Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
corbexx
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1335
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:16:58 -
[1] - Quote
you can go and read the stucture dev blog here.
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/shake-my-citadel/
any feedback is more than welcome.
Some concerns i have is no auto defences
the fact you can anchor them anywhere.
Since they could be anywhere how will you find them?
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
Emmaline Fera
Interstellar Expeditionary Group
3
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 15:22:29 -
[2] - Quote
Can anyone explain how such structures are at all feasible in w-space? All the devblogs are clearly nullsec focused, which is fine, but these changes make no sense for wormhole dwellers.
We don't need new structures, we need better roles and, via those roles, better security and control over access to assets. |
Keskora Yaari
POS Party Low-Class
41
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:04:18 -
[3] - Quote
I still have questions on how those will relate to wormhole space. Will all sizes of structure be anchorable in wormholes? How many of each can you have in one system?
I also don't like the "asset safety" mechanic. A big motivating factor to why people take on structure bashes is because of the loot. Everyone who lives in a POS knows that there is a risk of losing their assets and it's something that we accept. It makes the game a little more exciting to have that risk.
I do appreciate that they are putting in mechanics for the POS to respond to attackers on its own. One of my biggest concerns was having that one troll in a buzzard showing up at my POS and enotis-ing it down during our off hours.
I will be very interested to see the future blog posts on the other structures. Do we have any rough idea when the first round of changes will make it to Tranquility? |
Aelyras Altol
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
21
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:07:08 -
[4] - Quote
Honestly all the need to do for wormholes is a pos 2.0 with working role management. |
Gary Bell
Herp Inc.dot Darwinism.
134
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:11:38 -
[5] - Quote
They are going to be for whs and give you more options to live in them and defend yourselves and control your space.. some of the things id assume will be tied to sov levels but it will give alot more options to small groups and make wh life alot easier.
it will of course make some whs into doomsday fortresses that you cant ever enter which will need to be balanced but the whole code is being reworked to allow for more options.
imagine an indutry citidel set up in a belt.. you can mine and it will give you an industry base in systems without stations.. allowing you to reship to defend yourself.. this would be a great time to rework the rorquel to need to be on gird for bonuses you actually set up a shop to work like a machines munching compressing and clearing belts
I think restrictions need to be in place for example gate placment and say active whs still allowing suprise attacks and stopping the fortress setups but you will be able to clone at some point im sure (again maybe only sov to keep the nitch in whs)
but lowsec will get great new life.. and moving moon goo into a new system where you must set up a mining outpost on the deposits and harvest them while fighting off others after it, i possibilities will be endless.
i just hope ccps really works it out from every angle b4 they go half assed and it gets silly |
Gary Bell
Herp Inc.dot Darwinism.
134
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:19:33 -
[6] - Quote
An id assume they will address the mechanic of getting loot from a destroyed citidel in whs so it doesent go back to the ways of farming and never killing anyone cuz you got nothing from it but they have said that moored ships will be free for all when it is destroyed.. a mechanic to allow attackers to hack into loot after a certain reinforce timer would be cool
Hell they already have the hacking mechanic in place just add it to the containers.. even make them explode everywhere in system when wreak dies so you have to chase down and hack the loot and if you fail it pops.
|
Ginger Yume
Haggis Humpers Gate Camp Theory
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:27:17 -
[7] - Quote
While the options look very exciting, I do have some questions. I'm not clear how much the interaction with these structures will mirror stations. Will being docked up at a citadel have private ship and item storage? This would greatly reduce the role complexity needed for POS mechanics in wormholes. Loot 'safety' is another concern. Wormhole life should be risky, and if someone wants to blow up your citadel, there should be loot should they succeed. This might be an early stage for this question, but what will fuel requirements be for the various sizes? As much as I hate running fuel, it's not something I'd want gone. What would the capture requirements be for an offline citadel?
|
B0T0
X Legion Against Probes
23
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:31:44 -
[8] - Quote
Quote:We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay.
