EVE Search - Citadel Question

All Channels

Wormholes

Citadel Question - W-Space rules

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 303	Posted - 2015.08.02 21:49:19 - [1] - Quote Regarding XL sized Citadels...will W-space people be able to have DD's and/or Fighter bomber bays for them?
Bronya Boga Isogen 5 581	Posted - 2015.08.02 22:01:36 - [2] - Quote XL will require sov
Ripblade Falconpunch Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 325	Posted - 2015.08.02 22:11:27 - [3] - Quote Bronya Boga wrote: XL will require sov What Bronya said. The last official word was that Large will be the biggest one you can build in a WH.
Amak Boma Dragon Factory 138	Posted - 2015.08.02 23:53:29 - [4] - Quote well large citadel will be only largest for wspace use the XL one will need sovergnity . wondering only if the wormhole citadels will be entosis-able . if so how we will deal with trollceptors .
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 303	Posted - 2015.08.03 03:28:29 - [5] - Quote Bronya Boga wrote: XL will require sov well screw sort dragon
Winthorp 3607	Posted - 2015.08.03 04:48:00 - [6] - Quote Devblog will be out in a few days at most. But the impression i got from the structures slack channel and CCP's responses in there, if i recall Nullarbors words were "If you can get it in a WH you can use it in a WH". 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...
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2647	Posted - 2015.08.03 06:24:32 - [7] - Quote That's called the Girlfriend Principle 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 ~~
calaretu Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 365	Posted - 2015.08.03 06:47:34 - [8] - Quote Can confirm that Nullarbor stated that as long as you can get the citadel somewhere, you can deploy it. No sov required. Also no citadels in shattered wormholes unless Fozzie change his mind about them ~Bringer of happiness http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ .ORLY is recruiting
Winthorp 3607	Posted - 2015.08.03 06:57:08 - [9] - Quote But the devil is in the detail. And i expect us to be gobsmacked by a lot of other **** when devblog is out. 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...
Bleedingthrough Raptor Navy 176	Posted - 2015.08.03 10:23:32 - [10] - 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 - [11] - 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.
Winthorp 3607	Posted - 2015.08.03 10:45:30 - [12] - Quote Bleedingthrough wrote: 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. I really hope i am wrong but the general feel i got from things was i wasn't going to like it at all. 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...
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1383	Posted - 2015.08.03 19:50:12 - [13] - Quote any size can go anywhere at the moment. I've also pointed this in the way of CCP Nullarbor (well he actually asked for a link). Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1291	Posted - 2015.08.03 19:57:33 - [14] - Quote XL in WH the dream. I can REALLY have a fortress now. If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
O'nira Litla Sundlaugin 70	Posted - 2015.08.04 02:17:58 - [15] - Quote i'm really worried i won't like anything about the new structures.
Borg Stoneson SWARTA Mostly Clueless 46	Posted - 2015.08.04 05:56:24 - [16] - Quote It does seem like the structures are going to be either great or terrible for us WH dwellers. No middle ground. I don't mean good/bad in terms of finding targets/hiding from targets. I mean for basic functionality and actually living in. The fact that they'll either be so OP that even the largest groups will struggle to take them from even a 1guy and his alt corp or they'll be undefendable and impossible to remove assets from when there's even a modest attempt to camp it and will just be a pinyata to larger groups.
Sarah Jaxson The Copernicus Institute 1	Posted - 2015.08.04 11:07:03 - [17] - Quote Im more interested to see the fuel requirements. From what i have read, they are not supposed to be tied to race, but will that change the fuel mechanic and should i start selling off all my fuel blocks now?
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1231	Posted - 2015.08.04 12:36:52 - [18] - Quote Borg Stoneson wrote: It does seem like the structures are going to be either great or terrible for us WH dwellers. No middle ground. I don't mean good/bad in terms of finding targets/hiding from targets. I mean for basic functionality and actually living in. The fact that they'll either be so OP that even the largest groups will struggle to take them from even a 1guy and his alt corp or they'll be undefendable and impossible to remove assets from when there's even a modest attempt to camp it and will just be a pinyata to larger groups. Doubt it won't be comparable to a POS. Replace FF with mooring area most likely and defenses are fitted, not anchored. Could easily imagine this to behave a bit like traffic control on a wormhole, when you jump and the client goes unresponsive, you got the jump animation but your ship remains in space until you relog. Just taht it's moored, so people can watch you while you do citadel-things without worrying.
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1296	Posted - 2015.08.04 12:58:43 - [19] - Quote O'nira wrote: i'm really worried i won't like anything about the new structures. oh no let's tell CCP, then they can cater directly to your desires If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 201	Posted - 2015.08.04 14:54:18 - [20] - Quote Sarah Jaxson wrote: Im more interested to see the fuel requirements. From what i have read, they are not supposed to be tied to race, but will that change the fuel mechanic and should i start selling off all my fuel blocks now? The stuctures themselfs will not need fuel but the services on them will. Well that was what i last read about it anyway. XL in wh's? Not sure if that will be good. There is to little info yet . Well i hope we will get more info soon. No local in null sec would fix everything! Fleet warp proposal = the rubix cube is back into eve especialy the second part of the saying. Wh players need to adapt, null sec players get the rules changed.
Saisin Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance 279	Posted - 2015.08.04 18:20:21 - [21] - Quote Sarah Jaxson wrote: Im more interested to see the fuel requirements. From what i have read, they are not supposed to be tied to race, but will that change the fuel mechanic and should i start selling off all my fuel blocks now? If I remember right, they said the structure itself will not require fuel, but adding services will, or something like that. I like this concept, if it will be the case. "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo. solo? There is a new hope...
Pook600 Defiance LLC 7	Posted - 2015.08.04 18:42:06 - [22] - Quote unimatrix0030 wrote: Sarah Jaxson wrote: Im more interested to see the fuel requirements. From what i have read, they are not supposed to be tied to race, but will that change the fuel mechanic and should i start selling off all my fuel blocks now? The stuctures themselfs will not need fuel but the services on them will. Well that was what i last read about it anyway. XL in wh's? Not sure if that will be good. There is to little info yet . I hope we will get more info soon. XL's in High Class WH's only possibly?
calaretu Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 365	Posted - 2015.08.04 19:51:21 - [23] - Quote Some updates from #structure on Tweetfleet Slack. The blog is delayed due to translation issues. It was suggested Ytterbium should just write it in french to start with so translation went faster. CCP Nullarbor 4:34 PM so devblog won't cover construction costs, because we havn't figured that out yet (ytterbium is running the numbers on all that atm) service modules for manufacturing will be specific to the type of manufacturing ie frigate, battle cruiser etc CCP Nullarbor 4:35 PM that will be with the assembly array kenneth: don't know the actual breakdown yet because we are not looking at that just yet, we know there will be granularity to it though not just "manufacturing" we might do disabling service modules like stations but tbh we are not designing the defenses with that in mind A lengthy discussion followed about how the defense/combat would work: CCP Nullarbor 4:38 PM I'd rather have more depth to the combat, like ships ie keep range because it's firing this ammo or, fit eccm because its an ewar fit etc the larger the size of the structure, the more fitting capability it has than includes better rigs, more service slots and more h/m/l slots etc the fitting is one of the primary reasons to want to step up a size it will be more strategic than that (current POS), the defenses can't do all things to all ships at once it's a lone target unless it has a fleet you can outnumbered it with tanked entosis ships or mitigate the damage etc CCP Nullarbor 4:41 PM we're only launching citadel which is a storage pos later we'll do more industry stuff good question about standings (ref hitting your own players with aoe in fw) no answer on that today, but I could see us saying yes you have standings loss ' CCP Nullarbor 4:43 PM kenneth: if you remove a service module you will cancel all the jobs (in respons to question about swapping fitting for different kind of industry jobs) so you can't just swap fitting around unless you are not using them kennethfeld 4:44 PM BUT, can you do it in space? CCP Nullarbor 4:46 PM yes as in, the structure is deployed in space? yes yes you can swap h/m/l (slots) but we might do an capacitor activation cost CCP Nullarbor 4:51 PM there will not be racial citadels to begin with but we are not ruling out introducing them late *later kennethfeld 5:05 PM is it still going to be medium citadels at first and then large and XL later? CCP Nullarbor 5:05 PM M and L at the same time we hope, XL later CCP Nullarbor 5:07 PM it's delayed (XL structure) mostly because of the graphics, it's a huge asset with some challenges for drawing something that big. plus the doomsday weapon :simple_smile: CCP Nullarbor 7:37 PM taking down the structure will trigger the asset safety on personal hangars the details of which will be covered in the blog CCP Nullarbor 8:30 PM so to be super clear, we are not removing any POS or Outposts (or their upgrades and modules) at all this year, or even considering it right away I'm hearing chatter of people being confused about this we will have a world of new structures and old structures for some time before we start talking about getting rid of the old and you'll all be consulted on how / when that happens and outposts will be the last to go (maybe even years before that happens) so, don't freak out :smile: but its totally fine to talk about how / when we might do that transition Lucia Denniard 5:03 PM I do hope the loot drop system is different for wormholes CCP Nullarbor 5:03 PM that will be in the blog, so we look forward to hearing what you guys think about it all its not just sov copy-pasted kennethfeld 5:04 PM I imagine corbexx has been in overdrive... CCP Nullarbor 5:04 PM yes we chat a lot ~Bringer of happiness http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ .ORLY is recruiting
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1297	Posted - 2015.08.04 20:11:55 - [24] - Quote are you trying to tell me that GOONbexx is actually doing things for WHs? This is SURELY a lie! He can't even UNDERSTAND WHs anymore since he judased WH residents. If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Pook600 Defiance LLC 7	Posted - 2015.08.04 21:06:10 - [25] - Quote Quote: kennethfeld 5:04 PM I imagine corbexx has been in overdrive... CCP Nullarbor 5:04 PM yes we chat a lot Mostly about Nullsec where Goonbexx lives and maybe how a Dev can throw him a bone once in awhile during a chat to make it seem like he isn't a total Judas dbag....
dark dreamur The Tebo Corp 65	Posted - 2015.08.04 21:44:44 - [26] - Quote Judas Dbag : sounds like a great name for a new toon
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1298	Posted - 2015.08.04 22:52:20 - [27] - Quote Pook600 wrote: Quote: kennethfeld 5:04 PM I imagine corbexx has been in overdrive... CCP Nullarbor 5:04 PM yes we chat a lot Mostly about Nullsec where Goonbexx lives and maybe how a Dev can throw him a bone once in awhile during a chat to make it seem like he isn't a total Judas dbag.... way to misquote the context. standard bootyblasted pubbie v0v If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Adriana Nolen Sama Guild 116	Posted - 2015.08.05 12:52:59 - [28] - Quote Citadels will end up being a **** up of epic proportions. Instead of reworking the existing code, adding new features & greatly improving the UI, all we will end up with is a bastardization of a decent idea poorly implemented & will take years to fix.
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 201	Posted - 2015.08.05 14:53:33 - [29] - Quote Thanks for the update calaretu! No local in null sec would fix everything! Fleet warp proposal = the rubix cube is back into eve especialy the second part of the saying. Wh players need to adapt, null sec players get the rules changed.
