or is it some goal)........But otah gives ease of living and after all, that XXL-drifter-donut is kind of wormholy.
Also (optical): that citadel has all these edges (i dont like caldari station design because i dont like (overly used) edges and cants. yes ofc they can construct without caring about weakspots because of those strong shields). Spherical structures have a lot less/smaller weakspots but maybe shoot less good (gallente). Putting rusty salvaged plates together might be a way to construct a weaker station for way lesser money same size (minmatar). but do we need greenglowing cubes ?! omg, where was i going . So yeah, skins are nice. But ..... SHAPES!!
Add new modules or ships that can use tactics and strategies to shake any op meta or use totaly different gameplay yourself to make it happen! yay :)
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1076
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 07:17:58 -
[475] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: I think a better solution would be an emergency Interbus moving service that is invulnerable to player attack, but costs ISK and time. More than the ISK or time cost, though, displacing assets would be the real consequence for losing a structure, and I think that's enough. Otherwise, Industry and market become a casualty of structure / system / Sov ownership, and I don't think you want that. Personal assets, too. They need to be removed from at-risk-in-space-combat gameplay. The fantasy hardcore EVE you are asking for is one that would destroy itself.
The PVP playstyle would destroy all others, and that's a bit OP.
About the Interbus moving service thing... if assets are moved to the next-closest owned structure or nearest NPC station (for free?)... chasing out a group's war and industry materials in this way isn't a wasted effort.
Oh god no. I'm all for finding a solution that doesn't completely screw pack rats, but this is going too much the other way. You know our leadership, there would be plenty of ways to strategise this to make building destruction actually beneficial to the structure loser, and so that you would never want to evacuate anything ever again.
Consider our recent departure from Delve. Complete clusterfuck, and thats how it should be if the planning isn't done right. Consider an alternative strategy where instead of NPC null (where there wuld be no benefit from staging from ever again, as if you lose a player owned station you'll default back to the NPC one anyway), we staged in a player-owned station, and when it came time to withdraw to Deklein, we did it via staged station-drop, so all our assets got moved to the next station in the "delivery" chain. We literally could have gamed a way to get our assets auto-moved all the way back to Cloud Ring without undocking a ship. That's bad in all ways.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31470
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 08:35:38 -
[476] - Quote
Yeah, there's that possibility. You could make the time delay something like a month, to combat that maybe.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
256
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 08:53:48 -
[477] - Quote
Is there is a specific reason why POSes as we know them today could not continue to exist alongside citadels?
The fact that they require Fuel to remain online, where Citadels do only require fuel to keep its modules active will be a significant differentiation, and new features can simply be linked to citadels' presence and not POS presences. The POS would likely disappear naturally over a few years time, and that would avoid a complicated refund process (as well as a too drastic impact on the market for POS stuff).
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1149
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 09:06:14 -
[478] - Quote
I still think you should have to shoot these structures to destroy them. By all means have the entosis link reduce resists and such to make this faster but ultimately these are enormous armoured space fortresses. Shining a fancy torch at it shouldn't make the walls fall down. May as well call them all Jericho POS's. |
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 09:57:33 -
[479] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:That's a valid sentiment but I'm guessing you're not an industrialist.
Industry involves a practically unmanageable volume of materials, and it's nearly impossible to evacuate everything in a matter of two timers. A month, even. Caches of ships and materials that you really have no place else to put them, other than NPC stations. If you don't make considerations for assets, it would be a profound nerf to player owned structures.
You have to move all the stuff in the structure, so why aren't you able to move it out? It's all about planning. Then again, you could always defend your structure. Or you could run your operation out of an NPC station.
The Interbus moving could be interesting, but then those convoys should be vulnerable to player attacks. So the gamble woud be: do I stay and fight and not evacuate or do I move them with Interbus and risk losing the stuff? |
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 10:15:06 -
[480] - Quote
Saisin wrote:Is there is a specific reason why POSes as we know them today could not continue to exist alongside citadels?
The fact that they require Fuel to remain online, where Citadels do only require fuel to keep its modules active will be a significant differentiation, and new features can simply be linked to citadels' presence and not POS presences. The POS would likely disappear naturally over a few years time, and that would avoid a complicated refund process (as well as a too drastic impact on the market for POS stuff).
+1
Actually it would be the best way out, avoiding the aforementined drawbacks and repercusions! An evolutionary process that maintains historical continuity while opening paths to further development. |
|
Dominique Vasilkovsky
BFG Tech
240
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 10:17:05 -
[481] - 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. Remote shield extender?
Forcefield projector?
Dominique Vasilkovsky EVEboard
Once known as:
Mashie Saldana sold - Anastasia Rigel sold - Monica Foulkes sold
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31473
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 10:20:59 -
[482] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:Rain6637 wrote:That's a valid sentiment but I'm guessing you're not an industrialist.
Industry involves a practically unmanageable volume of materials, and it's nearly impossible to evacuate everything in a matter of two timers. A month, even. Caches of ships and materials that you really have no place else to put them, other than NPC stations. If you don't make considerations for assets, it would be a profound nerf to player owned structures.
You have to move all the stuff in the structure, so why aren't you able to move it out? It's all about planning. Then again, you could always defend your structure. Or you could run your operation out of an NPC station. The Interbus moving could be interesting, but then those convoys should be vulnerable to player attacks. So the gamble woud be: do I stay and fight and not evacuate or do I move them with Interbus and risk losing the stuff? It might have been moved there by buy orders. That's usually how large stockpiles accumulate, by one player paying other players ISK to sell it to them or move it there. The problem with saying "just do that to get it out" is the time crunch. Buy orders and stockpiling takes days, weeks, months. The opposite direction is impossible in two timers. At some point there is not enough ISK or freighter pilots in the game to move X amount of stuff like that. The result is an unwillingness to use player structures, and industry stays in NPC stations. That's bad, and it's why I say this is a profound nerf to industry and market in player structures.
Sweeping destruction of everything in a structure is bad for content. Move it, deny the enemy access, sure, but let them have access to it again so they can fight with it, which is more content.
The math of deleting people's stuff is amusing, but it's bad for activity in the game.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1078
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 10:27:40 -
[483] - Quote
159Pinky wrote: The Interbus moving could be interesting, but then those convoys should be vulnerable to player attacks. So the gamble woud be: do I stay and fight and not evacuate or do I move them with Interbus and risk losing the stuff?
There is a certain appeal to NPC evac fleets of destroyable haulers scrambling out of an exploding station, and balanced right could be fun for everyone.
Say, make them bubble-immune and warp-stabbed to a certain level, but autopilot to their destination, so they can be attacked but aren't automatically all wiped out by a couple of dictors locking their route down. Give them a maximum capacity but with a proviso that any single ship over that size goes in its own hauler, so that if someone has a lot of stuff, they have it divided across multiple haulers, and there isn't an obvious "there is a cap ship in this one" flashing sign - this would mean more haulers, so a greater chance of some of it getting through, even if a fleet tries to take out as much as they can.
And a personal malicious wish, make the haulers "registered" to the character whose stuff is in it, whether thats so it shows up on their killboard if killed, or more so that particularly unscupulous attackers with a grudge can deliberately target their favourite enemies stuff amoungst the swarm of haulers
|
Samsara Nolte
Random Thinking Union Random Thinking
23
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 10:41:31 -
[484] - Quote
Well i carefully read what was written in the devblog and what answers were given to alot of unanswered questions the blog left us with.
Living in a wormhole i must say i-¦m not anticipating this in the least. Since this proposal creates some major concerns.
The first on being. I don-¦t like docking games. As proabally doesn-¦t any Wormhole resident. One of the mayor reason i never lieved prolonged in NPC null or low security space. But this iteration could force us into those things. Those Citadel structures will, to what i understood, work in many regards like stations, which are armed. So if i undock say for example in a paper thin scan frigate somebody in rocket fitted bomber and his friends might sit outside the station uncloack and lock me and shoot at me. With the server tick being what it is, the instant capability of Bombers to start locking a target i might, especially if an interdictor is with them, have no chance to redock. Resulting in the loss of my ship inclusive my Pod since the ejection causes an session change timer. And all this will happen under the guns of said citadel because it will take forever to lock some small frigs. And since i-¦m proabably after the undock within 2500 meters of the structure cloaking isn-¦t even an option. And in null i atleast know after a short glance on local if this might happen.
I mean atm you can kill ships circling Posses with Artillary Tornados before most gun are even able to lock you ...
sarcasm on "seems like a really fun mechanic for w-space where you aren-¦t allowed to jump clone back in." sarcasm off
Then as it was mentioned GÇô you are considering to have indices by default have higher numbers in w-space an low. Hmm seems nice for the ones living in there except that those indices are, because of the lack of sov and there for a lack of assignment of said indices to a specific party, usabale by everybody. So aou might have lived in the same wormhole for years and are having the same indices as someone who placed a structure there a day ago. Seems pretty fair on so many levels. At least atm we were able to hamper invaders by having towers at the moons in our system. Forcing them to commit to their invasion since they needed to at least kill one tower to gain a foothold into our home. The couldn-¦t just establish an outpost. But with the ability to place these structures everywhere this is longer possible. What might mean that we might face trolls, who plant outpost by us GÇô which then requires us to take them out. This might be fun gameplay once in a while. But i fear this might happen far more often than i-¦m hoping for. I-¦m not really into this whole king of the hill domination GÇô and if i were i would move into nullsec where this will be my everyday life. I-¦m honestly not certain why we wormholers get every step along the way this game develops nearly the same mechanics as they do in null but with consistent nerves to those. How about a different appraoch to those whole thing - Instead of trimming your intention and interation for nullsec to w-space. You start creating something that adjusted to the needs of those actually living there.
By the way have you at all considered what this new Citadel Structures will do to Shattered Wormholes ? Might be another thing you might have missed.
Hmm waht i also have been wondering GÇô what is gonna happen to those expensive faction tower we w-space residents normally use. I mean the announcemnet of those Citadel structures alone probably resulted in decreasing the value of those things by a huge margin. Will those get reimbursed in any way ? And what size of those Citadel structures will we be able to place in w-space up to large or even X-Large structres and what are they supposed to cost GÇô so that we can start to save our isk ... |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31474
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 11:00:05 -
[485] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:159Pinky wrote: The Interbus moving could be interesting, but then those convoys should be vulnerable to player attacks. So the gamble woud be: do I stay and fight and not evacuate or do I move them with Interbus and risk losing the stuff?
There is a certain appeal to NPC evac fleets of destroyable haulers scrambling out of an exploding station, and balanced right could be fun for everyone. Say, make them bubble-immune and warp-stabbed to a certain level, but autopilot to their destination, so they can be attacked but aren't automatically all wiped out by a couple of dictors locking their route down. Give them a maximum capacity but with a proviso that any single ship over that size goes in its own hauler, so that if someone has a lot of stuff, they have it divided across multiple haulers, and there isn't an obvious "there is a cap ship in this one" flashing sign - this would mean more haulers, so a greater chance of some of it getting through, even if a fleet tries to take out as much as they can. And a personal malicious wish, make the haulers "registered" to the character whose stuff is in it, whether thats so it shows up on their killboard if killed, or more so that particularly unscupulous attackers with a grudge can deliberately target their favourite enemies stuff amoungst the swarm of haulers This is a nice mix of content and loss, I think. Converts people's stuff to PVE.
But I'm also not an industrialist so I am still biased toward destruction.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Helios Panala
50
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 11:15:07 -
[486] - Quote
Oh, this looks good.
Wait...
Guns don't auto fire?
Different structures have to be placed miles apart?
We have to use Entosis on them instead of guns?
...
This Citadel thing doesn't look as good as it did at first glance. Entosis capture seemed very artificial by Eve standards but it did at least seem like it would help null in the long run. I don't see why Entosis has to be used for everything, is using the sov-wand going to eventually be the way we take customs offices as well? |
Sinclair Spectrum ZX
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 11:18:12 -
[487] - Quote
Are you still planning to do Mooring? As mentioned in a previous devblog.
|
Skinta
Tiana Enterprises Mortum Ravagers
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 11:37:33 -
[488] - Quote
All entosis and no HP bashing? Won't somebody please think about the Dreadnaughts!
'I'm Skinta, from the Dreadnaughts Trust. This is Morry, he is a Moros that was abandonned by his owner after entosis ravaged the galaxy. We took him in and now and now he runs and plays with his own kind in our specialist capital ship habitat. Here at Dreadnaughts Trust we won't ever put a healthy Dreadnaught down. But we need your help to keep them healthy and fed. For just 2 million isk a month, you can sponsor a Dreadnaught. You will receive regular updates on how they are doing, aswell as our monthly newsletter. In addition if you sign up today you will receive this cuddly Pheonix, free of charge!. Thank you.'
So yeah whats the plan for Dreads with these changes? Other than cleaning up the old dead sticks. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1079
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 11:38:04 -
[489] - Quote
Helios Panala wrote: Entosis capture seemed very artificial by Eve standards but it did at least seem like it would help null in the long run. I don't see why Entosis has to be used for everything, is using the sov-wand going to eventually be the way we take customs offices as well?
I would guess yes.
It's been fairly obvious since sov-wands got dropped on us that it was going to replace all forms of structure grinding everywhere, simply because if it doesn't, it creates a strange straddling of old and new that would place formerly "anti-structure" ships (ie: Dreads and Supercarriers) in a bad place as their old characteristics would need to be preserved to prevent the little structure grinding that remains from being a pain in the ass. Once sov-wands have replaced all forms of structure grinding, those ships can be rebalanced purely on a pvp platform, without having to worry about balancing against stationary massive hp structures.
Likewise, POSes as they exist were doomed the second we saw stats for sov-wands. Note the range of a T1 sov-wand - it is less than the radius of a POS shield, so it cant physically activate on a POS, so there was never any chance the POS as it currently exists would be tolerated once the move to sov-wands was instituted.
I'm kinda impressed with how slyly this was done by our dear devs, keeping quiet on this stage of things so that the wormholer and small group players fully support fozziesov and sov-wands, completely ignorant of the fact they were about to get a good big bite of that lemon too.
|
Grorious Reader
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 11:49:00 -
[490] - Quote
Quote:The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions)
I have a couple suggestions...
Ablative Intra-site Docking Shield Or perhaps...
Citadel Wide Energy Abolition Field |
|
Memphis Baas
398
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 11:49:04 -
[491] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote: There is a certain appeal to NPC evac fleets of destroyable haulers scrambling out of an exploding station, and balanced right could be fun for everyone.
There is an appeal, but there is no way to balance a PVP fleet vs. PVE content. Everything PVE in this game is figured out, posted on the internets, and then farmed. Look at incursions, sleeper content, even the upcoming drifters with their mini-superweapon.
You have the potential of billions of ISK in loot coming out of a station wreck inside stupid-AI untanked transports, vs. an 800+ fleet with enough firepower to blow up titans and the station it just destroyed. How the hell can CCP balance that?
Even if they make Interbus liked by all the empires, so shooting the transports makes you -10 standings across the board, it won't matter.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31476
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 11:49:09 -
[492] - Quote
Maybe it would be better to allow an NPC hauler pickup to be scheduled after the structure is destroyed. Potentially a lot of stuff needs to be moved, and even by freighter loads it could be in the hundreds of ships. If this happened while the station was being destroyed, that would be bad for TiDi, and maybe a bit too imbalanced toward the attackers who already on site and have control of the grid.
All your stuff in a structure wreck is kind of a non starter anyway, if you have a lot of volume. It might as well be stuck there or destroyed if it takes freighter loads to move out of what is now hostile space.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1079
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 11:50:58 -
[493] - Quote
Skinta wrote:All entosis and no HP bashing? Won't somebody please think about the Dreadnaughts!
...
So yeah whats the plan for Dreads with these changes? Other than cleaning up the old dead sticks.
I'm personally hopeful that this has massively benefitial implications for the entire Capital and Supercapital line. Massive hp structures kind of locked capital play in to a high damage / high hitpoint game. Massive hp structures required ships that could deal vast amounts of hp damage (Dreads and Supers), which mean't the even bigger classes of ships (Supers and Titans) needed equally immense amounts of hp to avoid getting insta-nuked by damage amounts that were balanced on the hp of stations and POSes.
With structure hp gone, it is no longer a limiting factor. Fighters, Fighter Bombers and Dreadnaughts don't need to inflict the amount of damage they do. Dreads and Supers can be completely repurposed entirely in to a pvp combat role, and be balanced in that role without having to constantly consider station hps, and the hp pools of Titans and Supers can be cut dramatically to suit. Maybe I'm being massively optimistic here, but we all know fozziesov is virtually removing capitals from the sovreignty game, so something has to be done with them, and I like to think CCP isn't completely brushing them under a carpet and hoping for the best, given how big a part of the game they have been, and how many long-term players almost exclusively play in this field.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31476
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 11:55:07 -
[494] - Quote
I have my eyes on a Hel, purely for the ship maintenance bay for the rest of my gang, and the repair bonuses. The DPS is a huge extra for my purposes, which is why I think supers need to be split between DPS and support.
For one, jump drives should be a T2 function (like jump freighters vs normal freighters).
Normal carriers too.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
M1k3y Koontz
Bio Troll Surely You're Joking
754
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 11:55:55 -
[495] - Quote
Ocean Ormand wrote:
In short, my read of it is that this makes the grind more tedious and boring - you circle the tower for an indeterminate time while the tower shoots at you but you cant shoot back at it because your guns dont work on it. That is going to get old real fast, especially with the multiple mandatory reinforcement cycles. Add to that no real loot, and it is just going to be a drag.
So whats changed? Bashing structues is boring and will continue to be boring. But now it doesn't require dreadnoughts or several hours to do it.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Helios Panala
50
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 12:00:44 -
[496] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Helios Panala wrote: Entosis capture seemed very artificial by Eve standards but it did at least seem like it would help null in the long run. I don't see why Entosis has to be used for everything, is using the sov-wand going to eventually be the way we take customs offices as well?
I would guess yes. It's been fairly obvious since sov-wands got dropped on us that it was going to replace all forms of structure grinding everywhere, simply because if it doesn't, it creates a strange straddling of old and new that would place formerly "anti-structure" ships (ie: Dreads and Supercarriers) in a bad place as their old characteristics would need to be preserved to prevent the little structure grinding that remains from being a pain in the ass. Once sov-wands have replaced all forms of structure grinding, those ships can be rebalanced purely on a pvp platform, without having to worry about balancing against stationary massive hp structures. Likewise, POSes as they exist were doomed the second we saw stats for sov-wands. Note the range of a T1 sov-wand - it is less than the radius of a POS shield, so it cant physically activate on a POS, so there was never any chance the POS as it currently exists would be tolerated once the move to sov-wands was instituted. I'm kinda impressed with how slyly this was done by our dear devs, keeping quiet on this stage of things so that the wormholer and small group players fully support fozziesov and sov-wands, completely ignorant of the fact they were about to get a good big bite of that lemon too.
I don't see why sov-wands and guns can't exist side by side.
Is it abandoned? Then wave your sov-wand it. Is it a customs office, medium citadel or large citadel? Then shoot it or sov-wand it, whichever is most within your groups capabilities. Is it a XL-citadel or sov macguffin? Then clear the field and sov-wand it.
I can live with everything being Entosis, but I'd very much prefer my Citadels guns to fire on their own even if it meant they can be destroyed. If the tower is manned and stocked it's still an indestructible turret as whoever is manning it can just keeps chucking new guns on it. |
M1k3y Koontz
Bio Troll Surely You're Joking
754
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 12:42:20 -
[497] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:Quote:XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them. Yes, it would Limit them specifically to huge alliances and powerful corperations, which money and resources are no object for. They would be mass manufactured and inevitably it would be abused by organizations to augment and solidify their already staggering power, forever sealing null against any type of incursion from almost any type of outside force, not grand fathered in.
If using outposts, the current version of citadels, was going to be abused to reinforce hold over space people would've done it already. Your fear appears overblown
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 12:59:28 -
[498] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:Orm Magnustat wrote: ..................
[/list] worst of all: the "asset safety" some genius came up with when my POS/structure gets blown up ... seriously devs, have you totally lost it ?? This goes against the core fundamentals that make up this game and set it apart from the competition. If someone blows up my fortress HE DESERVES the loot! .....................................................................
Your post amazes me. Yes, I am amazed at how a person can play a sci-fi game with FTL travel/communication, shields, lasers, wormholes, cynos, and clone swapping... Oh, and spaceships! How this person can be okay with all of those things, yet find it unrealistic for someone in EVE to invent a system to fit into a FIFTY KILOMETER STRUCTURE that would safeguard items in the event of a catastrophic hull breach... News flash! CCP tracks asset loss and can easily see how many die-hard pvpers, like you, quit after losing a significant portion of their stuff... But no, lets design a game around your bias and feelings. In order of importance, CCP is a profit driven company that makes a game that is a sci-fi, sim, hardcore pvp niche product.
I can imagine lot of things, even materializing angels farting thunder and lightning to safe my neck ... but would they really fit in here just because i can imagine? Up until now anytime in EVE you move stuff out of an npc station or do your industry in a POS you have to be aware of the risk of loosing it all.... This new safty capsule really changes this paradigm that put EVE apart from other "games" (and as you yourself used the term - makes it a "sim"ulation in my eyes).
Please take a step back from your SciFi rant - if everything has to be possible just cause its a such a fantastic universe then ofc you can have your "unbreakable barrier", but others with the same logic should have their "all-breaking weapons". I dont like either (and so does logic).
On a sidenote - you couldnt be more wrong, I-¦m far from a PVP player. I just like the game for its realistic risk concept and true simulation character.
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3539
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 13:20:03 -
[499] - Quote
That's what I said about Rubicon 18 months ago:
Quote:Frankly, adding more space to a game where most of the space is empty for good reasons, looks like a tad pointless.
While CCP Seagull talks about gold at the hills, here in our hisec town the sewers clog continuously and it's becoming difficult to find a decent loaf of bread for a fair price.
And I wonder why should we care of "space colonization". Why add more nullsec? F*ck it all already. I want to walk in stations.
And here we are...
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...
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10971
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 14:02:31 -
[500] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
I'm kinda impressed with how slyly this was done by our dear devs, keeping quiet on this stage of things so that the wormholer and small group players fully support fozziesov and sov-wands, completely ignorant of the fact they were about to get a good big bite of that lemon too.
lol, isn't that how it always happens?
"Yay, CCP is doing stuff to other people and it's great...wait, what do you mean it's going to happen to me too? WTF? Bad idea....BAD IDEA!!!! |
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
245
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 14:03:48 -
[501] - Quote
im just going to fawking laugh hard when fozzie and ccp rise.. (yeah you rise don't think we forgot about you) when they try to show pretty charts and pies avoiding the incredible amount of drop subs due to stations blowing up and folks losing their things.
you have not once provided any information on why one should even keep sov.. after these changes go in..
you're making it to where blobs upon blobs will blow up stations just for the hell of it..
cant wait to see that Pie Chart of cancelations.. lets see if your faction ships and fuzzy-sov keeps subs up.
good luck with that bruh... |
Ocean Ormand
Bagel and Lox
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 14:12:36 -
[502] - Quote
Maybe i'm wrong about this, but as I understand it, these structures will be anchorable anywhere in a system. So for a busy system there may be dozens if not hundreds of individual structures, and if present history is a guide, many of which will be abandoned. Its hard enough now figuring out where a player is in a system; with the new system how are you supposed to find people? Doesn't this new ccp proposal cause a major break down in the idea of eve being a web with choke points where folk can be located? |
M1k3y Koontz
Bio Troll Surely You're Joking
755
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 14:29:35 -
[503] - Quote
Ocean Ormand wrote:Maybe i'm wrong about this, but as I understand it, these structures will be anchorable anywhere in a system. So for a busy system there may be dozens if not hundreds of individual structures, and if present history is a guide, many of which will be abandoned. Its hard enough now figuring out where a player is in a system; with the new system how are you supposed to find people? Doesn't this new ccp proposal cause a major break down in the idea of eve being a web with choke points where folk can be located?
Abandoned ones will be easier to destroy, since we're switching from DPS requirement to a flat time requirement.
Milla Goodpussy wrote:im just going to fawking laugh hard when fozzie and ccp rise.. (yeah you rise don't think we forgot about you) when they try to show pretty charts and pies avoiding the incredible amount of drop subs due to stations blowing up and folks losing their things.
you have not once provided any information on why one should even keep sov.. after these changes go in..
you're making it to where blobs upon blobs will blow up stations just for the hell of it..
cant wait to see that Pie Chart of cancelations.. lets see if your faction ships and fuzzy-sov keeps subs up.
good luck with that bruh...
"Captain, I've run out of jars for all the tears, what do I do now?!"
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
671
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 14:44:40 -
[504] - Quote
I'm a little bi-curious.
When trying to reinforce a structure you use an entosis link
The structure reinforces and we switch to capture the flag in order to "take/Destroy" the structure.
The capture points are spread over the constellation.
In W-Space, how do you spread out the capture points? |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
671
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 14:46:01 -
[505] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
"Captain, I've run out of jars for all the tears, what do I do now?!"
"Drink them straight from the source, Scotty"
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
581
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 14:53:46 -
[506] - Quote
Romel Erata wrote: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. Not sure if anyone has brought this up yet but does this mean I can set essentially a stationary pipe-bomb with an XL Citadel and a bubble?
Dat is a good point. "Oh sorry, your new-POS-system-station-thingy appears to be in the way of your travel direction."The Future is UP! CCP pls a++ püñ Gùò_Gùòa++püñ gib warp 2 own Scanner Probe
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
17
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 14:56:31 -
[507] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:I'm a little bi-curious.
When trying to reinforce a structure you use an entosis link
The structure reinforces and we switch to capture the flag in order to "take/Destroy" the structure.
The capture points are spread over the constellation.
In W-Space, how do you spread out the capture points?
Interesting question. Connected wormholes?
Then, the fleet taking the node in another wh could be cut off, by accident or on purpouse. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 14:57:16 -
[508] - Quote
I feel like I'm missing a couple of puzzle pieces.
Do you need sov to anchor these? If you lose sov what happens to them? Do these have to be captured to take sov?
If they have nothing to do with Sov, does that mean that someone can anchor them all over your space to have a place to screw with you from?
It looks to me like you're designing your way in a circle back to Dominion sov, only worse. Still got multiple reinforcement to grind through, only now we have a tiny little attack window to do it, and, you've given the ability to have multiple windows, giving defenders ample tools to play attack-window-fu.
I think you started out with an idea that would have shaken things up, but then the bowing and scraping to the powers that be started, and it's been watered down to the point that it'll change nothing. Are you really that afraid of making the big players mad?
You're game is slowly dying because of stasis. You have entrenched power structures that control the game, and a growing perception that we've reached the game's end-state. You'd better look to that if you want to re-energize your player base. This isn't it. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
582
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 14:57:25 -
[509] - Quote
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:I'm a little bi-curious.
When trying to reinforce a structure you use an entosis link
The structure reinforces and we switch to capture the flag in order to "take/Destroy" the structure.
The capture points are spread over the constellation.
In W-Space, how do you spread out the capture points? Interesting question. Connected wormholes? Then, the fleet taking the node in another wh could be cut off, by accident or on porpouse.
You don't do silly Sov things.
You RF it.
You nuke it.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
17
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 15:03:36 -
[510] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
You don't do silly Sov things.
You RF it.
You nuke it.
Perhaps is time for a survey among the wh dwellers to decide if structures should be limited to medium citadel only conquered/destroyed by hp grinding.
|
|
EnternalSoul
Flame's Shadow Brothers of Tangra
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 15:04:09 -
[511] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:Quote:XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them. Yes, it would Limit them specifically to huge alliances and powerful corporations, which money and resources are no object for. They would be mass manufactured and inevitably it would be abused by organizations to augment and solidify their already staggering power, forever sealing null against any type of incursion from almost any type of outside force, not grand fathered in.
It sounds like to me that you want to grant the ability to a small corp to go take an hold SOV in null sec. Yes it takes a large Alliance to take and Hold SOV in null sec and it takes a lot of recourse to build the current Player Owned Station (this is why there is not a station in every system in null sec).
Making these limited to one per region will not do anything but make them worthless. It will not solve the Big guy versus the little guy Issue that it seams you really have. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 15:44:25 -
[512] - 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. The invulnerability link, what to call it?
Out of Phase. Could create lore to indicate a phase generator that protects everything within its sphere of influence by taking it slightly out of phase from the space around it, rendering the objects invulnerable to physical attack. Only a mental link via Entosis module can pose a threat.
Players abbreviate it as OOPS (Out of Phase Sphere). |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6233
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 15:57:45 -
[513] - Quote
I rather like the concept of being able to hire Interbus to move large volumes of materials out of a threatened structure. Of course, ideally you would start this process when you learn your structure is likely to be under attack instead of already under attack or after it has fallen and "asset safety" kicks in.
In fact, it's well past time that the Interbus service was finally fleshed out in the EVE universe, and done in a way that makes it valuable to both the defender and the attacker... as well as those that just need a hand in a tight situation.
Defender: You can (for a fee) have Interbus move your bulky assets, while actual players would be the wise choice for moving the truly high value cargo. When I say "move" I mean actually put it in ships and move it, not have it magically appear in the new location. These vessels should be destructible, defend-able, select-able (you have the choice of fewer large vessels of many smaller and more evasive vessels), and either take a number of random routes or follow a route you specify.
Attacker: You should be able to hunt these Interbus vessels down and destroy them. This should be challenging but possible (depending on the options chosen by the person that hires them) as they could be either very evasive or very well defended (by either players or by AI controlled escorts). PVE meets PVP indeed, possibly even an alternative to Burner missions in a way.
Generic use: While it should not be the best method for a solo industrialist to procure materials or move merchandise, it should eventually be made to be possible. Yes, unless you are smart your profit margins should be razor thin, but imagine the level of activity (and the impression of a vibrantly busy universe) that would be generated. Player run freight corps should still be the better option in most cases... or if necessary consider the concept of allowing those players run freight corps to act as agents of Interbus if they wish and give them ways to optimize / improve how the mechanic works beyond what the AI would do.
Either way, options should be considered for hiring the use of this service before, during, and after a siege... as well as in the course of normal everyday operations.
Interbus has always been one of those potentially brilliant concepts in the game that has never been fleshed out. It might just be the answer needed to make "Asset Protection" work in a sensible way, that still includes an element of risk... and would require some skill on either side to see if your "Asset Protection" was effective or not.
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:01:11 -
[514] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Deep Nine wrote:Quote:XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them. Yes, it would Limit them specifically to huge alliances and powerful corperations, which money and resources are no object for. They would be mass manufactured and inevitably it would be abused by organizations to augment and solidify their already staggering power, forever sealing null against any type of incursion from almost any type of outside force, not grand fathered in. If using outposts, the current version of citadels, was going to be abused to reinforce hold over space people would've done it already. Your fear appears overblown
It is obvious why POS are used instead of outposts, if you are new, you should do more research.
There is little doubt the new suggested mechanic as is, is ripe for abuse, and would most definitely be taken advantage of far from just occasionally placing one. It is designed to replace the entire use of POS system in nullsec, protecting certain weakening alliances from distablization, and it would be used as such and would provide near indestructible entrenchment for the mega-alliances (solely) who are capable of building them. The idea they would, by their own self restraint, limit their use is so obsurd it requires no explanation. New ideas should benefit and be for the use of all players, not a select group.
No. This suggested feature, while it is good in concept needs to be heavily limited to prevent abuse, regulated in placement, and nerfed in its arch-godly power. Allowing them to be placed 1 per region would not only encourage conquest towards completed domination of said, but would also present it as a capital POS and a statement of authority, power, and wealth. within a given region by a given alliance. |
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:05:50 -
[515] - Quote
EnternalSoul wrote:Deep Nine wrote:Quote:XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them. Yes, it would Limit them specifically to huge alliances and powerful corporations, which money and resources are no object for. They would be mass manufactured and inevitably it would be abused by organizations to augment and solidify their already staggering power, forever sealing null against any type of incursion from almost any type of outside force, not grand fathered in. It sounds like to me that you want to grant the ability to a small corp to go take an hold SOV in null sec. Yes it takes a large Alliance to take and Hold SOV in null sec and it takes a lot of recourse to build the current Player Owned Station (this is why there is not a station in every system in null sec). Making these limited to one per region will not do anything but make them worthless. It will not solve the Big guy versus the little guy Issue that it seams you really have.
I never suggested, or even implied, the first half of your post so it wont be responded to. Also, limiting them to one per region contradicts what you just said, herrr.
Making these limited to one per region will make them regulated, yet, even then the price can be adjusted as has been displayed many times in the past. Yes, it should be for all player use and not just for the exclusive use of current sov holders. |
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
944
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:11:15 -
[516] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote: I'm kinda impressed with how slyly this was done by our dear devs, keeping quiet on this stage of things so that the wormholer and small group players fully support fozziesov and sov-wands, completely ignorant of the fact they were about to get a good big bite of that lemon too.
Not sure how that's sly.
So far everything seems to be proceeding exactly as the dev blogs and dev posts have said they would.
They said ahead of time POSes are going out the window and structure grinding is being replaced with entosis.
If anyone is pissed off they didn't know about it, they should read the dev blogs and visit features and ideas discussion more often. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:11:49 -
[517] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Romel Erata wrote:Not sure if anyone has brought this up yet but does this mean I can set essentially a stationary pipe-bomb with an XL Citadel and a bubble? Dat is a good point. "Oh sorry, our new-POS-system-deathstar-station-thingy appears to be in the way of your travel direction."The Future is UP! CCP pls a++ püñ Gùò_Gùòa++püñ gib warp 2 own Scanner Probe If structures have 250km range... Yep, with 250km distance from from celestials/structures, Null will have gate drag bubbles into range of Citadel guns. "Yay, I can sit in my Citadel and blap passers-by with absolutely no risk!" Meanwhile HS, Jita and all the trade hubs, professional war dec'ers will rush to put Citadels up near major gates and undocks... Others will surround gates with their medium structures to show off their ePeen... To me, the last one is the worst. TBH, what initially inspired me to subscribe to this game was when I first started roaming around. I could not help but be in awe of the beauty of the backgrounds, sparse vastness of space (solitude), and the grim determination that such a sense of solitude created. I knew I would be on my own, but felt like I had the chance to explore something no one else had (over a decade ago). I still remember that moment, vividly. [*] Please do not allow them to destroy the beautiful feeling of space's vastness by allowing people to anchor medium sized structures within view of gates, NPC stations, and belts... At least in High Sec... |
EnternalSoul
Flame's Shadow Brothers of Tangra
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:24:01 -
[518] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Deep Nine wrote:Quote:XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them. Yes, it would Limit them specifically to huge alliances and powerful corperations, which money and resources are no object for. They would be mass manufactured and inevitably it would be abused by organizations to augment and solidify their already staggering power, forever sealing null against any type of incursion from almost any type of outside force, not grand fathered in. If using outposts, the current version of citadels, was going to be abused to reinforce hold over space people would've done it already. Your fear appears overblown It is obvious why POS are used instead of outposts, if you are new, you should do more research. There is little doubt the new suggested mechanic as is, is ripe for abuse, and would most definitely be taken advantage of far from just occasionally placing one. It is designed to replace the entire use of POS system in nullsec, protecting certain weakening alliances from distablization, and it would be used as such and would provide near indestructible entrenchment for the mega-alliances (solely) who are capable of building them. The idea they would, by their own self restraint, limit their use is so obsurd it requires no explanation. New ideas should benefit and be for the use of all players, not a select group. No. This suggested feature, while it is good in concept needs to be heavily limited to prevent abuse, regulated in placement, and nerfed in its arch-godly power. Allowing them to be placed 1 per region would not only encourage conquest towards completed domination of said, but would also present it as a capital POS and a statement of authority, power, and wealth. within a given region by a given alliance.
XL does not replace current POSes it replaces current Player Owned Stations. The Large / Medium Replaces a POS.
Basically I do not see a need to limit them at all. Have 300 XL in one system if you can afford to build them.
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
247
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:30:44 -
[519] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Petrified wrote:How can the Citadel be able to take care of itself in a fight and repel trolling attempts from a single player IF it requires someone to man the guns? The Dev blog implies that the guns are automated like a POS when not manned. The dev blog implies that if you own a citadel and are alive to use it, you can repel a solo troll 100% of the time. You don't need to be a good pilot, or have expensive ships, or be a PvP wizard... you just need to get into your citadel and push the "fire big guns make bad people go away" button. It in no way implies that we go back to the days of absentee landlordism where you can drop down a dozen structures that defend themselves. If you are there using the structure it will be trivial to repel anything that is not an actual attempt to take the structure. If you are not there using the structure than it will (intentionally) be vulnerable to a solo troll in a newb-ship. Again, occupancy-based concepts here. Provide powerful tools to people actually using an area through structures while simultaneously making it trivial to clear out crap left behind by people no longer present without requiring a giant structure HP grind.
Which makes the Citadel essentially an immobile space ship. I would want to see more details on how the vulnerability windows will work for the structures, but it essentially this detail does become problematic for the more solo oriented player.
The other problem is the association of these structures to Lordism. Since these structures will essentially be freely deployable anywhere, there is no lordism involved in using them apart from a place to do things and keep things. The only time they will be lordism would be if they are tied to a limited resource: such as system control or moon mining.
But the idea behind any form of automated defense is not that it is foolproof but that it is capable of defending against a fool. A single pilot is going to have a hard time taking down an existing POS, but the defenses can be soloed and eliminated and the POS itself destroyed. Likewise, all I and others are asking for from the Devs is that there is a minimal defense mechanism to prevent the random fool from sitting on the place running a link whereas a well prepared fool could.
It is am important distinction. I am not asking that the defenses work at their optimal when no one is present, just that they work with enough effect to harass the random entosis wielding fool. As I mentioned previously: it makes sense the weapons would not perform as effectively when a capsuleer is not manning them but they should work - any programmer/designer (in game not the Devs) would be a fool to not include such basic functionality.
> There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people
> to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp
- CCP Yitterbium
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
586
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:35:59 -
[520] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Dat is a good point. "Oh sorry, our new-POS-system-deathstar-station-thingy appears to be in the way of your travel direction." The Future is UP! CCP pls a++ püñ Gùò_Gùòa++püñ gib warp 2 own Scanner Probe[/center] Quote: Meanwhile HS, Jita and all the trade hubs, professional war dec'ers will rush to put Citadels up near major gates and undocks... Non-issue with 1000 km from celestials deployment restriction. Quote: Yep, with 250km distance from from celestials/structures, Null will have gate drag bubbles into range of Citadel guns. "Yay, I can sit in my Citadel and blap passers-by with absolutely no risk!" Issue. Quote: Others will surround gates with their medium structures to show off their ePeen... Afcourse. To me, the last one is the worst. TBH, what initially inspired me to subscribe to this game was when I first started roaming around. I could not help but be in awe of the beauty of the backgrounds, sparse vastness of space (solitude), and the grim determination that such a sense of solitude created. I knew I would be on my own, but felt like I had the chance to explore something no one else had (over a decade ago). I still remember that moment, vividly. [*] Please do not allow them to destroy the beautiful feeling of space's vastness by allowing people to anchor medium sized structures within view of gates, NPC stations, and belts... At least in High Sec...
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
Grorious Reader
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:42:13 -
[521] - Quote
I for one approve of virtually everything about these new structures. No more structure grinding opens up a lot more strategic possibilities for smaller groups like mine. It also means clearing abandoned structures is much less hassle, so there will be a lot fewer abandoned structures. As a wormholer I welcome the change, even if it makes my own POS easier to destroy. It has a lot of potential to create entertaining content.
If the hangars available in these structures behave more like NPC station hangars and less like the crappy POS modules, I will be ecstatic.
It would be nice if there was some kind of limited clone vat service that could be used in W-space. Maybe call it the "Bio-Reconstitution Array" and say it uses stolen drifter technology. It would have a fuel bay of sorts, that would hold a small number of corpses. You put corpses into the bay, and in a couple hours or so it becomes a clone. When you die in the same system as the BRA, you can respawn there. Doing so uses up one of the reconstituted clones. This means that you can't respawn there indefinitely since you will eventually run out of viable clones because it takes hours to create one. You also shouldn't be able to use it for clone jumping between w and k-space. As long as the number of clones you can have in the array at once is relatively low, the module won't make it significantly harder to evict a corp, and will help alleviate the pain of getting podded by a lone ganker and having to dive all the way back into your C5. I think this would make people living WH less averse to PvP, and it would make the system seem more like a home base. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
247
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:43:40 -
[522] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:Rain6637 wrote:That's a valid sentiment but I'm guessing you're not an industrialist.
Industry involves a practically unmanageable volume of materials, and it's nearly impossible to evacuate everything in a matter of two timers. A month, even. Caches of ships and materials that you really have no place else to put them, other than NPC stations. If you don't make considerations for assets, it would be a profound nerf to player owned structures.
You have to move all the stuff in the structure, so why aren't you able to move it out? It's all about planning. Then again, you could always defend your structure. Or you could run your operation out of an NPC station. The Interbus moving could be interesting, but then those convoys should be vulnerable to player attacks. So the gamble woud be: do I stay and fight and not evacuate or do I move them with Interbus and risk losing the stuff?
1 - it was moved there without the immediate threat of losing it 2 - it was moved there over a long period of time 3 - stuff accumulates
Now, as a general rule, I do not maintain a lot in any of the POSes I run. I have and have seen enough take down by seemingly insignificant forces to be foolish enough to trust all I have to them. But for manufacturing certain things: NPC stations do not exist. A Titan, for instance, cannot be manufactured in an NPC station so the Trillions of ISK in material and billions of metric volume simply cannot be moved at a whim and certainly not with a single jump freighter should the structure be attacked.
As for planning: Plans are good and well, but no plan survives the battlefield.
