EVE Search - structure blog out

All Channels

Wormholes

structure blog out

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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-á*opinion*, 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
MooMooDachshundCow Incertae Sedis 230	Posted - 2015.05.12 19:13:59 - [31] - Quote corbexx wrote: 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 ;) I just noticed that the X's in Corbexx form like 4 little triangle pyramids on their sides. Illumittani confirmed. Yeah, well, it's just like my-á*opinion*, man.
Forestwalker POS Party Low-Class 0	Posted - 2015.05.12 19:15:50 - [32] - Quote Is there any information as to which structures will be able to deploy in whspace? At this point that is the biggest question I think most have. As I didn't see anything that shows where you can deploy them other than weapons.
Ariete Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 44	Posted - 2015.05.12 19:23:52 - [33] - Quote Forestwalker wrote: Is there any information as to which structures will be able to deploy in whspace? At this point that is the biggest question I think most have. As I didn't see anything that shows where you can deploy them other than weapons. We know you will be able to use Citadels in wormhole space. The devs have said they want wormhole space to be able to use all of them, but with restrictions So CSM IX ????
Forestwalker POS Party Low-Class 0	Posted - 2015.05.12 19:30:10 - [34] - Quote Quote: We know you will be able to use Citadels in wormhole space. The devs have said they want wormhole space to be able to use all of them, but with restrictions its the with restrictions undefined that is troublesome at best.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 982	Posted - 2015.05.12 19:35:32 - [35] - Quote corbexx wrote: 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 You want them all to be destructable or you want one of them to be destructable? When they get destroyed do you want loots or do you want space magic for asset protection?
Newt BlackCompany BlackCompany Personal Corp 44	Posted - 2015.05.12 19:43:49 - [36] - Quote I don't like these structures. 1. They are ugly, hopefully they will fix that before they are released. 2. There is no pos shield. I like my pos shield. 3. Without a pos shield, I can't use cargo containers for spare storage (perhaps changed recently anyway?) 4. The docking effect means everyone knows what ships I have here. 5. What happens if I have 250 shuttles? or bombers? Can I dock them all, or am I limited to only docking 10-20 ships? 6. Can people use ship scanners on my docked ships to find the blingy ones before attacking my pos? Overall, I'm seriously underwhelmed. The main problem with pos's is the need for starbase config roles to do anything with the pos, all the rest of this seems like change for the sake of change, not to fix anything. Did I mention the lack of a pos shield? I hate that.
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1338	Posted - 2015.05.12 19:57:08 - [37] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: corbexx wrote: 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 You want them all to be destructable or you want one of them to be destructable? When they get destroyed do you want loots or do you want space magic for asset protection? tell you what why don't you tell me what you want and why? Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 983	Posted - 2015.05.12 20:28:11 - [38] - Quote corbexx wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: corbexx wrote: 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 You want them all to be destructable or you want one of them to be destructable? When they get destroyed do you want loots or do you want space magic for asset protection? tell you what why don't you tell me what you want and why? I want destructable so I can destroy it. I want loot because loot is good. EDIT: I want on record what you want so I can compare what you say here and now to what gets put in future CSM minutes. What do you want and why?
Ghenghis Kralj Big Johnson's 73	Posted - 2015.05.12 21:26:15 - [39] - Quote If the baseline for defenses is going to be nullsec behavior, how can we ensure that this system won't be overpowering in wh space? Seems like some of these would be incredibly hard to overcome in lower tier wormholes. Hell, even in c5s.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1325	Posted - 2015.05.12 21:33:33 - [40] - Quote Well here is the main question. Assuming that these things will be able to defend themselves vs a troll ceptor.... Do we need the timezone protection mechanic for w space? This isn't a issue of space or use as wspace isn't sov. I understand the need for it in nullsec. I am not sold of the need for it in wspace. It would be a bit more brutal and more timezone coverage would be needed. But knowing the structures can put up at least some defense, i wonder if its needed. Yaay!!!!