Starbuilder Stasarik EVE University Ivy League 0	Posted - 2015.08.05 23:26:22 - [30] - Quote Adriana Nolen wrote: Citadels will end up being a **** up of epic proportions. Instead of reworking the existing code, adding new features & greatly improving the UI, all we will end up with is a bastardization of a decent idea poorly implemented & will take years to fix. I will say this as a developer with experience in a number of complex mid-sized programs (6-8 million lines, primarily for the banking industry): there are numerous times when it's faster, better, cheaper, and simply easier to throw out your existing code for a purpose and redo it from scratch. Yes, it's possible for software to be so poorly programmed that "burn it all down and start again" is the most feasible choice regardless of the angle you look at it. "Reworking the existing code" on something that has been said to be as difficult as POS code can very easily fall into those types of lines. Instead of criticizing something that you know nothing about due to the information being as-yet unreleased, I suggest you take a chill pill, pour yourself a cold drink, and put on some Jazz. I'm rather fond of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S93oz6BuvI for post-stressful-day cooldowns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZuj_beuMc4 is an excellent alternative if you want something a bit less "Jazzy."
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 303	Posted - 2015.08.06 00:07:42 - [31] - Quote Starbuilder Stasarik wrote: Adriana Nolen wrote: Citadels will end up being a **** up of epic proportions. Instead of reworking the existing code, adding new features & greatly improving the UI, all we will end up with is a bastardization of a decent idea poorly implemented & will take years to fix. I will say this as a developer with experience in a number of complex mid-sized programs (6-8 million lines, primarily for the banking industry): there are numerous times when it's faster, better, cheaper, and simply easier to throw out your existing code for a purpose and redo it from scratch. Yes, it's possible for software to be so poorly programmed that "burn it all down and start again" is the most feasible choice regardless of the angle you look at it. "Reworking the existing code" on something that has been said to be as difficult as POS code can very easily fall into those types of lines. Instead of criticizing something that you know nothing about due to the information being as-yet unreleased, I suggest you take a chill pill, pour yourself a cold drink, and put on some Jazz. I'm rather fond of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S93oz6BuvI for post-stressful-day cooldowns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZuj_beuMc4 is an excellent alternative if you want something a bit less "Jazzy." Jazzy+Metal get you this But yes they should burn it all down. It should be good once the legacy code is gone for good. They are giving themseves the time to get it right not just to be kind to the player base.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2650	Posted - 2015.08.06 00:43:46 - [32] - Quote So, if size is anything to go by these things will cost about 750 billion ISK to produce: evidence. This is kind of a big deal. I know size doesn't scale linearly with mineral cost, but certainly the size of these things is suggesive of rather herculean amounts of materials. The only good thing I can see is that the POCO gantry costs 75M and ends up being around about 20km on its long axis. So the guesstimate for a medium Citadel would therefore be in the range of 750M. Which is expensive but doable. it's also realistically on par with a current large POS plus gumf, which is what it is replacing. 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. This is kind of a crummy underhanded bass-ackwards way of getting people to move out of wormholes en-masse via pricing it out of reach of the vast majority of organisations. I would not want to see that. I mean, I will pay a chunk of cash to build one, but not 10 billion. Certainly not, if size relative to Avatar is any guide, 75 billion plus. Hell, my whole alliance probably doesn't have that much liquid cash lying around and I'm no space poor. It might be a good remedy to escalation krabbing, getting them to have to invest serious spendoolas and effort to jack up a Citadel versus a medium tower with a pair of hardeners, SMA and CHA like they do now. But there's a hell of a lot of small 8-30 man corps who are just starting out in wormhole space who couldn't short of life- and marriage- and psyche-destroying grinding of Incursions afford Citadels at over a billion ISK, just to go make dangerous poverty money in wormholes. So, yeah, if you want people out of wormholes entirely, like your original but discredited, trammelled and discarded original design principle (which you should get the **** over) then Citadels are a good first step if they cost too much. 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 ~~
Borg Stoneson SWARTA Mostly Clueless 47	Posted - 2015.08.06 06:37:14 - [33] - Quote Adriana Nolen wrote: Citadels will end up being a **** up of epic proportions. Instead of reworking the existing code, adding new features & greatly improving the UI, all we will end up with is a bastardization of a decent idea poorly implemented & will take years to fix. I have no complaints with that, I've been saying they should just scrap the whole thing and make something new since before fuelblocks came out. I would have prefered a more organic growth system, but that's just me. I have concerns about the implementation, this is EVE and CCP after all but even the "OMG it's all terrible!" doomsayings are better than POS's in most regards for running a WH operation out of. Hope we get the new structures soon, being an early adopter will be hell but I think it'll be worth it. Also I doubt the medium will be 750bil, a lot of that size is taken up by hangers and other empty spaces after all, from what I understand Titans are quite solid constructions.
Bleedingthrough 180	Posted - 2015.08.06 07:21:07 - [34] - 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..
GizzyBoy Aperture Harmonics K162 177	Posted - 2015.08.06 07:31:25 - [35] - Quote Dat black hole troll ceptor tho with links good luck catching that if you live in one of those.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1757	Posted - 2015.08.06 07:43:11 - [36] - Quote I'm nervous about the lack of automated guns. Sure, there's a vulnerability window but as we all know being a fews jumps out in a WH chain ain't the same as being a few jumps out in K space to try to respond to a ping. brb training all throwaway alts in pos gunning skills.
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1307	Posted - 2015.08.06 13:07:25 - [37] - Quote Bleedingthrough wrote: 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.. yeah that'll DEFINITELY happen afkalt wrote: brb training all throwaway alts in pos gunning skills. how do you not have these already..? If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2651	Posted - 2015.08.07 01:53:53 - [38] - Quote Bleedingthrough wrote: 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.. Well, ntil the devblog comes out / gets updated / F&I thread starts, we will just have to speculate on the vulnerability window. There's been enough vague CCPish vacillation on this, in discussions and blogs, that stating it as fact at this point is disingenuous. As to the cost, just look at the size of the Medium Citadel and tell me that it's for a single player. I mean, sure, anything's affordable for a single player in a game where there's no upper limit to your wealth accumulation capacity and you can Krab all day long in a C5 Mag. That's not the point, is it? POS's start at 65M ISK market price and go up to 1.5B (or so) for faction larges. Add a full fit of faction to a faction Large and XLSMA to store your toys, and you're in the vicinity of 2.5-3.25 billion. Yes, very affordable for most players. But this is an apples and oranges comparison now. The advantage of a POS for a solo player is that it has automated defences, up to 180M EHP (more if you go a TF Style dampstar) and is invulnerable to fozziesov space lasers, and therefore, small groups of people who want to teabag your POS when you are asleep. It therefore has huge utility to a Krab herdering turd lord in a wormhole because you can effectively claim a system with a couple of DST loads of materials. Hell the moment you put the stick down and toss fuel into a Large, you've got a strategically defensible bubble with 30M EHP. Citadels owned by solo players with non-automatic defences and a vulnerability timer are not useful for solo neckbeards. The moment someone figures out you are a solo player or a bunch of alts in a 8 man krab corp and you don't sign on every day (or even if you do) they'll entosis your Citadel and when you come out to repair it, pod you out and finish the job. So, again because you are dense and unable to logic your way out of a wet paper bag, how much would the average neckbeard want to pay for an indefensible chunk of useless troll bait? 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 ~~
Bleedingthrough 180	Posted - 2015.08.07 07:51:42 - [39] - 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.
Winthorp 3608	Posted - 2015.08.07 08:00:58 - [40] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: Citadels owned by solo players with non-automatic defences and a vulnerability timer are not useful for solo neckbeards. The moment someone figures out you are a solo player or a bunch of alts in a 8 man krab corp and you don't sign on every day (or even if you do) they'll entosis your Citadel and when you come out to repair it, pod you out and finish the job. how much would the average neckbeard want to pay for an indefensible chunk of useless troll bait? This is probably the scariest part of all. Combined with the docking games it will be pretty bad i think. 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...
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1312	Posted - 2015.08.07 12:54:09 - [41] - Quote I wonder if the entosis timer for it will be the default time with default vulnerability window, or if you can raise indexes in your WH to make it harder. If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Jezza McWaffle ShipRekt 239	Posted - 2015.08.07 13:06:10 - [42] - Quote Would be a new way of gathering data on NPC activity, who has the highest indexes! :D Take a look at my startup C5 PvP WH corp adventures, we are recruiting
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1312	Posted - 2015.08.07 13:08:14 - [43] - Quote Could be hard to keep them up though since anoms don't refresh like they do in null If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Jezza McWaffle ShipRekt 239	Posted - 2015.08.07 14:54:14 - [44] - Quote I suspect they'll just give us naturally high index levels or something. Would be stupid if it was at level zero. Take a look at my startup C5 PvP WH corp adventures, we are recruiting
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 429	Posted - 2015.08.07 15:59:56 - [45] - Quote The entosis system certainly draws a line in the sand. If a structure is going to sit abandoned 99% of the time, it is going to be a sitting duck. Luckily basic trolling attempts will be shrugged off since the attackers are unlikely to come back for later rounds of reinforcement. But if you can't be added to repair the building or man the guns for the final timer, GG. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1312	Posted - 2015.08.07 16:10:35 - [46] - Quote Jezza McWaffle wrote: I suspect they'll just give us naturally high index levels or something. Would be stupid if it was at level zero. you'd think that, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's not true Chance Ravinne wrote: The entosis system certainly draws a line in the sand. If a structure is going to sit abandoned 99% of the time, it is going to be a sitting duck. Luckily basic trolling attempts will be shrugged off since the attackers are unlikely to come back for later rounds of reinforcement. But if you can't be added to repair the building or man the guns for the final timer, GG. way to give a long-generic answer that doesn't answer anything. #1 WH CSM~ If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Jezza McWaffle ShipRekt 239	Posted - 2015.08.07 17:26:02 - [47] - Quote You have to think how these structures will also work in Low Sec as well where there is no sov, so I guess CCP might hard code something either into the systems or the structures themselves where you get a set 'index' level. Since they've already said they are looking into how index's affect the timers for other areas of space that isn't sov null. Take a look at my startup C5 PvP WH corp adventures, we are recruiting
Neckbeard Nolyfe Zero Fun Allowed 86	Posted - 2015.08.07 17:31:04 - [48] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: The entosis system certainly draws a line in the sand. If a structure is going to sit abandoned 99% of the time, it is going to be a sitting duck. Luckily basic trolling attempts will be shrugged off since the attackers are unlikely to come back for later rounds of reinforcement. But if you can't be added to repair the building or man the guns for the final timer, GG. The ability to kill citadels using a 55k sp toon in a noobship truly is balanced and exactly what wh space needs. *~lvl 60 paladin~*
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1312	Posted - 2015.08.07 17:40:35 - [49] - Quote Jezza McWaffle wrote: You have to think how these structures will also work in Low Sec as well where there is no sov, so I guess CCP might hard code something either into the systems or the structures themselves where you get a set 'index' level. Since they've already said they are looking into how index's affect the timers for other areas of space that isn't sov null. Good point. Same with NPC null. Was basing my prediction off of what's currently implemented. Will be interested to see what solution they go with. If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Winthorp 3609	Posted - 2015.08.07 20:09:32 - [50] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: The entosis system certainly draws a line in the sand. If a structure is going to sit abandoned 99% of the time, it is going to be a sitting duck. Luckily basic trolling attempts will be shrugged off since the attackers are unlikely to come back for later rounds of reinforcement. But if you can't be added to repair the building or man the guns for the final timer, GG. You are joking right? When it only takes an interceptor and a covops logged off in their system and keep doing this over and over to a POS that doesn't shoot back. 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...