> There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people
> to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp
- CCP Yitterbium
|
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:43:55 -
[523] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:That's a valid sentiment but I'm guessing you're not an industrialist. Industry involves a practically unmanageable volume of materials, and it's nearly impossible to evacuate everything in a matter of two timers. A month, even. Caches of ships and materials that you really have no place else to put them, other than NPC stations. If you don't make considerations for assets, it would be a profound nerf to player owned structures. Materials accumulate quickly, by way of buy orders and several players filling them. Not just ore or minerals. There are a lot of situations where it requires tens or hundreds of freighter loads to build just one thing. If you have a freighter pilot, you can get a sense of this on Sisi by joining up with Wedge Rancer. He builds supers for players. I had ten freighter pilots ferrying materials from station to POS for hours, and there's no end to that. I did it just for the perspective, and I think you should too. Structures can, will, and do accumulate more stuff than can be moved by a corporation or alliance... coalition even, in a short period of time. Good luck organizing a coalition-wide materials evacuation op. That's about the least sexy gameplay I can imagine. If you ask me, players are already going to be up a creek in the new destructible structure system even with the considerations their assets are being given. I think a better solution would be an emergency Interbus moving service that is invulnerable to player attack, but costs ISK and time. More than the ISK or time cost, though, displacing assets would be the real consequence for losing a structure, and I think that's enough. Otherwise, Industry and market become a casualty of structure / system / Sov ownership, and I don't think you want that. Personal assets, too. They need to be removed from at-risk-in-space-combat gameplay. The fantasy hardcore EVE you are asking for is one that would destroy itself. The PVP playstyle would destroy all others, and that's a bit OP. About the Interbus moving service thing... if assets are moved to the next-closest owned structure or nearest NPC station (for free?)... chasing out a group's war and industry materials in this way isn't a wasted effort. It's not destruction, but it's still a denial of access. Compared to destruction (which is absolute), you can balance that denial if it has variables of distance, time, and ISK cost (in the Interbus method I suggested). It adds an interesting gambling scenario, too, where you might order your assets moved then save the structure. Great post. I really don't get all this whining about - Waaaaaaaaa we don't get to have all their stuff when we blow up their Citadel.
1. You blew up their Citadel and that is usually the first step to taking over someone's space. 2. You blew up their Citadel, and Citadel stuff will drop as loot. Just not the personal containers. 3. You blew up their Citadel, so all that ISK and time they spent building it is gone. 4. You blew up their Citadel, and all their personal stuff is going to have to be transported somewhere else. 5. You blew up their Citadel. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
247
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:48:07 -
[524] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Romel Erata wrote: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. Not sure if anyone has brought this up yet but does this mean I can set essentially a stationary pipe-bomb with an XL Citadel and a bubble? Dat is a good point. "Oh sorry, our new-POS-system-deathstar-station-thingy appears to be in the way of your travel direction."The Future is UP! CCP pls a++ püñ Gùò_Gùòa++püñ gib warp 2 own Scanner Probe
Not if these structures cannot be placed on Grid - of course... a grid can be extended...
It would still not be impossible to surround Jita IV-4 with Citadel structures and extend the grid from an afore mentioned 250 KM to see the station and all who undock.
> There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people
> to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp
- CCP Yitterbium
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
586
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 16:52:50 -
[525] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Romel Erata wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:
You can get to all sorts of interesting positions with careful bookmark-warp-bookmarking.
Not sure if anyone has brought this up yet but does this mean I can set essentially a stationary pipe-bomb with an XL Citadel and a bubble? Dat is a good point. "Oh sorry, our new-POS-system-deathstar-station-thingy appears to be in the way of your travel direction."The Future is UP! CCP pls a++ püñ Gùò_Gùòa++püñ gib warp 2 own Scanner Probe Not if these structures cannot be placed on Grid - of course... a grid can be extended...
Eh? The grid is anything that has 1 player.
You create a bookmark between two gates, you then ferry your deathstar there to plant it. Setup a few warp bubbles and enjoy.
Quote:It would still not be impossible to surround Jita IV-4 with Citadel structures and extend the grid from an afore mentioned 250 KM to see the station and all who undock.
Grid is irrelevant if restriction is placed on the distance from any given celestial, even at 1,000 km fixes all issues.
Grid around Jita 4-4 is already multiple times larger on average due to instaundocks and other shenanigans around the station.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1085
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:10:14 -
[526] - Quote
EnternalSoul wrote: Basically I do not see a need to limit them at all. Have 300 XL in one system if you can afford to build them.
Yeah, I don't see weight of structures in a system as being a problem - if someone erects 300 structures in one system, sure, thats a hell of a lot to entosis to unseat them, but we for one could drop enough of a fleet to entosis them all in one vulnerability window, and leave the poor sods trying to save 300 structures all at once. Even if they could defend that uncontested, thats still a wrist-slittingly unpleasant prospect. More structures, the more nodes to defend, the problem is kinda self-regulating. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1078
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:10:43 -
[527] - Quote
drag bubbles not on the same grid as the grid where warp was initiated or the destination grid have no effect, fyi |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
248
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:14:54 -
[528] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Eh? The grid is anything that has 1 player. You create a bookmark between two gates, you then ferry your deathstar there to plant it. Setup a few warp bubbles and enjoy. Actually, while it is nice on paper, it does not work in practice. Not for a lack of trying but because of the nature of warp disrupting bubbles and grid mechanics. There is a reason Rooks and Kings set up their pipe bombing runs on a gate and not in between gates: the bubble has to be placed on grid prior to the warp. So while you can place a bubble 1 AU in between two gates it will catch no one unless they were aiming for the grid co-ordinate - in which case most likely a fleet member since the target is less likely to be warping to your book mark.
There are ways to extend the grid with bubbles... hehe... but such things are a no no due to the server lag it causes.
A place like Jita IV-4 could get very interesting since it would be possible to bait a target from near the station into range of the Citadel's guns.
> There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people
> to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp
- CCP Yitterbium
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
248
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:16:41 -
[529] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:EnternalSoul wrote: Basically I do not see a need to limit them at all. Have 300 XL in one system if you can afford to build them.
Yeah, I don't see weight of structures in a system as being a problem - if someone erects 300 structures in one system, sure, thats a hell of a lot to entosis to unseat them, but we for one could drop enough of a fleet to entosis them all in one vulnerability window, and leave the poor sods trying to save 300 structures all at once. Even if they could defend that uncontested, thats still a wrist-slittingly unpleasant prospect. More structures, the more nodes to defend, the problem is kinda self-regulating.
Pretty much. Also, since the structures are not tied to sov - just the TCU, the only ones you have to concern yourself with are the ones controlling resources - such as moon goo or system intel.
> There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people
> to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp
- CCP Yitterbium
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
286
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:22:06 -
[530] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Petrified wrote:How can the Citadel be able to take care of itself in a fight and repel trolling attempts from a single player IF it requires someone to man the guns? The Dev blog implies that the guns are automated like a POS when not manned. The dev blog implies that if you own a citadel and are alive to use it, you can repel a solo troll 100% of the time. You don't need to be a good pilot, or have expensive ships, or be a PvP wizard... you just need to get into your citadel and push the "fire big guns make bad people go away" button. It in no way implies that we go back to the days of absentee landlordism where you can drop down a dozen structures that defend themselves. If you are there using the structure it will be trivial to repel anything that is not an actual attempt to take the structure. If you are not there using the structure than it will (intentionally) be vulnerable to a solo troll in a newb-ship. Again, occupancy-based concepts here. Provide powerful tools to people actually using an area through structures while simultaneously making it trivial to clear out crap left behind by people no longer present without requiring a giant structure HP grind. Which makes the Citadel essentially an immobile space ship. I would want to see more details on how the vulnerability windows will work for the structures, but essentially this detail does become problematic for the more solo oriented player. The other problem is the association of these structures to Lordism. Since these structures will essentially be freely deployable anywhere, there is no lordism involved in using them apart from a place to do things and keep things. The only time they will be lordism would be if they are tied to a limited resource: such as system control or moon mining. But the idea behind any form of automated defense is not that it is foolproof but that it is capable of defending against a fool. A single pilot is going to have a hard time taking down an existing POS, but the defenses can be soloed and eliminated and the POS itself destroyed. Likewise, all I and others are asking for from the Devs is that there is a minimal defense mechanism to prevent the random fool from sitting on the place running a link whereas a well prepared fool could. It is am important distinction. I am not asking that the defenses work at their optimal when no one is present, just that they work with enough effect to harass the random entosis wielding fool. As I mentioned previously: it makes sense the weapons would not perform as effectively when a capsuleer is not manning them but they should work - any programmer/designer (in game not the Devs) would be a fool to not include such basic functionality.
They are going to have a huge balance issue enabling automated defenses. An Entosis ship as basically no defense other than local reps during the cycle. It becomes a min/max game and any automated defense will have a DPS threshold you have to exceed to run Entosis on it. Whatever that level is, that will be the minimum ship required to solo attack an unoccupied structure. EVE is nothing if not predictable and people will simply fly that ship to do the job. That's more like solving a PvE equation that anything and you might as well not have the automated defense then as the result is the same. I'm not sure how you get around that fact and it is all a result of the Entosis module, its side effects and the limitation of "slots" on a structure.
|
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
586
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:23:07 -
[531] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Eh? The grid is anything that has 1 player. You create a bookmark between two gates, you then ferry your deathstar there to plant it. Setup a few warp bubbles and enjoy. Actually, while it is nice on paper, it does not work in practice. Not for a lack of trying but because of the nature of warp disrupting bubbles and grid mechanics. There is a reason Rooks and Kings set up their pipe bombing runs on a gate and not in between gates: the bubble has to be placed on grid prior to the warp. So while you can place a bubble 1 AU in between two gates it will catch no one unless they were aiming for the grid co-ordinate - in which case most likely a fleet member since the target is less likely to be warping to your book mark. There are ways to extend the grid with bubbles... hehe... but such things are a no no due to the server lag it causes.
Even at 1,000 km deployment restriction it can be done, so 10,000 km deployment restriction then.
Quote:A place like Jita IV-4 could get very interesting since it would be possible to bait a target from near the station into range of the Citadel's guns.
Assuming XL/L structures will be deployable in Hisec, assuming the new weapon systems will have that kind of range, and assuming the 250 km from celestials limit.
EvilweaselSA wrote:drag bubbles not on the same grid as the grid where warp was initiated or the destination grid have no effect, fyi
Then it becomes a non-issue with a reasonable deployment distance from stargates and other stations.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Atum' Ra
Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx
75
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:24:06 -
[532] - Quote
The ability to defend gates with stational stuctures is not so bad. Few sentry will be enogh but... citadel i like more.
CCP please give more info. 500 messages in 3 days! People isn't interested in your entosis we want new big guns & AOE torpedos
-ÿ -ü-+-Ç-+-ü-+-+ -¦-¦-+: -¦-¦-¦ -é-¦-¦-¦ -+-+-Å? -ÿ -+-+ -ü-¦-¦-+-¦-+ -¦ -+-é-¦-¦-é: -+-¦-¦-+-+-+ -+-+-Å -+-+-¦, -+-+-é-+-+-â -ç-é-+ -+-¦-ü -+-+-+-¦-+ (-£-¦, 5:9)
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
586
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:28:25 -
[533] - Quote
Atum' Ra wrote:The ability to defend gates with stational stuctures is not so bad. Few sentry will be enogh but... citadel i like more.
I think that instead of placing a whole station at a gate, the gates themselves could become re-fittable in claimed space.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Dominique Vasilkovsky
BFG Tech
240
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:36:02 -
[534] - Quote
Can we have an assault version of the citadel with a jump drive upgrade? You know so people can do invasions in style?
Dominique Vasilkovsky EVEboard
Once known as:
Mashie Saldana sold - Anastasia Rigel sold - Monica Foulkes sold
|
Atum' Ra
Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx
75
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 17:52:52 -
[535] - Quote
Dominique Vasilkovsky wrote:Can we have an assault version of the citadel with a jump drive upgrade? You know so people can do invasions in style?
Just make REAL mothership like in Homeworld !
-ÿ -ü-+-Ç-+-ü-+-+ -¦-¦-+: -¦-¦-¦ -é-¦-¦-¦ -+-+-Å? -ÿ -+-+ -ü-¦-¦-+-¦-+ -¦ -+-é-¦-¦-é: -+-¦-¦-+-+-+ -+-+-Å -+-+-¦, -+-+-é-+-+-â -ç-é-+ -+-¦-ü -+-+-+-¦-+ (-£-¦, 5:9)
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
249
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:08:21 -
[536] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Petrified wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Petrified wrote:How can the Citadel be able to take care of itself in a fight and repel trolling attempts from a single player IF it requires someone to man the guns? The Dev blog implies that the guns are automated like a POS when not manned. The dev blog implies that if you own a citadel and are alive to use it, you can repel a solo troll 100% of the time. You don't need to be a good pilot, or have expensive ships, or be a PvP wizard... you just need to get into your citadel and push the "fire big guns make bad people go away" button. It in no way implies that we go back to the days of absentee landlordism where you can drop down a dozen structures that defend themselves. If you are there using the structure it will be trivial to repel anything that is not an actual attempt to take the structure. If you are not there using the structure than it will (intentionally) be vulnerable to a solo troll in a newb-ship. Again, occupancy-based concepts here. Provide powerful tools to people actually using an area through structures while simultaneously making it trivial to clear out crap left behind by people no longer present without requiring a giant structure HP grind. Which makes the Citadel essentially an immobile space ship. I would want to see more details on how the vulnerability windows will work for the structures, but essentially this detail does become problematic for the more solo oriented player. The other problem is the association of these structures to Lordism. Since these structures will essentially be freely deployable anywhere, there is no lordism involved in using them apart from a place to do things and keep things. The only time they will be lordism would be if they are tied to a limited resource: such as system control or moon mining. But the idea behind any form of automated defense is not that it is foolproof but that it is capable of defending against a fool. A single pilot is going to have a hard time taking down an existing POS, but the defenses can be soloed and eliminated and the POS itself destroyed. Likewise, all I and others are asking for from the Devs is that there is a minimal defense mechanism to prevent the random fool from sitting on the place running a link whereas a well prepared fool could. It is am important distinction. I am not asking that the defenses work at their optimal when no one is present, just that they work with enough effect to harass the random entosis wielding fool. As I mentioned previously: it makes sense the weapons would not perform as effectively when a capsuleer is not manning them but they should work - any programmer/designer (in game not the Devs) would be a fool to not include such basic functionality. They are going to have a huge balance issue enabling automated defenses. An Entosis ship as basically no defense other than local reps during the cycle. It becomes a min/max game and any automated defense will have a DPS threshold you have to exceed to run Entosis on it. Whatever that level is, that will be the minimum ship required to solo attack an unoccupied structure. EVE is nothing if not predictable and people will simply fly that ship to do the job. That's more like solving a PvE equation that anything and you might as well not have the automated defense then as the result is the same. I'm not sure how you get around that fact and it is all a result of the Entosis module, its side effects and the limitation of "slots" on a structure.
In and of itself, that is not a problem: people always will fly what best fits the situation. As I stated, the auto-mated defenses are not meant for those people, but for the fool who decides to take on the structure willy nilly. That is all that is being asked. The real mix up comes when another player enters the grid and engages.
The only difference, offense wise, between a POS and a Citadel at present is that the POS'es offensive capability can be neutered.
Let any automation require a higher fuel consumption, but let there be some form of automation available. Just because I am on a business trip for a few weeks and cannot sufficiently access EVE I should not have to dismantle my Citadel and move all it's contents to an NPC station because the station designer failed to include a script that says: turn on guns and shoot if someone fitting x category approaches. I should not have to do that if I am on the business trip because any random Tom or Sally comes along in a T1 Frigate and applies an entosis module.
I should not have to always rely on other players to protect my interests if I am offline.
A minimal amount of automation is requested, not a full blown death star. If I lose my Citadel because of someone dedicating an attack to it rather than some random frigate I am fine with that: good game. But to lose it because of a random frigate in conjunction with real life is not a good game but bad design.
"Sorry, you can't use X if you work solo without a disproportionate chance to lose it to anyone random person." is not a realistic answer. Murphy's Law is quite real and anyone who has played EVE, had something they needed to address in real life, and returned to the keyboard knows: thats when it happens. The automation is not there to protect against someone determined, but to mitigate against the random. Its not that difficult of a concept nor impossible to include.
> There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people
> to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp
- CCP Yitterbium
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
249
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:09:49 -
[537] - Quote
Dominique Vasilkovsky wrote:Can we have an assault version of the citadel with a jump drive upgrade? You know so people can do invasions in style? They exist, I think they are Titans, Dreadnaughts, and Carriers?
Atum' Ra wrote:Dominique Vasilkovsky wrote:Can we have an assault version of the citadel with a jump drive upgrade? You know so people can do invasions in style? Just make REAL mothership like in Homeworld ! Oh wait... yeah... When I first saw Titans introduced, I hoped they would be more like that. Capable of manufacture et al, nt just a bigger ship with a bigger gun.
> There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people
> to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp
- CCP Yitterbium
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
286
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:11:53 -
[538] - Quote
Petrified wrote:In and of itself, that is not a problem: people always will fly what best fits the situation. As I stated, the auto-mated defenses are not meant for those people, but for the fool who decides to take on the structure willy nilly. That is all that is being asked. The real mix up comes when another player enters the grid and engages.
The only difference, offense wise, between a POS and a Citadel at present is that the POS'es offensive capability can be neutered.
Let any automation require a higher fuel consumption, but let there be some form of automation available. Just because I am on a business trip for a few weeks and cannot sufficiently access EVE I should not have to dismantle my Citadel and move all it's contents to an NPC station because the station designer failed to include a script that says: turn on guns and shoot if someone fitting x category approaches. I should not have to do that if I am on the business trip because any random Tom or Sally comes along in a T1 Frigate and applies an entosis module.
I should not have to always rely on other players to protect my interests if I am offline.
A minimal amount of automation is requested, not a full blown death star. If I lose my Citadel because of someone dedicating an attack to it rather than some random frigate I am fine with that: good game. But to lose it because of a random frigate in conjunction with real life is not a good game but bad design.
"Sorry, you can't use X if you work solo without a disproportionate chance to lose it to anyone random person." is not a realistic answer. Murphy's Law is quite real and anyone who has played EVE, had something they needed to address in real life, and returned to the keyboard knows: thats when it happens. The automation is not there to protect against someone determined, but to mitigate against the random. Its not that difficult of a concept nor impossible to include.
The Entosis makes it an entirely different dynamic than attacking a POS today. You can only rely on local tank and the Citadel can only apply X DPS limited by slots.
It's a pretty simple calculation to beat your defenses to do a solo unattended attack. So what good are they then? |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:17:58 -
[539] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:It's a pretty simple calculation to beat your defenses to do a solo unattended attack. So what good are they then? That is what I said 300 posts ago... |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
249
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:19:02 -
[540] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Petrified wrote:In and of itself, that is not a problem: people always will fly what best fits the situation. As I stated, the auto-mated defenses are not meant for those people, but for the fool who decides to take on the structure willy nilly. That is all that is being asked. The real mix up comes when another player enters the grid and engages.
The only difference, offense wise, between a POS and a Citadel at present is that the POS'es offensive capability can be neutered.
Let any automation require a higher fuel consumption, but let there be some form of automation available. Just because I am on a business trip for a few weeks and cannot sufficiently access EVE I should not have to dismantle my Citadel and move all it's contents to an NPC station because the station designer failed to include a script that says: turn on guns and shoot if someone fitting x category approaches. I should not have to do that if I am on the business trip because any random Tom or Sally comes along in a T1 Frigate and applies an entosis module.
I should not have to always rely on other players to protect my interests if I am offline.
A minimal amount of automation is requested, not a full blown death star. If I lose my Citadel because of someone dedicating an attack to it rather than some random frigate I am fine with that: good game. But to lose it because of a random frigate in conjunction with real life is not a good game but bad design.
"Sorry, you can't use X if you work solo without a disproportionate chance to lose it to anyone random person." is not a realistic answer. Murphy's Law is quite real and anyone who has played EVE, had something they needed to address in real life, and returned to the keyboard knows: thats when it happens. The automation is not there to protect against someone determined, but to mitigate against the random. Its not that difficult of a concept nor impossible to include. The Entosis makes it an entirely different dynamic than attacking a POS today. You can only rely on local tank and the Citadel can only apply X DPS limited by slots. It's a pretty simple calculation to beat your defenses to do a solo unattended attack. So what good are they then?
The same as with a POS.
I can look at a POS and see what I need to fit and tank for. With a Citadel, I won't have to do any of that if the person happens to be called away for something more pressing in their life.
I can solo a POS in a Rokh if I have observed what defenses there are and thus prepared accordingly. This is no different from what I urge the developers to rethink with regards to Citadels: a minimal automation to the guns at least.
But you yourself admit the point: if one comes prepared: what good was the defense? The Defense is good against the unprepared and to slow even the prepared. But it is never fool proof. The Citadel defenses, manned or not, will not be fool proof. Adding simple automation will not make them fool proof any more than any current POS is fool proof.
Do you understand the difference and thus the point?
> There will be deployment restrictions, yes. Mainly to avoid people
> to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp
- CCP Yitterbium
|
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
286
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:21:36 -
[541] - Quote
*nods* Shout it from the roof tops
No automated defenses - You have to babysit your towers during vulnerable windows to prevent lol-Entosis Automated defenses - DPS threshold of a tower with limited slots is calculated and beaten like PvE Manned defenses - Entosis ships are sitting ducks OR they tank as above and the defenses are useless
I don't particularly like those scenarios very much |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
286
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:34:29 -
[542] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Obil Que wrote:Petrified wrote:In and of itself, that is not a problem: people always will fly what best fits the situation. As I stated, the auto-mated defenses are not meant for those people, but for the fool who decides to take on the structure willy nilly. That is all that is being asked. The real mix up comes when another player enters the grid and engages.
The only difference, offense wise, between a POS and a Citadel at present is that the POS'es offensive capability can be neutered.
Let any automation require a higher fuel consumption, but let there be some form of automation available. Just because I am on a business trip for a few weeks and cannot sufficiently access EVE I should not have to dismantle my Citadel and move all it's contents to an NPC station because the station designer failed to include a script that says: turn on guns and shoot if someone fitting x category approaches. I should not have to do that if I am on the business trip because any random Tom or Sally comes along in a T1 Frigate and applies an entosis module.
I should not have to always rely on other players to protect my interests if I am offline.
A minimal amount of automation is requested, not a full blown death star. If I lose my Citadel because of someone dedicating an attack to it rather than some random frigate I am fine with that: good game. But to lose it because of a random frigate in conjunction with real life is not a good game but bad design.
"Sorry, you can't use X if you work solo without a disproportionate chance to lose it to anyone random person." is not a realistic answer. Murphy's Law is quite real and anyone who has played EVE, had something they needed to address in real life, and returned to the keyboard knows: thats when it happens. The automation is not there to protect against someone determined, but to mitigate against the random. Its not that difficult of a concept nor impossible to include. The Entosis makes it an entirely different dynamic than attacking a POS today. You can only rely on local tank and the Citadel can only apply X DPS limited by slots. It's a pretty simple calculation to beat your defenses to do a solo unattended attack. So what good are they then? The same as with a POS. I can look at a POS and see what I need to fit and tank for. With a Citadel, I won't have to do any of that if the person happens to be called away for something more pressing in their life. I can solo a POS in a Rokh if I have observed what defenses there are and thus prepared accordingly. This is no different from what I urge the developers to rethink with regards to Citadels: a minimal automation to the guns at least. But you yourself admit the point: if one comes prepared: what good was the defense? The Defense is good against the unprepared and to slow even the prepared. But it is never fool proof. The Citadel defenses, manned or not, will not be fool proof. Adding simple automation will not make them fool proof any more than any current POS is fool proof. Do you understand the difference and thus the point?
And yet we don't see POS after POS being taken down daily by these invincible POS-solo'ing Rokhs? Why? Time.
In the Entosis world, I don't have to fit guns or anything else. I have to tank. And I only have to tank as long as the Entosis takes to do it's work. It will not be a matter of people being foolish in attacking structures post-Entosis. There will be zero reason to use anything but the optimal tanked ship to attack any given structure. In fact, I would be surprised if the max DPS of a Citadel was calculated and a fit designed specifically to beat that and it's done. Problem solved. Citadel defenses are beaten. And if there is no tank that can exceed a Citadel's defense, then there is zero reason to attack because you cannot create a ship capable of beating the DPS applied because you cannot receive remote assistance.
|
Ocean Ormand
Bagel and Lox
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:36:12 -
[543] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:Lurifax wrote:Why do you want the XL Citadel if you still need to go capture the nodes 2-3 times? It still only takes one time were the intosis modil manages to hit the station or does takes 2-3 times with entosis links and nodes ?
why put all does guns on the station and how will the guns work in freeport mode. He has a point. At first I was going to refute him, but it seems that the problem goes a bit deeper. Why put guns on something that is taken without the combat mechanics (for the most part)? Ships with Entosis links can't receive remote reps or help of any kind. That means that automated defenses (if implemented) can't be powerful enough to take out one ship (perhaps of any size) unless that ship is stationary. But even if someone has to pilot the structure's guns, the attackers needs to be able to survive 2 Entosis cycles because they can't be repaired or warp away. Otherwise all you'd have to do is man your POS during Vulnerability times and know you're safe unless the attackers want to waste a ton of ships and time while you safely pick them off from your POS. It sounds like there is a strange balance situation where structure offenses, manned or not, have to be balanced so that they cannot destroy ships too quickly. That is, unless the attackers are expected to have overwhelming numbers. Please, correct me if I'm wrong! I want guns on my POSs!
Right now there is some "strategy" to how you setup a pos, i.e. where you place the guns and other offensive and defensive structures. Also there is the ability to anchor more structures then you need and online them as necessary. There is also some "strategy" to attacking a pos - attacking certain structures to mitigate ecm or incoming dps first then the tower, etc. . .
After the structure change, every pos will be nothing more then the equivalent of a big red stationary x. If it is unmanned it will be a big red stationary npc x; while manned it will be a big red stationary pc x. What sort of strategy will there be for attacking such a thing? You cant shoot it but it can shoot at you. You cant help the entosis ship being shot at. So options are simply orbit at range in a fast tanked ship or bring lots of disposable ships to apply entosis links. Neither options sounds like much fun and seem to be steps backward from the current approach.
Whatever merit entosis links have for sov play - they certainly do not seem to belong with pos structures. If CCP is hell bent on making entrosis also apply to pos then it should be in addition to being able to bash a pos in the usual manner. That way an attacker can make a decision - use entrosis or just bring dps.
|
Ocean Ormand
Bagel and Lox
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:39:14 -
[544] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Petrified wrote:Obil Que wrote:Petrified wrote:In and of itself, that is not a problem: people always will fly what best fits the situation. As I stated, the auto-mated defenses are not meant for those people, but for the fool who decides to take on the structure willy nilly. That is all that is being asked. The real mix up comes when another player enters the grid and engages.
The only difference, offense wise, between a POS and a Citadel at present is that the POS'es offensive capability can be neutered.
Let any automation require a higher fuel consumption, but let there be some form of automation available. Just because I am on a business trip for a few weeks and cannot sufficiently access EVE I should not have to dismantle my Citadel and move all it's contents to an NPC station because the station designer failed to include a script that says: turn on guns and shoot if someone fitting x category approaches. I should not have to do that if I am on the business trip because any random Tom or Sally comes along in a T1 Frigate and applies an entosis module.
I should not have to always rely on other players to protect my interests if I am offline.
A minimal amount of automation is requested, not a full blown death star. If I lose my Citadel because of someone dedicating an attack to it rather than some random frigate I am fine with that: good game. But to lose it because of a random frigate in conjunction with real life is not a good game but bad design.
"Sorry, you can't use X if you work solo without a disproportionate chance to lose it to anyone random person." is not a realistic answer. Murphy's Law is quite real and anyone who has played EVE, had something they needed to address in real life, and returned to the keyboard knows: thats when it happens. The automation is not there to protect against someone determined, but to mitigate against the random. Its not that difficult of a concept nor impossible to include. The Entosis makes it an entirely different dynamic than attacking a POS today. You can only rely on local tank and the Citadel can only apply X DPS limited by slots. It's a pretty simple calculation to beat your defenses to do a solo unattended attack. So what good are they then? The same as with a POS. I can look at a POS and see what I need to fit and tank for. With a Citadel, I won't have to do any of that if the person happens to be called away for something more pressing in their life. I can solo a POS in a Rokh if I have observed what defenses there are and thus prepared accordingly. This is no different from what I urge the developers to rethink with regards to Citadels: a minimal automation to the guns at least. But you yourself admit the point: if one comes prepared: what good was the defense? The Defense is good against the unprepared and to slow even the prepared. But it is never fool proof. The Citadel defenses, manned or not, will not be fool proof. Adding simple automation will not make them fool proof any more than any current POS is fool proof. Do you understand the difference and thus the point? And yet we don't see POS after POS being taken down daily by these invincible POS-solo'ing Rokhs? Why? Time. In the Entosis world, I don't have to fit guns or anything else. I have to tank. And I only have to tank as long as the Entosis takes to do it's work. It will not be a matter of people being foolish in attacking structures post-Entosis. There will be zero reason to use anything but the optimal tanked ship to attack any given structure. In fact, I would be surprised if the max DPS of a Citadel was calculated and a fit designed specifically to beat that and it's done. Problem solved. Citadel defenses are beaten. And if there is no tank that can exceed a Citadel's defense, then there is zero reason to attack because you cannot create a ship capable of beating the DPS applied because you cannot receive remote assistance.
If "there is no tank that can exceed a Citadel's defense" then you have to use lots of sacrificial ships - more ships then the citiadel can kill before it is reinforced - seems like a crappy mechanic to me.
|
EnternalSoul
Flame's Shadow Brothers of Tangra
3
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:41:10 -
[545] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Petrified wrote:Obil Que wrote:Petrified wrote:In and of itself, that is not a problem: people always will fly what best fits the situation. As I stated, the auto-mated defenses are not meant for those people, but for the fool who decides to take on the structure willy nilly. That is all that is being asked. The real mix up comes when another player enters the grid and engages.
The only difference, offense wise, between a POS and a Citadel at present is that the POS'es offensive capability can be neutered.
Let any automation require a higher fuel consumption, but let there be some form of automation available. Just because I am on a business trip for a few weeks and cannot sufficiently access EVE I should not have to dismantle my Citadel and move all it's contents to an NPC station because the station designer failed to include a script that says: turn on guns and shoot if someone fitting x category approaches. I should not have to do that if I am on the business trip because any random Tom or Sally comes along in a T1 Frigate and applies an entosis module.
I should not have to always rely on other players to protect my interests if I am offline.
A minimal amount of automation is requested, not a full blown death star. If I lose my Citadel because of someone dedicating an attack to it rather than some random frigate I am fine with that: good game. But to lose it because of a random frigate in conjunction with real life is not a good game but bad design.
"Sorry, you can't use X if you work solo without a disproportionate chance to lose it to anyone random person." is not a realistic answer. Murphy's Law is quite real and anyone who has played EVE, had something they needed to address in real life, and returned to the keyboard knows: thats when it happens. The automation is not there to protect against someone determined, but to mitigate against the random. Its not that difficult of a concept nor impossible to include. The Entosis makes it an entirely different dynamic than attacking a POS today. You can only rely on local tank and the Citadel can only apply X DPS limited by slots. It's a pretty simple calculation to beat your defenses to do a solo unattended attack. So what good are they then? The same as with a POS. I can look at a POS and see what I need to fit and tank for. With a Citadel, I won't have to do any of that if the person happens to be called away for something more pressing in their life. I can solo a POS in a Rokh if I have observed what defenses there are and thus prepared accordingly. This is no different from what I urge the developers to rethink with regards to Citadels: a minimal automation to the guns at least. But you yourself admit the point: if one comes prepared: what good was the defense? The Defense is good against the unprepared and to slow even the prepared. But it is never fool proof. The Citadel defenses, manned or not, will not be fool proof. Adding simple automation will not make them fool proof any more than any current POS is fool proof. Do you understand the difference and thus the point? And yet we don't see POS after POS being taken down daily by these invincible POS-solo'ing Rokhs? Why? Time. In the Entosis world, I don't have to fit guns or anything else. I have to tank. And I only have to tank as long as the Entosis takes to do it's work. It will not be a matter of people being foolish in attacking structures post-Entosis. There will be zero reason to use anything but the optimal tanked ship to attack any given structure. In fact, I would be surprised if the max DPS of a Citadel was calculated and a fit designed specifically to beat that and it's done. Problem solved. Citadel defenses are beaten. And if there is no tank that can exceed a Citadel's defense, then there is zero reason to attack because you cannot create a ship capable of beating the DPS applied because you cannot receive remote assistance.
CCP wants us to be occupying and using the system we put the XL in. Not a solo thing but a Corp level thing to keep it Occupied. That is why they do not want automated defenses but ones that you sit in there box and press fire.
Am I interpreting something wrong or is this right, Solo Entosis Link on an XL will be useless cause you have to go do so many little missions in the adjacent systems in order to do any harm to it?
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
286
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:41:57 -
[546] - Quote
Ocean Ormand wrote:If "there is no tank that can exceed a Citadel's defense" then you have to use lots of sacrificial ships - more ships then the citiadel can kill before it is reinforced - seems like a crappy mechanic to me.
Correct. Throwing ISK at a Citadel to gain the juicy rewards inside Oh wait, there are no rewards. Do it for the lolz
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
286
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:44:35 -
[547] - Quote
EnternalSoul wrote: CCP wants us to be occupying and using the system we put the XL in. Not a solo thing but a Corp level thing to keep it Occupied. That is why they do not want automated defenses but ones that you sit in there box and press fire.
Am I interpreting something wrong or is this right, Solo Entosis Link on an XL will be useless cause you have to go do so many little missions in the adjacent systems in order to do any harm to it?
I will admit that my concerns are colored from being a wormhole resident. I'm not concerned with XL structures and the future capture mechanism that is applied but rather the M and L structures with the aforementioned multiple reinforce timers. But truly I am concerned that CCP is introducing a mechanic (no automatic, limited slots) that promotes structure babysitting during vulnerable windows and a solvable defense equation. All of this combined with a near-zero reward structure for your efforts does not make the entire system very appealing as a conflict mechanism. |
Ocean Ormand
Bagel and Lox
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:45:46 -
[548] - Quote
Grorious Reader wrote:I for one approve of virtually everything about these new structures. No more structure grinding opens up a lot more strategic possibilities for smaller groups like mine. It also means clearing abandoned structures is much less hassle, so there will be a lot fewer abandoned structures.
I dont understand why people say there is not going to be a structure grind. CCP has said that there will be 2 or three reinforcement cycles. They also said that the structures will be able to fight off solo/small grp trolling attempts. Which means that you are still going to have to have a group of folk show up to take care of the new towers. How long will it take for the reinforcement is unknown, but presumably you will have to have the entosis links on for a significant period of time. Thus, there is a clear potential for the new system to actually take longer then the old system since with the old system your group only had to show up once for the initial reinforcement and maybe one other time for a stronted tower whereas now - your grp will have to show up at least twice and maybe a third time. To it seems like a worse grind to me. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 18:50:51 -
[549] - Quote
The whole Entosis thing isn't necessarily broken, but instead it is the "Can't receive assistance" part that actually creates the problem. It makes the equation very simple if Citadel has guns (automated or not):
- If one ship can solo tank the structure's guns, then it is too easily exploited.
- If one ship can't solo tank the structure's guns, then multiple people/ships/entosis are needed. (Flying out of range of Entosis/Guns has not been discussed by devs?)
2 is the obvious answer. But what should be the amount of people/ISK needed to take down? Medium Citadel: Large Citadel: XL Citadel: |
EnternalSoul
Flame's Shadow Brothers of Tangra
3
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 19:19:03 -
[550] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:The whole Entosis thing isn't necessarily broken, but instead it is the "Can't receive assistance" part that actually creates the problem. It makes the equation very simple if Citadel has guns (automated or not):
- If one ship can solo tank the structure's guns, then it is too easily exploited.
- If one ship can't solo tank the structure's guns, then multiple people/ships/entosis are needed. (Flying out of range of Entosis/Guns has not been discussed by devs?)
2 is the obvious answer. But what should be the amount of people/ISK needed to take down? Medium Citadel: Large Citadel: XL Citadel: (I personally believe that an attacker should have to risk (I didn't say sacrifice) at least as much ISK that it costs to buy/build the structure, being that defending with static defenses are typically more cost-effective than mobile weaponry.)
Dont groups risk a lot more that a tower is worth now to take one down as it is now? (answer is yes I have seen it done).
Yes I agree with you and I think that is the basic point of most of the debate on auto defenses here. A solo frig or even Battleship should not be able to take down an XL.
CCP want to make it easy to take them down if they are not in use, so the idea that Automated defenses use fuel and ammo is a step in the right direction and maybe limiting how much of that fuel can be in the fuel bay and ammo in the ammo bay would make it not so hard to take it down or take it over when the people that put it up move out and you have moved in.
I am sure the guy on vacation can either trust some one to keep the bays full of fuel and ammo or log in enough time himself to do it himself since we know no one can trust anyone in this game LOL.
|
|
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 19:41:29 -
[551] - Quote
Quote:XL does not replace current POSes it replaces current Player Owned Stations. The Large / Medium Replaces a POS.
Read what you wrote. It does not replace current Player Owned Stations, it replaces current Player Owned Stations? Wat.
Quote: Basically I do not see a need to limit them at all. Have 300 XL in one system if you can afford to build them.
I know you don't. Picture every single moon in any system being wracked with indestructible POS that have doomsday weapons capable of destroying entire fleets of ships, squads of capital ships, and possibly even motherships and titans, and that is without mentioning or going into detail the preposterous military planning necessary to actually invade and conquer an entire region of space literally packed with them. Heavy regulation is a necessity if it is to survive its release and subsequent use.
If you do not see a problem with with its initial design, there is nothing that can be said to you to convince you otherwise. However, because of the nature of your posts, you are so far behind the learning curb I will only be responding to experienced players from this point forward.
As I've stated before, the concept of another type of more powerful, and thus, secure POS system is not the problem. The initial concepts that were, obviously, hastily put together are in need of severe redacting and modification. In any event, doomsday weapons on a POS unless they are severely limited in their placement and use is so outside the realm of anything else in EvE it begs for reassessment, and they are POS, regardless of words and terms used to label them.
Citadel Structures immediately need redacting because of one fundamental reason, besides those that follow; Quote:Those structures will use the same principles of vulnerability and reinforced states from the Sovereignty overhaul. The structure can only be attacked by Entosis modules when it is vulnerable, and is invulnerable when reinforced. The unforeseen consequences of this need to be taken into consideration before CCP even contemplates signing off on this idea. It needs no explanation. Good luck doing that with AOE weapons and Doomsday coming at you, in any capacity.
Docking of Motherships, while not a terrible idea, would require an enormous docking bay at least 3.5k by 3.5k on the structure itself, and if this would be allowed, why not just go all the way with it and allow titans. The structure is certainly large enough to accommodate many titans, though the size of the bay taking up 1/6 of the structures size and the impossible internal structure needed to accommodate them would look awkward and be unrealistic. For good reasons, it isent allowed. Not too mention the unrealistic logistical problems of actually docking and storing a ship of that size. Besides this, it would provide a perverted strategic advantage that is unrivalled elsewhere in the galaxy and by other powers, only again helping to make null static and stagnant, while protecting entire fleets of supers from being lost to any type of neglect, when docked, or theft.
The single target weapons alone render and obsolete several aspects of current gameplay, making ships like dreadnoughts far less valuable as they are meant for siege warfare, these guns offer the opportunity for a few pilots to bring down (possibly?) several dreads looking to do damage, single handedly.
Launcher with Area of effect missiles are similar in initial design to miniature doomsday day devices, which were toned down because of their OP ability to clear entire battlefields by themselves. If this was actually approved, it needs severe damage reduction from the initial suggestion, although the idea of forcing fleets to scatter out and use more complicated logistics isent without its merits. Energy draining missiles is just ridiculous and allowing them to mass drain entire clusters of ships needs a realistic explanation and application on how to actually return the energy to the Citadel and for what purpose, maybe energy neutralizing missiles, but certainly draining, implies the energy is returned to some source and somehow. Furthermore, trying to actually use an entosis link even on a massive scale would be impractical and a death sentence.
Doomsday weapons on a POS, besides its open threat and obvious immediate cost to anyone bringing Titans and Supers to the fight, is such a bloody mess of an idea that if it were to be implemented, it must come at catastrophic cost to every other usable system at the Cits disposal. This would also limit, or at great cost to invading fleets allow, the use of capitals. The cause of this is apparent that after taking just one system even pock marked with these weapons, they wouldent have much of a capital fleet left to continue on in conquest afterwords, nevermind taking a region because it would be military and economic suicide.
If it is not an option to belay its release, until it is properly toned down, and it has already been determined it will be a part of the upcoming installments, its rush will do far more harm then good when it is put to use and has to be (inevitably) hacked and nerfed to ribbons later on. It runs the gambit of alienating players that immediately go to putting it in use. Furthermore, its benefits are one sided towards existing alliances and even the suggestion of its development should be examined. Misuse and improper implementation of this idea will have unforeseen blowback that could cause severe consequences, in all respects.
|
EnternalSoul
Flame's Shadow Brothers of Tangra
3
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 19:46:58 -
[552] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:Quote:XL does not replace current POSes it replaces current Player Owned Stations. The Large / Medium Replaces a POS. Read what you wrote. It does not replace current Player Owned Stations, it replaces current Player Owned Stations? Wat. Quote: Basically I do not see a need to limit them at all. Have 300 XL in one system if you can afford to build them.