calaretu Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 306	Posted - 2015.05.12 22:30:06 - [41] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Well here is the main question. Assuming that these things will be able to defend themselves vs a troll ceptor.... Do we need the timezone protection mechanic for w space? This isn't a issue of space or use as wspace isn't sov. I understand the need for it in nullsec. I am not sold of the need for it in wspace. It would be a bit more brutal and more timezone coverage would be needed. But knowing the structures can put up at least some defense, i wonder if its needed. I'm going to hold off on any speculative judgement atm. Imo I hope they keep it and according to the quote earlier it will naturally be 6-8 hours or so. I think the ability to deliberatly attack out of the defenders tz (aswell as time the rf timer to do the same) is bad gameplay ~Bringer of happiness http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ .ORLY is recruiting
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1325	Posted - 2015.05.12 23:04:16 - [42] - Quote calaretu wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: Well here is the main question. Assuming that these things will be able to defend themselves vs a troll ceptor.... Do we need the timezone protection mechanic for w space? This isn't a issue of space or use as wspace isn't sov. I understand the need for it in nullsec. I am not sold of the need for it in wspace. It would be a bit more brutal and more timezone coverage would be needed. But knowing the structures can put up at least some defense, i wonder if its needed. I'm going to hold off on any speculative judgement atm. Imo I hope they keep it and according to the quote earlier it will naturally be 6-8 hours or so. I think the ability to deliberatly attack out of the defenders tz (aswell as time the rf timer to do the same) is bad gameplay If they follow so, yea would probably be ok. Long as it doesn't reduce down to some 2 hour window (longer timespans), should be ok (we don't get the upgrades that null does, etc etc). We'd definitely need some more detailed mechanic on how the structures Actually function when a person moores/docks/whatever with it. Also how to tell who's home and who is not. Yaay!!!!
Alundil Isogen 5 946	Posted - 2015.05.13 00:42:29 - [43] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: We'd definitely need some more detailed mechanic on how the structures Actually function when a person moores/docks/whatever with it. Also how to tell who's home and who is not. This is one of the more important aspects of this change. This and what happens to loot in wspace when one of the new structures is destroyed. I'm right behind you
Humang Awakened Ones 96	Posted - 2015.05.13 01:36:53 - [44] - Quote corbexx wrote: Some concerns i have. the fact you can anchor them anywhere. docking/link games Since they could be anywhere how will you find them? Since your 1st and 3rd point are on the same thing, I'll skip to the 2nd. For docking games, could something like WH polarization timers be brought in? Have a rule tied to the invulnerability link that will replace POS force-fields where it can only be applied/removed a set number of times Applies a cool-down stopping you from being invulnerable/docking for a small period? Might need to be tied to the ship, not the player. Now, for structure being anchorable anywhere: It would stop corps from being able to lock out a system simply by having a small poss offline at every moon. Would require that a corp/alliance actually put effort into stopping an attacker from setting up a staging point. Being able to find them: Not sure about having a beacon to warp to in the overview or in the system scanner (like anoms) at all times Maybe only have the beacon active during the structures reinforcement periods? Maybe have a structure fitting like D-scan inhibitors that can mask the beacon, but are really easy to scan with probes and show up on d-scan themselves? But all up I'm looking forward to it all, and share the same concerns about "will we be able to see how many people are docked?" AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale
Adriana Nolen Sama Guild 100	Posted - 2015.05.13 03:17:41 - [45] - Quote CCP is problably going to say **** it & leave old pos in w-space just cause.
Winthorp 3497	Posted - 2015.05.13 04:59:11 - [46] - Quote We need to be able to see who is docked/moored on dscan with ship type and then when on grid have the same pilot info we have now. In reverse the same intel needs to be available to those that are docked/moored, they should still have the same dscan functionality they have now. The why of this is for several reasons but mostly if you lack this information in both sides docked or a visitor then you will think empty system and no interations between both of those parties will occur. I also have concerns about the size of this docking/mooring area of safety. If this area of safety is less then the current size of a pos force field it will lead to **** caging this area of effect with you pos guns tanked i feel with a small sized fleet at your door you could be trapped in pretty easilly. If it is a large area of affect this will be harder to achieve. People will inevitably try to game an ill thought out system like this so things like this need to be thought about now. I do look forward to having my pos at the sun though. I am Winthorp, you might remember me from such films as "Winthorp is to blame for permanent signature ID's". Please note i don't engage in any meaningful discussion with NPC alts, nut up or shut up...
