EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Citadels, sieges and you

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Citadels, sieges and you

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 12 post(s)

CCP Phantom C C P C C P Alliance 5992	Posted - 2015.08.13 14:56:47 - [1] - Quote Work on the the new Citadel structures is proceeding well. Now it is the time to discuss the design how you can attack, defend and conquer a Citadel. All Citadels, no matter their size, will have 3 vulnerability windows and will be attacked via Entosis Link mechanics (though no Command Node spawning). Please read CCP Ytterbium's blog Citadels, sieges and you and inform yourself about all the details! We encourage you also to read the companion blog I feel safe in Citadel city. Constructive discussions and questions are most welcome, additionally the CSM has compiled an excellent FAQ for your convenience. CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager

ChromeStriker Out of Focus Odin's Call 916	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:03:20 - [2] - Quote First! .... now to read... No Worries

CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 4048	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:17:43 - [3] - Quote ChromeStriker wrote: First! .... now to read... Edit: So still no word on deploying in WH's? Structures of all sizes can be deployed anywhere, but there will be restriction on which services modules can be fitted. You may not be able to have a Supercapital Assembly Array in high-sec, or a medical facility in Wormhole space. Have a look at the FAQ the CSM compiled, it answers this point

Airi Cho Dark-Rising 108	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:22:22 - [4] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: ChromeStriker wrote: First! .... now to read... Edit: So still no word on deploying in WH's? Structures of all sizes can be deployed anywhere, but there will be restriction on which services modules can be fitted. You may not be able to have a Supercapital Assembly Array in high-sec, or a medical facility in Wormhole space. Have a look at the FAQ the CSM compiled, it answers this point hmm titans in WH space would be nice :p
ChromeStriker Out of Focus Odin's Call 916	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:22:25 - [5] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: ChromeStriker wrote: First! .... now to read... Edit: So still no word on deploying in WH's? Structures of all sizes can be deployed anywhere, but there will be restriction on which services modules can be fitted. You may not be able to have a Supercapital Assembly Array in high-sec, or a medical facility in Wormhole space. Have a look at the FAQ the CSM compiled, it answers this point Ta :) How about getting assets back from a destroyed citidel in wh's? whats the closest npc station? THERA? O.o And i mean about WH security... how do we stop anyone from setting up shop... this is an important mechanic in WH's... Edit... Ahh so no delivery for WH's No Worries
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1778	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:27:49 - [6] - Quote Hey -- I like pineapple on pizza! This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Arionu Iminoneih Ltd 0	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:29:32 - [7] - Quote Link on the bottom of the blog that should lead to http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/i-feel-safe-in-citadel-city/ leads to http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/citadels-sieges-and-you/ instead. edit: Also same mistake at the top

CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 4048	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:29:57 - [8] - Quote Querns wrote: Hey -- I like pineapple on pizza! No one is perfect I guess

Absent Sworn Lamprey Systems Shoot 2 Thrill 0	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:38:22 - [9] - Quote So, no mention of some minimal level of automated defense structures to prevent the lone entosing trollceptor. The CSM FAQ simply says "No", is that still the case and planned direction? May your mushrooms always be sautéed and your onions always be grilled. Not Sworn Absent since 2009

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 1408	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:44:35 - [10] - Quote Absent Sworn wrote: So, no mention of some minimal level of automated defense structures to prevent the lone entosing trollceptor. The CSM FAQ simply says "No", is that still the case and planned direction? Correct there will be no automatic guns, but the concerns about trollceptors have been heard loud and clear. CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones


Carneros Ancient Hittite Corporation The Bastion 21	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:47:51 - [11] - Quote I will be interested to see if we have some control over the orientation of our citadels so we can create insta-undock celestials.
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 134	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:49:07 - [12] - Quote What role do you see Capitals playing in sieging these structures?

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 1409	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:50:57 - [13] - Quote Yroc Jannseen wrote: What role do you see Capitals playing in sieging these structures? Entosis is supposed to measure who controls the field and capitals should have a role to play in that. How effective that visions works out will depend a lot on the capital rebalance which is gaining some momentum at the moment. CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 627	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:51:05 - [14] - Quote The decision to only affect new structures via Entosis is both a mistake and a missed opportunity; a kneejerk reaction to the bogeyman of structure grinding. While the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less central role. Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. Triage carriers patching up starbases have a similarly mirrored role, frantically trying to restore these assets while making themselves vulnerable. This is a fantastic avenue for content, with opponents setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE. It feels like you're scooping a load of sand out of the sandbox. By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. The simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling effect on structures, but actual damage should need to be inflicted in order to destroy them for good, while an investment in repair ability should be required to restore them again.
Mr Grape Drink The Lobster Farm Sugar - Water - Purple 36	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:55:07 - [15] - Quote What about NPC null? Seems a bit harsh if its lumped in with 0 index sov null timers. Maybe toss it in with wormhole timers?
Jakob Anedalle Aideron Robotics 84	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:55:32 - [16] - Quote It appears that you're using the term "vulnerability window" for two separate concepts: 1) a period in time that occurs according to an owner-set schedule during which the structure can be attacked Ex: "The duration of a vulnerable 1 window is a mandatory timer expressed on a weekly basis, whose length varies depending on the structure size, location and role." 2) the stages by which a structure is reduced by an attacker's actions Ex: "All Citadels, no matter their size, will have 3 vulnerability windows." This will be confusing. Vulnerability window is a term you're already using for the scheduled time at which something can be attacked, so I suggest you change the other term to: * Reduction Stage * Attack Stage * Destruction Stage or the like. Jakob Trying out all the things to do here in Eve - it's quite a checklist. So I made a blog Jakob's Eve Checklist
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 134	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:59:40 - [17] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Yroc Jannseen wrote: What role do you see Capitals playing in sieging these structures? Entosis is supposed to measure who controls the field and capitals should have a role to play in that. How effective that visions works out will depend a lot on the capital rebalance which is gaining some momentum at the moment. The problem with the grid control idea is that a lot of the "work" will end up happening after the fight is over, if there is one. This is different from the option of a DPS race during Dominion. So if there is a fight in a full index system, for the attacker that's potentially a lengthy fight followed by another 60 minutes of sov mining. Capitals should be looked at as somehow being involved in the entosis fight because they could at least add some proxy element to actually shoot.
Kynric Sky Fighters 331	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:14:21 - [18] - Quote What size hauler is required to transport the M, L and XL deployables respectively. This is significant because it would limit acess to some wormhole locations if a freighter were to be required.
Sabastian Cerabiam Seventh Element Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:16:12 - [19] - Quote Yeah size and what materials, im assuming P4 same as POS's now, to build. Some of us want to get ready before the bpos drop so we can build these new stations right away.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3247	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:17:28 - [20] - Quote I read Alluring Baguette Syndicate and now I'm suddenly really hungry. Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.

Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3247	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:25:22 - [21] - Quote Why are wormholes getting reduced vulnerability windows compared to unbonused 0.0? Reminder that NPC 0.0 in particular cannot reduce this window by their activities. Is it your intention that living in a C6 wormhole is safer than living in Syndicate or The Great Wildlands? Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.

CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 4048	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:31:50 - [22] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Why are wormholes getting reduced vulnerability windows compared to unbonused 0.0? Reminder that NPC 0.0 in particular cannot reduce this window by their activities. Is it your intention that living in a C6 wormhole is safer than living in Syndicate or The Great Wildlands? This is going to depend if stuff located inside wormhole structures are forever lost or taken care with asset safety. There is a discussion to be had on this particular point, since a lot of the wormhole guys want to go hardcore and lose all of their stuff.

Kahawa Oban New Groton Industrial Works 22	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:46:34 - [23] - Quote What are the reinforcement window time lengths (specifically how many vulnerability hours for the size and location of the structure)? In the examples several times were mentioned but specific numbers for the number of vulnerability hours were not listed. The blog mentions it is based on size and location but I did not see them listed in a table format. Is this TBD or did I miss this? BTW, very much looking forward to the new system. It looks like a lot of work has gone into this. Thanks, :D
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1348	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:48:30 - [24] - Quote Just to be clear. In highsec, if I want to remove say a M Citidel from a rival I will need to declare war for at least three weeks? Say they set their vulnerability window for all three hours on Saturday morning. I would declare war the Friday morning to wait for the war to go live, and then would have to renew the war two more times before I could finally destroy it as each vulnerability window lasts a week?
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1779	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:01:47 - [25] - Quote xttz wrote: The decision to only affect new structures via Entosis is both a mistake and a missed opportunity; a kneejerk reaction to the bogeyman of structure grinding. While the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less central role. Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. Triage carriers patching up starbases have a similarly mirrored role, frantically trying to restore these assets while making themselves vulnerable. This was always a fantastic avenue for content, with opponents setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE. It feels like you're scooping a load of sand out of the sandbox. By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but actively maintained structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. The simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling effect on structures, but actual damage should need to be inflicted in order to destroy them for good, while an investment in repair ability should be required to restore them again. Fundamentally we need the things you risk to to destroy a structure be balanced with what the structure owner is risking inside. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Creator of Burn Jita Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
LujTic Green Visstick High Dragon Knights Inc 12	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:02:00 - [26] - Quote What happens when 'Scooped by owner'? Where do the docked players and assets go to then?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1794	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:02:07 - [27] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Why are wormholes getting reduced vulnerability windows compared to unbonused 0.0? Reminder that NPC 0.0 in particular cannot reduce this window by their activities. Is it your intention that living in a C6 wormhole is safer than living in Syndicate or The Great Wildlands? Because being 4 jumps away in K-space is nothing LIKE being 4 away in J-space? I actually think it's unreasonably long, given the constraints of J-space. Routes home can disappear in a heartbeat Deathcloning home is not an option Anomalies and income sources are randomly spawned so living out of a single system isn't as viable as k-space.

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 1410	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:03:07 - [28] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Just to be clear. In highsec, if I want to remove say a M Citidel from a rival I will need to declare war for at least three weeks? Say they set their vulnerability window for all three hours on Saturday morning. I would declare war the Friday morning to wait for the war to go live, and then would have to renew the war two more times before I could finally destroy it as each vulnerability window lasts a week? No that was something left out of this blog, but the time between vulnerability windows will be shorter for the smaller structures, and our rough estimates on this would be a week in total from start to finish. This is something we want a lot of feedback on though, exactly how many hours and the times between cycles. CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 806	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:03:21 - [29] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Scatim Helicon wrote: Why are wormholes getting reduced vulnerability windows compared to unbonused 0.0? Reminder that NPC 0.0 in particular cannot reduce this window by their activities. Is it your intention that living in a C6 wormhole is safer than living in Syndicate or The Great Wildlands? This is going to depend if stuff located inside wormhole structures are forever lost or taken care with asset safety. There is a discussion to be had on this particular point, since a lot of the wormhole guys want to go hardcore and lose all of their stuff. Yeah, no. Can we remove those trolls from the CSM? I am happy to chime in. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 1410	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:04:02 - [30] - Quote LujTic wrote: What happens when 'Scooped by owner'? Where do the docked players and assets go to then? Assets are ejected into the asset safety and players will be floating in space in their pods. CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones


Andre Vauban Quantum Cats Syndicate Spaceship Bebop 411	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:05:33 - [31] - Quote Please reconsider the probing mechanics, especially on the medium Citadel's. It would be really nice if at least the mediums required somebody in system to d-scan and combat probe to even find out if there was a citadel in system. Give the little guys the ability to operate out of hostile space if they can manage to stay under the radar. .
Mr Grape Drink The Lobster Farm Sugar - Water - Purple 36	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:11:17 - [32] - Quote Andre Vauban wrote: Please reconsider the probing mechanics, especially on the medium Citadel's. It would be really nice if at least the mediums required somebody in system to d-scan and combat probe to even find out if there was a citadel in system. Give the little guys the ability to operate out of hostile space if they can manage to stay under the radar. Yea, can you imagine some high sec systems with hundreds of these small structures showing up on your scan results @_@
Tialano Utrigas Running with Dogs Stella Nova 98	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:13:59 - [33] - Quote "Also, there will be no Command Node spawning under this system GÇô CSM feedback showed it was quite counter-intuitive to fit big guns to your massive structure only to have the fight take place somewhere else." Guess the super blob will be a thing again...,
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 628	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:14:07 - [34] - Quote Andre Vauban wrote: Please reconsider the probing mechanics, especially on the medium Citadel's. It would be really nice if at least the mediums required somebody in system to d-scan and combat probe to even find out if there was a citadel in system. Give the little guys the ability to operate out of hostile space if they can manage to stay under the radar. This could be the option for a module that makes the structure harder to probe and hides it from d-scan; but also requires fuel to remain active.
Urziel99 Multiplex Gaming The Bastion 124	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:19:56 - [35] - Quote Andre Vauban wrote: Please reconsider the probing mechanics, especially on the medium Citadel's. It would be really nice if at least the mediums required somebody in system to d-scan and combat probe to even find out if there was a citadel in system. Give the little guys the ability to operate out of hostile space if they can manage to stay under the radar. I agree with this, A small group should be able to make the other guy do some work to find them. It'll help a great deal with smaller entities if they can get a baseline for operational security.
Mr Grape Drink The Lobster Farm Sugar - Water - Purple 36	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:22:40 - [36] - Quote Why are vulnerability windows bigger for bigger structures? Shouldnt they be harder to take than the smaller versions? As it stands in NPC null an XL would be open 12 hours a day if spread across evenly. If you're a mainly USTZ group and you set it during the week to come out after work hours, you would need to set it to say 5PM - 5AM. Gives people of a different TZ plenty of options to hit you while you're asleep. Nothing like having massive guns and doomsdays attached to your citadel and your gunner asleep at the wheel! Considering the XL will cost billions and billions of isk, you should be able to really force all engagements on it into your own primetime.
POS Trader Merchants of Lore 11	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:24:19 - [37] - Quote Regarding asset safety, just to be sure, currently if my corp hangar array and manufacturing arrays are overflowing with goodies, if someone blows them up, these things drop and they can take them. With new structures, if I have M or L industry structure with same amount of goodies, these all get ejected to asset safety that then can be moved to new structure? Only the "build-in-progress" stuff can drop for attackers? This is just in normal space, not WH space. Another question is about POS. Let's say I have 1000 small and 200 medium and 100 large POS in hangar in Jita. When new structures hit, will these stockpiles be converted to new ones? ISK refunded at market value of components via buy orders?
Hendrink Collie Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation. 53	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:24:31 - [38] - Quote Quick question: How will jump beacons and cyno beacons work with these new structures. Since ultimately the citadels will be replacing POSes, is the module still going to be floating in space a ways from the citadel, or will it be more along the lines of randomly showing roughly 30km from the undock? Thanks!
Aladar Dangerface 13. Enigma Project 207	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:25:44 - [39] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Scatim Helicon wrote: Why are wormholes getting reduced vulnerability windows compared to unbonused 0.0? Reminder that NPC 0.0 in particular cannot reduce this window by their activities. Is it your intention that living in a C6 wormhole is safer than living in Syndicate or The Great Wildlands? This is going to depend if stuff located inside wormhole structures are forever lost or taken care with asset safety. There is a discussion to be had on this particular point, since a lot of the wormhole guys want to go hardcore and lose all of their stuff. I don't think its that we want to lose all our stuff, its that we want everything dropped as loot when we lose a citadel but then the same applies when we kill one also, we like loot pinatas and some wouldn't mind risking theirs to get them. I doubt anyone would want to lose all there stuff for no upside though. I don't need twitter. I'm already following you.
POS Trader Merchants of Lore 11	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:28:21 - [40] - Quote Mr Grape Drink wrote: Why are vulnerability windows bigger for bigger structures? Shouldnt they be harder to take than the smaller versions? As it stands in NPC null an XL would be open 12 hours a day if spread across evenly. If you're a mainly USTZ group and you set it during the week to come out after work hours, you would need to set it to say 5PM - 5AM. Gives people of a different TZ plenty of options to hit you while you're asleep. Nothing like having massive guns and doomsdays attached to your citadel and your gunner asleep at the wheel! Considering the XL will cost billions and billions of isk, you should be able to really force all engagements on it into your own primetime. Let me answer this one for you. Structure size is apparently linked to who uses it. Its intended audience. XL structures are meant for alliances and M are for very small groups of players. The timers are meant to allow more flexibility for smaller groups to "show up". If you have 100 real people in your XL structure, then getting 25 or 50 to show up should not be that much of a problem during a wider window.

Juan Mileghere Incident Command Spooky Scary Skeletons. 34	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:29:36 - [41] - Quote So NPC 0.0 will be similar to High/Low due to being NPC space or similar to Sov 0.0 because of some silly/stupid reason? Blobbing Explained
Mr Grape Drink The Lobster Farm Sugar - Water - Purple 36	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:33:47 - [42] - Quote POS Trader wrote: Mr Grape Drink wrote: Why are vulnerability windows bigger for bigger structures? Shouldnt they be harder to take than the smaller versions? As it stands in NPC null an XL would be open 12 hours a day if spread across evenly. If you're a mainly USTZ group and you set it during the week to come out after work hours, you would need to set it to say 5PM - 5AM. Gives people of a different TZ plenty of options to hit you while you're asleep. Nothing like having massive guns and doomsdays attached to your citadel and your gunner asleep at the wheel! Considering the XL will cost billions and billions of isk, you should be able to really force all engagements on it into your own primetime. Let me answer this one for you. Structure size is apparently linked to who uses it. Its intended audience. XL structures are meant for alliances and M are for very small groups of players. The timers are meant to allow more flexibility for smaller groups to "show up". If you have 100 real people in your XL structure, then getting 25 or 50 to show up should not be that much of a problem during a wider window. The size matching who uses it is true. But this would mean having to have that strong of a presence in EVERY tz. If a group had 100 active in their prime, but only 10 people 11 hours later because of having jobs, and a group from a different tz focus shows up, what can you do?
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3365	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:40:11 - [43] - Quote i like most things i read there but my initial reaction to 1h of entosing a lowsec M citadel in 3 stages is far too much effort for a medium structure in lowsec. Esp combined with the fact that the defender can undo your progress in 10minuts which does not give you enough time to reship for a second strike if you lose a single fight. (in other words: it will be much longer than 1h in reality) keep in mind that you have to tank that thing for 1h. There is no way to disable the weapons like on poses which means that your logistics pilots will need a lot of beer to not completely go insane after a structure kill. how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 1411	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:45:52 - [44] - Quote Mr Grape Drink wrote: Why are vulnerability windows bigger for bigger structures? Shouldnt they be harder to take than the smaller versions? As it stands in NPC null an XL would be open 12 hours a day if spread across evenly. If you're a mainly USTZ group and you set it during the week to come out after work hours, you would need to set it to say 5PM - 5AM. Gives people of a different TZ plenty of options to hit you while you're asleep. Nothing like having massive guns and doomsdays attached to your citadel and your gunner asleep at the wheel! Considering the XL will cost billions and billions of isk, you should be able to really force all engagements on it into your own primetime. Larger structures implies more members online to cover a larger timezone. It's still only a fraction of the week compared to existing structures, so we are confident the big groups will have no problem covering this. CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1348	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:47:33 - [45] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Just to be clear. In highsec, if I want to remove say a M Citidel from a rival I will need to declare war for at least three weeks? Say they set their vulnerability window for all three hours on Saturday morning. I would declare war the Friday morning to wait for the war to go live, and then would have to renew the war two more times before I could finally destroy it as each vulnerability window lasts a week? No that was something left out of this blog, but the time between vulnerability windows will be shorter for the smaller structures, and our rough estimates on this would be a week in total from start to finish. This is something we want a lot of feedback on though, exactly how many hours and the times between cycles. Excellent. But I don't see how you can do that unless you make a minimum 23h gap between each of the 3 vulnerability hours if you are going to only have 3 hours of vulnerability per week. Otherwise, a defender or attacker can just whip through them all in a row.