I know you don't. Picture every single moon in any system being wracked with indestructible POS that have doomsday weapons capable of destroying entire fleets of ships, squads of capital ships, and possibly even motherships and titans, and that is without mentioning or going into detail the preposterous military planning necessary to actually invade and conquer an entire region of space literally packed with them. Heavy regulation is a necessity if it is to survive its release and subsequent use. If you do not see a problem with with its initial design, there is nothing that can be said to you to convince you otherwise. However, because of the nature of your posts, you are so far behind the learning curb I will only be responding to experienced players from this point forward. As I've stated before, the concept of another type of more powerful, and thus, secure POS system is not the problem. The initial concepts that were, obviously, hastily put together are in need of severe redacting and modification. In any event, doomsday weapons on a POS unless they are severely limited in their placement and use is so outside the realm of anything else in EvE it begs for reassessment, and they are POS, regardless of words and terms used to label them. Citadel Structures immediately need redacting because of one fundamental reason, besides those that follow; Quote:Those structures will use the same principles of vulnerability and reinforced states from the Sovereignty overhaul. The structure can only be attacked by Entosis modules when it is vulnerable, and is invulnerable when reinforced. The unforeseen consequences of this need to be taken into consideration before CCP even contemplates signing off on this idea. It needs no explanation. Good luck doing that with AOE weapons and Doomsday coming at you, in any capacity. Docking of Motherships, while not a terrible idea, would require an enormous docking bay at least 3.5k by 3.5k on the structure itself, and if this would be allowed, why not just go all the way with it and allow titans. The structure is certainly large enough to accommodate many titans, though the size of the bay taking up 1/6 of the structures size and the impossible internal structure needed to accommodate them would look awkward and be unrealistic. For good reasons, it isent allowed. Not too mention the unrealistic logistical problems of actually docking and storing a ship of that size. Besides this, it would provide a perverted strategic advantage that is unrivalled elsewhere in the galaxy and by other powers, only again helping to make null static and stagnant, while protecting entire fleets of supers from being lost to any type of neglect, when docked, or theft. The single target weapons alone render and obsolete several aspects of current gameplay, making ships like dreadnoughts far less valuable as they are meant for siege warfare, these guns offer the opportunity for a few pilots to bring down (possibly?) several dreads looking to do damage, single handedly. Launcher with Area of effect missiles are similar in initial design to miniature doomsday day devices, which were toned down because of their OP ability to clear entire battlefields by themselves. If this was actually approved, it needs severe damage reduction from the initial suggestion, although the idea of forcing fleets to scatter out and use more complicated logistics isent without its merits. Energy draining missiles is just ridiculous and allowing them to mass drain entire clusters of ships needs a realistic explanation and application on how to actually return the energy to the Citadel and for what purpose, maybe energy neutralizing missiles, but certainly draining, implies the energy is returned to some source and somehow. Furthermore, trying to actually use an entosis link even on a massive scale would be impractical and a death sentence. Doomsday weapons on a POS, besides its open threat and obvious immediate cost to anyone bringing Titans and Supers to the fight, is such a bloody mess of an idea that if it were to be implemented, it must come at catastrophic cost to every other usable system at the Cits disposal. This would also limit, or at great cost to invading fleets allow, the use of capitals. The cause of this is apparent that after taking just one system even pock marked with these weapons, they wouldent have much of a capital fleet left to continue on in conquest afterwords, nevermind taking a region because it would be military and economic suicide. If it is not an option to belay its release, until it is properly toned down, and it has already been determined it will be a part of the upcoming installments, its rush will do far more harm then good when it is put to use and has to be (inevitably) hacked and nerfed to ribbons later on. It runs the gambit of alienating players that immediately go to putting it in use. Furthermore, its benefits are one sided towards existing alliances and even the suggestion of its development should be examined. Misuse and improper implementation of this idea will have unforeseen blowback that could cause severe consequences, in all respects. I ment play built stations the ones you dock in not the force field kind. and POS stands for play owned "structure" ie tower not station. (but still can see the confusion)
XL replaces Stations Med and Large replaces Towers |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 20:00:49 -
[553] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:Fzhal wrote:Orm Magnustat wrote:
worst of all: the "asset safety" some genius came up with when my POS/structure gets blown up ... seriously devs, have you totally lost it ?? This goes against the core fundamentals that make up this game and set it apart from the competition. If someone blows up my fortress HE DESERVES the loot! Your post amazes me. Yes, I am amazed at how a person can play a sci-fi game with FTL travel/communication, shields, lasers, wormholes, cynos, and clone swapping... Oh, and spaceships! How this person can be okay with all of those things, yet find it unrealistic for someone in EVE to invent a system to fit into a FIFTY KILOMETER STRUCTURE that would safeguard items in the event of a catastrophic hull breach... Up until now anytime in EVE you move stuff out of an npc station or do your industry in a POS you have to be aware of the risk of loosing it all.... This new saftey capsule really changes this paradigm that put EVE apart from other "games" (and as you yourself used the term - makes it a "sim"ulation in my eyes). You make the system out to be a care-bear's delight, when it is in fact far from it. The attacker will (I think) have the option to take ownership of your structure instead of destroying it. (Now that I think about it, this would make for more reward for that person who deserves your loot.) If the attacker didn't want to do all the logistics to offline and take the structure, they could take the modules and destroy it. THEN, your stuff is still somewhere hidden in a hostile system for you to retrieve later. At which point others can find you with your stuff and take it.
Your point about this making Eve into a sim for you is just silly. It is like standing on a miles-long beach and arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand. Again, your feelings on what Eve should be are mostly irrelevant because Eve should become what keeps it thriving, and it is obvious that CCP has infinitely more objective ways to know what that direction should be.
If Eve were as realistic as you think/want, we'd be able to put explosive charges in our cargoholds that would detonate on ship destruction to keep others from getting the stuff. The fact that the new item safety mechanic is not possible in a current-day simulation has nothing to do with a futuristic sim. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
592
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 20:06:15 -
[554] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:* If one ship can solo tank the structure's guns, then it is too easily exploited.
- If one ship can't solo tank the structure's guns, then multiple people/ships/entosis are needed. (Flying out of range of Entosis/Guns has not been discussed by devs?)
2 is the obvious answer.
Pilots expect nothing else.
Quote:But what should be the amount of people/ISK needed to take down?
Medium Citadel: Large Citadel: XL Citadel: (I personally believe that an attacker should have to risk (I didn't say sacrifice) at least as much ISK that it costs to buy/build the structure, being that defending with static defenses are typically more cost-effective than mobile weaponry.)
Good brain masterb8 exercise.
I bring a yolo Marauder.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Ocean Ormand
Bagel and Lox
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 20:06:57 -
[555] - Quote
EnternalSoul wrote:Obil Que wrote:Petrified wrote:Obil Que wrote:Petrified wrote:In and of itself, that is not a problem: people always will fly what best fits the situation. As I stated, the auto-mated defenses are not meant for those people, but for the fool who decides to take on the structure willy nilly. That is all that is being asked. The real mix up comes when another player enters the grid and engages.
The only difference, offense wise, between a POS and a Citadel at present is that the POS'es offensive capability can be neutered.
Let any automation require a higher fuel consumption, but let there be some form of automation available. Just because I am on a business trip for a few weeks and cannot sufficiently access EVE I should not have to dismantle my Citadel and move all it's contents to an NPC station because the station designer failed to include a script that says: turn on guns and shoot if someone fitting x category approaches. I should not have to do that if I am on the business trip because any random Tom or Sally comes along in a T1 Frigate and applies an entosis module.
I should not have to always rely on other players to protect my interests if I am offline.
A minimal amount of automation is requested, not a full blown death star. If I lose my Citadel because of someone dedicating an attack to it rather than some random frigate I am fine with that: good game. But to lose it because of a random frigate in conjunction with real life is not a good game but bad design.
"Sorry, you can't use X if you work solo without a disproportionate chance to lose it to anyone random person." is not a realistic answer. Murphy's Law is quite real and anyone who has played EVE, had something they needed to address in real life, and returned to the keyboard knows: thats when it happens. The automation is not there to protect against someone determined, but to mitigate against the random. Its not that difficult of a concept nor impossible to include. The Entosis makes it an entirely different dynamic than attacking a POS today. You can only rely on local tank and the Citadel can only apply X DPS limited by slots. It's a pretty simple calculation to beat your defenses to do a solo unattended attack. So what good are they then? The same as with a POS. I can look at a POS and see what I need to fit and tank for. With a Citadel, I won't have to do any of that if the person happens to be called away for something more pressing in their life. I can solo a POS in a Rokh if I have observed what defenses there are and thus prepared accordingly. This is no different from what I urge the developers to rethink with regards to Citadels: a minimal automation to the guns at least. But you yourself admit the point: if one comes prepared: what good was the defense? The Defense is good against the unprepared and to slow even the prepared. But it is never fool proof. The Citadel defenses, manned or not, will not be fool proof. Adding simple automation will not make them fool proof any more than any current POS is fool proof. Do you understand the difference and thus the point? And yet we don't see POS after POS being taken down daily by these invincible POS-solo'ing Rokhs? Why? Time. In the Entosis world, I don't have to fit guns or anything else. I have to tank. And I only have to tank as long as the Entosis takes to do it's work. It will not be a matter of people being foolish in attacking structures post-Entosis. There will be zero reason to use anything but the optimal tanked ship to attack any given structure. In fact, I would be surprised if the max DPS of a Citadel was calculated and a fit designed specifically to beat that and it's done. Problem solved. Citadel defenses are beaten. And if there is no tank that can exceed a Citadel's defense, then there is zero reason to attack because you cannot create a ship capable of beating the DPS applied because you cannot receive remote assistance. CCP wants us to be occupying and using the system we put the XL in. Not a solo thing but a Corp level thing to keep it Occupied. That is why they do not want automated defenses but ones that you sit in there box and press fire. Am I interpreting something wrong or is this right, Solo Entosis Link on an XL will be useless cause you have to go do so many little missions in the adjacent systems in order to do any harm to it?
If its true that you have to chase after little missions in other systems in addition to showing up for the two or three reinforcement cycles, isnt that a much worse grind than what we have now?
Now to kill a tower - I shoot it, and if it is stornted come back for after reinforcement cycle to shoot it again. With the new system I have to shoot it at 2 or three vulnerable periods and go play whack a mole in an untold number of adjacent systems. Sounds worse to me.
|
EnternalSoul
Flame's Shadow Brothers of Tangra
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 20:15:36 -
[556] - Quote
[qoute]CCP wants us to be occupying and using the system we put the XL in. Not a solo thing but a Corp level thing to keep it Occupied. That is why they do not want automated defenses but ones that you sit in there box and press fire.
Am I interpreting something wrong or is this right, Solo Entosis Link on an XL will be useless cause you have to go do so many little missions in the adjacent systems in order to do any harm to it? [/quote]
If its true that you have to chase after little missions in other systems in addition to showing up for the two or three reinforcement cycles, isnt that a much worse grind than what we have now?
Now to kill a tower - I shoot it, and if it is stornted come back for after reinforcement cycle to shoot it again. With the new system I have to shoot it at 2 or three vulnerable periods and go play whack a mole in an untold number of adjacent systems. Sounds worse to me. [/quote]
I think the point is that you dont just sit there in one place shooting the same thing over and over while being paranoid that PL will show up with more big things to destroy the less than they will show up with big things you are using shoot the tower with (to make it go quickly). instead you can take a smaller more nimble fleet to go shoot some type of existing or new NPC rats. and the thrill of the hunting/scanning them down or how ever this is going to work. Only CCP and us on the test server when they get it there will be able to tell if it is going to take longer and be less or ore fun than structure grinding.
The community has spoken up that they hate structure grinding and have asked for something different and better. we will just all need to get on the test server and try it out and then say if we like or not. and make suggestion for improvements then. |
Archea Bastanold
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 22:08:00 -
[557] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:Dentia Caecus wrote:
Not, at all. Sir. CCP Nullarbor asked for a means to facilitate reimbursement; therefore, I undertook to design a methodology that is fair, provides much requested potential content and may bring people back to the game. I spend a fair amount of time designing, rethinking, drafting and redrafting a workable solution to a complex problem and look forward to equally thoughtful feedback both from the community and CCP.
I very much look forward to suggestions on how to better refine and implement this idea, as I believe the eventual elimination of stations as we know them presents a unique opportunity for CCP to reengage older players that may not be as involved in Nullsec as they once were.
You are missing the point on null sec though and providing a way for users that have been out of area for years on end to end up with isk. This is not a good design. There are risks involved in null sec and losing a station that you put time effort and isk into is one of these. If you have never lived out in null sec or understand what life is like out here maybe you should not be the one coming up with ideas on how to refund upgrades for stations. Or if you do want to weigh in with an idea make sure you fully understand the area in which you are commenting on. What you proposed makes no sense in the way null sec works with risk vs reward and the ability to lose vast fortunes. Easy fix for removal of existing stations. Convert them to XLarge Citadels OR (my preference) 1 month after XL Citadels are introduced all Stations/Outposts in sov nul become destructible. Capital ships are given a 100% bonus to jump range for 60 days or until only 1 station is left. Last standing station becomes a monument to days gone by and has a searchable list of all those who engaged in the destruction of every other station. List who destroyed each station with kills and losses as part of the monument. No reimbursement needed except for blueprints. Tons of content for big and small ships. Massive kill/loss mails of all types.
^This (for the most part)^
* High Sec & Low Sec Stations, including NPC Null Sec, should remain unchanged * Converting all current player outposts to XLarge Citadels would solve the outpost reimbursement issue, provided these outposts come already fitted, using a determinable fitting. * The converted XLarge Citadels should contain player assets, that are subject to some drop rate; this would provide additional motivation for groups to move to Null Sec initially & provide immediate feedback for the entosis link * Assets of inactive accounts (+3 months or something) within current player outposts should be moved to the nearest Low Sec Station; this limits the damage done to the unknowing & limits r3tarded loot drops
As for the reimbursement of current Starbases: * Tech 1 (non-faction) Control Towers & pos mods in general should be reimbursed on full input value (minerals/PI), through direct ISK or the return of the input items * Faction Control Towers & pos mods in general should be reimbursed as stated above, with the addition of compensation for the meta(Pirate < Rare Pirate) & size of the tower/mod
Example: est. Rare Pirate Large Towers = Tech 1 reimbursement + 700mil Rare Pirate Medium Tower = Tech 1 reimbursement + 250mil Rare Pirate Small Tower = Tech 1 reimbursement + 170mil
*Not reimbursing the Faction aspect of Starbase Structures is practically equivalent to taking away an entire race(faction) of ship modules away from the players without due compensation, the players that have invested in these should be compensated in some shape, form, or fashion. |
M1k3y Koontz
Bio Troll Surely You're Joking
756
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 22:32:34 -
[558] - Quote
EnternalSoul wrote:Obil Que wrote:Petrified wrote:Obil Que wrote:Petrified wrote:In and of itself, that is not a problem: people always will fly what best fits the situation. As I stated, the auto-mated defenses are not meant for those people, but for the fool who decides to take on the structure willy nilly. That is all that is being asked. The real mix up comes when another player enters the grid and engages.
The only difference, offense wise, between a POS and a Citadel at present is that the POS'es offensive capability can be neutered.
Let any automation require a higher fuel consumption, but let there be some form of automation available. Just because I am on a business trip for a few weeks and cannot sufficiently access EVE I should not have to dismantle my Citadel and move all it's contents to an NPC station because the station designer failed to include a script that says: turn on guns and shoot if someone fitting x category approaches. I should not have to do that if I am on the business trip because any random Tom or Sally comes along in a T1 Frigate and applies an entosis module.
I should not have to always rely on other players to protect my interests if I am offline.
A minimal amount of automation is requested, not a full blown death star. If I lose my Citadel because of someone dedicating an attack to it rather than some random frigate I am fine with that: good game. But to lose it because of a random frigate in conjunction with real life is not a good game but bad design.
"Sorry, you can't use X if you work solo without a disproportionate chance to lose it to anyone random person." is not a realistic answer. Murphy's Law is quite real and anyone who has played EVE, had something they needed to address in real life, and returned to the keyboard knows: thats when it happens. The automation is not there to protect against someone determined, but to mitigate against the random. Its not that difficult of a concept nor impossible to include. The Entosis makes it an entirely different dynamic than attacking a POS today. You can only rely on local tank and the Citadel can only apply X DPS limited by slots. It's a pretty simple calculation to beat your defenses to do a solo unattended attack. So what good are they then? The same as with a POS. I can look at a POS and see what I need to fit and tank for. With a Citadel, I won't have to do any of that if the person happens to be called away for something more pressing in their life. I can solo a POS in a Rokh if I have observed what defenses there are and thus prepared accordingly. This is no different from what I urge the developers to rethink with regards to Citadels: a minimal automation to the guns at least. But you yourself admit the point: if one comes prepared: what good was the defense? The Defense is good against the unprepared and to slow even the prepared. But it is never fool proof. The Citadel defenses, manned or not, will not be fool proof. Adding simple automation will not make them fool proof any more than any current POS is fool proof. Do you understand the difference and thus the point? And yet we don't see POS after POS being taken down daily by these invincible POS-solo'ing Rokhs? Why? Time. In the Entosis world, I don't have to fit guns or anything else. I have to tank. And I only have to tank as long as the Entosis takes to do it's work. It will not be a matter of people being foolish in attacking structures post-Entosis. There will be zero reason to use anything but the optimal tanked ship to attack any given structure. In fact, I would be surprised if the max DPS of a Citadel was calculated and a fit designed specifically to beat that and it's done. Problem solved. Citadel defenses are beaten. And if there is no tank that can exceed a Citadel's defense, then there is zero reason to attack because you cannot create a ship capable of beating the DPS applied because you cannot receive remote assistance. CCP wants us to be occupying and using the system we put the XL in. Not a solo thing but a Corp level thing to keep it Occupied. That is why they do not want automated defenses but ones that you sit in there box and press fire. Am I interpreting something wrong or is this right, Solo Entosis Link on an XL will be useless cause you have to go do so many little missions in the adjacent systems in order to do any harm to it?
The medium structures were designed for solo and small groups of players, they dont have automated defenses either from the sound of it. They'll have to babysit their vulnerability timers to avoidthe risk of lul-entosis
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 22:42:06 -
[559] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Dentia Caecus wrote: Not, at all. Sir. CCP Nullarbor asked for a means to facilitate reimbursement; therefore, I undertook to design a methodology that is fair, provides much requested potential content and may bring people back to the game. I spend a fair amount of time designing, rethinking, drafting and redrafting a workable solution to a complex problem and look forward to equally thoughtful feedback both from the community and CCP.
I very much look forward to suggestions on how to better refine and implement this idea, as I believe the eventual elimination of stations as we know them presents a unique opportunity for CCP to reengage older players that may not be as involved in Nullsec as they once were.
the only thing you spent a lot of time on was stuffing as many words as possible in to disguise the rattling of your tin can as you begged for handouts from devs "you should give me money, loads of money, for things i don't own because...uh..."
A) Your conclusion is flawed, because you begin from the wrong premise. Vernacular Translation: You have no idea what you are talking about.
B) You cannot fathom a far reaching idea designed to bring in more subscriptions, add diversity to null and increase pvp so you shove a square peg into a round hole, attempt square it with the way you perceive the game and assume it is some sort of money grab. Translation: Not everyone thinks as you do. Do not make assumptions. Google that old saw about assuming something....
I stand by my original suggestion to CCP Nullarbor and thank the nay-sayers for the continued opportunities to flesh out this idea.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
592
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 22:42:18 -
[560] - Quote
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
Lucious Lyon
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 23:01:19 -
[561] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:Quote:XL does not replace current POSes it replaces current Player Owned Stations. The Large / Medium Replaces a POS. Read what you wrote. It does not replace current Player Owned Stations, it replaces current Player Owned Stations? Wat. Quote: Basically I do not see a need to limit them at all. Have 300 XL in one system if you can afford to build them.
I know you don't. Picture every single moon in any system being wracked with indestructible POS that have doomsday weapons capable of destroying entire fleets of ships, squads of capital ships, and possibly even motherships and titans, and that is without mentioning or going into detail the preposterous military planning necessary to actually invade and conquer an entire region of space literally packed with them. Heavy regulation is a necessity if it is to survive its release and subsequent use. If you do not see a problem with with its initial design, there is nothing that can be said to you to convince you otherwise. However, because of the nature of your posts, you are so far behind the learning curb I will only be responding to experienced players from this point forward. As I've stated before, the concept of another type of more powerful, and thus, secure POS system is not the problem. The initial concepts that were, obviously, hastily put together are in need of severe redacting and modification. In any event, doomsday weapons on a POS unless they are severely limited in their placement and use is so outside the realm of anything else in EvE it begs for reassessment, and they are POS, regardless of words and terms used to label them. Citadel Structures immediately need redacting because of one fundamental reason, besides those that follow; Quote:Those structures will use the same principles of vulnerability and reinforced states from the Sovereignty overhaul. The structure can only be attacked by Entosis modules when it is vulnerable, and is invulnerable when reinforced. The unforeseen consequences of this need to be taken into consideration before CCP even contemplates signing off on this idea. It needs no explanation. Good luck doing that with AOE weapons and Doomsday coming at you, in any capacity. Docking of Motherships, while not a terrible idea, would require an enormous docking bay at least 3.5k by 3.5k on the structure itself, and if this would be allowed, why not just go all the way with it and allow titans. The structure is certainly large enough to accommodate many titans, though the size of the bay taking up 1/6 of the structures size and the impossible internal structure needed to accommodate them would look awkward and be unrealistic. For good reasons, it isent allowed. Not too mention the unrealistic logistical problems of actually docking and storing a ship of that size. Besides this, it would provide a perverted strategic advantage that is unrivalled elsewhere in the galaxy and by other powers, only again helping to make null static and stagnant, while protecting entire fleets of supers from being lost to any type of neglect, when docked, or theft. The single target weapons alone render and obsolete several aspects of current gameplay, making ships like dreadnoughts far less valuable as they are meant for siege warfare, these guns offer the opportunity for a few pilots to bring down (possibly?) several dreads looking to do damage, single handedly. Launcher with Area of effect missiles are similar in initial design to miniature doomsday day devices, which were toned down because of their OP ability to clear entire battlefields by themselves. If this was actually approved, it needs severe damage reduction from the initial suggestion, although the idea of forcing fleets to scatter out and use more complicated logistics isent without its merits. Energy draining missiles is just ridiculous and allowing them to mass drain entire clusters of ships needs a realistic explanation and application on how to actually return the energy to the Citadel and for what purpose, maybe energy neutralizing missiles, but certainly draining, implies the energy is returned to some source and somehow. Furthermore, trying to actually use an entosis link even on a massive scale would be impractical and a death sentence. Doomsday weapons on a POS, besides its open threat and obvious immediate cost to anyone bringing Titans and Supers to the fight, is such a bloody mess of an idea that if it were to be implemented, it must come at catastrophic cost to every other usable system at the Cits disposal. This would also limit, or at great cost to invading fleets allow, the use of capitals. The cause of this is apparent that after taking just one system even pock marked with these weapons, they wouldent have much of a capital fleet left to continue on in conquest afterwords, nevermind taking a region because it would be military and economic suicide. If it is not an option to belay its release, until it is properly toned down, and it has already been determined it will be a part of the upcoming installments, its rush will do far more harm then good when it is put to use and has to be (inevitably) hacked and nerfed to ribbons later on. It runs the gambit of alienating players that immediately go to putting it in use. Furthermore, its benefits are one sided towards existing alliances and even the suggestion of its development should be examined. Misuse and improper implementation of this idea will have unforeseen blowback that could cause severe consequences, in all respects.
'Dis dawg. Dayum. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 23:01:53 -
[562] - Quote
Ocean Ormand wrote: Whatever merit entosis links have for sov play - they certainly do not seem to belong with pos structures. If CCP is hell bent on making entrosis also apply to pos then it should be in addition to being able to bash a pos in the usual manner. That way an attacker can make a decision - use entrosis or just bring dps.
Obil Que wrote: I will admit that my concerns are colored from being a wormhole resident. I'm not concerned with XL structures and the future capture mechanism that is applied but rather the M and L structures with the aforementioned multiple reinforce timers. But truly I am concerned that CCP is introducing a mechanic (no automatic, limited slots) that promotes structure babysitting during vulnerable windows and a solvable defense equation. All of this combined with a near-zero reward structure for your efforts does not make the entire system very appealing as a conflict mechanism.
Ocean Ormand wrote: If its true that you have to chase after little missions in other systems in addition to showing up for the two or three reinforcement cycles, isnt that a much worse grind than what we have now?
Now to kill a tower - I shoot it, and if it is stornted come back for after reinforcement cycle to shoot it again. With the new system I have to shoot it at 2 or three vulnerable periods and go play whack a mole in an untold number of adjacent systems. Sounds worse to me.
The Entosis Link and Vulnerability Windows were first floated in Fozzies devblog over 10 weeks ago, as were the mechanics for using them to capture structures, and the fact that structure bashing as a thing is over. The time to try and stop that juggernaut was then; that ship has so far sailed now its off the horizon. I know, I know, you all thought it was just nullsec players getting it in the ass, and it was really funny too, but heres the reality, we are all getting it. The sooner you accept that you will be babysitting your structures through vulnerability windows, and you will be racing interceptors to capture nodes, and structure bashing in any form is gone and not coming back, the quicker you can focus on the fine details, because that is all you are changing at this late stage of the day. |
Vasama
Nosferatu Security Foundation
3
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 23:09:07 -
[563] - 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.
I have been thinking docking games in general and Eve already has the answer: Micro Jump drive and Mobile Micro Jump Units. How about having the stations a Micro Jump Launch Tubes? They could work on existing stations already. That could change the way you punch out the station all together and change the docking games big time.
There could be launch tube(s) toward all planets stargates in the system. The launch distance could be set to different distances, big question here should it take you so far from the station that you cannot instantly re-dock. How to avoid bowling with the effect? How many launch tubes would you need / direction? I liked to see you queue in the tube. Lets say one launch in every 10 or 15 sec / tube? So if you want to go to popular direction you have to take your time. Also you could not get 500 man fleet off the station or Citadel in one go. At least not to the same direction. Launching that many ships should take some time. Should the owner of the structure have a right to give priority over some other to be launched? Anyhow no invulnerability timers needed. No insta undock bookmarks needed. If enemy wants to bubble you go right a head but they need bubbles to all directions where the jumps tubes could take you. Then again citadel guns from a Citadel and bubble cage does not seem all that useful. Bubble camp could make the landing a ***** though - if the bubbles will stay alive that is.
Vasama
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
592
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 23:32:17 -
[564] - Quote
Lucious Lyon wrote:'Dis dawg. Dayum.
He mad.
Deep Nine wrote: 1) Picture every single moon in any system being wracked with indestructible POS that have doomsday weapons capable of destroying entire fleets of ships, squads of capital ships, and possibly even motherships and titans, and that is without mentioning or going into detail the preposterous military planning necessary to actually invade and conquer an entire region of space literally packed with them.
2) Docking of Motherships, while not a terrible idea, would require an enormous docking bay at least 3.5k by 3.5k on the structure itself, and if this would be allowed, why not just go all the way with it and allow titans. The structure is certainly large enough to accommodate many titans, though the size of the bay taking up 1/6 of the structures size and the impossible internal structure needed to accommodate them would look awkward and be unrealistic. For good reasons, it isent allowed. Not too mention the unrealistic logistical problems of actually docking and storing a ship of that size.
1) There is going to be a limit how close one can place these stations together. Non-issue from the start, and in the case of moons - there are going to be separate bodies doing the mining, which you can target, which won't have Doomsday weapons.
2) Cyno restriction 25 km off station and point 3) fixes many things.
Quote:3) Besides this, it would provide a perverted strategic advantage that is unrivalled elsewhere in the galaxy and by other powers, only again helping to make null static and stagnant, while protecting entire fleets of supers from being lost to any type of neglect, when docked, or theft.
4) The single target weapons alone render and obsolete several aspects of current gameplay, making ships like dreadnoughts far less valuable as they are meant for siege warfare, these guns offer the opportunity for a few pilots to bring down (possibly?) several dreads looking to do damage, single handedly.
3) Capital rebalance is yet to come, but I'd sell your Titanes now.
4) Long gone are the days of 5 roaming Dreadnaughts with zero support.
Let the River of Tears fill up and go forth, as it should and as it must!
Quote:Launcher with Area of effect missiles are similar in initial design to miniature doomsday day devices, which were toned down because of their OP ability to clear entire battlefields by themselves. If this was actually approved, it needs severe damage reduction from the initial suggestion, although the idea of forcing fleets to scatter out and use more complicated logistics isent without its merits. Energy draining missiles is just ridiculous and allowing them to mass drain entire clusters of ships needs a realistic explanation and application on how to actually return the energy to the Citadel and for what purpose, maybe energy neutralizing missiles, but certainly draining, implies the energy is returned to some source and somehow. Furthermore, trying to actually use an entosis link even on a massive scale would be impractical and a death sentence.
Blob less, k.
Quote:Doomsday weapons on a POS, besides its open threat and obvious immediate cost to anyone bringing Titans and Supers to the fight, is such a bloody mess of an idea that if it were to be implemented, it must come at catastrophic cost to every other usable system at the Cits disposal. This would also limit, or at great cost to invading fleets allow, the use of capitals. The cause of this is apparent that after taking just one system even pock marked with these weapons, they wouldent have much of a capital fleet left to continue on in conquest afterwords, nevermind taking a region because it would be military and economic suicide.
Guess we'll all be doing Incursions in Hisec then.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
817
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 23:54:19 -
[565] - Quote
I wish I had the patience to read these things I once had.
I'll get around to it though. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
246
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 01:08:35 -
[566] - Quote
Since the dev is comparing these citadels to ships
will these citadels come with insurance?
I mean he's acting like these things can be made and replaced on a whim should they get destroyed.. mind you without detailing on how folks will be able to get their stuff from the field.
so if its hard or difficult to destroy it... how easy would it be to replace it? or does ccp just want the swarm of titans and supers to come raining down on the little guy just to zap it for the lulz.
answer the question pls ccp nullabator |
Deep Nine
State War Academy Caldari State
154
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 01:12:09 -
[567] - Quote
Rush production and watch what happens.
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2327
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 01:12:37 -
[568] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.
Initial thought was 1000km would be much more appropriate. That would ensure you need to warp to them if you are on grid with any other location of note, and that you can't set one up 251km above a belt with long range weapons, and another 251km below the belt, and shoot anyone that mines there. Yes, if given the opportunity, my alliance WILL do this, in highsec, and WILL wardec people to make it happen. It will be hilarious for us, but (IMO) a broken mechanic. On further thought, I thought the distance should actually be higher than that - perhaps 10^5 km - to ensure that they cannot be placed in areas hidden behind permanent acceleration gates. Consider someone that replicates that with a research POS located 9950km from the beacon in a COSMOS complex with a 10000km radius deadspace around the beacon. An attacker cannot warp to a probe hit on that structure, and probably cannot find its exact location via any other means. But the owner can warp to a bookmark located 10001 km from the beacon whenever they need to bring fuel or change blueprints at the POS (or, if it's a production POS not a research one, bring a freighter in). You could declare that an exploit after the fact, but IMO it's a better option to address the problem now with a 10^5 km anchoring limitation.
A) good luck wardeccing noob corps, dumbass B) tried warping to bookmarks inside the DED dungeons? C) derp
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 02:29:29 -
[569] - Quote
The age of structure wars is upon us. Who will save the game from The Crimson Permanent Assurance? |
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha
The Scope Gallente Federation
133
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 03:19:59 -
[570] - Quote
davet517 wrote:The age of structure wars is upon us. Who will save the game from The Crimson Permanent Assurance?
Wait.
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
464
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 04:28:03 -
[571] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Since the dev is comparing these citadels to ships
will these citadels come with insurance?
I mean he's acting like these things can be made and replaced on a whim should they get destroyed.. mind you without detailing on how folks will be able to get their stuff from the field.
so if its hard or difficult to destroy it... how easy would it be to replace it? or does ccp just want the swarm of titans and supers to come raining down on the little guy just to zap it for the lulz.
answer the question pls ccp nullabator I believe the current tone is for them to be destroyed with Entosis cycles - No need for capital swarms. The blobs only need sub caps (and a lot less time and effort than is required now)
Huge issue with having possibly thousands of players stuff lying around a Citadel corpse. A group looking to pad kill boards would have a field day. Get a few kills while the Citadel dies, then a few hundred more while killing the guys trying to retrieve their loot cans.
Destructible stations sounds great when you say it without looking at the repercussions, for those who just lost their home. I don't think an alliance Citadel where players keep, 1 or 2 ships each and a bit of spare ammo is a good objective if creating content is the goal.
Unlimited industry slots - Unused because who wants to have to go collect 50 or 100 jobs worth of materials out of loot cans in a system full of hostiles waiting for you to come and collect your loot cans. Or worse, you just lose all the materials and blueprints you had in production. Markets with nothing available because who wants to seed a market that could be blown up by a ray gun.
I left WH space after losing just about everything i had when the pos's I was living out of were destroyed - Now they want to introduce the same thing to K space. Seriously?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6234
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 05:22:02 -
[572] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Since the dev is comparing these citadels to ships
will these citadels come with insurance?
I mean he's acting like these things can be made and replaced on a whim should they get destroyed.. mind you without detailing on how folks will be able to get their stuff from the field.
so if its hard or difficult to destroy it... how easy would it be to replace it? or does ccp just want the swarm of titans and supers to come raining down on the little guy just to zap it for the lulz.
answer the question pls ccp nullabator I believe the current tone is for them to be destroyed with Entosis cycles - No need for capital swarms. The blobs only need sub caps (and a lot less time and effort than is required now) Huge issue with having possibly thousands of players stuff lying around a Citadel corpse. A group looking to pad kill boards would have a field day. Get a few kills while the Citadel dies, then a few hundred more while killing the guys trying to retrieve their loot cans. Destructible stations sounds great when you say it without looking at the repercussions, for those who just lost their home. I don't think an alliance Citadel where players keep, 1 or 2 ships each and a bit of spare ammo is a good objective if creating content is the goal. Unlimited industry slots - Unused because who wants to have to go collect 50 or 100 jobs worth of materials out of loot cans in a system full of hostiles waiting for you to come and collect your loot cans. Or worse, you just lose all the materials and blueprints you had in production. Markets with nothing available because who wants to seed a market that could be blown up by a ray gun. I left WH space after losing just about everything i had when the pos's I was living out of were destroyed - Now they want to introduce the same thing to K space. Seriously? This was why I pointed out that an integral part of this process should be developing a workable Interbus mechanic, so that null industrialists would have a chance to pay some money and get large amounts of goods/materials hauled out to safety. A mechanic that isn't instantaneous, involves actual ships to move the materials, requires choices to be made as to how the hauling is to be handled/safeguarded, and give attackers a chance to intercept some of those goods (if they plan well).
View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
|
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
944
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 05:22:24 -
[573] - Quote
Archea Bastanold wrote: * Converting all current player outposts to XLarge Citadels would solve the outpost reimbursement issue, provided these outposts come already fitted, using a determinable fitting.
That's probably not actually a good thing. A lot of alliances have set up certain outposts for a specific purpose.
It would be rather unfrair to, for example, take away an alliance's manufacturing capacity by converting all their Amarr outposts to these new citadels since, while they will be able to manufacture, they don't specialize in it.
I'd just as soon each type of outpost be converted to a different type pf XL structures, Amarr becomes new XL manufacturing, Caldari becomes new XL research, etc. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
247
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 05:45:41 -
[574] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Since the dev is comparing these citadels to ships
will these citadels come with insurance?
I mean he's acting like these things can be made and replaced on a whim should they get destroyed.. mind you without detailing on how folks will be able to get their stuff from the field.
so if its hard or difficult to destroy it... how easy would it be to replace it? or does ccp just want the swarm of titans and supers to come raining down on the little guy just to zap it for the lulz.
answer the question pls ccp nullabator I believe the current tone is for them to be destroyed with Entosis cycles - No need for capital swarms. The blobs only need sub caps (and a lot less time and effort than is required now) Huge issue with having possibly thousands of players stuff lying around a Citadel corpse. A group looking to pad kill boards would have a field day. Get a few kills while the Citadel dies, then a few hundred more while killing the guys trying to retrieve their loot cans. Destructible stations sounds great when you say it without looking at the repercussions, for those who just lost their home. I don't think an alliance Citadel where players keep, 1 or 2 ships each and a bit of spare ammo is a good objective if creating content is the goal. Unlimited industry slots - Unused because who wants to have to go collect 50 or 100 jobs worth of materials out of loot cans in a system full of hostiles waiting for you to come and collect your loot cans. Or worse, you just lose all the materials and blueprints you had in production. Markets with nothing available because who wants to seed a market that could be blown up by a ray gun. I left WH space after losing just about everything i had when the pos's I was living out of were destroyed - Now they want to introduce the same thing to K space. Seriously? This was why I pointed out that an integral part of this process should be developing a workable Interbus mechanic, so that null industrialists would have a chance to pay some money and get large amounts of goods/materials hauled out to safety. A mechanic that isn't instantaneous, involves actual ships to move the materials, requires choices to be made as to how the hauling is to be handled/safeguarded, and give attackers a chance to intercept some of those goods (if they plan well).
your idea defeats the purpose of the service, you think indy's are just begging for another isk sink... so let me get this right.. you expect indy's to be up to paying to get their crap back, hauled out, as long as the service to haul it is opened to gankers and campers.. enjoy killing eve then..
|
per
Terpene Conglomerate
53
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 06:08:06 -
[575] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:Quote:XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them. Yes, it would Limit them specifically to huge alliances and powerful corperations, which money and resources are no object for. They would be mass manufactured and inevitably it would be abused by organizations to augment and solidify their already staggering power, forever sealing null against any type of incursion from almost any type of outside force, not grand fathered in.
hm just thinking, how about increasing their price or maintenance exponentionaly with every other one that alliance build?(add some skills for that if you wnat) or further from HQ the more expensive .. you know bigger empire the better chance for tax evasion ;) same thing i would implement for titans |
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
465
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 06:36:14 -
[576] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:Since the dev is comparing these citadels to ships
will these citadels come with insurance?
I mean he's acting like these things can be made and replaced on a whim should they get destroyed.. mind you without detailing on how folks will be able to get their stuff from the field.
so if its hard or difficult to destroy it... how easy would it be to replace it? or does ccp just want the swarm of titans and supers to come raining down on the little guy just to zap it for the lulz.
answer the question pls ccp nullabator I believe the current tone is for them to be destroyed with Entosis cycles - No need for capital swarms. The blobs only need sub caps (and a lot less time and effort than is required now) Huge issue with having possibly thousands of players stuff lying around a Citadel corpse. A group looking to pad kill boards would have a field day. Get a few kills while the Citadel dies, then a few hundred more while killing the guys trying to retrieve their loot cans. Destructible stations sounds great when you say it without looking at the repercussions, for those who just lost their home. I don't think an alliance Citadel where players keep, 1 or 2 ships each and a bit of spare ammo is a good objective if creating content is the goal. Unlimited industry slots - Unused because who wants to have to go collect 50 or 100 jobs worth of materials out of loot cans in a system full of hostiles waiting for you to come and collect your loot cans. Or worse, you just lose all the materials and blueprints you had in production. Markets with nothing available because who wants to seed a market that could be blown up by a ray gun. I left WH space after losing just about everything i had when the pos's I was living out of were destroyed - Now they want to introduce the same thing to K space. Seriously? This was why I pointed out that an integral part of this process should be developing a workable Interbus mechanic, so that null industrialists would have a chance to pay some money and get large amounts of goods/materials hauled out to safety. A mechanic that isn't instantaneous, involves actual ships to move the materials, requires choices to be made as to how the hauling is to be handled/safeguarded, and give attackers a chance to intercept some of those goods (if they plan well). your idea defeats the purpose of the service, you think indy's are just begging for another isk sink... so let me get this right.. you expect indy's to be up to paying to get their crap back, hauled out, as long as the service to haul it is opened to gankers and campers.. enjoy killing eve then.. I often wonder if people think about the consequences of things they suggest or if they just suggest them because they want more stuff to kill.
Ranger 1; Industrialists aren't going to pay to retrieve their stuff, you the purchaser are and so is everyone else who lives in nulsec. Industrialists do what they do to make isk, if their isk making potential is reduced due to excessive cost or risk, 1) they move somewhere safer 2) they charge more for everything they produce. Same for those who stock local markets - ALL of nulsec would grind to a halt without them and if it becomes to risky or costly for them to do it, they stop doing it or charge more to cover the risk factor - You be ok paying an extra 100 mil for each Ishtar you use to kill others assets with?
CCP's efforts to encourage nulsec industry could all be lost in one fell swoop if Citadels are fully destructible. Destructible stations is the absolute last thing nulsec needs, without the proper mechanics to ensure it doesn't kill nulsec.
I'm sure the minority groups screaming, "everything in eve should die" haven't thought about the repercussions of it actually happening.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Sequester Risalo
Significant Others
132
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 07:46:35 -
[577] - Quote
Ocean Ormand wrote:Now to kill a tower - I shoot it, and if it is stornted come back for after reinforcement cycle to shoot it again. With the new system I have to shoot it at 2 or three vulnerable periods and go play whack a mole in an untold number of adjacent systems. Sounds worse to me.
You are describing special circumstances in which the new system seems favourable to you (XL sructures in Null sec). We describe circumstances in which the new system is much worse (Medium or large structures of individuals in in any kind of sec).
You don't need to shoot a structure in the new system. Just 'link it'. You only need to reinforce medium structures once. You only play whack a mole with XL structures. If you are going after the structure of an offline individual, you really have to only whack one mole. (I'm not implying that individuals should build or own XL structures. It's you who brought this mechanic up). This all takes condiderably less time than reinforcing and killing a POS with the old mechanic. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31494
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 07:57:39 -
[578] - Quote
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha wrote:davet517 wrote:The age of structure wars is upon us. Who will save the game from The Crimson Permanent Assurance? Wait. I feel like this is a Game of Thrones reference.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Sequester Risalo
Significant Others
132
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 08:12:10 -
[579] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
I'm kinda impressed with how slyly this was done by our dear devs, keeping quiet on this stage of things so that the wormholer and small group players fully support fozziesov and sov-wands, completely ignorant of the fact they were about to get a good big bite of that lemon too.
lol, isn't that how it always happens? "Yay, CCP is doing stuff to other people and it's great...wait, what do you mean it's going to happen to me too? WTF? Bad idea....BAD IDEA!!!!
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:The Entosis Link and Vulnerability Windows were first floated in Fozzies devblog over 10 weeks ago, as were the mechanics for using them to capture structures, and the fact that structure bashing as a thing is over. The time to try and stop that juggernaut was then; that ship has so far sailed now its off the horizon. I know, I know, you all thought it was just nullsec players getting it in the ass, and it was really funny too, but heres the reality, we are all getting it. The sooner you accept that you will be babysitting your structures through vulnerability windows, and you will be racing interceptors to capture nodes, and structure bashing in any form is gone and not coming back, the quicker you can focus on the fine details, because that is all you are changing at this late stage of the day.