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1313	Posted - 2015.08.07 20:52:10 - [51] - Quote are you joking? it's GOOD gameplay. You just don't understand how EMERGENT it truly is. If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Jezza McWaffle ShipRekt 239	Posted - 2015.08.07 22:06:51 - [52] - Quote Emergent, thats what she said Take a look at my startup C5 PvP WH corp adventures, we are recruiting
Ripblade Falconpunch Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 335	Posted - 2015.08.07 22:10:14 - [53] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: The entosis system certainly draws a line in the sand. If a structure is going to sit abandoned 99% of the time, it is going to be a sitting duck. Luckily basic trolling attempts will be shrugged off since the attackers are unlikely to come back for later rounds of reinforcement. But if you can't be added to repair the building or man the guns for the final timer, GG. Thanks, Captain Obvious. We all saw the activity chart, you can stop pretending to be an active CSM member with insightful posts like this now.
calaretu Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 367	Posted - 2015.08.08 06:16:43 - [54] - Quote Neckbeard Nolyfe wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: The entosis system certainly draws a line in the sand. If a structure is going to sit abandoned 99% of the time, it is going to be a sitting duck. Luckily basic trolling attempts will be shrugged off since the attackers are unlikely to come back for later rounds of reinforcement. But if you can't be added to repair the building or man the guns for the final timer, GG. The ability to kill citadels using a 55k sp toon in a noobship truly is balanced and exactly what wh space needs. I too use to go afk from game for over a month and are furious that someone may be able to take down my citadel. Unlike now. Yes Pos such safe and new is just horrible. /sarcasm ~Bringer of happiness http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ .ORLY is recruiting
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 305	Posted - 2015.08.08 08:11:38 - [55] - Quote Andrew Jester wrote: I wonder if the entosis timer for it will be the default time with default vulnerability window, or if you can raise indexes in your WH to make it harder. probably be default multiplier in W-space. Which is fine by me anyhow. Its hard enough to mount an offense into any hole that I don't mind a reduced multiplier. Also you don't have to deal with sov...just vulnerability windows/RF timers.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 305	Posted - 2015.08.08 08:15:54 - [56] - Quote Andrew Jester wrote: Jezza McWaffle wrote: You have to think how these structures will also work in Low Sec as well where there is no sov, so I guess CCP might hard code something either into the systems or the structures themselves where you get a set 'index' level. Since they've already said they are looking into how index's affect the timers for other areas of space that isn't sov null. Good point. Same with NPC null. Was basing my prediction off of what's currently implemented. Will be interested to see what solution they go with. Fac War will probably integrate those bonuses +10 -> +50% or something in the multiplier so I see little to change there. It might make running plexes matter more for defense in terms of contesting a system. For the rest of low sec I'd anticipate a standard multiplier like in W-space of 1.0. shrugs I don't see a problem there.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 305	Posted - 2015.08.08 08:16:44 - [57] - Quote corbexx wrote: any size can go anywhere at the moment. I've also pointed this in the way of CCP Nullarbor (well he actually asked for a link). w00t suck it W-space haters. Gonna get my w-space DD on!
Neckbeard Nolyfe Zero Fun Allowed 86	Posted - 2015.08.08 13:03:38 - [58] - Quote calaretu wrote: Neckbeard Nolyfe wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: The entosis system certainly draws a line in the sand. If a structure is going to sit abandoned 99% of the time, it is going to be a sitting duck. Luckily basic trolling attempts will be shrugged off since the attackers are unlikely to come back for later rounds of reinforcement. But if you can't be added to repair the building or man the guns for the final timer, GG. The ability to kill citadels using a 55k sp toon in a noobship truly is balanced and exactly what wh space needs. I too use to go afk from game for over a month and are furious that someone may be able to take down my citadel. Unlike now. Yes Pos such safe and new is just horrible. /sarcasm No,no the risk vs reward is totally balanced. And people can really commit to the emergent gameplay and fun it provides. Not to mention the ability to speed up the process by risking and committing more entosis assets, it will make wormhole defense amazing. I'm sure that everyone can't wait to take down their **** poses that use fuel, and replace them with free-to-use amazing citadels that can only be killed by committing a lot of expensive heavy assets. ~lvl 60 paladin~**
Ilaister Isogen 5 232	Posted - 2015.08.08 20:21:49 - [59] - Quote https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3frink/csm10_csmx_post_22_a_call_for_structure_questions/
calaretu Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 367	Posted - 2015.08.08 22:15:18 - [60] - Quote Neckbeard Nolyfe wrote: calaretu wrote: Neckbeard Nolyfe wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: The entosis system certainly draws a line in the sand. If a structure is going to sit abandoned 99% of the time, it is going to be a sitting duck. Luckily basic trolling attempts will be shrugged off since the attackers are unlikely to come back for later rounds of reinforcement. But if you can't be added to repair the building or man the guns for the final timer, GG. The ability to kill citadels using a 55k sp toon in a noobship truly is balanced and exactly what wh space needs. I too use to go afk from game for over a month and are furious that someone may be able to take down my citadel. Unlike now. Yes Pos such safe and new is just horrible. /sarcasm No,no the risk vs reward is totally balanced. And people can really commit to the emergent gameplay and fun it provides. Not to mention the ability to speed up the process by risking and committing more entosis assets, it will make wormhole defense amazing. I'm sure that everyone can't wait to take down their ****** poses that use fuel, and replace them with free-to-use amazing citadels that can only be killed by committing a lot of expensive heavy assets. Tbh I'm just tired of people not bothering to read what ccp has already stated. Thats apparently including this csm member quoted. Citadels will have a automated defense system that will counter trollceptors. If you want to entosis an afk citadel you actually have to commit something that can handle the basic defense. Like with POS (yes solo dread or marauder can RF most POS' in wspace). Unlike POS however a manned citadel is a lot more dangerous. A manned POS is at best a tiny bit of extra grind to incap stuff. Seriously, why dont people do basic research before whining? No you cant kill citadels in noobship. ~Bringer of happiness http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ .ORLY is recruiting
Neckbeard Nolyfe Zero Fun Allowed 88	Posted - 2015.08.08 22:49:42 - [61] - Quote calaretu wrote: Tbh I'm just tired of people not bothering to read what ccp has already stated. Thats apparently including this csm member quoted. Citadels will have a automated defense system that will counter trollceptors. If you want to entosis an afk citadel you actually have to commit something that can handle the basic defense. Like with POS (yes solo dread or marauder can RF most POS' in wspace). Unlike POS however a manned citadel is a lot more dangerous. A manned POS is at best a tiny bit of extra grind to incap stuff. Seriously, why dont people do basic research before whining? No you cant kill citadels in noobship. CCP Ytterbium wrote: [] Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn. ~lvl 60 paladin~*
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2654	Posted - 2015.08.09 00:01:16 - [62] - Quote calaretu wrote: I too use to go afk from game for 48 hours and are furious that someone may be able to take down my citadel. Unlike now. Yes Pos such safe and new is just horrible. /sarcasm Fixed. Stop being idiotic. 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 ~~
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 430	Posted - 2015.08.09 00:28:38 - [63] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: calaretu wrote: I too use to go afk from game for 48 hours and are furious that someone may be able to take down my citadel. Unlike now. Yes Pos such safe and new is just horrible. /sarcasm Fixed. Stop being idiotic. Your citadel will not go down in 48 hours. If there is something about what has been shown that makes you believe that, then you may be interpreting it incorrectly. Having seen the plans for structure vulnerability, I can assure you that this won't be possible. The exact details will be out soon but the system has (beyond my expectations) made it possible to be pretty damn afk and still have your structure be relatively secure. On top of that, if even a handful of people in your group or their alts can jump into a gunner seat once a week I don't think you'll have terrible issues. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Neckbeard Nolyfe Zero Fun Allowed 88	Posted - 2015.08.09 02:05:27 - [64] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Your citadel will not go down in 48 hours. If there is something about what has been shown that makes you believe that, then you may be interpreting it incorrectly. Having seen the plans for structure vulnerability, I can assure you that this won't be possible. The exact details will be out soon but the system has (beyond my expectations) made it possible to be pretty damn afk and still have your structure be relatively secure. On top of that, if even a handful of people in your group or their alts can jump into a gunner seat once a week I don't think you'll have terrible issues. So evictions will be impossible to complete during weekend's when everyone's numbers are higher? *~lvl 60 paladin~*
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 201	Posted - 2015.08.09 14:37:55 - [65] - Quote This to worry about : Cost of the new structures. Capture/loot/asset safety mechanisms of the new structures(what with ships/personal hanger after destruction). Capture instead of destroying possible? What will the services be of just a storage structure? What will the defenses be? Location restrictions and how to find the structures without probes. Finding active people in wh's, it used to be ships on d-scan was probablility of people(or decoy). I can only imagine scanner fatigue of searching 200 of these structures in a single system to find someone active. No local in null sec would fix everything! Fleet warp proposal = the rubix cube is back into eve especialy the second part of the saying. Wh players need to adapt, null sec players get the rules changed.
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1386	Posted - 2015.08.09 15:00:30 - [66] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: The entosis system certainly draws a line in the sand. If a structure is going to sit abandoned 99% of the time, it is going to be a sitting duck. Luckily basic trolling attempts will be shrugged off since the attackers are unlikely to come back for later rounds of reinforcement. But if you can't be added to repair the building or man the guns for the final timer, GG. Not really. One of the big issues is if your citadel does get reinforced, It effectively shuts down the system. This applies much more to tiny small groups in w space. But once reinforced your not likely to go run sites do your general day to day stuff if you have very few characters in the system, the risk of being podded could well leave your citadel undefended. We also know people are prepared to have alts (or mains in your case) sit in systems for months to spy, trigger anoms wait for ganks etc. meaning people will happily dump alts to grief people if they arent around. Repeated harrasement has also been used multiple times to get people to leave there wormhole (3 aharm guys repeated rf'd rnks pos in there off time zone till they got sick of it and left) The fact this can be done with a trollceptor is a issue. also regarding pos defences they won't work unless manned. ooh and, Pook600 wrote: Quote: kennethfeld 5:04 PM I imagine corbexx has been in overdrive... CCP Nullarbor 5:04 PM yes we chat a lot Mostly about Nullsec where Goonbexx lives and maybe how a Dev can throw him a bone once in awhile during a chat to make it seem like he isn't a total Judas dbag.... feel free to take any w space issues you have to chance. Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 430	Posted - 2015.08.09 15:09:29 - [67] - Quote corbexx wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: The entosis system certainly draws a line in the sand. If a structure is going to sit abandoned 99% of the time, it is going to be a sitting duck. Luckily basic trolling attempts will be shrugged off since the attackers are unlikely to come back for later rounds of reinforcement. But if you can't be added to repair the building or man the guns for the final timer, GG. Not really. One of the big issues is if your citadel does get reinforced, It effectively shuts down the system. This applies much more to tiny small groups in w space. But once reinforced your not likely to go run sites do your general day to day stuff if you have very few characters in the system, the risk of being podded could well leave your citadel undefended. We also know people are prepared to have alts (or mains in your case) sit in systems for months to spy, trigger anoms wait for ganks etc. meaning people will happily dump alts to grief people if they arent around. Repeated harrasement has also been used multiple times to get people to leave there wormhole (3 aharm guys repeated rf'd rnks pos in there off time zone till they got sick of it and left) The fact this can be done with a trollceptor is a issue. Corbexx unless I've misunderstood the reinforcement cycling, and I am fairly certain I haven't, initial reinforcement does not disable any structure functionality. Without getting into stuff we can't talk about, the preliminary vulnerability does not have this effect. This is outdated, but for reference: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67200/1/Structurestates-02.png It should also be stated that without a supply line of entosis fuel, a trollceptor camping a system will not be able to singlehandedly pull this off. He will need to scan out exits and bring in fuel. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 374	Posted - 2015.08.09 15:14:49 - [68] - Quote Wait, can one of the CSM guys or fake WH CSM guys tell us how they plan on letting us "put up any size Citadel you can get in" but prevent us from making supers/titans in our holes? Are the modules themselves for building XL Capitals going to be tied to Sov at least? Best description of Eve Online and why the community is the way it is
Urziel99 Unified Research Zone 123	Posted - 2015.08.09 15:26:14 - [69] - Quote Market McSelling Alt wrote: Wait, can one of the CSM guys or fake WH CSM guys tell us how they plan on letting us "put up any size Citadel you can get in" but prevent us from making supers/titans in our holes? Are the modules themselves for building XL Capitals going to be tied to Sov at least? The ability to build supercaps still requires an IHub upgrade. even if the assembly lines can support it, the capability is lacking without the upgrade.