GizzyBoy Aperture Harmonics K162 109	Posted - 2015.05.13 05:42:49 - [47] - Quote AUTZ not looking forward to being stuck on over watch duties pretty much there entire game time. I notice there's industry and military values that can change windows and things, we dont have these in wspace, how will this be calculated for w space? will people now be forced to do home sites in order to get some kind of index value or is there some other method? the new structures are interesting, but is probably going to lead to people having bow head alts with all there ships inside, and always logging off in capitals, and minimising asset risk by basicly not having much of anything in there wh. docking would be nice because that at least fixes assembling t3's. some basic station services like repairs would also be nice + market or what ever.(probably doubtful) not to fused about the dscan thing, but I do like the pos bubble to give you some room to load grid/space safetly so you dont get blapped by 100 tornado's or something. also loading grid etc is always an issue for az/nz because of server lag.
GizzyBoy Aperture Harmonics K162 109	Posted - 2015.05.13 06:01:27 - [48] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: corbexx wrote: 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 You want them all to be destructable or you want one of them to be destructable? When they get destroyed do you want loots or do you want space magic for asset protection? Because this is the way forward for every one in the game, what ever option that's picked will have to accommodate HS, LS, NPC null and Null sec proper as well as WH space. So believe it or not regardless of how we feel hes going to have to co ordinate with all the other people, In the rest of space. Null players or even LS / HS corps wardeccing and headshoting Hostiles structures with 1000 man blobs (maybe more when brain in a box kicks in) while fun for the aggressor in the short term, wont be conducive to either in game subs or overall content in the long term because you just killed all there caps/ships they have nothing to shoot you with any more so back to lvl4's in hs for them and back to ship spinning for you. These are some of the things that will have to be balanced out for all areas of space. They could possibly make special conditions for wspace and structures, I dont want that tho because the games already got enough complexity to worry about than to be running around making special use cases and adding further complexity.
Rhavas Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 436	Posted - 2015.05.13 06:20:46 - [49] - Quote Winthorp wrote: We need to be able to see who is docked/moored on dscan with ship type and then when on grid have the same pilot info we have now. In reverse the same intel needs to be available to those that are docked/moored, they should still have the same dscan functionality they have now. The why of this is for several reasons but mostly if you lack this information in both sides docked or a visitor then you will think empty system and no interations between both of those parties will occur. This is definitely the primary problem with the proposed approach. With no Local (and none wanted, thank you) the mechanisms that we currently have are great. They reward effort but do not require probing or reveal. Occam's razor solution: No docking in W-space, only mooring (occupied ships) and storage (unoccupied ships) and all moored ships show up on d-scan. Yes, other solutions like structure scans would work but it needs to be doable cloaked, which currently nothing else is. I also agree with those who want structures moon-locked, not for defensive purposes but for offensive ones. Defense of you having to actually find it is sufficient - having it on permascan like an Anom is too easy IMO. At least on moons you have to hunt the right moon but can still do so easily and stealthily. It provides both attacker and defender with benefits. The proposed model is all for the defender, hiding away in some deadspace pocket. With this model, the attacker has to spend a crazy long time hunting and pecking until they find something. After about the third system of that the scout is going to say "F* this" and go back to their home system and do something else. People need to be able to be found, and without giving away your presence every time. But hey, as long as it works for the sov null guys, right? Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary
calaretu Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 306	Posted - 2015.05.13 06:25:05 - [50] - 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. source ~Bringer of happiness http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ .ORLY is recruiting
Shilalasar Dead Sky Inc. 153	Posted - 2015.05.13 07:24:29 - [51] - Quote Adriana Nolen wrote: CCP is problably going to say ** it & leave old pos in w-space just cause. At some point POS will go the way of the dodo just because of the amount of problems and bugs the POScode produces. Here are the important questions I came up with after reading: Shilalasar wrote: 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? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5741499#post5741499
Kynric Sky Fighters 305	Posted - 2015.05.13 16:37:11 - [52] - Quote The new structures are very different. Perhaps instead of evaluating them relative to how they perform in 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 theybunloadvthe goods. Skipping that would give me more time to fly in space which is content for all compared to the logged off alts which 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.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 986	Posted - 2015.05.13 17:06:38 - [53] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: corbexx wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: corbexx wrote: 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 You want them all to be destructable or you want one of them to be destructable? When they get destroyed do you want loots or do you want space magic for asset protection? tell you what why don't you tell me what you want and why? I want destructable so I can destroy it. I want loot because loot is good. EDIT: I want on record what you want so I can compare what you say here and now to what gets put in future CSM minutes. What do you want and why? It only took me 1 minute to answer when you asked me directly. It's been almost 24 hours since I asked you.