Fozziesov was indeed introduced a while ago. But from my perception did relate to sov mechanics only. In my opinion POSes serve a completely different purpose which warrants a different approach.
Sov structures are by definition a thing of large nullsec entities.These should indeed be able to defend their space during the vulnerability window. Wormhole POSes in low class wormholes are by design a thing of small corps or individual players. A larger group would starve in a low class hole. Now, in my opinion individuals cannot be expected to be online every single vulerability window.
Now I'm not threatening to unsub an armada of accounts. I'm simply stating that I am not willing to follow this requirement and adapt my playstyle. I might move to k-space and daytrip into wormholes. Maybe I will even pilot a trollceptor in adaption to the new mechanics.
The new system simply is in no way what CCP described it to be: "Of all the structures, we want these to be the most dedicated to asset safety, protection, and a feeling of home GÇô just like when you are tucked inside your bed sheets while the elements rage outside. At your coziest you should be fortified in giant bunkers equipped with mega death rays to weather the storm." (Shake my citadel)
You won't be "tucked inside the bedsheets while the elements rage outside". You will have to stay awake and out of bed during the storm every other night running around the house with a gun ready to defend your home. You will. Not me. I will be safely sleeping in a station. waking up refreshed in the morning ready to face the day.
CCP will not reach their stated goal "Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack." (Back into structure) I would love to still use a structure. But I won't. I'm not storing my stuff in a container anchored outside the forcefield now and I won't store my stuff in a defenseless structure then.
Quite the opposite. I precdict less structures will be deployed.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
596
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 09:12:51 -
[580] - Quote
Deep Nine wrote:Rush production and watch what happens.
Can't come soon enough.
DEATH TO ALL CAPITALS
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
248
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 10:03:58 -
[581] - Quote
Sequester Risalo wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
I'm kinda impressed with how slyly this was done by our dear devs, keeping quiet on this stage of things so that the wormholer and small group players fully support fozziesov and sov-wands, completely ignorant of the fact they were about to get a good big bite of that lemon too.
lol, isn't that how it always happens? "Yay, CCP is doing stuff to other people and it's great...wait, what do you mean it's going to happen to me too? WTF? Bad idea....BAD IDEA!!!! Aralyn Cormallen wrote:The Entosis Link and Vulnerability Windows were first floated in Fozzies devblog over 10 weeks ago, as were the mechanics for using them to capture structures, and the fact that structure bashing as a thing is over. The time to try and stop that juggernaut was then; that ship has so far sailed now its off the horizon. I know, I know, you all thought it was just nullsec players getting it in the ass, and it was really funny too, but heres the reality, we are all getting it. The sooner you accept that you will be babysitting your structures through vulnerability windows, and you will be racing interceptors to capture nodes, and structure bashing in any form is gone and not coming back, the quicker you can focus on the fine details, because that is all you are changing at this late stage of the day. Fozziesov was indeed introduced a while ago. But from my perception did relate to sov mechanics only. In my opinion POSes serve a completely different purpose which warrants a different approach. Sov structures are by definition a thing of large nullsec entities.These should indeed be able to defend their space during the vulnerability window. Wormhole POSes in low class wormholes are by design a thing of small corps or individual players. A larger group would starve in a low class hole. Now, in my opinion individuals cannot be expected to be online every single vulerability window. Now I'm not threatening to unsub an armada of accounts. I'm simply stating that I am not willing to follow this requirement and adapt my playstyle. I might move to k-space and daytrip into wormholes. Maybe I will even pilot a trollceptor in adaption to the new mechanics. The new system simply is in no way what CCP described it to be: "Of all the structures, we want these to be the most dedicated to asset safety, protection, and a feeling of home GÇô just like when you are tucked inside your bed sheets while the elements rage outside. At your coziest you should be fortified in giant bunkers equipped with mega death rays to weather the storm." (Shake my citadel) You won't be "tucked inside the bedsheets while the elements rage outside". You will have to stay awake and out of bed during the storm every other night running around the house with a gun ready to defend your home. You will. Not me. I will be safely sleeping in a station. waking up refreshed in the morning ready to face the day. CCP will not reach their stated goal "Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack." (Back into structure) I would love to still use a structure. But I won't. I'm not storing my stuff in a container anchored outside the forcefield now and I won't store my stuff in a defenseless structure then. Quite the opposite. I precdict less structures will be deployed.
oooh no you don't worm holer.. you cant escape from this fozzie-sov world order.. you think you slick.. low class wormholes my arse. you have worm hole dwellers now bragging how much they make in their so called "low-class" spaces.. yeah fozzie needs to nerf oops fozziesov that problem... I don't consider a C5-C6 wormhole that enables dreadnaughts to rat making billions in a matter of a few hours low class.. nope not gonna work.. im going to supply folks links just to go after you billionaires living in low class wormholes now :) |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1090
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 10:11:46 -
[582] - Quote
Sequester Risalo wrote: Sov structures are by definition a thing of large nullsec entities.These should indeed be able to defend their space during the vulnerability window. Wormhole POSes in low class wormholes are by design a thing of small corps or individual players. A larger group would starve in a low class hole. Now, in my opinion individuals cannot be expected to be online every single vulerability window.
The thing is, I think the whole "wormhole life is ending" arguement is more than a little overblown. Wormholes provide a level of defence that k-space doesn't have. By being granted the ability to dock in these new structures, supported by the lack of local, you have a measure of defence-through-the-unknown than nullsec wont have.
Someone roams in to one of our systems and sees no-one in local, its entosis-time. They can see we aren't there, and they know at a galance at Dotlan how many people may be spread across how many systems, and a glance at map data will give a clue if there is an active roaming defence fleet nearby that can cover the distance during your modul cycle time.
If someone jumps in to your hole and sees your structure in its vulnerability window, and finds no ships on scan, they have to make a judgement call on absolutely no data. Sure, your entire corp may be logged off, or roaming several holes away (and if its the latter, I'm sorry, but the idea behind fozziesov is that people aren't allowed to do that any more without leaving a defence at home, you are not to be immune to this edict any more than I am), but there is a significant non-zero chance you have at least one guy logged on (either if he's doing something else) who can immediately splatter the impertinent entosiser with the station defences
Here is a friendly suggesstion if I was in your shoes - bait roamers in to activating their entosis. When they warp on grid, play possum and leave the defences dormant to trick them in to thinking you aren't there, then as soon as they activate the link and trap themselves on grid, its time to unload the full firepower! Sure, the first few weeks are going to be a pain in the ass (as the first few weeks of Fozziesov will be for us), but once you've trained the roamers that things aren't going to be an easy trollfest, things should normalise.
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
516
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 10:22:18 -
[583] - Quote
Dear CCP. I want to repeat the need for loot drop in WH.
In most use cases in WH we dont atack poses to get rid of them so we can place our own. No. We attack them for loot. We get huge piniata or we get next to nothing and go home.
In null/low/hi you can easily justify validity of loot can spawns when someone tries to extract their stuff. It can be days, weeks, months, but you can have eyes in a system and can get fleet up and running to target system quite fast. In WH we can not realistically hold ground for weeks. We can not just leave people in a system and do nothing. We have to get back to our own home and even if we leave scout there is a small chance to get new connection fast enough to respond.
Now i am not saying that this whole mechanics can not work in wh. What im saying is that version proposed for null starions will not work for wh starions.
Look at wh siege like a time schedule. -You go in thursday or friday night to reinfoce tower (entosis it to the ground) - on Saturday and sunday you finish the pos - now you can realistically assume that if anything hunt for loot should take place on sunday evening tops.
As an alternative there may be a time window when loot can be extracted, known upfront but forward in tome enough that either attacjers will not want to come back or defenders have mote then enough time to properly prepare for it.
As an addidtion this timer will be spotted by other entities creating real pit if doon for various corps competing for loot
Pls bear in mind that its not an easy task to get huge forces ibto well defended system and we would love to be compensated for the effort
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
466
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 11:00:52 -
[584] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Sequester Risalo wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
I'm kinda impressed with how slyly this was done by our dear devs, keeping quiet on this stage of things so that the wormholer and small group players fully support fozziesov and sov-wands, completely ignorant of the fact they were about to get a good big bite of that lemon too.
lol, isn't that how it always happens? "Yay, CCP is doing stuff to other people and it's great...wait, what do you mean it's going to happen to me too? WTF? Bad idea....BAD IDEA!!!! Aralyn Cormallen wrote:The Entosis Link and Vulnerability Windows were first floated in Fozzies devblog over 10 weeks ago, as were the mechanics for using them to capture structures, and the fact that structure bashing as a thing is over. The time to try and stop that juggernaut was then; that ship has so far sailed now its off the horizon. I know, I know, you all thought it was just nullsec players getting it in the ass, and it was really funny too, but heres the reality, we are all getting it. The sooner you accept that you will be babysitting your structures through vulnerability windows, and you will be racing interceptors to capture nodes, and structure bashing in any form is gone and not coming back, the quicker you can focus on the fine details, because that is all you are changing at this late stage of the day. Fozziesov was indeed introduced a while ago. But from my perception did relate to sov mechanics only. In my opinion POSes serve a completely different purpose which warrants a different approach. Sov structures are by definition a thing of large nullsec entities.These should indeed be able to defend their space during the vulnerability window. Wormhole POSes in low class wormholes are by design a thing of small corps or individual players. A larger group would starve in a low class hole. Now, in my opinion individuals cannot be expected to be online every single vulerability window. Now I'm not threatening to unsub an armada of accounts. I'm simply stating that I am not willing to follow this requirement and adapt my playstyle. I might move to k-space and daytrip into wormholes. Maybe I will even pilot a trollceptor in adaption to the new mechanics. The new system simply is in no way what CCP described it to be: "Of all the structures, we want these to be the most dedicated to asset safety, protection, and a feeling of home GÇô just like when you are tucked inside your bed sheets while the elements rage outside. At your coziest you should be fortified in giant bunkers equipped with mega death rays to weather the storm." (Shake my citadel) You won't be "tucked inside the bedsheets while the elements rage outside". You will have to stay awake and out of bed during the storm every other night running around the house with a gun ready to defend your home. You will. Not me. I will be safely sleeping in a station. waking up refreshed in the morning ready to face the day. CCP will not reach their stated goal "Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack." (Back into structure) I would love to still use a structure. But I won't. I'm not storing my stuff in a container anchored outside the forcefield now and I won't store my stuff in a defenseless structure then. Quite the opposite. I precdict less structures will be deployed. oooh no you don't worm holer.. you cant escape from this fozzie-sov world order.. you think you slick.. low class wormholes my arse. you have worm hole dwellers now bragging how much they make in their so called "low-class" spaces.. yeah fozzie needs to nerf oops fozziesov that problem... I don't consider a C5-C6 wormhole that enables dreadnaughts to rat making billions in a matter of a few hours low class.. nope not gonna work.. im going to supply folks links just to go after you billionaires living in low class wormholes now :) You do know there is a huge difference between, a low class wormhole and the C5, C6's your fixated on?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31494
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 11:07:57 -
[585] - Quote
Wormholes have deserved proper structures and cloning facilities for a long time. ...reasons including a learning implant workaround in particular, where you should get to swap clones in the same station without a timer penalty.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
602
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 11:18:09 -
[586] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Wormholes have deserved proper structures and cloning facilities for a long time. ...reasons including a learning implant workaround in particular, where you should get to swap clones in the same station without a timer penalty.
Agrie, stargates too.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
466
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 11:30:58 -
[587] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Dear CCP. I want to repeat the need for loot drop in WH.
In most use cases in WH we dont atack poses to get rid of them so we can place our own. No. We attack them for loot. We get huge piniata or we get next to nothing and go home.
In null/low/hi you can easily justify validity of loot can spawns when someone tries to extract their stuff. It can be days, weeks, months, but you can have eyes in a system and can get fleet up and running to target system quite fast. In WH we can not realistically hold ground for weeks. We can not just leave people in a system and do nothing. We have to get back to our own home and even if we leave scout there is a small chance to get new connection fast enough to respond.
Now i am not saying that this whole mechanics can not work in wh. What im saying is that version proposed for null starions will not work for wh starions.
Look at wh siege like a time schedule. -You go in thursday or friday night to reinfoce tower (entosis it to the ground) - on Saturday and sunday you finish the pos - now you can realistically assume that if anything hunt for loot should take place on sunday evening tops.
As an alternative there may be a time window when loot can be extracted, known upfront but forward in tome enough that either attacjers will not want to come back or defenders have mote then enough time to properly prepare for it.
As an addidtion this timer will be spotted by other entities creating real pit if doon for various corps competing for loot
Pls bear in mind that its not an easy task to get huge forces into well defended system and we would love to be compensated for the effort. Also take a look at current null and wh meta. In null you fight for space. In wh you fight for loot. In null you take over station while in wh you get a roll on a loot die.
Dont take the loot die from us. I would be more concerned with invulnerability timers than how much loot you might not get. A well placed timer means you get to do nothing unless you want to sit around till it becomes vulnerable. One would hope they don't completely break wormhole space like they are nul, by putting everything on crest.
Any smart WH group is going to have vulnerability set to the quietest TZ to minimize threat of discovery. Or at least when they can be online to use the Citadels defenses on you while safely tucked up inside it, where you can't shoot them. Ray guns that can be shot by what they are trying to disable, replacing PVP. In a pvp based game, that just makes so much sense.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
562
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 11:54:26 -
[588] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha wrote:davet517 wrote:The age of structure wars is upon us. Who will save the game from The Crimson Permanent Assurance? Wait. I feel like this is a Game of Thrones reference.
Monty Python.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Epsyla
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 12:38:23 -
[589] - 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.
How about Sanctuary Sphere for those in the vicinity of structure ( and those docked or moored Aegis Coupling? |
Janeway84
Def Squadron Pride Before Fall
165
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 13:40:55 -
[590] - Quote
Will you be able to temporary overheat your pos defences since they get a balance pass and all? |
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
291
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 14:02:38 -
[591] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Sequester Risalo wrote: Sov structures are by definition a thing of large nullsec entities.These should indeed be able to defend their space during the vulnerability window. Wormhole POSes in low class wormholes are by design a thing of small corps or individual players. A larger group would starve in a low class hole. Now, in my opinion individuals cannot be expected to be online every single vulerability window.
The thing is, I think the whole "wormhole life is ending" arguement is more than a little overblown. Wormholes provide a level of defence that k-space doesn't have. By being granted the ability to dock in these new structures, supported by the lack of local, you have a measure of defence-through-the-unknown than nullsec wont have. Someone roams in to one of our systems and sees no-one in local, its entosis-time. They can see we aren't there, and they know at a galance at Dotlan how many people may be spread across how many systems, and a glance at map data will give a clue if there is an active roaming defence fleet nearby that can cover the distance during your modul cycle time. If someone jumps in to your hole and sees your structure in its vulnerability window, and finds no ships on scan, they have to make a judgement call on absolutely no data. Sure, your entire corp may be logged off, or roaming several holes away (and if its the latter, I'm sorry, but the idea behind fozziesov is that people aren't allowed to do that any more without leaving a defence at home, you are not to be immune to this edict any more than I am), but there is a significant non-zero chance you have at least one guy logged on (either if he's doing something else) who can immediately splatter the impertinent entosiser with the station defences Here is a friendly suggesstion if I was in your shoes - bait roamers in to activating their entosis. When they warp on grid, play possum and leave the defences dormant to trick them in to thinking you aren't there, then as soon as they activate the link and trap themselves on grid, its time to unload the full firepower! Sure, the first few weeks are going to be a pain in the ass (as the first few weeks of Fozziesov will be for us), but once you've trained the roamers that things aren't going to be an easy trollfest, things should normalise.
It's interesting to read very closely the blog (which even I admit now I missed this part - edited for brevity)
- Medium sized Citadel structures will betailored for individual or small groups of players. They will be able to fit some appropriate defenses to offer resistance against most kind of assaults including capital ships.
- Large sized Citadel structures will be around 25-50km in diameter and are made for corporations or even small alliances. They will offer more advanced functionality over medium-sized Citadels, mainly in the form of area of effect (AoE) defenses and facilities that are more tailored to support large fleets.
- X-Large sized Citadel structures will be around 100km in diameter and are specialized for high-end alliance gameplay. On top of the mechanics listed above, they will have the best defensive options to face against particularly large groups
To highlight. Medium structures should be able to repel assaults up to and including capital ships. In terms of wormhole space, this would insinuate that C1-C4 space (where capitals cannot enter) would be utterly safe in a manned Medium Citadel. |
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1276
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 14:16:33 -
[592] - Quote
Any reason w cannot reuse the current POS weaponry? So rather than having to come up with entirely new stuff as well as scrapping the old stuff, just convert them to fitted weapons?
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 14:25:58 -
[593] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Any reason w cannot reuse the current POS weaponry? So rather than having to come up with entirely new stuff as well as scrapping the old stuff, just convert them to fitted weapons? They've said there is currently more variety than they prefer. I'm guessing there is going to be a quarter of the options that we currently have. So while that may be possible, it wouldn't be a direct conversion. |
Sequester Risalo
Significant Others
132
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 14:58:51 -
[594] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Someone roams in to one of our systems and sees no-one in local, its entosis-time. They can see we aren't there, and they know at a galance at Dotlan how many people may be spread across how many systems, and a glance at map data will give a clue if there is an active roaming defence fleet nearby that can cover the distance during your modul cycle time.
If someone jumps in to your hole and sees your structure in its vulnerability window, and finds no ships on scan, they have to make a judgement call on absolutely no data. Sure, your entire corp may be logged off, or roaming several holes away (and if its the latter, I'm sorry, but the idea behind fozziesov is that people aren't allowed to do that any more without leaving a defence at home, you are not to be immune to this edict any more than I am), but there is a significant non-zero chance you have at least one guy logged on (either if he's doing something else) who can immediately splatter the impertinent entosiser with the station defences
Here is a friendly suggesstion if I was in your shoes - bait roamers in to activating their entosis. When they warp on grid, play possum and leave the defences dormant to trick them in to thinking you aren't there, then as soon as they activate the link and trap themselves on grid, its time to unload the full firepower! Sure, the first few weeks are going to be a pain in the ass (as the first few weeks of Fozziesov will be for us), but once you've trained the roamers that things aren't going to be an easy trollfest, things should normalise.
Thank you for your friendly suggestion. But my problem is not, what to do with a stray trollceptor when I'm logged in and ready for battle. My problem is what happens when I'm NOT around (which is roughly 92% of the time). With a hafway decent POS setup it takes plenty ships with plenty dps to reinforce a tower. With fozziesov it takes two times 10 minutes for a single trollceptor.
Don't let the arguments about lootdrops fool you. People will take down structures for the luls or the killmail alone. This is no great repellent.
Maybe we had it coming. Maybe we should HTFU. Whatever. I heard C1 dwellers are notoriously rolling in ISK by the trillions.
I'm simply questioning the wisdom of applying a sov mechanic to unclaimable space. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1188
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 15:15:28 -
[595] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Sequester Risalo wrote: Sov structures are by definition a thing of large nullsec entities.These should indeed be able to defend their space during the vulnerability window. Wormhole POSes in low class wormholes are by design a thing of small corps or individual players. A larger group would starve in a low class hole. Now, in my opinion individuals cannot be expected to be online every single vulerability window.
The thing is, I think the whole "wormhole life is ending" arguement is more than a little overblown. Wormholes provide a level of defence that k-space doesn't have. By being granted the ability to dock in these new structures, supported by the lack of local, you have a measure of defence-through-the-unknown than nullsec wont have. Someone roams in to one of our systems and sees no-one in local, its entosis-time. They can see we aren't there, and they know at a galance at Dotlan how many people may be spread across how many systems, and a glance at map data will give a clue if there is an active roaming defence fleet nearby that can cover the distance during your modul cycle time. If someone jumps in to your hole and sees your structure in its vulnerability window, and finds no ships on scan, they have to make a judgement call on absolutely no data. Sure, your entire corp may be logged off, or roaming several holes away (and if its the latter, I'm sorry, but the idea behind fozziesov is that people aren't allowed to do that any more without leaving a defence at home, you are not to be immune to this edict any more than I am), but there is a significant non-zero chance you have at least one guy logged on (either if he's doing something else) who can immediately splatter the impertinent entosiser with the station defences Here is a friendly suggesstion if I was in your shoes - bait roamers in to activating their entosis. When they warp on grid, play possum and leave the defences dormant to trick them in to thinking you aren't there, then as soon as they activate the link and trap themselves on grid, its time to unload the full firepower! Sure, the first few weeks are going to be a pain in the ass (as the first few weeks of Fozziesov will be for us), but once you've trained the roamers that things aren't going to be an easy trollfest, things should normalise.
To be fair, at no point did anyone mention in the other blogs that defenses wouldn't fire without an meat sack in there. That's a pretty damned major thing and it's rather underhanded of CCP to not mention it before now.
They've also been terribly lacking on detail on HOW a WH will actually contest across a constellation.
Remember in null you can never be locked out of your system when you own it, being podded in WH means bye bye hole access for a period. That's a HUGE game changer and something no other areas of space need to consider.
I can understand residents concern, I think elements are very valid, other's are less of a big deal but it is certainly not something to just hand-wave away. |
Ocean Ormand
Bagel and Lox
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 15:46:37 -
[596] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Ocean Ormand wrote: Whatever merit entosis links have for sov play - they certainly do not seem to belong with pos structures. If CCP is hell bent on making entrosis also apply to pos then it should be in addition to being able to bash a pos in the usual manner. That way an attacker can make a decision - use entrosis or just bring dps.
Obil Que wrote: I will admit that my concerns are colored from being a wormhole resident. I'm not concerned with XL structures and the future capture mechanism that is applied but rather the M and L structures with the aforementioned multiple reinforce timers. But truly I am concerned that CCP is introducing a mechanic (no automatic, limited slots) that promotes structure babysitting during vulnerable windows and a solvable defense equation. All of this combined with a near-zero reward structure for your efforts does not make the entire system very appealing as a conflict mechanism.
Ocean Ormand wrote: If its true that you have to chase after little missions in other systems in addition to showing up for the two or three reinforcement cycles, isnt that a much worse grind than what we have now?
Now to kill a tower - I shoot it, and if it is stornted come back for after reinforcement cycle to shoot it again. With the new system I have to shoot it at 2 or three vulnerable periods and go play whack a mole in an untold number of adjacent systems. Sounds worse to me.
The Entosis Link and Vulnerability Windows were first floated in Fozzies devblog over 10 weeks ago, as were the mechanics for using them to capture structures, and the fact that structure bashing as a thing is over. The time to try and stop that juggernaut was then; that ship has so far sailed now its off the horizon. I know, I know, you all thought it was just nullsec players getting it in the ass, and it was really funny too, but heres the reality, we are all getting it. The sooner you accept that you will be babysitting your structures through vulnerability windows, and you will be racing interceptors to capture nodes, and structure bashing in any form is gone and not coming back, the quicker you can focus on the fine details, because that is all you are changing at this late stage of the day.
CCP frequently throws a lot of time/money at an issue and comes up with something that is not what the players want and is just unfun. CQ, minigame/spew, and industry teams are recent examples. The industry teams were so bad that it was pulled back while CQ and the minigame appear to have been abandoned with no further development for them being made. Accordingly,it is never to late to rally against a bad idea. The entosis link as all the earmarks for being a bad idea. So even though CCP seems hell bent on implementing it, it is not too late to rally against it being spread beyond sov structures to the new-pos. |
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 15:50:51 -
[597] - Quote
Obil Que wrote: All of this combined with a near-zero reward structure for your efforts does not make the entire system very appealing as a conflict mechanism.
I don't get this "near-zero reward" meme. There is a big reward by occupying and controlling space, and you do it by destroying your opponent's structures and citadels. The reward isn't as immediate as a loot drop, but it ain't a near-zero reward either.
|
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 16:01:36 -
[598] - Quote
Ocean Ormand wrote:
CCP frequently throws a lot of time/money at an issue and comes up with something that is not what the players want and is just unfun. CQ, minigame/spew, and industry teams are recent examples. The industry teams were so bad that it was pulled back while CQ and the minigame appear to have been abandoned with no further development for them being made. Accordingly,it is never to late to rally against a bad idea. The entosis link as all the earmarks for being a bad idea. So even though CCP seems hell bent on implementing it, it is not too late to rally against it being spread beyond sov structures to the new-pos.
I think overall the new structure ideas are great. I do think though the idea a citadel will not automatically defend itself - i.e someone has to literally be present now for defense is a poor design concept. Not everyone plays Eve 24/7 or should be required to. Who is going to spend the time and investment to maintain a citadel if some solo player can d**k with it so easily? Especially in WH space? |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
293
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 16:29:25 -
[599] - Quote
Morn Hylund wrote:Obil Que wrote: All of this combined with a near-zero reward structure for your efforts does not make the entire system very appealing as a conflict mechanism. I don't get this "near-zero reward" meme. There is a big reward by occupying and controlling space, and you do it by destroying your opponent's structures and citadels. The reward isn't as immediate as a loot drop, but it ain't a near-zero reward either.
Again, I speak from a wormhole perspective. We do not have that motivation to take space. We occupy one system and attack/destroy/kick over sandcastles for loot. There are some exceptions for specific types of wormholes or certain areas of wormhole space but in general there are more systems than people looking to occupy so loot is a primary motivator. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
293
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 16:30:55 -
[600] - Quote
Morn Hylund wrote:Ocean Ormand wrote:
CCP frequently throws a lot of time/money at an issue and comes up with something that is not what the players want and is just unfun. CQ, minigame/spew, and industry teams are recent examples. The industry teams were so bad that it was pulled back while CQ and the minigame appear to have been abandoned with no further development for them being made. Accordingly,it is never to late to rally against a bad idea. The entosis link as all the earmarks for being a bad idea. So even though CCP seems hell bent on implementing it, it is not too late to rally against it being spread beyond sov structures to the new-pos.
I think overall the new structure ideas are great. I do think though the idea a citadel will not automatically defend itself - i.e someone has to literally be present now for defense is a poor design concept. Not everyone plays Eve 24/7 or should be required to. Who is going to spend the time and investment to maintain a citadel if some solo player can d**k with it so easily? Especially in WH space?
My concern for this has tempered since the blog posting but it is still a concern. It isn't 24/7, but it will be X hours every Y days where a structure needs to be babysat. It is not ideal and expressly limits individuals and smaller corporations who the Medium structures specifically are aimed at per the original blog.
|
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
450
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 16:34:04 -
[601] - Quote
I like the idea of being able to hire some really crappy NPCs to defend mah citadel from a lone entosis pilot as long as the price is near nothing. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1018
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 16:35:55 -
[602] - Quote
Morn Hylund wrote:I think overall the new structure ideas are great. I do think though the idea a citadel will not automatically defend itself - i.e someone has to literally be present now for defense is a poor design concept. Not everyone plays Eve 24/7 or should be required to. Who is going to spend the time and investment to maintain a citadel if some solo player can d**k with it so easily? Especially in WH space? The devblog clearly states there will be "vulnerability windows" like is the new Sov warfare. It uses an example of 2 hours, so if your structure has such a window it will be invulnerable to entosis links for 22h of the day. Plus there will be multiple reinforcement windows so if no one from your corp is online one day for some reason, you will have other chances to show up to defend.
If you can't manage that, you probably should make some more friends or stick to smaller structures in the first place. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1092
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 17:10:28 -
[603] - Quote
afkalt wrote: To be fair, at no point did anyone mention in the other blogs that defenses wouldn't fire without an meat sack in there. That's a pretty damned major thing and it's rather underhanded of CCP to not mention it before now.
Given you were the single most active poster emitting the cry of "if you can't have someone online to defend it, you don't deserve it" in the fozziesov devblog, I am caught midway between stunned silence and hysterical laughter. Wasn't this exactly what you were campaigning for? No NPC protection, bare minimal attacker effort required to create a threat? This is what you asked for, and given the weight of posts you made on the subject, I wouldn't be surprised if your voice contributed, even in some way, to this version of the rules.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1188
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 17:27:30 -
[604] - Quote
Yes indeed, however WH'ers do rather pose a different bag of cats, don't they?
Being online to defend is a very different beast in a wormhole where a mere two jumps away might cease to exist over the course of thirty seconds.
Null players can be ratting a few systems over, return to contest...WH'ers....yeah that's one HELL of a gamble.
The only common ground between null and WH, really, is the security status.
tl;dr: Null alliances living in the space stay in the zip code, the WH dudes cannot afford to even go out the front door. |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
89
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 17:46:26 -
[605] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Yes indeed, however WH'ers do rather pose a different bag of cats, don't they?
Being online to defend is a very different beast in a wormhole where a mere two jumps away might cease to exist over the course of thirty seconds.
Null players can be ratting a few systems over, return to contest...WH'ers....yeah that's one HELL of a gamble.
The only common ground between null and WH, really, is the security status.
tl;dr: Null alliances living in the space stay in the zip code, the WH dudes cannot afford to even go out the front door for fear it locks behind them.
Edit: I'm also not too proud to concede I overlooked WH dwellers, however in a *SOV* rebalance I'm not that surprised. Mind you, looks like CCP are too, so I'm at least in good company.
Here are my thoughts on WH they were supposed to be tough to live in but also offered the best rewards for time/isk. With these changes I do not think it is going to be half as bad as people are making it out to be. Why should one area of space not have to be there to defend its stuff just like the rest of EVE? People keep using the same argument that we might be in a different worm hole and we might not be able to get back. Well guess what we can not be on the other side of eve attacking people any longer either when our window time is open. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 17:48:26 -
[606] - Quote
Ocean Ormand wrote:CCP frequently throws a lot of time/money at an issue and comes up with something that is not what the players want and is just unfun. CQ, minigame/spew, and industry teams are recent examples. The industry teams were so bad that it was pulled back while CQ and the minigame appear to have been abandoned with no further development for them being made. Accordingly,it is never to late to rally against a bad idea. The entosis link as all the earmarks for being a bad idea. So even though CCP seems hell bent on implementing it, it is not too late to rally against it being spread beyond sov structures to the new-pos. While I understand why people are spouting doomsday predictions about these mechanics, I don't think they are warranted.
They said that not all size structures are going to necessarily have the same capture mechanics. They specifically said that the Medium mechanics might not require more than one Entosis session, which I think was a bit of an extreme possibility. XL are going to be tied to Sov and cost about as much as an Outpost. So only LARGE alliances will build these (or a few stupid people) and the region capture mode makes sense to me. L are sized for medium sized corps or alliances, and it is unclear whether the node-capture mechanic would be attached to these structures. Ultimately (IMHO), the type of capture mechanics will probably be determined by the cost of the structures. M are for solo or small corps.
With what CCP has said they are aiming for... Here is how I think the capture mechanics should be setup: XL - High/Low/Null Sec: Region capture mechanics with 3 stages as outlined by Sov mechanics. XL - Wormholes: IMHO - If some WH alliance is silly enough to put an XL in a hole, then they should have to capture nodes in their WH chain... with 3 stages as outlined by Sov mechanics. L - I see a few good options here, depending on the cost of the structure. (Remember that this is for medium sized corps/alliances) L (A) Region capture mechanics with 3 stages as outlined by Sov mechanics. L (B) Two-step process where the first step is Entosis-ing the structure and the second step capturing nodes scattered throughout multiple systems. L (C) Three-steps with 2-3 where someone has to capture nodes that are only in the same system as the structure. (I think this option will be chosen BECAUSE of wormholes...) [*] M - Two-step process where the second step is capturing nodes only in the same system as the structure. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 17:52:44 -
[607] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Here are my thoughts on WH they were supposed to be tough to live in but also offered the best rewards for time/isk. With these changes I do not think it is going to be half as bad as people are making it out to be. Why should one area of space not have to be there to defend its stuff just like the rest of EVE? People keep using the same argument that we might be in a different worm hole and we might not be able to get back. Well guess what we can not be on the other side of eve attacking people any longer either when our window time is open. Unless you remember that you can jump-clone, and wormholers can't... |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
296
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 17:53:00 -
[608] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Here are my thoughts on WH they were supposed to be tough to live in but also offered the best rewards for time/isk. With these changes I do not think it is going to be half as bad as people are making it out to be. Why should one area of space not have to be there to defend its stuff just like the rest of EVE? People keep using the same argument that we might be in a different worm hole and we might not be able to get back. Well guess what we can not be on the other side of eve attacking people any longer either when our window time is open.
Look at it this way, if you go out to defend your structure from attack, do you have the chance to be irrevocably removed from the system you're defending? Not podded back to your station to get into another ship. Removed. Podding + hole closing = inaccessible system. It's not a OMG the sky is falling DEATH TO WH problem but it's a concern and like most, it hits smaller groups the hardest. Since Medium Citadels are supposed to be for "individuals and small corporations" per the blog, I'm not sure that it translates well when placed into wormhole space where the geography is unique from all other space.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1190
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 18:09:51 -
[609] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:Here are my thoughts on WH they were supposed to be tough to live in but also offered the best rewards for time/isk. With these changes I do not think it is going to be half as bad as people are making it out to be. Why should one area of space not have to be there to defend its stuff just like the rest of EVE? People keep using the same argument that we might be in a different worm hole and we might not be able to get back. Well guess what we can not be on the other side of eve attacking people any longer either when our window time is open. Look at it this way, if you go out to defend your structure from attack, do you have the chance to be irrevocably removed from the system you're defending? Not podded back to your station to get into another ship. Removed. Podding + hole closing = inaccessible system. It's not a OMG the sky is falling DEATH TO WH problem but it's a concern and like most, it hits smaller groups the hardest. Since Medium Citadels are supposed to be for "individuals and small corporations" per the blog, I'm not sure that it translates well when placed into wormhole space where the geography is unique from all other space.
I was going to post, but you beat me to it.
It is one thing to remain in the local area (3-4 jumps away is no big deal), i.e. the space owned as I argued for in the main thread, it is quite another thing for WH guys.
However, as it stands what WILL happen is holes will simply be closed at the window with OCD and alacrity the likes of which you've rarely seen before. If they can't go out, no-one is going in. Content denial for all is just crap.
There is a pretty fundamental difference to being "on the other side of eve", compared to one jump away with no pod express available.
Really, it's not a deal breaker, WH life won't crash and burn, alts will be employed as required but the existing ruleset is ... meh. Hell I mean unless I missed it, saving/killing a WH structure is going to be a nightmare of epic proportion with the points spawning in places you might never even be able to connect to.
Tbh, it is like they forgot WH space even existed when they came up with the concept. I was guilty of this too. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1081
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 18:24:39 -
[610] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Yes indeed, however WH'ers do rather pose a different bag of cats, don't they?
Being online to defend is a very different beast in a wormhole where a mere two jumps away might cease to exist over the course of thirty seconds.
Null players can be ratting a few systems over, return to contest...WH'ers....yeah that's one HELL of a gamble.
The only common ground between null and WH, really, is the security status.
tl;dr: Null alliances living in the space stay in the zip code, the WH dudes cannot afford to even go out the front door for fear it locks behind them.
Edit: I'm also not too proud to concede I overlooked WH dwellers, however in a *SOV* rebalance I'm not that surprised. Mind you, looks like CCP are too, so I'm at least in good company. "i am only in favor of things being a pain in the ass for not-me, when it comes to me suddenly i understand why it's dumb. but only for me, there will be no introspection here, good day sir." |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1190
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 18:30:38 -
[611] - Quote
Well that was a stunningly mature response, bravo.
I have not changed my stance on sovnull, but I've realised WH are a different beast. I didn't see you all in that thread crying that wormholes would suffer either so you'll forgive me if I ignore your slight and continue with the thread.
Or I suppose I could sit with you guys and laugh at WH guys, but since that's a dickmove, I'll pass. It won't make any difference to me, I'm just trying to make sure that certain areas don't disproportionately suffer as a side effect of shattering the blue doughnut. |
Takeo Yanumano
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 18:53:05 -
[612] - Quote
Quote:By being granted the ability to dock in these new structures
This was some pages back, but I thought it good to respond. I missed the part where docking instead of sitting in a forcefield became a desirable thing for w-space dwellers.
Also, I live in w-space and didn't make a sound at all about fozziesov. I didn't oppose it, but I also didn't welcome it or laugh at null dwellers over it, as it simply did not apply to me. It would be nice if the same courtesy could be offered me and others who live in w-space when we express our concerns over our home space suddenly becoming effectively "null with randomized, moving stargates and still no jumpclones". |
Pook600
Defiance LLC Praetorian Directorate
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 18:53:30 -
[613] - Quote
Quit trying to reinvent the wheel about EVERYTHING.
I like the overalls on these, but the defense ideas are idiotic.
Stick to what is already possible with POS's. Let it defend itself with the weapons you put on board. Keep the notifications for structure aggression Leave the "vulnerability timer" for when it comes out of reinforcement mode.
Doing it any other way screws over the small players/corps and makes it harder to enjoy the game (that is what we're trying to accomplish, right?), than this proposed system of ridiculousness. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 19:06:32 -
[614] - Quote
I'm still curious as to how they are going to explain why node capture mechanics are needed in game. It'd be nice to get a blurb like:
Quote:Scope New Network: "New Eden's Engineers have discovered that the recently invented Entosis Link is able to circumvent the security measures of all Pilot Owned Structures. In reaction, the companies came together to find a solution to this problem. Simply stated, regardless of how security is placed into these systems, they will all still be susceptible because the security measures are centralized. New structures are currently being designed to take advantage of distributed security measures so that pilots will have a large degree of warning and ability to combat those that would attack their structures.
Again, in the long-term, they found no way to permanently stop Entosis Links from exploiting the vulnerabilities in New Eden's current structures. However, in the short-term, they have developed and deployed a software patch that should deter Entosis Link attacks long enough for new structures, with distributed security measures, to be manufactured and deployed to New Eden pilots." |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
89
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 19:14:55 -
[615] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:Here are my thoughts on WH they were supposed to be tough to live in but also offered the best rewards for time/isk. With these changes I do not think it is going to be half as bad as people are making it out to be. Why should one area of space not have to be there to defend its stuff just like the rest of EVE? People keep using the same argument that we might be in a different worm hole and we might not be able to get back. Well guess what we can not be on the other side of eve attacking people any longer either when our window time is open. Look at it this way, if you go out to defend your structure from attack, do you have the chance to be irrevocably removed from the system you're defending? Not podded back to your station to get into another ship. Removed. Podding + hole closing = inaccessible system. It's not a OMG the sky is falling DEATH TO WH problem but it's a concern and like most, it hits smaller groups the hardest. Since Medium Citadels are supposed to be for "individuals and small corporations" per the blog, I'm not sure that it translates well when placed into wormhole space where the geography is unique from all other space.
It would be a larger problem if you didn't have multiple timers on these. Yeah you will have to watch these a little more closely then what you are watching POS's but if you can not make the 2nd or 3rd timer where you have the exact time to be there. Then I can not help you.
Also we do not know what will be allowed or not allowed in WH's I would be 100% on board with allowing clones if you are killed in that system to spawn you in your citadel on these but if you are in another it would default back to your birth station.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1194
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 19:22:32 -
[616] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Obil Que wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:Here are my thoughts on WH they were supposed to be tough to live in but also offered the best rewards for time/isk. With these changes I do not think it is going to be half as bad as people are making it out to be. Why should one area of space not have to be there to defend its stuff just like the rest of EVE? People keep using the same argument that we might be in a different worm hole and we might not be able to get back. Well guess what we can not be on the other side of eve attacking people any longer either when our window time is open. Look at it this way, if you go out to defend your structure from attack, do you have the chance to be irrevocably removed from the system you're defending? Not podded back to your station to get into another ship. Removed. Podding + hole closing = inaccessible system. It's not a OMG the sky is falling DEATH TO WH problem but it's a concern and like most, it hits smaller groups the hardest. Since Medium Citadels are supposed to be for "individuals and small corporations" per the blog, I'm not sure that it translates well when placed into wormhole space where the geography is unique from all other space. It would be a larger problem if you didn't have multiple timers on these. Yeah you will have to watch these a little more closely then what you are watching POS's but if you can not make the 2nd or 3rd timer where you have the exact time to be there. Then I can not help you.
If this has been answered previously, I apologise - I'm not trying to troll here.
Last I heard the contest nodes spawn across a constellation - obviously this is a nonsense concept for a WH - have we more detail on it I missed? An unsecured structure remains vulnerable if it passes the window unsecured so I can see this being a bit weird.
Partially OT, but close enough, I reckon. I hazard that wont work like that in WH, as it's a 'mare for both attackers and defenders alike but details like this are pretty key to providing meaningful feedback. |
Laner Irondoll
Viziam Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 19:23:17 -
[617] - Quote
Basically "get another account for your POS alt ". |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
303
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 19:23:41 -
[618] - Quote
afkalt wrote:If this has been answered previously, I apologise - I'm not trying to troll here.
Last I heard the contest nodes spawn across a constellation - obviously this is a nonsense concept for a WH - have we more detail on it I missed? An unsecured structure remains vulnerable if it passes the window unsecured so I can see this being a bit weird.
Partially OT, but close enough, I reckon. I hazard that wont work like that in WH, as it's a 'mare for both attackers and defenders alike but details like this are pretty key to providing meaningful feedback.
Constellation events are SOV and XL structure events only. M and L sized Citadels don't have this component. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 19:25:51 -
[619] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:... if you are killed in that (WH) system (you should) spawn in your citadel on these, but if you are in another it would default back to your birth station. So let me get this straight... Your ideas have been shown to be demonstrably invalid "Well guess what we can not be on the other side of eve attacking people (in K-Space) any longer either when our window time is open." You don't even live in wormholes. And you think that you know what is best for people in wormholes?