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67200/1/Structurestates-02.png
Quote:We have established Citadels need to be able to take care of themselves in a fight.
Quote:Most if not all of those structures will have a replacement for the current Starbase forcefield with the use of the invulnerability link (final name to be discussed), which will ensure safety for friendly ships within a specific radius. This will not cause your ship to stay in space when logging off.
Now only if you could check who is docked in then I'm OK with structure overhaul.
01010111 00101101 01110011 01110000 01100001 01100011 01100101 00101100 00100000 01100010
01100101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01110011 01110000 01100001 01100011 01100101 00100001
|
HTC NecoSino
No Vacancies
216
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:33:37 -
[9] - Quote
#NSPriorityAgain |
calaretu
Honestly We didnt know Unsettled.
305
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:33:52 -
[10] - Quote
Docking in wspace. Need to chew on that. Other than that I am very positive to the citadels. Better defense, better timer/capture mechanics then current system. It will make dreads pointless in an attack and numbers more vital. But thats still the case. Less grinding, more fighting. And FINALLY get away the stupid tz tactics.
~Bringer of happiness
http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/
.ORLY is recruiting
|
|
Keskora Yaari
POS Party Low-Class
41
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 16:59:34 -
[11] - Quote
calaretu wrote:
Edit: Some more thoughts. - anchor everywhere. GOOD - no autodefence but defined vulnerability time-frame. GOOD. It encourages activity - Market and offices: GOOD - awesome new aoe torpedos. Stirs up the feeling of old time pvp from back when. Cant but love it. - docking: IF scanning structures let you see number of people docked and what ship they arein in addition to the station fittings its a possible acceptable solution. Introduce a new scanner that works while cloaked?
The blog did include a section on how the new structures will be able to defend themselves under the section "Fire Ze Missles:"
"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 Act as force multipliers to deal with attacking fleets and promote asymmetric warfare (less defenders are required than attackers) Have engagement inertia, meaning they require time to acquire and switch targets Require support from defending fleets to successfully fend off attacks"
I am really curious about shattered systems too.
|
Gary Bell
Herp Inc.dot Darwinism.
134
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:07:49 -
[12] - Quote
I dont think they intend for you to ever be able to set up shop in a shattered but its possible.. or maybe only allow industry types in shattered that are time expiring that would be cool and easier to attack..
and they should not be allowed on a wh or within 100km
people will just fortify themselves and use them as a force multiplier in fights on top of home field advantage and reshipping etc
|
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
673
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:23:28 -
[13] - Quote
Quote:We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay. What does it even mean? How does behaving like a combat anom preserve wormhole space gameplay specifically?
W-Space Realtor
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:26:42 -
[14] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:Quote:We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay. What does it even mean? How does behaving like a combat anom preserve wormhole space gameplay specifically?
The alternative is free-anchored structures at deep safe spots undetectable by a covert scout without combat probes. How is that preserve wormhole space gameplay? |
MooMooDachshundCow
Incertae Sedis
230
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:26:56 -
[15] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:Quote:We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay. What does it even mean? How does behaving like a combat anom preserve wormhole space gameplay specifically?
I suppose that since right now you can dscan your way to the moon the POS is on, in the future if you could anchor your POS anywhere in system it would have to produce a celestial-like warpable location so that you could still get eyes on the POS without needing to drop probes?
Only sense I can make of the statement.
I don't support that idea.
Yeah, well, it's just like my-áopinion, man.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
982
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:33:18 -
[16] - Quote
I'd like more info on the 1st 2nd and 3rd RFO timers. As a wh person this makes me sad. It pretty much prevents wh folks from endangering a structure within the lifetime of a wh.
As an example:
We get a direct null into the Corbexx system in the Bad Potato region of Nullbearville. We bring out our entosis equipments and go to work. Poof we RFO the station thinger.