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 374	Posted - 2015.08.09 15:27:08 - [70] - Quote Urziel99 wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Wait, can one of the CSM guys or fake WH CSM guys tell us how they plan on letting us "put up any size Citadel you can get in" but prevent us from making supers/titans in our holes? Are the modules themselves for building XL Capitals going to be tied to Sov at least? The ability to build supercaps still requires an IHub upgrade. even if the assembly lines can support it, the capability is lacking without the upgrade. Just making sure, thanks Best description of Eve Online and why the community is the way it is
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1386	Posted - 2015.08.09 15:31:36 - [71] - Quote Market McSelling Alt wrote: Wait, can one of the CSM guys or fake WH CSM guys tell us how they plan on letting us "put up any size Citadel you can get in" but prevent us from making supers/titans in our holes? Are the modules themselves for building XL Capitals going to be tied to Sov at least? ??? you need a sov upgrade to build titans and supers. edit damn people are fast. Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 374	Posted - 2015.08.09 15:34:55 - [72] - Quote corbexx wrote: Market McSelling Alt wrote: Wait, can one of the CSM guys or fake WH CSM guys tell us how they plan on letting us "put up any size Citadel you can get in" but prevent us from making supers/titans in our holes? Are the modules themselves for building XL Capitals going to be tied to Sov at least? ??? you need a sov upgrade to build titans and supers. edit damn people are fast. I was asking because no you don't need Sov specifically to build the ship... you need Sov to anchor the structure to build the ship. But now the modules are doing the building. Just wanted to make sure that wasn't overlooked. Best description of Eve Online and why the community is the way it is
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1386	Posted - 2015.08.09 15:36:34 - [73] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Corbexx unless I've misunderstood the reinforcement cycling, and I am fairly certain I haven't, initial reinforcement does not disable any structure functionality. Without getting into stuff we can't talk about, the preliminary vulnerability does not have this effect. This is outdated, but for reference: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67200/1/Structurestates-02.png I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything I just said. unless you miss understand what i mean by shutting down a system. Chance Ravinne wrote: It should also be stated that without a supply line of entosis fuel, a trollceptor camping a system will not be able to singlehandedly pull this off. He will need to scan out exits and bring in fuel. This is a super minor issue and incredby easy to get around either with a second cloaky hauler alt or just a can anchored in a safe spot (ok you might have to be careful getting stuff out). Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 430	Posted - 2015.08.09 16:00:12 - [74] - Quote Market McSelling Alt wrote: Wait, can one of the CSM guys or fake WH CSM guys tell us how they plan on letting us "put up any size Citadel you can get in" but prevent us from making supers/titans in our holes? Are the modules themselves for building XL Capitals going to be tied to Sov at least? Details about construction are not worked out yet -- and keep in mind citadels are only one type of structure, so it's possible other types might have limitations. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Neckbeard Nolyfe Zero Fun Allowed 89	Posted - 2015.08.09 16:17:26 - [75] - Quote Thanks for the clarifying that corbexx. Could the 2014-eve-player-bornagain-csm please not state incorrect facts in the future? tia *~lvl 60 paladin~*
O'nira Litla Sundlaugin 70	Posted - 2015.08.10 04:44:46 - [76] - Quote Since you guys seem to be sharing a bit how are assets handled once the citadel/new pos goes down? can i loot them or not?
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 432	Posted - 2015.08.10 04:54:16 - [77] - Quote O'nira wrote: Since you guys seem to be sharing a bit how are assets handled once the citadel/new pos goes down? can i loot them or not? It'll be revealed soon, unfortunately we can't say how it works ahead of time. In the interim though I'd be glad to hear how you'd prefer it works... You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
O'nira Litla Sundlaugin 70	Posted - 2015.08.10 05:25:21 - [78] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: O'nira wrote: Since you guys seem to be sharing a bit how are assets handled once the citadel/new pos goes down? can i loot them or not? It'll be revealed soon, unfortunately we can't say how it works ahead of time. In the interim though I'd be glad to hear how you'd prefer it works... i would prefer to be able to loot other peoples structures since i like evictions but if its the other way around i'll be happy because my structures would be safer but unhappy about losing evictions as content.
Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 1010	Posted - 2015.08.10 07:06:17 - [79] - Quote One of the first things about EVE I've noticed back then in comparison with similar games is that despite all the issues making it nigh-impossible in many cases, piracy is actually viable. Clear ways to raid and pillage space villages is content generator that I'd rather see in this game. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1774	Posted - 2015.08.10 09:31:43 - [80] - Quote Neckbeard Nolyfe wrote: calaretu wrote: Tbh I'm just tired of people not bothering to read what ccp has already stated. Thats apparently including this csm member quoted. Citadels will have a automated defense system that will counter trollceptors. If you want to entosis an afk citadel you actually have to commit something that can handle the basic defense. Like with POS (yes solo dread or marauder can RF most POS' in wspace). Unlike POS however a manned citadel is a lot more dangerous. A manned POS is at best a tiny bit of extra grind to incap stuff. Seriously, why dont people do basic research before whining? No you cant kill citadels in noobship. CCP Ytterbium wrote: Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn. CCP Ytterbium wrote: Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. Needed more bold and underscore. And empahsis. Apparently people are missing this... Also the irony in the quote is hilarious.
Jezza McWaffle ShipRekt 241	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:45:46 - [81] - Quote If you at all read anything you would also know that the Citadels will have enough defences to stop a trolceptor as calaretu said. Take a look at my startup C5 PvP WH corp adventures, we are recruiting
Winthorp 3612	Posted - 2015.08.10 10:53:40 - [82] - Quote Jezza McWaffle wrote: If you at all read anything you would also know that the Citadels will have enough defences to stop a trolceptor as calaretu said. If you have at all read any of these threads, devblogs or spoken with devs in the slack channel for structures you would know how very wrong you are. [*] Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn. 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...
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 432	Posted - 2015.08.10 12:30:55 - [83] - Quote Winthorp wrote: Jezza McWaffle wrote: If you at all read anything you would also know that the Citadels will have enough defences to stop a trolceptor as calaretu said. If you have at all read any of these threads, devblogs or spoken with devs in the slack channel for structures or even reddit you would know how very wrong you are. Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn. Now add to this undock games and camp ins. And from what i remember they still have not as yet decided if we will have a single undock/dock point or the multiple and random as requested by many. My kingdom for an updated devblog though... As far as undock games go, this is something nobody wants and CCP is trying to address this to prevent BS especially in w-space. I can't say if it'll work out exactly but based on what I've seen I'm optimistic the solution is there. Keep in mind citadel docking gives you an outside view, that is just one component of preventing docking games. Manning guns from within the structure is another part. The invulnerability link is a third part. And there are additional ideas being thrown around beyond that. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1316	Posted - 2015.08.10 13:06:22 - [84] - Quote WTB> Aussies/Russians for a WH corp to set a top tier invuln window~ If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2655	Posted - 2015.08.10 14:47:13 - [85] - Quote Pffft jester, you now this is bullshcnitzel. if some rednecks siege some turnip herding yak fondlers and don't complete the timer, it stay viable until povert TZ (AU TZ). Then some idiotic yokel bloketards decide to troll it. They complete the timer in the AU TZ and it resets to 48 hours from the US/EU/RUS timezone setting. This then cuts the bloketards out of the loop, because why dafuqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq do you waste any amount of time trollceptoring rusbear POS only to have rusbear POS come back out of RF in rusbear hours? We invaded our crappy C4 BH 2 weeks ago, and we still haven'trolled all the farking POCOs because rsbear TZ is like 3 a.m.. I mean, great, TZ warfare is the best, I know this for one times fact (redeemable anywhere in world, fo sho) but after a while you are sitting there thinking "what the actual, I can't even, 3 a.m. will this never end, goddamn this stupid game and stupider mechanics". So yeah, maybe Au TZ defence timers best timers. But only if the vulnerability is 4 hours. Glad to see a CSM fite going down. It's like a one armed mutant versus goonbexx with eight arms full of fact swords +5 versus useless vanity CSM potang grab patheticman. Come on carbexx, finshing moe! U-U-D-D-L-L-R-R-L-R-U-D!!!!!! 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 ~~
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1316	Posted - 2015.08.10 14:54:51 - [86] - Quote if it's ~8h? vuln, then you can set for RUS and maybe it'll bleed into AUS? or just set it so that the back half is AUS prime so that you can ride part of it out during DT If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
calaretu Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 367	Posted - 2015.08.10 19:04:15 - [87] - Quote For the record automated defence does not equal automated guns. As the quote I cant be arsed to requote say they are looking at ways for the citadel to counter trollceptors without manned guns. ~Bringer of happiness http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ .ORLY is recruiting
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 305	Posted - 2015.08.10 23:14:32 - [88] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Winthorp wrote: Jezza McWaffle wrote: If you at all read anything you would also know that the Citadels will have enough defences to stop a trolceptor as calaretu said. If you have at all read any of these threads, devblogs or spoken with devs in the slack channel for structures or even reddit you would know how very wrong you are. Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn. Now add to this undock games and camp ins. And from what i remember they still have not as yet decided if we will have a single undock/dock point or the multiple and random as requested by many. My kingdom for an updated devblog though... As far as undock games go, this is something nobody wants and CCP is trying to address this to prevent BS especially in w-space. I can't say if it'll work out exactly but based on what I've seen I'm optimistic the solution is there. Keep in mind citadel docking gives you an outside view, that is just one component of preventing docking games. Manning guns from within the structure is another part. The invulnerability link is a third part. And there are additional ideas being thrown around beyond that. This all seems good assuming you can fix the Null WH nerf. Thanks and don't be a traitor!
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1316	Posted - 2015.08.11 00:23:05 - [89] - Quote lol expecting chance ravinne to advocate for ANYTHING If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 432	Posted - 2015.08.11 04:26:52 - [90] - Quote Andrew Jester wrote: lol expecting chance ravinne to advocate for ANYTHING Yes yes, I come here for my health... and of course the scores of fawning fans (so many of them here in the wormhole subforum). My primary concerns for citadels in wormhole space have been advocating for looting and plunder since beautiful drops are a great incentive for structure destruction (for anyone who isn't amply rewarded by the loss of others). With the discussions of various asset safety systems I want to see an end system that rewards successful evictions either directly through loot or indirectly via the thorough toppling of the losing organization. Ultimately the new structures are going to be a very big compromise, both for w-space and for other regions of space, being significantly less safe in some ways and significantly more safe in other ways. 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. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Ripblade Falconpunch Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 349	Posted - 2015.08.11 04:38:05 - [91] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Andrew Jester wrote: lol expecting chance ravinne to advocate for ANYTHING Yes yes, I come here for my health... and of course the scores of fawning fans (so many of them here in the wormhole subforum. At least you know where you stand around here. Knowing is half the battle right?
Bleedingthrough 181	Posted - 2015.08.11 05:34:25 - [92] - 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.
Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 1017	Posted - 2015.08.11 05:47:44 - [93] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: As far as undock games go, this is something nobody wants and CCP is trying to address this to prevent BS especially in w-space. I can't say if it'll work out exactly but based on what I've seen I'm optimistic the solution is there. Keep in mind citadel docking gives you an outside view, that is just one component of preventing docking games. Manning guns from within the structure is another part. The invulnerability link is a third part. And there are additional ideas being thrown around beyond that. Wait a minute, sir. These ideas sound like something aimed at station camping, however, from my experience docking games by defender (by both parties for Empire) is what is seen as more problematic. For example, undocking en masse and then disengaging and docking back once aggro is taken while the rest are trying to burn at least a ship from another team. Rinse and repeat. This may be especially pronounced with player-owned structures since only once side can dock there. While entosis means that attackers can go for the station directly, docking tactics will play a big role in those fights that don't involve a lot of people - which will happen quite a bit in low-class space. Will this be addressed somehow, or is it considered workable? Inb4 I'm just rambling... Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 435	Posted - 2015.08.11 12:25:32 - [94] - Quote Barrogh Habalu wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: As far as undock games go, this is something nobody wants and CCP is trying to address this to prevent BS especially in w-space. I can't say if it'll work out exactly but based on what I've seen I'm optimistic the solution is there. Keep in mind citadel docking gives you an outside view, that is just one component of preventing docking games. Manning guns from within the structure is another part. The invulnerability link is a third part. And there are additional ideas being thrown around beyond that. Wait a minute, sir. These ideas sound like something aimed at station camping, however, from my experience docking games by defender (by both parties for Empire) is what is seen as more problematic. For example, undocking en masse and then disengaging and docking back individually once aggro is taken while the rest are trying to burn at least a ship from another team. Rinse and repeat. This may be especially pronounced with player-owned structures since only one side can dock there. While entosis means that attackers can go for the station directly, docking tactics will play a big role in those fights that don't involve a lot of people - which will happen quite a bit in low-class space. Will this be addressed somehow, or is it considered workable? Inb4 I'm just rambling... There is a very healthy discussion about this right now and obviously I can't promise exactly what will be implemented but some of the ideas that I seen if they work out correctly will prevent a situation like we're talking about. Undocking should be a commitment. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1320	Posted - 2015.08.11 12:53:32 - [95] - Quote Barrogh Habalu wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: As far as undock games go, this is something nobody wants and CCP is trying to address this to prevent BS especially in w-space. I can't say if it'll work out exactly but based on what I've seen I'm optimistic the solution is there. Keep in mind citadel docking gives you an outside view, that is just one component of preventing docking games. Manning guns from within the structure is another part. The invulnerability link is a third part. And there are additional ideas being thrown around beyond that. Wait a minute, sir. These ideas sound like something aimed at station camping, however, from my experience docking games by defender (by both parties for Empire) is what is seen as more problematic. For example, undocking en masse and then disengaging and docking back individually once aggro is taken while the rest are trying to burn at least a ship from another team. Rinse and repeat. This may be especially pronounced with player-owned structures since only one side can dock there. While entosis means that attackers can go for the station directly, docking tactics will play a big role in those fights that don't involve a lot of people - which will happen quite a bit in low-class space. Will this be addressed somehow, or is it considered workable? Inb4 I'm just rambling... if they act similar to how stations do with entosis now(which I assume they will because iirc they're meant to eventually replace stations as well as POses?) then not only will defenders be able to play station games, attackers will be able to too~ If it gets freeported after 1 cycle or something? then the attacker fleet can just dock up and wait. It'll be FUN. Hopefully I'm wrong here tho If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2657	Posted - 2015.08.11 23:50:08 - [96] - Quote Jester, the problem with setting for RUS Hour and hoping it bleeds into AUS TZ (best TZ!) is that if you succeed in AUS TZ then the timer resets to come out...in RUS Hour. Whee? This is why AUS TZ in nullsec is just bored idiots in Svipuls crashing gate or instawarping in prop mode. No timers exist in the AU TZ and if they have bled over from another TZ due to being incomplete, if you complete in AU it resets to whatever ungodly hour of the night you can't be arsed getting up to attack. Fozziesov is Time Zone Cancer coming on the heels of Space AIDS. The next thing is going to be Citadel Ebola with hobbit can loots. Chance Ravinne says he wants to see an end to a system that rewards evictors. This coming from someone whose organisation has never evicted anyone and couldn't light a fart in a curry eating contest using a blowtorch. So, Chance, what do you see as a valid reason for evictions? From my point of view valid reasons, in order of importance; 1. I identified them as one of your guys' alts (twice now we have evicted your idiots) 2. I wonder why there's 7 SMA's in this POS in a C1? 3. Their POS looks like it was set up by a blind octopus with Parkinsons 4. They keep avoiding fights and/or mouthing off in Local 5. I was moving holes and theirs looked good 6. The Krab People Nation needs more lebensraum in C5 magnetar space / Quaserknocks doesn't own this C6 yet 7. Because. 8. Just because. 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 ~~
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 437	Posted - 2015.08.12 02:31:10 - [97] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: So, Chance, what do you see as a valid reason for evictions? From my point of view valid reasons, in order of importance; 1. I identified them as one of your guys' alts (twice now we have evicted your idiots) 2. I wonder why there's 7 SMA's in this POS in a C1? 3. Their POS looks like it was set up by a blind octopus with Parkinsons 4. They keep avoiding fights and/or mouthing off in Local 5. I was moving holes and theirs looked good 6. The Krab People Nation needs more lebensraum in C5 magnetar space / Quaserknocks doesn't own this C6 yet 7. Because. 8. Just because. In order to not make it look too much like I am paying you to advertise my corporation,* I've only quoted the non-sponsored material. Let's try to at least pretend like we don't have a cross-channel campaign running! It's what I'd expect from a public relations professional. Anyway, you don't need my validation or anyone else's validation to smash in someone's structure. The people who put it up are dumb? You don't like them? The POS had a stupid name? It's full of loot? You're bored and attacking plays into a ridiculous roleplay narrative you've constructed to justify your otherwise pointless actions? These are all valid reasons. * Just to make sure, I make payments by a flat monthly rate. If you expect some kind of per-namedrop payment scheme I don't think I can make that happen, as the costs would quickly skyrocket if past posting history is any indication. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Ripblade Falconpunch Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 351	Posted - 2015.08.12 03:49:28 - [98] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: * Just to make sure, I make payments by a flat monthly rate. If you expect some kind of per-namedrop payment scheme I don't think I can make that happen, as the costs would quickly skyrocket if past posting history is any indication. At least Trinket posts regularly, and is amusing. Despite your recent attempts at pretending to be active, it's way past that point by now.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 437	Posted - 2015.08.12 04:11:09 - [99] - Quote Ripblade Falconpunch wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: * Just to make sure, I make payments by a flat monthly rate. If you expect some kind of per-namedrop payment scheme I don't think I can make that happen, as the costs would quickly skyrocket if past posting history is any indication. At least Trinket posts regularly, and is amusing. Despite your recent attempts at pretending to be active, it's way past that point by now. I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I also find Trinket highly amusing, which is why I engage with him. Plus it's great for SEO. As for my pretendings, I've always been a believer that if pretending hard enough feels the same as actually doing something, there isn't an effective difference. So while I'm pretending to chat with CCP every day about the stuff I pretended to read here, on Reddit, on Twitter, and other places, I'll pretend to feel productive. If however you'd prefer I pretended not to care what anyone in this subforum thought, well that would strike me as terribly mean -- all the other forums are so boring by comparison. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2367	Posted - 2015.08.12 14:12:24 - [100] - Quote calaretu wrote: For the record automated defence does not equal automated guns. As the quote I cant be arsed to requote say they are looking at ways for the citadel to counter trollceptors without manned guns. Please show me any NPC's (Short of Drifters) that can't be Trollceptored into pointlessness. Heck, even drifters can probably be trollceptored.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2661	Posted - 2015.08.13 00:03:31 - [101] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Let's try to at least pretend like we don't have a cross-channel campaign running! It's what I'd expect from a public relations professional. We are in competition? Since when? i don't remember being painfully terrible at this game and taking 30 minute videos of myself working up to gank a lone AFK Retriever. I don't remember being a self-promoting know-nothing noob who even the other CSM's disrespect and obviously can't stand the sight of. I don't remember being deprived of several chromosomes upon birth and seeing that as entitling me to attempt debating game balance with people who've been playing this game longer than you've been suffering through puberty. I'm not in a popularity contest. I know I'm infamous. That's enough for me. hell, they wouldn't let me run for CSM because I've pushed the limits of the game a bit much some times. Probably also they don't want anyone on the CSM who can use logic and facts, and hence we have you; the parasitic fool with the self-esteem measured in youtube hits. 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 ~~
Adriana Mal'Valeran Zero Fun Allowed 8	Posted - 2015.08.13 00:57:59 - [102] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: Let's try to at least pretend like we don't have a cross-channel campaign running! It's what I'd expect from a public relations professional. We are in competition? Since when? i don't remember being painfully terrible at this game and taking 30 minute videos of myself working up to gank a lone AFK Retriever. I don't remember being a self-promoting know-nothing noob who even the other CSM's disrespect and obviously can't stand the sight of. I don't remember being deprived of several chromosomes upon birth and seeing that as entitling me to attempt debating game balance with people who've been playing this game longer than you've been suffering through puberty. I'm not in a popularity contest. I know I'm infamous. That's enough for me. hell, they wouldn't let me run for CSM because I've pushed the limits of the game a bit much some times. Probably also they don't want anyone on the CSM who can use logic and facts, and hence we have you; the parasitic fool with the self-esteem measured in youtube hits. Holy ****....
F3X5ON Zero Fun Allowed 26	Posted - 2015.08.13 01:00:25 - [103] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: Let's try to at least pretend like we don't have a cross-channel campaign running! It's what I'd expect from a public relations professional. We are in competition? Since when? i don't remember being painfully terrible at this game and taking 30 minute videos of myself working up to gank a lone AFK Retriever. I don't remember being a self-promoting know-nothing noob who even the other CSM's disrespect and obviously can't stand the sight of. I don't remember being deprived of several chromosomes upon birth and seeing that as entitling me to attempt debating game balance with people who've been playing this game longer than you've been suffering through puberty. I'm not in a popularity contest. I know I'm infamous. That's enough for me. hell, they wouldn't let me run for CSM because I've pushed the limits of the game a bit much some times. Probably also they don't want anyone on the CSM who can use logic and facts, and hence we have you; the parasitic fool with the self-esteem measured in youtube hits. Quoted for the post of the month award.