Just take the high road and admit that you don't have the proper understanding to be able to suggest appropriate mechanics that should apply to wormholers... |
Rashaab merkava
Black Powder Arsenal
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 19:25:53 -
[620] - Quote
Will these citadel structures be able to be used in High-security space ? |
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
304
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 19:26:42 -
[621] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:Obil Que wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:Here are my thoughts on WH they were supposed to be tough to live in but also offered the best rewards for time/isk. With these changes I do not think it is going to be half as bad as people are making it out to be. Why should one area of space not have to be there to defend its stuff just like the rest of EVE? People keep using the same argument that we might be in a different worm hole and we might not be able to get back. Well guess what we can not be on the other side of eve attacking people any longer either when our window time is open. Look at it this way, if you go out to defend your structure from attack, do you have the chance to be irrevocably removed from the system you're defending? Not podded back to your station to get into another ship. Removed. Podding + hole closing = inaccessible system. It's not a OMG the sky is falling DEATH TO WH problem but it's a concern and like most, it hits smaller groups the hardest. Since Medium Citadels are supposed to be for "individuals and small corporations" per the blog, I'm not sure that it translates well when placed into wormhole space where the geography is unique from all other space. It would be a larger problem if you didn't have multiple timers on these. Yeah you will have to watch these a little more closely then what you are watching POS's but if you can not make the 2nd or 3rd timer where you have the exact time to be there. Then I can not help you. Also we do not know what will be allowed or not allowed in WH's I would be 100% on board with allowing clones if you are killed in that system to spawn you in your citadel on these but if you are in another it would default back to your birth station.
From past conversations on the topic, it seems the majority of wormholers are against jump style clones in wormholes but in favor of implant switching at structures.
As for the timers, the challenge for wormholers is that targets are those of opportunity most times. We see this with POCOs quite frequently. Attack one in your home system when you are taking up residence and you will likely be attacked by whoever is in your chain the day the timer expires because they happened to notice the timer going off. The first, second, or third reinforcement timer would have a similar effect on a Citadel. The person who attacked you the first time may not be the person attacking you the second or the timer may draw additional people to the fight possibly making it even harder to win/counter. |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
89
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 19:26:45 -
[622] - Quote
afkalt wrote:
If this has been answered previously, I apologise - I'm not trying to troll here.
Last I heard the contest nodes spawn across a constellation - obviously this is a nonsense concept for a WH - have we more detail on it I missed? An unsecured structure remains vulnerable if it passes the window unsecured so I can see this being a bit weird.
Partially OT, but close enough, I reckon. I hazard that wont work like that in WH, as it's a 'mare for both attackers and defenders alike but details like this are pretty key to providing meaningful feedback.
You also Left out the second part of my post. That would address most of people complaints |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1194
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 19:31:50 -
[623] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:afkalt wrote:If this has been answered previously, I apologise - I'm not trying to troll here.
Last I heard the contest nodes spawn across a constellation - obviously this is a nonsense concept for a WH - have we more detail on it I missed? An unsecured structure remains vulnerable if it passes the window unsecured so I can see this being a bit weird.
Partially OT, but close enough, I reckon. I hazard that wont work like that in WH, as it's a 'mare for both attackers and defenders alike but details like this are pretty key to providing meaningful feedback. Constellation events are SOV and XL structure events only. M and L sized Citadels don't have this component.
Thanks |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1151
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 21:13:55 -
[624] - Quote
As far as medium structures are concerned including any kind of sov 'capture the nodes' mechanism will mean they cannot be used by solo/small group corps. There is very little chance such a group could capture multiple points given that they would have to use an entosis link and thus defenceless. If this is supposed to get more people using structures it won't.
If mediums are to be used by small groups they need to be ehp based for desruction, not entosis linked. They shouldn't give any sov control though, giving the option of mediums being the go to for forward bases/small hisec groups. Large and above would be entosis based still. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
252
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 21:33:12 -
[625] - Quote
I really don't understand the thought process of removing POS towers, you just wasted more time re-animating the forcefields just to remove them from the game. that seems like wasted labor. |
Beta Maoye
64
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 21:46:11 -
[626] - Quote
1. How does customs office work in citadel? Do I need to build one citadel per planet for importing and exporting PI materials? 2. Can you tell me something about the Interbus service you are thinking of? |
slam34
Defiance LLC Praetorian Directorate
13
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 22:11:30 -
[627] - Quote
One of the best comments in this whole thread was the remark in regards how this all affects those of us who live in wormhole space. "you're not even supposed to be there..."
It is, in fact, part of the reason many of us actually do it. It was never intended, but we do it anyway. So when I see how these fine new structures and functions are going to have to be "shoe-horned" into W-space, I cringe. All of them showing up automaticly on overview and warpable? Did a Dev actually say that?
Clearly, applying these changes in wormhole space wasn't seriously considered as a design parameter.
Having said that, I see a lot of hard work and creativity applied productively to our game, and I applaud that. Dealing with these changes in the coming months will be quite exciting and should be a lot of fun. Thank you CCP! I just hope I can continue to enjoy them from Wormhole space. I am now going to look for some cheese to go with my whine. :)
-áPeople are people. No matter what country, culture, religion, political party, business or communtiy you encounter in your travels, you will never find a shortage of people who will make it their personal mission in life to tell you how to live yours.
|
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 22:20:56 -
[628] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:As far as medium structures are concerned including any kind of sov 'capture the nodes' mechanism will mean they cannot be used by solo/small group corps. There is very little chance such a group could capture multiple points given that they would have to use an entosis link and thus defenceless. If this is supposed to get more people using structures it won't.
If mediums are to be used by small groups they need to be ehp based for desruction, not entosis linked. They shouldn't give any sov control though, giving the option of mediums being the go to for forward bases/small hisec groups. Large and above would be entosis based still. AFAIK the only thing affecting Sov will be the Sov deployable.
It sounds like all other structures will be deployable regardless of whether you have Sov. Which brings up a good question. Will XL structures (outpost sized) be re-scoopable? If so, we're talking about mobile outposts that could be used as a leapfrogging base of operations. The next question would be what happens to everyone's stuff when scooped? (I'm guessing the destruction mechanic would be used.) |
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R
72
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 02:50:55 -
[629] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Quote: 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.
...I'm assuming if you're solo you are in high sec...
Uh... hate to burst yer bubble man but due of the Wonder of No Damned Sov Crap plus Wormhole Spawning Mechanics... one hell of a LOT of the corps in low to mid range holes are really small to middlin sized corps... and yes, some are even OMCs with an army of alts...and in those if the Account owner aint logged on, aint NO ONE logged on...
This "I ass-u-me" of yours will live up to it's name and screw really small gangs in low class holes... Hell I'm in a middling sized corp (wayyyy moar alts then living players) and half the time I'm logged on alone... with no back up and none to jabber in... add to this that our small number of players are spread from New Zealand all the long way round to the west coast of the US... well, life aint easy in holes... and from the sound of the above, ya'll are about to make it quite a bit tougher for small groups in Anoikis...
You really need to look long and hard at how this is all gonna affect SMALL gang/corp gameplay and life in Anoikis if you don't wanna accidentally screw us hard... if you really do want to live up to the promise made here... LetGÇÖs Talk About Emergence.
TurAmarth ElRandir
Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro
and Unrepentant Blogger
Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)=
http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
612
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 02:58:16 -
[630] - Quote
Epsyla wrote: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. How about Sanctuary Sphere for those in the vicinity of structure ( and those docked or moored Aegis Coupling?
All the best minds and ideas are from Hedion University.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R
72
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 03:05:38 -
[631] - 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.
Hmmmm.... lessee...
(1) [best] old saved BM from any completed exploration site/old wormhole/etc. will normally put you randomly approx 4 to 8 AU off a planet and often well above or below the ecliptic...
(2) [2nd best] ever heard of creating a Static Safe Spot? Pick the 3 warpables farthest apart in any system, drop a BM approx halfway between 2 of them, then drop a BM approx halfway between that BM and the third warpable... you are not on ANY std. warp lane.
Done.
TurAmarth ElRandir
Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro
and Unrepentant Blogger
Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)=
http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
612
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 03:08:23 -
[632] - Quote
On point 2) - You are still on the same plane as these objects. Feels 2D, bruh.
As mentioned earlier, I do agree that temporary exploration sites will have excellent real estate potential.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R
72
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 03:19:22 -
[633] - Quote
Ijesz ToKolok wrote:Quote:Structures having a solar system wide-effect or otherwise impacting some kind of area will be publicly visible in space and in the overview Are Citadels such structures? Quote:We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay. I don't think wormhole space gameplay requires such towers to be warpable. WH folks, is it important?
No, not directly warpable... as a matter of fact that, directly warpable, breaks W-space a little bit... but structures absolutely MUST be on Dscan. Other wise you force a scout to have no choice but to pop combat probes to "see" if there are POSes in a system and doing so 100% alerts the residents to the scouts presence... this would be a form of 'local' in that you would always see if a cloaky was scouting your hole or they would see you if you were scouting someone elses and this breaks how cloaky scouting works in Anoikis.
What we do now is use Dsscan to narrow a POS down to 5% and then we know which Planet and Moon it is at and can scout if we want to risk a decloak trap. But at least the cloaky scout can serve his purpose, gather intel while cloaked. This is gameplay as old as holes and should not be fukked with.
TurAmarth ElRandir
Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro
and Unrepentant Blogger
Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)=
http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/
|
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R
72
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 03:30:00 -
[634] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:On point 2) - You are still on the same plane as these objects. Feels 2D, bruh. As mentioned earlier, I do agree that temporary exploration sites will have excellent real estate potential.
But its not 2D bro... take a look at most systems... there are often, not always, but often one or more planets who's orbits are slightly to very eccentric, off-angle to the ecliptic... and yes, any Static Safe will still be 'inside the angles' between those and the other planets you anchor to, but you are not forced onto a flat 2D plane.
And anyway... 2D/3D/shmeeD... doesn't matter... Combat probes will give you a BM on a POS but without them no amount of warping back n forth dropping BMs is going to put you anywhere near a POS in a 'properly made' Static Safe... even if it is exactly on the same plane as your anchors. If you don't have 2 warpables with the target IN A DIRECT LINE between them... without combat probes (again, in a properly made Static Safe) you cannot land on it ever.
TurAmarth ElRandir
Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro
and Unrepentant Blogger
Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)=
http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
612
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 03:43:39 -
[635] - Quote
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:On point 2) - You are still on the same plane as these objects. Feels 2D, bruh. As mentioned earlier, I do agree that temporary exploration sites will have excellent real estate potential. But its not 2D bro... take a look at most systems... there are often, not always, but often one or more planets who's orbits are slightly to very eccentric, off-angle to the ecliptic... and yes, any Static Safe will still be 'inside the angles' between those and the other planets you anchor to, but you are not forced onto a flat 2D plane.
Still 2-D with no sense of freedom.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
TurAmarth ElRandir
H.E.L.P.e.R
72
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 04:12:25 -
[636] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:The point is not landing on them without Combats, but that most of these structures deposited in this way will be within very small margin from all of the warp lanes and on the same plane.
Uhhh... no.
I am thinking you have not done this very much.... if ever.
I have.
A lot.
1AU is not a 'very small margin'... think it is? Fit the fasted frig you can... find anything in the game 1AU from something else... start burning there and see how long it takes. Email me ingame when you get there... I'll be retired by then and online moar than I am now.
And 1 AU actually is a 'very small margin' to actually get with both methods I have described... normally I end up with BMs between 4 and upwards of 10AU from ANYTHING... including the local flight lanes.
"Very small margin"... LOL
TurAmarth ElRandir
Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro
and Unrepentant Blogger
Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)=
http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
613
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 04:18:37 -
[637] - Quote
TurAmarth ElRandir wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:The point is not landing on them without Combats, but that most of these structures deposited in this way will be within very small margin from all of the warp lanes and on the same plane. Uhhh... no. I am thinking you have not done this very much.... if ever. I have. A lot. 1AU is not a 'very small margin'... think it is?
Relative to the distances we have in most systems and the ship warp speeds, it is very close - breaks immersion.
Even in systems that have warpables, such as gates, 50 AU away perpendicular to plane of the solar system - that is only one object to work with, and even then if there is no second one located in a similar manner, you will end up with location that is on the warp path.
Option 1) is not on the warp lanes, but still very close and is on the same plane. Option 2) is not on the same plane, but most likely on a significant warp path in such systems.
TL;DR Temporary exploration sites.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1780
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 11:03:43 -
[638] - Quote
Rashaab merkava wrote:Will these citadel structures be able to be used in High-security space ? M and L
Akrasjel Lanate
Member of Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
Citizen of Solitude
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
563
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 11:23:25 -
[639] - Quote
Sequester Risalo wrote:
Thank you for your friendly suggestion. But my problem is not, what to do with a stray trollceptor when I'm logged in and ready for battle. My problem is what happens when I'm NOT around (which is roughly 92% of the time). With a hafway decent POS setup it takes plenty ships with plenty dps to reinforce a tower. With fozziesov it takes two times 10 minutes for a single trollceptor.
Don't let the arguments about lootdrops fool you. People will take down structures for the luls or the killmail alone. This is no great repellent.
Maybe we had it coming. Maybe we should HTFU. Whatever. I heard C1 dwellers are notoriously rolling in ISK by the trillions.
I'm simply questioning the wisdom of applying a sov mechanic to unclaimable space.
But this isn't a sov mechanic; or at least not specifically. It's the structure capture mechanic. The same mechanic will be used in unclaimable NPC space, as well as sov null. Wormhole space works the same as everywhere else when it comes to capturing structures today - why should it work differently going forward?
Now, if you want to address the problems with the mechanics as a whole, keeping in mind that the structure capture mechanics will be universally the same going forward, just as they are today, that's fine. But don't expect your use case to be the special snowflake because it's inconvenient. Guess what - lowsec guys will have the same issues you do, just with more local so the trollceptor knows when no one is around with 100% accuracy.
FWIW, I agree that structures should have a limited capability to defend themselves just as POSes do today. A skilled lone pilot, or a determined fleet of them will still be able to entosis you by staying ahead of the weapons, but your casuals are probably going to look for easy pickings, just like today.
However, giving them self defense adds in some new considerations - how close can we put them to gates or stations? Lining one up on the undock of an NPC station and then letting it take potshots at people until they can bring it down is an even larger trolling issue than the one you're describing. You have to look at the whole mechanic, not just your slice of it.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
69
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 12:13:43 -
[640] - Quote
What will happen with assets after enemy capture M-XL Citadel? Will be some safty move or just like now? |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2410
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 14:22:52 -
[641] - Quote
Captain Semper wrote:What will happen with assets after enemy capture M-XL Citadel? Will be some safty move or just like now? I'm not sure a capture mechanic has even been discussed. At least not officially... |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 14:37:43 -
[642] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Captain Semper wrote:What will happen with assets after enemy capture M-XL Citadel? Will be some safty move or just like now? I'm not sure a capture mechanic has even been discussed. At least not officially...
This is a very important question.
Is the only option with new structures going to scorched earth or will there be a way to take over existing structures?
I hate to picture what would of happened to a group like BRAVE moving into Catch that had been completely levelled. How many alliances have truly built all of their infrastructure themselves ?
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1151
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 14:42:44 -
[643] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Rowells wrote:Captain Semper wrote:What will happen with assets after enemy capture M-XL Citadel? Will be some safty move or just like now? I'm not sure a capture mechanic has even been discussed. At least not officially... This is a very important question. Is the only option with new structures going to scorched earth or will there be a way to take over existing structures? I hate to picture what would of happened to a group like BRAVE moving into Catch that had been completely levelled. How many alliances have truly built all of their infrastructure themselves ?
I firmly believe there should not be a capture mechanic otherwise after an initial burst of construction there would be verylimited need for new structures. Maybe make the structure 'hull' around the same price as current corresponding pos towers and make ghe service modules where the expense is. Then upon dedtruction there is a chance of a decent loot drop from the modules. |
Sir HyperChrist
Persnickety Pilots
60
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 15:50:59 -
[644] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:per wrote:[quote=CCP Ytterbium] Unlike existing Starbases, .... 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.
Starbase (pos) BPO's take quite a bit of isks nowadays to get to ME/PE 10 (or is ME/TE?) Will we get reimbursed for that investment too? I'd like to get ME/PE10 versions of the new bpo's in exchange for my old set, preferably..... |
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle
161
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 18:47:48 -
[645] - Quote
-Loot drops: M to L structures should drop loot of what they contain, since they are the same as poses these days. Being able to salvage the structure for components is a bonus. We cleaned up lots of poses that ran out of fuel and collected lots of loot. In w-space killing someones stuff is one of the very few conflict drivers so that should not disappear. It was already hard to have to see people destroy their stuff over and over again in pos-bashes. That is why many people in w-space always asked for the removal of selfdestruction of ships in a pos-shield. Now that would still be possible to do in a citadel(rightclick trash). But if you even scrap the possibility of loot that will eliminate a lot of possible conflicts(player interaction). I would understand that XL structures similar to outposts would get a different mechanic, since now they can not be destroyed at all. And that they only sit in k-space.
-always docking: Docking games suck. I can not remember pos-shield games though, never seem to happen since pos shield are to big to be able to capture people flying to safety or even getting out to fight you. When you first come into a wormhole you use d-scan to see if there are ships in space (or wrecks on scan). If not then you have probably a w-hole with no active people in them. If everyone is forced to dock finding active people will be impossible. Someone one mentioned making it able to do a show info on the citadel and see who is active. While this is more spreadsheet in space instead of actualy having ships in space like a pos shield this is not a sufficient sollution. I propose to just have everything inside the citadel on d-scan. If someone in the pos switches to a other ship, then again you see it on d-scan. Also the people inside the citadel should have a complete d-scan of inside and outside the citadel. that way you will not need to be able to uncloak to see who and what is inside a pos. Why always on d-scan? It might look like to much info at once but it is needed to prevent scout-burn-out. Try scanning a system with 100 of these to find someone active. And after finding none tell your scouts to do an other system with 100 of these citadels. Will there be only 1 undock? The advantage of a pos was that you needed a whole lot of bubble to be able to deny the defender to warp out. A single undock will make it easier to pin down a fleet at their citadel, make it less likely a fleet will attempt to brake out on not timer based events. You could align in a pos shield, will we be bumping the citadel if we want to warp to something on the other of the undock? The size of the pos shield also made it hard to bubble completely while stations with there single undock are much easier bubbled to contain people. Also what happened to soft mooring? Some ideas: Maybe later add a 3 d-view of d-scan, a bit like the current probe-scan window. Maybe if you do show info on a citadel you get a new window . In the window a view like where you now do station spinning but all over the walls are the ships inside the citadel.
-Achoring it everywhere: Anchoring them everywhere makes it a absolute necesity to make em warpable from the d-scan window.It would be acceptable as a temporary solution untill a bether and more fun way has been introduced. This does takes away from the gameplay aspect from looking for a structure. Now looking for a structure with only d-scan and your cloaked ship without probes is actualy hard and not easy gameplay (try learning it to a new player). Why no probes? Because you don't want people to know you are there. Just warpable from d-scan where ever you are is to easy. Maybe make it more challenging by only making it warpable when you have it a certain angle (15 or 30 degrees) , or make a 3 point d-scan needed. Lets say, you need to lock 3 d-scan results(select, and lock it in, in the d-scan window) with an angle of 30 degrees or something like that. Maybe also introduce a need to be in a certain range.
-anchoring restrictions: Please not close to poco's,gates,wormholes,current pos/outpost , mobile structures. Not being able to put it inside anomalies , signatures, moon, planets, sun (asuming you can still fly inside those) . Will they be able to be anchored in shattered wormholes? It might be a good idea to test the viablity of living in that space.
No local in null sec would fix everything!
|
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle
161
|
Posted - 2015.05.16 18:55:48 -
[646] - Quote
-rights: Can we set rights for people to dock, lets say some subdivision yes,other not? Can we set it so that only allies can dock and sell stuff? What if the owner shuts down the citadel where does the stuff in it go, available for the owner or destroyed? Or ejected in secure cans? Can we set it that everyone can dock and buy or/and sell stuff? Can only the owning corp sell stuff or everyone? Can there be some kind of system where you can share stuff between alts? Will we have more office space,tabs, an office walking in stations,... ? I would love to sell stuff to alliance/corp mates with this system, people could also ask for stuff by putting in buy orders. Although what would happen to the money escrow when the structure gets destroyed?Logicaly you should get you isk back.
-Capture mechanics By what number will we be able to change the vulnerabity window in w-space? Or will it be fixed? Would mining/site-running/PI/industry/shipdeath/poddeaths change the window? In w-space a defender could protect itself from enemy structures by putting up a pos at every moon. Will there be a similar mechanic? Might i sudgest that the reinforcement-window will be smaller , depending on how long the citadel has been online. Lets say the more time it has been online, the more it has dug in so the smaller the timer? It would give a small reason to stick around longer, making it more important. O by the way it is impossible to use the constellation capture for WH's.
I am sad that tactics like dreadbuchet will no longer be possbile, or the fake pos(offline pos with heavy interdictor on it with bubble on). Or a pos - starburst. Maybe some ideas for extra structures.
Did i say docking games suck?
I am also worried about the citadel weapons, how will fleets be able to withstand firepower of that magnitude? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=305-tQfowis In any case if the ship with entosis link can not get repped or capped how will it ever be able to survive the citadel guns?
No local in null sec would fix everything!
|
Derek Toter
Cherry-Poppers -affliction-
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 05:07:38 -
[647] - Quote
Definitely like the sound of these so far!
You said that the docking will be somewhat of a cross between station docking and sitting in a POS. How will weapons timers interact with this new docking mechanic?
Also, since the market hub service module will require fuel to run, would it be possible to have two different fuel consumption rates for private vs public markets? A public market hub should be expected to bring in more revenue to help offset it's fuel costs, but a citadel designed for corp/alliance access only would use this to provide it's members with the convenience of buying things at home, and would not be likely to see the same revenue.
Now that I'm thinking about it, how would you even calculate the fuel costs for that? Industrial services are more straightforward, if jobs are running it consumes fuel. Would the market consume fuel 24/7? Or maybe some amount of fuel is consumed to power the item-picking machinery when someone makes a purchase or puts something on the market? If the fuel costs are too high they'll offset the tax break over NPC station markets, making it pointless to use in most cases. |
Terminator Cindy
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 08:55:17 -
[648] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.
How will faction towers/structure modules ( and BPCs ) be reimbursed ? |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
622
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 09:00:01 -
[649] - Quote
Terminator Cindy wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.
How will faction towers/structure modules ( and BPCs ) be reimbursed ?
And research done on existing BPOs?
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1780
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 11:25:45 -
[650] - Quote
Not sure if i missed they will have public access option or restricted only to ally/corp ?
Akrasjel Lanate
Member of Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
Citizen of Solitude
|
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
253
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 12:21:14 -
[651] - Quote
I didn't see this in the blog but....
Presume there will be 'racial'/faction versions? and sensible distinguishing niche's between them? (well, hopefully avoiding useless items like small/medium blaster batteries of the current era)
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
130
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 14:10:59 -
[652] - Quote
Elenahina wrote: FWIW, I agree that structures should have a limited capability to defend themselves just as POSes do today. A skilled lone pilot, or a determined fleet of them will still be able to entosis you by staying ahead of the weapons, but your casuals are probably going to look for easy pickings, just like today.
The best you could hope for with a 'trollceptor' with current POS's that are properly set up is to run the guns dry, (how many dozens of hours will that take) maybe, but with enough webs/scrams, and small guns, your likelyhood of surviving long enough drops. With the new system, it would literally only take a single 'trollceptor' a dozen MINUTES. CCP has already stated that the maximum time it would take to "RF" these would be less than an hour, with a single ship, with FULL SOV BOOSTS helping the 'defender'. (can't seem to find the post atm, but i'm pressed for time)
Elenahina wrote: However, giving them self defense adds in some new considerations - how close can we put them to gates or stations? Lining one up on the undock of an NPC station and then letting it take potshots at people until they can bring it down is an even larger trolling issue than the one you're describing. You have to look at the whole mechanic, not just your slice of it.
This has already been answered SOOO many times...they will not be able to engage any other structure...ever...and will not be anchorable within range to shoot anything other than the fleet that comes to it. Reading skills.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
611
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 16:13:32 -
[653] - Quote
"DevBlog" wrote:Medium, Large and X-Large structures will use a version of the Sovereignty capture mechanic, which means they will only be attacked through the use of the Entosis module.
I think this decision is both a mistake and a missed opportunity; a kneejerk reaction to the bogeyman of structure grinding.
While the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less central role. Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. Triage carriers patching up starbases have a similarly mirrored role, frantically trying to restore these assets while making themselves vulnerable. This is a fantastic avenue for content, with opponents setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE.
By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. The simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling effect on structures, but actual damage should need to be inflicted in order to destroy them for good, while an investment in repair ability should be required to restore them again.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31506
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 16:13:50 -
[654] - Quote
I just heard structures are being consolidated to one brand to coincide with DUST environments, so that capsuleers and DUST mercenaries will be meandering in the same spaces, is this true??
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
636
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 16:18:24 -
[655] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I just heard structures are being consolidated to one brand to coincide with DUST environments, so that capsuleers and DUST mercenaries will be meandering in the same spaces, is this true??
Can we be mates there?
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 17:41:54 -
[656] - 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.
I Suggest "Hotel Services".
This is a term used to describe when a ship and is in port, it gets phone lines hooked up, etc.. |
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 17:43:48 -
[657] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha wrote:davet517 wrote:The age of structure wars is upon us. Who will save the game from The Crimson Permanent Assurance? Wait. I feel like this is a Game of Thrones reference.
"Brace yourself Goon. Winter is coming!" |
per
Terpene Conglomerate
53
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 18:10:26 -
[658] - Quote
hmm, long time no asnwer from dev around
btw how about letting the citadel defend intself like poses do atm (ability to repel trolls with enthosis) but if they will be manned their dmg will be much better (skills + focused fire)
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1329
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 20:04:33 -
[659] - Quote
per wrote:hmm, long time no asnwer from dev around
btw how about letting the citadel defend intself like poses do atm (ability to repel trolls with enthosis) but if they will be manned their dmg will be much better (skills + focused fire)
Still reading, most of the questions have been answered by blue tags in the thread already (a lot of duplicate questions).
Some questions don't have answers from us yet, but we're noting everything down and discussing it all with the team. So thanks everyone for your feedback so far.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
516
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 23:37:18 -
[660] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:per wrote:hmm, long time no asnwer from dev around
btw how about letting the citadel defend intself like poses do atm (ability to repel trolls with enthosis) but if they will be manned their dmg will be much better (skills + focused fire)
Still reading, most of the questions have been answered by blue tags in the thread already (a lot of duplicate questions). Some questions don't have answers from us yet, but we're noting everything down and discussing it all with the team. So thanks everyone for your feedback so far.
Does production of those new structures still involve PI stuff like pos structures? i.e. citadel itself will be build similar to to pos while citadel services/modules similar to pos modules?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1100
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 07:14:48 -
[661] - Quote
xttz wrote:We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less central role.
I'm in two minds here. Sure, the Dread (and Super) is forced in to a very thin niche if structure grinding goes away (that of Titan and Super ambusher, but what Titans and Supers will be around to ambush if they don't have structures to shoot), but that is only if Capitals go unchanged for the forseeable future.
To my mind, the entire capital game is currently balanced around structures; Dreads and Supers need high damage to blast through stations, so Titans and Supers need massive hp pools and Carriers and Supers massive repping power, in order to contend with the high dps of the structure grinders. With no structures to grind, this no longer becomes a ruling factor in the balance of capital ships, and they become free to be balanced entirely as pvp platforms. I don't know about you, but that is kind of exciting to me. Without stations to shoot, Dread and Super dps can be scaled well down, and be made more applyable to (at least the larger) subcaps, while capital hp can be slashed to make them more killable. To me, those sound like only good things.
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1649
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 07:24:59 -
[662] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:...Dreads and Supers need high damage to blast through stations, so Titans and Supers need massive hp pools and Carriers and Supers massive repping power... I'm always in love with big ships with big guns... Living for long time in high-sec i still have my Moros sitting in some low-sec station. Because it's big and has big guns.
Remove it and capships lose their charm.
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Sequester Risalo
Significant Others
133
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 08:31:33 -
[663] - Quote
Terminator Cindy wrote:How will faction towers/structure modules ( and BPCs ) be reimbursed ?
Not at all. Start using them now. They will pay off until being disabled. If they don't pay off untill then, don't use them. |
Sequester Risalo
Significant Others
133
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 08:44:12 -
[664] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:But this isn't a sov mechanic; or at least not specifically. It's the structure capture mechanic. The same mechanic will be used in unclaimable NPC space, as well as sov null. Wormhole space works the same as everywhere else when it comes to capturing structures today - why should it work differently going forward.
That's why it's called Fozziestructurecapturemechanic? I don't want to appear facetious here but when I look at the relevant devblogs they always only refer to nullsec and sovereignty. New POSes weren't even on the (public) table at that time.
I consider the mechanic okay for sov structures which should have plenty defenders available and somewhat inconvenient for smaller structures which are supposedly designed with the single player in mind - anywhere in space. In highsec you can take them down if war is declared. Everywhere else the can go poof any day. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1022
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 10:28:13 -
[665] - Quote
Sequester Risalo wrote:I consider the mechanic okay for sov structures which should have plenty defenders available and somewhat inconvenient for smaller structures which are supposedly designed with the single player in mind - anywhere in space. In highsec you can take them down if war is declared. Everywhere else the can go poof any day. What makes you think you will be able to take them down after a war is declared in highsec? My guess is that this loophole will be closed and you will have to defend these structures from attackers if you want to keep them. That is a much better design to stimulate conflict and facilitate sandbox play rather than continuing to allow corps to evade conflict by just taking down the structure.
But in highsec and elsewhere, they will not "go poof any day". They will be protected by a vulnerability window for most of the day, and require multiple reinforcements giving you plenty of time to show up and defend. And even if you still can't for some reason, it seems that all (or perhaps most) of your stuff will be retrievable, meaning you are only out the cost of the structure.
If you can't manage that, then stick to the still-available NPC structures where you don't have to worry about defending at all.
|
Marox Calendale
Human League
49
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 10:50:34 -
[666] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: When docked you will see surrounding space. Will it also be possible to use D-Scan while docked?
Will Structures look different depending on what Service modules are fitted like T3 do? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1154
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 11:02:58 -
[667] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Sequester Risalo wrote:I consider the mechanic okay for sov structures which should have plenty defenders available and somewhat inconvenient for smaller structures which are supposedly designed with the single player in mind - anywhere in space. In highsec you can take them down if war is declared. Everywhere else the can go poof any day. What makes you think you will be able to take them down after a war is declared in highsec? My guess is that this loophole will be closed and you will have to defend these structures from attackers if you want to keep them. That is a much better design to stimulate conflict and facilitate sandbox play rather than continuing to allow corps to evade conflict by just taking down the structure. But in highsec and elsewhere, they will not "go poof any day". They will be protected by a vulnerability window for most of the day, and require multiple reinforcements giving you plenty of time to show up and defend. And even if you still can't for some reason, it seems that all (or perhaps most) of your stuff will be retrievable, meaning you are only out the cost of the structure. If you can't manage that, then stick to the still-available NPC structures where you don't have to worry about defending at all.
I'm thinking you should be able to take them down but it should take longer than 24 hours. That way if you are away from the game for holiday/work/whatever you can pack up for a short while but you can't just take it down in the 24 hour grace period before war. This would be explained as the graceful shutdown period for all those tower systems etc. |
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
944
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 11:11:54 -
[668] - Quote
Marox Calendale wrote:Will Structures look different depending on what Service modules are fitted like T3 do? Yes Please |
Amanda Orion
Open University of Celestial Hardship Art of War Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 11:17:37 -
[669] - Quote
With a small POS, you can anchor more than can be online at once, and bring different modules on and off line as you need.
For example:
Online a lab to do some TE/ME, then offline it, online another lab for copying, then offline it - online the equipment and ammo assembly arrays to build something, or put the reprocessing array online while you are mining.
Will we still be able to do something similar with a medium citadel? |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
644
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 11:29:12 -
[670] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:per wrote:hmm, long time no asnwer from dev around
btw how about letting the citadel defend intself like poses do atm (ability to repel trolls with enthosis) but if they will be manned their dmg will be much better (skills + focused fire)
Still reading, most of the questions have been answered by blue tags in the thread already (a lot of duplicate questions). Some questions don't have answers from us yet, but we're noting everything down and discussing it all with the team. So thanks everyone for your feedback so far. Does production of those new structures still involve PI stuff like pos structures? i.e. citadel itself will be build similar to to pos while citadel services/modules similar to pos modules?
It will probably be a mixture of PI, Tech 1, Tech 2, maybe even Sleeper or Drifter technology - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=423996&find=unread
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
Sequester Risalo
Significant Others
134
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 11:30:07 -
[671] - Quote
Amanda Orion wrote: With a small POS, you can anchor more than can be online at once, and bring different modules on and off line as you need.
For example:
Online a lab to do some TE/ME, then offline it, online another lab for copying, then offline it - online the equipment and ammo assembly arrays to build something, or put the reprocessing array online while you are mining.
Will we still be able to do something similar with a medium citadel?
My understanding is that the modules will be like ship equipment. You may switch modules like any ship equipment. Only rigs will be destroyed by removal. |
Amanda Orion
Open University of Celestial Hardship Art of War Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 12:03:20 -
[672] - Quote
Sequester Risalo wrote:Amanda Orion wrote: With a small POS, you can anchor more than can be online at once, and bring different modules on and off line as you need.
For example:
Online a lab to do some TE/ME, then offline it, online another lab for copying, then offline it - online the equipment and ammo assembly arrays to build something, or put the reprocessing array online while you are mining.
Will we still be able to do something similar with a medium citadel?
My understanding is that the modules will be like ship equipment. You may switch modules like any ship equipment. Only rigs will be destroyed by removal.
Thanks. Sounds like there is cause for optimism :)
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 16:08:58 -
[673] - Quote
Rather than having structures clog space with a swarm of regular drones consider
(1) limiting to 10 drones even for XL structures. (2) slap on huge drone augmentation effects like control range = +100km per structure size and radically increased speed (x3-x5 depending on size), agility, weapon tracking (x5), weapon range (X5), weapon damage (x3) and durability effects (structure x1.5, armor x2, shields x5) (3) total "instant" remote repair when passing within 1 radius of structure (instant being faster for larger structures but no longer than 6 seconds for the smallest) (4) web immunity within given radius of structure (5) ?micro jump/warp within control radius once every 30 seconds?
This will make regular drones ideal for killing small relatively fast ships even in high sec. The tracking effects from the increased speed of drones will make them significantly harder to kill for small squads of ships.
Probably should be some limited AI to launch and swap the most effective drones (damage types & net pursuit speed) for the current top priority hostiles from the stores of drones remaining. Though there might also need to be a drone reserve store that can only be launched manually to keep a specialist team of SBs and T3 from killing all your Geckos while the station is unattended. Similarly there might be separate drone stores for invulnerability and reinforcement times when its mainly about harassing spies and siphon deployment rather than serious defense. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 16:17:08 -
[674] - Quote
Amanda Orion wrote:Sequester Risalo wrote:Amanda Orion wrote: With a small POS, you can anchor more than can be online at once, and bring different modules on and off line as you need.
For example:
Online a lab to do some TE/ME, then offline it, online another lab for copying, then offline it - online the equipment and ammo assembly arrays to build something, or put the reprocessing array online while you are mining.
Will we still be able to do something similar with a medium citadel?
My understanding is that the modules will be like ship equipment. You may switch modules like any ship equipment. Only rigs will be destroyed by removal. Thanks. Sounds like there is cause for optimism :)
Assuming storage volume for structure modules is not a major issue. I guess if CCP wants to discourage excessive swapping they could make high volume modules tetherable like moored ships. That is extra structure modules would be lootable if the structure was destroyed. But I am thinking their new structure deployment model says modules probably fold up to "pocket-sized" when not deployed and installed -- thus solving the ship transport issues.
Though CCP could change that structure deployment model easily to use small structure SEED modules and requiring dumping jetcans/freighter cans of minerals nearby by a fleet of hauler ships for the assembly process. That would lower the current apparent tech issues where deployed modules are much more massive than the packaged structures not just compacted volume. |
EnternalSoul
Flame's Shadow Brothers of Tangra
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 16:44:51 -
[675] - Quote
I have not yet seen the most important question being asked or answered yet!
Walking in these new structures! Can we and how much of it?
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp The Bastion
35
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 19:02:01 -
[676] - Quote
EnternalSoul wrote:I have not yet seen the most important question being asked or answered yet!
Walking in these new structures! Can we and how much of it?
If that's 'the' most important question - then we really don't have anything to worry about...
|
EnternalSoul
Flame's Shadow Brothers of Tangra
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 19:15:52 -
[677] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:EnternalSoul wrote:I have not yet seen the most important question being asked or answered yet!
Walking in these new structures! Can we and how much of it? If that's 'the' most important question - then we really don't have anything to worry about...
Irony impaired? Come on Sheldon!
|
ISpydeRI
Midget Strippers and Lollipops Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 19:51:51 -
[678] - Quote
Invuln link name suggestion; Harbor Link/Harboring/Harbored. Pretty straight forward, does what it says on the box.
harbor verb : to give shelter to (someone) : to hide and protect (someone)
: to have (something, such as a thought or feeling) in your mind for a long time
: to hold or contain (something)
(Other suggestion Spyder/Spider Link-Å(TM) coughcoughdoitcough)
Also curious about the removal/reimbursement of existing POSes. For example, for those of us with multiple POSes, it will obviously take some time to go around replacing the POSes with the newer structures. Will the moons just be detowered and up for grabs? Will patch day be the longest day of every POS managers life? Also, for faction towers, the main idea (other than the paint) is if you can keep them safe long enough they will return on your investment in (many) months based on fuel discount. Should people simply stop buying faction towers at this point since they won't likely see a return on investment, or will there be additional compensation for faction towers? |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 20:39:38 -
[679] - Quote
EnternalSoul wrote:I have not yet seen the most important question being asked or answered yet!
Walking in these new structures! Can we and how much of it?
LOL - funny. Yeah it occurred to me that now would be a "good time" for CCP to slip new station walking areas into EVE without fanfare.
I mean there is a REAL question of whether every structure which internal docking will at least get Captain's Quarters. Definitely not a question critical to gameplay but it is there. If they do then maybe then maybe those quarters will be customize a little to the size and race of structure like we have the 4 racial structures.
Once you open that can of worms then you can ask about adding very simple rooms to be associated with each public service module. I assume CCP keep good notes on all the FUBAR issues they solved when creating the CQs. If so, simple public rooms would mainly be artwork and associated walk models. So primarily an issue of whether CCP artwork teams have spare time. Coding functions could just be hanging GUI click on NPC or vending machine to go to current popup windows.
But I recommend avoid multiplayer stationwalking interaction off the table in the name of life support. If CCP wants a frivolous feature challenge - try adding video convo screens to private chat when in CQ. One on one private convo video chat screen with emotes in CQ would be place to start. Then maybe work up to split screen and multiple players.
Definitely no call for complex issues of real windows on local space or user defined businesses & nightclubs or huge promenades or other multiple player shared interaction spaces on smaller structures. MULTIPLAYER station-walking being the real killer box of unsolved SNAFUs waiting to happen. If Multiplayer station-walking ever happens I guarantee that there will not only be be issues with basic interactions but several levels of "Jita like" congestion solving.
Smaller structures would however yield a logical reason to cap occupancy of public rooms at very low levels (say 4 players) and use cloned instances of public rooms as a forced way to handle player overflow -- all in the name of station life support. Leave mass melee battle on stations to the far far future or maybe another game.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 20:50:30 -
[680] - Quote
EnternalSoul wrote:I have not yet seen the most important question being asked or answered yet!
Walking in these new structures! Can we and how much of it?
If CCP does indulge in revamped CQ or other walkable station rooms for each station function module (maybe public vending machine or later full bodied NPC to click to converse)...
First thing to implement for any new station rooms should be a quick exit to CQ or hangar view & current menu system -- a way to jump away from bugs in new room.
Definitely not good time to introduce multiplayer station-walking rooms. Video conference private chat with "emotes" is about the limit of resource diversion that most players would accept. Even that should start as 1-to-1. A year from then think hologram conference table (2-10 seats) for private chat as first toe in water for multiplayer stationwalking. Heh heh that could even be reusable on capital ships for fleet squad sized chat/briefings prior to battle. |
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 21:29:19 -
[681] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Gilbaron wrote:why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ? Se we can balance them separately, these weapons will have very different stats to existing ship weapons.
I am sure that part of the reason for this question is the issue of transitioning or exchanging old guns for new.
I am pretty CCP isn't going to just give everyone with a stock of old POS guns a lump of ISK. Though if they did a fair price would be equal to the highest EVE market sales average for that item in the 3 months prior to announcement that new structures were coming in the summer of 2015.
If CCP follow recent practice for module rebalance CCP will map many old weapon types to a few new weapon classes then swap old items for new. Which is great if you only have stuff from the low end cost and capabilities of old items that are mapped to a given new item. But usually there is no real parity for older items at the higher end of a mapped exchange group -- just a huge ISK and capacity loss.
I suspect the argument is that only the richest folk have the items at the top of the mapped group. But unless you are talking items of truly cosmic cost increase (e.g. officer or rare faction gear) EVE often does not work that way. That is the small POS owner DOES own a couple large artillery modules and not just small blasters modules. Maybe they are just collecting good buys for a planned medium POS or maybe they hung a stupid defense array on a small POS. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 21:30:27 -
[682] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Gilbaron wrote:why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ? Se we can balance them separately, these weapons will have very different stats to existing ship weapons. I am sure that part of the reason for this question is the issue of transitioning or exchanging old guns for new. I am pretty CCP isn't going to just give everyone with a stock of old POS guns a lump of ISK. Though if they did a fair price would be equal to the highest EVE market sales average for that item in the 3 months prior to announcement that new structures were coming in the summer of 2015. If CCP follow recent practice for module rebalance CCP will map many old weapon types to a few new weapon classes then swap old items for new. Which is great if you only have stuff from the low end cost and capabilities of old items that are mapped to a given new item. But usually there is no real parity for older items at the higher end of a mapped exchange group -- just a huge ISK and capacity loss. I suspect the argument is that only the richest folk have the items at the top of the mapped group & this is a good time to let air out of creeping EVE inflation at top end of players. But unless you are talking items of truly cosmic cost increase (e.g. officer or rare faction gear) EVE often does not work that way. That is the small POS owner DOES own a couple large artillery modules and not just small blasters modules. Maybe they are just collecting good buys for a planned medium POS or maybe they hung a stupid defense array on a small POS.
|
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle
164
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 22:05:37 -
[683] - Quote
Citadel weapons will be fit like a ship fitting. But will we be able to target them individualy and incapacitate them like the current pos systems or will it be like a ship, working until the citadel is destroyed(or overheat damage)?