Alundil Isogen 5 947	Posted - 2015.05.13 19:10:46 - [54] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: It only took me 1 minute to answer when you asked me directly. It's been almost 24 hours since I asked you. At a certain point, forum autism is best ignored. You are being, ever so slightly, ridiculous. But it's the intarwebz, so carry on I guess. I'm right behind you
Oriki Ituin Antex Solutions 0	Posted - 2015.05.13 20:43:51 - [55] - Quote I'd quite like to see a 'ransom' feature built into the new structures. Something along the following lines: 1) Corporation that reinforces a structure [at both Reinforced 1 and Reinforced 2] can apply a ransom to the structure. 2) Owning corporation can pay the ransom, which returns the structure to online. 3) The ransom transaction would be handled by game code. If the new structures can be scanned, then both corporations will know a suitable ransom value. However, if you still want to kill the structure for revenge, eviction etc there would be no difference to what we know so far.
slam34 Defiance LLC Praetorian Directorate 12	Posted - 2015.05.13 21:31:40 - [56] - Quote But let's get back to this gem: "We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay. How in holy hell does that "preserve Wormhole Space Gameplay" ? -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.
Forestwalker POS Party Low-Class 0	Posted - 2015.05.14 16:36:18 - [57] - Quote I think the coding for warping to any structure in wh space if added to probe scanner is only warpable by the corp that deployed it every other corp alliance what have you should have to combat scan it out.
Ilaister Absolutely Certain 193	Posted - 2015.05.14 17:47:22 - [58] - Quote slam34 wrote: But let's get back to this gem: "We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay. How in holy hell does that "preserve Wormhole Space Gameplay" ? Asked and answered previously, but a question for you that might answer your own. Where do you currently point your dscan to find a POS?
Iyokus Patrouette Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 472	Posted - 2015.05.15 04:38:45 - [59] - Quote so reading is pretty hard and i usually only forum browse while i am at work and my attention is split. so i have one very important question, that need a simple answer. (don't wall of text me bro) Will any of these changes make it easier to kick out those inactive tards who log in once a week to farm and otherwise provide 0 Content? ---- Advocate for the initiation of purple coloured wormholes----
Winthorp 3504	Posted - 2015.05.15 05:53:08 - [60] - Quote Iyokus Patrouette wrote: so reading is pretty hard and i usually only forum browse while i am at work and my attention is split. so i have one very important question, that need a simple answer. (don't wall of text me bro) Will any of these changes make it easier to kick out those inactive tards who log in once a week to farm and otherwise provide 0 Content? Honestly no i think it will be harder to evict them. I am Winthorp, you might remember me from such films as "Winthorp is to blame for permanent signature ID's". Please note i don't engage in any meaningful discussion with NPC alts, nut up or shut up...
Aivo Dresden Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 465	Posted - 2015.05.15 06:51:04 - [61] - Quote Sorry if I missed this in the blog, how will these be limited in numbers? How many can be dropped in one wormhole / system. If these can be put anywhere, what's there to prevent people from having like dozens in 1 system?