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1328	Posted - 2015.08.13 01:02:27 - [104] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: Let's try to at least pretend like we don't have a cross-channel campaign running! It's what I'd expect from a public relations professional. We are in competition? Since when? i don't remember being painfully terrible at this game and taking 30 minute videos of myself working up to gank a lone AFK Retriever. I don't remember being a self-promoting know-nothing noob who even the other CSM's disrespect and obviously can't stand the sight of. I don't remember being deprived of several chromosomes upon birth and seeing that as entitling me to attempt debating game balance with people who've been playing this game longer than you've been suffering through puberty. I'm not in a popularity contest. I know I'm infamous. That's enough for me. hell, they wouldn't let me run for CSM because I've pushed the limits of the game a bit much some times. Probably also they don't want anyone on the CSM who can use logic and facts, and hence we have you; the parasitic fool with the self-esteem measured in youtube hits. ooh kill'em If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Market McSelling Alt Bernie Madoff Investment Services LLC 451	Posted - 2015.08.13 01:05:12 - [105] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: Let's try to at least pretend like we don't have a cross-channel campaign running! It's what I'd expect from a public relations professional. We are in competition? Since when? i don't remember being painfully terrible at this game and taking 30 minute videos of myself working up to gank a lone AFK Retriever. I don't remember being a self-promoting know-nothing noob who even the other CSM's disrespect and obviously can't stand the sight of. I don't remember being deprived of several chromosomes upon birth and seeing that as entitling me to attempt debating game balance with people who've been playing this game longer than you've been suffering through puberty. I'm not in a popularity contest. I know I'm infamous. That's enough for me. hell, they wouldn't let me run for CSM because I've pushed the limits of the game a bit much some times. Probably also they don't want anyone on the CSM who can use logic and facts, and hence we have you; the parasitic fool with the self-esteem measured in youtube hits. FINISH HIM! Best description of Eve Online and why the community is the way it is
Tug Speedman Big Beaver Corp 5	Posted - 2015.08.13 01:35:56 - [106] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: Let's try to at least pretend like we don't have a cross-channel campaign running! It's what I'd expect from a public relations professional. We are in competition? Since when? i don't remember being painfully terrible at this game and taking 30 minute videos of myself working up to gank a lone AFK Retriever. I don't remember being a self-promoting know-nothing noob who even the other CSM's disrespect and obviously can't stand the sight of. I don't remember being deprived of several chromosomes upon birth and seeing that as entitling me to attempt debating game balance with people who've been playing this game longer than you've been suffering through puberty. I'm not in a popularity contest. I know I'm infamous. That's enough for me. hell, they wouldn't let me run for CSM because I've pushed the limits of the game a bit much some times. Probably also they don't want anyone on the CSM who can use logic and facts, and hence we have you; the parasitic fool with the self-esteem measured in youtube hits. QFT Oh Serious Hot Burn. I log on youtube for him one more hit to fell not so bad. Though, he still need burn center treatment.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 443	Posted - 2015.08.13 01:37:01 - [107] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: Let's try to at least pretend like we don't have a cross-channel campaign running! It's what I'd expect from a public relations professional. We are in competition? Since when? i don't remember being painfully terrible at this game and taking 30 minute videos of myself working up to gank a lone AFK Retriever. I don't remember being a self-promoting know-nothing noob who even the other CSM's disrespect and obviously can't stand the sight of. I don't remember being deprived of several chromosomes upon birth and seeing that as entitling me to attempt debating game balance with people who've been playing this game longer than you've been suffering through puberty. I'm not in a popularity contest. I know I'm infamous. That's enough for me. hell, they wouldn't let me run for CSM because I've pushed the limits of the game a bit much some times. Probably also they don't want anyone on the CSM who can use logic and facts, and hence we have you; the parasitic fool with the self-esteem measured in youtube hits. So I'm going to assume you didn't quite understand what I meant by "cross-channel campaign." That's okay, it happens to the best of us! Don't take my sometimes convoluted marketing jargon to mean we are in competition. I meant an advertising campaign, not a political one. You know what they say, there's no such thing as bad press. Anyway, I still look back on your help and advice with my Proteus fit fondly, even if at some point thereafter you did not share my positive sentiment. As for ego, I'd say YouTube hits are a pretty good measure of self esteem. But they are a far better measure of total interest in EVE and subscriptions sent to CCP. I can never feel bad knowing as much as people bicker and blast each other over the best way to get people to play EVE, I can make a meaningful contribution to the total population every day. As long as those video numbers are ticking up, EVE dies a little less slowly! Anyway, I see that in this particular thread CSMs who are trying to engage are derided and name-called. I can't say it's the best long-term strategy for getting niche concerns brought to light... but perhaps I am simply too naive to see the long tail of it all. And if you have any specific complaints from other CSMs about me, I would be keen to review them. You can't much improve if you can't get honest feedback from your peers. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Neckbeard Nolyfe Zero Fun Allowed 95	Posted - 2015.08.13 01:42:46 - [108] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: An As An An *~lvl 60 paladin~*
Neckbeard Nolyfe Zero Fun Allowed 95	Posted - 2015.08.13 01:44:54 - [109] - Quote ohgodimhighwhatdididodoublepost *~lvl 60 paladin~*
Ripblade Falconpunch Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 358	Posted - 2015.08.13 05:29:54 - [110] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Anyway, I see that in this particular thread CSMs who are trying to engage are derided and name-called. I can't say it's the best long-term strategy for getting niche concerns brought to light... but perhaps I am simply too naive to see the long tail of it all. And if you have any specific complaints from other CSMs about me, I would be keen to review them. You can't much improve if you can't get honest feedback from your peers. No, it's pretty much just you. And you seem to be getting lots of honest feedback....
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 201	Posted - 2015.08.13 05:48:59 - [111] - Quote Shouldn't we get back on topic or something like that? No local in null sec would fix everything! Fleet warp proposal = the rubix cube is back into eve especialy the second part of the saying. Wh players need to adapt, null sec players get the rules changed.
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 769	Posted - 2015.08.13 06:59:36 - [112] - Quote tbfh, i dont think we have so many awesome CSM representative that we should be dissing those who try to engage with us... SSC Brokering Service
ISD Buldath ISD STAR 63	Posted - 2015.08.13 08:10:13 - [113] - Quote Quote: 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. I have removed some Offending Posts, In regards to Rule 27 above. ~ISD Buldath Interstellar Services Department Support, Training and Resources Division Lt. Commander
Winthorp 3617	Posted - 2015.08.13 08:13:55 - [114] - Quote ISD Buldath wrote: stuff. Ohh hai there, i have not seen you around here before. Are you a new ISD. I am glad Dorium has some new help around the office. 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...
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1328	Posted - 2015.08.13 12:57:35 - [115] - Quote complaining loud enough transcends language If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Sonya Corvinus Grant Village 57	Posted - 2015.08.13 14:15:30 - [116] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: We are in competition? Since when? i don't remember being painfully terrible at this game and taking 30 minute videos of myself working up to gank a lone AFK Retriever. I don't remember being a self-promoting know-nothing noob who even the other CSM's disrespect and obviously can't stand the sight of. I don't remember being deprived of several chromosomes upon birth and seeing that as entitling me to attempt debating game balance with people who've been playing this game longer than you've been suffering through puberty. I'm not in a popularity contest. I know I'm infamous. That's enough for me. hell, they wouldn't let me run for CSM because I've pushed the limits of the game a bit much some times. Probably also they don't want anyone on the CSM who can use logic and facts, and hence we have you; the parasitic fool with the self-esteem measured in youtube hits. http://i.imgur.com/xgz9nkR.gif
Intana Kreis The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 18	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:50:16 - [117] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: tbfh, i dont think we have so many awesome CSM representatives that we should be dissing those who try to engage with us... TBH whether we believe we are represented or not, it makes sense to lobby people in a sensible manner, and it's always easier to lobby those who interact with us than those who don't.
M1k3y Koontz Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries 774	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:03:17 - [118] - Quote Bleedingthrough wrote: 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. Why on earth would we want to screw up Citadels? They're replacing Outposts, you know! How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Bleedingthrough 185	Posted - 2015.08.14 02:58:04 - [119] - 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?
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 305	Posted - 2015.08.14 03:35:38 - [120] - Quote Ripblade Falconpunch wrote: Bronya Boga wrote: XL will require sov What Bronya said. The last official word was that Large will be the biggest one you can build in a WH. nope
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 305	Posted - 2015.08.14 03:36:31 - [121] - Quote Andrew Jester wrote: complaining loud enough transcends language it does just ask your average human baby
Luft Reich Snuff Box Snuffed Out 112	Posted - 2015.08.14 04:27:12 - [122] - Quote I don't really see how there is a good way to implement Citadels into WH space without screwing some of the key things that makes WH space interesting. I haven't really stayed up-to-date on all the dev blogs so I could be wrong in saying this new thing is bad for WH space, but it just seems like a bad idea. Docking, allowing your home to be vulnerable to the poorly designed entosis links, predicable undocks, I'm sure there are more... Even with CCP being too lazy to work on pos code, POS's sound better than these new structures. #keeppos's ISD Cyberdyne liked your forum post
Valleriani Polarized 11	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:39:58 - [123] - Quote I am worried about WH space and Citadels as well. The biggest issue is how they can be claimed, I feel like it's going to make a lot of grief and a lot of smaller corporations or starting corporations will be forced out of wormholes, making it even more quiet in there. I am a fan of some of the things that Citadels can do, but they really shouldn't be able to be taken by a small gang so easily either. Most corporations in WH space are timezone specific, so if there is no proper automation defense, they will just be entosis trolled every day on there downtime and that just sounds like a pain in the rear to have to deal with. I know they are claiming they want to solve one interceptor from taking it, but I hope it goes a bit more beyond that.
Tsukino Stareine Sock Robbers Inc. Low-Class 1305	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:50:40 - [124] - Quote Isn't it possible to set the vulnerability window? Set it to your primetime, extra content if someone is griefing you. win-win? I'm probably missing something though. Also predictable undocks, how does this affect anything? You will have to use one bubble to wrap a citadel instead of the 5 now?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1800	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:57:45 - [125] - Quote Tsukino Stareine wrote: Isn't it possible to set the vulnerability window? Set it to your primetime, extra content if someone is griefing you. Because what works and is valid in K space doesn't always apply here. If people are living (ratting/mining/camping/whatever) in k-space and they are 3-6 jumps away, they are always close. These doors cannot close behind them (or be closed). In emergency, they may even deathclone/jumpclone past problems. These are not an option in a WH. Fine, you say - live in the system. Except unlike null, the system relies on RNG anomalies and sigs which we can do nothing with so "living" there for these windows results in....babysitting an empty grid for XX hours per week. You don't even have local available to tell you there MIGHT be an interloper. What this demands for WHers is someone (let's call them an afkalt OH HAI THAR!) has to stay home during the windows to MAN ZE ROKKITS just in case. Which is really terrible gameplay and is directly the result of the nature of WH. K-Space do not have these issues, in-system babysitting is not required because you can never be locked out of a quick way home.