No local in null sec would fix everything!
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 22:33:44 -
[684] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ?
I like the new structure model BUT....
Ugh! Like many others I see huge issues with transition from old POS to new structures on day ZERO.
How does CCP plan to fairly map current widely varied external weapons battery deployment to a very few internal variations under the new ship like model?
I suppose there are 3 major approaches.
(1) Unfeasible. Send everyone's POS and stored gear to nearest friendly outpost or station. Make everyone redeploy from scratch and fight over spot and sovereignty. I believe CCP already rejected this due to projected lynch mob and 80% loss of business.
(2) Set everyone up with basic structure functionality and defenses. Modules inside structure map more cleanly and most advanced capability modules can generally be plugged in automatically until slots are filled. Consider all defense modules outside force field as extra optional capability. Put all exchanged "old for new" items in structure corporate storage (assumption that worst case fits) when they cannot be auto-plugged. Let users choose to add stored optional modules to structure as they log on. So Deathstar is not Deathstar until someone customizes. Problem: module exchange induced market glut due to far few slots than modules for weapons and certain other swaps (e.g. manufacturing storage tanks, hangars, corp storage, maybe refineries, etc)
(3) Pre-planned structure customization in advance of day zero. As one time good deal CCP has a corp pop-up window to determine how old gear on the spot gets swapped for new gear & instantly deployed. Might share code with final long term structure deployment interface but not instant DT deployment of day ZERO. Problem: needs to be available day if not weeks before day ZERO transition and needs way to hand offline POS of idle corps (yeah EVE has semi-abandon or low use POS esp in hi sec and WH). I guess option 2 above could be default for those not ready before ZERO Day change.
(2a) I suppose a minor variation on option 2 exists where CCP "power rates" old defense or functions vs "power rating" of new structures then automatically plugs new modules for closest match. Could even avoid market glut issues of unused modules by discarding all extras or simply giving nominal ISK/mineral value. Probably not as happy as solution value-wise but more seamless change for common POS in operation. Gonna miss a little on some unusual purpose POS but there is not a perfect solution. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 23:32:50 -
[685] - Quote
unimatrix0030 wrote:Citadel weapons will be fit like a ship fitting. But will we be able to target them individualy and incapacitate them like the current pos systems or will it be like a ship, working until the citadel is destroyed(or overheat damage)?
Already answered in part. Weapons disabled by Entosis as a station function. Or at least I assume that is just another station function. Though maybe that is only at slot level of supplementary defense modules.
Meaning certain defense capability built into bare hull itself might not be disabled by Entosis until structure hull goes into reinforce or maybe not at all. Interesting question from hull reinforce/capture viewpoint. That would actually be fair exchange for loss of force field coverage for defending ships. Docking with blind undock or fixed mooring with no initial maneuver options are not equivalent to force field advantage that worked even at reinforced POS. Also consider that forcefields kept enemy ships at distance while maneuvering to warp etc & now enemies can be at point blank and ready to scramble range. So a certain basic level of persistent firepower from hull itself might be good compensation. |
mufasa73
Universalis Imperium The Bastion
3
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 23:44:07 -
[686] - Quote
Really, all these sov changes are, imho, pretty much this
|
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 23:58:58 -
[687] - Quote
The first or second Dev blog said they would old and new POSs would coexist for an unspecified amount of transition time.
My preference would be for CCP to have an equivalency matrix for POS items and let you right-click convert them. Something like, you empty, offline, and optionally scoop everything but the tower. Right click tower to convert it to new equivalent. Bring your old POS items into the station, right click them to convert to new equivalents. Anything that doesn't have an equivalent should refund the ISK value from a month before fanfest. (Refunding minerals for everyone would cause mineral costs to plummet for a bit causing diminishing returns for POS owners.)
(Optional) If a tower isn't manually converted move all tower assets into a corp hanger in the nearest NPC station and add a journal entry.
This way many corps/alliances wouldn't have the IMMENSE amount of work of disposing of their existing POSs before the time came when old POSs are taken out of the game completely. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 00:14:43 -
[688] - Quote
Stealth ship going to be immune to the front porch (undock) bug zapper on structures?
Because it would be great if I could sit stealth in WH space and run up my kills by bombing ships as they undocked. Lots of low activity corps to victimize and drive back to hi sec.
Or at least make sure that the light show is spectacularly visible, noisy and closely timed to undock. Its more effort but a good signal to starting stealth warp into my hit and run bookmark for bomb launch will be just as helpful. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 00:27:19 -
[689] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:The first or second Dev blog said they would old and new POSs would coexist for an unspecified amount of transition time.
My preference would be for CCP to have an equivalency matrix for POS items and let you right-click convert them. Something like, you empty, offline, and optionally scoop everything but the tower. Right click tower to convert it to new equivalent. Bring your old POS items into the station, right click them to convert to new equivalents. Anything that doesn't have an equivalent should refund the ISK value from a month before fanfest. (Refunding minerals for everyone would cause mineral costs to plummet for a bit causing diminishing returns for POS owners.)
(Optional) If a tower isn't manually converted move all tower assets into a corp hanger in the nearest NPC station and add a journal entry.
This way many corps/alliances wouldn't have the IMMENSE amount of work of disposing of their existing POSs before the time came when old POSs are taken out of the game completely.
Autoconvert on Unanchor would be lots better for anyone with lots of POS modules at various locations. Matrix convert would be nicest for corps and individual with only single POS and few spare modules. Even then transporting modules to NPC stations and back could be painful and very risky. I can see a pirate windfall on that month.
Plus no nullsec corp wants to have their moon mining spot up for grabs for however long it takes to logon and haul parts back from an NPC station. Can you imagine the hundreds of POS disappearing and the race to erect them again potentially 0-20 jumps away? No concentration of escorts possible unless you possibly concede some systems and orbital slots as lower priority...so lots of dead haulers carrying structures.
WH POS would be even worse situation. Cause I assume all WH POS would go back to Jita as best definition of closest NPC station for unknown space. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
67
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 00:33:27 -
[690] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:The first or second Dev blog said they would old and new POSs would coexist for an unspecified amount of transition time.
My preference would be for CCP to have an equivalency matrix for POS items and let you right-click convert them. Something like, you empty, offline, and optionally scoop everything but the tower. Right click tower to convert it to new equivalent. Bring your old POS items into the station, right click them to convert to new equivalents. Anything that doesn't have an equivalent should refund the ISK value from a month before fanfest. (Refunding minerals for everyone would cause mineral costs to plummet for a bit causing diminishing returns for POS owners.)
(Optional) If a tower isn't manually converted move all tower assets into a corp hanger in the nearest NPC station and add a journal entry.
This way many corps/alliances wouldn't have the IMMENSE amount of work of disposing of their existing POSs before the time came when old POSs are taken out of the game completely.
Well coexisting side by side orbital structures would solve much of this. That would give corps quick place to store stuff from old POS. Convert on unanchor would do away with hassle and danger of round trip transporting back to station. Many of those converted modules could be installed as soon as a new hull was anchor - thus reducing purchases needed. |
|
Justin Cody
Tri-gun
273
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 01:10:17 -
[691] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:Gilbaron wrote:why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ? I like the new structure model BUT....
Obviously you either can't read or simply haven't read the roadmap.
There will be a period of transition where both systems exist simultaneously. You will have ample opportunity to put up a replacement over a few months. relax man.
its in the DEV BLOG (but I made it easy for you) |
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
469
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 01:13:25 -
[692] - Quote
mufasa73 wrote:Really, all these sov changes are, imho, pretty much this Ouch - But pretty accurate. FozzieSov, in a nutshell
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 04:16:08 -
[693] - Quote
Translation: Iterative design is a lie. If I can find "potential flaws" in the system, of which I have an overview without details, then it can never be changed to be better than what my imagination tells me it will be.
Hey everybody! Let's play "Count the Logical Fallacies!" |
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
895
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 07:43:33 -
[694] - Quote
So what happened about the idea of space villages?
Atm space is pretty barren, especially in WH space (as it should be) however i was looking forward to having a number of structures in a cluster... making a hub of activity for a corp or similar.... We would make our own trafic, actually see people outside of a fleet.... refineries whiring away to themselfes etc.
Think it would be a missed oportunity...
Maybe restrict types of structure being too close... one citidel for example, but you could have a number of the smaller refineries, advertisments, labs, assembilies....
No Worries
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 08:29:49 -
[695] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:handige harrie wrote:I like those designs a lot.
Would it be possible to have multiple designs for structures, so players can choose which one they want and make different systems have a different look to them, instead of seeing the same structure everywhere? That is sort of the point with the different classes, each size and each class will be a different hull like ships.
I like this, but even then each class's citadels shouldn't look the exact same. Now if what you mean when you say "like ships" is that there will be several models of each class them I'm all for it. If not, a small(?) addition would be to take the newly implemented skins feature for ships and expanding it to include the citadels. Make them LP items from NPC corporations, some ridiculous amount or other. Then once applied to the citadel you(r) corporation/alliance is granted a small 1-3 LP everyday (occurs at the end of each day's down time) to each member of the citadel's owning entity. |
thowlimer
Roprocor Ltd
31
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 09:38:43 -
[696] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:The first or second Dev blog said they would old and new POSs would coexist for an unspecified amount of transition time.
My preference would be for CCP to have an equivalency matrix for POS items and let you right-click convert them. Something like, you empty, offline, and optionally scoop everything but the tower. Right click tower to convert it to new equivalent. Bring your old POS items into the station, right click them to convert to new equivalents. Anything that doesn't have an equivalent should refund the ISK value from a month before fanfest. (Refunding minerals for everyone would cause mineral costs to plummet for a bit causing diminishing returns for POS owners.)
(Optional) If a tower isn't manually converted move all tower assets into a corp hanger in the nearest NPC station and add a journal entry.
This way many corps/alliances wouldn't have the IMMENSE amount of work of disposing of their existing POSs before the time came when old POSs are taken out of the game completely.
Refunding ISK would actually be worse than refunding minerals, refunding minerals would just move allready existing ISK around while refunding isk would create huge amounts of ISK out of thin air.
Slightly better(but not good) would be to have some kind of intermediary bilding block that each fo the old structures can be decomissioned into, then you build whatever new structures you want/need out of those, this would of course lead to large stockpiles of said components so that market would take a long time to balance out.
Also you still have the issue of non-standard towers/items returning less than their perceived value but that will probably never have a solutionthat that satisfies everyone. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1157
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 10:16:48 -
[697] - Quote
thowlimer wrote:Fzhal wrote:The first or second Dev blog said they would old and new POSs would coexist for an unspecified amount of transition time.
My preference would be for CCP to have an equivalency matrix for POS items and let you right-click convert them. Something like, you empty, offline, and optionally scoop everything but the tower. Right click tower to convert it to new equivalent. Bring your old POS items into the station, right click them to convert to new equivalents. Anything that doesn't have an equivalent should refund the ISK value from a month before fanfest. (Refunding minerals for everyone would cause mineral costs to plummet for a bit causing diminishing returns for POS owners.)
(Optional) If a tower isn't manually converted move all tower assets into a corp hanger in the nearest NPC station and add a journal entry.
This way many corps/alliances wouldn't have the IMMENSE amount of work of disposing of their existing POSs before the time came when old POSs are taken out of the game completely. Refunding ISK would actually be worse than refunding minerals, refunding minerals would just move allready existing ISK around while refunding isk would create huge amounts of ISK out of thin air. Slightly better(but not good) would be to have some kind of intermediary bilding block that each fo the old structures can be decomissioned into, then you build whatever new structures you want/need out of those, this would of course lead to large stockpiles of said components so that market would take a long time to balance out. Also you still have the issue of non-standard towers/items returning less than their perceived value but that will probably never have a solutionthat that satisfies everyone.
In the absence of any sensible way to map structures like for like the structure to be removed should be refunded to the owning corp as 100% refined into it's constituent parts. At least then there is no new ISK in the system and the owning corp doesn't lose out either. |
Meque
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 13:30:27 -
[698] - Quote
The timezone restriction is going to decrease conflict between players dramatically. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 14:42:40 -
[699] - Quote
thowlimer wrote:Refunding ISK would actually be worse than refunding minerals, refunding minerals would just move already existing ISK around while refunding isk would create huge amounts of ISK out of thin air. I don't agree. Items were ISK, and are ISK when resold... ISK doesn't have to be transported like minerals to be worth something, or saturate the mineral market, because ISK is the fundamental currency. With minerals, you have an extra step of converting it to ISK before you can do what you want with it. The huge amount of ISK boost would primarily go to corporations, which are less likely to spend it frivolously, and maybe use it to move into null.
Meque wrote:The timezone restriction is going to decrease conflict between players dramatically.
To a degree, but I'd bet that most vulnerability timers will be over 5 hours, leaving some room for TZs +-3. I'm hopeful that the main benefit of the timers will be a drastically decreased pvp-player burnout rate. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
306
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 16:22:36 -
[700] - Quote
Meque wrote:The timezone restriction is going to decrease conflict between players dramatically.
Because you get so many good spontaneous off timezone fights from people while they are sleeping? |
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1278
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 16:44:23 -
[701] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote: 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 and Obil Que: I've read that blog front to back at least 3 times if not several times prior to you two linking it, as well as watched the fanfest stream. Here's some more with the passage to which I was referring bolded and underlined:
CCP Fozzie wrote: By now quite a few players have heard stories about the history of how Wormhole space was designed within CCP. The original vision for this new space was that it would be a place for players to send temporary expeditions in search of riches and adventure. It was believed that the extremely lucrative rewards of this uncharted space would draw players to search for their fortune, but that the difficulties caused by randomly changing wormhole connections would prevent players from settling down permanently in this hellish environment.
Now with the benefits of hindsight this prediction appears amusingly naive. Ingenious players have quite easily overcome any and all challenges and created an entire society within this uniquely hostile environment. You quickly learned the secrets of wormhole spawning and static connections, developed techniques for long-term starbase living that nobody had ever seen before, and created your own set of social norms, vocabulary, and even a shared religion.
Over the years I have seen some players drawn some unfortunate and incorrect conclusions from this story. The belief that CCP is angry about this unintended behavior or that we are trying to somehow eject players from wormhole space to bring it more in line with the original pre-release vision. This belief couldnGÇÖt be further from the truth and betrays a regrettable misunderstanding about how CCP approaches GÇÿunintendedGÇÖ player behavior in EVE.
ThereGÇÖs a story that our CEO, CCP Hellmar likes to tell about his personal experience playing EVE right after launch in 2003, and the moral of that story applies here as well. Some of you have probably heard the story before - here is a link to the video of him retelling that story from Fanfest 2013. Go ahead and give it a look, the relevant section is about three minutes long.
I never said CCP wasn't happy with the emergent aspect of w-space or that they were trying to bring it more in-line with the original intent. Only that players are using it in a way that is not in-line with the original intent, which is both true and clearly stated in the blog. All the rest of what you came up with is entirely an assumption on your part about what might be on my mind.
In that regard, it's my fault for not giving enough context, and only posting a single snarky remark. My apologies for that. But for future reference, I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.
To expound upon my original post, my point is that anyone using the game environment in a way that is not in-line with the intent has little recourse for complaint when the environment gets changed in a way that necessitates moving away from their accustomed play-style. In some cases, that behavior is intentionally generated en masse in order to garner enough player outcry so that obviously bad mechanics would get changed.
There is even an entity within New Eden that specializes in examining game mechanics and taking advantage of unintended play-styles. You may have heard of them. GoonSwarm? Remember the technetium bottleneck? Remember when mining barges and exhumers had no tank? Has everyone forgotten exactly where CCP Fozzie came from? Yes, Fozzie is a goon. And you know what? The vast majority of his work (and CCP in general as of late) has been outstanding.
It is up to CCP to decide whether or not a particular play-style is healthy for the game environment. In the case of w-space, CCP has publicly communicated that the emergent behavior has in general been healthy despite the unintended consequences, and will remain for the most part unchanged. So be it.
CCP is doing their best to update and freshen structure content using player input. So when the chicken-littles start crying a river over how the sky is falling and Eve will be ruined forever and CCP will go out of business without their accounts, I just cringe. I am fairly confident that having to actively participate in the defense of one's assets will not kill Eve.
A valid concern that I have yet to see addressed is with geographical anchoring restrictions being removed, what is to stop someone from anchoring a Citadel in a shattered system? How about Thera? That is clearly directly contradictory to the intended behavior and play-style of those systems (no moons for a reason).
In addition, clearly constellation capture events will not be functional in w-space. System-wide would work. But do you really want that kind of content just for a POS?
What is going to happen to POS modules? Some of those have important functions like compression arrays.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1578
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 18:15:26 -
[702] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Has everyone forgotten exactly where CCP Fozzie came from?
Pandemic Legion.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
WhiskeyTango1-1
THE PIRATE HUNTERS DEM0N HUNTERS
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 19:24:02 -
[703] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:OMG DRONES! YES MORE DRONES! Can we have Valkyrie characters pilot those fighters!?!
Problem is that, as with any game, players are stupid, and would you really want random people defending your billion isk investments? Maybe if it was made so that they had to be part of the alliance itself, that way they could have recruitment standards. Sadly, as fun as it would be, I fear that it will have negative attributes |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
306
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 19:53:02 -
[704] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:I never said CCP wasn't happy with the emergent aspect of w-space or that they were trying to bring it more in-line with the original intent. Only that players are using it in a way that is not in-line with the original intent, which is both true and clearly stated in the blog. All the rest of what you came up with is entirely an assumption on your part about what might be on my mind.
In that regard, it's my fault for not giving enough context, and only posting a single snarky remark. My apologies for that. But for future reference, I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.
...
It is up to CCP to decide whether or not a particular play-style is healthy for the game environment. In the case of w-space, CCP has publicly communicated that the emergent behavior has in general been healthy despite the unintended consequences, and will remain for the most part unchanged. So be it.
CCP is doing their best to update and freshen structure content using player input. So when the chicken-littles start crying a river over how the sky is falling and Eve will be ruined forever and CCP will go out of business without their accounts, I just cringe. I am fairly confident that having to actively participate in the defense of one's assets will not kill Eve.
A valid concern that I have yet to see addressed is with geographical anchoring restrictions being removed, what is to stop someone from anchoring a Citadel in a shattered system? How about Thera? That is clearly directly contradictory to the intended behavior and play-style of those systems (no moons for a reason).
In addition, clearly constellation capture events will not be functional in w-space. System-wide would work. But do you really want that kind of content just for a POS?
What is going to happen to POS modules? Some of those have important functions like compression arrays.
No, you only said that we shouldn't be living there. But your clarification is appreciated.
I know for myself I do not claim in any way that EVE will be destroyed nor will I be unusubbing accounts or pulling my corporation from wormhole space pre-emtpively. I do, however, think that some of the design goals pose a significant challenge to be met in wormhole space. If some are implemented without additional consideration, some of these changes, in the context of w-space, may leave the gameplay in w-space so tedious/undesirable/unmanagable that people will not make the effort and instead move onto other areas of space which is a definite negative for w-space which already struggles to fill large portions of its systems today.
The lack of anchoring restrictions is one concern I share though not for shattered wormholes. I fully expect those to be special cased if that feature makes it in. Free anchoring has other implications on covert scouting and hole occupation/beach-heads that need review.
Constellation capture events have clearly been stated as being for XL structures only which do not apply to w-space and are, in essence, Outpost replacements. Entosis capture of M and L structures combined with Citadel defensive systems leaves a disconnect between capture and EHP that may be difficult to balance properly between attacker and defender.
POS module functionality is being replicated through Citadel "slotted" modules which allow you to configure various structures with features (such as compression or refining).
Timezone mechanics need careful consideration as well to ensure they do not devolve into station sitting for smaller corps making their "primetime" too tedious to endure.
|
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 20:51:53 -
[705] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Timezone mechanics need careful consideration as well to ensure they do not devolve into station sitting for smaller corps making their "primetime" too tedious to endure. I think that somewhere one of the Devs said that they were hoping to have the vulnerability window length vary based on use of the structure (But maybe it was just XLs). But if vulnerability window lengths are tied to some type of statistical use of the solar system...
If there are modules that increase anomaly spawns, it would likely be a drastic change to how WH space is used. WHs would become home mission systems instead of what they are now, hybrid staging-escalations systems.
If there aren't modules that increase anomaly spawns, this will be a bad mechanism for WH (and many in K-Space too) since it is generally best to run Anomalies in connected systems before running your own (saving for a rainy day). From Wormholers to industrialists, what could be used? Industrialists could have their Vulnerability Window lengths tied to stuff like running jobs, but not wormholes. Since WH corp members are often in other systems, and return to logoff, the best stat I can think of would be the average number of characters active or logged off in that system (which would encourage alt-sitting). However, many C6s WH corps have members that don't play during their peak times and often do down-chain anoms in small groups. These people could be seen as a detriment to the Vulnerability Window's statistics.
But in either case, if you have a REALLY active WH corp that spends a week doing out of system stuff like PvP (main thing CCP wants), then their structures would be much more vulnerable than if they did the more boring thing and ran anoms in system...
So if vulnerability times are variable, unless WH structures get special rules (or I've missed something), wormhole corps would have to deal with sub-optimal vulnerability mechanics. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
306
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 12:38:24 -
[706] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:Obil Que wrote:Timezone mechanics need careful consideration as well to ensure they do not devolve into station sitting for smaller corps making their "primetime" too tedious to endure. I think that somewhere one of the Devs said that they were hoping to have the vulnerability window length vary based on use of the structure (But maybe it was just XLs). But if vulnerability window lengths are tied to some type of statistical use of the solar system... If there are modules that increase anomaly spawns, it would likely be a drastic change to how WH space is used. WHs would become home mission systems instead of what they are now, hybrid staging-escalations systems. If there aren't modules that increase anomaly spawns, this will be a bad mechanism for WH (and many in K-Space too) since it is generally best to run Anomalies in connected systems before running your own (saving for a rainy day). From Wormholers to industrialists, what could be used? Industrialists could have their Vulnerability Window lengths tied to stuff like running jobs, but not wormholes. Since WH corp members are often in other systems, and return to logoff, the best stat I can think of would be the average number of characters active or logged off in that system (which would encourage alt-sitting). However, many C6s WH corps have members that don't play during their peak times and often do down-chain anoms in small groups. These people could be seen as a detriment to the Vulnerability Window's statistics. But in either case, if you have a REALLY active WH corp that spends a week doing out of system stuff like PvP (main thing CCP wants), then their structures would be much more vulnerable than if they did the more boring thing and ran anoms in system... So if vulnerability times are variable, unless WH structures get special rules (or I've missed something), wormhole corps would have to deal with sub-optimal vulnerability mechanics.
You are mostly referring to the sov structure vulnerability windows and null-sec system indicies. The most I have seen in this thread regarding M and L Citadel structure vulnerability windows is that they will not be daily. CCP also expressed the desire to have the base indicies in some systems (high-sec and WH space) be higher so that they get the benefit of longer capture times because they cannot influence their system indicies in the same way null-sec does. M and L Citadels do appear to use a very different mechanic for vulnerability window calulation and capture times than sov structures and rightly so.
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
130
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 17:11:19 -
[707] - Quote
Ugh, stupid forums ate my post again...(figures the one time i don't cntl-c my post before hitting the button)
Obil Que wrote:The most I have seen in this thread regarding M and L Citadel structure vulnerability windows is that they will not be daily Wrong, there was only the indication that the coding was still flexible...i believe the dev said "they don't have to be every day", that does NOT mean it will definately not be daily, only that it is still an option at this stage.
There are still many unanswered concerns that have been raised...CCP's silence means they are either re-working it, or more likely going ahead and pushing it.
Edit...third times a charm? |
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
472
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 19:55:32 -
[708] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Fzhal wrote:Obil Que wrote:Timezone mechanics need careful consideration as well to ensure they do not devolve into station sitting for smaller corps making their "primetime" too tedious to endure. I think that somewhere one of the Devs said that they were hoping to have the vulnerability window length vary based on use of the structure (But maybe it was just XLs). But if vulnerability window lengths are tied to some type of statistical use of the solar system... If there are modules that increase anomaly spawns, it would likely be a drastic change to how WH space is used. WHs would become home mission systems instead of what they are now, hybrid staging-escalations systems. If there aren't modules that increase anomaly spawns, this will be a bad mechanism for WH (and many in K-Space too) since it is generally best to run Anomalies in connected systems before running your own (saving for a rainy day). From Wormholers to industrialists, what could be used? Industrialists could have their Vulnerability Window lengths tied to stuff like running jobs, but not wormholes. Since WH corp members are often in other systems, and return to logoff, the best stat I can think of would be the average number of characters active or logged off in that system (which would encourage alt-sitting). However, many C6s WH corps have members that don't play during their peak times and often do down-chain anoms in small groups. These people could be seen as a detriment to the Vulnerability Window's statistics. But in either case, if you have a REALLY active WH corp that spends a week doing out of system stuff like PvP (main thing CCP wants), then their structures would be much more vulnerable than if they did the more boring thing and ran anoms in system... So if vulnerability times are variable, unless WH structures get special rules (or I've missed something), wormhole corps would have to deal with sub-optimal vulnerability mechanics. You are mostly referring to the sov structure vulnerability windows and null-sec system indicies. The most I have seen in this thread regarding M and L Citadel structure vulnerability windows is that they will not be daily. CCP also expressed the desire to have the base indicies in some systems (high-sec and WH space) be higher so that they get the benefit of longer capture times because they cannot influence their system indicies in the same way null-sec does. M and L Citadels do appear to use a very different mechanic for vulnerability window calulation and capture times than sov structures and rightly so. Not so sure about that last part. By all accounts medium and large Citadels will be sov structures, for smaller groups. I agree they shouldn't strictly have the same vulnerability as an xLarge Citadel but if they differ too much no-one but the largest groups will ever use the xLarge ones.
It is one of the biggest hurdles for devs - Finding the right balance for destructible citadel structures, which for all intents and purposes are stations of varying size and capabilities.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
257
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 22:10:40 -
[709] - Quote
I didn't see this mentioned, but in terms of fuel:
Since there are no racial Citadels like the current POSes, will these Citadels require a new fuel block type or are you planning to allow any kind of current fuel block to be used as fuel? |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 02:22:37 -
[710] - Quote
So maybe I missed it in the 36 pages, but what happens to all the Star Bases (POS) sitting in hangers and all the guns/hardners/EWAR, etc. we have laying around? I ask because lots of cash in those items throughout EVE.
And will those faction items turn into factions Citadels? Modules for those? etc. |
|
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 02:37:53 -
[711] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:So maybe I missed it in the 36 pages, but what happens to all the Star Bases (POS) sitting in hangers and all the guns/hardners/EWAR, etc. we have laying around? I ask because lots of cash in those items throughout EVE.
And will those faction items turn into factions Citadels? Modules for those? etc. No official answer as to whether CCP will convert existing POS stuff, make it so their only use is for reprocessing, or make them disappear after the transitory period. |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 03:36:47 -
[712] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:Vigilant wrote:So maybe I missed it in the 36 pages, but what happens to all the Star Bases (POS) sitting in hangers and all the guns/hardners/EWAR, etc. we have laying around? I ask because lots of cash in those items throughout EVE.
And will those faction items turn into factions Citadels? Modules for those? etc. No official answer as to whether CCP will convert existing POS stuff, make it so their only use is for reprocessing, or make them disappear after the transitory period.
Well that's billions and billions of isk people are going to pissed about loosing! They need to convert to the something new item at least with Faction considered IMHO. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2203
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 06:24:36 -
[713] - Quote
Indications are reprocess/refund once POS's get deleted. Which will be months if not years after this new system gets added. Remember that POS's can't be removed till every new structure is up and running, not just the Market/Admin hub structure. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1339
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 09:55:46 -
[714] - Quote
Yes keep in mind we are not removing POS or Outposts or anything just yet. If you want to see details about how we will transition from the older structures over time you should watch CCP Ytterbiums presentation from Fanfest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo#t=38m47s
@ 38 minutes, 47 seconds
We are still a long way from removing POS from the game, and we will make sure any transition plan is announced in detail before it all happens.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
695
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 12:29:59 -
[715] - Quote
Petrified wrote:I didn't see this mentioned, but in terms of fuel:
Since there are no racial Citadels like the current POSes, will these Citadels require a new fuel block type or are you planning to allow any kind of current fuel block to be used as fuel?
And pls on a per-use basis - inactive facilities/components not consuming fuel.
PLS
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Draahk Chimera
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 15:54:02 -
[716] - Quote
I am exceedingly sorry if I am reposting but I can not find the energy to trawl all 36 pages.
Are there any plans to deal with the problem of "zombiesticks", IE abandoned bases. I feel when moving to a new type of structure it would be a great time to address this issue. While I am well aware that the chateaux will have no anchoring restrictions I still feel that hundreds of abandoned structures in W-space and highsec will constitute problems - unique in each case.
I therefore humbly propose a "defense deterioration" timer to be imposed on the chateaux. Starting at the last point a player actually interacted with the structure a 7 day (invisible) timer will start. If no player access the structure until this timer has run it's course a new 48-hour visible timer starts. At the end of this second timer the structure shuts down all defenses, including ownership, and may be scooped up by anyone with sufficient cargohold.
404 - Image not found
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1033
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 16:16:36 -
[717] - Quote
Draahk Chimera wrote:I am exceedingly sorry if I am reposting but I can not find the energy to trawl all 36 pages.
Are there any plans to deal with the problem of "zombiesticks", IE abandoned bases. I feel when moving to a new type of structure it would be a great time to address this issue. While I am well aware that the chateaux will have no anchoring restrictions I still feel that hundreds of abandoned structures in W-space and highsec will constitute problems - unique in each case.
I therefore humbly propose a "defense deterioration" timer to be imposed on the chateaux. Starting at the last point a player actually interacted with the structure a 7 day (invisible) timer will start. If no player access the structure until this timer has run it's course a new 48-hour visible timer starts. At the end of this second timer the structure shuts down all defenses, including ownership, and may be scooped up by anyone with sufficient cargohold. The entosis link solves this problem. Undefended structures are extremely vulnerable, so much so that a single person can take one down if it is undefended with only a minor grind. In fact, it seems like there will be no automated defenses at all, just a vulnerability window.
The days of plopping down a tower and relying on its massive EHP to protect it are over.
However, like the vulnerability window in nullsec, perhaps the citadel could have a scaling window based on occupancy. For example, in a occupied structure the window could be 2 (or 4, or whatever) hours a day, but this could gradually increase the less the structure is used. Or maybe, if no one has docked in the structure for 30 (or 90, or whatever) days, it could lose the protection of the vulnerability window and be open to attack by anyone, at anytime.
|
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
456
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 16:44:48 -
[718] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Yes keep in mind we are not removing POS or Outposts or anything just yet. If you want to see details about how we will transition from the older structures over time you should watch CCP Ytterbiums presentation from Fanfest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo#t=38m47s @ 38 minutes, 47 seconds We are still a long way from removing POS from the game, and we will make sure any transition plan is announced in detail before it all happens. For what is worth, I hope you'll be writing another blog detailing the transation phase; what was said at Fanfest was as clear as mud.
I am a pod pilot:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
|
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 17:04:57 -
[719] - Quote
CCP, I have a humble request. (Not saying this isn't in your plans, but I just want to make sure) Please ensure that we can check or be alerted to vulnerability times and changes via a healthy number of ways, like notifications / calendar / structure GUI / Corp Management GUI / CREST / EveMail. As you've said, you want structures to be more user friendly. Overlooking this (relatively simple) component would be a big deal to me.
Even better would be to give app developers the tools/knowledge to pull CREST data and use it to notify us if our current week's activity levels will put us below the activity thresholds used to determine vulnerability window length/frequency. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2420
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 17:29:10 -
[720] - Quote
did we already check and see if current towers will fall under entosis mechanics when fozziesov drops? Or will they remain stront-based until the new structures come out? |
|
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 18:55:55 -
[721] - Quote
Rowells wrote:did we already check and see if current towers will fall under entosis mechanics when fozziesov drops? Or will they remain stront-based until the new structures come out? Given how old the POS Tower (legacy) code is, (speculation) the only reason they'll touch that old code is to make sure it doesn't break before the old towers are phased out. Anything more than that barely makes sense, when the effort would be better spent improving the new system. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1161
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 19:08:17 -
[722] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Draahk Chimera wrote:I am exceedingly sorry if I am reposting but I can not find the energy to trawl all 36 pages.
Are there any plans to deal with the problem of "zombiesticks", IE abandoned bases. I feel when moving to a new type of structure it would be a great time to address this issue. While I am well aware that the chateaux will have no anchoring restrictions I still feel that hundreds of abandoned structures in W-space and highsec will constitute problems - unique in each case.
I therefore humbly propose a "defense deterioration" timer to be imposed on the chateaux. Starting at the last point a player actually interacted with the structure a 7 day (invisible) timer will start. If no player access the structure until this timer has run it's course a new 48-hour visible timer starts. At the end of this second timer the structure shuts down all defenses, including ownership, and may be scooped up by anyone with sufficient cargohold. The entosis link solves this problem. Undefended structures are extremely vulnerable, so much so that a single person can take one down if it is undefended with only a minor grind. In fact, it seems like there will be no automated defenses at all, just a vulnerability window. The days of plopping down a tower and relying on its massive EHP to protect it are over. However, like the vulnerability window in nullsec, perhaps the citadel could have a scaling window based on occupancy. For example, in a occupied structure the window could be 2 (or 4, or whatever) hours a day, but this could gradually increase the less the structure is used. Or maybe, if no one has docked in the structure for 30 (or 90, or whatever) days, it could lose the protection of the vulnerability window and be open to attack by anyone, at anytime.
My understanding was that the vulnerabilty windo would increase with tower use not decrease otherwise single players/small corps would be written out. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 22:27:40 -
[723] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:My understanding was that the vulnerabilty windo would increase with tower use not decrease otherwise single players/small corps would be written out. That is definitely something that will have to be solved: How is the vulnerability window calculated?
I know the short answer CCP has given is that increased structure usage should make the vulnerability window smaller, but nothing more than that.
To treat all play styles equally, MANY things would have to be tracked and used to make this determination: Jobs running (building / researching...) Docked per day Docked and Active Services usage per day (market / repair / refine / hangar-use...) Time pilots in system (that use the structure)
Something that just occurred to me is to have vulnerability windows scale based on target jobs/people usage stats. For things with a finite amount of events you could have a minimum target, like building/researching jobs working X average hours per day, which could work well. For other things like services used per day, you could set a target of X per day per potential user.
EXAMPLE - If CCP's target was 3 services usages per day, like hangar use (per potential user), and the structure was open to only corp members: [Target Usage] = 3 [Potential Users] = [Corp Member Count] [Hangar Average Usage] = [Total Service Usage] / [Potential Users] [Hangar Usage %] = [Hangar Average Usage] / [Target Usage]
[Structure Usage %] = ( [Hangar Usage %] + [Market Usage %] + [Solar System Usage %] + [Docks/Day %]...) / {number of variables in parentheses so new services can be easily incorporated into calculations}
[Vacation Friendly Structure Usage %] = [30 Day Structure Usage %]
Vulnerability Times Based On [Vacation Friendly Structure Usage %]: > 100% = Smallest Vuln time 99-50 = Medium Vuln time 49-20 = Large Vuln time 19-10 = Very Large Vuln time 9-0 = 23/7 Vuln time
Of course there'd have to be some maximums set so that individuals couldn't game/macro the system... And target daily usages would have to be set low enough so that specialized POSs aren't at a disadvantage as well. But (IMHO) this could make it so that "Size, matters not." If the structure permissions GUI allowed people to grant individuals permissions (in or out of corp), the above vulnerability window calculation could be a pretty fair and easy to understand. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
257
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 23:47:05 -
[724] - Quote
Vigilant wrote: Well that's billions and billions of isk people are going to pissed about loosing! They need to convert to the something new item at least with Faction considered IMHO.
I plan to convert over to the new structures once they come out, so much of my stored inventory of POS things I have already sold off.
But how, exactly, they plan to handle the modules and towers once they remove them is a good question. Will some become collectors items like the System scanning array or mines? Will CCP just remove them from your inventory and refund the value of it back to you? Maybe allow them to be recycled at 100% of their building cost if they do not confiscate them?
All things to be hashed over... but with no immediate rush since the phase in of the new structures will overlap the phase out of the old ones. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1162
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 23:58:36 -
[725] - Quote
If CCP genuinely want solo players to want and be able to use these structures the vulnerabilty window needs to balance around one character performing the maximum manufacturing, inventions and a reasonable number of refines, compressions and repairs a day. Above that each action(or number of actions depending on balancing) would add a certain nimber of seconds to the total vulnerability counter up to a maximum. A single player should be vulnerable every few days to once a week maybe. A small corp should be every 1-3 days. Medium corp would be vulnerable every day. A large corp or very busy station for trading etc would be increasingly vulnerable on a daily basis requiring greater and greater defence. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2206
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 00:32:00 -
[726] - Quote
Doesn't really matter what the vulnerability window is, the structure needs to defend itself on AI, because expecting people to log on at a very specific time just to babysit their structure 'in case' is a step back to the old days of alarm clock skill queues. As well as a step back from our current POS which do have AI defence (Though it's much better when player targeted).
People should be free to play as and when suits them. Not on a strict schedule. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1162
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 00:38:45 -
[727] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Doesn't really matter what the vulnerability window is, the structure needs to defend itself on AI, because expecting people to log on at a very specific time just to babysit their structure 'in case' is a step back to the old days of alarm clock skill queues. As well as a step back from our current POS which do have AI defence (Though it's much better when player targeted).
People should be free to play as and when suits them. Not on a strict schedule.
Totally agree here. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
257
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 01:36:11 -
[728] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:If CCP genuinely want solo players to want and be able to use these structures the vulnerabilty window needs to balance around one character performing the maximum manufacturing, inventions and a reasonable number of refines, compressions and repairs a day. Above that each action(or number of actions depending on balancing) would add a certain nimber of seconds to the total vulnerability counter up to a maximum. A single player should be vulnerable every few days to once a week maybe. A small corp should be every 1-3 days. Medium corp would be vulnerable every day. A large corp or very busy station for trading etc would be increasingly vulnerable on a daily basis requiring greater and greater defence.
Agreed. A solo player should not be locked out because they are a solo player and cannot always be available or online at the same time of day everyday. Likewise, no one should feel like a slave to the game. So lets look at a few options here:
1 - vulnerability based on corp size: As there are more players (not characters) in a corp, the more reasonable an increase in vulnerability both daily and minute by minute becomes. Some of that could be tied to the corporation level last applied by the CEO. A solo player with a couple of accounts could successfully manage a couple of Citadels and expect to defend them on a predictable level.
The problem with this is that it can be gamed easily: A large group creates a small corp to manage hundreds of POSes. The only people in the corp are those interacting with the structure to fuel it (think: moon mining operation). Thus a large group can severly limit the vulnerability window of a structure by having the entire corp managed by a small number of players/Alts in it. All they have to do is monitor the alerts and call for help in X system should it fall under attack. All the defender has to do is pilot ECM ships to the location or even join the corp under attack for the time to man the guns.
2 - Vulnerability based on usage. The main issue with usage based increases to vulnerability is that it can backfire against the smaller entities more than the larger entities. Given some people might take a few days off of EVE to travel about, they might increase their activity prior to those days to set up jobs, order defenses, fuel the structure, etc. The result is that they could effectively increase the vulnerability window to include the time they had planned to be away from the game.
This can be gamed by larger entities - especially ones where the usage is specialized such as in moon mining, by simply having the structures in a single corp and only visiting to fuel them. Meanwhile the small guy, the one this mechanic is meant to help, is instead hurt by it.
3 - Vulnerability based on number of structures. The vulnerability window is set by the number of Medium and Large Structures a corporation has anchored. A solo player can reasonably expect to defend one or two. A small corp with a dozen players or so can defend more, but in each case, the increase of structures in space increases the vulnerability of all the structures, by day and time.
Personally, I prefer the last option since it is least likely to be successfully gamed and falls in better with what people can reasonably expect to defend. An actual solo player will be using one or two structures on a regular basis and while a larger group could create many smaller corps to manage their moon mining and thus try to avoid having too many vulnerability windows: that is a heck of a lot of corporations to keep track of. Not to mention the sheer number of alts you would have to have. I think this last option best benefits and rewards the groups based on their size without punishing them for using it while it limits gaming by making the process more and more complicated and costly to manage. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 03:45:43 -
[729] - Quote
I feel like some people are thinking that structures will be connected to Sov, which I'm pretty sure CCP doesn't want anymore.
Your 1 and 3 are basically the same.
2 sounds like your saying the more you use it, the more vulnerable you make it. This is the opposite of what should happen.
I still think my usage calculations above work better, but think there needs to be an additional component. As structure size increases, so does vulnerability frequency. Keep in mind the number of users each structure is intended to support. Minimum vulnerability frequency (at 100% usage): Medium - 1 per week Large - 3 per week X-Large - 10 per 2 weeks |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
257
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 06:52:21 -
[730] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:I feel like some people are thinking that structures will be connected to Sov, which I'm pretty sure CCP doesn't want anymore.
Your 1 and 3 are basically the same.
No, they are not the same.
#1 depends on the number of people in a corp #3 depends on the number of structures anchored.
BIG difference. |
|
Mikhem
Taxisk Unlimited
280
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 16:07:52 -
[731] - Quote
There is probably going to be option to use jump clones in Citadels. I got idea about that. If installation containing jump clone is under attack owner of jump clone receives message that installation is under attack. This allows jump clone owner make decision to defend installation or evacuate it.
Comments are welcome for my idea. This would be great conflict driver.
Mikhem
Link library to EVE music songs.
|
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 17:50:37 -
[732] - Quote
Petrified wrote: No, they are not the same.
#1 depends on the number of people in a corp #3 depends on the number of structures anchored.
BIG difference. (Paste) 3 - Vulnerability based on number of structures. The vulnerability window is set by the number of Medium and Large Structures a corporation has anchored. A solo player can reasonably expect to defend one or two. A small corp with a dozen players or so can defend more, but in each case, the increase of structures in space increases the vulnerability of all the structures, by day and time. edit: and no, I don't think they are tied to Sov mechanics like XL.