Forestwalker POS Party Low-Class 0	Posted - 2015.05.15 17:07:38 - [62] - Quote I think its a good idea to know how many can be deployed in wh systems thanks for your time.
slam34 Defiance LLC Praetorian Directorate 14	Posted - 2015.05.16 14:07:27 - [63] - Quote Ilaister wrote: slam34 wrote: But let's get back to this gem: "We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay. How in holy hell does that "preserve Wormhole Space Gameplay" ? Asked and answered previously, but a question for you that might answer your own. Where do you currently point your dscan to find a POS? Quoted and touted as a solution, but no one has yet pointed out what part of w-space gameplay it preserves. I see it turning w-space into a hisec clone. More free intel. I am used to storing my stuff in a pos that could be rf'd or even destroyed at any time, so all this chatter about protecting assets and wiggling about restricting this and that is just fluff and irrelevant to w-space gameplay. Fix the pos permission nightmare and stop trying to turn w-Space int high or even null sec. -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.
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 161	Posted - 2015.05.16 16:08:03 - [64] - Quote The gameplay they are refering to is the fact that you can find a pos cloaked and without probes. Without them having a fixed warpable place like a moon or planet there is no way to warp to it. That is why they want to do it that way. 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. No local in null sec would fix everything!
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 161	Posted - 2015.05.16 16:27:00 - [65] - 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. -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. -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. No local in null sec would fix everything!
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 161	Posted - 2015.05.16 16:39:21 - [66] - Quote -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. 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!
Adriana Nolen Sama Guild 101	Posted - 2015.05.17 08:41:37 - [67] - Quote What I'm really wondering since these can be anchored anywhere & current grid mechanics, can some1 anchor a few of them on the same expanded grid to have overlapping guns?{run on sentences ftw}
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1043	Posted - 2015.05.17 09:35:50 - [68] - Quote Adriana Nolen wrote: What I'm really wondering since these can be anchored anywhere & current grid mechanics, can some1 anchor a few of them on the same expanded grid to have overlapping guns?{run on sentences ftw} Obviously there is no reason now to not anchor your *structures inside the sun.
Aquila Sagitta Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 617	Posted - 2015.05.17 14:48:08 - [69] - Quote unimatrix0030 wrote: -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. 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? Incap the guns nerd Blue-Fire Best Fire
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 161	Posted - 2015.05.17 15:15:32 - [70] - Quote Ig they are on the pos like a ship then there is no shooting the guns dude. No local in null sec would fix everything!
calaretu Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 308	Posted - 2015.05.17 15:46:27 - [71] - Quote Well you could always bring a few logi? Or is bringing a proper fleet to entosis the structruer too much to demand? ~Bringer of happiness http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ .ORLY is recruiting
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 161	Posted - 2015.05.17 17:23:33 - [72] - Quote Em I thought an active entosis link prevents remote rep... . Quote: While the module is active, your ship is unable to cloak, warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance. There is no way to get rid of the module penalties early except for losing your ship No local in null sec would fix everything!
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1331	Posted - 2015.05.18 02:36:43 - [73] - Quote unimatrix0030 wrote: Em I thought an active entosis link prevents remote rep... . Quote: While the module is active, your ship is unable to cloak, warp, dock, jump or receive remote assistance. There is no way to get rid of the module penalties early except for losing your ship It doesn't prevent the pos from shooting you. You probably still have to shoot and encap the guns... Yaay!!!!