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 776	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:59:50 - [126] - Quote Imho citadels will actually be good for small, new corps living in wspace because of asset security. They wont need to worry about loosing their stuff to corp thiefs or bigger groups, thus making recruitment less of a hassle. SSC Brokering Service
Valleriani Polarized 11	Posted - 2015.08.14 12:23:27 - [127] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: Imho citadels will actually be good for small, new corps living in wspace because of asset security. They wont need to worry about loosing their stuff to corp thiefs or bigger groups, thus making recruitment less of a hassle. This is a big thing that I really like about them. The current PoS system is obviously a pain in the ass for that. Obviously there are systems in place for a 'fix' regarding security, but none of it is truly secure. Tsukino Stareine wrote: Isn't it possible to set the vulnerability window? Set it to your primetime, extra content if someone is griefing you. win-win? I am down for a fight if that is the case and the bring it. I think that is well placed content. I would however, find it annoying if I had to entosis my Citadel every day for some cov-ops who waits for everyone to be offline in a small corp, goes and entosis' a Citadel, logs off, and comes on only if the defenders aren't around during vulnerabiliy (In small 15-30 man corps this can happen here and there if its a 4 or 8 hour window) or the defenders gets sick of it and pulls out of the wormhole. To me the Citadel is a big structure and one small ship should not be able to capture it or cause grief alone. That really goes for everywhere, not just WH space. afkalt wrote: Because what works and is valid in K space doesn't always apply here. Yeah, the issue too is if you do end up living in the WH, (I am guessing you can put your death respawn on the Citideal) you can't get reinforcements or help if the attackers control the WHs. You are generally boned because you cannot find a K-Space exit. Obviously if you don't respawn in your WSpace Citadel you can't get in either if they have rolled the WHs. I am not saying the above, aka WH control is a bad feature, it is a good one, but it is things like that that need to be factored in that WSpace is different and I feel WSpace can be shut down and held alot easier. But mostly what afkalt is all valid points.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 445	Posted - 2015.08.14 14:18:37 - [128] - Quote Luft Reich wrote: I don't really see how there is a good way to implement Citadels into WH space without screwing some of the key things that makes WH space interesting. I haven't really stayed up-to-date on all the dev blogs so I could be wrong in saying this new thing is bad for WH space, but it just seems like a bad idea. Docking, allowing your home to be vulnerable to the poorly designed entosis links, predicable undocks, I'm sure there are more... Even with CCP being too lazy to work on pos code, POS's sound better than these new structures. #keeppos's Docking and undocks will hopefully be addressed by the invulnerability link mechanics that will stand in place of POS shields. Other mechanics we are discussing will prevent station games to a great extent. The dynamics of camping will also be different due to citadel weapons. There will be trade offs but it is not due to laziness, it is about designing systems that can be more easily tweaked and balanced for the long term. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Jezza McWaffle ShipRekt 241	Posted - 2015.08.14 14:47:47 - [129] - Quote The asset safety mechanic looks thoroughly skewered into the defenders side to be honest, having 100% of your personal assets that aren't tied into industry jobs be safe is absolutely ridiculous. If you decide to evict a group now with these structures for whatever reason it will take you longer to kill the structure because of the number of timers and what you get out of it at the end could very well be little payout. This also leads into when defending your structure against a larger force you either risked your assets and tried to fight or self destruct, no need to do that now I guess as all your personal assets are 100% safe if you stay docked. There should seriously be some loot drop of personal assets, its a massive over sight. Take a look at my startup C5 PvP WH corp adventures, we are recruiting
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1332	Posted - 2015.08.14 16:41:26 - [130] - Quote how are your assets safe? they don't drop, but you're effectively locked out of them unless you can get another citadel in the same hole and let it sit for 5/6d. If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 445	Posted - 2015.08.14 17:09:01 - [131] - Quote If you have more than one citadel in system already, it will be trivial to get back assets assuming you didn't get completely wrecked right away. If not you'll probably never get them back. Hopefully wormholes will be exempted from asset safety. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Kynric Sky Fighters 332	Posted - 2015.08.14 18:16:33 - [132] - Quote I think it would be a mistake to make asset safety in wormholes significantly worse than in null or low. Asset safety is as important to our pilots as it is to pilots anywhere else for all the same reasons. More significantly it is important that our space be a vibrant busy place rather than a barren emptiness. If our assets are significantly less safe than everyone elses it is far more likely that our land will be empty than occupied. Higher stakes will also promote risk averse behavior such as long term blueing of everyone possible which is also not in a behavior that will make for a more vibrant space. So while it would be nice if assets everywhere were at risk it would in my opinion be a mistake to impose that only on our home. Instead we should encourage game fesign that will make our space busier and our neighbors less risk averse.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 452	Posted - 2015.08.14 20:04:58 - [133] - Quote Kynric wrote: I think it would be a mistake to make asset safety in wormholes significantly worse than in null or low. Asset safety is as important to our pilots as it is to pilots anywhere else for all the same reasons. More significantly it is important that our space be a vibrant busy place rather than a barren emptiness. If our assets are significantly less safe than everyone elses it is far more likely that our land will be empty than occupied. Higher stakes will also promote risk averse behavior such as long term blueing of everyone possible which is also not in a behavior that will make for a more vibrant space. So while it would be nice if assets everywhere were at risk it would in my opinion be a mistake to impose that only on our home. Instead we should encourage game design that will make our space busier and our neighbors less risk averse. A fair point. And by the very nature of the asset recovery system, assets are certainly far less safe in w-space than in k-space. Someone suggested to me instead of worrying about what happens to assets, that the asset recovery fee should go to the person who killed the structure, instead of being an ISK sink. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Ripblade Falconpunch Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 361	Posted - 2015.08.14 20:16:08 - [134] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Kynric wrote: I think it would be a mistake to make asset safety in wormholes significantly worse than in null or low. Asset safety is as important to our pilots as it is to pilots anywhere else for all the same reasons. More significantly it is important that our space be a vibrant busy place rather than a barren emptiness. If our assets are significantly less safe than everyone elses it is far more likely that our land will be empty than occupied. Higher stakes will also promote risk averse behavior such as long term blueing of everyone possible which is also not in a behavior that will make for a more vibrant space. So while it would be nice if assets everywhere were at risk it would in my opinion be a mistake to impose that only on our home. Instead we should encourage game design that will make our space busier and our neighbors less risk averse. A fair point. And by the very nature of the asset recovery system, assets are certainly far less safe in w-space than in k-space. Someone suggested to me instead of worrying about what happens to assets, that the asset recovery fee should go to the person who killed the structure, instead of being an ISK sink. See, now that's a suggestion I could get behind. In addition to the raw materials and allegedly super expensive station modules dropping, the attacker also gets a nice raw ISK injection. The person who just got mugged doesn't care, because they are paying that fee regardless - and they still have a chance to recover assets, which as Kynric so eloquently posted above will hopefully lead to less risk aversion and an increase in people living in W-space. +1
Paul Vashar Periphery Bound New Signature 65	Posted - 2015.08.14 20:47:22 - [135] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Kynric wrote: I think it would be a mistake to make asset safety in wormholes significantly worse than in null or low. Asset safety is as important to our pilots as it is to pilots anywhere else for all the same reasons. More significantly it is important that our space be a vibrant busy place rather than a barren emptiness. If our assets are significantly less safe than everyone elses it is far more likely that our land will be empty than occupied. Higher stakes will also promote risk averse behavior such as long term blueing of everyone possible which is also not in a behavior that will make for a more vibrant space. So while it would be nice if assets everywhere were at risk it would in my opinion be a mistake to impose that only on our home. Instead we should encourage game design that will make our space busier and our neighbors less risk averse. A fair point. And by the very nature of the asset recovery system, assets are certainly far less safe in w-space than in k-space. Someone suggested to me instead of worrying about what happens to assets, that the asset recovery fee should go to the person who killed the structure, instead of being an ISK sink. I do like that idea, since NPCs don't mean anything (except industry ISK sink) in WHs. I could see how an attacker can say, "Got ur nose, ransoms4returns." As far as the recovery to NPC stations, since the evicted group would be hard-pressed to return to a properly burned system, how's that supposed to work? Based on distance doesn't matter for us, so would there be defaults, or would we have no option of sending items to NPC stations? Also, could there be a timer that after 30 days (or something) the items that haven't been recovered could then be recovered by the group that popped the structure? I didn't put much thought into this being an option btw, just blurting.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2427	Posted - 2015.08.14 20:50:33 - [136] - Quote At least half the recovery fee should go to the attacker (individual, corp, alliance?) in all spaces except wh. There must be some incentive to burn things down, especially in highsec where loot drops currently serve this purpose. Wormholes should just drop loot imho. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Ripblade Falconpunch Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 364	Posted - 2015.08.14 22:23:19 - [137] - Quote Paul Vashar wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: Kynric wrote: I think it would be a mistake to make asset safety in wormholes significantly worse than in null or low. Asset safety is as important to our pilots as it is to pilots anywhere else for all the same reasons. More significantly it is important that our space be a vibrant busy place rather than a barren emptiness. If our assets are significantly less safe than everyone elses it is far more likely that our land will be empty than occupied. Higher stakes will also promote risk averse behavior such as long term blueing of everyone possible which is also not in a behavior that will make for a more vibrant space. So while it would be nice if assets everywhere were at risk it would in my opinion be a mistake to impose that only on our home. Instead we should encourage game design that will make our space busier and our neighbors less risk averse. A fair point. And by the very nature of the asset recovery system, assets are certainly far less safe in w-space than in k-space. Someone suggested to me instead of worrying about what happens to assets, that the asset recovery fee should go to the person who killed the structure, instead of being an ISK sink. I do like that idea, since NPCs don't mean anything (except industry ISK sink) in WHs. I could see how an attacker can say, "Got ur nose, ransoms4returns." As far as the recovery to NPC stations, since the evicted group would be hard-pressed to return to a properly burned system, how's that supposed to work? Based on distance doesn't matter for us, so would there be defaults, or would we have no option of sending items to NPC stations? Also, could there be a timer that after 30 days (or something) the items that haven't been recovered could then be recovered by the group that popped the structure? I didn't put much thought into this being an option btw, just blurting. According to the latest info, sending your stuff to an NPC station from W-space is not an option like it is in high/low/null. Assets will only be recoverable by constructing another citadel in the same system and delivering them there.
Maria Kitiare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 15	Posted - 2015.08.15 00:48:07 - [138] - Quote Docking, the ability to trash all your items when loosing your citadel, no ability to Dscan what ships are active in the structure, personal hangers, I mean, who the **** at CCP heard "No stations in W-space" and thought of suggesting stations in W-space? Even with all the changes CCP is thinking about to accommodate us, it really just touches the surface of fixing a system that is fundamentally wrong. Can we have CCP Soundwave back here so he can beat some sense into whoever is calling the shots at CCP?
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1332	Posted - 2015.08.15 02:34:09 - [139] - Quote Maria Kitiare wrote: whine whine whine not empty quoting If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 454	Posted - 2015.08.15 03:03:28 - [140] - Quote Maria Kitiare wrote: Docking, the ability to trash all your items when loosing your citadel, no ability to Dscan what ships are active in the structure, personal hangers, I mean, who the **** at CCP heard "No stations in W-space" and thought of suggesting stations in W-space? Even with all the changes CCP is thinking about to accommodate us, it really just touches the surface of fixing a system that is fundamentally wrong. Can we have CCP Soundwave back here so he can beat some sense into whoever is calling the shots at CCP? Most of these notes were brought up by Corbexx, me, and possibly other people (it's been so long ago now it's hard to remember). What you see here today is the result of concessions and compromises, many of which specifically try (try) to address these concerns. Docking will not be the same as current station/outpost docking for many, many reasons. It is a major design goal to not have cancerous docking games for either attackers or defenders. I know nobody here wants docking but docking was gonna happen no matter what so hopefully the way it functions here turns out much more reasonably. The invulnerability link (name TBD) is designed to approximate shield functionality, allowing the owners to move and warp freely around their Citadel. Hopefully it will also prevent bumping. Regardless, it gives owners a very large positioning and mobility advantage. Hell camping and trivial bubble tactics will be significantly harder to pull off than on a station/outpost for three reasons. One is that players in the citadel can see outside the citadel. Two is that players allied to the citadel can undock into invulnerability and navigate around these obstacles if not well-placed. Third is citadel weapons, which can be manned from inside the structure. If you anchor a bubble or put non-trivial forces outside the citadel, they will be in for a world of pain. I have asked (as have others) that mechanics are put in place to commit people who drop their citadel link to a fight. That is, if you undock and get caught by someone because chose to drop link, that person can prevent you from docking back up. D-scan will still work on anyone who is undocked and moored/linked to the citadel. As for anyone inside, there will be some kind of functionality, either passive or active, to let you view or scan the structure to learn who is in it or other info. Those details haven't been worked out yet. Personal and corp hangars, there is certainly a big step up in safety there. However any individual can be denied structure access at any time, so if your dream is to collect tears and lock people out of their stuff, you certainly can. You can't really steal it, but they certainly will never get it back once you pod them. Asset safety I agree is way too safe right now for w-space. It is being considered. That said it is still MUCH more dangerous in wormhole space than k-space for the person losing their stuff. People who lose will lose big. It's just that the winners right now won't win as big... but then again that depends just how expensive structure fittings are. No matter what feedback was given, the reality is CCP has no interest in coming up with structures that only work in certain parts of space or only can be anchored in certain parts of space. I'm sure part of it is efficiency, simplicity, etc. I hope you understand none of these changes were made lightly. Some were certainly contentious, like the lack of auto guns etc. However the vulnerability settings and large number of entosis cycles placated some fears that a single trollceptor would show up and blap an XL in a day. That is functionally impossible, especially in w-space. I am still hoping for partial/full asset looting in wormhole space, or full asset destruction, or that recovery fees are paid to the attackers and not NPCs. So it's not all perfect. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Luft Reich Snuff Box Snuffed Out 115	Posted - 2015.08.15 05:21:25 - [141] - Quote So to pull off evictions now we don't need Dreads, we just need some super dank entosis modules to cap some nerds in their crib. Oh this shall be good... BRB reading all the dev blogs again because I still don't fully grasp this wonderful idea that will be implemented with not a care in the world of what WH'ers think about it, because that is how it always is. looks at jump distance and null WH spawn rate Oh and thanks for the response Chance! ISD Cyberdyne liked your forum post
Shilalasar Dead Sky Inc. 164	Posted - 2015.08.15 06:29:03 - [142] - Quote No more selfdestruct-parties. If you break your invullink and can-¦t get it back up is still a big change from current forcefield mechanics. Defenders often decide to stick their nose out, but if cought they are able to retreat back under the FF without getting completely wiped. But it doesn-¦t depend on some random timer noone else can see but on the pilotskills to navigate or MJD back and the other parties abiliets to prevent that. Assetsafety is such a huge point of discussion because people have different views on it, probably depending on what they are used to. Wormholers esp in lowerclasses are used to the thought that everything can be gone within a moment. In higherclasses, in case of eviction, you can at least fill your carriers and save those assets, but still loose a lot. In sov and FW low you can at worst get locked away from your assets for as long until you get it hauled out somehow or sell it on the market. Worst losses possible are production-POSses and if you are into supercapproduction loosing one is not fun but will also not make you poor. Same goes for spies and thieves, but everybody agrees possafety needs to be upped. But stationlevel security is the other extreme and too much in my opinion. You can already feel the difference when you see people complaining they-¦d loose their implants if they are docked in a destroyed citadel.