For sov, wasn't talking about you.
But you also say that 3 scales with corp size... |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
257
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 21:17:41 -
[733] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:Petrified wrote: edit: and no, I don't think they are tied to Sov mechanics like XL.
For sov, wasn't talking about you. But I guess I am now. They want XL able to be put in high sec, so that means not sov dependent.
Quite right. I got sucked into that misconception, thank you.
If the vulnerability was adjusted by number of structures in space one could also assign a point value to the sizes. Based on the point value, the vulnerability window will increase for anchored structures by that corp. Since vulnerability is tied neither to usage nor number of members/size of a corp, the vulnerability window is then based on reasonable expectation of what can be defended. |
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 22:19:54 -
[734] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Fzhal wrote:Petrified wrote: edit: and no, I don't think they are tied to Sov mechanics like XL.
For sov, wasn't talking about you. But I guess I am now. They want XL able to be put in high sec, so that means not sov dependent. Quite right. I got sucked into that misconception, thank you. If the vulnerability was adjusted by number of structures in space one could also assign a point value to the sizes. Based on the point value, the vulnerability window will increase for anchored structures by that corp. Since vulnerability is tied neither to usage nor number of members/size of a corp, the vulnerability window is then based on reasonable expectation of what can be defended. I don't think we want a mechanic that discourages people from being in large corporations. Your suggestion would mean that larger corporations would spend more time being forced to PvP than smaller ones. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2210
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 22:39:12 -
[735] - Quote
Fzhal wrote: I don't think we want a mechanic that discourages people from being in large corporations. Your suggestion would mean that larger corporations would spend more time being forced to PvP than smaller ones.
Except given you will only need one person to defend most of the time as an 'in case' measure, per person larger corps would still have less time defending.
Or to put it the other way If a Small corp has the largest window, not only do they have more total hours but they have fewer people to manage those hours with. And are less likely to be able to be on at exactly those hours. Something that is not a problem with current POS since a single person can't troll a defended POS easily. |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 23:36:55 -
[736] - Quote
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! |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5291
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 00:11:59 -
[737] - Quote
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)
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 00:31:39 -
[738] - Quote
I don't get this "leaving out the solo player" when it comes to vulnerability windows. If I put up a POS by myself as it stands, it can be attacked ANYTIME, come out of reinforced ANYTIME depending on when its hit. And you got 1 chance to save it afterwards, or it dies
New changes makes it so much easier for the solo player. Only vuln at a time of your choosing, comes out in the time area of your choosing, and you have multiple chances to save it.
As for non automated defenses, current smalls can be reinforced in a decent amount of time by a single person. Even if defended, mods are easily incapped by drones, and orbiting at 200. Which means constantly trying to rep up your mods, or buy more, and haul them, and set them up constantly. And guess what? There's not a damn thing that can be done about it if you aren't there to defend it.
Now your mods are safe, if you get reinforced I would assume your mods would be available for the next round. No hauling, no repairing, less bullshit. And even if you aren't there for the first time they hit, or the second, you still have a third. And if you don't show up for three, then welcome to Eve, don't drop a citadel if you can't be bothered defending it.
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
257
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 01:05:44 -
[739] - Quote
Fzhal wrote:Petrified wrote:Fzhal wrote:Petrified wrote: edit: and no, I don't think they are tied to Sov mechanics like XL.
For sov, wasn't talking about you. But I guess I am now. They want XL able to be put in high sec, so that means not sov dependent. Quite right. I got sucked into that misconception, thank you. If the vulnerability was adjusted by number of structures in space one could also assign a point value to the sizes. Based on the point value, the vulnerability window will increase for anchored structures by that corp. Since vulnerability is tied neither to usage nor number of members/size of a corp, the vulnerability window is then based on reasonable expectation of what can be defended. I don't think we want a mechanic that discourages people from being in large corporations. Your suggestion would mean that larger corporations would spend more time being forced to PvP than smaller ones.
I don't think it would discourage anyone from being in a large corporation. It would simply discourage corporations made largely of Alts from putting up more POSes than they can cover.
If a corporation has a large number of players, not characters, then the corporation can reasonably cover a larger window of vulnerability as they should have more players available and better coverage over time.
I do like the vulnerability windows in and of themselves that you propose earlier, but I think the tie needs to be to the number of structures as opposed to the usage of a structure (how do you really measure it?) or the number of players/characters in a corp.
Fzhal wrote: Minimum vulnerability frequency (at 100% usage): Medium - 1 per week Large - 3 per week X-Large - 10 per 2 weeks (So they can have a chance to go on the offensive)
So we tweak the window of vulnerability by not increasing days but time of vulnerability to a hard cap. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2119
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 04:53:18 -
[740] - 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.
|
|
Flaming Butterfly
Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion.
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 05:21:44 -
[741] - Quote
With the massive scale of these structures, will there be selectable undock points available after pressing undock?
Will we continue with the silly bulls4it of being able to fire through them or will there be "Target Obscured by Station" messages?
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1040
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 06:09:33 -
[742] - Quote
Zappity wrote: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.
Indeed. If you remove loot drops and allow them to be taken down after a war is declared there is no reason left to attack them. You would not be able to attack them for profit, and allowing a corp to evade a war by taking down the structure means you cannot even use them to force a fight.
The fact that they can be placed anywhere even removes the niche conflict they might drive over limited/valuable moons.
What is the point of adding something to the sandbox that other players can only interact with by shooting a entosis beam at for no reason or reward? I mean it is nice they are easier to destroy if left undefended than the current POSes, but why would anyone bother spending the time in the first place attacking them?
This isn't going to drive much, if any, player-driven conflict if added this way. They need to drop something, even if it is just some valuable fittings, and removing them should not be an option in the case of a war. Or at least the attackers should get a chance at one vulnerability window to reinforce the structure before it can be taken down so that users of this structure actually have to show up to at least one fight.
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. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2119
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 06:14:30 -
[743] - 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.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1165
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 10:02:14 -
[744] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Zappity wrote: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. Indeed. If you remove loot drops and allow them to be taken down after a war is declared there is no reason left to attack them. You would not be able to attack them for profit, and allowing a corp to evade a war by taking down the structure means you cannot even use them to force a fight. The fact that they can be placed anywhere even removes the niche conflict they might drive over limited/valuable moons. What is the point of adding something to the sandbox that other players can only interact with by shooting a entosis beam at for no reason or reward? I mean it is nice they are easier to destroy if left undefended than the current POSes, but why would anyone bother spending the time in the first place attacking them? This isn't going to drive much, if any, player-driven conflict if added this way. They need to drop something, even if it is just some valuable fittings, and removing them should not be an option in the case of a war. Or at least the attackers should get a chance at one vulnerability window to reinforce the structure before it can be taken down so that users of this structure actually have to show up to at least one fight. 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.
This could make the structures too easy to randomly troll though. I think it would be better to have a cool down period greayer than 24 hours on structures where systems are gracefully shut down for unanchoring. All non-combat services would be taken offline during this period but defensive modules would be unnaffected to allow for fights.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1040
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 10:23:33 -
[745] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:This could make the structures too easy to randomly troll though. I think it would be better to have a cool down period greayer than 24 hours on structures where systems are gracefully shut down for unanchoring. All non-combat services would be taken offline during this period but defensive modules would be unnaffected to allow for fights.
Isn't that exactly what everyone in nullsec said when they first saw the details of FozzieSov?
Like or not, that is the direction CCP is taking the game. I see no reason why the poor folk living in nullsec should be the only ones forced to show up and defend anytime someone knocks on the door, whether or not the aggressor is just trolling or really looking for a fight.
It won't be that bad though. The vulnerability window and the multiple reinforcements will keep most of the "trolls" away, and allow you to respond at a time that is convenient for you. And even if you are away for some reason and lose your structure, most of your assets will be safely waiting for you when you get back from vacation.
|
Mikhem
Taxisk Unlimited
280
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 11:25:26 -
[746] - Quote
I run one man corporation to keep up custom offices in null sec. Can I do that too in new structure system? It is this Entosis Link system that scares me. It sounds like Entosis Link makes it too easy to capture structures. Old custom offices needed quite large amount of firepower to destroy. Also new structures don't have automatic defences.
Mikhem
Link library to EVE music songs.
|
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
133
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 13:29:18 -
[747] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:It won't be that bad though. The vulnerability window and the multiple reinforcements will keep most of the "trolls" away, Does someone need to explain "troll" to you? If it inconveniences you more than them...which it will as it will likely take ~20 minutes of their time to RF the thing solo...then they will do it. That is their nature. I know personally, if i find a tower in a WH or Low that doesn't have anyone sitting at it, and it appears i can relatively safely RF it with my single ship...you better bet i'm going to do it. Unless CCP changes how the structures defend themselves, or how long it will take outside of boosted Sov. |
Cyborg Girl86
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 17:50:13 -
[748] - Quote
Sorry for the re-post from another thread, but CCP Darwin suggested I post this here to get some answers and generate a discussion. Thus, here I am!!
Here's what I posted earlier in a GD thread:
Quote:I wonder how these new structures and their mechanics are going to affect small-scale manufacturers/indy groups consisting of only 1 or 2 players like myself in times of a war and how the offlining/repackaging/deploying mechanics will work.
A RL example of how the current POS mechanics saved my hide: I got wardecced by a griefer/wardeccer corp a month ago and immediately after finding out, tore down and stored my POS during the 24hr grace period. To my amusement, every other corp in my system got systematically wardecced by the same corp, and sure enough a fleet of 20+ Apocs showed up and began wiping out all of the other corps' POS's one-by-one until nearly two thirds of all the POS's in my home system were wiped out. I seemed to be the only smart person other than the wardeccer corp in that system that day Lol Let's just say I saved myself quite a bit of ISK
Being in a tiny one-man corp consisting of a handful of Alts with absolutely no ability to defend against something like a fleet of POS-bashing Apocs, I used brains over brawn. Will the new structure mechanics still allow this? I ask because if they don't, they seem to me to only favour larger corps/alliances with the manpower to defend them, while little corps like myself who relied on the current POS mechanics to make some money have just lost out on a bunch of industry options available.
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? |
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
359
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 19:52:45 -
[749] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
What are your plans for the existing Racial Fuel Blocks? |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2129
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 20:46:50 -
[750] - 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.
|
|
Kiddoomer
ScrewWork Inc.
46
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 21:48:42 -
[751] - Quote
Hiram Alexander wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. What are your plans for the existing Racial Fuel Blocks?
Something like : minmatar looking citadel for military purpose, a caldari one for research, amarr for production/reaction and a gallente one for market/ship hangars could be cool and make use of racial fuel block without having each kind of citadel for each empire.
A survey scanner tweak and new mining methods: interactive mining
|
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 22:17:29 -
[752] - Quote
The only thing CCP has said about war decs is that you will have to be in a non-starter corp so that they can be attacked in high sec. Though I'm curious how the aggression ideas above would pan out. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13113
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 23:38:39 -
[753] - Quote
Gotta throw my hat in with the "do not remove loot drops" side.
Removing the chances of getting something valuable from attacking these things removes a great deal of the reason to attack them at all.
The "immunity to loss" mechanic should be completely scrapped, regardless of sec level.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
475
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 01:37:32 -
[754] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Gotta throw my hat in with the "do not remove loot drops" side.
Removing the chances of getting something valuable from attacking these things removes a great deal of the reason to attack them at all.
The "immunity to loss" mechanic should be completely scrapped, regardless of sec level. Changing to destructible stations (Citadels) that includes risk of losing player assets is the best way to ensure no-one has more than absolutely necessary in a given location.
Npc stations would be used for storage of assets and player owned structures would be used for; well I'm not sure what, aside from staging, they would be useful for. (xLarge Citadel will be a very costly staging point, at least they will be reusable)
No-one would manufacture in them on any large scale, kills off CCP's goal of self sufficiency. What manufacturer wants to be risking his or her inventory?
Markets would all be centralized around npc hubs, to remove risk of loss of inventory.
Few players would store large amounts of assets in a place that can be destroyed and drops their assets as loot. Or for that matter simply drops it in a can somewhere in the system. Not every player wants to have to buy and fly a freighter to pick up assets should their Citadel be destroyed. So keeping as few assets as possible in them will become the norm, for all but the largest groups.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - CCP is moving ahead with "everything destructible" and has to be very cautious about the cost to players and groups of "everything destructible". One guaranteed outcome; the gap between the have's and have not's will grow wider. From the proposed cost structure in the blog, large established groups grow stronger while everyone else live out of npc stations.
Quote:Rigs; ............... They will take over the old Outpost upgrade system as a whole, and may be several ten times (or more) more expensive than the structure hull itself. Not many groups have a few billion isk to put into a structure that can be easily destroyed. The difference between a few hundred million to set up a medium or large pos and the cost of setting up a Citadel (where each module will end up costing more than the structure it is on) to do the same job will limit use.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
26
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 01:50:46 -
[755] - Quote
Zappity wrote: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.
Issue here is the carebear's who get pissed about people trolling their towers / structures. I would bet a pretty large sum of isk a WAR DEC will required in HS and you will have 24 hours to take down your Citadel/Tower.
CCP still has to make that crowd happy too...
|
Fzhal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 03:24:57 -
[756] - Quote
To all those people saying that the new destroyed structures should drop everything, or even a percentage, think about what people store in POSs now. They store the bare minimum to meet their needs, or they are sloppy. I believe that CCP thinks those loss mechanics are holding back production in null, so they have decided to create a mechanic that partially mitigates that type of loss by having the stuff drop at a secret place in system. I think they are hoping this will entice more people to produce in null, though I have serious doubts that it will work.
It sounds like CCP wants to swap the old loot drops with structure module drops. They did say that some modules would be worth much more than the structures in some cases. So to everyone crying out for loot drops, just chill out until we're told the worth of the things that will drop will be. This is Eve, where griefers is always a top priority. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1043
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 08:22:38 -
[757] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:Zappity wrote: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. Issue here is the carebear's who get pissed about people trolling their towers / structures. I would bet a pretty large sum of isk a WAR DEC will required in HS and you will have 24 hours to take down your Citadel/Tower. CCP still has to make that crowd happy too... I'll take that gentleman's bet. After everything they have said about their design goals and the amount of trolling the new FozzieSov opens nullsec residents to, CCP can't make highsec carebears exempt from such trolling or interaction from other players. The lack of risk to your assets will make it easy to tell carebears to suck it up and defend their structures.
Continual evasion is not a fun mechanic for anyone so given the chance, CCP will rectify this situation by making citadels something to fight over and that must be defended, even in highsec. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
993
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 17:24:35 -
[758] - Quote
xttz wrote:"DevBlog" wrote:Medium, Large and X-Large structures will use a version of the Sovereignty capture mechanic, which means they will only be attacked through the use of the Entosis module. I think this decision is both a mistake and a missed opportunity; a kneejerk reaction to the bogeyman of structure grinding. While the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less central role. Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. Triage carriers patching up starbases have a similarly mirrored role, frantically trying to restore these assets while making themselves vulnerable. This is a fantastic avenue for content, with opponents setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE. By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. The simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling effect on structures, but actual damage should need to be inflicted in order to destroy them for good, while an investment in repair ability should be required to restore them again.
This reminds me of what I posted two months ago in the sovereignty thread:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5613421#post5613421
I posted this over in the main thread, but I am curious to see people's thoughts specifically as it relates to the issues associated with destroying things via Entosis.
One of the things that has bothered me the most about the proposed sovereignty system is that it allows small, non-committal entities to destroy valuable things without committing very much of their own to the fight. With destructible stations coming SoonTM, this is particularly troubling. In light of that, I suggest the following compromise.
In the proposed system, f I go into your system and run my Entosis link on your I-Hub and you do not stop me by chasing me away or blowing up my ship, it generates the standard timers as proposed by Fozzie. Forty-eight hours later, we have the multi-node Entosis capture point battles (or you blue ball me). If I win, I keep my stuff.
Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures."
Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction."
For the first 24 hours after the successful capture event, only the successful attacker can claim the structure - they can do so by activating an Entosis link on it (does not have to complete a cycle). As soon as the successful attacker tags the structure by activating an Entosis link, the structure becomes invulnerable until the next prime time for that alliance (at which point, the Entosis game can begin anew). The captured structure retains the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s]. If the successful attacker does not claim the structure within 24 hours, then the vulnerable structure may be captured when any alliance/corporation runs one Entosis cycle on it, at any time (no prime time window).
Upon completion of a successful capture event, a vulnerable structure may be stolen when any player scoops the structure into the cargo hold of his ship. Structures too large to fit into a ship cannot be stolen. Once scooped, the structure loses the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].
Upon completion of a successful capture event, a vulnerable structure can be destroyed at any time, provided someone is willing to shoot at it long enough or bring enough [big] ships to do the job quickly. While there are no reinforcement timers, the structures all have a significant amount of hit points. In the event of destruction, the structure loss mail will belong to the last alliance/corporation to own the structure.
I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you?
Advantages over the current proposal: 1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space. 2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure. 3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures. 4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction. 5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters.
I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
995
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 05:10:16 -
[759] - Quote
I understand the need to not completely kill null sec industry - or make it something that is only possible for the strongest coalitions in the most secure space. Something needs to be done about that - but empire building should never be completely safe. I would hate to see all industry continue to remain in high or low sec, but if most of the materials were readily available in 0.0, you could find ways to encourage folks to continue building stuff in 0.0.
The issues really come into play with Capital and Supercapital production. In Eve thus far, those have been essentials for having and holding space. It would be awful to have new groups unable to compete because they cannot ever build a Capital or Supercapital fleet. It would be even more awful to have those ships produced exclusively in the relative security of low sec or NPC null sec.
I hate the idea that a player, such as myself, who is currently deployed and far from being able to play the game, could lose all of his possessions.
With that said, I also hate the suggestions I have seen thus far. I don't need space fairies pixie dusting my stuff off to safety for me. Just put a couple of NPC stations in each region. If I know I will be away from game for weeks, I move my stuff to the relative safety of an NPC station. I run the risk of moving it. I take the time. Not some space magic. Anything I leave behind is fair game for someone else who beats the stuffing out of my friends while I am gone.
I've been playing for over eight years. I have a ton of stuff. Moving, especially post-Phoebe, is a huge pain in the ass. But that is the price I pay for going off to serve my country in the Middle East. I'll come back to a trail of tears. It will probably take me months to move my stuff. Some of it may die. This is Eve. Doing things in 0.0 is not supposed to be easy. Ships are made to die. As long as I have a choice in whether it dies or not, that is all I care about.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
480
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 10:32:14 -
[760] - Quote
I think there is a lot more to be concerned with aside from how assets are stowed at time of destruction of an alliances home.
The main one being, who aside from the large existing groups will be left after a few months of being stomped by those large groups. Not everyone as CCP seem to think, wants to belong to a giant coalition or a mega alliance and the lager these groups are able to grow, the less content there will be for everyone.
Smart players and groups aren't going to keep investing billions of isk into citadels only to have them burnt down by bored coalitions and mega alliances.
So far the hinted at cost of fitting out citadels is likely to preclude many groups from owning them while there is such an imbalance of risk vs reward. Turn a pos that costs a few hundred mil now, into a citadel that could cost you a few billion, is going to be a big turnoff to many potential owners.
The biggest hurdle faced by anyone, including CCP to creating content and a place in sov nul for new groups is the existing established groups. If citadels aren't done right, they will only add to the height of the hurdle.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Lijah
Central Builders Incorporated Short Bus Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 12:50:16 -
[761] - Quote
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.
If CCP is going to effectively make stations totally destructable (the only for me can is not a fail safe at all) then I'm never storing anything in them. Which means, eventually unsub due to bordem and fustration. I'll have fun till they arrive. Afterwards, I'll leave it to the new geneation of players. Maybe I'm just too old for the new stuff and time to move on. Bad move ifym. |
Lijah
Central Builders Incorporated Short Bus Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 12:54:56 -
[762] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Gotta throw my hat in with the "do not remove loot drops" side.
Removing the chances of getting something valuable from attacking these things removes a great deal of the reason to attack them at all.
The "immunity to loss" mechanic should be completely scrapped, regardless of sec level. Changing to destructible stations (Citadels) that includes risk of losing player assets is the best way to ensure no-one has more than absolutely necessary in a given location. Npc stations would be used for storage of assets and player owned structures would be used for; well I'm not sure what, aside from staging, they would be useful for. (xLarge Citadel will be a very costly staging point, at least they will be reusable) No-one would manufacture in them on any large scale, kills off CCP's goal of self sufficiency. What manufacturer wants to be risking his or her inventory? Markets would all be centralized around npc hubs, to remove risk of loss of inventory. Few players would store large amounts of assets in a place that can be destroyed and drops their assets as loot. Or for that matter simply drops it in a can somewhere in the system. Not every player wants to have to buy and fly a freighter to pick up assets should their Citadel be destroyed. So keeping as few assets as possible in them will become the norm, for all but the largest groups. - - - - - - - - - - - - - CCP is moving ahead with "everything destructible" and has to be very cautious about the cost to players and groups of "everything destructible". One guaranteed outcome; the gap between the have's and have not's will grow wider. From the proposed cost structure in the blog, large established groups grow stronger while everyone else live out of npc stations. Quote:Rigs; ............... They will take over the old Outpost upgrade system as a whole, and may be several ten times (or more) more expensive than the structure hull itself. Not many groups have a few billion isk to put into a structure that can be easily destroyed. The difference between a few hundred million to set up a medium or large pos and the cost of setting up a Citadel (where each module will end up costing more than the structure it is on) to do the same job will limit use.
and this is why this is too big a fundamental shift in EVE gameplay. it becomes a totally different game, which we are not familiar with, and for what I didn't sign up for. Even the threat that this might happen is going to make me change my practices, making sure I'm not exposed to a bad impact - might mean unsubbing till happens ... uncertainty around something like is very bad. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
256
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 15:43:14 -
[763] - Quote
I promise this cause im totally fed up with ccp turning this game into online gambling.
you make them destructible. im blowing up my wallet to support you
simple as that.. im unsubbing and removing all future content payments from your epeens..
you can have it!
|
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 16:15:23 -
[764] - Quote
xttz wrote:"DevBlog" wrote:Medium, Large and X-Large structures will use a version of the Sovereignty capture mechanic, which means they will only be attacked through the use of the Entosis module. I think this decision is both a mistake and a missed opportunity; a kneejerk reaction to the bogeyman of structure grinding. While the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less central role. Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. Triage carriers patching up starbases have a similarly mirrored role, frantically trying to restore these assets while making themselves vulnerable. This is a fantastic avenue for content, with opponents setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE. By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. The simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling effect on structures, but actual damage should need to be inflicted in order to destroy them for good, while an investment in repair ability should be required to restore them again.
I like your idea the Entosis Links would serve as a disabling effect on structures, and some kind of repair time would be required for restoration. I also think it might be the first step to some kind of capture mechanic for structures. Although capture of a structure should come at a cost ... i.e. the economic Production/ISK Sink would not serve EVE well if there was less and less demand for structures being built if everyone opted to just capture them instead. However, if there was an established ISK sink cost for capturing a structure - say when a structure is captured, parts of it would need to be rebuilt and repaired etc.
Agree that structure shooting, even though it is distasteful to some it still has a place in the game. One, it does not seem realistic structures would self-implode based on a magical Entosis links. Second, it seems the entire Capital Ship dynamics in Eve - especially Dreadnoughts is based on the role of structure busting right now, and it seems that the Eve devs are creating a lot of unnecessary work for themselves just to get rid of a mechanic that is realistic. I mean, if you're going to destroy something in space - a ship, a container, or a structure - you have to shoot at it right?
Perhaps other ways of dealing with structures could be considered. Again, the Entosis mechanic being developed could be useful for "capture" mechanics. The sense of "long grinding" with structures might be mitigated by some of the new ideas being introduced/developed to allow structures to put in place more customizable attack and defense components, thus providing more varied challenge to either their capture or destruction. Thus perhaps making their capture less of a grind.
|
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
13
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 17:55:25 -
[765] - Quote
Lijah wrote:......
and this is why this is too big a fundamental shift in EVE gameplay. it becomes a totally different game, which we are not familiar with, and for what I didn't sign up for. Even the threat that this might happen is going to make me change my practices, making sure I'm not exposed to a bad impact - might mean unsubbing till happens ... uncertainty around something like is very bad.
(bold by me) yep, not sure if devs are in panik mode or totally out of touch with the game I like(d) to play......... turning a universe with big ships and big guns into some "wack a mole" "entosis-hacking" game. Additonally ******* over people like me that simply cant be on every day at a fixed time (there IS this thing called familly and work).
Discontinuing core concepts (like POS and the role of capitals) in a row in this overheated update cycles carries a lot of frustration for your (core) players and risk for the game as it stands (stood for all these years).
If you dont like the game at all - how about leaving it alone and bringing out a completely new one? (just name it ADAM) |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1583
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 18:04:29 -
[766] - Quote
Lijah wrote:and this is why this is too big a fundamental shift in EVE gameplay. it becomes a totally different game, which we are not familiar with, and for what I didn't sign up for. Even the threat that this might happen is going to make me change my practices, making sure I'm not exposed to a bad impact - might mean unsubbing till happens ... uncertainty around something like is very bad.
And this is why I don't envy EVE's designers:
"We need a fundamental change to sov gameplay or we're unsubbing!!!1"
"You're making a fundamental change to sov gameplay?! We're unsubbing!!1"
Can't win for trying.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
13
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 18:27:52 -
[767] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:...... And this is why I don't envy EVE's designers:
"We need a fundamental change to sov gameplay or we're unsubbing!!!1"
"You're making a fundamental change to sov gameplay?! We're unsubbing!!1"
Can't win for trying.
You can..... but its plain foolish to change too many things at once in to fast succession.
Changing power projection with jump fatigue would have been all fine - but even before enough time passed to "evalutate" this change the next one was already coming .... glorious entosis trolling, discontinuing and overhauling core concepts of this universe as it stood for many years.
Still, so far - so good...... (adapt or ......blabla)
But even before this revolutionary concept makes its debut ingame (and stands the test of reality) the devs think its a good idea to bring this concept to EVERY kind of structure - clever, aint it? Oh, did I mention that they "en passant" came up with discontiuing core concepts like POS (with all its implications to playing styles, ingame economy, etc.) and core funtionalities like auto-defence? Ah, and invented some "just for you" box, something that never was seen before in this universe. Ehm, and didnt capitals (a main skilling target for many "new or not so new" players) totally loose their role in this process?
Well, such a hectic flurry of fundamental changes ... If anybody saw that kind of approach in my line of business you-¦d have to give some very good answers, to say the least.
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1583
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 18:46:47 -
[768] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:You can..... but its plain foolish to change too many things at once in to fast succession.
"Fix sov!" they cried for years, without stopping to think about what a huge and far-reaching project that is.
The sov redo was supposed to drop in Winter 2011/Spring 2012. It's years late. How many more years do you want CCP to drag this out? How many years do you want people to deal with broken and unfun mechanics? How many years of uncertainty do you want?
I get that this is uncomfortable. I do. The question is whether there's any better option.
Orm Magnustat wrote:Oh, did I mention that they "en passant" came up with discontiuing core concepts like POS (with all its implications to playing styles, ingame economy, etc.) and core funtionalities like auto-defence? Ah, and invented some "just for you" box, something that never was seen before in this universe. Ehm, and didnt capitals (a main skilling target for many "new or not so new" players) totally loose their role in this process?
You're aware that POSes were a temporary kludge that CCP added until they could do structures right... more than a decade ago? They've always been scheduled for demolition. They're balled up into a huge, ugly hairball of legacy code that CCP would love to excise and forget about.
And re: structure self-defense: CCP are talking about all these design changes publicly before they even have basic designs in place, in order to get feedback, and you're complaining about that, too? They're listening. If you want automated defenses, state your case in the appropriate thread.
Well, such a hectic flurry of fundamental changes ... If anybody saw that kind of approach in my line of business you-¦d have to give some very good answers, to say the least.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Rin Valador
Praetorian Auxiliary Force Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
140
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 19:31:08 -
[769] - Quote
You shouldn't waste your energy Dersen. The Bitter in him is too strong!
"There will be neither compassion nor mercy;
Nor peace, nor solace
For those who bear witness to these Signs
And still do not believe."
- The Scriptures, Book of Reclaiming 25:10
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1169
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 09:38:46 -
[770] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:... If you want automated defenses, state your case in the appropriate thread.
I believe this would class as an appropriate thread.
I have never really commented about the sov changes as they do not apply to me and I have no experience of them yet. However I have always been against the idea of the Jove magic torch being able to destroy structures of any kind. These are huge investments in time and isk and should likewise take and investment in time and ISK at risk to destroy. This sits alongside the lore based idiocy that is a consciousness being inserted into a POS to implode it. Why would this not simply be countered by having an alt sat in the POS with his consciousness online all Matrix style just waiting to kick such attackers out? Or mind firewalls blocking them from accessing critical systems? Brain virus attacks that can kill the consciousness for invading my cyberspace?
A compromise could be that the entosis links can be used to reduce resists and/or repair functions or similar to cut the EHP of the tower but some form of shooting the structure should still be required. On this point I also strongly dislike the idea of a structure being captured rather than destroyed. Make this an option and the manufacture industry for such structures will die a slow strangulated death. |
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 15:39:41 -
[771] - Quote
I like "everything's destructible", and I currently have billions in assets spread all over 0.0 from years of playing. I'll tell you why:
For the upper tier of players, 0.0 has become "no risk, all reward". Years worth of moon-goo, cap ship caches, and other assets stockpiled in 100% safety. Someone else takes over that part of the map? Who cares? Caring about that is for the peons. The upper escelon of players have alts (spies, whatever) pretty much anywhere, and uninterrupted, easy access to their stuff, always. Every fight now is just puppet theater. Content to keep the peons interested and logging in. Real risk to the handful of power players ended a long time ago.
0.0 isn't supposed to be about 100% safety for the few, and wasn't like that in the beginning, when "safe" stations were few, and travel was hard. if you want to build an empire, it should come at the risk of potentially losing everything, and being "busted back to Jita" as we said a decade ago.
It needs a shakeup. Those that sit comfortably at the top of the game controlling it through back room deals in 100% safety need to feel the heat, and be exposed to some actual risk. New players will only play a rigged game for so long before it dawns on them that it's rigged.
Whatever shape these changes take, they do need to make 0.0 riskier proposition for everyone in the game, top to bottom, not just those at ground level. |
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
13
|
Posted - 2015.05.27 20:55:45 -
[772] - Quote
davet517 wrote:I like "everything's destructible", ................................................. .......................................................................................... And for those who say "we'll just move our stuff to NPC null", there's an answer there too. Convert the NPC stations to Citadels too, and make them just as destructible. If they get destroyed, let the NPC faction build a new one after a time. We used to be able to conquer NPC stations long ago. No reason not to be able to destroy them now.
Some radical ideas there But actually they make more sense to me in the frame of the game than many stuff i read in devblogs lately.
Instead of superflous and artificial ***-pulls (like entosis cables dangling out of my structures or the strange "just for you" safety capsule) a gigantic wave of destruction resetting the blue donut might have done the job in a really entertaining way. |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 11:16:22 -
[773] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:Instead of superflous and artificial ***-pulls (like entosis cables dangling out of my structures or the strange "just for you" safety capsule) a gigantic wave of destruction resetting the blue donut might have done the job in a really entertaining way.
"Just for you" capsules are a step in the right direction compared to invulnerable stuff that you can recollect at your leisure later with a "blue alt" or a jump clone. Having to try to evac under fire or re-take the system to get your stuff is a goodness. Assuming of course that they don't cave to the whining and make the "just for you" container transferable.
It'd be nice to think that these changes will shake things up, but it's highly unlikely that they will. Nullsec is popuated with efficient bureaucrats and politicians now, though they like to pretend to be warlords from time to time. The wars, such as they are, are just theater for the masses. Are you not entertained? |
Aker Krane
OMEGADYNE LABS Rising Darkness
14
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 12:06:06 -
[774] - Quote
davet517 wrote:[quote=Orm Magnustat]
It'd be nice to think that these changes will shake things up, but it's highly unlikely that they will. Nullsec is popuated with efficient bureaucrats and politicians now, though they like to pretend to be warlords from time to time. The wars, such as they are, are just theater for the masses. Are you not entertained?
Amen |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
253
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 18:14:44 -
[775] - Quote
So, still curious for a response; what sort of 'racial'/faction flavouring will there be?...
...hoping it doesn't involve "Good idea! Lets shaft Gallente again!"
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1356
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 18:46:54 -
[776] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:So, still curious for a response; what sort of 'racial'/faction flavouring will there be?...
...hoping it doesn't involve "Good idea! Lets shaft Gallente again!"
Each class of structure (ie Citadel, Drilling Platform, Observatory) will belong to an NPC corporation which technically belong to a faction, but you wont see the usual Amarr, Minmatar, Caldari, Gallente stylings. We are creating a new style for each which more accurately reflects their purpose.
With that said, we are leaving the option open to have variations within each class + size, but only where we think we can give them meaningful bonuses.
Edit: I listed Gallente last :tinfoil:
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1180
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 21:26:31 -
[777] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:So, still curious for a response; what sort of 'racial'/faction flavouring will there be?...
...hoping it doesn't involve "Good idea! Lets shaft Gallente again!" Each class of structure (ie Citadel, Drilling Platform, Observatory) will belong to an NPC corporation which technically belong to a faction, but you wont see the usual Amarr, Minmatar, Caldari, Gallente stylings. We are creating a new style for each which more accurately reflects their purpose. With that said, we are leaving the option open to have variations within each class + size, but only where we think we can give them meaningful bonuses. Edit: I listed Gallente last :tinfoil:
Just don't try to nerf gallente hedonism :clingfilm: |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
253
|
Posted - 2015.05.29 22:46:12 -
[778] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:So, still curious for a response; what sort of 'racial'/faction flavouring will there be?...
...hoping it doesn't involve "Good idea! Lets shaft Gallente again!" Each class of structure (ie Citadel, Drilling Platform, Observatory) will belong to an NPC corporation which technically belong to a faction, but you wont see the usual Amarr, Minmatar, Caldari, Gallente stylings. We are creating a new style for each which more accurately reflects their purpose. With that said, we are leaving the option open to have variations within each class + size, but only where we think we can give them meaningful bonuses. Edit: I listed Gallente last :tinfoil: I see.... So, we'll be getting a 'Quafe boobies palace'; bonus to exotic dancer bay size, bugger all shield but 90% of its total HP's in structure?
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
The Tallman
Krannon of Sherwood Carthage Empires
3
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 18:36:40 -
[779] - Quote
So as for how these structures will work in WH vs HS vs NS many have brought up great things to consider and work through on this blog.
But CCP unknowingly it seems has solved a major problem they have in game and it seems they don't know it and I have not seen anyone in this blog mention either.
We all debate what NS, HS, LS and WH is "supposed" to be used for. CCP and most on this still believe that the goal in this game is to make it possible for small corps/alliances to move to NS or LS and survive. This will never happen due to the simple math of large alliance blobs pushing out the smaller groups.
WH space has become the answer for smaller alliances/corps to live in and hold for their own. It is solving a problem in-game but people seem to be stuck in the box thinking the end game should still be NS.
Well the reality is people are solving the problem for themselves in game.
So in my opinion CCP should accept the solution made by small groups holding space, in WH's, "it's difficult living in them" so openly consider suggestions people are making regarding living in these new structures in WH as well as NS.
Suggestions like being able to park caps in Large structures and possibly adding cloning to large structures.
Reason being if you can't park caps in Large Sturctures, people won't live in C5's or C6's and those systems will become MORE UNUSED SPACE in eve. Much like large sections of NS are today.
And for those "not supposed to be living in them" guys, think about this. All the people living in them now should be enough proof it's a valuable draw to this game and should be expanded upon.
So let's stop debating the "supposed to be and should be rules of eve" and think outside the box for this game. Isn't that the core spirit for this game anyway??? |
Random Bacon
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.30 22:44:52 -
[780] - Quote
When the time comes, will the Hyasyoda Mobile Laboratory from the Caldari Epic Arc be updated in storage / still available from the Caldari Epic Mission Arc? |
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:16:46 -
[781] - Quote
I don't recall if it's been mentioned yet, but will the Player Conquerable Stations eventually be removed with Player Built Outposts? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31558
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 16:29:03 -
[782] - Quote
Aker Krane wrote:davet517 wrote:[quote=Orm Magnustat]
It'd be nice to think that these changes will shake things up, but it's highly unlikely that they will. Nullsec is popuated with efficient bureaucrats and politicians now, though they like to pretend to be warlords from time to time. The wars, such as they are, are just theater for the masses. Are you not entertained? Amen If you knew CCP paid our SRP out of confiscated RMT funds, you wouldn't be so calm about it. Yes I'm entertained.
I expect a warning from CCP Falcon, not ISD, for rumor mongering. That was a good one.
I don't get the warm fuzzies from the thought of destructible everything, and am pretty sure I will only commit to what I can log off in space if nothing else changes. Accepting that, we can start to discuss the best way to destroy hoarders' stuff.
I think the best solution is turning destroyed structures and all their contents into balls of harvestable gas and molten-then-solid materials. Zero loss, but then it requires mining lasers and gas harvesters, and salvaging lasers to recover.
This iteration of my destructible structures suggestion supersedes my previous suggestions.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:02:23 -
[783] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:
I don't get the warm fuzzies from the thought of destructible everything, and am pretty sure I will only commit to what I can log off in space if nothing else changes. Accepting that, we can start to discuss the best way to destroy hoarders' stuff.
I think the best solution is turning destroyed structures and all their contents into balls of harvestable gas and molten-then-solid materials. Zero loss, but then it requires mining lasers and gas harvesters, and salvaging lasers to recover.
The present solution is fine. Want your stuff? Organize a fleet to go get it, or try to ninja it out. There should be a time limit on it though. A month or two, then it goes poof. Don't want the galaxy littered with just for you cans everywhere you look. |
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
488
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 00:41:23 -
[784] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Rain6637 wrote:
I don't get the warm fuzzies from the thought of destructible everything, and am pretty sure I will only commit to what I can log off in space if nothing else changes. Accepting that, we can start to discuss the best way to destroy hoarders' stuff.
I think the best solution is turning destroyed structures and all their contents into balls of harvestable gas and molten-then-solid materials. Zero loss, but then it requires mining lasers and gas harvesters, and salvaging lasers to recover.
The present solution is fine. Want your stuff? Organize a fleet to go get it, or try to ninja it out. There should be a time limit on it though. A month or two, then it goes poof. Don't want the galaxy littered with just for you cans everywhere you look. Yeah that will work. No industry, minimal items on local markets, no-one keeping more than they can carry in a fast hauler.
Don't go on vacation or get sick or go somewhere for work you have no internet access, without 1st evacuating everything you own to an NPC station because you'll come back to the game with nothing.
Destructible stations is possibly the best direction to take for, elitist mega groups only, in nulsec.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31562
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 01:22:43 -
[785] - Quote
Revenants are being welped on purpose now, so I suppose we need a new source of schadenfreude.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 11:48:37 -
[786] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Don't go on vacation or get sick or go somewhere for work you have no internet access, without 1st evacuating everything you own to an NPC station because you'll come back to the game with nothing.
Destructible stations is possibly the best direction to take for, elitist mega groups only, in nulsec.
Yes. To the extent that mega-groups form and can be politically stable, they're going to dominate sovereign nullsec. As long as players want to feel powerful, and join mega-groups because they do, that's going to continue. That's the sov game. It's the part of eve for those who make a hard-core commitment to the game. If you aren't interested in making that kind of commitment, or can't, there are plenty of other ways to play the game.
I think you're looking at the "coming back to the game with nothing" part all wrong. Its a good thing. You get busted out, and you start over. It'd be pretty cool to see Mittani and Grath out running level 4s because they had lost all of their stuff. Right now, that's not really possible. Most of the stuff that players like that have is invulnerable.
The one way accumulation of invulnerable wealth does not benefit the "little guy", as you seem to think it does. It benefits we old-timers. Look at Red Alliance in the south, coming back from years of relative inactivity to take their old stomping grounds back in a short time. They couldn't have done that if they'd lost most of their stuff, along with their space. They were able to do it because they weren't starting over from scratch. They just picked up where they left off, with caches of wealth to support them.
As long as so much accumulated wealth remains invulnerable, you'll continue to see the same names dominating the map over and over. You'll also see big entities fold and surrender space quickly, without much of a fight, when they meet a tough challenge, preferring to preserve their invulnerable wealth rather than fight. Much of that wealth needs to get destroyed if 0.0 is going to break out of its current stagnation and experience any meaningful renewal. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31567
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 11:52:42 -
[787] - Quote
What happens to the capsuleers who logged off in station? Or were sitting in T3s at the time.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 12:38:38 -
[788] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:What happens to the capsuleers who logged off in station? Or were sitting in T3s at the time.
They wake up in a wrecked station and can undock, but not re-dock, as I understand it. Not any different from logging off at a POS today that gets destroyed while you're gone, except that you are invulnerable until you decide to undock.
What would happen if you were gone for an extended period and the wreck de-spawned? You'd wake up in a pod in high-sec somewhere, I guess. For a rank-and-file player, it isn't all that different from coming back to find yourself in a hostile station.
Long ago, you always kept a mission boat and some basic stuff in high-sec so that you could start over if you came out on the wrong end of a sov fight. Evaccing your stuff might be hard or impossible. With the proliferation of stations, jump drives, and jump clones we've gotten spoiled over the years. We feel like we're entitled never to lose our stuff, even when we lose space. Consequently, many wars fizzle out before they even get started. It's too easy just to fold, and save your assets. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31568
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 13:13:40 -
[789] - Quote
Brother, I know it. It's not long ago... more like earlier today. I learned that our POS was lost while reading a TMC article, and logged in to reposition my gang that was logged in the forcefield.
I also keep not only a mission boat but a complete character that could be called a main (for thorough skills) in high sec just in case, and for boredom. My point is I'm unaffected by destructible-everything, with utility characters and the ability to source everything I need from Jita, with the exception of the occasional capital ship.
I agree with you that it's no big deal for some of us, who only buy what they can fly and only fly what they can afford to lose. But I'm talking about the industrialists who would be left holding the bag.