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2330	Posted - 2015.05.18 02:52:42 - [74] - Quote 1. In regards to the anchoring anywhere stuff.... I have, personally, close to 4,000 POS bookmarks in wormholes. Now, people who know me will know that when these POSs get replaced by POS 2.0 Citadels I will cry long and hard and bitterly into my beer for the loss of all the time that these 4,000 POS bookmarks represent. However, once I have got over this, I will begin replicating this library of bookmarks with a fully tricked out Buzzard combat probing down every Citadel at every hinky deepsafe / sun / wherever the hell location you nerds put them. Eventually, i will have 4,000 bookmarks for Citadels in w-space, and when i jump into a system I will be able to warp to the Citadel directly a least 50% of the time, without probing. Just like now. 2. POS bubble games are a lot more difficult than you'd think. They are also less often used than docking games, because they only come to the fore during POS sieges, hence why people don't have any real experience at them and most people actually kind of suck at them. Yes, when you encounter people who are good at POS bubble games, they rinse you with or without the POS guns, and it sucks. Docking games are completely different, and revolve more around the fit (ie; derp buffer and resists to outlast aggro) than any particular skill. Capitals are of course the kings of this, so considering Citadels with caps on undock is like nullsec docking games at the moment...oh, plus smeone will be on the Doomsday Gun or AEO missiles, or the POS webs and neuts and so on, so docking games will be pretty pointless on a casual basis. But they will become particularly stupid during sieges given the ability of dreads to OH rep almost anything for 30s to 60s before docking. I mean....subcap fleets will just get wiped and no one will play docking games in anything except capitals. So you'll need to bring massive cap flees to dislodge hem, and they'll just dock at the end of 60s, repair heat/armour, and be out again in 5s. This will vastly improve w-space sieges, I can tell already. 3. I expect we won't see XL citadels in w-space. But maybe if you get them in freighters we might see them in C5 and C6 space. But so what. What we are talking about, really, is can you anchor a Medium Citadel inside a fully escalated Core Bastion and use the guns to blap rats? Who wouldn't anchor them 250km away from each other in a hexagonal packed sphere formation and have overlapping fields of fire in the centre, where you park Citadel Cruise phoenixes and hold Thunderdome deathmatches? I ask you. 4. I am considering whether or not I will make a publically available citadel free to dock at Bob's prayerspot, and when someone comes to dock, buy ammo and Quafe, I revoke their privileges, we bubblefsck the outside, and they undock and get blapped by the doomsday. Or whatever. it will be like Thera, except without the warp rigged Machariel gang. memo to self - buy Machariels 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 ~~
Winthorp 3506	Posted - 2015.05.18 05:35:39 - [75] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: Who wouldn't anchor them 250km away from each other in a hexagonal packed sphere formation and have overlapping fields of fire in the centre, where you park Citadel Cruise phoenixes and hold Thunderdome deathmatches? I ask you. I am of two minds on this. It will be ******* awesome doing this, and we all know we will. I would love to have them off of moons but then having them warpable on the overview takes away effort/reward and honestly if that is how it will be then i would rather them being locked to being anchored at moons like they are currently. I mean how will we ever teach the new kids how to dscan right?... I am Winthorp, you might remember me from such films as "Winthorp is to blame for permanent signature ID's". Please note i don't engage in any meaningful discussion with NPC alts, nut up or shut up...
Iyokus Patrouette Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 479	Posted - 2015.05.18 06:26:36 - [76] - Quote Winthorp wrote: Trinkets friend wrote: Who wouldn't anchor them 250km away from each other in a hexagonal packed sphere formation and have overlapping fields of fire in the centre, where you park Citadel Cruise phoenixes and hold Thunderdome deathmatches? I ask you. I am of two minds on this. It will be ******* awesome doing this, and we all know we will. I would love to have them off of moons but then having them warpable on the overview takes away effort/reward and honestly if that is how it will be then i would rather them being locked to being anchored at moons like they are currently. I mean how will we ever teach the new kids how to dscan right?... What do you mean? all the cool kids are D scanning left these days. ---- Advocate for the initiation of purple coloured wormholes----
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 162	Posted - 2015.05.18 08:05:25 - [77] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: It doesn't prevent the pos from shooting you. You probably still have to shoot and encap the guns... Are You sure that you can shoot the Guns? If they are fitted on a citadel like a ship. Then you might not be able to target them individual. I have not seen anything about that in the dev blog. No local in null sec would fix everything!
Winthorp 3506	Posted - 2015.05.18 08:37:03 - [78] - Quote unimatrix0030 wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: It doesn't prevent the pos from shooting you. You probably still have to shoot and encap the guns... Are You sure that you can shoot the Guns? If they are fitted on a citadel like a ship. Then you might not be able to target them individual. I have not seen anything about that in the dev blog. This is indeed an interesting point, will we be able to target a specific module/defense turret? I am Winthorp, you might remember me from such films as "Winthorp is to blame for permanent signature ID's". Please note i don't engage in any meaningful discussion with NPC alts, nut up or shut up...