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 1413	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:47:58 - [46] - Quote Hendrink Collie wrote: Quick question: How will jump beacons and cyno beacons work with these new structures. Since ultimately the citadels will be replacing POSes, is the module still going to be floating in space a ways from the citadel, or will it be more along the lines of randomly showing roughly 30km from the undock? Thanks! They will be moved to service modules on the Gate structures, so the entire structure effectively becomes a beacon / bridge. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/ CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

Aeril Malkyre Knights of the Ouroboros 422	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:50:15 - [47] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Absent Sworn wrote: So, no mention of some minimal level of automated defense structures to prevent the lone entosing trollceptor. The CSM FAQ simply says "No", is that still the case and planned direction? Correct there will be no automatic guns, but the concerns about trollceptors have been heard loud and clear. This concerns me. This is a loss of functionality. Right now, someone with the means could set up a solo POS with enough guns and ewar that no one would bother attacking unless they had friends and some time. Now any ******* that happens by during the vulnerability window can Entosis the place, with no defense or recourse, except for the owner to be online and near the structure at that time. That's a massive loss of capability for something that's supposed to be replacing the POS system. I understand that you 'hear' the trollceptor concern, but what is going to be done about it? Are we just expected to play Entosis tug of war for a few days until the attacker gets bored?
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 290	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:50:46 - [48] - Quote Bienator II wrote: i like most things i read there but my initial reaction to 1h of entosing a lowsec M citadel in 3 stages is far too much effort for a medium structure in lowsec. Esp combined with the fact that the defender can undo your progress in 10minuts which does not give you enough time to reship for a second strike if you lose a single fight. (in other words: it will be much longer than 1h in reality) keep in mind that you have to tank that thing for 1h. There is no way to disable the weapons like on poses which means that your logistics pilots will need a lot of beer to not completely go insane after a structure kill. edit: we still don't know how much they will cost. If a M structure costs 10bil minimum it might be enough motivation to go through all that. But it is an entry level price like 200mil i am not sure about that. (those are completely random numbers since i really don't know how much they will cost) You do realize the only way to "Tank" it is if someone is manning the guns, they are manual only Smaller entities which a medium is meant for may not be able to get a sizeable force in 30 minutes. I don't imagine they have irc or sms pings to get them online immediately. So, to make it easier for you, they should have to be able to get online and defend it from you before you get bored?
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3365	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:55:20 - [49] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Bienator II wrote: i like most things i read there but my initial reaction to 1h of entosing a lowsec M citadel in 3 stages is far too much effort for a medium structure in lowsec. Esp combined with the fact that the defender can undo your progress in 10minuts which does not give you enough time to reship for a second strike if you lose a single fight. (in other words: it will be much longer than 1h in reality) keep in mind that you have to tank that thing for 1h. There is no way to disable the weapons like on poses which means that your logistics pilots will need a lot of beer to not completely go insane after a structure kill. edit: we still don't know how much they will cost. If a M structure costs 10bil minimum it might be enough motivation to go through all that. But it is an entry level price like 200mil i am not sure about that. (those are completely random numbers since i really don't know how much they will cost) You do realize the only way to "Tank" it is if someone is manning the guns, they are manual only Smaller entities which a medium is meant for may not be able to get a sizeable force in 30 minutes. I don't imagine they have irc or sms pings to get them online immediately. So, to make it easier for you, they should have to be able to get online and defend it from you before you get bored? i don't think it is a big deal to convince someone to man the guns of a structure. i guess all you have do to is to log in an alt and stay docked. So i pretty much see it as a given that the thing will shoot you. Esp since you have to attack it in the vuln window which implies its the highest activity time of the defender how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1554	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:58:51 - [50] - Quote xttz wrote: The decision to only affect new structures via Entosis is both a mistake and a missed opportunity; a kneejerk reaction to the bogeyman of structure grinding. While the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less central role. Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. Triage carriers patching up starbases have a similarly mirrored role, frantically trying to restore these assets while making themselves vulnerable. This was always a fantastic avenue for content, with opponents setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE. It feels like you're scooping a load of sand out of the sandbox. By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but actively maintained structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. The simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling effect on structures, but actual damage should need to be inflicted in order to destroy them for good, while an investment in repair ability should be required to restore them again. Yes, please! I've been promoting this idea for months! Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.

Dr Cedric Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor 111	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:03:10 - [51] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Yroc Jannseen wrote: What role do you see Capitals playing in sieging these structures? Entosis is supposed to measure who controls the field and capitals should have a role to play in that. How effective that visions works out will depend a lot on the capital rebalance which is gaining some momentum at the moment. Wait...What!!? Capital rebalance!? Can we stop this silly talk about structures and get back to spaceships! Seriously though, is there a timeline for some devblogging on Capitals? Cedric
Jon Hellguard X-COM 38	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:04:40 - [52] - Quote First thoughts: too complex, too safe. We'll see how it turns out, but really i doubt to see more action around structures. Might as well dock at planets.... I don't see this work as interaction option for smaller groups at all. But yeah, hope to see null enjoying it then.
Max Kolonko WATAHA. Unseen Wolves 530	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:07:20 - [53] - Quote So CCP choose to ignore wormholes - Again. Could You please tell me WHY would a WH group choose to attack another WH??? Main recompensation for booooring weekend was phat loot, and its gone (dont even mention the petty drop of minerals - few billion tops). If that players want loot they dont get it, if they want to evict someone they will just comes back week later with new citadel and regain all lost stuff and essentially rebuild with a click of a button. So not only the time it takes to take down structures huuugly increased (with balanced timeslots - 6hour per day - XL structure will be destroyed after almost a week when second reinforcment will end) WH will became stangant farmville where everyone farms because they will fill invulnerable. their assets will be safe unless someone else will move in and decide to stay in system. And im not talking about attacking small entity, Im talking about attacking large one in both sides prime time. So instead of one weekend op we end up with a week long deployment with no reward for it. Can we have a WH Citadel roundtable/townhall or something so we can discuss this? No promise that it wont end up just like FozzieSov roundtable few days ago :P Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1794	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:11:43 - [54] - Quote Aeril Malkyre wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: Absent Sworn wrote: So, no mention of some minimal level of automated defense structures to prevent the lone entosing trollceptor. The CSM FAQ simply says "No", is that still the case and planned direction? Correct there will be no automatic guns, but the concerns about trollceptors have been heard loud and clear. This concerns me. This is a loss of functionality. Right now, someone with the means could set up a solo POS with enough guns and ewar that no one would bother attacking unless they had friends and some time. Now any ******* that happens by during the vulnerability window can Entosis the place, with no defense or recourse, except for the owner to be online and near the structure at that time. That's a massive loss of capability for something that's supposed to be replacing the POS system. I understand that you 'hear' the trollceptor concern, but what is going to be done about it? Are we just expected to play Entosis tug of war for a few days until the attacker gets bored? Not to mention this literally demands someone stay home for XX hours per week in WHs. Sure, we can use alts...but that's a stupid solution to a problem we shouldn't have.
Mr Grape Drink The Lobster Farm Sugar - Water - Purple 36	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:12:52 - [55] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Mr Grape Drink wrote: Why are vulnerability windows bigger for bigger structures? Shouldnt they be harder to take than the smaller versions? As it stands in NPC null an XL would be open 12 hours a day if spread across evenly. If you're a mainly USTZ group and you set it during the week to come out after work hours, you would need to set it to say 5PM - 5AM. Gives people of a different TZ plenty of options to hit you while you're asleep. Nothing like having massive guns and doomsdays attached to your citadel and your gunner asleep at the wheel! Considering the XL will cost billions and billions of isk, you should be able to really force all engagements on it into your own primetime. Larger structures implies more members online to cover a larger timezone. It's still only a fraction of the week compared to existing structures, so we are confident the big groups will have no problem covering this. I agree, 50% of the week is a fraction of 100%. Maybe its not even so much that the larger structures are higher than the smaller ones, but more of the NPC null factor of it. An XL in high or low , spread evenly across a week is only 3 hours a day. That's absolutely reasonable. But if a group ACTUALLY LIVES in a particular system in NPC, it doens't help them at all. Isnt the point of the new system so that the defender doesnt have to play alarm clock games anymore like the current towers? Or should we just not build these in NPC null and instead move all manufacturing and such to the closest low sec to get 1/4 the window, not actually live there, and only have to show up for anything in our primetime?
Max Kolonko WATAHA. Unseen Wolves 530	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:22:41 - [56] - Quote Can You pls confirm If i get it right. Imagine XL structure in WH, 42h per week vulnerability time, assuming its spread even - 6h per day from 18:00 to mindnight of defender tz time. Enemy comes to my home around 23:00 on friday and entosis my poor XL structure just before midnight. 15 vulenrability hours later - that means monday around 21:00 it is again vulnerable. until that point My citadel is fully working, but i cant refit it. So around 21:00 on monday my citadel is again vulnerable to entosis. My enemy (being good sport) comes in force and manages to entosis my poor citadel around 22:00. Now reinforce once again starts counting down 15h of vulnerabilty which ends at thursday around 19:00. untill that time my citadel is very limited in use. I can not use services and production stops. So on thursday around 22:00 enemy finishes final stage of destruction and entosis my structure for third time - killing my poor citadel Is above correct? Or is there third reinforcment timer im missing? (maybe im tired but blog was not very clear on that) Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Cynica Deetric Quantum Singularities Half Massed 0	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:25:43 - [57] - Quote I see an easy fix to counter the trollcepter JUST let the citadels defencesg uns work like a POS defences does now.... if you want to shoot the guns/mods good if you want to let the **** AI do it, that is ok to.
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5238	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:27:07 - [58] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: The Tasty Fougasse RepublicGäó It is like trying to add pineapples to a pizza Soft Croissant IncorporatedGäó The Alluring Baguette SyndicateGäó The Mighty Bouillabaisse ConglomerateGäó The Daring Tartiflette ExpeditionGäó Your blogs are making me hungry. Though I'm not French, I do live in a predominantly French neighbourhood, and disagree with your ideas of pizza toppings. I like Hawaiian pizza (widely considered to be the choice of software developers), but I personally like a "Mexican" pizza: Mozzarella & Cheddar cheese, drained browned ground beef (preferably spiced, but just adding pepper will do in a pinch), mushrooms, green peppers, onions, Jalape+¦o peppers, and hot mixed peppers.
Sabastian Cerabiam Seventh Element Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:29:43 - [59] - Quote The FAQ doc explains the timers a bit better. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mEbMx9xUXje3KH4AppvcjSSoALUVtVEaK6ZZ-zy2Lrs/preview?sle=true
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 631	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:37:09 - [60] - Quote edit: double post

xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 631	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:38:07 - [61] - Quote Cynica Deetric wrote: I see an easy fix to counter the trollcepter is to JUST let the citadels defences work like POS defences do now.... if you want to shoot the guns/mods good if you want to let the **** AI do it, that is ok to. Or make it so that structures only automatically target active hostile entosis links. That way structures can't be abused into killing anything that comes on grid, but require a bit more thought to compromise than a disposable t1 frigate. The latter is especially important for smaller corps or individuals. By requiring a little more effort to attack structures, we'll also (hopefully) end up with situations where both sides are invested in a fight, rather than the attackers simply running away if anyone shows up.
Absent Sworn Lamprey Systems Shoot 2 Thrill 1	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:39:29 - [62] - Quote Aeril Malkyre wrote: [quote=CCP Nullarbor]This concerns me. This is a loss of functionality. Right now, someone with the means could set up a solo POS with enough guns and ewar that no one would bother attacking unless they had friends and some time. Now any ******* that happens by during the vulnerability window can Entosis the place, with no defense or recourse, except for the owner to be online and near the structure at that time. That's a massive loss of capability for something that's supposed to be replacing the POS system. I understand that you 'hear' the trollceptor concern, but what is going to be done about it? Are we just expected to play Entosis tug of war for a few days until the attacker gets bored? This is a big concern of mine as well, as I am a low sec industrialist and operate a couple POS effectively solo. Now, maybe part of the point here is that CCP feels that a few people being able to maintain a structure that is impervious to all but groups of a size many times larger than themselves shouldn't be a thing. I don't think I've read that anywhere and I doubt it's the case, but let's suppose it is for a moment so I can bring up my main concern: it just doesn't make sense. Look, if things change such that my current enterprise (and I would expect a non-trivial number of others with similar setups) becomes unfeasible I'll just do something else, that's fine. I don't need to make drugs, I do it because it's fun and aligns with my casual play style. I'll tear my stuff down and try something else. But I'll still find these changes bothersome, not so much for mechanics reasons which on paper seem mostly fine from my perspective, but because they are thematically nonsensical. I am wondering if a bit of laser focus on mechanics here by CCP has attributed to this byproduct of really kicking the flavor side of things in the junk. That a starbase can be destroyed without inflicting a single point of damage is just silly, and that's putting it very lightly. It doesn't feel fun and it doesn't feel like EVE. I like logging out at my drug house knowing that anyone who comes snooping around will be shot at. More importantly I am extremely comfortable with the notion that any group of a sufficient size that really wants to make a concerted effort to ruin my day can come over and blow up my stuff at any time. I am not at all comfortable with the notion that an individual or even a few individuals can swing by and click entosis unfettered, even if it's only for a few hours weekly. Maybe I represent a micro niche in EVE that CCP is just not overly concerned about, but for whatever it's worth I can say of myself that I won't bother trying to reproduce how I currently play EVE under this new system as it's currently being presented. Not in a rage, just with a sigh. May your mushrooms always be sautéed and your onions always be grilled. Not Sworn Absent since 2009
B0RG 0VERLORD Viziam Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:49:51 - [63] - Quote docking fatigue?
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3597	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:52:05 - [64] - Quote I have a concern that revolves around these four things: Rigs will be providing huge boosts. Rigs are expensive. Rigs are destroyed if the structure is scooped. If you feel you cannot defend your high sec structure when war hits, you scoop. Now, given all this, why would I want a citadel over a POS? If I feel I cannot defend my stuff, I use a POS, and scoop it before the war goes live. But if I were to do that for a citadel, I lose the big part of the value: the rigs. Unless a citadel without rigs is about equal to a POS. So, if one of your goals is to remove POSes from the game (without everyone screaming about lost capability) a citadel should always be at least as desirable as a POS. That means: the same refining, manufacturing, fitting, research, and so on, AND can be scooped without having to lose rigs (which means: it has no rigs). Possibility: Citadel services require fuel. The fuel use would be about the same as if you had a POS. But a rig will greatly reduce the fuel. Now, you have a choice: Be just a good as the old POS, and have the freedom to scoop. Or, be better than a POS, but you have to risk loss. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Orm Magnustat Red Serpent Industries 129	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:54:26 - [65] - Quote The train has caught speed - and I-¦m pretty sure nothing's gonna stop it .... Still there' s this one question on my mind. WHY?? Why going through all this pain of reinventing the wheel (POS) with all its uncertainties and potential (surefire) frustration ?! The introduction of this "other" kind of station will not bring in a single new player by itself. But for sure it will frustrate quite some veterans that built certain playstyles around the classical POS concept during all those years. Its just bringing pain to a lot of people who invested a lot of effort in the old system or just like the prinicple concept of firepower and fat shields that totally made up the inner logic of your game in all these years. You throw all this out of the window as if you just would like to manage a totally different game..... Has this entosis crap (that you are betting your farm on) actually stood the test of time in your eyes, so that you have to spread it across the whole of this universe? How about keeping the classical POS concept alongside these new "structures" and just let the players decide what kind of station they really want?
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2375	Posted - 2015.08.13 19:34:54 - [66] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Assets are ejected into the asset safety and players will be floating in space in their pods. As mentioned in the asset safety thread, players should be in their active ship, only if there is no active ship should they be in their pod. There is no good reason to force them out of their active ship simply because they logged out for a day or two and someone scooped the structure.
LujTic Green Visstick High Dragon Knights Inc 13	Posted - 2015.08.13 19:49:25 - [67] - Quote If I want to annoy people I can set up a publicly accessible Citadel, then scoop it to have their assets impounded. Or sit there in a cloaky and make a list of people that dock, then wardeck them, scoop and fight their pods when they log back in.
gascanu Bearing Srl. 226	Posted - 2015.08.13 19:49:55 - [68] - Quote xttz wrote: The decision to only affect new structures via Entosis is both a mistake and a missed opportunity; a kneejerk reaction to the bogeyman of structure grinding. While the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less central role. Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. Triage carriers patching up starbases have a similarly mirrored role, frantically trying to restore these assets while making themselves vulnerable. This was always a fantastic avenue for content, with opponents setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE. It feels like you're scooping a load of sand out of the sandbox. By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but actively maintained structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. The simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling effect on structures, but actual damage should need to be inflicted in order to destroy them for good, while an investment in repair ability should be required to restore them again. what this man says; like really CCP you always go from one extreme to another, one could think you learned some lessons by now, but no... yes structure grinding suck, but going from that hundreds of millions of hp to one guy just using a flashlight its... well "ccpesque" ? and one more thing: can you "CCP" decide what in category NPC 0.0 space should be? like every time you change something you group it randomly, with empire npc one time, then with 0.0 sov, and ofc the next time around it will go with wh space or even below that... it's like you always forget about it and just let it end how the dices roll
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 898	Posted - 2015.08.13 19:54:12 - [69] - Quote Oh look, more entosis bullshit.
Saisin Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance 279	Posted - 2015.08.13 19:57:48 - [70] - Quote Orm Magnustat wrote: ... Has this entosis crap (that you are betting your farm on) actually stood the test of time in your eyes, so that you have to spread it across the whole of this universe? The fundamental concepts of entosis are good. You may not like it because you can hide behind a school of capital guns, but this is the best way for the game to continue to evolve, and offer to new players perspective other than "to play, you must join the existing blobs". There are a few tweaks remaining to be done, like shutting down velocity of entosis ships or reducing nodes numbers slightly and making uncontested nodes revert to the defender over time. Accumulation of DPS will always remain the main key to grid domination, but not anymore the only weapon to skirmish against stronger opponents. "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo. solo? There is a new hope...