As long as there are wormholes that can handle my resupply and reshipping needs, the shooter's fate is not tied to the industrialist's, when it needs to be, in a system where assets are permanently at stake.
For my risk to even begin to rival the industrialist's risk in a destructible-everything EVE, I would have to lose the safety of logging off.
Destructible-everything is more of a reset button, than a self-destruct [EVE] button, and as quiet as this topic is, you would think CCP wanted to call a mulligan on the last decade of the player economy, and that players were OK with it.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Sgt Ocker
Burning Sky Labs
490
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 13:26:49 -
[790] - Quote
davet517 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
Don't go on vacation or get sick or go somewhere for work you have no internet access, without 1st evacuating everything you own to an NPC station because you'll come back to the game with nothing.
Destructible stations is possibly the best direction to take for, elitist mega groups only, in nulsec.
Yes. To the extent that mega-groups form and can be politically stable, they're going to dominate sovereign nullsec. As long as players want to feel powerful, and join mega-groups because they do, that's going to continue. That's the sov game. It's the part of eve for those who make a hard-core commitment to the game. If you aren't interested in making that kind of commitment, or can't, there are plenty of other ways to play the game. I think you're looking at the "coming back to the game with nothing" part all wrong. Its a good thing. You get busted out, and you start over. It'd be pretty cool to see Mittani and Grath out running level 4s because they had lost all of their stuff. Right now, that's not really possible. Most of the stuff that players like that have is invulnerable. The one way accumulation of invulnerable wealth does not benefit the "little guy", as you seem to think it does. It benefits we old-timers. Look at Red Alliance in the south, coming back from years of relative inactivity to take their old stomping grounds back in a short time. They couldn't have done that if they'd lost most of their stuff, along with their space. They were able to do it because they weren't starting over from scratch. They just picked up where they left off, with caches of wealth to support them. As long as so much accumulated wealth remains invulnerable, you'll continue to see the same names dominating the map over and over. You'll also see big entities fold and surrender space quickly, without much of a fight, when they meet a tough challenge, preferring to preserve their invulnerable wealth rather than fight. Much of that wealth needs to get destroyed if 0.0 is going to break out of its current stagnation and experience any meaningful renewal. I'm interested.. Where in FozzieSov do you see the large dominating groups become vulnerable? FozzieSov is designed to give them every benefit with no drawbacks.
The only ones who risk "getting busted out" are the smaller and any new groups that believe fozziesov will enable change.
"Busting" the likes of Mittens and Grath is not possible now and it won't be with citadels and the pretend sov changes. FozzieSov does nothing to address the distribution of wealth, it is simply a pseudo balance to sov. Changes the way sov is taken (much easier for large established groups to boot new comers) while not changing, the way sov is taken. Meaning; The larger and more established the group the easier to maintain current sov.
The only thing FozzieSov really does, is remove long drawn out structure shoots. It doesn't remove hours of grinding (it brings an all new type of endless grinding), it doesn't affect the ease with which blob fleets dominate, it doesn't offer new groups a reason to enter the sov mini game. Basically Fozziesov offers so little, it was quietly dropped from tomorrows update.
Using entosis links used on station services will provide a little content for a few months, for those who will bother risking lossmails for no other reason than to force someone to run an entosis link for half the time they did to undo what they achieved.
The recent activity we have seen in sov can be attributed to Fozziesov. Groups positioning themselves for the future of nice easy to defend sov. By the time the rest of fozzies proposal hits TQ (if it does) all the existing groups will have maxed out defensive indexes and so, nothing to fear from fozzies whack a mole mini games.
You are right, the accumulated wealth does need to be broken up, FozzieSov is not going to do that though and with CCP's track record for change, it will be another 4 or more years before anyone has another try.
Just one last thing, the "accumulated wealth" will just get moved from vulnerable Citadels to nice secure stations. So even if you did manage to destroy the home of one of the mega groups you would achieve little more than disrupting the line members for a few days. The rich didn't get that way by risking what they have in vulnerable places.
NB; Mittani hasn't logged into the game in about 4 years, can't see him ever needing to again, as long as Goons exist, his future (in and out of game) is pretty secure.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31568
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 13:35:02 -
[791] - Quote
Couple things.
What was removed from the update might have something to do with the strike that sort of happened. The preliminary strike, but short of the perpetual one set to start on the 6th.
Just in case you're not familiar, this avatar pose and background, and jacket suggests I'm a Reaver. We're no secret now, and neither is how we get our jollies--by threatening people's stuff.
Nomadic, slippery, self-sustained... the only resupply we need from the outside is ISK, and that happens remotely.
I'm glad I'm not the one to claim it, because bias and the source and all: I'm not concerned about us, and not for some type of blind loyalty. It's just that this group exceeds the organizational level required by destructible-everything. With no hard ties between shooters and industrialists, a group needs the capability to order offense or defense with no immediate reasons given, or direct causality.
That's the standard that destructible-everything will set, and a lot of groups won't make the cut.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Suede
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 15:20:29 -
[792] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:So, still curious for a response; what sort of 'racial'/faction flavouring will there be?...
...hoping it doesn't involve "Good idea! Lets shaft Gallente again!" Each class of structure (ie Citadel, Drilling Platform, Observatory) will belong to an NPC corporation which technically belong to a faction, but you wont see the usual Amarr, Minmatar, Caldari, Gallente stylings. We are creating a new style for each which more accurately reflects their purpose. With that said, we are leaving the option open to have variations within each class + size, but only where we think we can give them meaningful bonuses. Edit: I listed Gallente last :tinfoil:
will you make Citadel flyable so can warp them about, fly them bit like Star Trek Deep Space Nine as it could move |
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 15:26:35 -
[793] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:What was removed from the update might have something to do with the strike that sort of happened. The preliminary strike, but short of the perpetual one set to start on the 6th.
Being in software development myself I'd say it's more likely that they just ran into some show-stopper bugs or potential exploits that block the release of it. I think it's pretty wild that they just drop something that major from a release without a word, though. Everyone's been sitting on their hands for a while now waiting on this. Looks like the waiting will continue.
Quote: Just in case you're not familiar, this avatar pose and background, and jacket suggests I'm a Reaver. We're no secret now, and neither is how we get our jollies--by threatening people's stuff.
Nomadic, slippery, self-sustained... the only resupply we need from the outside is ISK, and that happens remotely.
As a firefly fan, I find it a little strange having a reasonably rational conversation with a reaver, but, a nomadic life of threatening people's stuff sounds like fun. Good luck with that.
Quote: I'm glad I'm not the one to claim it, because bias and the source and all: I'm not concerned about us, and not for some type of blind loyalty. It's just that this group exceeds the organizational level required by destructible-everything. With no hard ties between shooters and industrialists, a group needs the capability to order offense or defense with no immediate reasons given, or direct causality.
But you do have a direct link. You mentioned it above: Isk. Without a centralized banking system, and common currency, the flow of isk from the outside on which you depend wouldn't be possible. It's the reason that NBSI as we know it can exist. Imagine if each sovereign entity had to establish and manage their own currencies, and collect taxes in that currency.
Domestic consumption, production, and trade with other sovereign entities would all become far more important than they are now. It would also open the possibility of forex trading, and more or less cut off those who rely on RMT for real life income from deriving that income from their alliance holdings, except to the extent that people wanted to buy their sovereign currency for real money. That sovereign currency would also become worthless if the sovereign entity was conquered.
It would make the game far more interesting, and dynamic, but it would also upset various stakeholders, for obvious reasons.
|
davet517
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 16:08:05 -
[794] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:[ I'm interested.. Where in FozzieSov do you see the large dominating groups become vulnerable? FozzieSov is designed to give them every benefit with no drawbacks.
It made them far more vulnerable to harassment it its original form than it does now, but even now, it has caused them to rethink vast rental holdings and the amount of space that they intend to try to defend. I think that some of them are thinking that they'll position hardened entities around their borders to protect a soft renter middle, but still, it's an improvement from vast sections of the map being rented out.
Quote: The only ones who risk "getting busted out" are the smaller and any new groups that believe fozziesov will enable change.
That's true. Small, unaligned entities who try to take space will undoubtedly get crapped on by the blocs and their attack dogs, just because they can. Straight up extortion may replace rent as an income source.
Quote: "Busting" the likes of Mittens and Grath is not possible now and it won't be with citadels and the pretend sov changes. FozzieSov does nothing to address the distribution of wealth, it is simply a pseudo balance to sov. Changes the way sov is taken (much easier for large established groups to boot new comers) while not changing, the way sov is taken. Meaning; The larger and more established the group the easier to maintain current sov.
Fozziesov doesn't. Getting rid of indestructible stations would be a step in that direction. It wouldn't do it alone. You'd also most likely have to break up the universal banking system, so that currency had to be transported from time to time too.
Quote: The only thing FozzieSov really does, is remove long drawn out structure shoots. It doesn't remove hours of grinding (it brings an all new type of endless grinding), it doesn't affect the ease with which blob fleets dominate, it doesn't offer new groups a reason to enter the sov mini game.
The recent activity we have seen in sov can be attributed to Fozziesov. Groups positioning themselves for the future of nice easy to defend sov. By the time the rest of fozzies proposal hits TQ (if it does) all the existing groups will have maxed out defensive indexes and so, nothing to fear from fozzies whack a mole mini games.
I don't think that's true. Its making it possible to threaten undefended sov in a meaningful way without having to escalate to capitals, drawing an opposing or third party super-capital response. The "nuclear deterrent" of massive super-cap blobs has contributed quite a bit to the current stagnant state.
You've seen power blocs abandon entire regions, give up renter empires, and consolidate entities. All of which they would not have done otherwise.
In my opinion, the balance that they need to achieve is making it just as much fun to attack a power bloc as it is to be in one. Not more fun, but not less either. Right now, being in a power bloc kind of rules, and attacking one kind of sucks. Being in one needs to rule less, and being a small, nimble entity attacking one needs to suck less. There's a lot about fozziesov that I don't like, but, it is at least an acknowledgement that there is a problem. They need to keep iterating on it until they achieve that balance.
Quote: NB; Mittani hasn't logged into the game in about 4 years, can't see him ever needing to again, as long as Goons exist, his future (in and out of game) is pretty secure.
Hopefully he won't wake up one day and wish that he'd done more with his life. That would be a shame.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31571
|
Posted - 2015.06.01 18:56:15 -
[795] - Quote
Perhaps what I should have said was direct ISK interdependency.
Help, I can't download EVE
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
722
|
Posted - 2015.06.02 12:10:20 -
[796] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:So, still curious for a response; what sort of 'racial'/faction flavouring will there be?...
...hoping it doesn't involve "Good idea! Lets shaft Gallente again!" Each class of structure (ie Citadel, Drilling Platform, Observatory) will belong to an NPC corporation which technically belong to a faction, but you wont see the usual Amarr, Minmatar, Caldari, Gallente stylings. We are creating a new style for each which more accurately reflects their purpose. With that said, we are leaving the option open to have variations within each class + size, but only where we think we can give them meaningful bonuses. Edit: I listed Gallente last :tinfoil:
Excellent.
Serpentis Drug Laboratory, yes? Gib.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Qia Kare
Starlight Corp
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 09:16:58 -
[797] - Quote
I would very much like to see some sort of hanger that can be shared with all players who have access to a structure.
My personal goal with the structures is to run some sort of player owned hub for the public good, or at least a hub for the good of those people I choose to share it with.
I make my home in hisec and I find I meet a fair number of fledgeling players who are just getting their feet wet in EVE. I wouldn't call myself a veteran, or even a particularly serious player, but I do like to share knowledge of the game's basic principles, handy basic skills to train, and provide entry level ships or equipment that I can fairly easily make, find, or buy and transport back to base. I would love to be able to stock some skill books, ships (even better if I can fit them), and a smattering of parts and ammunition for these people to experiment without having to coerce them into joining my corporation so they can access a shared hanger, and I'd like them to be able to experiment on their own with a wide variety of fittings without duplicating a big box of spare parts and ammo across every player I meet.
Being able to form some kind of trust based relationship with players who are already committed to other corporations, or who like to do things independently on their own terms would go a long way towards making my EVE more social. Plus, letting newbies blow up my assets has got to be good for player retention and the EVE economy. |
Colonel Tosh
Swamphole Inc. Swamphole
14
|
Posted - 2015.06.03 11:11:21 -
[798] - 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.
What would this mean for wormhole space where the ability to shoot aggressors while you scramble will be an important deterrent, especially considering balancing? And on the flipside, how would vulnerability affect gameplay in w-space? Right now I could grab a fleet and reinforce their system whenever we're rolling into them, but after the patch it seems we're bound to a vulnerability window that greatly reduces the aggressors chances of clearing out towers in a system which shouldn't have any (such as staging towers) outside our own?
|
Draahk Chimera
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
56
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 10:53:30 -
[799] - Quote
So it's been a while and I don't know if any devs are still reading the thread or not but I have a few concerns/questions.
1. With the anchoring restrictions removed will the nullbear empires be able to build Dyson Spheres around every harvestable moon under their control? Or will there be a restriction of 1 moon harvest module per moon maximum or whatever?
2. Having the tax income from Jita market is going to be the largest single income in game for any alliance that can control it. Have you given any thought to the effect on the market when the 4-5 strongest alliances goes to perpetual war with eachother in a 250km sphere around Jita 4-4? While I realize this sounds fun and EVE-y it might have far reaching economic implications for every other player in the game, who might not find it very fun.
3. How will you handle alts in W-space? As it is now all my characters can have access to the same hangars to use ships and take out or put in items. If personal hangars are introduced there is going to be a whole lot of hazzle. Not to mention if I happen to have same-account alts since (I hope) there are no contracts in W-space.
404 - Image not found
|
Sean Roach
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 19:36:01 -
[800] - Quote
I had a wild idea. Those reclaim cans that a trashed station are possibly supposed to spew out? Set them invulnerable, (and invisible to other players,) for one week. Free. Easy to find in the system you lost it in. Possibly even broken into smaller packages, scattered about, for easier pickup and ship-out.
After one week, move all that stuff ONE jump toward high-sec, and place a 10% "salvage fee" on the estimated value of the hanger contents, to activate it so you can get it. Still invisible until you visit. A notification should inform you of the new cost. Payment can be rendered on warp-to, (at the same time the can becomes "real" to everyone else).
One week later, move it all ONE MORE jump toward high-sec, and up that salvage fee, say to 15%, (5 plus 5 for every jump inward). How much of null is within 19 jumps of high?
When it hits a system with an indestructible NPC station, transfer this salvage from a floating can in space, to an Item Transfer Contract. At this point, it'll only jump when enough weeks have passed to get to the next NPC station in the shortest path toward high-sec. Defined as 0.5,
When it reaches High-Sec, and the nearest NPC station there, it becomes a permanent contract until reclaimed, for however much accrued through it's trip through low and null. If the nearest high-sec system somehow lacks a station, it'll keep jumping "inward" until one is found.
At each stage, the option should exist to "sell" the contract, converting it to 50% of its total value as ISK, possibly +/- some percentage, using the global price average, or mineral value, if you REALLY don't want to leak that value, (or are afraid some Goon player corp will manipulate the market to make the cans too expensive to reclaim..)
So, you lose a 1B can worth of stuff 15 jumps beyond high-sec, (and, for arguments sake, 5 jumps into SOV, with no stations except player built or controlled ones.) For 1 week, in the system, you can reclaim it. Free. Just find it on the scanner, or journal, and warp to it. No charge, except possibly your ship and pod if you're caught. After a week, it'll cost you 100M to pick it up in the next system toward high. After another week, it'll cost you 150M to pick it up in the next system toward high. After five weeks, it hits its first NPC station, and it'll cost you (5+(jumps*5))%, 30% of the value of the goods, so 300M to claim. Let's say the next system doesn't have a station, but the price continues to climb. You can pick it up in the same station for 350M in the next week. So two weeks after it hit the last NPC station, (seven total), another NPC station is available. Pou can pick it up at an NPC station that's about 8 jumps from high, but it'll cost you 400M to collect now.
You wait until it hits the edge of high-sec, (or any time after that,) and it'll cost you 80% of its estimated value to reclaim. 800M.
Of course, at any time, you can give up and take the 50% payout offer. The stuff won't show up in market, but you'll get half market prices for it.
Just throwing this out there. It makes it expensive to not reclaim your stuff yourself, while allowing you to wait for it to come to you, if you have no other real option.
And some people may well pay 110% for their stuff back, after it flies 21 jumps inward. Especially if that stuff includes undervalued or irreplaceable items such as tournament rewards, (or T2 hulls, if mineral value is used, rather than market value, for the determination of reclaim fee. Plenty of opportunity to flex the market to drive the price of such cans up, or down, in either case.)
Further refinements. It might be fair to tie this to the account, so if you're account is not active, it doesn't accrue further expense for lost stuff. But that lost stuff doesn't move from the system it was lost in, either, until you re-up. Then it starts moving (again), one system a week, just as if you lost it the day you paid the subscription.
The notice, and contract, should be globally linkable. They should ideally even be something that can be put in a contract themselves. You can't get your stuff before 10 jumps, and don't want to accept, or pay, 50% of it's value? Offer it to the conquering corp for 65%, or whatever seems reasonable to you, of its value. Now THEY can activate it, and "re"claim it. Or let it drift toward high.
Just linking it shouldn't make it activatable by others, but it gives you a means of certifying the "value" should you be selling it, or hiring a fleet to help you reclaim it. It would certainly be fair for the list of items to be in that link, as with any other contract, so whoever you're selling to, or hiring, can make their own evaluations of the value.
|
|
Sean Roach
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 19:57:36 -
[801] - Quote
1. How about building Dyson Spheres of interdiction and DPS around the gates themselves? Probably easier to limit the number of minerals a moon can produce, and let all those POS's have a share of this whole.
2. So long as the markets stay open, I doubt too many people will care if the stations say Caldari Navy Assembly, Goonswarm, TEST, or whatever. So long as the markets stay open. The moment those stations become closed to non-blue, or just closed to red, there'll be some complaints. Oh, and the Goons would do that, too. Freeze out a faction until it played by Goon rules? Oh, yes. So long as they were sparing in this form of economic abuse, they'd probably even get away with it. What do _I_ care, as an NPC corp player, if TEST can't dock at JITA because the Goons want to manipulate the market, and want to freeze the second-largest supplier of something out for awhile? I go to Wal-Mart, all the time, and see they're STILL out of a certain brand of something...but they have plenty of the store label.
2a. A classic game of low-null potentially becomes playable in high. Contract something for delivery to 4-4...then lock the doors to the contract holder.
Draahk Chimera wrote:So it's been a while and I don't know if any devs are still reading the thread or not but I have a few concerns/questions.
1. With the anchoring restrictions removed will the nullbear empires be able to build Dyson Spheres around every harvestable moon under their control? Or will there be a restriction of 1 moon harvest module per moon maximum or whatever?
2. Having the tax income from Jita market is going to be the largest single income in game for any alliance that can control it. Have you given any thought to the effect on the market when the 4-5 strongest alliances goes to perpetual war with eachother in a 250km sphere around Jita 4-4? While I realize this sounds fun and EVE-y it might have far reaching economic implications for every other player in the game, who might not find it very fun.
3. How will you handle alts in W-space? As it is now all my characters can have access to the same hangars to use ships and take out or put in items. If personal hangars are introduced there is going to be a whole lot of hazzle. Not to mention if I happen to have same-account alts since (I hope) there are no contracts in W-space.
|
Jennifer Maxwell
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
279
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 22:03:46 -
[802] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:handige harrie wrote:I like those designs a lot.
Would it be possible to have multiple designs for structures, so players can choose which one they want and make different systems have a different look to them, instead of seeing the same structure everywhere? That is sort of the point with the different classes, each size and each class will be a different hull like ships. But within sizes, there are LOTS of options for ships. Even one race has three different BSes, five different cruisers, and seven different frigates.
I would sacrifice functionality for diversity, personally.
A small question; what's the minimum range I'm gonna be able to anchor these away from eachother? People have brought it up before that poses can take on a fairly large fleet if built right. But these aren't going to be able to. Can we build fortresses in space with these new structures?
Can we have deadspace pockets? Please? |
Andreus Ixiris
Duty. Circle-Of-Two
5363
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 12:02:44 -
[803] - Quote
Why has CCP decided to not allow some amount of weapon automation on these new structures? I don't really understand the rationale behind this decision.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32003
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 12:18:31 -
[804] - Quote
It makes sense to me. It requires someone to be home. I'm curious why so much weapon automation is allowed with drones (with magic unlimited ammo and capacitor).
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
|
Oxide Ammar
208
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 12:52:09 -
[805] - Quote
My wish list:
1- remove the moon anchoring requirement to anchor your POS (unless you wanna moon mining ofc) and you can anchor your POS anywhere.
2- ability to hide/show my POS from overview based on provided service targeted group. Show it only to me if it's for my personal use, show to corp/ alliance if it's shared between corp/ alliance. It can be probed out if someone making an effort to track you down ofc.
3- automated defences is a must, EVE is a game you don't have to turn it into full time job to enjoy some aspects of the game.
4- Integrate an advertisement system either from the new advertisement centres or another method to advertise for a public services that Corps are providing at certain rates. Sell orders section in the forums is good but I think we prefer an ingame publishing method.
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
Felo Maxun
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
109
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 16:48:00 -
[806] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:So, still curious for a response; what sort of 'racial'/faction flavouring will there be?...
...hoping it doesn't involve "Good idea! Lets shaft Gallente again!" Each class of structure (ie Citadel, Drilling Platform, Observatory) will belong to an NPC corporation which technically belong to a faction, but you wont see the usual Amarr, Minmatar, Caldari, Gallente stylings. We are creating a new style for each which more accurately reflects their purpose. With that said, we are leaving the option open to have variations within each class + size, but only where we think we can give them meaningful bonuses. Edit: I listed Gallente last :tinfoil:
In regards to the models, seeing as they look like incredibly flat and wide structures, and with the way collision seems to function in eve, are we likely to see weird collision issues with these structures when flying around them (more so than current stations)? |
stoicfaux
6175
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 19:10:10 -
[807] - Quote
Two questions: Placing bubbles around citadels will be allowed, yes?
Placing bubbles around citadels, which can be anchored almost anywhere and can be heavily armed, will be allowed, yes?
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5465
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 22:36:19 -
[808] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Two questions: Placing bubbles around citadels will be allowed, yes?
Placing bubbles around citadels, which can be anchored almost anywhere and can be heavily armed, will be allowed, yes?
There's certainly been no discussion of not allowing it. (because, I feel, that would be pants on head stupid)
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
681
|
Posted - 2015.07.29 05:04:18 -
[809] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Two questions: Placing bubbles around citadels will be allowed, yes?
Placing bubbles around citadels, which can be anchored almost anywhere and can be heavily armed, will be allowed, yes?
There's certainly been no discussion of not allowing it. (because, I feel, that would be pants on head stupid) Bubbling Citadels would really serve no purpose but to stop defenders using anything other than ceptors, which seem to be "ship of choice" for entosis link users.
Bubble your citadel you pretty much guarantee, it is going to die as they are only useful against DPS. Which of course will not be needed to attack your citadel. ( I am still trying to work out why Citadels need guns - Nothing else to do with sov or the new structures has anything directly to do with DPS)
So yes, while stopping the use of bubbles around Citadels would be pants on head stupid - So would, in many cases, be bubbling your Citadel.
lIMO, ceptor bubble immunity needs to be looked at where Entosis links are concerned. Maybe a bit of a drawback for the ceptor trolls - Interceptors lose bubble immunity while an Entosis link is fit to the ship. The biggest ships in the game have a drawback to make them less effective (increase risk) in Entosis mini games, why then does the smallest (and most efficient) not have something as well?
PS; Fozzie, if one of the goals with the new sov was to reduce hours of mind numbing grinding (which I believe it was) - It is so far a resounding failure. It is often now a worse kind of grind - You can spend hours chasing around individuals with all but unstoppable interceptors trying to RF your structures.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator
|
Robert Muse
Mech Holding's Mech Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 16:56:55 -
[810] - Quote
Maybe someone, somewhere has already asked or answered this question?
If null sec outposts are to be removed in time and replaced by XL structures fro example, if people have assets stuck in outposts either by size, QTY, or access to those outposts either due to time not in game.
Or say if they are accounts are not active or some other form of infeasability to access or move assets what will happed to them when the outposts are finally removed from the game?
> Are they to be scrapped for good? > Will they be moved to the nearest null sec NPC station or another. > Will isk or credits be awarded to accounts/owners.
I just ask as i know many cannot move or access assets ? maybe due to not playing, changing politics and access but they have always been there as outposts were industructable but in the plans to replace these with new structures?
What mechanics do CCP plan for these?
So i.e. Say some miltary guy is inactive from the game (maybe as they are on deployment) they account is inactive for 6 months or for some period, then they log back in once back from tour, only to find the outpost is now gone and so has thier assets?
Any links to CCP plans or thoughts would be welcome.
R o/ |
|
Falos Kumamato
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 19:49:34 -
[811] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:This one ccp nullabor mentions now is also being discussed by the csm. Its good ccp nullabor is open about the intention behind no pos or structure guns firing with no player active in control off them. Cause its a major change from current mechanisms. If u add the possibility too it from the structures then u can see a attack with hundreds of timers generated in 1 evening. Being it ton of structurs hit, systems hit with the link spawns to defend, and a buttload of reffed station services. Cause all these attacks have been removed from ehp grind, u can generate a insane amount of timers, which isnt possible under the current system.
Like nullabor said the trolling element is being watched and considered, however the mass storm of a attacker,blitzing a region, and the next hulkageddon being a posgeddon is one the csm is very much in discussion with CCP , and raises once more the debate, why be in null, why own sov. Only to lose it. Personally as a player and a csm i hope a fase 3 would follow the structures and the sov remoddeling. One where owning sov actually benenfits in a way thats both rewarding isk wise, but even more so fofilling deeper drivers. A model where buidable sov and upgrades are earned and can be applied by sovowners too give more sense of ownership would be for me personally, the way forward. While I have no doubt that this is being brought forward to the CSM, I will state again here that this effect is massively amplified when your entire corporation or alliance assets are wrapped up in that single structure as is the case in wormhole space for many small to mid-sized corporations. Asset safety mechanisms are all fine and good in k-space but these w-space systems are not systems I can return to at my leisure after being removed from them. A journal entry telling me my stuff is floating in J123456 does me zero good after I have been permanently removed. This is no different than the risk I take today in my POS except that the level of attacking force needed to remove my POS is exponentially more than the level of force needed under Entosis mechanisms especially since the new structures refuse to defend themselves. Why I am aganist medclone/jumpclone bay in w-space: Corp "My Knocks are Hard" and "Thundercatz" are wormhole pvp corps.
Part of their daily activities involves roams through null, pretty trying to catch every nullbear they can get their hands on.
So now we have entosis links. in about a year, we have new structures, a broke market (which means probably a broke contract system too) and you give these guys access to clones.
Lets say they are feeling frisky and want to cause a lot of nullbear grief. They set up a Blops fleet and seriously tank up their entosis links with plenty of ewar coverage, not so high on damage. Your in alliance A. You cant get enough people to stop them because they are running THAT many force multipliers (we'll say they have 14 ships. 2 are ento's and a few of the ewar ships are cyno fitted). They are rolling through your space trying to bait. reinforce after reinforce is being triggered.
Either or any of these corps has no interest in nullsov or staying their. They are jhust doing this to get fights and grief nullbears. you manage to kill one, but now they no longer have to worry about finding an entrance into thier W-space. cause you gave them med/clone bays in W-space.
This ends in three possible ways.
Option A: No one takes the bait, no blops hotdrop and either get get tired and leave, or they just steamroll and force the entire lane from their wormhole and every station in between into reinforce. Lets say they dont have a hole ending in that null, so they don't show up when out of reinforce. They didnt care about that anyhow.
Option B: someone takes the bait, hot drop and counter hotdrop: may the best side win!
Option C: (the less likely), the wormholers establish sov since they get hole (or hole close enough) for every timer. How could this happen? no ones got structures around, we would have found them and those would be dealt with before hand. But the guys we killed kept on comming back, which no one else outside the regoin could do unless they deployed their own structure. Kept it safe.. why?
Just my slant on one aspect. I am still looking forward to changes!
Please don't break null market. Please don't break null contract system |
Falos Kumamato
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 20:36:26 -
[812] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:per wrote:hmm, long time no asnwer from dev around
btw how about letting the citadel defend intself like poses do atm (ability to repel trolls with enthosis) but if they will be manned their dmg will be much better (skills + focused fire)
Still reading, most of the questions have been answered by blue tags in the thread already (a lot of duplicate questions). Some questions don't have answers from us yet, but we're noting everything down and discussing it all with the team. So thanks everyone for your feedback so far. Does production of those new structures still involve PI stuff like pos structures? i.e. citadel itself will be build similar to to pos while citadel services/modules similar to pos modules?
Structure eggs with timers I forsee. |
Draahk Chimera
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
82
|
Posted - 2015.08.01 10:26:13 -
[813] - Quote
Robert Muse wrote:Maybe someone, somewhere has already asked or answered this question?
If null sec outposts are to be removed in time and replaced by XL structures fro example, if people have assets stuck in outposts either by size, QTY, or access to those outposts either due to time not in game.
Or say if they are accounts are not active or some other form of infeasability to access or move assets what will happed to them when the outposts are finally removed from the game?
> Are they to be scrapped for good? > Will they be moved to the nearest null sec NPC station or another. > Will isk or credits be awarded to accounts/owners.
I just ask as i know many cannot move or access assets ? maybe due to not playing, changing politics and access but they have always been there as outposts were industructable but in the plans to replace these with new structures?
What mechanics do CCP plan for these?
So i.e. Say some miltary guy is inactive from the game (maybe as they are on deployment) they account is inactive for 6 months or for some period, then they log back in once back from tour, only to find the outpost is now gone and so has thier assets?
Any links to CCP plans or thoughts would be welcome.
R o/
I am sorry I can not provide a link because i honestly have forgotten where I heard this. As far as I understand outposts will not be "removed from game" as such. Once XL chateaux is a well integrated part of the game outposts will be made destructible. If your outposts are removed from game or not is therefore up to the players.
404 - Image not found
|
GizzyBoy
Aperture Harmonics K162
168
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 10:43:11 -
[814] - Quote
better late than never, pirate versions?
skins?? |
Brown Pathfinder
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 13:03:12 -
[815] - Quote
Pirate skins versions or npc corp variants like with current ship skins would be a no brainer for CCP make a skin and maybe have traits with the skin if any? |
Sabastian Cerabiam
Seventh Element Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 17:07:24 -
[816] - Quote
I'm hoping CCP comes out with some new info soon. Last i heard the new station setup would start to be implemented this summer. Well this summer is almost over. The AUG patch is only fleet warp mechanics. Which means as it currently stands station mechanics wont be changing this summer. |
Jacob Gault
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 21:34:47 -
[817] - Quote
Just be clam lots of god features will be rolling out soon eought haha...
"talks" of capital changes coming soon... "talks" of the new stations information coming out...
One thing I would like to see is monthly updates on EVE projects seeing sneak peaks...
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
683
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 23:13:50 -
[818] - Quote
Jacob Gault wrote:Just be clam lots of god features will be rolling out soon eought haha... "talks" of capital changes coming soon... "talks" of the new stations information coming out... One thing I would like to see is monthly updates on EVE projects seeing sneak peaks...
There isn't much to show but it is available
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/ This too used to be a good source to follow to find out what was going on but has recently turned into - Well not much really. Last update about anything relevant to Eve as a game, was over a month ago.
Like this thread, 3 months old with no new information, Devs must have discovered http://bit.ly/1hoFiqA
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator
|
Samsara Nolte
Random Thinking Union Random Thinking
24
|
Posted - 2015.08.08 13:14:27 -
[819] - Quote
All structures will show on D-scan, can be probed, and will be scannable to see their fittings and contents. We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay.
That does not preserve wormhole gameplay ! At the moment finding a tower requires some skill and therefore time to find (which in fact can be an important and fight deciding factor) depending on how good you are at it which will be completly removed if those new structres will be warpable by default. I urge you to not implement that. And it also had value in some kind of dry run on a regulary basis in the use of the d-scan. A much required thing to be in existance especially for corps accepting noobs to get them up to speed in using d-scan - the most important skill to have as a player in w-space !
I for one would find it a much more preferred mechanic if this structures would still be needed to be anchored at moons at least in wormhole space. There is quite a large number of corps out there who choose their wormhole to be their home with number of existing Moons in mind. Since those are in normal circumstances the toehold of an invading force. And removing this strategic aspect of consideration you had to take in choosing a wormhole, would render a large atm inhabitat wormholes to be vacated - increasing the demand of wormholes mostly for effect and Planetary Interaction capabilities and static. which in my opinion would be bad. since it would contribute to homogenise selection process resulting in a few wormholes sought after and the all others to be unwanted.
Which might creat conflict - or what i believe to gonna be the case it won-¦t and will only result in corps moving out not willing to take part in the conquest of those wormholes. What might be another hit for the well being of w-space.
|
Chiana Dar'Ago
Long Pig Luncheon Meat Voice of Void Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 10:58:24 -
[820] - Quote
What the hell is this BS?
I remember over the years asking for POSes that move or can be anchored near the gate or in close proximity to each other in order to increase defense. I don't want to spend all my time in the game trying to defend structures. What moron thought up this nightmare scenario? You idiots continue to only to think of pew pew that is only one aspect of this game. The best thing about Eve Online WAS it catered to many different types of people and you could do anything in the game. You have lost the idea of what made this game great. And again this will have a chilling effect on indy players. None of the changes you have made over the past 2 years have been an aid to this group or small to medium sized player corps. I have watched as yet again another large group of long time players sold or gave away all their Eve trinkets.
It's an interesting sales pitch that "it will level the playing field" but it won't; Larger corporations will just be able to do more damage and the smaller corps will just get screwed in the process. Leading most new players and small player corps to come to the conclusion that "The only winning move is not to play".
Its already bad enough that PLEX will soon be gone and everyone will be required to have a subscription, maybe you should expand your thinking beyond giving the pew pew neanderthals one more target to shoot. |
|
Beanhead2
The Bean Consortium
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:54:06 -
[821] - Quote
Citadels look really cool and I am looking forward to seeing them released. Do we know what the plan is for old POS structures? Will there be a way to convert existing towers/arrays into a citadel? |
Drachiel
Mercury LLC
37
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 01:52:01 -
[822] - Quote
What if the medium ones can cloak outside their vulnerability windows and for a few minutes after someone docks/undocks? Deep-deployment blops is love. |
Talsha Talamar
Nebula Rasa Holdings Nebula Rasa
19
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 03:19:17 -
[823] - Quote
While I love the new concepts, some things worry me:
- Please make sure that EvE does not turn into Real Estate Online like Ultima Online did back then.
- Also I hope it is not CCPs plan to phase out the Empires in High-Sec.
- Moreover XL-Citadel market places in high-sec have quite the potential for shaking up the foundations of EvEs economy. In connection with planned changes to production and research structures, this all might be a bit to much and radical change at once.
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32161
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 06:42:55 -
[824] - Quote
Drachiel wrote:What if the medium ones can cloak outside their vulnerability windows and for a few minutes after someone docks/undocks? Deep-deployment blops is love. The goal is deploy deep inside the back end of other people's territory. +1
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
690
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 07:34:23 -
[825] - Quote
I'm not excited about simplified POS's. I think you may remember that I many times have firmly suggested that it's the complexity of EVE that is its forte. Complexity is what I find the most fun in EVE. Making the POS into a ship....will completely turn me off to POS. The other stuff is fine... I suppose.
-á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
|
XOS Psymon
eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.
7
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 12:09:18 -
[826] - Quote
Hello there,
What pricerange will it be for Small, Large and XL Citadels ?
I would like to know how small WH entities would be able to use Caps as they used to park those in POS (with our without parking them in a CSAA).
If you do that this way, can you tell me how convinent that will be for WH entities (since previous patches, we have seen a real migration of WH population getting out of Wormholes because it was more and more abandonated by players).
Wormholes were pretty nice when they were full of small entities, those entitites were creating content for medium scale entities, and then Medium entities were able to provide content for large-scale entities. Since your last changes, medium entities merged with eatch other to get stronger, the reaction of large entities were about the same and then WHS was full of emptiness, since most active entities were found in 10 ish systems. The result is that most entities fell down in inactivity or went to K-Space, Low-Class WH or even wuit EvE, witch is a pain both for the community and for you, CCP.
I think you've broke up something there, If you want to make it worth it, you have to somehow rebuild what it was possible to do for all kind of entities in the past.
Psymon
|
Spar Multendor
The Darwin Awards Prize Patrol Internet Space Bullies Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 22:43:01 -
[827] - Quote
For give me if these have been asked and or answered...
Will we be able to equip warfare links?
Can you dock if you are criminal?
Does the invulnerability link (or w/e its being called by now) protect you from NPCs while you are in a ship (Concord, Police, Navy, ect)?
What will happen if you attack citadels in highsec?
Can remote repair modules be fit to Citadels?
When can we expect to see something on the test server? |
Grognard Commissar
EVE University Ivy League
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 03:20:08 -
[828] - Quote
[quote=Black Pedro
Like it or not, that is the direction CCP is taking the game. I see no reason why the poor folk living in nullsec should be the only ones forced to show up and defend anytime someone knocks on the door, whether or not the aggressor is just trolling or really looking for a fight. [/quote] uhh... because it's nullsec... otherwise... there's no point to putting a structure in hisec. heck, i'd put it out in null just si I could fit all the fun AoE weaps to it. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1510
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 05:38:00 -
[829] - Quote
Grognard Commissar wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
Like it or not, that is the direction CCP is taking the game. I see no reason why the poor folk living in nullsec should be the only ones forced to show up and defend anytime someone knocks on the door, whether or not the aggressor is just trolling or really looking for a fight.
uhh... because it's nullsec... otherwise... there's no point to putting a structure in hisec. heck, i'd put it out in null just si I could fit all the fun AoE weaps to it. Highsec is not safesec. If you want to deploy a structure and enjoy the benefits of one, you have to defend it. All highsec means, you should have more security over who attacks you and/or some warning, which the wardec mechanic provides, not that you shouldn't have to defend your stuff.
The mechanics heavily favour the defender, but you are going to have to show up to defend your structure. That is clearly a main goal of this design.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
787
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 17:56:59 -
[830] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:It makes sense to me. It requires someone to be home. I'm curious why so much weapon automation is allowed with drones (with magic unlimited ammo and capacitor).
Probably ecause there's more pressing issues, and drones are reasonably well balanced now (that Ishtars have been dealt with).
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
787
|
Posted - 2015.08.31 17:58:20 -
[831] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Two questions: Placing bubbles around citadels will be allowed, yes?
Placing bubbles around citadels, which can be anchored almost anywhere and can be heavily armed, will be allowed, yes?
There's certainly been no discussion of not allowing it. (because, I feel, that would be pants on head stupid) Bubbling Citadels would really serve no purpose but to stop defenders using anything other than ceptors, which seem to be "ship of choice" for entosis link users. Bubble your citadel you pretty much guarantee, it is going to die as they are only useful against DPS. Which of course will not be needed to attack your citadel. ( I am still trying to work out why Citadels need guns - Nothing else to do with sov or the new structures has anything directly to do with DPS) So yes, while stopping the use of bubbles around Citadels would be pants on head stupid - So would, in many cases, be bubbling your Citadel. lIMO, ceptor bubble immunity needs to be looked at where Entosis links are concerned. Maybe a bit of a drawback for the ceptor trolls - Interceptors lose bubble immunity while an Entosis link is fit to the ship. The biggest ships in the game have a drawback to make them less effective (increase risk) in Entosis mini games, why then does the smallest (and most efficient) not have something as well? PS; Fozzie, if one of the goals with the new sov was to reduce hours of mind numbing grinding (which I believe it was) - It is so far a resounding failure. It is often now a worse kind of grind - You can spend hours chasing around individuals with all but unstoppable interceptors trying to RF your structures.
I think you're assuming Citadels won't be able to fit ECM, webs, scrams, small high tracking guns, or any of the numerous ways to deal with inties.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
712
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 11:54:13 -
[832] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Two questions: Placing bubbles around citadels will be allowed, yes?
Placing bubbles around citadels, which can be anchored almost anywhere and can be heavily armed, will be allowed, yes?
There's certainly been no discussion of not allowing it. (because, I feel, that would be pants on head stupid) Bubbling Citadels would really serve no purpose but to stop defenders using anything other than ceptors, which seem to be "ship of choice" for entosis link users. Bubble your citadel you pretty much guarantee, it is going to die as they are only useful against DPS. Which of course will not be needed to attack your citadel. ( I am still trying to work out why Citadels need guns - Nothing else to do with sov or the new structures has anything directly to do with DPS) So yes, while stopping the use of bubbles around Citadels would be pants on head stupid - So would, in many cases, be bubbling your Citadel. lIMO, ceptor bubble immunity needs to be looked at where Entosis links are concerned. Maybe a bit of a drawback for the ceptor trolls - Interceptors lose bubble immunity while an Entosis link is fit to the ship. The biggest ships in the game have a drawback to make them less effective (increase risk) in Entosis mini games, why then does the smallest (and most efficient) not have something as well? PS; Fozzie, if one of the goals with the new sov was to reduce hours of mind numbing grinding (which I believe it was) - It is so far a resounding failure. It is often now a worse kind of grind - You can spend hours chasing around individuals with all but unstoppable interceptors trying to RF your structures. I think you're assuming Citadels won't be able to fit ECM, webs, scrams, small high tracking guns, or any of the numerous ways to deal with inties. Oh I'm sure they will be able to fit all you suggest, Devs have already stated as much and as long as you belong to one of the few alliances who can afford them, Devs have also stated each module will be worth considerably more than outpost components, you'll be fine.
Aside from that, if Citadels are capable of fitting weaponry capable dealing with Interceptors reliably, how OP will they be against any other ship type.
Bubbling a Citadel - Bottom line, why would you bother. They are invulnerable to DPS ships, so anything nullified and fast is the best method of attack.
CCP can't make Citadel weaponry too capable without breaking a set of mechanics already riddled with cracks.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: [one page] |