CHAD Stetille The Copernicus Institute 5	Posted - 2015.08.15 06:38:18 - [143] - Quote It seems to be a consensus that this change will drive the smaller groups from WH space. This will largely depend on the cost of the structures. Perhaps to offset that cost and generate content within WH space, CCP will allow moon mining? That in itself would bring people into WH's and would also be a reason to try and take space away from other corps/alliances. Just an idea.....
B0T0 X Legion Against Probes 26	Posted - 2015.08.15 10:27:25 - [144] - Quote CHAD Stetille wrote: Perhaps to offset that cost and generate content within WH space, CCP will allow moon mining? That in itself would bring people into WH's and would also be a reason to try and take space away from other corps/alliances. I don't think we want that kind of people in WH 01010111 00101101 01110011 01110000 01100001 01100011 01100101 00101100 00100000 01100010 01100101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01110011 01110000 01100001 01100011 01100101 00100001
Jezza McWaffle ShipRekt 241	Posted - 2015.08.15 11:16:45 - [145] - Quote Reading through the dev blogs again, can't find anything about it though, will all Citadels regardless of location be able to have their stuff moved to an NPC station. Take a look at my startup C5 PvP WH corp adventures, we are recruiting
B0T0 X Legion Against Probes 26	Posted - 2015.08.15 11:28:32 - [146] - Quote Jezza McWaffle wrote: Reading through the dev blogs again, can't find anything about it though, will all Citadels regardless of location be able to have their stuff moved to an NPC station. only in Null, Low and HS Dev Blog wrote: Build another Citadel in the same system to replace the one that has been lost, and deliver the items there. This option will be working the same way for all locations, and will be the only way to recover items out of wormhole space. In case there is more than one structure available to deliver the items to, a selection list will be provided. 01010111 00101101 01110011 01110000 01100001 01100011 01100101 00101100 00100000 01100010 01100101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01110011 01110000 01100001 01100011 01100101 00100001
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 457	Posted - 2015.08.15 14:02:24 - [147] - Quote Shilalasar wrote: No more selfdestruct-parties. If you break your invullink and can-¦t get it back up is still a big change from current forcefield mechanics. Defenders often decide to stick their nose out, but if cought they are able to retreat back under the FF without getting completely wiped. But it doesn-¦t depend on some random timer noone else can see but on the pilotskills to navigate or MJD back and the other parties abiliets to prevent that. Assetsafety is such a huge point of discussion because people have different views on it, probably depending on what they are used to. Wormholers esp in lowerclasses are used to the thought that everything can be gone within a moment. In higherclasses, in case of eviction, you can at least fill your carriers and save those assets, but still loose a lot. In sov and FW low you can at worst get locked away from your assets for as long until you get it hauled out somehow or sell it on the market. Worst losses possible are production-POSses and if you are into supercapproduction loosing one is not fun but will also not make you poor. Same goes for spies and thieves, but everybody agrees possafety needs to be upped. But stationlevel security is the other extreme and too much in my opinion. You can already feel the difference when you see people complaining they-¦d loose their implants if they are docked in a destroyed citadel. Edit: the mayor deterrent from invasions without capitals is the 20+ manhours you need to put in to RF stuff. Even with capitalmassed holes seeding takes time. That barrier will be gone, esp if you are able to pod the defenders at the moment active pilots out beforehand. There is no way to stop people from getting into their citadel in k-space when it is under attack, they can probably just jumpclone there or set it as homebase. Has CCP thought about that difference too? Regarding the link, there is no random timer, not sure where you got that idea from but as far as I know it last indefinitely as long as you stay in range and do not aggress anyone. The range will have a clear visual indicator, so hopefully you won't be randomly losing link unless you go afk while moving or something. Asset safety, I think the realities are similar to what you said. Smaller groups that get wiped won't be getting their stuff back. I mean they can try, but the scenario is rather difficult, risky, and expensive. Larger groups with multiple huge citadels in one system, or who are organized enough to find/fight their way back to their system, have a higher but still difficult chance. Spies and thieves, agreed there. They will have to find other terrible ways of screwing their friends via corp infiltration, corp hangar theft, awoxing people with citadel guns, etc. It's not the same, that is for sure. I love the podding on citadel death thing but as people have pointed out, it will just make people log off in space, so I'm not sure how much of an impact it will have. It could however encourage people to undock and fight at the last timer since they're losing their pods anyway if they don't. Not sure what point you are going for with the last part there. If you're saying you can't stop people from getting into the citadel, in w-space and null you will have warp interdiction, it will be similar to a POS in the sense that no you can't directly prevent people from getting to it otherwise. Jumpclones would be a thing most likely in k-space yes. But maybe I'm not understanding your point correctly? You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Kalel Nimrott The Dingus Coalition 1176	Posted - 2015.08.16 11:06:38 - [148] - Quote B0T0 wrote: CHAD Stetille wrote: Perhaps to offset that cost and generate content within WH space, CCP will allow moon mining? That in itself would bring people into WH's and would also be a reason to try and take space away from other corps/alliances. I don't think we want THAT kind of people in WH Fixed for you "I'm the Master!, of suspense so Intense, No defense against Hitchcock once he presents!"
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 201	Posted - 2015.08.16 15:07:25 - [149] - Quote The asset safety system does worry me. Like the devblog is now only industrialist have stuff to lose. And lets face it we don't have many of those in w-space. In wh's space you know you can lose everything with a pos. The only thing you can save is with orca,carrier,ships you log off. With the structures can hardly lose anything but the structure and the rigs on it. Also this means the cycle of destruction is broken in wh's. Why would you bother with an eviction with structures? Many people have scan alts in their home that log in only in emergencies. So lets say the waiting is 5 days. All you do is make it their stuff is unavalible for those 5 days... . And even if you evict someone then all they need to do is wait, anchor a strucure and bam, they have a fully loaded station with ships to fight you again. Are there alternatives? I though first , what loot do we love the most in a posh bash? Ships, maybe the ships also need to be in the loot? But then again, why would anyone get back into the hole, except for a personal hanger full of sleeper loot? It also makes it harder for the target to fight back. Now if the loot would include all the personal and corp hangers, but no ships what would then be the case? People could get a new structure and keep fighting in the system. Lore wise it also makes more sense, npc's use it to flee... . But then again, you never would be safe inside a wh-system. Who knows what battles have been there and what assets still ly in wait to be collected... .Seeding off capital ships will be easier if you have a few still waiting to be collected in system. Would it realy be so bad that you lose everything like it is now? Not losing everything might make wh's more popular, but also to easy. Remeber why eve is so fun, because if you kill someone it is a real lose to him and vice versa. This asset safety just doesn't make sense, where is the risk?In eve risk should be real... . Asset safety as a concept is understandable considering that you are looking at the XL structures as replacements for Outposts in null-sec.But only there. Also a trollceptor should only be effective if the structure is abandoned. Maybe an idea : Totday you can block an enemy from setting up a pos by putting a pos of your own at all moons(even unfueled ones). Maybe in wh's we should make it that asset recovery is not possible untill all non friendly structures(lets say own alliance and +10 people) are destroyed from the system? That way you still have a reason to fight for a system . If you have won you can recover your assets. If you lost control over the system permanently your assets are deadzoned untill you can break the siege or oust them from that system(bring friends ). A good way to create grudges... . No local in null sec would fix everything! Fleet warp proposal = the rubix cube is back into eve especialy the second part of the saying. Wh players need to adapt, null sec players get the rules changed.
Bleedingthrough 186	Posted - 2015.08.16 15:11:06 - [150] - 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 - [151] - 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.
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 201	Posted - 2015.08.16 17:30:34 - [152] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: D-scan will still work on anyone who is undocked and moored/linked to the citadel. As for anyone inside, there will be some kind of functionality, either passive or active, to let you view or scan the structure to learn who is in it or other info. Those details haven't been worked out yet. I am still worried about what this will become. Using d-scan to find enemys is important. If people inside a structure would only see the grid outside and not do d-scan. But they can undock/moor/invul-link and then use d-scan, it would help scouts locate active people . The people are still safe, but at least the scouts will have some bigger window to spot and find people. Now scouts can hang at the pos to look if people are in ships and online. This way could also be a good replacement. Sure cloakys and log off traps can still happen, but that can now also. Also it needs a way to see if active people are docked and how many. How else are you going to know there is potential content? Maybe a show info on the structure, or something like docked ships or pods on d-scan. No local in null sec would fix everything! Fleet warp proposal = the rubix cube is back into eve especialy the second part of the saying. Wh players need to adapt, null sec players get the rules changed.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 457	Posted - 2015.08.16 22:21:54 - [153] - Quote unimatrix0030 wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: D-scan will still work on anyone who is undocked and moored/linked to the citadel. As for anyone inside, there will be some kind of functionality, either passive or active, to let you view or scan the structure to learn who is in it or other info. Those details haven't been worked out yet. I am still worried about what this will become. Using d-scan to find enemys is important. If people inside a structure would only see the grid outside and not do d-scan. But they can undock/moor/invul-link and then use d-scan, it would help scouts locate active people . The people are still safe, but at least the scouts will have some bigger window to spot and find people. Now scouts can hang at the pos to look if people are in ships and online. This way could also be a good replacement. Sure cloakys and log off traps can still happen, but that can now also. Also it needs a way to see if active people are docked and how many. How else are you going to know there is potential content? Maybe a show info on the structure, or something like docked ships or pods on d-scan. The plan is, as far as I know, to offer some kind of information like this either throw "Look At" or "Show Info." There could be info you get on top of that by using a Cargo Scanner or some other type of scanner but who knows if that will happen. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [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.