PAPULA Black Aces I N F A M O U S 71	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:10:43 - [71] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Oh look, more entosis bullshit. True story.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 899	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:17:16 - [72] - Quote Capitals are in the game and a lot of people spent a lot of time training for them. Throwing away the majority of what we use them for in Aegis without announcing how you're going to redefine their roles has left a lot of us very frustrated and jaded, especially considering it's been less than a year since Phoebe. And now you're lining up for yet another release, taking away the POS bash, which is most of what their utility is now. And still no details on how you plan to rebalance them and redefine their utility. You're alienating many of your most loyal subscribers.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3601	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:22:26 - [73] - Quote I'm still missing something here as to why I would want one of these things rather than a POS. For example: A POS can defend itself while I'm on a week long cruise in the Caribbean, and a war hits. These new Citadels cannot. Why do I want that? Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Absent Sworn Lamprey Systems Shoot 2 Thrill 4	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:28:02 - [74] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: I'm still missing something here as to why I would want one of these things rather than a POS. For example: A POS can defend itself while I'm on a week long cruise in the Caribbean, and a war hits. These new Citadels cannot. Why do I want that? That's only a relevant question if you have a choice between one of these things and a POS. Maybe what you're missing is that you won't. May your mushrooms always be sautéed and your onions always be grilled. Not Sworn Absent since 2009
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 169	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:29:12 - [75] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Just to be clear. In highsec, if I want to remove say a M Citidel from a rival I will need to declare war for at least three weeks? Say they set their vulnerability window for all three hours on Saturday morning. I would declare war the Friday morning to wait for the war to go live, and then would have to renew the war two more times before I could finally destroy it as each vulnerability window lasts a week? No that was something left out of this blog, but the time between vulnerability windows will be shorter for the smaller structures, and our rough estimates on this would be a week in total from start to finish. This is something we want a lot of feedback on though, exactly how many hours and the times between cycles. A week to destroy a small tower? Seriously? Wow. Just wow.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3601	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:34:56 - [76] - Quote Absent Sworn wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: I'm still missing something here as to why I would want one of these things rather than a POS. For example: A POS can defend itself while I'm on a week long cruise in the Caribbean, and a war hits. These new Citadels cannot. Why do I want that? That's only a relevant question if you have a choice between one of these things and a POS. Maybe what you're missing is that you won't. But I do have the choice of not using them at all. CCP, why add content that encourages players to NOT use it? Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
stoicfaux 6198	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:34:58 - [77] - Quote What price range is CCP targeting for Medium Citadels? Yes, I know prices have not been specified, but we looking at 1s, 10s, 100s, or 1,000s of millions of isk for a Medium? Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Dr Cedric Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor 113	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:57:20 - [78] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: What price range is CCP targeting for Medium Citadels? Yes, I know prices have not been specified, but we looking at 1s, 10s, 100s, or 1,000s of millions of isk for a Medium? The FAQ paper says Medium is for small to medium sized corps (Im guessing that means like max 20 people?) so probably somewhere in the 250-750M ISK range to make, then rigs.. maybe a Billion each? That seams doable for 20 dedicated guys Cedric
gascanu Bearing Srl. 230	Posted - 2015.08.13 21:20:16 - [79] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Capitals are in the game and a lot of people spent a lot of time training for them. Throwing away the majority of what we use them for in Aegis without announcing how you're going to redefine their roles has left a lot of us very frustrated and jaded, especially considering it's been less than a year since Phoebe. And now you're lining up for yet another release, taking away the POS bash, which is most of what their utility is now. And still no details on how you plan to rebalance them and redefine their utility. You're alienating many of your most loyal subscribers. but, but ,you can use your capitals to shoot enemy capitals... in case they show up; this ofc after spending a week moving your caps into position
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2376	Posted - 2015.08.13 21:32:45 - [80] - Quote Absent Sworn wrote: That's only a relevant question if you have a choice between one of these things and a POS. Maybe what you're missing is that you won't. And there in lies the issue.

Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4566	Posted - 2015.08.13 21:40:55 - [81] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Entosis is supposed to measure who controls the field and capitals should have a role to play in that. How effective that visions works out will depend a lot on the capital rebalance which is gaining some momentum at the moment. How exactly is this going to work in high-sec where capitals are prohibited? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3607	Posted - 2015.08.13 21:53:04 - [82] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Absent Sworn wrote: That's only a relevant question if you have a choice between one of these things and a POS. Maybe what you're missing is that you won't. And there in lies the issue. Exactly. All those "improve the POS" threads were made to get just that: Structures that were superior to the POS in terms of fun game play. If citadels are worse, then many POS users will be screaming at CCP. At present the things I see that make the medium structure worse than a POS: It cannot defend itself, like a POS. I have to be there, at all my structures, all the time. I cannot go on vacation. To made it useful, I may have to use rigs, meaning I cannot defend it by scooping it, like I can with a POS. I cannot do it all in one structure. I cannot refine, build, and research all in one with good efficiency. Instead, I need multiple structures. Citadels will really be bad if you find its better to use an NPC station. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Dr Loveless Viziam Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2015.08.13 21:59:24 - [83] - Quote Quote: Any external party to the corporation will only be able to see the timer related to the current state. For example, a scout may learn the structure is in reinforced state 2, with 5 hours left on it by going to the solar system where the structure is located. However the same scout will not be able to guess how the vulnerability window is weekly set. In the same manner, we want to avoid automation for this particular information, which means not displaying it in the API, since we want people to actively scout, or infiltrate spies in the target entity they wish to disrupt instead of relying on external tools to do the job for them. It's OK that attacker can't see vulnerability windows but timers should show when you can attack (at some point of vulnerability window). People must sleep, go to work and this kind of s**t. People will not live in EVE and can't sit on station 24/7 and waiting for vulnerability window. Which can be problem for smaller corporations that play in one timezone.
Orm Magnustat Red Serpent Industries 135	Posted - 2015.08.13 22:05:08 - [84] - Quote Saisin wrote: Orm Magnustat wrote: ... Has this entosis crap (that you are betting your farm on) actually stood the test of time in your eyes, so that you have to spread it across the whole of this universe? The fundamental concepts of entosis are good. You may not like it because you can hide behind a school of capital guns, but this is the best way for the game to continue to evolve, and offer to new players perspective other than "to play, you must join the existing blobs". There are a few tweaks remaining to be done, like shutting down velocity of entosis ships or reducing nodes numbers slightly and making uncontested nodes revert to the defender over time. Accumulation of DPS will always remain the main key to grid domination, but not anymore the only weapon to skirmish against stronger opponents. "The fundamental concepts of entosis are good." - What makes you think so? That you personally like it? I take a look at some player statistics and get a totally different picture. The horrible losses in player activity during the last half year say a lot about the anticipations that people have about this change of paradigm. And when I look at the statistics since its actual introduction it seems that the "natural" slightly increased server activity (testing the waters) after such an important update is dropping again sharply just after three weeks (but its quite early too call this a trend). This is the best way for the game to "evolve" ??? Evolution is a process of gradually enhancing the existing functionalities. Ripping out someones heart and replacing it by sthg completely different can be hardly called evolution. Just now you can see how core aspects of the game are (about to be) removed - and what it does to the player base. Truely not good. (imho)
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 272	Posted - 2015.08.13 22:14:44 - [85] - Quote So... when can we start expecting these structures? I have ants in my pants waiting for them... and no, I like standing on the anthill.
Ida Aurlien Cerberus Federation Gentlemen's.Club 65	Posted - 2015.08.13 22:22:13 - [86] - Quote well i'm not a fan of entoss links.. and this to me sounds like a major mess.. I hope this takes u years to do but probably not.. no time to really play game as allways running to put out fires.. gives u no time to play the game just b a fireman.. other games let u play without having to babysit 24/7
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2377	Posted - 2015.08.13 22:24:47 - [87] - Quote Ida Aurlien wrote: well i'm not a fan of entoss links.. and this to me sounds like a major mess.. I hope this takes u years to do but probably not.. no time to really play game as allways running to put out fires.. gives u no time to play the game just b a fireman.. other games let u play without having to babysit 24/7 Curious, name other games where you can actually lose structures which you don't have to babysit 24/7. Most of the ones I know don't even have timers and invuln periods.
Ida Aurlien Cerberus Federation Gentlemen's.Club 65	Posted - 2015.08.13 22:28:51 - [88] - Quote visually look at the alliances u've lost since introducing the entossis link u are losing a lot .... I figure when all said and done u will have just a few alliances left.. and this should speed that up some . Is that your true intent ?
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 14118	Posted - 2015.08.13 22:45:15 - [89] - Quote Please clarify the methods by which a potential aggressor can actually find out concrete information on the vulnerability periods of a desired target structure. Because it very much looks like, unless I get a guy inside their corp, that I would have to Entosis the thing once an hour all day long until I get a hit. And that's after wardeccing them in the first place. And since an Entosis will take 1 hour per cycle in highsec, that would suggest that I would have to be there literally all day, every day until I get a hit on their vulnerability timer(of which, the percentage of hours in a week that they have to commit to is hilariously low). And that's just for the first of three timers. So hopefully I'm wrong, because that sounds like a really unreasonable pain in the ass just to clean up some squatter off of a random moon in highsec. Oh, and please elaborate on what happens should a corp be dissolved with an active citadel. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 272	Posted - 2015.08.13 23:57:22 - [90] - Quote In terms of the vulnerability windows, you have null sec split into two categories: Null Sec with Full Occupancy and Null Sec without occupancy. Where does NPC Null Sec fall into this? My natural assumption is with "Null Sec with full occupancy" since you also have Low Sec there as well (neither can be claimed by players). But I hate making assumptions so clarification would be great: will I have 3 hours of vulnerability or 12 for a Medium Citadel in NPC Controlled Null Sec?

Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2670	Posted - 2015.08.14 00:14:32 - [91] - Quote I think it is a little bizarre that the bigger the structure the more vulnerable it is in absolute terms (width of gaping timer vaginer). Like...what's the literal point of L and XL in NPC null and wormholes beyond playing docking games with dreads? There's no extra utility with guns if you aren't there to defend the structure from the troll ceptor. We all know how much fun docking games with dreads are. I also like the idea of being podded and losing your ship if the house burns down around you. That's awesome for people who go on holiday for a week. Like, you know, anyone at all in the history of mankind with a real life. I really think that this entosis gameplay, which is at it's most basic an attention based warfare mechanism, is uttery daft. The greatest problem EVE has is that it takes so much effort to do anything. Sure, you've addressed that the past couple of years worth of bloody Xmas gifts with the Victorieuex Luxury ***, the Leopard and the Concord shuttle. All great ways of getting about the vaast, ever more empty spaces of EVE faster. But then of course you introduced Space AIDS in Phoebe, etc, and it's harder to get around EVE. now you've got trollceptors fighting an attention war in nullsec, where it matters. You clearly didn't learn a damn thing from the plex contestations in Faction Warfare, where everyone burned out. So now you're forcing attention based occupancy on wormholers and citadel owners, who have to be around for 50% of the time to defend their crap or they lose it in 30 minutes. This isn't sustainable. You have to consider this in terms of whatmotivates your players to actually play the game, invest hours, days, weeks, months and years and money into playing. Attention games are incompatible with any mature gamer's lifestyle. I, also, would hope you can rotate the Citadel on it's X axis so you can point the undock at convenient celestials for instas. Or at inconvenient locations to ensure you undock away from all celestials and prevent foes getting conventient warps to your undock. 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 ~~
Maetel Lithium did he say call it bestfriends club delivered Dragon Knights Inc 3	Posted - 2015.08.14 00:21:35 - [92] - Quote So... While I like the idea of how this system works, I think the 1st stage reinforcement timer is just too easy on the owning player. just the inability to change fitting doesn't seem like a serious penalty. My thought is that, if a Med Citadel in a WH only needs to be Entosised for 30 min to go into stage one. This allows you to skip the next half of your vulnerability hours so you come out of Vulnerability after that. At which point it only takes 10 min for the defender to entosis the station, bringing it back to normal and resetting the process. I see this as being very exploitable. I can see myself using a neutral alt to Entosis my own citadel to put it into stage one defense, and then flipping it back when it comes out of reinforced mode. I'd have an effectively untouchable station, that can't change it's fitting, but otherwise can only be effected 30 min when I put it under, and 10 min when I'm putting it back.
Lyron-Baktos Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 479	Posted - 2015.08.14 00:31:11 - [93] - Quote Jesus christ, could these mechanics be even more complicated?
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 14118	Posted - 2015.08.14 00:38:15 - [94] - Quote Lyron-Baktos wrote: Jesus christ, could these mechanics be even more complicated? CCP: "Starbase mechanics now require completion of algebra problems that will be generated in random languages by the server. In an unrelated matter, we are looking into the cause of widespread TiDi across most of Tranqulity." "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Galphii Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn 320	Posted - 2015.08.14 00:45:32 - [95] - Quote xttz wrote: The decision to only affect new structures via Entosis is both a mistake and a missed opportunity; a kneejerk reaction to the bogeyman of structure grinding. Spot on. I think a better way would be to blend entosis and structure grind systems, perhaps reducing the hitpoints a structure has by 75% after it's been entosisified, leaving it more vulnerable to a reasonable amount of bashing from capitals etc. "Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4566	Posted - 2015.08.14 01:03:29 - [96] - Quote I never thought I'd already be missing the existing POS system... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 14120	Posted - 2015.08.14 01:07:05 - [97] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: I never thought I'd already be missing the existing POS system... Oh, don't even. Whatever else might be wrong with these, they are at least more mechanically sound than the nightmarish POS systems, especially regarding setting them up. If they can fix some of the... frankly baffling portions of this, and make roles and such not a headache, they will be head and shoulders above the POS system. Seriously, POSes are one of the worst mechanics in modern gaming. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Ahaz Darkfall Division One Trade and Aquisition 4	Posted - 2015.08.14 01:22:02 - [98] - Quote It would be cool if there was some sort of signature cloak module for these new structures that would would hide them for a basic scan. i.e. they would need to be probed before warping to them. It would really add a level of espionage and secrecy to the game. You could set up a secret base in enemy territory, set up a spy network of hidden structures, You would have to actually patrol, and probe your systems regularly to ensure security, or and extra level of security for the paranoid industrialist that prefers hiding to fighting. To keep it from being a main stream fit, you could have it require several modules to function. say a high, medium, and low slot module, all three are needed for the signature cloak to function. This would not make the structure invisible, only hide it's signature from scanners, requiring probes for uninvited guests to find it. high slot - some sort of signature mask/reduction projector medium slot - computer to control the projector low slot - power supply to run the projector Just a thought, but it would solve the issue of weather or not they should be warp-able without probes. Make it an option, by installing these modules you gain the advantage of being hidden from anyone without probes, at the cost of not 1 but 3 module slots. I believe a cost of three fitting slots would would be enough discourage it for being a must have option.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 905	Posted - 2015.08.14 01:53:53 - [99] - Quote gascanu wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Capitals are in the game and a lot of people spent a lot of time training for them. Throwing away the majority of what we use them for in Aegis without announcing how you're going to redefine their roles has left a lot of us very frustrated and jaded, especially considering it's been less than a year since Phoebe. And now you're lining up for yet another release, taking away the POS bash, which is most of what their utility is now. And still no details on how you plan to rebalance them and redefine their utility. You're alienating many of your most loyal subscribers. but, but ,you can use your capitals to shoot enemy capitals... in case they show up; this ofc after spending a week moving your caps into position If the only use for caps is to kill other caps, there's no incentive to move them anywhere or field them first.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2377	Posted - 2015.08.14 02:03:02 - [100] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: If the only use for caps is to kill other caps, there's no incentive to move them anywhere or field them first. Caps are also very good at both killing & supporting battleships. Which are in theory very good at killing battlecruisers. Who 'should' be good at killing cruisers. The BC's killing Cruisers is the point where the meta breaks down badly atm and why CCP have mentioned an upcoming BC/BS buff, which once BC & BS get used to escalate vs Cruisers, then naturally causes caps to become part of the escalation cycle around fighting for control of a grid of a citadel.

Gekkoh Circle of Steel Inc. Care Factor 12	Posted - 2015.08.14 02:15:12 - [101] - Quote Quote: Corporation members with enough roles to do so will have full information on vulnerability, reinforcement, capture timers. Notifications will be sent for those particular states to make sure people can respond and defend their structures in a timely manner. Any external party to the corporation will only be able to see the timer related to the current state. Can you please, please consider allowing a more flexible arrangement for access to this information, as well as who is able to "man the citadel" to defend it? At the very least, give alliance level access as well. For the L and XL structures, which are aimed at alliances, limiting the administration and defense to a single corporation is not good. When an Alliance holds assets jointly in a holding corp to make logistics and admin easier, but most characters are in individual corporations, limiting this to corporations only will make it very hard to participate in the citadel game.
Rei Lithium Undead Dragons Dragon Knights Inc 2	Posted - 2015.08.14 02:22:32 - [102] - Quote Carriers kill Sub-caps. Dreds kill Carriers. This is the basics of how new structure combat will work in Null. You will need to bring anti-cap Dreads to deal with the Carriers who can turn your sub-cap fleets into expanding balls of plasma very very quickly.
Chrisandor Nethcanus Inc 0	Posted - 2015.08.14 02:37:20 - [103] - Quote Absent Sworn wrote: Aeril Malkyre wrote: [quote=CCP Nullarbor]This concerns me. This is a loss of functionality. Right now, someone with the means could set up a solo POS with enough guns and ewar that no one would bother attacking unless they had friends and some time. Now any ******* that happens by during the vulnerability window can Entosis the place, with no defense or recourse, except for the owner to be online and near the structure at that time. That's a massive loss of capability for something that's supposed to be replacing the POS system. I understand that you 'hear' the trollceptor concern, but what is going to be done about it? Are we just expected to play Entosis tug of war for a few days until the attacker gets bored? This is a big concern of mine as well, as I am a low sec industrialist and operate a couple POS effectively solo. Now, maybe part of the point here is that CCP feels that a few people being able to maintain a structure that is impervious to all but groups of a size many times larger than themselves shouldn't be a thing. I don't think I've read that anywhere and I doubt it's the case, but let's suppose it is for a moment so I can bring up my main concern: it just doesn't make sense. Look, if things change such that my current enterprise (and I would expect a non-trivial number of others with similar setups) becomes unfeasible I'll just do something else, that's fine. I don't need to make drugs, I do it because it's fun and aligns with my casual play style. I'll tear my stuff down and try something else. But I'll still find these changes bothersome, not so much for mechanics reasons which on paper seem mostly fine from my perspective, but because they are thematically nonsensical. I am wondering if a bit of laser focus on mechanics here by CCP has attributed to this byproduct of really kicking the flavor side of things in the junk. That a starbase can be destroyed without inflicting a single point of damage is just silly, and that's putting it very lightly. It doesn't feel fun and it doesn't feel like EVE. I like logging out at my drug house knowing that anyone who comes snooping around will be shot at. More importantly I am extremely comfortable with the notion that any group of a sufficient size that really wants to make a concerted effort to ruin my day can come over and blow up my stuff at any time. I am not at all comfortable with the notion that an individual or even a few individuals can swing by and click entosis unfettered, even if it's only for a few hours weekly. Maybe I represent a micro niche in EVE that CCP is just not overly concerned about, but for whatever it's worth I can say of myself that I won't bother trying to reproduce how I currently play EVE under this new system as it's currently being presented. Not in a rage, just with a sigh. I concur. In fact, I would go farther by saying the whole process seems absurd and arbitrary from a hi-sec point of view., from the number of vulnerability hours in a week to the complete lack of firepower required to destroy a citadel. Why not just run a hacking game on the structures and assume control of it?? I'm not an expert in null-sec activities, so if this works there, fine. But it does seem very non-Eve like.
Professor Frederick Johansen Edge of Existence 9	Posted - 2015.08.14 02:50:28 - [104] - Quote So now you've decided to turn wormholes into Nullsec, complete with station games. The reason people like myself live in wormholes is because we don't care for Nullsec, we like the environment provided by living in a wormhole.. But some bright spark has decided "hey, let's turn wormholes into Nullsec, because that's what they want"... CCP, this is a dumb idea, and you know it is
Edwin Wyatt In Utter Darkness Amarrian Confederation 71	Posted - 2015.08.14 03:36:07 - [105] - Quote Sweet, I've already dropped down from three accounts to one. Time to sell off my main and take the isk to play market games in Jita while the rest of you lemmings scurry about with your assets impounded all over new eden. CCP 0 Subs -2 Keep up the great work.
M1k3y Koontz Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries 775	Posted - 2015.08.14 03:41:54 - [106] - Quote Edwin Wyatt wrote: Sweet, I've already dropped down from three accounts to one. Time to sell off my main and take the isk to play market games in Jita while the rest of you lemmings scurry about with your assets impounded all over new eden. CCP 0 Subs -2 Keep up the great work. I'm playing EVE Change Bingo, and "unsubbing my accounts" was the last square I needed, thanks! How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 906	Posted - 2015.08.14 03:52:41 - [107] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: If the only use for caps is to kill other caps, there's no incentive to move them anywhere or field them first. Caps are also very good at both killing & supporting battleships. Which are in theory very good at killing battlecruisers. Who 'should' be good at killing cruisers. The BC's killing Cruisers is the point where the meta breaks down badly atm and why CCP have mentioned an upcoming BC/BS buff, which once BC & BS get used to escalate vs Cruisers, then naturally causes caps to become part of the escalation cycle around fighting for control of a grid of a citadel. There's no reason to use caps for killing battleships when we have stealth bombers, Tengus, and more battleships of our own. In any case, if this is the role for capitals to come then it's still very poorly defined and not particularly inspiring.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4567	Posted - 2015.08.14 04:19:59 - [108] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: If they can fix some of the... frankly baffling portions of this, and make roles and such not a headache, they will be head and shoulders above the POS system. Seriously, POSes are one of the worst mechanics in modern gaming. There's a lot of "ifs" in this statement... When a POS runs out of fuel, you can scoop or shoot the arrays. And when you shoot the POS, it's either reinforced - or it isn't. In any event, you can return in 24 hours (not 3 weeks) to finish it off. And all of this actually entails shooting - something that is infinitely more fun than using an Entosis link. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
PAPULA Black Aces I N F A M O U S 72	Posted - 2015.08.14 04:41:09 - [109] - Quote So if i have 1 kronos in the "station" that gets destroyed i have to pay 20% to get it "moved" to NPC station ? That would mean at least 200mil for moving it to npc station ? Not going to happen, if this is how it will work, i am moving to NPC space, period.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1566	Posted - 2015.08.14 04:58:46 - [110] - Quote PAPULA wrote: So if i have 1 kronos in the "station" that gets destroyed i have to pay 10% to get it "moved" to NPC station ? That would mean at least 120mil for moving it to npc station ? Not going to happen, if this is how it will work, i am moving to NPC space, period. Would you rather it got destroyed completely? Or ended up locked up in a station you could not access forever? Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.

Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1784	Posted - 2015.08.14 06:07:11 - [111] - Quote People have over years on end demanded destructible outposts and conquerable stations because it would be so much fun -- now they get destructible outposts and destructible conquerable stations and suddenly it is not so much fun anymore. It is funny how quickly people's minds change as soon as the powerful turn their demands and wishes into hard reality. That is, however, not to say that I am particularly happy with these developments either. If there were no superpowers in EVE that can destroy your new player stations without you being able to do anything at all against them (except joining them which is not going to happen), these NPS would be a lot easier to sell and use. But the way it is in EVE, and with the general incapability for EVE players to act reasonable and not like a child in front of the treats shelf in a supermarket, these structures are tainted with a lot of risk and little to no rewards. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1065	Posted - 2015.08.14 07:30:53 - [112] - Quote First of all as an Anglais en France, I really enjoyed the food related corp names, my favourite was The Mighty Bouillabaisse Conglomerate. LOL. I like what you are trying to do here, I am a little bit concerned about NPC 0.0 space in terms of no indexes and the impact on my structure(s) in terms of having 12 hours per week per structure... I guess I will have to suck it and see..., I thing it is really a very good first pass. And I like that the combat is local to the structure too. Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
soranno 14th Legion The Bloc 30	Posted - 2015.08.14 09:20:15 - [113] - Quote I share the concerns of some that there is no dps element at all involved in the destruction of these structures, and I really feel that is a mistake. Capturing this is one area, but destroying them I think needs to have some portion of it involving ships using weapons rather than just entosis links. My suggestion would be that the third and final entosising, rather than destroying the structure, causes its shields to fail leaving a measure of armour and hull to be burned through with dps ships.
Awkward Pi Duolus Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 138	Posted - 2015.08.14 09:27:17 - [114] - Quote So.. a dinky little rifter could have the role in taking down an XL citadel? Dear Lord... Also, I don't get the point of all this complexity. If you want to make stations destructible, just add the asset safety thing to current stations and be done with it?
Janwaar Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.08.14 10:07:40 - [115] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: PAPULA wrote: So if i have 1 kronos in the "station" that gets destroyed i have to pay 10% to get it "moved" to NPC station ? That would mean at least 120mil for moving it to npc station ? Not going to happen, if this is how it will work, i am moving to NPC space, period. Would you rather it got destroyed completely? Or ended up locked up in a station you could not access forever? i would rather ccp paid my insurance on the destruction of whatever ships i lost. just out of interest how would you gauge the price of the items cost ?
tasman devil HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded 53	Posted - 2015.08.14 10:29:18 - [116] - Quote CCP Phantom wrote: Work on the the new Citadel structures is proceeding well. Now it is the time to discuss the design how you can attack, defend and conquer a Citadel. All Citadels, no matter their size, will have 3 vulnerability windows and will be attacked via Entosis Link mechanics (though no Command Node spawning). Please read CCP Ytterbium's blog Citadels, sieges and you and inform yourself about all the details! We encourage you also to read the companion blog I feel safe in Citadel city. Constructive discussions and questions are most welcome, additionally the CSM has compiled an excellent FAQ for your convenience. Too many windows [of entosis], too many hassle. Not enough reward! Stations should be destroyable. Permanently! Not just entosis the sht out of it... and then something might* happen... geez.. Sorry people but even I could come up with a better idea of nullsec than this. And I live in High Sec!!! (okay, for a reason but this just doesn't give me enough of a fizz to go to null) I don't belive in reincarnation I've never believed in it in my previous lives either...

CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 4054	Posted - 2015.08.14 10:46:44 - [117] - Quote Mr Grape Drink wrote: Why are vulnerability windows bigger for bigger structures? Shouldnt they be harder to take than the smaller versions? As it stands in NPC null an XL would be open 12 hours a day if spread across evenly. If you're a mainly USTZ group and you set it during the week to come out after work hours, you would need to set it to say 5PM - 5AM. Gives people of a different TZ plenty of options to hit you while you're asleep. Nothing like having massive guns and doomsdays attached to your citadel and your gunner asleep at the wheel! Considering the XL will cost billions and billions of isk, you should be able to really force all engagements on it into your own primetime. Vulnerability timers are bigger for L and XL because those are meant to be large corporation assets, with more manpower to protect them than M. Besides L and XL will have access to advanced weaponry that M doesn't have (in low/null/wormhole space) so it makes sense for them to require more effort to maintain.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 4054	Posted - 2015.08.14 10:48:06 - [118] - Quote Hendrink Collie wrote: Quick question: How will jump beacons and cyno beacons work with these new structures. Since ultimately the citadels will be replacing POSes, is the module still going to be floating in space a ways from the citadel, or will it be more along the lines of randomly showing roughly 30km from the undock? Thanks! It will most likely be showing in space near to the structure - it ultimately depends on how the implementation is going to be, where are not there yet

gascanu Bearing Srl. 231	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:06:58 - [119] - Quote so, where will 0.0 NPC space end up in? sov with occupancy, sov without occupancy? high/low sec npc? wh???
Kazon Necht Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 2	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:08:41 - [120] - Quote Lots of good comments here so far. Many echo the things that I've heard on our comms. It appears to me that the reason CCP appears to have missed the mark, is because the problems that people complained about the most were not really solved. Instead, they were changed into something that appears to be far more hated by most people that use them. The problem that I see here is that CCP focused so much on what people didn't like, that they didn't focus on what people did like about the POS system. I admit that the structure grind was boring and terrible. But there was so much that was good about POSs. The results of destroying a POS, especially one in use, were good. The fact that there was reward, outside of just blowing them up for fun, made it worth the time. Or at least, part of the time it took. For one, I like the idea of unifying the POS code into something more intuitive. That rigs will explode with the POS is a great idea. It happens now with ships, and despite the cost, we still fit rigs to our ships. The fact that things are being more unified is good. For me, that's where the positive part of it ends. Only manual guns? That's not a good idea. Corps used POSs and the automatic guns to catch people in traps and blow them up. Now that's gone. That was a tactic that you've changed. Transporting loot to a nearby station? Are you serious? This is the worst decision, outside of the 3 step entosis process, that's been made. Right now several entities, especially those of us that live in wormholes, destroy POSs and spend the hours grinding because of the loot that might drop. The fact that you are taking this away and making it "safer" to store things in a citadel is a mistake. One thing EVE has often done is manage risk:reward well, and now, you've completely changed that. The fact that the entosis link is the ONLY way that citadels can be destroyed seems counter intuitive. The problem before was the time it took to do the grind. Now, suddenly, you've made it take longer and you've managed to make it even more boring. At the end of the day, it would have likely been better if you could RF a POS with a link and then have to destroy it by bringing a fleet to actually shoot it. It leaves a reason for supers to exist and a reason for people to bring their dreads and cap fleets out, along with supporting subcap fleets. As a wormhole player, I'm absolutely blown away at the disregard for how we operate. Keep in mind that while you did not originally intend for us to live in wormholes forever, wormhole dwellers managed to make it work, even with the broken POS code. EVE players are resourceful like that. In wormholes, we may spend weeks or months planning the eviction of another corporation. It's our version of sov warfare. We will slowly seed the system with capitals, carefully working around the rules of wormhole masses and timelines. This system works well; it isn't generally complained about by anybody that understands how wormholes work. The reward is the potential to capture ships, modules and other things inside of the wormhole we are attacking. You see, we generally don't want the system, what we want is to fight (PVP), to win and to take our spoils and leave. By changing it so you don't have to anchor at a moon, you've effectively made it nearly impossible for us to protect our home system without the risk of somebody just putting up a citadel in our system. After all, we can't declare it a home system and somehow stop that. By removing the drops, you've removed any real reason for us to siege other corps, because the reward is bad for the tremendous amount of risk. Not all sieges work out in the aggressor's favor. It really seems to me that this new system is all about safety. I feel as though it was created to appease the new players who you want to invest their money in buying PLEX and building up what they own. It really ignores the existing players who have, under the existing risk/reward benefits of the existing system, come to understand and accept the risks of POSs. I play EVE because it's really a difficult game to master and every decision that I make puts me at risk. It's a bit realistic in that sense. By taking it away and making it a "safer" game to play, you may attract new players, but are you going to retain the existing players like me with 5-6 accounts that are willing to spend a lot of time online to grind towards my end goal? Perhaps that isn't your objective here. I will close with this thought: I do not believe that this system will increase PVP or game enjoyment at all. If those two things aren't your goals, then what are your goals so we can understand why you've changed this system so much?

Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1540	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:16:36 - [121] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: xttz wrote: The decision to only affect new structures via Entosis is both a mistake and a missed opportunity; a kneejerk reaction to the bogeyman of structure grinding. While the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less central role. Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. Triage carriers patching up starbases have a similarly mirrored role, frantically trying to restore these assets while making themselves vulnerable. This was always a fantastic avenue for content, with opponents setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE. It feels like you're scooping a load of sand out of the sandbox. By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but actively maintained structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. The simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling effect on structures, but actual damage should need to be inflicted in order to destroy them for good, while an investment in repair ability should be required to restore them again. Yes, please! I've been promoting this idea for months! Agreed, make the entosis link disable hardeners/reduce resists rather than destroy the structure. That should still need guns. Big guns. Lots of big guns.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1800	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:22:34 - [122] - Quote Kazon Necht wrote: Lots of good comments here so far. Many echo the things that I've heard on our comms. It appears to me that the reason CCP appears to have missed the mark, is because the problems that people complained about the most were not really solved. Instead, they were changed into something that appears to be far more hated by most people that use them. The problem that I see here is that CCP focused so much on what people didn't like, that they didn't focus on what people did like about the POS system. I admit that the structure grind was boring and terrible. But there was so much that was good about POSs. The results of destroying a POS, especially one in use, were good. The fact that there was reward, outside of just blowing them up for fun, made it worth the time. Or at least, part of the time it took. For one, I like the idea of unifying the POS code into something more intuitive. That rigs will explode with the POS is a great idea. It happens now with ships, and despite the cost, we still fit rigs to our ships. The fact that things are being more unified is good. For me, that's where the positive part of it ends. Only manual guns? That's not a good idea. Corps used POSs and the automatic guns to catch people in traps and blow them up. Now that's gone. That was a tactic that you've changed. Transporting loot to a nearby station? Are you serious? This is the worst decision, outside of the 3 step entosis process, that's been made. Right now several entities, especially those of us that live in wormholes, destroy POSs and spend the hours grinding because of the loot that might drop. The fact that you are taking this away and making it "safer" to store things in a citadel is a mistake. One thing EVE has often done is manage risk:reward well, and now, you've completely changed that. The fact that the entosis link is the ONLY way that citadels can be destroyed seems counter intuitive. The problem before was the time it took to do the grind. Now, suddenly, you've made it take longer and you've managed to make it even more boring. At the end of the day, it would have likely been better if you could RF a POS with a link and then have to destroy it by bringing a fleet to actually shoot it. It leaves a reason for supers to exist and a reason for people to bring their dreads and cap fleets out, along with supporting subcap fleets. As a wormhole player, I'm absolutely blown away at the disregard for how we operate. Keep in mind that while you did not originally intend for us to live in wormholes forever, wormhole dwellers managed to make it work, even with the broken POS code. EVE players are resourceful like that. In wormholes, we may spend weeks or months planning the eviction of another corporation. It's our version of sov warfare. We will slowly seed the system with capitals, carefully working around the rules of wormhole masses and timelines. This system works well; it isn't generally complained about by anybody that understands how wormholes work. The reward is the potential to capture ships, modules and other things inside of the wormhole we are attacking. You see, we generally don't want the system, what we want is to fight (PVP), to win and to take our spoils and leave. By changing it so you don't have to anchor at a moon, you've effectively made it nearly impossible for us to protect our home system without the risk of somebody just putting up a citadel in our system. After all, we can't declare it a home system and somehow stop that. By removing the drops, you've removed any real reason for us to siege other corps, because the reward is bad for the tremendous amount of risk. Not all sieges work out in the aggressor's favor. It really seems to me that this new system is all about safety. I feel as though it was created to appease the new players who you want to invest their money in buying PLEX and building up what they own. It really ignores the existing players who have, under the existing risk/reward benefits of the existing system, come to understand and accept the risks of POSs. I play EVE because it's really a difficult game to master and every decision that I make puts me at risk. It's a bit realistic in that sense. By taking it away and making it a "safer" game to play, you may attract new players, but are you going to retain the existing players like me with 5-6 accounts that are willing to spend a lot of time online to grind towards my end goal? Perhaps that isn't your objective here. I will close with this thought: I do not believe that this system will increase PVP or game enjoyment at all. If those two things aren't your goals, then what are your goals so we can understand why you've changed this system so much? This is an excellent post. This bit made me wonder... Kazon Necht wrote: The fact that the entosis link is the ONLY way that citadels can be destroyed seems counter intuitive. The problem before was the time it took to do the grind. Now, suddenly, you've made it take longer and you've managed to make it even more boring. At the end of the day, it would have likely been better if you could RF a POS with a link and then have to destroy it by bringing a fleet to actually shoot it. It leaves a reason for supers to exist and a reason for people to bring their dreads and cap fleets out, along with supporting subcap fleets. What if either way worked for structures? Keep both options alive so that smaller players can harass bigger ones, high sec stuff doesnt need hours upon hours of EHP grinding and at the same time we retain/revitalise some use for capitals?
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1540	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:23:32 - [123] - Quote xttz wrote: Cynica Deetric wrote: I see an easy fix to counter the trollcepter is to JUST let the citadels defences work like POS defences do now.... if you want to shoot the guns/mods good if you want to let the **** AI do it, that is ok to. Or make it so that structures only automatically target active hostile entosis links. That way structures can't be abused into killing anything that comes on grid, but require a bit more thought to compromise than a disposable t1 frigate. The latter is especially important for smaller corps or individuals. By requiring a little more effort to attack structures, we'll also (hopefully) end up with situations where both sides are invested in a fight, rather than the attackers simply running away if anyone shows up. Perhaps turn the existing station guns modules into station sentries that do autofire but also have station guns that don't but are manually controlled and more effective. That way the autofiring guns will defend against trollceptors but can be taken out by an attacking force. A real defence would require manning the guns on the station.
gascanu Bearing Srl. 231	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:25:43 - [124] - Quote ... since introduction of the dreads ships class, theyr MAIN role was shooting structures... now, you plan on take away they main role and give it to ... trollceptors; to make it even worse, no one say a thing about what or if dreads will get a new role.... oh, and you keep asking yourself why the palyers are so upset... like really, wth ?
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1540	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:26:54 - [125] - Quote Orm Magnustat wrote: ... How about keeping the classical POS concept alongside these new "structures" and just let the players decide what kind of station they really want? I'd think that this is a means to introduce new flexible POS code in such a way as the old POS's and therefore the legacy code can eventually be stropped out completely.
Max Kolonko WATAHA. Unseen Wolves 535	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:31:56 - [126] - Quote Kazon Necht wrote: ...... ...... I will close with this thought: I do not believe that this system will increase PVP or game enjoyment at all. If those two things aren't your goals, then what are your goals so we can understand why you've changed this system so much? Not only it will not increase it it may reduce it. Today if you faint pos bash enemy will try to defend if they have enough people. With the new system they will turtle in, as their assets are perfectly safe even if you will follow into destruction. They will just log off in scaner and place new citadel while you are gone. Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 172	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:40:06 - [127] - Quote I have a feeling that both pimped super-expensive XL citadels are equally vulnerable as dirt-cheap throw-away M ones. That's kinda not reasonable...
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 172	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:51:11 - [128] - Quote Also, I have a huge and desperate complain about timezone war. ATM, we have 2 engagements for a POS. First one is timed by attacker. The second one is timed by the defender, if he cares about his POS. If he doesnt care - attacker can more or less affect the second timer too. What you suggest - is to make 3 timers, every one of them is controlled by defender. And mind you, they will be set for the worst timezone the attacker has. To wear him down, to bore him to death. 3 timers vs 1 timer! How does it fit to your goal "Structure combat is more exciting"? (quote) FFS!
Dash Moore Betruger Trust Holding AG 1	Posted - 2015.08.14 12:26:09 - [129] - Quote Please have a think about giving us the option to either destroy or capture a citadel. I think it would give more strategic depth to the whole system by allowing us to take over enemy citadels instead of just destroying them. While you sometimes want to burn everything to the ground sometimes it would be useful to take over an enemy stronghold as a staging point for your campaign. As an added food for thought, maybe give us the option to deploy dust mercs in breaching ships to capture the station if we want to take it over. In addition maybe pay out the 10% safety fee to the alliance that destroyed the station would give another incentive for more destruction. All in all I absolutely love your ideas and visions for these citadels now it is refinement time. Good work, well done Team Game of Drones
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 640	Posted - 2015.08.14 13:07:23 - [130] - Quote A common theme I'm seeing from this thread is loss of functionality and depth from existing game mechanics. Specifically the key points are: 1) Structures not engaging targets without manual action 2) Lack of HP-based mechanics and related ship roles (especially capitals) 3) Ability to subvert timezone-based mechanisms (stront-timing and kiting) I'm a little concerned that CCP have simply written off these concepts, and in doing so are removing a lot of depth from the game. Can we please get some word from a dev about what concerns they have with these ideas, and why they seem to have been so easily dismissed? I have no doubt a discussion with the Eve community could find a way to retain a varied approach to handling structures that properly reflects the sandbox nature of EVE.

Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1540	Posted - 2015.08.14 13:26:40 - [131] - Quote [quote=Dash Moore]Please have a think about giving us the option to either destroy or capture a citadel. .../quote] Being able to capture them would stifle the market in producing them, make them destructible only in my view..
Leila Numanor Sleeper Protection Agency SL33PERS 33	Posted - 2015.08.14 13:45:14 - [132] - Quote Kazon Necht wrote: Lots of good comments here so far. Many echo the things that I've heard on our comms. It appears to me that the reason CCP appears to have missed the mark, is because the problems that people complained about the most were not really solved. Instead, they were changed into something that appears to be far more hated by most people that use them. The problem that I see here is that CCP focused so much on what people didn't like, that they didn't focus on what people did like about the POS system. I admit that the structure grind was boring and terrible. But there was so much that was good about POSs. The results of destroying a POS, especially one in use, were good. The fact that there was reward, outside of just blowing them up for fun, made it worth the time. Or at least, part of the time it took. For one, I like the idea of unifying the POS code into something more intuitive. That rigs will explode with the POS is a great idea. It happens now with ships, and despite the cost, we still fit rigs to our ships. The fact that things are being more unified is good. For me, that's where the positive part of it ends. Only manual guns? That's not a good idea. Corps used POSs and the automatic guns to catch people in traps and blow them up. Now that's gone. That was a tactic that you've changed. Transporting loot to a nearby station? Are you serious? This is the worst decision, outside of the 3 step entosis process, that's been made. Right now several entities, especially those of us that live in wormholes, destroy POSs and spend the hours grinding because of the loot that might drop. The fact that you are taking this away and making it "safer" to store things in a citadel is a mistake. One thing EVE has often done is manage risk:reward well, and now, you've completely changed that. The fact that the entosis link is the ONLY way that citadels can be destroyed seems counter intuitive. The problem before was the time it took to do the grind. Now, suddenly, you've made it take longer and you've managed to make it even more boring. At the end of the day, it would have likely been better if you could RF a POS with a link and then have to destroy it by bringing a fleet to actually shoot it. It leaves a reason for supers to exist and a reason for people to bring their dreads and cap fleets out, along with supporting subcap fleets. As a wormhole player, I'm absolutely blown away at the disregard for how we operate. Keep in mind that while you did not originally intend for us to live in wormholes forever, wormhole dwellers managed to make it work, even with the broken POS code. EVE players are resourceful like that. In wormholes, we may spend weeks or months planning the eviction of another corporation. It's our version of sov warfare. We will slowly seed the system with capitals, carefully working around the rules of wormhole masses and timelines. This system works well; it isn't generally complained about by anybody that understands how wormholes work. The reward is the potential to capture ships, modules and other things inside of the wormhole we are attacking. You see, we generally don't want the system, what we want is to fight (PVP), to win and to take our spoils and leave. By changing it so you don't have to anchor at a moon, you've effectively made it nearly impossible for us to protect our home system without the risk of somebody just putting up a citadel in our system. After all, we can't declare it a home system and somehow stop that. By removing the drops, you've removed any real reason for us to siege other corps, because the reward is bad for the tremendous amount of risk. Not all sieges work out in the aggressor's favor. It really seems to me that this new system is all about safety. I feel as though it was created to appease the new players who you want to invest their money in buying PLEX and building up what they own. It really ignores the existing players who have, under the existing risk/reward benefits of the existing system, come to understand and accept the risks of POSs. I play EVE because it's really a difficult game to master and every decision that I make puts me at risk. It's a bit realistic in that sense. By taking it away and making it a "safer" game to play, you may attract new players, but are you going to retain the existing players like me with 5-6 accounts that are willing to spend a lot of time online to grind towards my end goal? Perhaps that isn't your objective here. I will close with this thought: I do not believe that this system will increase PVP or game enjoyment at all. If those two things aren't your goals, then what are your goals so we can understand why you've changed this system so much? Nice post! To bad they won't here you.. beacons online is coming to wormholes. We found a work around for this horrible problem. We just dismantled all our wh's not to long after this wonderful info came out done, fixed, problem gone. Next idea entosis asteroid belts for the miners. Rediculious at best!!
Sequester Risalo Semiki Minerals and Missiles Company Ltd. 156	Posted - 2015.08.14 14:03:54 - [133] - Quote Aeril Malkyre wrote: This concerns me. This is a loss of functionality. Right now, someone with the means could set up a solo POS with enough guns and ewar that no one would bother attacking unless they had friends and some time. Now any ******* that happens by during the vulnerability window can Entosis the place, with no defense or recourse, except for the owner to be online and near the structure at that time. That's a massive loss of capability for something that's supposed to be replacing the POS system. I understand that you 'hear' the trollceptor concern, but what is going to be done about it? Are we just expected to play Entosis tug of war for a few days until the attacker gets bored? Those were my thoughts after the new structures were introduced the first time. I voiced my concers but they remain unheard. I predicted tha low class wormholes - the home of single player corporations will become deserted wastelands. And I predicted that CCP will not achieve the goal described in http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/ : "Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack." I know plenty people who would want to use to use a structure bunt won't do so. because doing it would be stupid under the new rules. Vincent Athena wrote: A POS can defend itself while I'm on a week long cruise in the Caribbean, and a war hits. These new Citadels cannot. Why do I want that? I have answered for myself that I do not want that and taken down and sold my faction pos. Bienator II wrote: i don't think it is a big deal to convince someone to man the guns of the new fancy structure. i guess all you have to do is to log in an alt and stay docked. So i pretty much see it as a given that the thing will shoot you. Esp since you have to attack it in the vuln window which implies its the highest activity time of the defender. I don't think that's how it works. Whoever "mans the guns" will have to actively do something to be useful. Otherwise you could suggest an alt to always stay in space orbiting the citydel. That's not going to be helpful either.
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 345	Posted - 2015.08.14 14:32:15 - [134] - Quote Sequester Risalo wrote: Aeril Malkyre wrote: This concerns me. This is a loss of functionality. Right now, someone with the means could set up a solo POS with enough guns and ewar that no one would bother attacking unless they had friends and some time. Now any ******* that happens by during the vulnerability window can Entosis the place, with no defense or recourse, except for the owner to be online and near the structure at that time. That's a massive loss of capability for something that's supposed to be replacing the POS system. I understand that you 'hear' the trollceptor concern, but what is going to be done about it? Are we just expected to play Entosis tug of war for a few days until the attacker gets bored? Those were my thoughts after the new structures were introduced the first time. I voiced my concers but they remain unheard. I predicted tha low class wormholes - the home of single player corporations will become deserted wastelands. And I predicted that CCP will not achieve the goal described in http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/ : "Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack." I know plenty people who would want to use to use a structure bunt won't do so. because doing it would be stupid under the new rules. Vincent Athena wrote: A POS can defend itself while I'm on a week long cruise in the Caribbean, and a war hits. These new Citadels cannot. Why do I want that? I have answered for myself that I do not want that and taken down and sold my faction pos. Bienator II wrote: i don't think it is a big deal to convince someone to man the guns of the new fancy structure. i guess all you have to do is to log in an alt and stay docked. So i pretty much see it as a given that the thing will shoot you. Esp since you have to attack it in the vuln window which implies its the highest activity time of the defender. I don't think that's how it works. Whoever "mans the guns" will have to actively do something to be useful. Otherwise you could suggest an alt to always stay in space orbiting the citydel. That's not going to be helpful either. I'm looking at the timings and here is what I see. Assuming that you are using a Medium Citadel (being a solo/small corporation) you have a total of 6 hours per week of vulnerable time. Now, we can immediately make assumptions about a small corporations play time, etc. but you have to leave room for the fact that 6 hours a week of game time in EVE is not an extensive commitment to make especially for a group that has chosen to own a portion of space. There are a number of ways to set up your time, but one could very well be as follows: 3 consecutive hours on Tuesday night (you know you're able to be online most Tuesday nights) 3 consecutive hours on Saturday night Come Tuesday night, you have RL things to take care of and your structure gets reinforced while you are away. You are now in Reinforced 1. Because the reinforcement time is half the vulnerability window, the next opportunity to attack the structure will be the next Tuesday reinforcement period. Reinforcement time = 3 hours (6 hours / 2) and because the attack occurred sometime during Tuesday's timer, it would flow through Saturday and into the next Tuesday. Come next Tuesday, if you still cannot log in at the appropriate time, your structure is in Vulnerable 2 and open for attack during any vulnerable window going forward. To remove this, you have to spend 10 minutes Entosis defending the structure before someone comes along and spends 30 minutes attacking it. If someone does attack this without you being there again, you enter Reinforced 2 and again, depending on when the attack started, you will have basically an entire week before the next vulnerable phase begins. Then you again have to spend 10 minutes defending the structure vs. the 30 minute attack period. All in all, unless I'm reading this wrong, it is entirely possible to have a 3 week attack requirement for a medium Citadel where your total effort to thwart is 10 minutes during your preset vulnerable periods of your choosing. It seems from these calculations also that setting your consecutive hours equal to or less than the reinforcement period (total hours / 2) is your best option for extending your time as much as possible away from the initial attack.
Orm Magnustat Red Serpent Industries 138	Posted - 2015.08.14 15:03:14 - [135] - Quote Thank you devs for answering all those questions about technical details and stuff - but perhaps you should give a little more thought to the more fundamental questions raised in this thread (like the most basic "WHY?") or the general objections formulated by quite some exemplary posts in here ..... You might not be able to adress these openly in this thread, but CCP surely could gain a lot by going through them attentively. I once played a game where the english publisher depended on an asian developer for whom the english version only seemed to be a niche market - I really pitied those guys then (and had to cut them a lot of slack). They were struggling like hell, but almost never could get what they (and their players) wanted. Instead, after changes in developer studios, the game more and more lost track of its own core during the years, until it came to the point where many players (including myself) could no longer bear to to look at the mutilated corpse of a once loved entity. and quit. That was when after some time I decided to give eve a chance - game management and development in one hand! wow! "They really can do the right thing without any dependancies" This prospect made me quite enthusiastic. Also i liked the sincerity displayed by devs when the meticulously tried to balance ships, their consideration not to take away functionality from players when they changed skills ..... really thought I might have found heaven then Sadly for almost a year now I have to watch CCP practically selfdestructing (under all those most advantageous circumstances). Promoting change for changes sake, ignoring reasonable players wishes and needs, discontinuing core funtionalities and priciples and generally disregarding players efforts and goals. Does CCP really feel that it still has too many players?
Aeril Malkyre Knights of the Ouroboros 428	Posted - 2015.08.14 15:23:18 - [136] - Quote Kazon Necht wrote: Lots of good comments here so far. Many echo the things that I've heard on our comms. It appears to me that the reason CCP appears to have missed the mark, is because the problems that people complained about the most were not really solved. Instead, they were changed into something that appears to be far more hated by most people that use them. The problem that I see here is that CCP focused so much on what people didn't like, that they didn't focus on what people did like about the POS system. I admit that the structure grind was boring and terrible. But there was so much that was good about POSs. The results of destroying a POS, especially one in use, were good. The fact that there was reward, outside of just blowing them up for fun, made it worth the time. Or at least, part of the time it took. For one, I like the idea of unifying the POS code into something more intuitive. That rigs will explode with the POS is a great idea. It happens now with ships, and despite the cost, we still fit rigs to our ships. The fact that things are being more unified is good. For me, that's where the positive part of it ends. Only manual guns? That's not a good idea. Corps used POSs and the automatic guns to catch people in traps and blow them up. Now that's gone. That was a tactic that you've changed. Transporting loot to a nearby station? Are you serious? This is the worst decision, outside of the 3 step entosis process, that's been made. Right now several entities, especially those of us that live in wormholes, destroy POSs and spend the hours grinding because of the loot that might drop. The fact that you are taking this away and making it "safer" to store things in a citadel is a mistake. One thing EVE has often done is manage risk:reward well, and now, you've completely changed that. The fact that the entosis link is the ONLY way that citadels can be destroyed seems counter intuitive. The problem before was the time it took to do the grind. Now, suddenly, you've made it take longer and you've managed to make it even more boring. At the end of the day, it would have likely been better if you could RF a POS with a link and then have to destroy it by bringing a fleet to actually shoot it. It leaves a reason for supers to exist and a reason for people to bring their dreads and cap fleets out, along with supporting subcap fleets. As a wormhole player, I'm absolutely blown away at the disregard for how we operate. Keep in mind that while you did not originally intend for us to live in wormholes forever, wormhole dwellers managed to make it work, even with the broken POS code. EVE players are resourceful like that. In wormholes, we may spend weeks or months planning the eviction of another corporation. It's our version of sov warfare. We will slowly seed the system with capitals, carefully working around the rules of wormhole masses and timelines. This system works well; it isn't generally complained about by anybody that understands how wormholes work. The reward is the potential to capture ships, modules and other things inside of the wormhole we are attacking. You see, we generally don't want the system, what we want is to fight (PVP), to win and to take our spoils and leave. By changing it so you don't have to anchor at a moon, you've effectively made it nearly impossible for us to protect our home system without the risk of somebody just putting up a citadel in our system. After all, we can't declare it a home system and somehow stop that. By removing the drops, you've removed any real reason for us to siege other corps, because the reward is bad for the tremendous amount of risk. Not all sieges work out in the aggressor's favor. It really seems to me that this new system is all about safety. I feel as though it was created to appease the new players who you want to invest their money in buying PLEX and building up what they own. It really ignores the existing players who have, under the existing risk/reward benefits of the existing system, come to understand and accept the risks of POSs. I play EVE because it's really a difficult game to master and every decision that I make puts me at risk. It's a bit realistic in that sense. By taking it away and making it a "safer" game to play, you may attract new players, but are you going to retain the existing players like me with 5-6 accounts that are willing to spend a lot of time online to grind towards my end goal? Perhaps that isn't your objective here. I will close with this thought: I do not believe that this system will increase PVP or game enjoyment at all. If those two things aren't your goals, then what are your goals so we can understand why you've changed this system so much? Not emptying quoting. This is a quality post, and outlines a lot of the troubling concepts around these fundamental changes in gameplay.
Ariete Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 44	Posted - 2015.08.14 15:50:01 - [137] - Quote A XL in wormhole space has 42 hours of vulnerability a week which means it has a 21 hour reinforcement window. The structure is vuanrable 6 hours a day. To put it in to RF will take half and hour, you then have to wait 84 hours for 3.5 vulnerability windows to pass by. You then RF it again taking half and hour then wait another 84 hours. Finally if you haven't got bored and given up it will take another half hour for the structure to go boom. Total time taken 169.5 hours or 7 days, 1 hour and 30 minutes. This sounds way to long considering that at the moment to take a POS down in a WH would take no more than 42 hours 1 day, 18 hours. So CSM IX ????
Awkward Pi Duolus Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 140	Posted - 2015.08.14 15:51:52 - [138] - Quote Ariete wrote: A XL in wormhole space has 42 hours of vulnerability a week which means it has a 21 hour reinforcement window. The structure is vuanrable 6 hours a day. To put it in to RF will take half and hour, you then have to wait 84 hours for 3.5 vulnerability windows to pass by. You then RF it again taking half and hour then wait another 84 hours. Finally if you haven't got bored and given up it will take another half hour for the structure to go boom. Total time taken 169.5 hours or 7 days, 1 hour and 30 minutes. This sounds way to long considering that at the moment to take a POS down in a WH would take no more than 42 hours 1 day, 18 hours. Tedium is the new constant in the new Eve - didn't you get the memo?
lisa 8 Caldari Provisions Caldari State 9	Posted - 2015.08.14 16:23:11 - [139] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Mr Grape Drink wrote: Why are vulnerability windows bigger for bigger structures? Shouldnt they be harder to take than the smaller versions? As it stands in NPC null an XL would be open 12 hours a day if spread across evenly. If you're a mainly USTZ group and you set it during the week to come out after work hours, you would need to set it to say 5PM - 5AM. Gives people of a different TZ plenty of options to hit you while you're asleep. Nothing like having massive guns and doomsdays attached to your citadel and your gunner asleep at the wheel! Considering the XL will cost billions and billions of isk, you should be able to really force all engagements on it into your own primetime. Larger structures implies more members online to cover a larger timezone. It's still only a fraction of the week compared to existing structures, so we are confident the big groups will have no problem covering this. This thinking on TZ coverage is flawed. Currently, there is less than a handful of groups in EvE that can provide multiple TZ coverage -EUTZ,USTZ & AUTZ do it. So that leaves the majority of the community without that ability. & with no automated defenses it leaves the structures open to attack, due to the enforced lengthy vulnerability windows. I also have some questions: 1) How long will it take to deploy my structure? Medium - One Hour Large - Two Hours X-Large - Four hours It took us a long time to get deployment times fixed with the current system with POS's & if these are to replace pos's and stations, then why are we going back to long times under this system. it makes no sense. 2) What is going to happen to the Starbase Defence Management skill, since under this new system; "Will my old POS defense skills work? No. They are going to require a new line of skills to operate, but most likely use existing gunnery and / or missile support skills. More details as we get them." Will we be reimbursed SP for this ? 3) Can you give some clarification as to how this fits in to the over vision for EVE, given on 1 hand CCP wants denser larger groups to be able to use & defend these structures, but on the other hand, CCP wants to steer away from large scale fights ( which in the past have been a major draw card in attracting new players to EVE). Also, given that your phasing out existing structures & thus removing the HP system, Can we please get a update on the question on the role of capitals & if they are will be allowed back into high sec, sooner rather than later. 4) After reading the below comment in the EVENEWS24 article, I was curious as to how you answer the concerns raised in it, as I agree with "some" of the points raised in it; "The structures look good & on paper this system might look good, but in practical application, it is worse than the HP system. There is no fun & enjoyment factor to be gained from this system. It is, just plain time consuming & boring. Vulnerability windows & Entosis module cycle times have already proven themselves to be too long in Fozzie Sov & have not been rebalanced despite community feed back. So now CCP want to take this bad mechanic and apply it to structures well ? Additionally, this system alienates & discriminates against people who don't or cant play game everyday or each week, for Real Life reasons like; * Family Life, * Being on vacation, or * Work commitments. No one wants a game to dictate to them, that they must have to play for X amount of time each day or week, despite the flexibilty being given here to structures, to nominate when X will occur. Shortening Vulnerability windows & decreasing Entosis link module cycle times are a start in making this better, but even that, is not a solution to failure of having a system, which forgets it is supposed to be a game, not a job." Thanks for a reply.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn Department 10 247	Posted - 2015.08.14 16:40:31 - [140] - Quote Orm Magnustat wrote: The train has caught speed - and I-¦m pretty sure nothing's gonna stop it .... Still there' s this one question on my mind. WHY?? Why going through all this pain of reinventing the wheel (POS) with all its uncertainties and potential (surefire) frustration ?! The introduction of this "other" kind of station will not bring in a single new player by itself. But for sure it will frustrate quite some veterans that built certain playstyles around the classical POS concept during all those years. Its just bringing pain to a lot of people who invested a lot of effort in the old system or just like the prinicple concept of firepower and fat shields that totally made up the inner logic of your game in all these years. You throw all this out of the window as if you just would like to manage a totally different game..... Has this entosis crap (that you are betting your farm on) actually stood the test of time in your eyes, so that you have to spread it across the whole of this universe? How about keeping the classical POS concept alongside these new "structures" and just let the players decide what kind of station they really want? I would assume bringing in the new Citadel type structures would enable CCP to get around the code problems and reinvent the corporation/alliance roles and permissions. This would then allow multiple corporation safe and secure use of corp structure services. This is the paradise scenario that industrialists have been asking CCP to implement for years. Assuming CCP want to make this a possibility, which I am not sure they have ever said in so many words, then it can be made a reality. Currently post-Crius I think most people aren't using POSes to do industry etc. The fall in office taxes from millions to maybe tens of thousands of ISK reveals this to be the case. POSes have in effect started to become obsolete. The 'Fozzie-Sov' changes appear to be making capital ships surplus to requirements especially with no need to apply damage to destroy structures. To my mind this doesn't make sense and I worry about the future of EVE Online if this is implemented. " They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. "-áRick. " Find out what ? "-áAbraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. "-áRick. Season four.-á-á ' The Walking Dead. ' .