Sadly, we can force no content as our wh will expire long before the RFO timer. If you want to lobby for wh folk, then lobby to allow us to drive conflict Please please please give wh folk the ability to put a null structure in real jeopardy w/out requiring some large combersome invasion or giving a large alliance full of F1 tools 2+ days to move thier massive numbers into position.
I guess overall I would hope in all this great change there is some way for wh folk to give a null alliance a meaningful kick in the junk during their short connection. I don't want to be able to take away SOV or anything grand. I do want the ability to come out and wonk something that will hurt them if they don't defend. We've suffered through years of docking null.
Finally Corbexx.... Really??
Docking games? They've just docked for the most part for years. If the changes bring about docking games.... at least there will be games.
"Since they could be anywhere how will you find them?" Did you really come to the wh forum with this? If there is a group that is totally equipped to quickly find anything findable in this game - it's the readers of this forum. I'd say you were falling out of touch w/ wh, but that would assume you at one time were in tlouch w/ wh.
|
Steven Hackett
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
136
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:46:45 -
[17] - Quote
Those are some nice structures...
Now.. When do we get a devblog about those new POSes? All I see is stations fit for nullsec.. There are gonna be a different type of structures right? or are CCP gonna choose the lazy solution... again.. and only make a one-size fit all solution balanced and coded around Nullsec gameplay..?
Well, I guess this is a good test to see where you stand Corbexx. Are you gonna let WH life as we know it die in favor of mooring, docking games and asset safety, like they want it in NS, or are you fighting for a better roles system, the removal of personal storage, no mooring, no docking and forcefields?
cause this suggesting looks to me like you were never even involved in the discussion about new POSes/structures? At least as a WH rep? |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
303
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:50:45 -
[18] - Quote
I really do not like the suggestion of needing combat probes to find the citadels; mostly because the requirment to have an expanded probe launcher greatly limits ship choice for scouts. Yet directly warping to them seems too easy as well. A middle ground might be adding these large structures to the list of things that can be found by core probes. Small structures such as depots and tractors could stay in the realm of combats. It seems reasonable that probing something that is 25km across would be a bit different than probing the existing smaller objects. |
Lucius Kalari
Limited Power Inc It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:55:09 -
[19] - Quote
My concerns is that we're replacing the POS with essentially a station, and will that mean we will have to play station games in wormhole space. (I'm a fish out of water when it comes to low and null.) If you aggress someone outside your station/outpost and you decide that you want to dock or moor, do you get the finger from your own station/outpost? Will you be able to dock up straight away and then everyone gets denied content?
Most if not all of those structures will have a replacement for the current Starbase forcefield with the use of the invulnerability link (final name to be discussed), which will ensure safety for friendly ships within a specific radius. This will not cause your ship to stay in space when logging off. So isn't this still essentially a POS forcefield? Can outsiders come into this zone? From what I can tell is that we're getting a station with a forcefield.
Could I fit the entire corp/alliance into one station/outpost? or is there a limit to how many pilots can dock up? If you only need one of these per corp/alliance then wouldn't that cut the cost of fuel bills ? Do we even fuel these?
"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 and allow capital ships to be docked (even maybe supercapitals--to be discussed)."
I have a feeling that I'm not going to be able to fit my X-L Citadel into my Iteron Mark V, and this is clearly for the bigger entities with caps as stated, so does this mean it'll come in pieces you have to assemble in space? if not, does that mean it can only fit into a freighter? which would mean large entities in C4's and below who have caps too, wouldn't be able to haul them in?
Lastly. When we switch over to outposts from POSes, how is that going to work ?
Hi, I'm Lucius Kalari and I'm .LIMP
|
Gary Bell
Herp Inc.dot Darwinism.
134
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 17:57:49 -
[20] - Quote
They already said there is going to be different sizes and different options to refit and change the purpose of the structures and what they can do. All that is needed are tweeking of what you can and cant do in wormhole space.