calaretu Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 308	Posted - 2015.05.18 08:46:54 - [79] - Quote Winthorp wrote: unimatrix0030 wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: It doesn't prevent the pos from shooting you. You probably still have to shoot and encap the guns... Are You sure that you can shoot the Guns? If they are fitted on a citadel like a ship. Then you might not be able to target them individual. I have not seen anything about that in the dev blog. This is indeed an interesting point, will we be able to target a specific module/defense turret? I really hope not. With POS you can reanchor and online a full rack of guns during RF timer. Doubt it will be possible to refit a citadel during RF so I hope they leave the guns invulnerable. ~Bringer of happiness http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ .ORLY is recruiting
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 4596	Posted - 2015.05.18 18:30:24 - [80] - Quote I have removed a rule breaking post and the one quoting it. The Rules: 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Forestwalker POS Party Low-Class 0	Posted - 2015.05.18 18:46:22 - [81] - Quote I'd like to bring something up that I was thinking about over the last few days in regards to which structures might or might not be allowed in whspace. I feel that if the structures can't or will not adhere to the moon locking of systems then all of the Structures should be deployable in whspace and with that the ability to construct Super caps. As this might get out of hand maybe a limited number of structures being able to be deployed per wormhole might work. But this is all conjecture till we know what will be allowed and what will not be allowed in whspace.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2335	Posted - 2015.05.19 01:03:18 - [82] - Quote calaretu wrote: Winthorp wrote: unimatrix0030 wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: It doesn't prevent the pos from shooting you. You probably still have to shoot and encap the guns... Are You sure that you can shoot the Guns? If they are fitted on a citadel like a ship. Then you might not be able to target them individual. I have not seen anything about that in the dev blog. This is indeed an interesting point, will we be able to target a specific module/defense turret? I really hope not. With POS you can reanchor and online a full rack of guns during RF timer. Doubt it will be possible to refit a citadel during RF so I hope they leave the guns invulnerable. Personally, I like that. The whole idea of POSs right now is to just anchor spare modules around your POS until you run out of money. If attacked, you have nearly infinite depth of defence to keep onlining EHP after EHP to bore your attacker away. oh, right. i meant, online guns to deter/threaen/destroy your attacker. Because as we know, guns equal defences, not EHP walls erected in front of your enemy to keep them at bay or deter attack simply and solely because they do the maths and it's literally "100 guns at 1.5M EHP each, divided by 20,000 DPS for our 15 Oracles, equals 12.5 hours of incapping guns, or we could go run incursions and not" and then over the next 40 hours turns into "Oh hey, look, even after we dominated the grid, incapped the guns, then incapped 60M EHP of POS shield after the defenders onlined all the hardeners on us while we were bashing away during the 16th hour of the siege, they jacked up another 100 guns and can online them one after the other." This is ridiculous. Especially for low-class wormhole fights and highsec war fights around POSs. Lowsec and null and C5+ you bring dreads and generally ignore he guns and just drop the neuts and you're golden. But otherwise, the way the system works now is just plain bananas (substitute cow faeces word there). I totally do not mind a system where your POS lives and dies at the fitting screen, just like your ship. Firstly, any fitting system for a Citadel is limited in PG and CPU. You have o make conscious tradeoffs, versus just have a strategic reserve of 30 Iterons loaded with guns in your spare Directors Only SMA, ready to be launched en-masse and disgorge their contents into space around your stricken POS at the vinegar stroke of someone else's weekend-long orgy of boring structure grinding. Oh hai guise here's another 60M EHP to grind through, gg. Secondly, the attacker knows it's a finite quantity. They might even burn a scanning ceptor to work out the POS fit if the model doesn't display guns in the turret hardpoints, etc etc (just like you can stare at a ship now and figure out if it's a RLML Caracal, like it always is). They can then theorycraft a plan of attack, the only wild card in it being what the defender undocks, how the defender fights, whether the defender uses guns. Not "does the defender have 30 Iterons loaded with large pulse bateries, neuts, scrams and ECM batteries in that SMA?" - suddenly the defender's presence and skill is vitally important for defence, not just erecting more time sinks in front of the attacker. Thirdly, yes, if your guns get incapped you might be up le creek de merde sans paddle. Baww baww all your stuff ends up in a sekrit space hobbit can and you can zoidberg out of there. Or you know, get out of the POS and rep the guns like a real man. 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 ~~

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.