|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bleedingthrough
Raptor Navy
176
   |
Posted - 2015.08.03 10:23:32 -
[1] - Quote
They keep the Blog somewhat up to date.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5305080#post5305080
|
Bleedingthrough
176
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 10:39:57 -
[2] - Quote
Winthorp wrote:But the devil is in the detail.
I got the feeling that they realy want to get this right.
These new POSes are specifically designed to live in ... ergo: for us!
Let's hope they don't listen too much to these null lobbyists and more to people that have a clue like corbex.
|
Bleedingthrough
180
|
Posted - 2015.08.06 07:21:07 -
[3] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:
My feedback, if Goonbexx and co. are watching, is to consider the price / utility trade-off for something that may well not defend itself, allowing trollceptors to turn it into space hobbit cans in no time at all. If you do have to spend more than a couple of billion ISK on a Medium Citadel, its probably not worth it.
Why would you asume this?
They should be afordable for the size of group they are tailored for:
Quote:Medium sized Citadel structures will be around 5-25km in diameter and are tailored for individual or small groups of players. ...
Large sized Citadel structures will be around 25-50km in diameter and are made for corporations or even small alliances.
They will defend themselves:
Quote:We have established Citadels need to be able to take care of themselves in a fight.
As such they should:
Repel trolling attempts from a single player trying to capture them with an Entosis module
...
Also CCP stated elsewhere (I really donGÇÖt know where) that the capture process will be fine-tuned for w-space, e,g, vulnerability timers etc.. |
Bleedingthrough
180
|
Posted - 2015.08.07 07:51:42 -
[4] - Quote
Good morning Trickets,
are you done or do you want to flame calaretu as well?
We canGÇÖt have a discussion if you insult people that cite what they believe to be up-to-date design goals from the developers. This is mutually exclusive. Are you mature enough to understand this?
Besides, I agree with you: If they use the upper limit for the destiny sphere (25km) they have to be unrealistically cheap. So will they end up costing that much? No! That would totally contradict CCPs design goals, their frame of reference. So CCP will either get them resized (to the lower limit, 5 km) and/or we have to live in a shockingly unrealistic gaming world. Big deal.
What really worries me is that CCP changed their mind on passive defenses. I was honestly shocked because I canGÇÖt think of a way this can potentially work. |
Bleedingthrough
181
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 05:34:25 -
[5] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:It is worth re-mentioning that citadels are not the be-all, end-all structures so some of their shortcomings may have to be covered by other new structures.
All I want is a place to store ships that can not be trolled effortless and riskless.
The process of capturing should provide potential content like something worth killing on grid. It would be fatal for w-space if a single (non-capital/marauder) ship could GÇ£RFGÇ¥ these new POSes.
|
Bleedingthrough
185
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 02:58:04 -
[6] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Why on earth would we want to screw up Citadels? They're replacing Outposts, you know!
You love EvE too and would not do it on purpose. It is just that you think of these structures as something completely different than most WH people do. You say they are replacing Outposts, I say they replace POSes.
Point is: These new structures need to and will work significantly different in w-space.
And we canGÇÖt have a half-assed compromise with the null guys on that matter. Because these null infidels just lack imagination how little details can impact our way of life. The recent changes to C5-null connection are a good example for this ignorance. WH people were not even consulted!
All I want is that CCP listens and acts accordingly. I am sick of bullshit like this:
CCP: Crushing WHs is too easy. Mass based spawn distance.
WP people: Why? This will be meh. (<- the truth on over 9000 pages)
CCP does it anyways.
Null people: *cry* we canGÇÖt close WHs in our ratting systems and power projection and such.
(wait a second WH people can do this with way less numbers)
CCP: DonGÇÖt cry little babies, donGÇÖt cry.
Corbexx: Sorry guys, I was not able to prevent this from happening, can you come up with an idea how to mitigate the damage?
|
Bleedingthrough
186
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 15:11:06 -
[7] - Quote
Since the HP barrier gets removed dreads will probably not be that important anymore for sieges. Therefore, it will not be that important anymore in what class of WH you live in. Risk vs. reward wise this is horrible.
WH control is a totally boring thing, a thing that needs to be done to achieve your goals in a siege:
a) prevent the defender to bring friends you can't deal with.
b) prevent the defender to extract assets.
You lose WH control for only a few hours and everything is lost (or won by the defender).
With sieges taking maybe up to 2 weeks this can not be achieved unless you are crazy.
So the defender will be able to bring friends in (or extract assets). An other problem also arises from not having to commit a lot of assets to RF a citadel. It might just be a troll and the friends come for nothing. In current sieges you seed assets in the target system. The attacker is somewhat committed and the defender has a clue what is coming his way.
In essence this new mechanic will not work for sieges in w-space and citadels either have to work very differently or w-space will turn into something very different.
|
Bleedingthrough
186
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 15:49:33 -
[8] - Quote
Almost forgot about this:
I don't think it is a good thing to lower the barrier to be able to threaten someones existence in w-space. I totally do not agree with this design goal.
Besides, it will be the other way around because you can not maintain WH control ->they bring friends/3rd party coming for GFs -> 20+ T3s on grid -> there goes your goal down the drain.
|
|
|
| |
|