Ben Ishikela 51	Posted - 2015.08.14 16:49:49 - [141] - Quote Everyone can how long that vulnerability window is. (ie 3hours). but he wont see when the next window is. Therefor i would only set single hours if possible. (ie monday 18 &20 &22). Attacker wont know it. Its much safer than showing 3hours left (gives much time on formup). But it spans over 5hours. Well, is that a valuable decision or not? Add new modules or ships that can use tactics and strategies to shake any op meta or use totaly different gameplay yourself to make it happen! yay :) ....und Local braucht ganz dringend ein Update!
gascanu Bearing Srl. 232	Posted - 2015.08.14 18:12:50 - [142] - Quote so let's see: me player of eve online, deploy one of these new citadels on a dyspro moon; and, assuming worse case scenario- null space without occupancy - i'll have 12 h vulnerability/week; me, player of eve online, set all the entire 12h window right then, all 12h in one window; then i logoff; now the funny part begin: even i do absolutely nothing to defend, it will take 3(THREE)WEEKS for the attackers to kill it???! wow... just wow... oh and the cherry on top: 90%of my mined stuff will go to empire for free.... me, player of eve online ask CCP: bro', do you even eve?
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 346	Posted - 2015.08.14 18:28:40 - [143] - Quote gascanu wrote: so let's see: me player of eve online, deploy one of these new citadels on a dyspro moon; and, assuming worse case scenario- null space without occupancy - i'll have 12 h vulnerability/week; me, player of eve online, set all the entire 12h window right then, all 12h in one window; then i logoff; now the funny part begin: even i do absolutely nothing to defend, it will take 3(THREE)WEEKS for the attackers to kill it???! wow... just wow... oh and the cherry on top: 90%of my mined stuff will go to empire for free.... me, player of eve online ask CCP: bro', do you even eve? No. As I understand it: You set a 12 hour contiguous period of vulnerability. Your reinforcement time is 6 hours. If someone attacks you in hour one, the system goes reinforced and you can now be attacked again 6 hours later, 7 hours into your window. You are attacked, and then another 6 hours of vulnerability has to go by. 5 of these are left today (Saturday) and the remaining hour will tick off 1 hour into your next vulnerable window, the next Saturday. So you're looking at 1 week still. Seems that most of the timing has been proposed currently for about a week to attack a structure of any size.
gascanu Bearing Srl. 232	Posted - 2015.08.14 18:58:59 - [144] - Quote Obil Que wrote: gascanu wrote: so let's see: me player of eve online, deploy one of these new citadels on a dyspro moon; and, assuming worse case scenario- null space without occupancy - i'll have 12 h vulnerability/week; me, player of eve online, set all the entire 12h window right then, all 12h in one window; then i logoff; now the funny part begin: even i do absolutely nothing to defend, it will take 3(THREE)WEEKS for the attackers to kill it???! wow... just wow... oh and the cherry on top: 90%of my mined stuff will go to empire for free.... me, player of eve online ask CCP: bro', do you even eve? No. As I understand it: You set a 12 hour contiguous period of vulnerability. Your reinforcement time is 6 hours. If someone attacks you in hour one, the system goes reinforced and you can now be attacked again 6 hours later, 7 hours into your window. You are attacked, and then another 6 hours of vulnerability has to go by. 5 of these are left today (Saturday) and the remaining hour will tick off 1 hour into your next vulnerable window, the next Saturday. So you're looking at 1 week still. Seems that most of the timing has been proposed currently for about a week to attack a structure of any size. well thx for explaining it to me... easy and intuitive mechanic... lol
Maria Kitiare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 13	Posted - 2015.08.14 21:05:29 - [145] - Quote 5 cent CCP suggests a system where vulnerability windows are decided by the defending group. I donGÇÖt think this system will be used to make vulnerability windows match when you can defend. I see this being used to make the siege as painful as possible for the attacking team, causing them to get tired(like we see it happen all over null sec already). I suggest that structures are always vulnerable, but the defending player should be able to choose at what time of the day, the reinforce timer will end. That way you can still choose when you will be able to defend, but you wonGÇÖt have a system that is gamed with the objective of making your opponent hate him self and the game. You might not even be able to attack a group because their vulnerability timer is in the russian timezone, and you are required to attack in that timezone 3 times on different (work)days. CCP suggests reinforcement timers that spend over weeks. No. Just no. If you canGÇÖt take down the structure within a 3 day period(a weekend), then there is no use. No one wants to keep hole control for 300+ hours straight. I canGÇÖt ask my players to skip school and work to take part in the most boring gameplay in EVE today(Sitting still, scanning for new sigs while watching a movie) for weeks. If it canGÇÖt be done in a weekend, then evicting will become less happening, which will remove content from W-space. In w-space 1 reinforce timer would be enough, 2 or even 3, would just be irrelevant boring grinding that adds no interesting gameplay.
Vol Arm'OOO Bagel and Lox 715	Posted - 2015.08.14 21:11:25 - [146] - Quote while this may be better for contesting player stations - it is much worse and substantially more tedious and terrible for contesting player pos. For instance, say you have a small pos - you show up and shoot it - bring enough dps and it can be killed/reinforced in minutes. In fact, if the owner fails to stront it then it can be killed in one cycle. Now we are being forced into a one size fit all solution for pos, stations and everything else - so now the new small pos citadel equivalent is going to require a mandatory 3 cycles of magic wand waving - and there is no way to speed it up. Much worse then structure grinding. I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2381	Posted - 2015.08.14 21:54:04 - [147] - Quote Maria Kitiare wrote: 5 cent CCP suggests a system where vulnerability windows are decided by the defending group. I donGÇÖt think this system will be used to make vulnerability windows match when you can defend. I see this being used to make the siege as painful as possible for the attacking team, causing them to get tired(like we see it happen all over null sec already). I suggest that structures are always vulnerable, but the defending player should be able to choose at what time of the day, the reinforce timer will end. That way you can still choose when you will be able to defend, but you wonGÇÖt have a system that is gamed with the objective of making your opponent hate him self and the game. You might not even be able to attack a group because their vulnerability timer is in the russian timezone, and you are required to attack in that timezone 3 times on different (work)days. CCP suggests reinforcement timers that spend over weeks. No. Just no. If you canGÇÖt take down the structure within a 3 day period(a weekend), then there is no use. No one wants to keep hole control for 300+ hours straight. I canGÇÖt ask my players to skip school and work to take part in the most boring gameplay in EVE today(Sitting still, scanning for new sigs while watching a movie) for weeks. If it canGÇÖt be done in a weekend, then evicting will become less happening, which will remove content from W-space. In w-space 1 reinforce timer would be enough, 2 or even 3, would just be irrelevant boring grinding that adds no interesting gameplay. CCP have said that they don't intend these structures to take weeks to shoot down, read the blogs, read CCP's comments and replies already. Exactly how it will work for timers is still a little vague.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 14131	Posted - 2015.08.14 22:07:00 - [148] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: CCP have said that they don't intend these structures to take weeks to shoot down Then they need to clarify and release an infographic to that effect. Because this is a clusterfuck. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Inner Sorrow Nova Haven 0	Posted - 2015.08.14 22:25:36 - [149] - Quote Hey i have no idea how to submit a ticket on the issue of the submit button for submitting tickets is not working. I entered all the fields and attached a video of the issue my fleet ran into and wanted me to report on. Soooo yeeaaaahhh the submit button wasnt working thought id just mention the parradox of broken submit button.
Maria Kitiare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 15	Posted - 2015.08.15 00:33:32 - [150] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: CCP have said that they don't intend these structures to take weeks to shoot down, read the blogs, read CCP's comments and replies already. Exactly how it will work for timers is still a little vague. Yeah I know, honestly wrote the stuff many hours before posting it. :) If I have learned anything from giving CCP feedback though, it is that you can never say it enough.. "Did anyone say no stations in W-space? Nah, that must be something we imagined.. right?"

Mo Fizzle The Player Haters Corp 2	Posted - 2015.08.15 01:29:12 - [151] - Quote Why are you showing this convoluted entosis crap down our throats? It looks so uninteresting that I haven't the willpower to even bother learning the process and I cannot simply ignore it any more since it's spreading from sov nullsec Magic want structure destroying is painfully immersion breaking, especially when done by some little ship. If you must have it, just limit it to first reinforcement or have it disable stuff or something. Also, say something concrete about caps and supers ASAP because many subscriptions are hanging by a thread waiting for this. Leaving it too late, past the point where people have given up on waiting and caring, will be, I dare say impossible to entice accounts back.
Mo Fizzle The Player Haters Corp 2	Posted - 2015.08.15 02:29:45 - [152] - Quote You mention just one type of fuel? Can you expand on this please. Are you saying removal of racial fuel blocks?
Kage S3kkou State War Academy Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.08.15 03:01:24 - [153] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Maria Kitiare wrote: 5 cent CCP suggests a system where vulnerability windows are decided by the defending group. I donGÇÖt think this system will be used to make vulnerability windows match when you can defend. I see this being used to make the siege as painful as possible for the attacking team, causing them to get tired(like we see it happen all over null sec already). I suggest that structures are always vulnerable, but the defending player should be able to choose at what time of the day, the reinforce timer will end. That way you can still choose when you will be able to defend, but you wonGÇÖt have a system that is gamed with the objective of making your opponent hate him self and the game. You might not even be able to attack a group because their vulnerability timer is in the russian timezone, and you are required to attack in that timezone 3 times on different (work)days. CCP suggests reinforcement timers that spend over weeks. No. Just no. If you canGÇÖt take down the structure within a 3 day period(a weekend), then there is no use. No one wants to keep hole control for 300+ hours straight. I canGÇÖt ask my players to skip school and work to take part in the most boring gameplay in EVE today(Sitting still, scanning for new sigs while watching a movie) for weeks. If it canGÇÖt be done in a weekend, then evicting will become less happening, which will remove content from W-space. In w-space 1 reinforce timer would be enough, 2 or even 3, would just be irrelevant boring grinding that adds no interesting gameplay. CCP have said that they don't intend these structures to take weeks to shoot down, read the blogs, read CCP's comments and replies already. Exactly how it will work for timers is still a little vague. Actually, it is kinda explained, but isn't. In the example given in the dev blog, Reinforcement timers are based on the what GMT time the structure successfully enters reinforced mode 1 - 23. Say, you set your vulnerabilty window cover the hours 9 -13 GMT & someone attacks the structure & it enters reinforced mode at 11 GMT, then the window is calculated by the owner, by looking at how they have set up their vulnerabilty windows and adding 11 to it. It is not 11 + 11 = 22, but rather you look at the spread of when you have set your vulnerability windows and add 11 to the time at which the structure entered reinforce mode, to the vulnerabilty hours, which of course could be set over multiple days. However like currently, a count down timer will still appear against the structure. So in that way, yes, it could take a week before the structure exits its first phase of reinforcement and susceptible to be pushed into phase 2 or 3. However where the dev blog runs into trouble is here: "Reinforcement duration may change depending on the structure type and size GÇô larger structures may have a reinforcement timer set to half the vulnerability window, while smaller ones may have longer reinforcement timers to give owners more time to react." Which suggests there is a alternate way to change the length of the reinforcement timer, but it is not explained further in the blog. It also hits trouble with The Entosis link contest; "[A structure that is partially contested with an entosis link will delay the vulnerability or deployment timer indefinitely, until such time where the owner uses his own entosis link to remove the contested status[, or an attacker chooses to fully attack it. The duration will however count toward the vulnerability or deployment timer GÇô a structure that needs 4 hours to be deployed, but is stuck in a contested state for 5 days can be immediately deployed if the owner removes this particular status with his own entosis link." So right here CCP acknowledge the timers can be kited, by keeping it in a contested state, but if the attacker pushes it into reinforcement mode, the timer will still be worked against the vulnerabilty window schedule, set by the owner. So you can push the timer outside of the vulnerabilty window in which you choose to attack, say using the above example to 16 GMT, but then the calculation would use 16 instead of 11. Or alternately you could hold a group to ransom by keeping the structure in contested mode indefinitely, So this needs, more explaination and thought given to it because there is nothing to stop this happening in any of the phases, which amounts to bad game play.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2384	Posted - 2015.08.15 03:36:51 - [154] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: No that was something left out of this blog, but the time between vulnerability windows will be shorter for the smaller structures, and our rough estimates on this would be a week in total from start to finish. This is something we want a lot of feedback on though, exactly how many hours and the times between cycles. <---- RTFM, or rather Read the Dev replies. And you won't end up making assumptions.
Grognard Commissar EVE University Ivy League 1	Posted - 2015.08.15 03:42:34 - [155] - Quote Quote: Will Citadel weapons be automated? No. that's is THE DUMBEST thing i've ever heard from ccp... i mean, seriously? CODE. will just fly around in trollceptors now, and reinforce all the things. don't even try to argue about concord. they'll just wardec all the alt structure corps out there. also, hisec wardeccers will have a heyday with all this. currently, possed can have enough guns to fend off anyone that isn't serious about taking down the POS... as it should be. not everyone can keep an alt logged in through every vulnerability. ll it does is add another boring job in the game.
danile666 Peripheral Madness 5	Posted - 2015.08.15 03:53:09 - [156] - Quote I am still curious about the NPC null stuff that the devs keep avoiding. How will occupancy be decided for NPC null? Are you giving us no option to shorten our vulnerability window there? Or are you doing automatic max occupancy? An answer on the direction there would be nice.
Kage S3kkou State War Academy Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.08.15 03:54:27 - [157] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: No that was something left out of this blog, but the time between vulnerability windows will be shorter for the smaller structures, and our rough estimates on this would be a week in total from start to finish. This is something we want a lot of feedback on though, exactly how many hours and the times between cycles. <---- RTFM, or rather Read the Dev replies. And you won't end up making assumptions. Yes, the key part of that being "smaller structures". What we have here, is a dev blog that defines the amount of time for vulnerability windows for structures & the formula for the calculation of when a structure exits reinforced mode. In order to achieve the "our rough estimates on this would be a week in total from start to finish" the formula has to be changed so it can be applied to larger structures equally or else the concerns of it possibly taking weeks & the ability to keep a structure in the contested state, stands.
Kage S3kkou State War Academy Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.08.15 04:00:58 - [158] - Quote Grognard Commissar wrote: Quote: Will Citadel weapons be automated? No. that's is THE DUMBEST thing i've ever heard from ccp... i mean, seriously? CODE. will just fly around in trollceptors now, and reinforce all the things. don't even try to argue about concord. they'll just wardec all the alt structure corps out there. also, hisec wardeccers will have a heyday with all this. currently, possed can have enough guns to fend off anyone that isn't serious about taking down the POS... as it should be. not everyone can keep an alt logged in through every vulnerability. ll it does is add another boring job in the game. I don't play EvE to babysit a structure for hours, so, without non-automated defenses, screw a citadel, i'll just do all my production in a station. it's not even worth the bonuses at that point. Not arguing with you, but you do realise that these structures are going to replace stations and even NPC stations will be changed or removed at some point in the future (although not now), as hinted at in the dev blog. "So, we quickly decided that our new structures would need to be destructible, especially since they are going to be available everywhere from high-security to wormhole space. However, this introduces another problem: we want our structures to be used, but one of the deterrents against that goal is the fact they compete against existing NPC stations and player outposts *(before we nuke them that is*).".
ISD Supogo ISD Community Communications Liaisons 504	Posted - 2015.08.15 05:12:27 - [159] - Quote Removed an off-topic post. Quote: Forum rules 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited. Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster. ISD Supogo Lieutenant Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Sasha Sen Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance 9	Posted - 2015.08.15 07:39:11 - [160] - Quote Dear CCP, Why no medical bays in WH's? Accidental bug circumvented the standings requirement, shortly after bug got promoted to feature. Can we have the same team who decided that the bug shall not be a bug anymore working on WH citadels?

Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 279	Posted - 2015.08.15 08:12:17 - [161] - Quote It seems to me that this whole timer system was thought of over pizza and vast quantities of beer, and by the one who had drunk the most It's just waaaay overcomplicated to probably bother with as a small industrialist, and especially as a solo one who has a rl to live as well. I get the idea behind them, and yeah a new structure would be great. But without the mandatory ties built in. But every single time I read about the timers it just fries my brain a little more, guys, it's a game...get a grip. Ok in hs apparently it would still need a wardec and we would be able to take it down, but if it's a public one that will cause so much grief for the guy on holiday with stuff stored in it, it wouldn't even be funny. So much for trying to make alternate market places What's this partially contested state as well? If a link is disrupted does that mean it stacks with someone coming along and adding another 20 mins until they hit the whole amount of time needed? Much better would be for it to reset if it's not done in one hit.
Eryn Velasquez 107	Posted - 2015.08.15 09:18:22 - [162] - Quote Just some thoughts about this whole entosis and destruction thing: 1. Create Entosis Links for ship classes, S, M, L, XL, 2. For every stage leading to the destruction of a XL structure, more entosis power is needed, regardless of the time needed through index levels. For example: To entose a XL structure into stage 1, only a small ship is needed, for stage 2 a small group of cruisers, for stage 3 a small fleet of battlecruisers or battleships and for the final destruction you'll need to field a group of capitals or a big bs fleet. _GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
Gabriel Karade Noir. Mercenary Coalition 273	Posted - 2015.08.15 10:04:18 - [163] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Absent Sworn wrote: So, no mention of some minimal level of automated defense structures to prevent the lone entosing trollceptor. The CSM FAQ simply says "No", is that still the case and planned direction? Correct there will be no automatic guns, but the concerns about trollceptors have been heard loud and clear. I don't see how that could possibly work - there needs to be a degree of automated defence. Granted, much less effective than having a human directing it, but at least some minimal defence to shoo away entosis trolling attempts. These aren't going to be 'throwaway' TCUs people are putting up. War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Horus V The Destined 99	Posted - 2015.08.15 10:42:47 - [164] - Quote I think people start missing old Pos system even before they take it away. V
gascanu Bearing Srl. 234	Posted - 2015.08.15 11:18:17 - [165] - Quote Horus V wrote: I think people start missing old Pos system even before they take it away. haha true; what's worse, under this new proposed system, CCP is taking away our KILLMAILS. yea, i know the dead structure will genarate a kill, but on it only the guy with theflashlight will appear... i don't think CCP realize that there are allot of ppl that play this game for killmails. they will spend, some time, hours and hours shooting stuff for one killmail, and leaving 99% of the fleet out of the killmail will do nothing to improve theyr game experience
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 14136	Posted - 2015.08.15 11:36:38 - [166] - Quote gascanu wrote: Horus V wrote: I think people start missing old Pos system even before they take it away. haha true; what's worse, under this new proposed system, CCP is taking away our KILLMAILS. yea, i know the dead structure will genarate a kill, but on it only the guy with theflashlight will appear... i don't think CCP realize that there are allot of ppl that play this game for killmails. they will spend, some time, hours and hours shooting stuff for one killmail, and leaving 99% of the fleet out of the killmail will do nothing to improve theyr game experience Moreso when the possibility of loot is dropping to near zero. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 425	Posted - 2015.08.15 12:21:55 - [167] - Quote Overall i quite like the new system. However no auto guns is really lame. Just have each gun target randomly like now and no auto AoE guns. This is effective against trolls, but even a half organized small group with logi would have no problems. this also gives a higher relative cost to fitting powerful AoE weapons as you lose the slot. I also have learnt that people can't read and love to demonstrate that ignorance by immediately posting. And Dam some people really spend a LOT of time claiming to be doing things they hate. Why are you still here? Most of you have been foaming at the mouth with the same rhetoric for years, just leave already and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
Grognard Commissar EVE University Ivy League 3	Posted - 2015.08.15 15:21:43 - [168] - Quote Kage S3kkou wrote: Grognard Commissar wrote: Quote: Will Citadel weapons be automated? No. that's is THE DUMBEST thing i've ever heard from ccp... i mean, seriously? CODE. will just fly around in trollceptors now, and reinforce all the things. don't even try to argue about concord. they'll just wardec all the alt structure corps out there. also, hisec wardeccers will have a heyday with all this. currently, possed can have enough guns to fend off anyone that isn't serious about taking down the POS... as it should be. not everyone can keep an alt logged in through every vulnerability. ll it does is add another boring job in the game. I don't play EvE to babysit a structure for hours, so, without non-automated defenses, screw a citadel, i'll just do all my production in a station. it's not even worth the bonuses at that point. Not arguing with you, but you do realise that these structures are going to replace stations and even NPC stations will be changed or removed at some point in the future (although not now), as hinted at in the dev blog. "So, we quickly decided that our new structures would need to be destructible, especially since they are going to be available everywhere from high-security to wormhole space. However, this introduces another problem: we want our structures to be used, but one of the deterrents against that goal is the fact they compete against existing NPC stations and player outposts *(before we nuke them that is*).". yeah, that's true. people just won't use structures, aside from sovnull people. I certainly won't. I like the revised permissions and such, but the whole idea that you need to babysit the structure all the time, is just dumb.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2685	Posted - 2015.08.15 15:25:09 - [169] - Quote You could have 100% vulnerability in highsec, because it won't matter anyway - whoever doesn't spot the war coming 24 hours out won't be able to schedule 4 hours of their day to empty the thing out and unanchor it. Lame. 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 ~~
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 14138	Posted - 2015.08.15 16:41:55 - [170] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: You could have 100% vulnerability in highsec, because it won't matter anyway - whoever doesn't spot the war coming 24 hours out won't be able to schedule 4 hours of their day to empty the thing out and unanchor it. Lame. If only your vulnerability period wasn't a mere 3 hours a week, and invisible to the attackers to begin with. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.

May O'Neez Flying Blacksmiths 46	Posted - 2015.08.15 18:14:03 - [171] - Quote Hello, I am not sure to understand this sentence: Quote: On top of the points above, all structures, no matter their size or role, will have warpable signatures like cosmic combat anomalies. None of them will need to be probed to be warped to, even if the user doesnGÇÖt not have direct access to them. This will ensure pilots can quickly see whatGÇÖs happening in their surroundings without having to use probes, and thus not having to give their position away to the inhabitants. Does that mean that anyone just look at the signatures without any scan or scouting and can see at once the corporations, their structures type, sizes and positions in a system, even in a wormhole ? Exploration and scouting gets even more dumbified IMHO. I have also questions about the structures defense, to me the entosis link seems to be a easy way to attack (or defend also), before you had to bring a sheer force of ships depending on POS size and layout, bash some time (yes I know, booooring) but now it looks like: - on some situations you may only need 1 ship that sits almost idle waiting for the cycles to finish (and pushing d-scan, probably), even on large structures, - ewar and guns are capped to 8/8 (which is lower that some dissuasive POS layouts) - and are manual only, which means that for some corporations of small to med size they may not encounter at all the attacker (personnaly I am not convinced by the window system) - it also removes the use of lots of ships and fittings that were related to POS attack and defense, including RR and siege doctrines. BTW, if I understand well the Starbase Defense skill will be voided (thus anchoring V & co is useless now). Is there any skill transfer or refund planned for this matter ?
Soleil Fournier Ultimatum. The Bastion 45	Posted - 2015.08.15 19:11:50 - [172] - Quote I noticed that defending a structure is the same (10 minutes) regardless of where the indexes are. It should take longer to defend if you have no/low indexes. Let's say 20 minutes. Also....it was stated that supers would have to be xfered to another Citadel in the same system upon citadel destruction. But what happens if we have no other citadel In system? Usually if we lose the fight/war, we aren't going to build another one....so my super will be in purgatory with me being unable to access it in this situation? That's not ok. I'm not saying xfer it to a station in lowsec. But I should be able to recover it in that system without needing another citadel. Treat it like a spaceport launch where only I can warp to it when the citadel is destroyed. Or, xfer it to the closest XL station owned by alliance. Either way, players should have access to their stuff, indefinately locking access to it is bad mmmmk.
Orm Magnustat Red Serpent Industries 143	Posted - 2015.08.15 20:16:19 - [173] - Quote Soleil Fournier wrote: ................... Either way, players should have access to their stuff, indefinately locking access to it is bad mmmmk. And if players actually end up with not beeing able to access their stuff - why not just give it to the victor??
Chen Chillin Deep Structure Industries The Bastion 0	Posted - 2015.08.15 20:19:18 - [174] - Quote This system looks surprisingly good, with the exception of not having some minor auto attack response. I would change the third vulnerable stage to include actually shooting the station to kill it though... the last entosis round totally burns out it's electronic defenses and the fleet now destroys the structure (which could have 0 shield, and 1/3 of its current armor and leaving the current structure or slightly reduced HP's). I mean you bring a fleet to kill a structure like that and all they do is stand around with their thumb up their ass while one person hits the self destruct button? What moron installs a self destruct anyway? also it would be nice if ALL invulnerable stations in 0.0 went away... yes this means NPC Stations... if the fleas are going to bite at least make them vulnerable..... or if you don't want to remove them, make their ship hold limit 1 ship, and item hanger limit 5,000 m3 or some small like that since the only reason they are really there is to supply pirate and ore bpo's, bpc's and asundry items.
Binadas Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 10	Posted - 2015.08.15 22:18:07 - [175] - Quote #wormholelivesmatter CCPlease, if you are going to nerf our unique and emergent playstyle (for the second time after cutting down c5-residents' Nullsec roaming exits), then I'd like to think it was intentional and for rational reasons, rather than as a side-effect of changes you made without even considering us.
Leila Numanor Sleeper Protection Agency SL33PERS 33	Posted - 2015.08.16 02:39:54 - [176] - Quote This thread is pretty small. hmm.. must be a shortage of players. :D
Merior Class D In Space Weyr Syndicate 7	Posted - 2015.08.16 02:40:30 - [177] - Quote Sequester Risalo wrote: [quote=Aeril Malkyre] I predicted tha low class wormholes - the home of single player corporations will become deserted wastelands. And I predicted that CCP will not achieve the goal described in http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/ : "Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack." I know plenty people who would want to use to use a structure bunt won't do so. because doing it would be stupid under the new rules. I have already started emptying POS's owned by separate corps in response to the scheduled plans. I will not be wasting my time with Citadels that are unnecessarily complicated and involve too much commitment to defence. I really don't understand what is so difficult about building a structure that can have automatic defences and have their vulnerability rebalanced in a release if the mechanics favour PVP excessively or Industrialists excessively - just think of it as a giant ship with new modules. By all means tidy the POS into one structure but don't ruin my game to the extent where I leave wormholes, if not the game, for all time.
Leila Numanor Sleeper Protection Agency SL33PERS 34	Posted - 2015.08.16 03:02:38 - [178] - Quote Merior wrote: Sequester Risalo wrote: [quote=Aeril Malkyre] I predicted tha low class wormholes - the home of single player corporations will become deserted wastelands. And I predicted that CCP will not achieve the goal described in http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/ : "Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack." I know plenty people who would want to use to use a structure bunt won't do so. because doing it would be stupid under the new rules. I have already started emptying POS's owned by separate corps in response to the scheduled plans. I will not be wasting my time with Citadels that are unnecessarily complicated and involve too much commitment to defence. I really don't understand what is so difficult about building a structure that can have automatic defences and have their vulnerability rebalanced in a release if the mechanics favour PVP excessively or Industrialists excessively - just think of it as a giant ship with new modules. By all means tidy the POS into one structure but don't ruin my game to the extent where I leave wormholes, if not the game, for all time. welcome to the club, we already did.
Grognard Commissar EVE University Ivy League 6	Posted - 2015.08.16 03:16:01 - [179] - Quote Chen Chillin wrote: This system looks surprisingly good, with the exception of not having some minor auto attack response. I would change the third vulnerable stage to include actually shooting the station to kill it though... the last entosis round totally burns out it's electronic defenses and the fleet now destroys the structure (which could have 0 shield, and 1/3 of its current armor and leaving the current structure or slightly reduced HP's). I mean you bring a fleet to kill a structure like that and all they do is stand around with their thumb up their ass while one person hits the self destruct button? What moron installs a self destruct anyway? also it would be nice if ALL invulnerable stations in 0.0 went away... yes this means NPC Stations... if the fleas are going to bite at least make them vulnerable..... or if you don't want to remove them, make their ship hold limit 1 ship, and item hanger limit 5,000 m3 or some small like that since the only reason they are really there is to supply pirate and ore bpo's, bpc's and asundry items. i like that idea... except for the part about npc station, unless you're talking sovnull. in npcnull, that would make it basically impossible for soloer's to live out there, as well as difficulty for smaller corps.
Sasha Sen Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance 9	Posted - 2015.08.16 16:01:17 - [180] - Quote I am going to echo myself and ask again why not allow medical bays in WH citadels when the new system takes over? Considering the fact that in order to defend a citadel someone has to be inside to man the guns I don't see a reason why not. Otherwise make the defenses automated.

gascanu Bearing Srl. 237	Posted - 2015.08.16 16:14:13 - [181] - Quote why not make M structures behave more like a pos and the XL ones more like an outpost? this means the M ones gets no item safety system, but they are cheap and get some automated defences; the L ones should go towards pos/outpost depending on production costs i would say... edit: about the item safety thing: make concord do the evac: you pay a montly/one time fee and 5" before the outpost explode some concord flotila arive and get the items out; hell you can even play a cinematic for all i care edit2: oh, and however thought about destroing poses/outposts with a flashlight ned to take a time and play eve a bit
Centar Tivianne Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.08.16 16:52:19 - [182] - Quote Just a thought about this auto defence thing, in another well know space sim if you have a big ship you can fly it yourself and your friends can man the guns or you can hire NPC gunners to do the job for you. So what if you could hire NPC gunners to operate your defence guns in your Citadel, there could be a maximum number of GÇÿgunnersGÇÖ and payment could be by the day or week and cost depending on their skill level. You could even use the Starbase Defence skill (or add a new skill) to define their skill level, number you can hire, ability to hit anything, range and ongoing costs etc.
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 201	Posted - 2015.08.16 17:47:28 - [183] - Quote Andre Vauban wrote: Please reconsider the probing mechanics, especially on the medium Citadel's. It would be really nice if at least the mediums required somebody in system to d-scan and combat probe to even find out if there was a citadel in system. Give the little guys the ability to operate out of hostile space if they can manage to stay under the radar. As it it now you do not need probes to find these new structures. As you didn't need them on the old ones(POS only at moons) . The mechanic they want to use now is good enough. Finding only by probes is a no no, probes can be seen on D-scan alterting everyone to your presence. In whs this is a big deal! But if there would be a more complicated way to find the new structures without probes. Then they could be taken of the anoms list. But do you realy want to complicate things that way? 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.
Terraj Oknatis Capital Punishments 9	Posted - 2015.08.16 18:03:44 - [184] - Quote I think I have figured out what the problem is here. CCP wants to limit afk empires. This is a great idea in theory. Renting space is only fun for the landlord and controling vast quantites of space appealing to the super blobs. With this system of having citadel guns manned only it will force the null sec empires to spread their forces and station persnonel at each citadel to defend it. This will mean that for each of the technetium moons, there will have to be at least one character on hand every day between the hours of ___ and ___ standing by to shoot down a rifter w an entosis link probing for undefended targets. I generally agree that in this case, the manned gun idea is a good one. SOmeone really should be living in at a station to defend it. But again null sec alliances have a lot of players so it isn't a load on them. they can afford to have people assigned to guard duty for two hours on a tuesday. HOWEVER for wh people like me, and for high sec people also like me and for solo operators of a pos. WTF. I used to be able to solo operate a pos in a wh. Generally I did not worry about it except for the few times that a well organized group found me and decided to bring the hammer down. there were a few times my pos was attacked while I was not there. Usually by a very small group of people who didn't know better than to go near an active pos. The guns took care off that no worries. What im trying to say is what works for Null sec doesn't work for everyone. You cant shoo horn null sec play style into wormholes or hs for that matter. Back to the main point then is it going to be fun for that por sap who is charged with defending the technetium moon for how ever many hours at that structure that used to be a moon mining afk pos. Someone has to sit in there for hours on end just in case some ass hole in an interceptor comes by to entosis it. Come on CCP what are you doing. Wouldnt it be better if the entosis link on the first stage initiated a battle flag 24-48 hours later where an epic battle will take place and the victor decides the fate of the structure.
Chen Chillin Deep Structure Industries The Bastion 0	Posted - 2015.08.16 23:24:02 - [185] - Quote Grognard Commissar wrote: Chen Chillin wrote: This system looks surprisingly good, with the exception of not having some minor auto attack response. I would change the third vulnerable stage to include actually shooting the station to kill it though... the last entosis round totally burns out it's electronic defenses and the fleet now destroys the structure (which could have 0 shield, and 1/3 of its current armor and leaving the current structure or slightly reduced HP's). I mean you bring a fleet to kill a structure like that and all they do is stand around with their thumb up their ass while one person hits the self destruct button? What moron installs a self destruct anyway? also it would be nice if ALL invulnerable stations in 0.0 went away... yes this means NPC Stations... if the fleas are going to bite at least make them vulnerable..... or if you don't want to remove them, make their ship hold limit 1 ship, and item hanger limit 5,000 m3 or some small like that since the only reason they are really there is to supply pirate and ore bpo's, bpc's and asundry items. i like that idea... except for the part about npc station, unless you're talking sovnull. in npcnull, that would make it basically impossible for soloer's to live out there, as well as difficulty for smaller corps. It is virtually impossible for a small Corp. to hold Sov. it should be impossible for a small Corp, to hold Sov, it just take more resources than a small Corp. can generate. Hence alliances... and yes it will kill a lot of the solo players (i.e. Griefers who aren't adding content) dang if they don't have to base out of low sec and roam out to 0.0 and be vulnerable the whole way.
gascanu Bearing Srl. 237	Posted - 2015.08.16 23:55:18 - [186] - Quote Chen Chillin wrote: Grognard Commissar wrote: Chen Chillin wrote: This system looks surprisingly good, with the exception of not having some minor auto attack response. I would change the third vulnerable stage to include actually shooting the station to kill it though... the last entosis round totally burns out it's electronic defenses and the fleet now destroys the structure (which could have 0 shield, and 1/3 of its current armor and leaving the current structure or slightly reduced HP's). I mean you bring a fleet to kill a structure like that and all they do is stand around with their thumb up their ass while one person hits the self destruct button? What moron installs a self destruct anyway? also it would be nice if ALL invulnerable stations in 0.0 went away... yes this means NPC Stations... if the fleas are going to bite at least make them vulnerable..... or if you don't want to remove them, make their ship hold limit 1 ship, and item hanger limit 5,000 m3 or some small like that since the only reason they are really there is to supply pirate and ore bpo's, bpc's and asundry items. i like that idea... except for the part about npc station, unless you're talking sovnull. in npcnull, that would make it basically impossible for soloer's to live out there, as well as difficulty for smaller corps. It is virtually impossible for a small Corp. to hold Sov. it should be impossible for a small Corp, to hold Sov, it just take more resources than a small Corp. can generate. Hence alliances... and yes it will kill a lot of the solo players (i.e. Griefers who aren't adding content) dang if they don't have to base out of low sec and roam out to 0.0 and be vulnerable the whole way. oh so let's all take hands and be friends and play make love not war building citadels online and be a big and happy family ...
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2687	Posted - 2015.08.17 00:36:13 - [187] - Quote The proposed mechanic is terrible for sieging because what's at risk goes from "all your ships, all your items, all your mins, all your POS and POS guns, all your ***" down to "10% of your items, minerals and ships, plus 100% of whatever ship you are sitting in and maybe your pod, plus your Citadel". The result of this may not in fact be a hearty defence of a Citadel by an outnumbered attacker. Let's say Sudden Buggery, due to the stellar pulchritude of its handsome and gregarious CEO who has called all of wormhole space a bunch of child-fondling mendicants, gets hardcore sieged in their Lowsec Citadel. Choice is to fight, bringing out ship after ship to die before the 120 T3's and 40 Guardians arrayed against the corp. Or you just sit in the Citadel, swap into a T1 frigate, and tell your attackers they should stop molesting babies, let it all get blown up around you, maybe get podded, wake up in hisec and 5 days later pay a small Space Hobbit Tax. I mean, why would you even bother fighting? Also, this is way better way of moving out of an area. Lets say you have 100 members in an XL Citadel. Strip your ships of all modules, especially fancy pimp, load them into a blockade runner. Get your Citadel blown up, suddenly EVERYTHING you own is collated into one handy safe lowsec or hisec location in plastic wrap thanks to magic Space Hobbits. Far better than having to move 100 ships x 100 people X jumps, at 15-ish minutes per trip. That's 2,500 man-hours of boring ass logistics. If you game it right, 10% tax on 100 ships (average hull price 100M = 1B) can be recovered in no time at all at the incursion Rate Per Hour. For that corp, 2,500 man hours = 250 billion ISk in opportunity cost of ratting vs logistics. The sensible option thanks to Space Hobbits is to actually let your Citadel get blown up. In almost all cases. just plan ahead a bit, clean up the modules and pimp, empty the hangars a bit, job done. 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 ~~
Grognard Commissar EVE University Ivy League 6	Posted - 2015.08.17 00:37:08 - [188] - Quote Chen Chillin wrote: Grognard Commissar wrote: Chen Chillin wrote: This system looks surprisingly good, with the exception of not having some minor auto attack response. I would change the third vulnerable stage to include actually shooting the station to kill it though... the last entosis round totally burns out it's electronic defenses and the fleet now destroys the structure (which could have 0 shield, and 1/3 of its current armor and leaving the current structure or slightly reduced HP's). I mean you bring a fleet to kill a structure like that and all they do is stand around with their thumb up their ass while one person hits the self destruct button? What moron installs a self destruct anyway? also it would be nice if ALL invulnerable stations in 0.0 went away... yes this means NPC Stations... if the fleas are going to bite at least make them vulnerable..... or if you don't want to remove them, make their ship hold limit 1 ship, and item hanger limit 5,000 m3 or some small like that since the only reason they are really there is to supply pirate and ore bpo's, bpc's and asundry items. i like that idea... except for the part about npc station, unless you're talking sovnull. in npcnull, that would make it basically impossible for soloer's to live out there, as well as difficulty for smaller corps. It is virtually impossible for a small Corp. to hold Sov. it should be impossible for a small Corp, to hold Sov, it just take more resources than a small Corp. can generate. Hence alliances... and yes it will kill a lot of the solo players (i.e. Griefers who aren't adding content) dang if they don't have to base out of low sec and roam out to 0.0 and be vulnerable the whole way. i'm not entirely talking sovholders. i'm talking the hisec and lowsec and npcnull corps that are not massive alliances. you'll basically kill most of the lowsec/ npcnull players off...
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2687	Posted - 2015.08.17 01:20:57 - [189] - Quote Attention Warfare At its most basic, this attention mechanic / entosis gameplay is killing EVE and will really kill wormholes. We have discussed it, and we can easily do an M Citadel in our wormhole and probably will. Having to be around for 2 hours a night around downtime when we already play? No big deal. Entosis ships are welcome to come troll us, we don't care. But what i do care about is a system in the game which is washing away the problems of DPS vs EHP gameplay and replacing it with laser-tag bullshit attention gameplay. People will not play a game that demands they put attention into it that they cannot give. If the kabs and smallholders leave wormholes there is no one left. Let me tell you, it's getting very hard to find people in wormholes. It's ***** deserted in lowsec. Like, eerily deserted, in almost all of lowsec. There's highsec systems where there would always be 8-15 miners chugging away. Now empty. People are voting with their credit cards, time, efforts and feet and they are thoroughly disliking the new game. Perhaps the issue isn't that DPS vs EHP is good and Entosis is bad, or vice versa; the issue is that you get a thrill out of flying a gigantic space ** affirmation dildo around (dread, carrier, super) feeling like king muckity. Now? You don't give a toss about flying a goddamn pissy little cruiser with a flashlight, flipping systems in minutes or hours, with no risk. There's no feeling of doing violence to the enemy, at all, by just turning up on grid and sitting out a goddamn flashlight timer. I mean, really. That's not engrossing gameplay. There's no thrill of owning their structure, blowing it up, using guns and lasers and missiles. It just transmutes with a magic wand into a pathetic can full of nothing and loot and whatever the crap. BORING. Neither is shining a light on someone's XL Citadel for 30 minutes and it magically blows up, pods them maybe, and forces all their stuff to some magic fairy netherspace and/or back to highsec all safe and sound. Yeah, noobs, we magically made your stuff move somewhere! i hope you suffer in your jocks, having to pay a piddly 10% ransom! I hope you don't spend your time in Incursions, in utter safety, earing the money to afford to pay the space hobbit tax! Yeah! Ahahaha, see you in nullsec again. not. Seriously? We are meant to give a crap about this damn game, when that is the peak violent act you can do? Is that a game, or is it some politically correct sop to whining carebears who can't get over the fact the game is risky and want their cocks sucked by a pliant, desperate company seeing the writing on the wall and are assuming people want boring, meaningless pap to fill their nights with? Where's the adrenaline rush, where's the incentive to fight like bearcats when all your crap magically gets teleported to safety and you can go run Incursions for 5 days instead? CCP, you really need to make capitals worth something, and desperately quickly, before your peak gameplayers quit this game of laser-tag fairy circle-jerk nothingness. 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 ~~
Ludi Burek Combined Imperial Fleet Darwinism. 307	Posted - 2015.08.17 02:22:14 - [190] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: CCP, you really need to make capitals worth something, and desperately quickly, before your peak gameplayers quit this game of laser-tag fairy circle-jerk nothingness. Agreed. I feel this entosis bollox is their true Rubicon and not that patch they had a while back.

Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4584	Posted - 2015.08.18 04:30:31 - [191] - Quote Will we finally get some of the cool new explosions with these new Citadels? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1562	Posted - 2015.08.18 11:45:28 - [192] - Quote Just a thought but I'd quite like the AoE weapons to be available in hisec but only using non-lethal amunition (neut bombs, bubbles etc). To stop the station being CONCORD'd I'd make a neutral zone around a station when a wardec is in place where such weapons can be used freely without CONCORD response as all players would know it is possible and it is non-aggressive in the sense that it causes no damage. How workable this is I'm not sure, but being able to use the big guns non-lethally may well tempt people to put up stations in losec etc to use the real thing...
Esrevid Nekkeg Justified and Ancient 355	Posted - 2015.08.19 17:47:16 - [193] - Quote Chen Chillin wrote: Grognard Commissar wrote: Chen Chillin wrote: This system looks surprisingly good, with the exception of not having some minor auto attack response. I would change the third vulnerable stage to include actually shooting the station to kill it though... the last entosis round totally burns out it's electronic defenses and the fleet now destroys the structure (which could have 0 shield, and 1/3 of its current armor and leaving the current structure or slightly reduced HP's). I mean you bring a fleet to kill a structure like that and all they do is stand around with their thumb up their ass while one person hits the self destruct button? What moron installs a self destruct anyway? also it would be nice if ALL invulnerable stations in 0.0 went away... yes this means NPC Stations... if the fleas are going to bite at least make them vulnerable..... or if you don't want to remove them, make their ship hold limit 1 ship, and item hanger limit 5,000 m3 or some small like that since the only reason they are really there is to supply pirate and ore bpo's, bpc's and asundry items. i like that idea... except for the part about npc station, unless you're talking sovnull. in npcnull, that would make it basically impossible for soloer's to live out there, as well as difficulty for smaller corps. It is virtually impossible for a small Corp. to hold Sov. it should be impossible for a small Corp, to hold Sov, it just take more resources than a small Corp. can generate. Hence alliances... and yes it will kill a lot of the solo players (i.e. Griefers who aren't adding content) dang if they don't have to base out of low sec and roam out to 0.0 and be vulnerable the whole way. I agree fully on the small corp not being able to hold SOV. However, it has proven to be quite viable for a (relatively) small corp to hold a Wormhole system. As we have done for years now. In those years we have had many lone players or small groups repelled by our POS while we were asleep or at work. In other words, it would be very hard for us, if not impossible, to have the new structures manned at all times for defensive purposes. Luckily it seems, as the proposal is now, that we can set the vulnerability times ourselves, so we only have to make sure to be around at those times. Time will tell how that will work out eventually. Still I would like to have at least some automated defences at our future POS 2.0. Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
Lara Divinity Black Scorpion Nomads 111	Posted - 2015.08.19 18:10:23 - [194] - Quote again stupid changes i have taken down my wh pos n sold it b4 this new update hits TQ en causes havoc, the only good place for a citadel is hisec otherwise screw it. the idea is good behind new structures but it also means that u guys r taking away our current ways of surviving in like wh space and the likes ...wich u guys havent tought about n i see no advantages of gettin a friggin citadel even less so in puttin one in my wh they r warpable to, they dont defend themselfs, use a flashlight on it n it crumbles, ur stuff blows up but when u pay u can get it back at 10% fee so if i hold for 2 bill i gotta pay 200mill to get my stuff back thumbs down ccp at least my pos defended itself had hangars shipbay n what not n at least it needed a fleet of determined guys to take down, whats this flashlight entosis crap to take down a so called fortress that dont even defend itself ???? seriously if its like that keep ur damm citadels n leave my pos. but no knowing u guys the update will hit TQ n the ppl will be left with nothing or it will be in places where it dont need to be . why cant posses n citadels co exist but no, one new thing comes n the old gotta go n how we live around it dont matter wtf ccp we invested millions in those things n we do survive around and in it in hostile space as i said a few updates b4 stop changin so much over such short time n actually fix things that r broken instead of addding stuff thats makes kindergarten look hard
Orm Magnustat Red Serpent Industries 146	Posted - 2015.08.19 19:51:38 - [195] - Quote Lara Divinity wrote: again stupid changes i have taken down my wh pos n sold it b4 this new update hits TQ en causes havoc, the only good place for a citadel is hisec otherwise screw it. the idea is good behind new structures but it also means that u guys r taking away our current ways of surviving in like wh space and the likes ...wich u guys havent tought about n i see no advantages of gettin a friggin citadel even less so in puttin one in my wh they r warpable to, they dont defend themselfs, use a flashlight on it n it crumbles, ur stuff blows up but when u pay u can get it back at 10% fee so if i hold for 2 bill i gotta pay 200mill to get my stuff back thumbs down ccp at least my pos defended itself had hangars shipbay n what not n at least it needed a fleet of determined guys to take down, whats this flashlight entosis crap to take down a so called fortress that dont even defend itself ???? seriously if its like that keep ur damm citadels n leave my pos. but no knowing u guys the update will hit TQ n the ppl will be left with nothing or it will be in places where it dont need to be . why cant posses n citadels co exist but no, one new thing comes n the old gotta go n how we live around it dont matter wtf ccp we invested millions in those things n we do survive around and in it in hostile space as i said a few updates b4 stop changin so much over such short time n actually fix things that r broken instead of addding stuff thats makes kindergarten look hard Well said (again and again and again) - too bad CCP officials dont seem to give a damn. Or have serious comprehension problems ... Or believe that they surely know best what motivates their playerbase ...... Just look at your statistics CCP - if your goal was to half player activity on your servers in the shortest possible time, gratz you are well on track !! In any other cases look your fail to "reinvent" EVE straight in the eye, cause things are even going to get worse with your current plans and vision. Perhaps its time to actually start listen to feedback like the above.
Chiana Dar'Ago Long Pig Luncheon Meat 1	Posted - 2015.08.20 00:25:30 - [196] - Quote So what time frame til the deployment of the Citidels? And perhaps you or your team have addressed this already are we going to use or need the POS BPO and Station BPOs or is there going to be a buy back?
Chiana Dar'Ago Long Pig Luncheon Meat 1	Posted - 2015.08.20 14:10:15 - [197] - Quote Orm Magnustat wrote: Lara Divinity wrote: again stupid changes i have taken down my wh pos n sold it b4 this new update hits TQ en causes havoc, the only good place for a citadel is hisec otherwise screw it. the idea is good behind new structures but it also means that u guys r taking away our current ways of surviving in like wh space and the likes ...wich u guys havent tought about n i see no advantages of gettin a friggin citadel even less so in puttin one in my wh they r warpable to, they dont defend themselfs, use a flashlight on it n it crumbles, ur stuff blows up but when u pay u can get it back at 10% fee so if i hold for 2 bill i gotta pay 200mill to get my stuff back thumbs down ccp at least my pos defended itself had hangars shipbay n what not n at least it needed a fleet of determined guys to take down, whats this flashlight entosis crap to take down a so called fortress that dont even defend itself ???? seriously if its like that keep ur damm citadels n leave my pos. but no knowing u guys the update will hit TQ n the ppl will be left with nothing or it will be in places where it dont need to be . why cant posses n citadels co exist but no, one new thing comes n the old gotta go n how we live around it dont matter wtf ccp we invested millions in those things n we do survive around and in it in hostile space as i said a few updates b4 stop changin so much over such short time n actually fix things that r broken instead of addding stuff thats makes kindergarten look hard Well said (again and again and again) - too bad CCP officials dont seem to give a damn. Or have serious comprehension problems ... Or believe that they surely know best what motivates their playerbase ...... Just look at your statistics CCP - if your goal was to half player activity on your servers in the shortest possible time, gratz you are well on track !! In any other cases look your fail to "reinvent" EVE straight in the eye, cause things are even going to get worse with your current plans and vision. Perhaps its time to actually start listen to feedback like the above. Well you have to remember that most of the Devs that worked on the original POS code are gone... in order for CCP to cough save money. Because of this the current devs have a hard time with the code in addition to the code being somewhat problematic. Hence they write new code with much more simplified structures. This gives 2 advantages, its easy to maintain and if they sell the company it looks well documented and the current people can explain how it works. Remember this is not about improving player involvement or gameplay its about making everyday life in Eve a constant battle, that way you are sure to have to buy PLEX to sell on the market. If you look at the past changes you'll see that agents were nerfed and so were the high bounties on most of the L4 missions making it necessary to grind more and buy implants to sell on the market. Carriers can't carry s*&t, because the 3 months it took you to make your jump skills doesn't mean anything. Hard coding a 5ly jump limit where you are forced to take a carrier though a gate, but allowing Black Ops ships a 10 ly range. Droves of Eve players have been leaving to play better games with people who actually listen. Eve Online is no longer the game it once was. Either accept the change or realize that the game you used to love to play is gone and walk away.
Draahk Chimera Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 82	Posted - 2015.08.21 06:27:56 - [198] - Quote Was not chateaux supposed to be the solution to zombie sticks? If the chateaux has three reinforce timers whether it has fuel or not it will take weeks to blow it up. CCP does know that the connections only last about 24 hours right? 404 - Image not found
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1582	Posted - 2015.08.21 08:39:23 - [199] - Quote A simple solution just occurred to me, gun automation rigs. If you are manning your towers you can get away with using all service rigs. Small corps and WH corps can automate the guns but at a cost in terms of utility (and rigs prices).
Orm Magnustat Red Serpent Industries 150	Posted - 2015.08.24 19:08:31 - [200] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: A simple solution just occurred to me, gun automation rigs. If you are manning your towers you can get away with using all service rigs. Small corps and WH corps can automate the guns but at a cost in terms of utility (and rigs prices). +1 every idea is better than the verbose "no" that CCP devs have for that topic. They really dont seem to see how they needlessly castrate their own game and its historically developed styles and tactics. Still even if you add such rigs the citadel will still be just a ripoff from eve's general ship model - while the classical POS clearly was something of its own.

Gabriel Karade Noir. Mercenary Coalition 276	Posted - 2015.09.02 22:49:59 - [201] - Quote How about a compromise (in keeping with xttz's post (#14) on page 1) mix Entosis mechanics, which helps the smaller guy, with damage mechanics, allowing big ships on grid and pew pew potential ? My current thinking is based on this..... Take for example a Caldari Large POS: 50 million shield, resistances (EM/Th/Kin/Exp) 0 / 50 / 25 / 0. Instead we now have a medium XR-527.... insert fluff.... Citadel from Kaalakiota with: 15 million shield* resistances (EM/Th/Kin/Exp) 60 / 85 / 75 / 60* Final numbers to be developed by Iteration This gives a structure with about 81% of the shield EHP from the predecessor, but mostly in the resistances. Now change from pure Entosis reinforcement mechanic to... Quote:* "A successful Entosis cycle causes severe disruption to computer core, causing variations in the complex waveform used by the shield emitters to... bla bla... insert fluff and therefore reducing shield resistance by 50% per cycle" Now a single Entosis cycle drops shields from 60 / 95 / 75 / 60 to much less challenging 30 / 47.5 / 37.5 / 30. A subsequent cycle takes it to 15 / 23.75 / 18.75 / 15.... and so on (diminishing returns). By the fourth cycle the structure would have gone from 50 million shield EHP to 16.5 million, making it much more vulnerable, but crucially, still requiring some 'DPS investment' to get rid of the thing. There are then multiple options for RF timers, you could continue to use strontium and strontium timer 'kiting' (a very valid and interesting strategy which is currently on course to get binned....). You could have multiple RF timers each time a successful 'hack' occurs. You could have a single user defined RF timer like POCO's. You could even do something different like having temporary 'boost' to 99% resistances for a predetermined length of time between hacks and so on.... (My preference would still be for the first option, but that's just my preference) I really do think there needs to be some discussion along these lines to make this more interesting than Sov structure mechanics, while encouraging some commitment in terms of hardware from the attacker. These are very different beasts to 'dumb' TCUs/IHubs. War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Ford Crendaven Stryker Industries 3	Posted - 2015.09.03 10:44:16 - [202] - Quote I've just spent 30 minutes of my life reading the majority of this thread. I've enjoyed it all from the inane to the insane. You have created a sandbox where there are significant differences in game play attributable to J and K space through security levels etc. Players soon move to the type of space that suits them and I have chosen Wormhole space because of the existing mechanics. When someone starts plucking around the edges of my game play I get aggrieved because I've invested time and effort and enjoy my wormholes. When someone takes a frigging flash light and waves it in my direction I become enraged, ask anyone in my corp I just won't engage in the magic wand discussion or the effect it will have on MY wormhole life. Could someone please update the FAQ or provide more information on the following points please, too settle my nerves and smooth out my hackles. A. What is the proposed timeline for actual introduction of citadels? (Indicates when to unsub) B. Will CCP be refunding me the hours required to take down my current structures and fit up the new structures? POS deployment is a tedious business but requires a bit of thought in the setup of such a structure. In wormholes space these things need to be right. I suspect this will be simplified as you only need to worry about a flashlight ( being logged on). Take down is a waste of my time and many others. Like other wormhole corps we've probably what got a T3 and a scanner in the POS won't take any time at all to move. C. While a citadel is anchoring will I be able to destroy it? Magic Wand? D. How will DSCAN work in respect of ships undocked (anchored) at citadels and ships docked in citadels? How will I know if there is a piloted ship in J space (except combat recons and cloaked ships)? E. Do citadels introduce docking games to wormholes? F: Are you able to provide more information on how hangers will work etc? A obvious complaint against the current POS is people can steal my stuff. But the missed benefit with friends is they can share. I'm interested in how this will change given I'm sure the smaller Joe shares. G, Will there be a limit to the number of citadels in J Space? I ask this question again because I can see the issue in the future of these things lying around everywhere as I understand they don't need fuel unless they have functions turned on. Might have this completed twisted but that could be I'm blinded by a flashlight. Thanks for taking the time to read this hopefully someone could provide me with someone answers or help correct my current understanding.
Orm Magnustat Red Serpent Industries 152	Posted - 2015.09.03 12:06:26 - [203] - Quote Ford Crendaven wrote: ........................................................... Could someone please update the FAQ or provide more information on the following points please, too settle my nerves and smooth out my hackles. A. ...... ........... ........... G. ...... Thanks for taking the time to read this hopefully someone could provide me with someone answers or help correct my current understanding. I really hope someone responsible from CCP will answer Mr. Crendravens questions. Cause they touch points of importance that seem to be neglected by all official comments so far. And if you dont have the answers (or dont understand the questions or why they are asked) - just stop this stupid change for change's sake (or was it simplification?) and make the devs involved living in a wh (out of a POS) for at least half a year before thinking about it again. As things are handled now I see a similar debacle ahead as when the "map was out of beta" and scanning was just a joke .... obviously programmed by someone that had zero connection with it. There really is a limit how many such blows your players will take (at least for me) and the discontinuing of the POS concept is a magnitude more serious than your lousy map changes or useless overview icon "renovation". Its gonna touch the core of many of your subscribers gameplay.
Wulfy Johnson NorCorp Security 81	Posted - 2015.09.05 02:44:46 - [204] - Quote Magic and spaceships is a very unhealthy combination for the future of eve. If i want to play a magican, i go play a game suited for that. Love your new work, but the "wand" gameplay, is no spaceships feautre..
Gabriel Karade Noir. Mercenary Coalition 278	Posted - 2015.09.05 12:13:07 - [205] - Quote Another compromise idea which could be considered alongside the GÇÿblendingGÇÖ of Entosis/DPS mechanics: Allow for limited automated turret control by the Citadel, butGÇª GÇª. Base it upon being able to detect the targets on a directional scan. This would prevent lone GÇÿtrollGÇÖ frigates, but Combat Recons could slip in GÇÿunder the radarGÇÖ to start entosising. Similarly, if you deployed multiple scan inhibitors to blanket the grid, this would allow ships to come in under the radar. Obviously with the latter scenario the Citadel would be able to target the inhibitors, so youGÇÖd need logistics on grid to keep them up. War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
per Terpene Conglomerate 65	Posted - 2015.09.10 10:17:47 - [206] - Quote about defense, will it be possible to allow someone else from other corporation(+differente alliance) to man the guns on the citadels? aka setting roles on person outside my corp?
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 431	Posted - 2015.09.10 14:58:21 - [207] - Quote I simply can't be on all the time. The thing i love (or is that loved) about eve is that i can have a real day job even a real life and go on holidays and stuff. And not be behest to every teenager who can play 12 hours a day every day. Structures that sit there like its 1842 and don't shoot unless there is some monkey to push the trigger is plain stupid. It makes them totally unusable and bias everything back to massive corps only. And no there shouldn't really be some trade off with auto fire. They are a freken battlestation for gods sake. Make it behave like one. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
Vol Arm'OOO Bagel and Lox 746	Posted - 2015.09.13 13:28:47 - [208] - Quote It seems fair to say that at this point the entrosis link has prove unfun to many. I would say that at this point the entrosis link should not be implemented with citadels. Instead, a different system should be utilized. I would propose that the old system be used. However, I would allow folk with the codebreaker fitted to hack the structures through the minigame. If successful, different effects would be possible, e.g. changing the reinforcement timer, shutting down portions of the defense, disabling portions of the shields. Of course this would allow ccp to iterate on the minigame. I would allow owners of the structures to have partial control over the design of the minigame defensive map and the placement of defensive minigame structures. Items such as the repair node that appear in the minigames that currently happen across eve in normal exploration could be saved if not used and sold on the market to assist folk in attacking the citadels. Ofc the use of the minigame and the codebreaker is substantially more immersive then the entrosis link. Assuming that ccp is hell bent on using the entrosis link - I would limit it to only the largest citadels - things that would be the equivalent of stations - while pos like citadels used the old system overlaid with the codebreaker. Alternatively allow the entrosis link to be used as an alternative to the old system. For instance if folk want to come and bash a citadel in the old style because it is faster since they can control the amount of dps applied they should be able to do it, but if they want to go the slower new route with the entrosis link that should be possible as well. Finally the magic fed ex - which mails player items to the nearest controlled station is a terrible idea. If it must be implemented it should only be utilized in the largest structures - those that were station like since in the current system, loss of player items did not currently happen. However, for the replacement of pos like structures the implementation of such a system would be a major step backwards. Pos'es have always had the potential to drop player items especially, those in worm holes. The new pos'es should not add any further protection then what is currently in the game and should allow for the destruction of player held items in the pos'ses. I don't play, I just fourm warrior.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [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.