| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2374
   |
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:16:05 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
This is a really good point and one we discussed. In general we don't like the idea of design that have annoying workarounds like this.
So if the structure explodes you would rather log back in space in your pod?
EDIT: Far away from the original location so you don't get camped
I think it would be reasonable to log back in in whatever ship you had active at the time. If you didn't have a ship active then yes you log back in in your pod.
Might this mean that you are caught in a totally unsuitable ship, absolutely.
The 'downside' you could use for this is that it's an emergency jump that the citadel itself forces you through, so you get jump fatigue as if you just did a jump or something like that. So if you already had jump fatigue it might be a significant cost.
But otherwise logging off for a weekend has to be done in an NPC station as the cost is too high even if you don't lose your active ship, you still have to pay through the nose to recover it simply for logging off for a few days. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2377
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 01:47:03 -
[2] - Quote
Hal Morsh wrote:How about this.
Your outpost dies, you lose your **** like with a POS.
Your outpost dies, and you are in whatever you logged off in like with a POS.
People still get loot.
People still keep one ship.
And we all get new functionalities without item risk changes.
Except these are also meant to take over from Null outposts long term and prove to be more desirable than NPC Station living.
So now compare the current functions to the asset safety involved in those cases.
And think some more. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2377
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 03:03:38 -
[3] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
According to past info, AOE weapons will only be able to be fit to XL Citadels, which will belong to no-one but the richest and largest groups due to extreme costs.
So yes, AOE weapons would be a counter for interceptors but only for the space rich, who really should have enough players on grid to protect their asset anyway. Smaller groups without trillions of isk (the current target of most ceptor trolls) will have yet another barrier to successfully living in their space.
Citadels will end up pricing many smaller groups of out nulsec.
Or the fact that it is almost certain to have max lock range? So even a 10km/s ceptor it has 20+ seconds to lock it while it burns back from off grid. It does need some reasonable sensor res also, but not crazy sensor res.
I.E. Pre lock before web range. And yellow box to red box is one second. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2377
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 03:10:29 -
[4] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
If no asset safety in wormholes becomes a thing combined with structures showing as anoms in ship scanner - it breaks living in wormholes.
CCP need to be VERY careful regarding Citadel mechanics in wormhole space.
Currently you can warp to a pos without probes since they are all at moons. Why does maintaining no probe warping break things? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2381
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 21:23:05 -
[5] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:All this asset safety nonsense is a major change of paradigm for this game.
Just some pull out of he "nowhere" crap that feels totally out of place with the game i once started. Realistical risk simulation ??? - lol
The longer i see this generation of devs tottering around the more angry i get.
I-Šve lost enough ingame friends to their out of touch tinkering with game mechanics and core concepts during this last year!!
Be it their diletant fiddling with idustry concepts (back then at least the UI changes were good) up to the new map (that you presented to us with practically unusable scanning mechanics) or the totally useless overhaul of icons - to name some of the lesser points. Fozzie sov in itself would more fit for a completely different game instead of implanting it here and with your new structures .... most of all i see a loss of funtionaltiy and immersion.
Asset safety is just the logical next step - and they probably dont even see that they give up on some of their core USP.
Asset safety already exists everywhere but WH Space.
Thus if you want people to use the new structures and not avoid them like most people avoid putting items into POS, you have to keep that functionality. If assets are lost in a Citadel, people will simply not use them or only put the bare minimum into them, resulting in a poorer game experience for everyone. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2381
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 22:06:56 -
[6] - Quote
Why bother with insurance. The recovery fee achieves exactly the same purpose without requiring constant clicking. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2382
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 00:05:18 -
[7] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:Does it? I dont think so - we are talking about POS successors here and when ever or where ever you destroy a POS it drops its contents. Now suddenly fairies appear out of nowhere - and under the eyes and guns of the victorious armada they carry all the valuables away to a save place.  Talking about a minimum of inner logic? I feel thats a completely different issue than the "safety" in NPC stations and Outposts that are completely indestructible by design.
No, Citadels are also a long term replacement to Outposts, and intended to be desirable above living in NPC stations also.
So that item safety already does exist. |
| |
|