And I am sure the docking mechanic will be addressed and the loot mechanic.
And i honestly think scanning to see how many people are docked and fittings etc is a good idea.. No free intel.. Making core probes find them, deff a good idea, but the idea of limiting the amount of moored caps to one seems like a good way to force cap ships online in whs to a more managable level. Have caps become an alliance asset for invasions and let the subcap rein supreme again. And the idea of the shield is dumb but docking or a shield is always gonna be there as you have no safe spot ever where you can stop and ****..
And with this new flexable code I dont see the need for wormholes to have there own structures make these work for what you need.
|
|
Gary Bell
Herp Inc.dot Darwinism.
134
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:01:06 -
[21] - Quote
Dude makes a good point.. How about caps mooring to the smaller ones in certain numbers (Max allowed) and then normal caps dock in xls, and supers moor to xls so no docking |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
982
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:04:34 -
[22] - Quote
Where does my loot magically go when my station thingy gets destroyed? That's null I really want to know.
Corbexx - do you want totally destructible structures or magic loot storage? We really need to know where you stand on this.
|
HTC NecoSino
No Vacancies
216
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:17:59 -
[23] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Where does my loot magically go when my station thingy gets destroyed? That's null I really want to know.
Corbexx - do you want totally destructible structures or magic loot storage? We really need to know where you stand on this.
He has to ask the goons and will get back to you once he has their consensus. |
Ariete
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
44
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:24:22 -
[24] - Quote
Posts from Devs from the new thread about wormholes
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?-á
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 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. See above
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.
Quote:Obil Que wrote: Soldarius wrote: 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/ 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 :)
So CSM IX ????
|
Daerrol
Quantum Singularities Half Massed
153
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:38:05 -
[25] - Quote
:S Unsure how to feel about this. |
corbexx
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1335
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:40:52 -
[26] - Quote
Keskora Yaari wrote:calaretu wrote:
- no autodefence but defined vulnerability time-frame. GOOD. It encourages activity
The blog did include a section on how the new structures will be able to defend themselves under the section "Fire Ze Missles:" " 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 Act as force multipliers to deal with attacking fleets and promote asymmetric warfare (less defenders are required than attackers) Have engagement inertia, meaning they require time to acquire and switch targets Require support from defending fleets to successfully fend off attacks" I am really curious about shattered systems too.
CCP Nullarbor wrote: 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.
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
245
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:42:27 -
[27] - Quote
I'm unclear what the motivation for attacking structures in w-space will be other than for lolz or to provoke a PvP response. If the contents of the structure disappear into hidden personal containers spread around the system, what will be the reason to attack? In a space that actually is in bad need of conflict drivers/reasons to engage each other, this system is fundamental removing the one reason we have (potential loot) and instead forcing us into a harassment game to provoke PvP.
|
corbexx
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1335
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:43:06 -
[28] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Where does my loot magically go when my station thingy gets destroyed? That's null I really want to know.
Corbexx - do you want totally destructible structures or magic loot storage? We really need to know where you stand on this.
ideally i'd want totally destroyable one
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
Ariete
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
44
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:49:55 -
[29] - Quote
I get a good feeling about this. The Citadels are pretty much a direct replacement of most Pos functions that we use ie storage and a place to call home.
Medium = Small Towers Large = Large Towers X-Large = Stations
Intel wise it sound they will be no different from what we have now D-scan them and eye ball them. Mooring and Docking is just like leaving ships in a hangar or floating around. One issue is in the new system you can have someone in the hangar, the question is will you see them?
Defense wise its going to be much more fun with sieges, if people used their Pos's to fight back.
So CSM IX ????
|
corbexx
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1336
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 18:59:57 -
[30] - Quote
HTC NecoSino wrote: He has to ask the goons and will get back to you once he has their consensus.
ah that's easy you just tell me which would cause you the most tears, then assume that ;)
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |