Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [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 14:57:28 -
[1] - Quote
Work on the the new Citadel structures is proceeding well and we would like to give you an update and discuss what happens when a Citadel gets destroyed (yes, Citadel structures are destructible).
The current design introduces a asset safety mechanics once a Citadel got destroyed. This means that, generally speaking, your items won't be lost or destroyed when the Citadel is destroyed. Instead you will be able to retrieve your items either at an NPC station (that will cost ISK) or build a new Citadel and retrieve the items there.
Please read CCP Ytterbium's blog I feel safe in Citadel city and inform yourself about all the details! We encourage you also to read the companion blog Citadels, sieges and you.
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
|
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
108
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:15:02 -
[2] - Quote
first? |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
333
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:18:08 -
[3] - Quote
So ships and items will no longer drop from structures in wormholes? I think it would be more sensible if only part of one's assets was delivered to some NPC station/other citadel while the other part dropped directly as loot.
Also, what is the lore behind assets magically appearing in another station? I liked the idea better, where personal assets were ejected in containers during destruction which needed to be picked up by individual players ... content and all. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1778
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:21:11 -
[4] - Quote
What's the rationale for passworded containers losing their passwords? It feels like a mechanics limitation rather than a gameplay decision.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
134
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:21:12 -
[5] - Quote
Will the roles to recover from PW'd cans be different, IE a higher level, from the access roles? |
iwannadig
Nagibators Inc. RUST415
9
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:25:34 -
[6] - Quote
I still don't feel asset saving will be enough to build Citadels over Outposts even after this blog reading. |
Current Habit
Rusty Pricks
49
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:29:59 -
[7] - Quote
Other than the restriction regarding which kind of items can be recovered by different kinds of citadels (i.e. docked titans can only be recovered to other X-L citadels) is the volume or value also limited to certain sizes?
As mentioned in the example, could the corp that lost their X-L citadel just create a M or L citadel to get back everything but the Nyx ? Even in the example used, a new (unrigged) X-L citadel would be cheaper than delivering everything to LS. |
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
123
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:31:09 -
[8] - Quote
Looks good overall. I would rather have limited choice for where the assets end up. I.e. If we lose a Citadel in Vale we can choose any lowsec station in the nearest constellation for asset packages containing capitals Pilots without restricted items could select a highsec station in the same or adjacent constellation. If the location where the asset will end up is known then the attackers will be able to hellcamp the station where they know the assets will end up.
This prevents heavy abuse (having assets from Branch, for example get magically sent to Aridia.) but provides enough security to not have defacto lost the assets due to camps. |
Lord Okinaba
Hidden Agenda
89
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:31:21 -
[9] - Quote
Ugh. So personal assets and ships get magically transported to another station or system upon destruction?
Seems pretty soft and not at all what I have come to expect from EVE Online.
Everything should spill out into the system in thousands of pieces and at thousands of ms.
If you don't want to risk losing all your stuff, don't put all your eggs in one basket and always keep hold of liquid isk to start again.
|
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
916
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:32:18 -
[10] - Quote
iwannadig wrote:I still don't feel asset saving will be enough to build Citadels over Outposts even after this blog reading.
The inability to build outposts will probably do it...
No Worries
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1408
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:32:22 -
[11] - Quote
Current Habit wrote:Other than the restriction regarding which kind of items can be recovered by different kinds of citadels (i.e. docked titans can only be recovered to other X-L citadels) is the volume or value also limited to certain sizes?
As mentioned in the example, could the corp that lost their X-L citadel just create a M or L citadel to get back everything but the Nyx ? Even in the example used, a new (unrigged) X-L citadel would be cheaper than delivering everything to LS.
Sure if you can rebuild in system, or already have other structures still remaining. That is sort of the point of using this option.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1114
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:32:24 -
[12] - Quote
Could we get some clarification on the reimbursement for existing outposts and upgrades - the lack of information on this has essentially destroyed the willingness of anyone to upgrade new outposts (which is a bit silly given all the effort taken recently to make those worth something). Perhaps they could be converted into citidel rigs or the like. |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
333
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:32:46 -
[13] - Quote
Lord Okinaba wrote:Ugh. So personal assets and ships get magically transported to another station or system upon destruction?
Seems pretty soft and not at all what I have come to expect from EVE Online.
Everything should spill out into the system in thousands of pieces and at thousands of ms.
If you don't want to risk losing all your stuff, don't put all your eggs in one basket and always keep hold of liquid isk to start again.
I second that. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4048
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:35:46 -
[14] - Quote
Current Habit wrote:Other than the restriction regarding which kind of items can be recovered by different kinds of citadels (i.e. docked titans can only be recovered to other X-L citadels) is the volume or value also limited to certain sizes?
As mentioned in the example, could the corp that lost their X-L citadel just create a M or L citadel to get back everything but the Nyx ? Even in the example used, a new (unrigged) X-L citadel would be cheaper than delivering everything to LS.
You don't need the same Citadel size to recover all your stuff indeed, only capitals / supercapitals. |
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1114
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:36:01 -
[15] - Quote
Lord Okinaba wrote:Ugh. So personal assets and ships get magically transported to another station or system upon destruction?
Seems pretty soft and not at all what I have come to expect from EVE Online.
Everything should spill out into the system in thousands of pieces and at thousands of ms.
If you don't want to risk losing all your stuff, don't put all your eggs in one basket and always keep hold of liquid isk to start again.
bold words from someone who uses npc stations: "other people should face much greater risk, not me, of course" |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1778
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:37:50 -
[16] - Quote
Lord Okinaba wrote:Ugh. So personal assets and ships get magically transported to another station or system upon destruction?
Seems pretty soft and not at all what I have come to expect from EVE Online.
Everything should spill out into the system in thousands of pieces and at thousands of ms.
If you don't want to risk losing all your stuff, don't put all your eggs in one basket and always keep hold of liquid isk to start again.
Considering that you have to pay a fee or pay to erect a new citadel (and deal with the thing that killed your previous citadel), I'd say it's a significant increase in penalty over the contemporary system where assets inside an outpost are completely safe forever.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1408
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:37:56 -
[17] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Looks good overall. I would rather have limited choice for where the assets end up. I.e. If we lose a Citadel in Vale we can choose any lowsec station in the nearest constellation for asset packages containing capitals Pilots without restricted items could select a highsec station in the same or adjacent constellation. If the location where the asset will end up is known then the attackers will be able to hellcamp the station where they know the assets will end up.
This prevents heavy abuse (having assets from Branch, for example get magically sent to Aridia.) but provides enough security to not have defacto lost the assets due to camps.
This is a good point, however we are also very concerned with players abusing this as an asset delivery system especially in high / low sec. So having any amount of choice creates different problems for us.
Having said that we'll have a think about this some more. Thanks.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Lord Okinaba
Hidden Agenda
90
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:40:06 -
[18] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Lord Okinaba wrote:Ugh. So personal assets and ships get magically transported to another station or system upon destruction?
Seems pretty soft and not at all what I have come to expect from EVE Online.
Everything should spill out into the system in thousands of pieces and at thousands of ms.
If you don't want to risk losing all your stuff, don't put all your eggs in one basket and always keep hold of liquid isk to start again.
bold words from someone who uses npc stations: " other people should face much greater risk, not me, of course, eve is about other people having risk while i cower in fear of risk so don't give me any tia"
I live in a C5. How would my stuff be safe exactly?
I have next to **** all in NPC stations. Besides, as hinted in the Dev blog. NPC station arn't going to be there forever. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1408
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:40:13 -
[19] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Could we get some clarification on the reimbursement for existing outposts and upgrades - the lack of information on this has essentially destroyed the willingness of anyone to upgrade new outposts (which is a bit silly given all the effort taken recently to make those worth something). Perhaps they could be converted into citidel rigs or the like.
We don't have a schedule for that yet, and no functionality will be taken away this year. Ytterbium covered how the transition will happen at Fanfest, and we'll give you a long heads up on exactly how and when we need to start reimbursing things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo#t=38m47s
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Anthar Thebess
1267
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:41:24 -
[20] - Quote
There is very important thing. In many cases nearest NPC space is not a lowsec but NPC null space. Unless you want for Esoteria residents to pull back assets from aridia , instead from stain. I really hope that you don't plan to make NPC stations in NPC space destroy-able. This is totally different play style , and can ( and will ) be abused to keep all NPC groups totally incapable of doing any thing.
Next thing is vulnerability windows, that again for NPC null space will be the worst possible. You cannot get any indexes up.
How this can be abused. Depending on costs od structures, i see possibility to move large quantity of assets 100% safe to low space. It will be 10% tax ( that quite often is lower than cost of moving some materials by JF) , and the cost of small citadel. Players will abuse it.
Next thing - remember to always UNDOCK citadel before logging off - do you really want this? This way you will not lose ship you are sitting (eg : carrier filled in most expensive ships)
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
|
Sabastian Cerabiam
Seventh Element Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:42:17 -
[21] - Quote
Is there any timeline on implementation. Even a vague "within 3-6 months" id be good with. I am about to ramp up t2 production but im not gona drop a bunch of POSs and invest all my isk there if the new system is out soon.
Besides that the new system seems great on paper so far. |
iwannadig
Nagibators Inc. RUST415
9
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:43:16 -
[22] - Quote
ChromeStriker wrote:iwannadig wrote:I still don't feel asset saving will be enough to build Citadels over Outposts even after this blog reading. The inability to build outposts will probably do it... But devs clearly compare it with Outposts and NPC stations, while this is more like next-gen POSes. |
Lim Yoona
21
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:44:10 -
[23] - Quote
What about existing NPC stations in 0.0 right now? WIll those be able to be destroyed too? |
Arla Sarain
596
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:49:06 -
[24] - Quote
Age of Safe Logout.
SoonTM |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1409
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:49:11 -
[25] - Quote
Lim Yoona wrote:What about existing NPC stations in 0.0 right now? WIll those be able to be destroyed too?
No plans to change NPC stations at the moment. We are considering at some point (far into the future) that we will make player built outposts destructible, but its so far away we don't have to worry about the details of that just yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo#t=38m47s
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Yuri Fedorov
Shadow Legion X The Bastion
30
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:49:16 -
[26] - Quote
I love every bit of it, and please do include the optional bits :D |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
289
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:49:19 -
[27] - Quote
iwannadig wrote:ChromeStriker wrote:iwannadig wrote:I still don't feel asset saving will be enough to build Citadels over Outposts even after this blog reading. The inability to build outposts will probably do it... But devs clearly compare it with Outposts and NPC stations, while this is more like next-gen POSes.
That is because POS's and Outposts are being combined into Citadels and other structures, so they each have a little bit of both features |
Anthar Thebess
1268
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:49:50 -
[28] - Quote
Lim Yoona wrote:What about existing NPC stations in 0.0 right now? WIll those be able to be destroyed too?
I feel like theres really only one group in EVE right now that can and will be able to store any assetts of value in a destroyable station. Everyone else will just hide assetts in invulnerable NPC stations. In keeping with the wild west nature of 0.0 we need to be able to destroy null sec NPC stations too.
Yes this is important question. What about REAL NPC stations in sov space. There are usually few in i think every region.
It is bad to make them destructible , but without this no one will keep main assets elsewhere
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels FETID
735
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:53:33 -
[29] - Quote
How come the entosis link causes the structure to explode?
Why not have it so that a doomsday is required to blow the structure up at the end of the final reinforcement?
You know, a reason for capital ships to exist in the game and everything?
I would think that the entosis link would push the structure into "Critical Vulnerability" which would then require lots of firepower to destroy it. So either a wrecking ball or a few doomsday strikes. |
Lim Yoona
21
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 15:54:41 -
[30] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Lim Yoona wrote:What about existing NPC stations in 0.0 right now? WIll those be able to be destroyed too? No plans to change NPC stations at the moment. We are considering at some point (far into the future) that we will make player built outposts destructible, but its so far away we don't have to worry about the details of that just yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo#t=38m47s
Ok well it was a longshot but if we cant destroy NPC stations how about letting us reinforce them in a traditional manner and 'lockout' people that try to hide in them? Let us exert greater control over our areas of influence and force people to fight. |
|
iwannadig
Nagibators Inc. RUST415
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:00:34 -
[31] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote: That is because POS's and Outposts are being combined into Citadels and other structures, so they each have a little bit of both features
Yes, I know. Citadels is a good way to move from POS to Citadel, but I still can not understand what will make players (at least this year) not to build Outposts? When devs will start to remove/change Outposts - go on, but asset saving in not an answer to the question devs asked themselves. |
Kel hound
The Scope Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:03:32 -
[32] - Quote
So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. |
Anthar Thebess
1268
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:04:59 -
[33] - Quote
Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. No sit in a carrier filled in most expensive stuff and ships. Logout just on undock, or on a safe spot.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3247
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:08:08 -
[34] - Quote
I assume any installed jump clones in the Citadel and the implants plugged in to them would be destroyed too?
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.
|
Kel hound
The Scope Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:08:37 -
[35] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. No sit in a carrier filled in most expensive stuff and ships. Logout just on undock, or on a safe spot.
Step 1: Setup bubble-cage Step 2: destroy enemy citadel Step 3: setup blap-citadel on previous location Step 4: ??? Step 5: enjoy refreshing cup of tears. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1409
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:09:12 -
[36] - Quote
Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it.
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
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
135
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:12:17 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Lim Yoona wrote:What about existing NPC stations in 0.0 right now? WIll those be able to be destroyed too? No plans to change NPC stations at the moment. We are considering at some point (far into the future) that we will make player built outposts destructible, but its so far away we don't have to worry about the details of that just yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo#t=38m47s
How do you classify Conquerable Stations? Player built or NPC? |
Esnaelc Sin'led
AdAstra. Beach Club
12
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:12:58 -
[38] - Quote
Why no NPC convoys instead of this magical transfer of assets ?
Would be awsome to have a caravane of NPCs going from wreckage or a safe place to the chosen destination. Only the asset owners would know the location, route, and time at which this convoy will travel. Heavy defence would be needed depending of the attackers force. Heavy NPC defences would be present as well, i don't know..
Something more interesting, gameplay-ish, living than this magic thing.
It's like you mostly thought about security of assets than the game itself, kinda sad. |
Sabastian Cerabiam
Seventh Element Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:13:07 -
[39] - Quote
Losing implants while you are logged off would be wrong in my opinion. I understand the not being safe in nullsec aspect of the game. So losing some of your stuff if the station explodes is understandable.
The best option would be that when you log back on your in your pod in warp back to the wreck of the station. Same as if you safely log off in space. |
350125GO
Isogen 5
159
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:23:09 -
[40] - Quote
I live in w-space and we don't generally have any expectation of keeping our stuff....
But seriously?! All the ships and loot in a nullbear structure magically get transported someplace safe, but in a wormhole the only chance of getting anything back is to build another structure? Once again, w-space seems to be a bit of an afterthought.
One of the great thing about taking out POSs in w-space is the chance that the SMA is loaded with shiny things. Now, that's gone. So instead of breaking down someone's house and looting it, you're burning their house down with the caveat that if they rebuild it in a month or so their furniture magically appears again.
Maybe structures that get destroyed in w-space should send loot to Thera. That would make more sense than just being in the ether until you build another structure.
Here's an idea. If you're really bent on saving player assets, then the ships, loot, etc. should pop into a container that is PW protected and indestructible for a period of time. If the residents that lost the structure want it back they can seek it out and get it. If the attacking force doesn't want them to reclaim their stuff they can camp the containers. If the period of time expires the containers lose PW protection and then begin to decay. Should you happen upon one, it's your reward.
I prefer the loot pinata though. Please find a way to keep the pinata.
Sorry if this is all over the place. People keep distracting me with work and other unimportant non-eve things.
You're young, you'll adjust.
I'm old, I'll get used to it.
|
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1779
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:27:58 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Could we get some clarification on the reimbursement for existing outposts and upgrades - the lack of information on this has essentially destroyed the willingness of anyone to upgrade new outposts (which is a bit silly given all the effort taken recently to make those worth something). Perhaps they could be converted into citidel rigs or the like. We don't have a schedule for that yet, and no functionality will be taken away this year. Ytterbium covered how the transition will happen at Fanfest, and we'll give you a long heads up on exactly how and when we need to start reimbursing things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo#t=38m47s
So we are safe to assume that existing 90B outposts get reimbursed somehow? Just not how. Ok.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Felo Maxun
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
110
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:30:06 -
[42] - Quote
Esnaelc Sin'led wrote:Why no NPC convoys instead of this magical transfer of assets ?
Would be awsome to have a caravane of NPCs going from wreckage or a safe place to the chosen destination. Only the asset owners would know the location, route, and time at which this convoy will travel. Heavy defence would be needed depending of the attackers force. Heavy NPC defences would be present as well, i don't know..
Something more interesting / gameplay-ish / living, ... than this magic thing.
It's like you mostly thought about security of assets than the game itself, kinda sad.
Could be a service offered by pend insurance if you wanted to add a fee / isk sink
Offering different insurance packages during the original onlining of the structure, the output insurance level can be listed to people docking and allow them to choose to dock there if they are willing to risk a lower return in the event of sudden explosions. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1780
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:31:35 -
[43] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. 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 that would be acceptable.
However, I do mourn the loss of a bunch of frozen corpses spewing out of the destroyed citadel as an indication towards how much damage you've done. Assuming that citadels/other structures have the ability to fit jump clone services, could the jump clones so destroyed by citadel generate corpses? This way, that visceral feedback still exists.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1779
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:44:48 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. 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
Yes, a pod in space is far preferable.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3595
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:53:08 -
[45] - Quote
Question: As a role player, what do I see as actually happening to my impounded assets? Are there NPC ships flying about that gather them up and move them, even in W-space? Is there some sort of hyperspace transport system that has my assets stuffed into it, and they cannot be popped out for awhile? Or what?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Carbon Alabel
Moon Judges Eternal Pretorian Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:54:53 -
[46] - Quote
A question about citadel docking mechanics: will freighters/jump freighters and Orcas be considered sub-capitals for the sake of docking limitations (will they be able to dock in citadels of all sizes)? |
Sabastian Cerabiam
Seventh Element Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:56:16 -
[47] - Quote
Carbon Alabel wrote:A question about citadel docking mechanics: will freighters/jump freighters and Orcas be considered sub-capitals for the sake of docking limitations (will they be able to dock in citadels of all sizes)?
Read the FAQ doc they just put out. it covers that. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
627
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:57:42 -
[48] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Question: As a role player, what do I see as actually happening to my impounded assets? Are there NPC ships flying about that gather them up and move them, even in W-space? Is there some sort of hyperspace transport system that has my assets stuffed into it, and they cannot be popped out for awhile? Or what?
Your **** is carried off into the ether by drunken Hulduf+¦lk. It takes them between 5 and 20 days to recover from their hangover and return it. |
Sabastian Cerabiam
Seventh Element Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:58:50 -
[49] - Quote
What can I potentially I dock in my Citadel? Medium - Subcapitals Large - Subcapitals, capitals (carriers, dreadnoughts, freighters, Bowhead, Orca), and the Rorqual X-Large - Everything
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
5238
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:07:23 -
[50] - Quote
Lord Okinaba wrote:I live in a C5. How would my stuff be safe exactly?
I have next to **** all in NPC stations. Besides, as hinted in the Dev blog. NPC station arn't going to be there forever. Funny to have all w-space assets moved to Thera. |
|
Lord Battlestar
Faulcon de Lazy
215
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:08:59 -
[51] - Quote
I really like the way this is going, it has me very intrigued.
I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
|
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
17
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:15:08 -
[52] - Quote
((FYI both of the launcher links took me to the other citadel article, neither linked me to this one, I got here linked from that article))
Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
|
Cynica Deetric
Quantum Singularities Half Massed
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:19:12 -
[53] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. 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
Could you please think about those of us in WH space. I would still have to log off outside of the citadel in my scan boat.
On a side note please do not limit asset recovery to only being delivered to a citadel that is built in the same hole. Thera, low sec, and Highsec are all options
to quote a previous post "Once again, w-space seems to be a bit of an afterthought."
|
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
184
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:19:45 -
[54] - Quote
I like what I see but I am also a little disappointed...
Some of us were hoping that the corp/personal assets that are now to be delivered to NPC stations or in system Citadels would in fact remain in system. They would randomly spawn in containers in the system over time (just like time is proposed now). Notification would be given to the owner in their journal.
The choice now is for the player(s) to decide if they want to launch a recovery operation or leave the assets to drift in space for an explorer/salvager to come along and hunt down the containers and hack/salvage them.
There is a lot of potential game play interaction being lost with the auto delivery to NPC stations.
Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE
Check out the Youtube Channel and be sure to subscribe!
|
Titus Tallang
EVE University Ivy League
91
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:21:04 -
[55] - Quote
While I would tangentially agree that "all your assets are safe" sounds far too soft for player-controlled null security space in a "harsh" game like EVE and I would strongly argue for at least a partial loss of assets, I'm not an inhabitant of said space, so I will refrain from discussing it heavily.
However, this is an enormous change in risk vs reward for wormhole space. Under current mechanics, any assets stored in a sieged starbase are guaranteed to be lost to the owners (minus whatever amount can be logged off, and even that amount will be fairly difficult to extract). Such is the risk of living in an enormously high-reward area of space.
In addition, no matter how you choose to explain "rescue convoys" for assets from k-space structures, there is practically no context in which "a rescue convoy can teleport your assets from anoikis to a station in new eden" can even sound borderline feasible, since at current unstable wormholes are the only way we can transit between these systems by capsuleer technology - and said wormholes are assumedly covered in layers upon layers of warp disruptors and hostiles.
TL;DR: "Rescue convoys cannot find a way to return to new eden from Anoikis space, so any items stored in wormhole space structures will be either destroyed or dropped as loot (50% chance)". Please.
Director of Education - EVE University - http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1118
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:30:31 -
[56] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Could we get some clarification on the reimbursement for existing outposts and upgrades - the lack of information on this has essentially destroyed the willingness of anyone to upgrade new outposts (which is a bit silly given all the effort taken recently to make those worth something). Perhaps they could be converted into citidel rigs or the like. We don't have a schedule for that yet, and no functionality will be taken away this year. Ytterbium covered how the transition will happen at Fanfest, and we'll give you a long heads up on exactly how and when we need to start reimbursing things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo#t=38m47s The issue is that CCP has never told us that we will be reimbursed - which is a problem as Fozzie recently blew up a number of our ihubs without compensation. So nobody's willing to spend money on outpost upgrades without some clear statement that we'll be fairly reimbursed for them - and us, not (for example) some long-dead corp that built the original outpost that we upgraded and still own. |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1206
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:38:34 -
[57] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. 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
So everyone docked can log off a few seconds before the station blows up and then log back in and warp off? I don't think that's the intended way to go about this either TBH.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Yamato Naranek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:39:20 -
[58] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Question: As a role player, what do I see as actually happening to my impounded assets? Are there NPC ships flying about that gather them up and move them, even in W-space? Is there some sort of hyperspace transport system that has my assets stuffed into it, and they cannot be popped out for awhile? Or what?
Once the adults are done discussing the new rules governing these mechanics I'm sure someone will come up with a story to appease the children during storytime. |
Rain Kaessinde
Adhocracy Incorporated
9
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:41:06 -
[59] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. 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 Why would I ever want to log off in a citadel and risk coming back to a pod, when I can log off in space and know that I'll return in the same ship? Especially since I live in w-space, and the ship I log off in has probes and a cloak while my pod has none of those things? |
Martin Corwin
Emergente Struktur
35
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:43:40 -
[60] - Quote
MFW no life boats for exotic dancers, janitors and tourists |
|
Zedah Zoid
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
31
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:44:13 -
[61] - Quote
Agreed the wormhole asset recovery system needs some work. The new system as proposed here is not fun. Neither of the options (building a new citadel in the old WH) or blowing up a citadel seems to be worthwhile.
A "recovery operation" type mechanic sounds pretty awesome to be honest. Something like an anomaly escalation spawn so when you right click a journal entry to "begin recovery operation" it spawns a site that you have a bookmark to but which is also contains scannable objects so it can be found by others (maybe after some shortish delay to give your recovery team a bit more advantage). So you control when you want to do this, but if your old system is occupied, the new folks have a reason to stick around, can scan you down, and fight you for your old stuff. Also, if you choose to simply abandon all your stuff, the objects should still appear in space and scannable for some period of time for other people to find if they want and only disappear forever if nobody claims them.
Here's hoping CCP will think a bit more on this. |
Tuzy Naranek
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:44:50 -
[62] - Quote
Can we PLEASE get an answer to how current stations/upgrades will be reimbursed for those of us that have spent years dropping stations and upgrading them in our space? Aegis simply destroyed many billions isk with of IHUBs in our space with no compensation what-so-ever. Because it only really affected Goons (because we were the only people using dual IHUBs in many of our systems), and the attitude towards Goons and other nullsec power blocks from Team Five O is generally condescending and hostile, no move was made to compensate us for IHUBs. If it was an issue that affected all of nullsec equally, I'm sure they would have had a plan to appease everyone, but since it only affected us they barely even acknowledged that it was an issue for anyone and refused to address the issue.
I get that a lot of CCP devs hate us, but you need to be a little less obvious about it when your usual passive aggressiveness boils over into obviousness. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1554
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:45:43 -
[63] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Urziel99 wrote:Looks good overall. I would rather have limited choice for where the assets end up. I.e. If we lose a Citadel in Vale we can choose any lowsec station in the nearest constellation for asset packages containing capitals Pilots without restricted items could select a highsec station in the same or adjacent constellation. If the location where the asset will end up is known then the attackers will be able to hellcamp the station where they know the assets will end up.
This prevents heavy abuse (having assets from Branch, for example get magically sent to Aridia.) but provides enough security to not have defacto lost the assets due to camps. This is a good point, however we are also very concerned with players abusing this as an asset delivery system especially in high / low sec. So having any amount of choice creates different problems for us. Having said that we'll have a think about this some more. Thanks.
Please keep it the way it is - until players figure out a way to break it. Then change it. Don't give players the option to abuse it right up front.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Axhind
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
84
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:46:47 -
[64] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. 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 would rather that as it saves my implants on the other hand I don't think that should be the case. By podding people and moving them to another place it gives the tactical victory more power as it's hard for them to recover than if everyone shows up in pods in the system.
The system sounds real good but I do have some remarks:
- Let people with assets in null and low sec have a pick of a few stations (pick a station in the closest constellation) to avoid insta camps (although with 5+ days delay I don't see that as being a huge issue)
- I feel that 10% is a bit too much. Think it would be better to trade lower cost for longer lock down time.
- There needs to be a way to fight NPC outposts/stations. All this talk about risk goes away if you can just park everything in the NPC station and laugh at all your enemies.
PS: Thank god for being able to dock the coffins :) |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1554
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:47:53 -
[65] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Lim Yoona wrote:What about existing NPC stations in 0.0 right now? WIll those be able to be destroyed too? No plans to change NPC stations at the moment. We are considering at some point (far into the future) that we will make player built outposts destructible, but its so far away we don't have to worry about the details of that just yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo#t=38m47s
Good. Please don't change NPC stations. On the other hand, please speed up the process of making player built outposts destructible. The sooner the better.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3028
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:49:02 -
[66] - Quote
So not only do the contents of a citadel get magically teleported to a station, but at any point during the whole attack process the owner can just unanchor the thing, pick it up and leave?
That's terrible, not only do you have to screw around with the incredibly tedious entosis mechanics multiple times to accomplish anything at all, but you get nothing but an empty structure kill for your effort and the owner can take the thing down whenever they want.
That's worse than current POS mechanics by an pretty big margin. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1554
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:49:34 -
[67] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. 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
Yes. Getting podded while you are logged off is a terrible idea.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Hendrink Collie
Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation.
53
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:51:55 -
[68] - Quote
Tuzy Naranek wrote:Can we PLEASE get an answer to how current stations/upgrades will be reimbursed for those of us that have spent years dropping stations and upgrading them in our space? Aegis simply destroyed many billions isk with of IHUBs in our space with no compensation what-so-ever. Because it only really affected Goons (because we were the only people using dual IHUBs in many of our systems), and the attitude towards Goons and other nullsec power blocks from Team Five O is generally condescending and hostile, no move was made to compensate us for IHUBs. If it was an issue that affected all of nullsec equally, I'm sure they would have had a plan to appease everyone, but since it only affected us they barely even acknowledged that it was an issue for anyone and refused to address the issue.
I get that a lot of CCP devs hate us, but you need to be a little less obvious about it when your usual passive aggressiveness boils over into obviousness.
I would assume they are gathering feed back about current stations/upgrades. I wonder if it would work to turn those outpost INTO XL citadels once the patch releases? Seems to be the best way about it to me. Is there a way to exploit that? I can't think of any, but we are a sneaky group.
As for the extra IHUBs.... meh? What is that, like .1% of goon assets? Yeah it sucks, but it seems like split milk to me. Still should have been some compensation obviously, but perhaps they were worried about it getting gamed somehow? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1413
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:52:12 -
[69] - Quote
Tuzy Naranek wrote:Can we PLEASE get an answer to how current stations/upgrades will be reimbursed for those of us that have spent years dropping stations and upgrading them in our space? Aegis simply destroyed many billions isk with of IHUBs in our space with no compensation what-so-ever. Because it only really affected Goons (because we were the only people using dual IHUBs in many of our systems), and the attitude towards Goons and other nullsec power blocks from Team Five O is generally condescending and hostile, no move was made to compensate us for IHUBs. If it was an issue that affected all of nullsec equally, I'm sure they would have had a plan to appease everyone, but since it only affected us they barely even acknowledged that it was an issue for anyone and refused to address the issue.
I get that a lot of CCP devs hate us, but you need to be a little less obvious about it when your usual passive aggressiveness boils over into obviousness.
We honestly don't have any answers for you today other than to say you will be reimbursed at some stage for existing POS and Outpost. When we have that figured out we'll let you know.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Hendrink Collie
Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation.
53
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:52:59 -
[70] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:So not only do the contents of a citadel get magically teleported to a station, but at any point during the whole attack process the owner can just unanchor the thing, pick it up and leave?
That's terrible, not only do you have to screw around with the incredibly tedious entosis mechanics multiple times to accomplish anything at all, but you get nothing but an empty structure kill for your effort and the owner can take the thing down whenever they want.
That's worse than current POS mechanics by an pretty big margin.
The owner has to repair the structure via entosis first, I believe. So if you don't show for the third timer, for example, they can rep it up BEFORE folding up shop. |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1413
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:53:43 -
[71] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:So not only do the contents of a citadel get magically teleported to a station, but at any point during the whole attack process the owner can just unanchor the thing, pick it up and leave?.
No they cannot unanchor it while reinforced, they would have to successfully defend it first. However they can remove their personal assets if they wish.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Challus Mercer
Sacred Temple The Gorgon Empire
17
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:54:35 -
[72] - Quote
Me and lot of other people have concerns about the fact that characters will be poded after destruction of the citadel. While it sounds really cool in fact it will force players to undock in an inty and warp to safe spot before logging out. In this way the pod can be easily saved. Thats why i think the best solution is to not pod the characters and instead just eject all pods to random spots in the system so that players can login safely and decide what to do next: selfdistruct or fly away and save the pod.
All other descibed mechanics sound reasonable and interesting. Thank you for the devbog |
Hendrink Collie
Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation.
53
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:56:00 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:So not only do the contents of a citadel get magically teleported to a station, but at any point during the whole attack process the owner can just unanchor the thing, pick it up and leave?. No they cannot unanchor it while reinforced, they would have to successfully defend it first. However they can remove their personal assets if they wish.
Woo, I guessed right. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1554
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:56:36 -
[74] - Quote
I like the ISK sink for recovering your goods from an NPC station. 10% sounds about right as straight up loss to NPC's.
As a way to reward the successful attacker, you should consider raising the recovery percentage to 20%. Have 10% go to the NPC faction as ISK sink and 10% go to the alliance that destroyed your structure.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Current Habit
Rusty Pricks
49
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:56:47 -
[75] - Quote
Can we have Jump Clones in the Citadels?
If yes, are the clones (and their implants) also magically moved to the nearest LS station (so nobody has to risk anything ever)? |
Sabastian Cerabiam
Seventh Element Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:56:48 -
[76] - Quote
I am more worried about the release timeline then compensation. I'm sure there is plenty of individuals/corps/alliances that are expanding and looking to drop stations/pos's. Anyone that is smart is holding off doing this but that has drawbacks as well. |
Tuzy Naranek
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 17:57:43 -
[77] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Tuzy Naranek wrote:Can we PLEASE get an answer to how current stations/upgrades will be reimbursed for those of us that have spent years dropping stations and upgrading them in our space? Aegis simply destroyed many billions isk with of IHUBs in our space with no compensation what-so-ever. Because it only really affected Goons (because we were the only people using dual IHUBs in many of our systems), and the attitude towards Goons and other nullsec power blocks from Team Five O is generally condescending and hostile, no move was made to compensate us for IHUBs. If it was an issue that affected all of nullsec equally, I'm sure they would have had a plan to appease everyone, but since it only affected us they barely even acknowledged that it was an issue for anyone and refused to address the issue.
I get that a lot of CCP devs hate us, but you need to be a little less obvious about it when your usual passive aggressiveness boils over into obviousness. We honestly don't have any answers for you today other than to say you will be reimbursed at some stage for existing POS and Outpost. When we have that figured out we'll let you know.
Thank you. That you acknowledge that this is something that needs to happen is a big relief. I appreciate the answer. |
Aker Krane
OMEGADYNE LABS Rising Darkness
18
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 18:00:31 -
[78] - Quote
One of the more interesting suggestions I heard was that stuff should deorbit to a planet or moon in that system. You could reclaim it like you are proposing-- having to have an equivalent structure in place. or You could hire Dust Mercs to go get it for you.
You can designate any station for its return. (Capitals/Supers etc restrictions apply of course)
You would lose x% of value or volume for each failed attempt.
Would be very interesting to see how lucrative some of those contracts got for jobs you knew had to get done right. |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
530
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 18:02:16 -
[79] - 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?
|
Fifth Blade
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore
63
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 18:07:13 -
[80] - Quote
Question - What happens to jump clones in a citadel that is destroyed? Are they lost like a docked pod? To clarify; If you have a clone + pod in the same Citadel, will you lose both? |
|
Lycus Emyr
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 18:08:59 -
[81] - Quote
could we make it where like 5% of the players goods drop? that way there is a bit of a hit for not defending and a larger reward for attacking. Also I like the idea of convoys moving the goods,and would love to see that (maybe drop that 5% or so into convoys and have them move to HS so the attackers can hunt them down and get them or the defenders can protect that last bit of goods. |
Cynica Deetric
Quantum Singularities Half Massed
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 18:17:00 -
[82] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote: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
The more poeple in WH space = more targets for pvp. The more isk poeple have the more isk stupid poeple will put onto their ships because purple is better rite?
|
Taru Audeles
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 18:17:57 -
[83] - Quote
I really don't see how and why anyone will be using the new citadels the way they are designed now. You still loss 10% of the value if you want your stuff back. They get delivered to a RANDOM NPC station. So if you have stuff in multiple citadels the stuff can and will be delivered to multiple NPC stations. NPC Stations are not safe and null sec people do not live there. At least not the people who setup citadels in null sec.
You need to fix everything that is broken around the FozzieSov mechanics first before you release more features that are based on an utterly broken mechanic.
Main Issues I see is the random NPC station part. And 10% value is a bit much. When I think about how much stuff null sec people and long term players and payers have this is just not gonna work. |
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
530
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 18:28:55 -
[84] - Quote
Cynica Deetric wrote:Max Kolonko wrote: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 The more poeple in WH space = more targets for pvp. The more isk poeple have the more isk stupid poeple will put onto their ships because purple is better rite?
One could only hope that would be the case. But what is more probable outcome they will just hoard isk, except for the few individuals that bling their ships anyway.
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3597
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 18:36:57 -
[85] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. 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 No, Id rather be in space in a cloaky scanning interceptor.
Maybe everyone can specify an "escape craft", a ship currently in their inventory at the structure. If the citadel explodes while they are docked, that escape craft is dumped into space at a random location, with the pilot in it, irrelevant of what they last docked up with.
The designated escape craft would persist from log in to log in, until such time as you are docked and that ship is not present. Then it defaults to whatever you last docked up with.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Anthar Thebess
1269
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 18:50:20 -
[86] - Quote
CCP again, what about regions where nearest NPC stations are in NPC null space? For esoteria/ paragon soul - the closest NPC space is Stain - sometimes 5 jumps away , and not Tash-Murkon , that is not even in direct jump range of Stain for the capital ships.
You need to include NPC null regions in asset evacuation points.
Don't also touch NPC nullsec stations if you are not changing lowsec and higsec stations.
This is also NPC space that have its own rules and provide different type of game play.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Mercer Nen
Summicron Holdings
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 18:59:05 -
[87] - Quote
Honestly these magical mechanics are terrible. If you're going to make things destructible then just do it. This halfway nonsense of creating mechanics that make no logical sense (magic delivery) is really poor. There should always be an immersive element to all mechanics.
This asset safety stuff maybe makes sense for hi sec. But for everywhere else it is incredibly uninspired. Apologies for being so harsh but it is very frustrating to see game systems being designed that are completely devoid of any EVE universe immersive elements. Maybe if the envoironment that these citadels will be built in had more meaning players would have more incentive to build them? As opposed to the current theme of building mechanics that are completely abstract and disconnected from a futuristic science fiction universe (latest sov system, entosis magic wand, magic delivery of assets).
Hire some more writers for goodness sake. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32161
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:00:21 -
[88] - Quote
My feedback is that I confer the weight of my opinion to my leadership and elected CSMs.
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|
Opner Dresden
Lugus Foundry The Explicit Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:04:09 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:So not only do the contents of a citadel get magically teleported to a station, but at any point during the whole attack process the owner can just unanchor the thing, pick it up and leave?. No they cannot unanchor it while reinforced, they would have to successfully defend it first. However they can remove their personal assets if they wish.
Does that mean they can be unanchored and moved while not reinforced? The ROI on these looks horrible if it's a one time deployable that can also be destroyed. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2374
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:16:05 -
[90] - 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. |
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
226
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:16:57 -
[91] - Quote
Quote: For low and null-security structures, that will be the closest low-security NPC station. Please note the exact destination will be picked automatically to minimize potential for abuse.
why not NPC 0.0 stations/regions? npc 0.0 wil make more sense, since tehy are closer most of the time, also this will stop any form of abuse of the system for "free" delivery of your stuff to empire |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1417
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:16:57 -
[92] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:So not only do the contents of a citadel get magically teleported to a station, but at any point during the whole attack process the owner can just unanchor the thing, pick it up and leave?. No they cannot unanchor it while reinforced, they would have to successfully defend it first. However they can remove their personal assets if they wish. Does that mean they can be unanchored and moved while not reinforced? The ROI on these looks horrible if it's a one time deployable that can also be destroyed.
Yes you can unanchor them provided they are not under attack. They will immediately enter a vulnerable state and at the end will eject the personal assets to safety, kickout the docked pilots into space and the unanchor to be scooped.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
naed21
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
25
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:19:45 -
[93] - Quote
If I'm reading this correctly, assets are never moved out of a WH when the structure is destroyed. This means you can seed ships in whs and then when you anchor a new structure suddenly have a ton of capital ships out of no where.
It's certainly possible for a group to setup a large structure in every c6 wh, fill them with dreads and carriers, and then blow them up so that in the future they can attack the new residents with this large capital force. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3599
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:25:23 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Opner Dresden wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:So not only do the contents of a citadel get magically teleported to a station, but at any point during the whole attack process the owner can just unanchor the thing, pick it up and leave?. No they cannot unanchor it while reinforced, they would have to successfully defend it first. However they can remove their personal assets if they wish. Does that mean they can be unanchored and moved while not reinforced? The ROI on these looks horrible if it's a one time deployable that can also be destroyed. Yes you can unanchor them provided they are not under attack. They will immediately enter a vulnerable state and at the end will eject the personal assets to safety, kickout the docked pilots into space and the unanchor to be scooped. And, I assume, the rigs are destroyed?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:26:13 -
[95] - Quote
Create "Research Archive" that players can purchase as a way to secure their BPO's in destructible station from being destroyed when the structure explodes. 10% of BPO value allows alliance, corp, individual to have their BPO rights reinstated at a station of their choosing -high/low indestructible. Could also be a way for alliance to build anywhere instead of using copies.
Maybe using a data or relic analyzer on pieces of the station wreck could have a chance of getting some bpc's from the now dead "research archive".
Yes, lots of wreck pieces... talking thousands -that MTU's can't suck in. Pretty stupid to see a titan wreck get pulled near to an MTU -even for a few seconds.
All other assets -drop as loot, this is eve. |
Zedah Zoid
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
31
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:27:13 -
[96] - Quote
naed21 wrote:If I'm reading this correctly, assets are never moved out of a WH when the structure is destroyed. This means you can seed ships in whs and then when you anchor a new structure suddenly have a ton of capital ships out of no where.
It's certainly possible for a group to setup a large structure in every c6 wh, fill them with dreads and carriers, and then blow them up so that in the future they can attack the new residents with this large capital force.
Exactly. This is why the WH mechanics of this need to be re-thought completely. I don't particularly like the K-space mechanics either but I have less experience there so I hesitate to start complaining about it. I'm not really sure why any asset outside of high-sec should be considered safe. But for WH space in particular this is an obvious flaw. We've lived this long with "if you bring it to the WH, it's dead already" mindset. Don't take that away. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1349
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:29:13 -
[97] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Opner Dresden wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:So not only do the contents of a citadel get magically teleported to a station, but at any point during the whole attack process the owner can just unanchor the thing, pick it up and leave?. No they cannot unanchor it while reinforced, they would have to successfully defend it first. However they can remove their personal assets if they wish. Does that mean they can be unanchored and moved while not reinforced? The ROI on these looks horrible if it's a one time deployable that can also be destroyed. Yes you can unanchor them provided they are not under attack. They will immediately enter a vulnerable state and at the end will eject the personal assets to safety, kickout the docked pilots into space and the unanchor to be scooped. But if I have scouted out the vulnerability windows, I will be able to time my wardec to at least catch one vulnerability window? Or will the target be able to change the window and scoop the structure all within the 24h wind-up period to a war? |
Epigene
Cordata Enterprises
52
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:34:49 -
[98] - Quote
Cynica Deetric wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. 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 Could you please think about those of us in WH space. I would still have to log off outside of the citadel in my scan boat. On a side note please do not limit asset recovery to only being delivered to a citadel that is built in the same hole. Thera, low sec, and Highsec are all options to quote a previous post "Once again, w-space seems to be a bit of an afterthought."
As far as I understand, us wormholers would experience virtually no change from the POS system. The probability of someone building a new structure in the hole they just lost is pretty slim (but not impossible and certainly a driver for long grudges). But a C2 corporation that gets evicted from their hole is likely to just write off the assets and move on. Pretty much what we do today.
I don't mind, actually, Wormholes are supposed to be the least safe place in EVE. This works for me.
www.splatus.wordpress.com-á
|
Starcruiser Stasarik
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:36:37 -
[99] - Quote
Question about the Citadels, related to their different structure attachments.
If a person has BP's in one structure (say, the corp office structure), will those BP's be available for use in other structures (research, factory, etc)? Or will we need to move them around as we do different things with them?
If we have to move them around, will that functionality be available while docked in the Citadel, or will we need to be undocked. If Undocked, are we able to do so while linked with the invuln link, or will we have to break that link?
The same would go for minerals and materials, I suppose, for manufacturing. Is having them in a centralized location possible, or will we need to move them about the Citadel's structures as we need them in different locations?
Can things be delivered from one structure to another (say, for instance, BPC's being made can be delivered to the factory structure, instead of having to move them manually)?
This all may be better-asked on a thread relating to the individual structures themselves, but I don't really see anything like that currently. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3599
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:49:15 -
[100] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Opner Dresden wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:So not only do the contents of a citadel get magically teleported to a station, but at any point during the whole attack process the owner can just unanchor the thing, pick it up and leave?. No they cannot unanchor it while reinforced, they would have to successfully defend it first. However they can remove their personal assets if they wish. Does that mean they can be unanchored and moved while not reinforced? The ROI on these looks horrible if it's a one time deployable that can also be destroyed. Yes you can unanchor them provided they are not under attack. They will immediately enter a vulnerable state and at the end will eject the personal assets to safety, kickout the docked pilots into space and the unanchor to be scooped. But if I have scouted out the vulnerability windows, I will be able to time my wardec to at least catch one vulnerability window? Or will the target be able to change the window and scoop the structure all within the 24h wind-up period to a war? I think they can scoop while the structure in in normal operation at any time. So they can always scoop before the war starts. But if its rigged, they lose the rigs.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
77
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:54:16 -
[101] - Quote
Serious Question: What's 10% of a T2 Original Blueprint? |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3955
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:12:53 -
[102] - Quote
Houm...
Lorewise: since the end of the usability of Large POS control towers, Pend Insurance starts buying them, fits them with titan engines and CONCORD grade tank and calls the resulting patch-ship the "Vulture", a NPC ultra-freighter class with 1 billion m3 of capacity. They can't be bumped (seriously... they're 40 kilometers large), cruise at a ponderous speed of 15 m/s and warp at 0.1 AU/S after aligning for up to 1,800 seconds. They become a usual sight whenever a Citadel is facing Doom, and veterans speculate about the contents of the Citadel by counting how many Vultures gather to pick up the loot. Of course, salvage is not for free: a 10% salvage fee is due in order to recover your stuff.
As for the "capsuleer in citadel when it gets blown", it makes no sense that the capsuleer is podded. It is just a invitation to log off safely before loggin out, specially if you plan to leave the game for a while because of RL or whatever. What is the purpose of a dockable structure that punishes you for docking with it?
The only sensible answer would be our friends the Pend Vultures taking pods with them. For a modest fee, of course, paid in advance (say, 100,000 ISK?). The "save my ass" fee would be per individual and Citadel, so it wouldn't escalate by losing clones but would cost more the right to be rescued from a lot of Citadels than just from one.
Disclaimer: the idea of using POS control towers as ships stems from reading about a notorous Buckingham bug where a NPC would spawn NPC stations 100 km large instead of missiles due to a change in item IDs...
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1350
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:20:54 -
[103] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: I think they can scoop while the structure in in normal operation at any time. So they can always scoop before the war starts. But if its rigged, they lose the rigs.
But I thought they had to wait one vulnerability window before scooping? So if the vulnerability window is greater than 24 hours, shouldn't I be able to time the wardec such I can try to reinforce the citadel before it can be scooped?
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
4881
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:26:44 -
[104] - Quote
Half of the impound fees should be paid to the player that landed the final blow on the citadel. There should be an incentive to go blow up a very very full citadel, and you should get more than a couple of citadel guns for doing so.
CSM 7 Secretary
CSM 6 Alternate Delegate
@two_step_eve on Twitter
My Blog
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
279
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:32:18 -
[105] - Quote
Mercer Nen wrote:Honestly these magical mechanics are terrible. If you're going to make things destructible then just do it. This halfway nonsense of creating mechanics that make no logical sense (magic delivery) is really poor. There should always be an immersive element to all mechanics.
There are existing mechanics that are not immersive (bumping for example...). I believe sci-fi explanations can be created once the game design is solidified, but the game design should prime above the immersion factor.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
774
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:35:17 -
[106] - Quote
Lord Okinaba wrote:Ugh. So personal assets and ships get magically transported to another station or system upon destruction?
Seems pretty soft and not at all what I have come to expect from EVE Online.
Everything should spill out into the system in thousands of pieces and at thousands of ms.
If you don't want to risk losing all your stuff, don't put all your eggs in one basket and always keep hold of liquid isk to start again.
I'm not taking my ~10b in combat assets that I have staged in Curse and putting them in an outpost that can be blown up without any way of recovering them. I'd rather go live in Thera instead. And I'd have a better range of content there.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Draconus Lofwyr
UK Corp Goonswarm Federation
115
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:36:08 -
[107] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Opner Dresden wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:So not only do the contents of a citadel get magically teleported to a station, but at any point during the whole attack process the owner can just unanchor the thing, pick it up and leave?. No they cannot unanchor it while reinforced, they would have to successfully defend it first. However they can remove their personal assets if they wish. Does that mean they can be unanchored and moved while not reinforced? The ROI on these looks horrible if it's a one time deployable that can also be destroyed. Yes you can unanchor them provided they are not under attack. They will immediately enter a vulnerable state and at the end will eject the personal assets to safety, kickout the docked pilots into space and the unanchor to be scooped.
well, now comes the next level of espionage, infiltrating, then unanchoring hostile citadels to eject all the logged off pilots into the middle of a bubble camp for the monkey barrel exercise. Plus getting a nice juicy packaged citadel for your troubles. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1788
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 20:37:28 -
[108] - Quote
naed21 wrote:If I'm reading this correctly, assets are never moved out of a WH when the structure is destroyed. This means you can seed ships in whs and then when you anchor a new structure suddenly have a ton of capital ships out of no where.
It's certainly possible for a group to setup a large structure in every c6 wh, fill them with dreads and carriers, and then blow them up so that in the future they can attack the new residents with this large capital force. The delay between the citadel going online and assets being recovered is several days. CCP could easily tweak the asset recovery time in wormholes to allow for the citadel to be destroyed inside the asset recovery window.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Marech Bhayanaka
The Night Crew The Night Crew Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:07:53 -
[109] - Quote
Taru Audeles wrote:I really don't see how and why anyone will be using the new citadels the way they are designed now. You still loss 10% of the value if you want your stuff back. They get delivered to a RANDOM NPC station. So if you have stuff in multiple citadels the stuff can and will be delivered to multiple NPC stations.
If you are going to lose so many citadels that a 10% loss is unbearable, maybe you shouldn't be putting them up in the first place?
Marech. |
Draconus Lofwyr
UK Corp Goonswarm Federation
115
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:34:32 -
[110] - Quote
Marech Bhayanaka wrote:Taru Audeles wrote:I really don't see how and why anyone will be using the new citadels the way they are designed now. You still loss 10% of the value if you want your stuff back. They get delivered to a RANDOM NPC station. So if you have stuff in multiple citadels the stuff can and will be delivered to multiple NPC stations.
If you are going to lose so many citadels that a 10% loss is unbearable, maybe you shouldn't be putting them up in the first place? Marech.
the fine detail that seems to elude you is, the Corp or Alliance puts up the citadel. the individual members have to pay the 10% of their asset value. While the corp or alliance could eat the value, the individuals might or probably cant. the mantra will change from don't fly what you cant afford to lose, to don't own what you cant afford to loose. this will cause a massive depression in asset ownership as people move to low/high sec or sell what they cant afford to loose. which means a reduction in demand. and the entire eve economy will collapse in on itself. |
|
Mercer Nen
Summicron Holdings
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:35:30 -
[111] - Quote
Saisin wrote:Mercer Nen wrote:Honestly these magical mechanics are terrible. If you're going to make things destructible then just do it. This halfway nonsense of creating mechanics that make no logical sense (magic delivery) is really poor. There should always be an immersive element to all mechanics.
There are existing mechanics that are not immersive (bumping for example...). I believe sci-fi explanations can be created once the game design is solidified, but the game design should prime above the immersion factor.
I agree, but is this game design, or system design? The magical delivery doesn't add any gameplay as far as I can tell. It's just an unimaginative illogical safety mechanism. If there are technical limitations around a system that force a certain mechanic than that is understandable. Bumping being a good example of this, where proper collision mechanics open up a massive can of worms, such as server load with thousands of players in close proximity.
However this seems to be more a case of creating a new system that is servicing a perceived user need (I don't want to lose all my stuff), without adding any real interaction within the system. In addition to that, this system doesn't seem to have been designed with any relationship or context to the environments it will exist in. It's as abstract and disconnected from New Eden as the capture points in the new sov system.
I've purposely avoided using the "lore" word, because the issue isn't about writing a story to postrationalise a system. The issue is that the "game design" is based on abstract systems that have no legitimate context in the game in which they exist. What exactly am I playing if all I'm doing is triggering arbitrary safety mechanisms? |
Garai Nolen
XYJAX NICE Inter-Celestial Enterprises
45
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:39:16 -
[112] - Quote
Ab'del Abu wrote:So ships and items will no longer drop from structures in wormholes? I think it would be more sensible if only part of one's assets was delivered to some NPC station/other citadel while the other part dropped directly as loot.
I think it would be nifty if "asset safety" were tied to a citadel rig, and if the installation of that rig required sov. In WH space, no sov, no rig, no asset safety, stuff would continue to dropslike it does now. In null, you get a choice, dependent on how lucrative the other rig benefits are and whether you are deploying somewhere that you have sov or not.
Since only the rig install would be sov-gated, if you happen to lose sov, any existing citadels that are already "safety rigged" would still have asset safety, but you wouldn't be able to rig new citadels for safety until regaining sov. Would make forward deployment citadels more dangerous too.
EVEoj - EVE Online JavaScript library: http://eve-oj.xyjax.com/
|
Dr Loveless
Viziam Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:44:47 -
[113] - Quote
Loot from personal/corporation hangar should drop on 50% rule just like ships. 1. nice loot :) 2. avoid "I don't care about my station my assets are safe." 3. blueprints should drop too
Assets which don't drop will be delivered to NPC station blah, blah, blah... |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
267
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:54:33 -
[114] - Quote
I don't want to feel safe in Citadel city. That is all. |
Marech Bhayanaka
The Night Crew The Night Crew Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:59:18 -
[115] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
the fine detail that seems to elude you is, the Corp or Alliance puts up the citadel. the individual members have to pay the 10% of their asset value. While the corp or alliance could eat the value, the individuals might or probably cant.
No, I get that. Let me rephrase for your perspective .... If your corp is losing citadels so often that the 10% fee is becoming a problem, maybe you need to either keep less stuff in dangerous space, or change corps. In a game like Eve, 10% loss as a consequence of something major like losing a citadel is really quite trivial.
Marech. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
5254
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:11:16 -
[116] - Quote
I don't like the item teleportation aspect. This is basically NPCs doing courier contracts on behalf of players, and at a lower price than players would agree to do so in comparable circumstances.
There were far better proposals made in the original feedback threads.
There do not seem to be enough incentives to attack citadels here. POSes are lucrative to attack because you can loot hangars.
Finally, was it your design intention to buff tech 2 BPOs with this change? Because this allows you to get the throughput bonus of non-station BPO use without putting the BPO at risk. Crius intentionally removed this functionality from the game for balance reasons.
Shoot everyone. Let the Saviour sort it out.
I enforce the New Haliama Code of Conduct via wardec ops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - read about requirements for highsec miners at www.minerbumping.com
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32161
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:14:10 -
[117] - Quote
That part is simple enough. Citadels have a jump portal for "stuff" with range exceeding the drives on ships.
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|
Chad Wylder
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
37
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:15:41 -
[118] - Quote
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:the fine detail that seems to elude you is, the Corp or Alliance puts up the citadel. the individual members have to pay the 10% of their asset value. While the corp or alliance could eat the value, the individuals might or probably cant. the mantra will change from don't fly what you cant afford to lose, to don't own what you cant afford to loose. this will cause a massive depression in asset ownership as people move to low/high sec or sell what they cant afford to loose. which means a reduction in demand. and the entire eve economy will collapse in on itself. The way it sounds to me, the individual is never required to pay anything to initiate the asset safety transfer (I could be wrong, would love clarification on this)
The person only needs to pay on a per-item basis when they go to claim that item from their plastic-wrapped impound stack. If they don't have the isk to claim their items back, the items will sit in impound until they do have the isk.
On that note, what's the item value going to be based on and when is the 10% cost going to be calculated? Could someone theoretically use market manipulation to either lower the 10% retrieval cost on certain items to almost nothing, or ramp it up super high for other people to have to pay to get their stuff back? |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1783
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:18:24 -
[119] - Quote
We talked it over. Purposely sticking your assets in stasis will be a thing. How exploitable is up to your own definition of desired or not I suppose. I don't' really see an issue with it as it falls within emergent gameplay.
Various reasons to do it. Probably won't see it a lot until regular outposts are gone though. WH maybe, but null will do it after that point.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
272
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:23:52 -
[120] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Urziel99 wrote:Looks good overall. I would rather have limited choice for where the assets end up. I.e. If we lose a Citadel in Vale we can choose any lowsec station in the nearest constellation for asset packages containing capitals Pilots without restricted items could select a highsec station in the same or adjacent constellation. If the location where the asset will end up is known then the attackers will be able to hellcamp the station where they know the assets will end up.
This prevents heavy abuse (having assets from Branch, for example get magically sent to Aridia.) but provides enough security to not have defacto lost the assets due to camps. This is a good point, however we are also very concerned with players abusing this as an asset delivery system especially in high / low sec. So having any amount of choice creates different problems for us. Having said that we'll have a think about this some more. Thanks.
The abuse is a good point, on both sides. Maybe a better method would simply be to have several nearby, valid NPC stations selected at random as opposed to just the nearest station. This way the assets cannot be camped without insider information and the losing player has a small choice: they can select from a per-determined randomized list generated by the servers. |
|
AAetius Retlow
Zero's 27 Strains Spears of Destiny
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:26:42 -
[121] - Quote
I would never want to dock and go to sleep in a citadel knowing that if I don't log on in a week I CAN BE PODDED WHILE DOCKED! |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
774
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:30:01 -
[122] - Quote
You are entirely removing the motivation for the majority of wormhole sieges. GJ
(rest being those where attackers want to move in)
SSC Brokering Service
|
Alexis Nightwish
323
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:35:39 -
[123] - Quote
Will outposts ever be phased out in a similar manner to how POSs are to be? If not, don't expect many citadels when outposts still provide 100% protection of your stuff.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Alexis Nightwish
323
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:39:44 -
[124] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: There are two different ways of recovering impounded items:
Have items delivered to the closest NPC station. For high-security dwellers, this will be the closest high-security station available. For low and null-security structures, that will be the closest low-security NPC station. [THIS IS THE PART WHERE YOU SAY WHAT HAPPENS TO STUFF IN WORMHOLES] Please note the exact destination will be picked automatically to minimize potential for abuse.
So when a citadel is destroyed in WH space... what? It turns into a pumpkin?
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Roderick Raholan
Order In Disorder Virtus Crusade Protectorate
30
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:39:49 -
[125] - Quote
I apologies if my question has been previously asked and I'm not quite sure if I will get an answer, but I must ask...
So if I recall correctly you would be able to configure a Citadel for manufacturing, giving people incentive to build ships as well as other commodities that are in high demand in great quantities. I can understand that CCP wouldn't want to make the minerals that are involved in builds obtainable after the destruction of a Citadel, but what about high volumes of items or capital ships which require billions in materials. For a single miner out in Nullsec it can take months to obtain such quantities which result in weeks of build time.
Has CCP considered this as an issue? On an alliance scale these losses can seem small, but to a single industrialist who has worked hard to obtain the materials himself could lose months of work unless I'm getting the wrong end of the stick... Why will industrialists risk these longer or high quantity builds in Citadel's if this is the case?
I would appreciate any answer as I am a player which does a lot of manufacturing inside outposts and these changes will have a great impact on my game play, be it negative or positive. I just worry that Industrialists might lose out a little on this one... |
goodlady Smith
Exit-Strategy Exit Strategy..
6
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:41:03 -
[126] - Quote
I think it works in WHs, yes it makes it safer but too many people once evicted from a WH are gone, WHs holes should be thriving but at this stage the complexity of living in WHs in combination with risk associated means no one is coming to play. That makes me sad.
I think if you received 50% - 100% of the 10% cost to retrieve items you would actually be close to the value of the items you could expect to receive anyway.
You get the bonus kills in-terms of the implants of pilots killed in station and an added bonus.
Please like my posts it makes me feel better about the time I spend on the forums
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1788
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:57:11 -
[127] - Quote
Quick question -- when determining which NPC station to send items to upon outpost destruction, will the game use the distance between solar systems in terms of physical distance in light years or number of gate connections between systems? The example posited in the devblog uses EC-P8R as the source and Anin as the destination, and Anin is the closest lowsec system to EC-P8R both in terms of gates AND physical distance in light years.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
15
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 23:03:35 -
[128] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:I like the ISK sink for recovering your goods from an NPC station. 10% sounds about right as straight up loss to NPC's.
As a way to reward the successful attacker, you should consider raising the recovery percentage to 20%. Have 10% go to the NPC faction as ISK sink and 10% go to the alliance that destroyed your structure.
...or you could let 10% of the loot drop in containers; it's less than a POS (ship maintenance array for example) would drop; but then again, with 90% asset security chances are they will be more stored inside. Previous outposts dropped 0%, POS dropped 50%. I believe 10 percent sounds reasonable, no?
Not sure how I feel about the whole "closest NPC station" thing .... lose outpost in scalding pass, stuff gets shipped off to Derelik? Feels somewhat artificial, kinda like CCP magic because people would cry too hard. Same goes for wormholes: people may never be able to build another POS (pardon: citadel) after they're evicted; so how much time should the losers get to reclaim it, until the phat lootz get shipped off to the conqueror's station instead?
Doesn't seem entire well thought out. I get that CCP wishes to offer some guarantees, but they do it in an uncharacteristically un-EVEly way. Shipping off the goods? For real? You just lost 3 rounds of SOV warfare during which you could have moved it yourself; but don't worry, CCP's got your back?
How about the goods stay in system, impounded somewhere/somehow, until somebody reclaims them? The loser gets 45 days to recover 90% of his possessions in another citadel in the same system; after that, goods are auctioned to the highest bidder? |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3610
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 23:11:52 -
[129] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: There are two different ways of recovering impounded items:
Have items delivered to the closest NPC station. For high-security dwellers, this will be the closest high-security station available. For low and null-security structures, that will be the closest low-security NPC station. [THIS IS THE PART WHERE YOU SAY WHAT HAPPENS TO STUFF IN WORMHOLES] Please note the exact destination will be picked automatically to minimize potential for abuse.
So when a citadel is destroyed in WH space... what? It turns into a pumpkin? From the blog: "Build another Citadel in the same system to replace the one that has been lost, and deliver the items there. This option will be working the same way for all locations, and will be the only way to recover items out of wormhole space. "
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2426
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 23:13:25 -
[130] - Quote
Two step wrote:Half of the impound fees should be paid to the player that landed the final blow on the citadel. There should be an incentive to go blow up a very very full citadel, and you should get more than a couple of citadel guns for doing so. Agreed. Some incentive is required or you will destroy the risk/reward meta. I'm thinking highsec here but the principle applies everywhere.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
Sonko146
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
9
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 23:27:03 -
[131] - Quote
I'm Comander Sonko and I Approve of this devblog! |
Archetype 66
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
192
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 23:30:10 -
[132] - Quote
How do you plan for jumps clones in Citadels when they get destroyed ? |
Alexis Nightwish
323
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 23:33:14 -
[133] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: There are two different ways of recovering impounded items:
Have items delivered to the closest NPC station. For high-security dwellers, this will be the closest high-security station available. For low and null-security structures, that will be the closest low-security NPC station. [THIS IS THE PART WHERE YOU SAY WHAT HAPPENS TO STUFF IN WORMHOLES] Please note the exact destination will be picked automatically to minimize potential for abuse.
So when a citadel is destroyed in WH space... what? It turns into a pumpkin? From the blog: "Build another Citadel in the same system to replace the one that has been lost, and deliver the items there. This option will be working the same way for all locations, and will be the only way to recover items out of wormhole space. " Thanks I missed that last part.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
691
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 23:54:05 -
[134] - Quote
Only thing I really want to know is - With these new structures ONLY being affected by Entosis links and their ability to shoot anyone trying to use an entosis link on them - How does an attacking force deal with the incoming damage? Are there plans to change Entosis links so remote reps are allowed?
Armed Citadel - Attackers come in with entosis links - Citadel shoots attackers.
Or will it be like existing stations / outposts - Disable Citadel defenses, then reinforce it?
The magic wand is not really going to work on a structure that can shoot at the person using it, yet be invulnerable to DPS. Especially if your going to have to stay alive for an hour or more to RF it.
-- - -- - -- - -- Another good role for interceptors, speed tanked ceptors - Citadel can't track them to kill them, players can't catch them - Ceptors online for the win.
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 RIP Worm Hole residents.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Langbaobao
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 23:56:17 -
[135] - Quote
TBH, I don't know how I feel about this whole thing, but having this magical NPC teleport that gets your stuff safe from a citadel that gets destroyed sounds extremely risk-averse and un-EVE like. The level of security that it provides (recovering 90% of your stuff that was stuck) sounds really like a reward for not defending. People are just gonna go: "**** this, let the morons waste time killing it and we'll just grab our stuff in some station". It definitely does not feel like a big loss for the enemy that you're trying to punt out of somewhere. You put in the time to burn their **** and they lose only 10% of their stuff (in the form of ISK impound tax), not to mention the attacker does not get rewarded for killing a structure. Currently killing a POS drops you loot from the hangars and all (the famous loot-pinata) and I can tell you, it's a distinct pleasure when you can loot something out of someone's POS like that. I don't see why stuff should be magically teleported from the destroyed structures. After all, the structures will have reinforce timers like outpost currently have, right? So let them evac their stuff like it's done now in outposts, and if they can't, well, they should have fleeted up and tried. Here are some suggestions that I think might make this system better or at least more rewarding for the people that put in the effort to actually attack the structures:
- Corp and personal stuff should at least in part (25-50%) drop for the attacker like in the current POS mechanics. It would be the reward for wasting time on several reinforcement timers and/or fleet actions.
- I still think people should lose stuff from their citadels like happens with POSes today, however if a system is introduced for people to recover stuff from destroyed structures (magical NPC pony freight service) at least make the loss sting. People should lose at least 50% of their assets if not more, and not a miserly 10% (in ISK no less). The ONLY exception should be the pod and the ship the pilot was sitting in when he logged off. This would mimic the current situation when people log off in POSes can log in after the structure is destroyed and get away with the ship they were currently in. This would make sense as well fluffwise since IIRC the idea was that ships 'moor' into the citadel; and scenes of ships scrambling away from a burning space structure are a dime a dozen in SF movies and so on. It would also prevent having to resort to annoying workarounds like the 'log in in space to save the pod', mentioned previously.
- Related to what was mentioned above, the pilot logging in after his citadel is destroyed should respawn with his ship in the same system where the citadel was. In my opinion they should respawn at the same place where the citadel was placed, but I would consider the option that they appear at a random safe spot somewhere in space, although I'm not so sure about this because it would prevent people being 'bubble-caged' and hence 'reward' them with an increased chance of survival. This would need further discussion. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5818
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 00:02:22 -
[136] - Quote
So in upgrading from a POS to a citadel, we gain the ability to:
- evacuate assets posthumously, evading bubbles and killboxes
- deny attackers the spoils of war
- avoid the 50% loss penalty when evacuation ships get blown up
- park supercapitals in a way that they cannot be stolen or destroyed
And these things will be available in hisec too? Sign me up!
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Rob Kashuken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
79
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 00:07:14 -
[137] - Quote
Well, after reading through all the related dev blogs on this, I can't help but feel that this new mechanic system is being introduced purely to give all the super pilots something to do.
We've gone from a HP grind in Dominion Sov to having firstly outposts, then Sov being decided through the use of magic wands.
Because combat supers (ignoring for now the riveting gameplay of being a "bridge *****") seemed to be only useful for dealing with grinding through large HP levels of structures and other supers, this new system feels like just winding back the magic wand for outpost services and replacing it with a new HP grind.
In the recent dev blogs, I was admittedly hopeful that supers would be re-purposed to give actual strategic advantages... but it looks like their role will remain the same, just have a new target for their grind ability. |
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
774
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 00:07:18 -
[138] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Another good role for interceptors, speed tanked ceptors - Citadel can't track them to kill them, players can't catch them - Ceptors online for the win.
Citadels can fit webs and scrams. As long as they have a minimum 30km range (T1 entosis range + small buffer) trollceptors are going to have a bad day.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Acks
RONA Corporation Nerfed Alliance Go Away
79
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 00:15:02 -
[139] - Quote
LOCKED BPO's
So I read about the cans having their passwords cleared. My question is about any BPO's that may be locked down in hangars.
Since BPO's will be moved via the safe transport mechanism, will they arrive at the new location locked down or unlocked?
If they arrive unlocked, that seems like a workaround to the shareholder mechanics and could be exploited. On the cans you mention making sure you restrict roles so only certain people can recover items from lost citadels. This is a more complex issue with BPO's than other items. A person who would be trusted to recover items may not be trusted to recover BPO's.
Will a new role be created for "recovery" or will this fall under the category of "accountant / Jr. Accountant"? Perhaps add a "grantable role" via a Title?
Assuming BPO's arrive unlocked, this system could also be abused by corps that do not want to have to wait the 24 hours after an unlock vote (not to mention the ungodly click fest of locking / unlocking BPO's). They could unanchor the citadel forcing all items inside to get safe transported and will have saved themselves a ton of time and aggravation.
Thanks, Acks |
Malakai Asamov
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
37
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 00:25:38 -
[140] - Quote
In the CSM FAQ document there's a statement even a medium citadel "... will be able to fit some appropriate defenses to offer resistance against most kind of assaults including capital ships".
Does CCP see a way that an entosis ship will survive on grid with a citadel to do what is requiered to RF it? Or can attackers disable a citadels defences somehow?
|
|
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
461
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 00:32:19 -
[141] - Quote
Pinatas for everyone, high, low, null and whs. It's only right.
And let all the clones die - if this creates a new meta where people stop having ridiculous ehp from full slave sets or almost unprobable boosting t3s from halos because their alliance mates might **** up whilst their I the Bahamas, then good riddance ;)
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Sky Marshal
Core Industry. Circle-Of-Two
84
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 00:36:33 -
[142] - Quote
10% fee to recover our stuff "teleported" into a NPC station seems a bad idea for me, as it can and will be partially avoided by stocking the most expensive stuff in NPC stations or secret locations in high-sec and will be retrieved/removed when needed.
Half of this would be better as it will encourage a few less to do that.
If you really need some ISK sinks, just make sure that building a Citadel or Array will require a decent amount of a whatever item only provided by NPCs orders in the market... |
Daerrol
Krieger Industries Inc. Phoebe Freeport Republic
222
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 01:19:01 -
[143] - Quote
100% on board with all clones in the station die. Please do that. Implants are an extremely high end level of play which most nullsec and WH people don't use anyways. Those who do can afford a new set (I say this as one of those who can afford to buy and lose a full set of slaves)
Low-sec dwellers, where implants are rampant, will not be using outposts. Forcing coalitions to leave their high end clones in NPC stations is fine. Choice is a good thing to have!
+1 CCP. It's a bit fluff-breaky but I like these changes. 10% tax on the value of your goods is more than enough of a slap
|
Ruiko Chent-Shi
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 01:21:49 -
[144] - Quote
Maybe this has been covered, but I haven't seen it yet.
What about items in existing outposts that I'm unable to evacuate? What happens to these items when the outposts that they're locked in are phased out? |
Hal Morsh
Delusions of Granduer Two Drink Minimum
376
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 01:24:27 -
[145] - Quote
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.
Dun'Gal > Hal is simply an imperfect ai, though if drunkeness ever gets programmed into ai's I foresee both a hilarious and tragic end to humanity.
|
Careby
229
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 01:28:27 -
[146] - Quote
Sabastian Cerabiam wrote:Losing implants while you are logged off would be wrong in my opinion. I understand the not being safe in nullsec aspect of the game. So losing some of your stuff if the station explodes is understandable.
The best option would be that when you log back on your in your pod in warp back to the wreck of the station. Same as if you safely log off in space. I have to agree. It makes little sense to be safer if you log off out in space than if you log off docked in a structure. Logged off is logged off (as long as you log off safely without active timers).
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2377
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 01:47:03 -
[147] - 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. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
290
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 02:20:32 -
[148] - Quote
naed21 wrote:If I'm reading this correctly, assets are never moved out of a WH when the structure is destroyed. This means you can seed ships in whs and then when you anchor a new structure suddenly have a ton of capital ships out of no where.
It's certainly possible for a group to setup a large structure in every c6 wh, fill them with dreads and carriers, and then blow them up so that in the future they can attack the new residents with this large capital force.
There is a limit before they go poof, they won;t be available indefinitely
Also, they are still exploring no asset safety in Wormholes |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
691
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 02:21:45 -
[149] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Another good role for interceptors, speed tanked ceptors - Citadel can't track them to kill them, players can't catch them - Ceptors online for the win.
Citadels can fit webs and scrams. As long as they have a minimum 30km range (T1 entosis range + small buffer) trollceptors are going to have a bad day. Seriously? Ceptor gets yellow boxed by Citadel, ceptor speeds out of range - Yellow box drops Ceptor returns. Unless the Citadel has 1000+ scan res it is not going to catch let alone kill a ceptor. Unless Citadel weapons have perfect tracking, they will not hit a ceptor.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
317
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 02:28:32 -
[150] - Quote
When all players (even the long list of inactive ones) has bought out all stuff from a citadel. Does the wreckage then dissapear?
Can you trash items from the list with stuff in the hanger that you have to pay 10% for?
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
|
Sabastian Cerabiam
Seventh Element Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 02:53:02 -
[151] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Another good role for interceptors, speed tanked ceptors - Citadel can't track them to kill them, players can't catch them - Ceptors online for the win.
Citadels can fit webs and scrams. As long as they have a minimum 30km range (T1 entosis range + small buffer) trollceptors are going to have a bad day. Seriously? Ceptor gets yellow boxed by Citadel, ceptor speeds out of range - Yellow box drops Ceptor returns. Unless the Citadel has 1000+ scan res it is not going to catch let alone kill a ceptor. Unless Citadel weapons have perfect tracking, they will not hit a ceptor.
would not smart bombs be the answer to that? I don't know sense I never used them personally but seems AOE weapons don't need to lock so cepter wouldn't see it coming |
Kel hound
The Scope Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 02:54:51 -
[152] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. 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
Would it not be possible to have my clone moved to the nearest available clone bay in the same sort of way that my assets are moved?
The general gist of this dev blog as I read it was to make people - line members like me - feel safe using a citadel. That even in the event that the structure is destroyed I don't loose everything. Well if I get auto-podded when the citadel is destroyed I will never feel safe logging off in a citadel. |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
691
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 03:00:15 -
[153] - Quote
Sabastian Cerabiam wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Another good role for interceptors, speed tanked ceptors - Citadel can't track them to kill them, players can't catch them - Ceptors online for the win.
Citadels can fit webs and scrams. As long as they have a minimum 30km range (T1 entosis range + small buffer) trollceptors are going to have a bad day. Seriously? Ceptor gets yellow boxed by Citadel, ceptor speeds out of range - Yellow box drops Ceptor returns. Unless the Citadel has 1000+ scan res it is not going to catch let alone kill a ceptor. Unless Citadel weapons have perfect tracking, they will not hit a ceptor. would not smart bombs be the answer to that? I don't know sense I never used them personally but seems AOE weapons don't need to lock so cepter wouldn't see it coming 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.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2377
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 03:03:38 -
[154] - 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. |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
691
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 03:08:18 -
[155] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:naed21 wrote:If I'm reading this correctly, assets are never moved out of a WH when the structure is destroyed. This means you can seed ships in whs and then when you anchor a new structure suddenly have a ton of capital ships out of no where.
It's certainly possible for a group to setup a large structure in every c6 wh, fill them with dreads and carriers, and then blow them up so that in the future they can attack the new residents with this large capital force. There is a limit before they go poof, they won;t be available indefinitely Also, they are still exploring no asset safety in Wormholes 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.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2377
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 03:10:29 -
[156] - 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? |
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
775
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 03:31:06 -
[157] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Another good role for interceptors, speed tanked ceptors - Citadel can't track them to kill them, players can't catch them - Ceptors online for the win.
Citadels can fit webs and scrams. As long as they have a minimum 30km range (T1 entosis range + small buffer) trollceptors are going to have a bad day. Seriously? Ceptor gets yellow boxed by Citadel, ceptor speeds out of range - Yellow box drops Ceptor returns. Unless the Citadel has 1000+ scan res it is not going to catch let alone kill a ceptor. Unless Citadel weapons have perfect tracking, they will not hit a ceptor.
You're kidding right? Current POS webs are 150km, so 30km would be awfully low, it's a number I pulled out of my ass for the sake of argument. Anyway, yellowbox to redbox is only one server tick, so your trollceptor starts turning, my Citadel scrams and dual webs you, then the guns one-shot you. No more trollceptor.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
775
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 03:36:47 -
[158] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: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?
As it is you have to warp to every moon or d-scan down the POS. If it's an anom you can warp to it immediately after entering system. It speeds up how fast a hostile can get to your tower.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1566
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 03:48:54 -
[159] - Quote
Chad Wylder wrote:
On that note, what's the item value going to be based on and when is the 10% cost going to be calculated? Could someone theoretically use market manipulation to either lower the 10% retrieval cost on certain items to almost nothing, or ramp it up super high for other people to have to pay to get their stuff back?
This should only be a real issue with relatively rare items, but it is a good point nonetheless.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1566
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 03:57:40 -
[160] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:I like the ISK sink for recovering your goods from an NPC station. 10% sounds about right as straight up loss to NPC's.
As a way to reward the successful attacker, you should consider raising the recovery percentage to 20%. Have 10% go to the NPC faction as ISK sink and 10% go to the alliance that destroyed your structure.
...or you could let 10% of the loot drop in containers; it's less than a POS (ship maintenance array for example) would drop; but then again, with 90% asset security chances are they will be more stored inside. Previous outposts dropped 0%, POS dropped 50%. I believe 10 percent sounds reasonable, no?
What is 10% of a Dreadnought? If that is all I have in the station, then under your system it either drops or it does not.
At least with my proposal, you have a way of rewarding the winner for his victory. If you destroy my structure, and I have a Dreadnought inside it, I have to pay 600m ISK to get my 3b ISK Dreadnought back (no small chunk of change). 300m ISK goes into the ether as an ISK sink and the successful attacker gets 300m ISK. Seems like a reasonable reward for breaking things.
Also, in addition to killmails, can we get some kind of impound reports? By this, I mean, can we get a tracker of how much stuff we have caused to be locked into impound status? If it gets recovered, then it comes off our tracker.
For example, I destroy a structure with 200b worth of someone's stuff in it. They choose to recover only 20b worth of that stuff. The other 180b worth of stuff would show on my tracker as "denied" or something along those lines.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
beakerax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
186
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 03:59:56 -
[161] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Kel hound wrote:So what I'm getting from this is; never log off docked in a citadel when you have expensive implants, use a cloaky scanning interceptor instead. Got it. 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 Personally, I am not ever ever logging off at one of these things if I can be podded while offline.
Never not safe log. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1566
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 04:03:33 -
[162] - Quote
Two step wrote:Half of the impound fees should be paid to the player that landed the final blow on the citadel. There should be an incentive to go blow up a very very full citadel, and you should get more than a couple of citadel guns for doing so.
Completely agree that half the impound fee needs to be paid to the successful attacker[s].
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Tanewha Todako
Errant Endeavours Sev3rance
2
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 05:18:06 -
[163] - Quote
How many Citadels can be in a system at one time? I haven't read anything about that yet, although I may have missed something along the way.
Asset safety and people being podded when a structure is destroyed: Not really a "magic wand" for stuff being saved, rather a "lifeboat" system for your stuff. I'd imagine (lore wise etc) that any space faring civilisation would think of redundancies like "what happens if things go **** up?" and plan accordingly. Station / citadel / whatever - under attack and destruction imminent. People would be all geared up to leave not sitting around with their thumbs up their sphincters. Grabbing what they can and loading up from their hangers sounds reasonable.
So, structure gets destroyed. Hell yeah or hell no!! Depending on which side you are on. - Destroyed structure can be mined / salvaged etc for recoverable resources. as you are suggesting. Rigs destroyed etc etc.
- Assets: hangers are ejected from the huge ball of destruction that ensues and the asset recovery system kicks in. Either you pay for it to be delivered to an NPC station or it is delivered to another Player Owned one. How about a refinement to this? Another option is that the ejected hanger / lifeboat is registered as a location in your journal and you can either arrange to try and pick it up yourself or pay for someone to get it for you. Either way this option exposes these assets to further danger as whatever ship(s) used to recover them would be vulnerable as usual, but this allows you control of where the assets end up finally. People could contract specialised Corps that might emerge (like current Haulage corps - Red Frog etc) that deal with salvage and recovery. Rather than a straight 10% going to an NPC people can choose whether to pay a player / corp / alliance and encourage a new style of game play*. - The location remains viable until all assets are removed from the hanger but the hanger is password protected so only authorised people can access it. If you don't remove everything at once you could end up with the location camped / book-marked etc, so as soon as you enter system prepared people can hunt you (similar to Super-cap hunters I guess). Alternatively the location moves, ejected hangers are an un-scanable spatial phenomenon, drifting on random orbits like comets around the system. Owners would be able to warp directly to them whilst potential hunters would have to scan the player down each time. - Once accessed the location starts to degrade, eventually being consumed by the sun for example. This applies a fixed window within which to recover assets from a location.
- Characters are ejected in a ship from aforementioned huge ball of destruction. Mechanic wise maybe they eject in a random (assembled) ship, or can specify one beforehand if they are online and active during the destruction of a structure. Logged out players: choose from whatever assembled and fitted ships were in hanger at the time of destruction when they next log in (the others go into the ejecting hanger, are destroyed or are scattered in the explosion and can be hunted down and recovered by those so inclined maybe). In either case the destruction of a structure produces such a huge ball of destruction that it temporarily overloads all ships (within the system) sensors and the ejecting ships cannot be targeted, they come to rest randomly scattered throughout the system (ignoring bubbles that may have been setup to camp the station etc). People would have to choose wisely which ship they eject in, your shiny battleship may look great but the chances of getting out of a system actively being attacked by enemies might be slim.
- Any inactive clones within the structure are destroyed. (Maybe allow people to jump into whichever clone they prefer as the station is being destroyed. This gives inactive players a chance to save top end clones and gives juicy targets to the people attacking the structure as they hunt down the survivors.)
- Wormhole Asset Safety: Hmmmm..... hmmmmm. As above maybe. Wormhole life is dangerous after all. Specialist groups could emerge dedicated to recovering stuff from WHs. For example, a corp/alliance, based in Thera which is contracted to recover assets from a WH. They then have to find said WH, either scanning it down themselves, or buying that information from someone who has already scanned it down. They then have to arrange a convoy of sufficient size to recover assets, arranging protection for the convoy as they see fit. Contracts with collateral could be used, similar to the ones used for hauling etc. As people can choose which ship they eject from structure in (as I suggested above), I'd imagine WH people would eject in a scanning ship so they can find their way back to inhabited space and arrange help. Wormholes are inherently different from the rest of the game, cut off and isolated, dangerous and unpredictable. The risks and rewards are larger and this would carry through to asset recovery etc, however there should be some form of asset recovery for WHs albeit different from that used in known space. i.e. no automatic recovery to NPC stations.
Oh well that's just my thoughts after reading through stuff here. A few possible ideas to consider maybe and for others more experienced to discuss, build on or just discard.
So far I like the ideas CCP are putting forward and am interested to see how things develop.
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3956
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 06:48:52 -
[164] - Quote
It's funny how some people think that *others* should be stupid. Like they are totally entitled to foreign stupidity...
*Others* should put all their stuff in a Citadel. *Others* should be willing to lose it if anyone with a safe NPC base drops a few entosis links on them. *Others* should be willing to be podded while they're offline. *Others* should be willing to send their freighters to certain death if they want their stuff back. *Others* should be stupid, and if they refuse to, CCP should take away their lunch!
(I will insist in the "Vulture" concept ship. They could be loitering around a WH if needed. Not magic, just NPCs doing something necessary and unfun. Surely the Art Guys could come up with a nice mod of the starbase towers...)
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1064
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 06:59:47 -
[165] - Quote
My first pass through this made me feel happier about using a citadel. The point about the manipulation of prices needs to be restricted by a ceiling in terms of the 10% cost, personally I would have it at 5%. People like me have built up a huge asset base over an extended period but don't have a lot of liquid assets, I certainly would not be able to cover my assets at 10% of their value, though of course I would only put a part of them at risk if I could, well I will work that one out when the time comes and of course how you impact NPC stations in NPC 0.0 for example.
I noted on here people wanting the charge for moving stuff to be given to them as the people who destroyed the citadel, ignore that please, there are enough reasons to kill a Citadel as there is without making them ISK fountains for lazy people looking for easy things to shoot.
There is an alternative, I keep asking for a structure for sole players or small groups, that can be cloaked, which has a limited storage capacity for both ships and items. When you arrive in its location it decloaks and can be scanned down while uncloaked, once you are docked it cloaks again. It has the ability to re-ffit and can repair using nano paste. When you undock you break the cloak until you are 5 km from it. What if you just set up a number of these structures in system for the people who lost stuff in a citadel being destroyed, so they still have skin in the game in the area where the lost citadel was. Then just send the bigger items as you have suggested. Maybe that would be a better way to do it. The player will recieve BM's for the location of these structures, as would all those who have CEO or director level in terms of corp assets. This will enable people to keep fighting in that system.
But overall I like what you are doing here because you have realised that just handing assets to people who can blow stuff up easily will mean the majority of people will not risk it, certainly that is my mentality, but I am rather concerned still about your plans for NPC 0.0 because now where I am its not a simple matter of jumping stuff out in Carriers.
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!!!!
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1769
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 07:05:40 -
[166] - Quote
With wormhole space there are some things to take into consideration, 1. The suggested mechanic of transporting assets from the citadel into limbo, awaiting the anchoring of a new citadel is poor for two reasons. A. If one is evicted, that means the chances of refinding the hole, and re anchoring a citadel are slim to none. And a miserable and frustrating experience. Miserable experiences are not good design. B. Removal of loot drops removes a major driver of activity. There is little enough as it is! C. Self destruction or unanchoring of citadels, activates the recovery mechanism. Every hole will become toxic with the potential for "ghost fleets". Of T3's Waiting to be magically restored into a swiftly deployed medium citadel. It is not emergent gameplay when it is an obvious flaw in the initial design. AND pointed out to all.
Suggested Improvements to the Wormhole Mechanism.
1. Let 40% of the contents of personal and corperate hangers be dropped as loot. 2. Let 50% of the contents of personal and corperate hanhers be shipped by interbus, (I love the name Vultures for their ships, named earlier in this thread). With A 10% tax to be paid for return out of interbus storage. 3. Let 10% be handed to BOB to be scattered by the explosion to all parts of the hole. ( much excitement and hilarity trying to recover assets/loot from sleeper sites).
This retains the risk element of living in Wormholes, provides sensible drivers for conflict without turning every citadel into a loot Pi+¦ata. Prevents every eviction from turning into an extinction level event for corporations, and acts as a 20-30% isk sink.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
SiKong Ma
Raging Tapirs Illuminati Confirmed.
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 07:52:11 -
[167] - Quote
From what I read, we don't only lose our clone when we are docked in the station, we also lose our jump clones too?
i.e. I am docked in citadel with my active clone +3 implants, and I have a jump clone with full set of +5 implant in the same citadel. When citadel gets destroyed, I lose a total of 1 set of +3 implant and 1 set of +5 implant?
Isn't this mechanic seem quite overwhelming? Say, I take 2 weeks vacation, comes back, found my alliance lost the citadel and find myself docked in a neutral station and lost 2 sets of implants PLUS pay 10% cost to all my assets in station?
|
B0RG 0VERLORD
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 08:53:03 -
[168] - Quote
SiKong Ma wrote:From what I read, we don't only lose our clone when we are docked in the station, we also lose our jump clones too?
i.e. I am docked in citadel with my active clone +3 implants, and I have a jump clone with full set of +5 implant in the same citadel. When citadel gets destroyed, I lose a total of 1 set of +3 implant and 1 set of +5 implant?
Isn't this mechanic seem quite overwhelming? Say, I take 2 weeks vacation, comes back, found my alliance lost the citadel and find myself docked in a neutral station and lost 2 sets of implants PLUS pay 10% cost to all my assets in station?
its all about paying isk out and having no way to gain isk apart from ganking scamming and buying plexs,but dont worry soon there will be no null sec,
COMING TO A REGION NEAR YOU the doughnut with a new expiration date!! |
Axhind
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
84
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 09:27:51 -
[169] - Quote
Langbaobao wrote:TBH, I don't know how I feel about this whole thing, but having this magical NPC teleport that gets your stuff safe from a citadel that gets destroyed sounds extremely risk-averse and un-EVE like. The level of security that it provides (recovering 90% of your stuff that was stuck) sounds really like a reward for not defending. People are just gonna go: "**** this, let the morons waste time killing it and we'll just grab our stuff in some station". It definitely does not feel like a big loss for the enemy that you're trying to punt out of somewhere. You put in the time to burn their **** and they lose only 10% of their stuff (in the form of ISK impound tax), not to mention the attacker does not get rewarded for killing a structure. Currently killing a POS drops you loot from the hangars and all (the famous loot-pinata) and I can tell you, it's a distinct pleasure when you can loot something out of someone's POS like that. I don't see why stuff should be magically teleported from the destroyed structures. After all, the structures will have reinforce timers like outpost currently have, right? So let them evac their stuff like it's done now in outposts, and if they can't, well, they should have fleeted up and tried. Here are some suggestions that I think might make this system better or at least more rewarding for the people that put in the effort to actually attack the structures:
- Corp and personal stuff should at least in part (25-50%) drop for the attacker like in the current POS mechanics. It would be the reward for wasting time on several reinforcement timers and/or fleet actions.
- I still think people should lose stuff from their citadels like happens with POSes today, however if a system is introduced for people to recover stuff from destroyed structures (magical NPC pony freight service) at least make the loss sting. People should lose at least 50% of their assets if not more, and not a miserly 10% (in ISK no less). The ONLY exception should be the pod and the ship the pilot was sitting in when he logged off. This would mimic the current situation when people log off in POSes can log in after the structure is destroyed and get away with the ship they were currently in. This would make sense as well fluffwise since IIRC the idea was that ships 'moor' into the citadel; and scenes of ships scrambling away from a burning space structure are a dime a dozen in SF movies and so on. It would also prevent having to resort to annoying workarounds like the 'log in in space to save the pod', mentioned previously.
- Related to what was mentioned above, the pilot logging in after his citadel is destroyed should respawn with his ship in the same system where the citadel was. In my opinion they should respawn at the same place where the citadel was placed, but I would consider the option that they appear at a random safe spot somewhere in space, although I'm not so sure about this because it would prevent people being 'bubble-caged' and hence 'reward' them with an increased chance of survival. This would need further discussion.
Gotta love such comments from people sitting in NPC stations and talking about risk. If they remove all NPC stations in complete game so that nobody can sit and hide then you have a point. Else nobody sane is going to use the new structures (except maybe us as chances of losing one are low enough). |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
692
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 10:44:06 -
[170] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:I like the ISK sink for recovering your goods from an NPC station. 10% sounds about right as straight up loss to NPC's.
As a way to reward the successful attacker, you should consider raising the recovery percentage to 20%. Have 10% go to the NPC faction as ISK sink and 10% go to the alliance that destroyed your structure.
...or you could let 10% of the loot drop in containers; it's less than a POS (ship maintenance array for example) would drop; but then again, with 90% asset security chances are they will be more stored inside. Previous outposts dropped 0%, POS dropped 50%. I believe 10 percent sounds reasonable, no? What is 10% of a Dreadnought? If that is all I have in the station, then under your system it either drops or it does not. At least with my proposal, you have a way of rewarding the winner for his victory. If you destroy my structure, and I have a Dreadnought inside it, I have to pay 600m ISK to get my 3b ISK Dreadnought back (no small chunk of change). 300m ISK goes into the ether as an ISK sink and the successful attacker gets 300m ISK. Seems like a reasonable reward for breaking things. Also, in addition to killmails, can we get some kind of impound reports? By this, I mean, can we get a tracker of how much stuff we have caused to be locked into impound status? If it gets recovered, then it comes off our tracker. For example, I destroy a structure with 200b worth of someone's stuff in it. They choose to recover only 20b worth of that stuff. The other 180b worth of stuff would show on my tracker as "denied" or something along those lines. Rewarding the winner? I hope CCP is smart enough to avoid your proposal at all costs..
0.0 is an overwhelmingly unbalanced arena now and you want to unbalance it further by allowing mega groups to profit more from their dominance.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1540
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 11:05:52 -
[171] - Quote
I would still prefer that the entosis link drops a stations resists rather than reinforcing/destroying them. That way station destruction would be significantly sped up but still require shiny big guns... |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Affirmative.
426
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 11:21:57 -
[172] - Quote
"remember it is not going to be possible for owners to remove fitted structure modules when the reinforced 1 timer starts." WTF is the Reinforced 1 Timer?
" In cases where items are delivered to a NPC station, players will need to pay an ISK fee based on a percentage of moved item market value (numbers we are considering are around 10% price fee)." Gah, this basically means that we shouldn't store anything of value in a citadel, especially your BPO collection as it will be hideously expensive to recover. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
279
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 11:51:53 -
[173] - Quote
So if I'm reading this right (doubtful) A guy comes along and gets lucky with the vulnerability timer. He then sets about using the Entosis link, but then I get online, and target him, he then warps off.
Does the entosis reset to 0? ie if he was 20 mins into a 60 min timer would it restart at 40 mins or 60 mins?
To me if the link is disrupted it should revert to 0.
Also this public availability part. Is that for all the facilities, reprocessing, manufacturing etc.
If it is I presume that I would set the tax? If indeed they can use them who provides the fuel? Bearing in mind that the individual structures only use fuel when put online.
Also using them as a market, same thing really. Just me or if it's made public could anyone put stuff up for sale?
Lastly, docking a ship...if the place gets trashed I get back those, but what about the moored ones?
As for the 10% recovery fee, np. I don't leave stuff in my pos anyway so why would I leave it all in a Citadel? |
Anthar Thebess
1277
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 11:53:04 -
[174] - Quote
What i hear, don't store any thing in citadels, as it will transfer your stuff to lowsec system. For us this is 11 jumps (at 5ly range) for capitals , when nearest NPC stations , but this is NPC null - are 3 jumps away.
I think CCP did not check how many assets people in nullsec keep at stations. If you live in nullsec all your assets in nullsec space.
I have like 80bil in null stations , and around 10bil in jita ( small valuable stuff that is slowly selling).
My first impression when CCP posted this dev blogs was : " they don't want people living in null space, just thread it as a temporary staging base , when they are not in low or highsec space. "
This is nonsense CCP, for 4 years i live in null , and mostly in NPC null space - why do you want to change this? Why i cannot keep all my assets in nullsec stations, when someone that is living in lowsec or higsec space can easily do it ?
Why are you forcing people to constantly haul stuff , and don't go to vacations? Because taking a vacation can easily lead to need of paying 10% tax for recovering stuff 10+ capital jumps away.
If my fitted ships will be moved to lowsec space i will need to do at least 40 trips to get them back to space i live for 4 years. So this is 40x10 x2 jumps in a carrier. I will need to also move my materials, modules and all unfitted hulls - that's 20 freighters of stuff , so 60 JF runs.
Call it tears, call it whatever you want it. I HATE hauling , i trained and bought a JF , just to remove need of hauling stuff in T2 indy ships , like 5 jumps by gate.
Rethink what you want to achieve CCP, because this change will make EVE totally second job , as you will not be able to take any longer brake without the possibility to have your assets moved and taxed .
After this people that want to play eve , and live in nullsec will need to forget about : - Vacations - hospitals ( sorry but you are not allowed to have any accident ) - delegations - deployments - .... So totally every thing connected to RL and longer than reinforce timer of a citadel or station.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Gypsys Bear
Iris Covenant The Gorgon Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 12:03:22 -
[175] - Quote
1. Anchor 3 citadels near gates in 2gate system (Hello Rancer!) 2. Fit Citadel smartbombs 3. Put characters on Citadel gunners role 4. Activate smartbombs 5. Go to sleep 6. ??? 7. KILLMAILS!
Actually, citadel smartbomb will make impossible to use Tech 1 Entosis link. It will destroy all stuff near structure: = and + pods, notank frigates, cynonoobships and other small stuff. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3032
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 12:21:52 -
[176] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Yes you can unanchor them provided they are not under attack. They will immediately enter a vulnerable state and at the end will eject the personal assets to safety, kickout the docked pilots into space and the unanchor to be scooped.
Being able to scoop a structure at any point during its long vulnerability window seems like a recipie for 90% of citadel sieges resulting in the owner just taking it down and leaving without suffering any kind of loss whatsoever. The attackers aren't necessarily going at be able to attack the structure immediately when it comes out of reinforcement after all.
Also I don't really understand what the purpose of the vulnerability 1 window being incredibly small and variable is supposed to be other than to allow you to defend a structure by putting your vulnerability hours in the smallest possible increments at 4AM on weekdays relative to your opponent. The entire concept seems like it's going to be incredibly easy to manipulate it to exploit your enemy's timezone.
|
Archetype 66
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
192
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 13:14:46 -
[177] - Quote
I like the idea to see a Citadel entering a scuttling process of 30 sec or whatever, ejecting all pods and rescues ships + Capital and Super emergancy warping out before it explodes.
As long as they will not be destroyed by shooting, it will make sens to have such a protocol and would give a dramatic momentum to the scene + a little bit of realism instead to have all that stuff just volatilized and reappearing X jumps away 5 days later +á la Houdini
http://hpics.li/bbbf7fd |
Aineko Macx
348
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 13:54:21 -
[178] - Quote
So you'll need at least an L citadel to be able to dock a freighter. Since it looks like L's will be considerably more expensive than current POSes, that's quite an extra financial burden for people that used to do industry at POSes...
iveeCore: The PHP engine for industrial activities and CREST library
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1427
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 14:27:37 -
[179] - Quote
Kel hound wrote:The general gist of this dev blog as I read it was to make people - line members like me - feel safe using a citadel. That even in the event that the structure is destroyed I don't loose everything. Well if I get auto-podded when the citadel is destroyed I will never feel safe logging off in a citadel.
Thanks for this feedback, well put.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Storm Brightblade Keikira
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 14:30:58 -
[180] - Quote
There seems to be a lot of concern about this magic of goods being in one place then another once a structure is destroyed,or in the case of wormhole hidden until the victim returns and is able to erect a new structure. I have a solution to both that takes suggestions from other posts and add my own twist to it.
Once the structure is destroyed a percentage is destroyed in the explosion. What drops will be split, some immediately available to the aggressors the rest will fall to whatever celestial the structure is anchored on (assuming this mechanic hasnGÇÖt changed). The container that contain the loot will be cloaked and send its owner a beacon of its location on said celestial. Over a period of time (say 45 days) the containers battery dies and it no longer sends out its message and is scanable to all. Using a new module someone can search the surface for loot and upon discovery enter a hacking game to open it. For high cost items (for example BPOs) players can secure them in stronger containers. These containers are for storage only and if you want to use item (using the BPO as an example again) you must retrieve it and it falls under normal drop rules. The advantage of these secure containers is they have extended battery life but limited size.
|
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1427
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 14:37:35 -
[181] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Yes you can unanchor them provided they are not under attack. They will immediately enter a vulnerable state and at the end will eject the personal assets to safety, kickout the docked pilots into space and the unanchor to be scooped. Being able to scoop a structure at any point during its long vulnerability window seems like a recipie for 90% of citadel sieges resulting in the owner just taking it down and leaving without suffering any kind of loss whatsoever. The attackers aren't necessarily going at be able to attack the structure immediately when it comes out of reinforcement after all. Also I don't really understand what the purpose of the vulnerability 1 window being incredibly small and variable is supposed to be other than to allow you to defend a structure by putting your vulnerability hours in the smallest possible increments at 4AM on weekdays relative to your opponent. The entire concept seems like it's going to be incredibly easy to manipulate it to exploit your enemy's timezone.
You cannot just take it down immediately, you have to wait out a vulnerability window and it cannot be already in reinforce or one of the later vulnerable stages.
Also the time until your next vulnerability window starts is visible by scouting the structure, if anyones find a structure that comes out at 4am I'm fairly confident that information will spread to players online at that time which would be bad news for you.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Anthar Thebess
1278
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 14:41:03 -
[182] - Quote
Why CCP don't want to transfer assets from destroyed structures to nearest NPC station ( that can be located in NPC null space ) but to Lowsec station ?
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
279
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 14:45:15 -
[183] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Yes you can unanchor them provided they are not under attack. They will immediately enter a vulnerable state and at the end will eject the personal assets to safety, kickout the docked pilots into space and the unanchor to be scooped. Being able to scoop a structure at any point during its long vulnerability window seems like a recipie for 90% of citadel sieges resulting in the owner just taking it down and leaving without suffering any kind of loss whatsoever. The attackers aren't necessarily going at be able to attack the structure immediately when it comes out of reinforcement after all. Also I don't really understand what the purpose of the vulnerability 1 window being incredibly small and variable is supposed to be other than to allow you to defend a structure by putting your vulnerability hours in the smallest possible increments at 4AM on weekdays relative to your opponent. The entire concept seems like it's going to be incredibly easy to manipulate it to exploit your enemy's timezone. You cannot just take it down immediately, you have to wait out a vulnerability window and it cannot be already in reinforce or one of the later vulnerable stages. Also the time until your next vulnerability window starts is visible by scouting the structure, if anyones find a structure that comes out at 4am I'm fairly confident that information will spread to players online at that time which would be bad news for you.
Whoa, hang on a bit...I thought that nobody outside the corp could see when the invulnerability window was?
So how can someone scout my structure and see when the window is? |
Archetype 66
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
192
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 15:21:19 -
[184] - Quote
11h Scouting "Invulnerable" 12h Scouting "Invulnerable" 12h15 "Vulnerable"
Whot ?!
|
Josef Kennet
Zima Corp Infinity Space.
14
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 15:55:29 -
[185] - Quote
1) Pod kills while docked - enforce players to undock and safe log-off - so, just NO 2) Staying around the system in active ship (or pod if none was active) - many players will switch active ship to ceptor\scanner - so, acceptable but there are probably better solutions 3) Retrieving items only in the same system - for expensive stuff (titans\supers) still be better to safe log-off at undock\spot - so, let us choose any proper station within jump range (5LY). And you can write backstory that this stuff was just emergency cynoed out or whatever. 4) For Hi-sec\Low-Sec\WH: disable evacuation. Everything drops (like it is now) 5) About loot: make any ammo\drones that were in player\corp hangars drop as loot from citadels and everything else evacuated. Its not a big deal for every single player who lose ~50mil in drones\ammo but it will be a nice loot for attacker (~25b from citadel with 500 players, etc). And this loot will be for all players in attacker group, not only for that lucky guy "wow, i looted a nyx". |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
778
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 16:00:42 -
[186] - Quote
So what happened to the whole idea "loss in eve is meaningful"? Are we steering towards hello kitty online with absolute safety? Getting your stuff back after losing a citadel sounds very much like fantasy RPG where you just need to run back to your corpse or headstone to pick it up again - magic happens, nothing lost, just respawn and keep bearing.
The only safe place ever should be a hisec NPC station.
SSC Brokering Service
|
Samsara Nolte
Random Thinking Union Random Thinking
24
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 16:27:09 -
[187] - Quote
Josef Kennet wrote: 4) For Hi-sec\Low-Sec\WH: disable evacuation. Everything drops (like it is now) 5) About loot: make any ammo\drones that were in player\corp hangars drop as loot from citadels and everything else evacuated. Its not a big deal for every single player who lose ~50mil in drones\ammo but it will be a nice loot for attacker (~25b from citadel with 500 players, etc). And this loot will be for all players in attacker group, not only for that lucky guy "wow, i looted a nyx".
Let me guess - you live in nullsec. Quite daring, if i may say so, to demand the short end of the stick for regions you only pass through at most while retaining the good parts for yourself. |
Di Mulle
108
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 16:49:05 -
[188] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:So what happened to the whole idea "loss in eve is meaningful"? Are we steering towards hello kitty online with absolute safety? Getting your stuff back after losing a citadel sounds very much like fantasy RPG where you just need to run back to your corpse or headstone to pick it up again - magic happens, nothing lost, just respawn and keep bearing.
The only safe place ever should be a hisec NPC station.
yes, yes.!!!
And the only safe time should be server downtime. All other time your ship should stay in a space when you logoff.
See what I did ?
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
|
Josef Kennet
Zima Corp Infinity Space.
14
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 16:54:12 -
[189] - Quote
Samsara Nolte wrote:Josef Kennet wrote: 4) For Hi-sec\Low-Sec\WH: disable evacuation. Everything drops (like it is now) 5) About loot: make any ammo\drones that were in player\corp hangars drop as loot from citadels and everything else evacuated. Its not a big deal for every single player who lose ~50mil in drones\ammo but it will be a nice loot for attacker (~25b from citadel with 500 players, etc). And this loot will be for all players in attacker group, not only for that lucky guy "wow, i looted a nyx".
Let me guess - you live in nullsec. Quite daring, if i may say so, to demand the short end of the stick for regions you only pass through at most while retaining the good parts for yourself. Let me guess - you live in NPC station. Maybe make them (hi sec, low sec, npc null) destructible too? No? You dont want to lose all your stuff? So why did I? |
beakerax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
186
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 16:56:41 -
[190] - Quote
It does seem a bit odd that these starbase replacements will be safer than the starbases they are replacing. Maybe the evacuation mechanic should be restricted to the XL structures. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
779
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:00:12 -
[191] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: My first impression when CCP posted this dev blogs was : " they don't want people living in null space, just thread it as a temporary staging base , when they are not in low or highsec space. "
How is it different from Outposts? You lose an outpost, you can't get at your stuff. You can go away for two weeks, come back, and find out all your things are stuck in a station, and you can only undock once.
With Citadels you retrieve all of your stuff, at any time (after the travel delay is over) at either a 10% cost or for free!
I don't see how this is interpreted as a temporary structure.
beakerax wrote:It does seem a bit odd that these starbase replacements will be safer than the starbases they are replacing. Maybe the evacuation mechanic should be restricted to the XL structures.
Then why would I ever build anything smaller? I'd just use my alliance's XL citadel and not bother with a medium or large.
It also limits the options of smaller alliances or corporations who cannot afford an XL, which is replacing Outposts, which you don't see people building very often.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Aker Krane
OMEGADYNE LABS Rising Darkness
19
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:01:39 -
[192] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:It's funny how some people think that *others* should be stupid. Like they are totally entitled to foreign stupidity... *Others* should put all their stuff in a Citadel. *Others* should be willing to lose it if anyone with a safe NPC base drops a few entosis links on them. *Others* should be willing to be podded while they're offline. *Others* should be willing to send their freighters to certain death if they want their stuff back. *Others* should be stupid, and if they refuse to, CCP should take away their lunch! (
This^
Folks talking about making Citadels into destructible loot pinatas should really think about the unintended consequences of what they are saying.
What are the likely defense mechanisms that will emerge to prevent the kinds of catastrophic losses you are talking about?
Moving everything to indestructible NPC and HS stations is always a choice.
How will your local markets compensate for risk?.
Just the 10% tax that they are talking about for asset relocation is pretty steep.
|
HeXxploiT
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
178
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:17:25 -
[193] - Quote
I don't really feel like the safety of a citadel in nul will entice your average new player or carebear into nul. I do believe it may encourage some small groups who have been close to making that jump from highsec to nulsec giving them that little extra bit of a feeling that they may be able to succeed with the added 'safety'.
My initial feeling as a veteran with many assets and expensive pods scattered about my alliances space is that I will be less likely to keep as many of these assets and pods in nul as I really don't like the idea of losing pods or having to expend the effort to collect assets if a citadel is lost. As it stands if my alliance loses a station it's not really a big deal because my pods get out safely and all my assets can be thrown up on market or contracts. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1541
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:18:18 -
[194] - Quote
The concept of null citadels is to unhook people from Jita and not to penalize people for trying to do local industry by them losing everything and then some. 10% on 10 billion worth of industrial assets for one persons a billion. Unless the haul is more expensive than the loss, there is no point in doing industry in the area (it's cheaper to haul it).
So either jump fuel goes WAY up, or the percentage goes down. I'd trickle it down.
Nullsec, 5% recovery tax. Lowsec, 10% recovery tax, highsec, 15%, wormholes.. Lose it all.
You want local industry, reverse the penalties and increase import and export costs. You make it not worth going to Jita to drop/buy your stuff and jump freighter it, you make lazy people quit industry, prices rise, local industrialists thrive by actually producing and selling locally.
Yaay!!!!
|
beakerax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
186
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:25:51 -
[195] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:It also limits the options of smaller alliances or corporations who cannot afford an XL Yeah, that would be unfair to smaller Aegis sov groups. Sov shouldn't be the only consideration, though. |
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
779
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:45:30 -
[196] - Quote
beakerax wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:It also limits the options of smaller alliances or corporations who cannot afford an XL Yeah, that would be unfair to smaller Aegis sov groups. Sov shouldn't be the only consideration, though.
I'm not making sov my only consideration. I'm not sure what you're saying.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Fenris Bloodbound
Easy Co. Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 17:59:48 -
[197] - Quote
My take on citadels. They could be really helpful but need a change for 0.0 and WH imo. Currently set standards for them would probably work fine for high sec, and be the base to go off of.
Citadel Changes: Racial selectable GÇô similar to POS in that Gallente, Caldari, Amarr and Minmatar have bonuses to them which directly benefit specific areas. Examples below: -Gallente: oDrone control from Citadel GÇô no guns in high or low slots GÇô massive drone bay oIncreased drone and fighter HP by xxxx% - so they are hard as **** to kill but still possible o500km Drone Control Range oIncreased Service slots across all platforms GÇô XL having full 8
-Caldari: oMissile Speed and Flight time increase GÇô size specific, XL on XL and Large. L on Medium oIncreased ECM Effectiveness oShield resist bonus oIncreased Mid slots GÇô XL having full 8
-Amarr: oTracking and optimal range for Lasers GÇô size specific, XL on XL and Large. L on Medium oIncreased Nuet Range oArmor Resists bonus oIncreased low slots GÇô XL Having full 8
-Minmatar: oTracking and Falloff for Projectiles GÇô size specific, XL on XL and Large. L on Medium oIncreased Damage for Projectiles oIncrease range and effectiveness of Target Painter oIncreased High slots GÇô XP Having Full 8
Allowance of multiple Citadels in Sov space and WH: -Sov space: oMultiple Citadels only allowed in Capital System of alliance oMax of 4 in system oCitadels in Sov controlled space for said alliance, dump back to Capital System citadel oTax is controlled by alliance GÇô not NPC oCapital System taken down or destroyed, Tax goes to standard 10%
-WH space: oMultiple Citadels allowed, 3 maximum from 1 alliance o50% drop rate like POS are now oImplants can be set oBonus only from WH effect Citadel o+15% from racial bonus
But what about the moving if items? Got a way around it (sorta) Offer insurance outside of the normal. Citadel insurance that would GÇ£transportGÇ¥ them to another station.
Example for ships: You insure the ship for xyz amount (based on % of ship value fully fitted, say 10%) and it has citadel insurance for 6 months. If a citadel is destroyed that the ship is currently residing in, then it gets GÇ£transportedGÇ¥ to the citadel closest/or NPC station. If a ship does not have it, 50% drop rate and potential for a KM.
Lore behind this: Due to the insurance contract you signed for, we regret the loss of your ship at DEF Citadel located in ABC-FY system. As such, we will require the necessary parts to deliver a fully fitted one at DBF citadel to replace the one you lost. Please note that this process will take 5 days to complete, and the insurance payout has been completed and you will need to repurchase Citadel Insurance. Thank you!
Works for ship but what about items and mods? Offer hangar insurance at amounts of m3. 100m3 is 10k insurance for 6 months. 1 billion m3 is 100mil for 6 months. If you go over the m3 amount, the system will prioritize by isk value/m3 to determine what will be transported to the new citadel. So a stack of t1 ammo doesnGÇÖt get prioritized over dead-space MWD.
Another option would be to offer Hanger insurance on a general hangar. Much like corporations have multiple hangars in a station with an office, break player hangars into specific sized hangars, based on insurance requirements. You pay for 100k of space to be saved, EVERYTHING in that hangar will be saved via the insurance policy you took out. This will allow you to prioritize what you really want to keep and what you really could be ok with loosing. Same lore behind the ships for delivery and time factor.
Those mods not covered by the insurance, are given the 50% drop rate same as everything else. This approach takes some initial isk understandably, but also takes persistence in keeping it up. It also gives a risk/reward option, as it becomes lootable if someone didnGÇÖt pay. Even if everyone did, and they opted for 100km3 space, but half the alliance has over 1bil m3, then that drop for the attackers is going to be amazing, where still allowing the defenders to ensure their more precious items are kept GÇ£safeGÇ¥.
My thoughts, ~Fenris |
beakerax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
187
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 18:35:47 -
[198] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:I'm not making sov my only consideration. I'm not sure what you're saying. I didn't mean you specifically, I meant for balancing in general.
Citadels are meant to replace both starbases and outposts, right? But with the asset-safety outlined here, smaller citadels don't behave like starbases, they behave like mini-outposts that can be set up anywhere. I can see that smaller groups in sov null might need something like this in order to viably live in their own space. For everyone else though, this is a fairly significant change in starbase looting mechanics that was not brought on by anything in particular. |
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
779
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 19:18:36 -
[199] - Quote
beakerax wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:I'm not making sov my only consideration. I'm not sure what you're saying. I didn't mean you specifically, I meant for balancing in general. Citadels are meant to replace both starbases and outposts, right? But with the asset-safety outlined here, smaller citadels don't behave like starbases, they behave like mini-outposts that can be set up anywhere. I can see that smaller groups in sov null might need something like this in order to viably live in their own space. For everyone else though, this is a fairly significant change in starbase looting mechanics that was not brought on by anything in particular.
Ah I see, well starbase's right now are pretty ******* awful to use. I wouldn't mind a change in loot mechanics, as long as there's still loot (which there is in this case).
I can see how some people will have this impact their gameplay, particularly people who wardec corps with offline labs in hope of good blueprint drops.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Axhind
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
84
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 20:18:07 -
[200] - Quote
Fenris Bloodbound wrote:My take on citadels. They could be really helpful but need a change for 0.0 and WH imo. Currently set standards for them would probably work fine for high sec, and be the base to go off of.
Citadel Changes: Racial selectable GÇô similar to POS in that Gallente, Caldari, Amarr and Minmatar have bonuses to them which directly benefit specific areas. Examples below: -Gallente: oDrone control from Citadel GÇô no guns in high or low slots GÇô massive drone bay oIncreased drone and fighter HP by xxxx% - so they are hard as **** to kill but still possible o500km Drone Control Range oIncreased Service slots across all platforms GÇô XL having full 8
-Caldari: oMissile Speed and Flight time increase GÇô size specific, XL on XL and Large. L on Medium oIncreased ECM Effectiveness oShield resist bonus oIncreased Mid slots GÇô XL having full 8
-Amarr: oTracking and optimal range for Lasers GÇô size specific, XL on XL and Large. L on Medium oIncreased Nuet Range oArmor Resists bonus oIncreased low slots GÇô XL Having full 8
-Minmatar: oTracking and Falloff for Projectiles GÇô size specific, XL on XL and Large. L on Medium oIncreased Damage for Projectiles oIncrease range and effectiveness of Target Painter oIncreased High slots GÇô XP Having Full 8
Allowance of multiple Citadels in Sov space and WH: -Sov space: oMultiple Citadels only allowed in Capital System of alliance oMax of 4 in system oCitadels in Sov controlled space for said alliance, dump back to Capital System citadel oTax is controlled by alliance GÇô not NPC oCapital System taken down or destroyed, Tax goes to standard 10%
-WH space: oMultiple Citadels allowed, 3 maximum from 1 alliance o50% drop rate like POS are now oImplants can be set oBonus only from WH effect Citadel o+15% from racial bonus
But what about the moving if items? Got a way around it (sorta) Offer insurance outside of the normal. Citadel insurance that would GÇ£transportGÇ¥ them to another station.
Example for ships: You insure the ship for xyz amount (based on % of ship value fully fitted, say 10%) and it has citadel insurance for 6 months. If a citadel is destroyed that the ship is currently residing in, then it gets GÇ£transportedGÇ¥ to the citadel closest/or NPC station. If a ship does not have it, 50% drop rate and potential for a KM.
Lore behind this: Due to the insurance contract you signed for, we regret the loss of your ship at DEF Citadel located in ABC-FY system. As such, we will require the necessary parts to deliver a fully fitted one at DBF citadel to replace the one you lost. Please note that this process will take 5 days to complete, and the insurance payout has been completed and you will need to repurchase Citadel Insurance. Thank you!
Works for ship but what about items and mods? Offer hangar insurance at amounts of m3. 100m3 is 10k insurance for 6 months. 1 billion m3 is 100mil for 6 months. If you go over the m3 amount, the system will prioritize by isk value/m3 to determine what will be transported to the new citadel. So a stack of t1 ammo doesnGÇÖt get prioritized over dead-space MWD.
Another option would be to offer Hanger insurance on a general hangar. Much like corporations have multiple hangars in a station with an office, break player hangars into specific sized hangars, based on insurance requirements. You pay for 100k of space to be saved, EVERYTHING in that hangar will be saved via the insurance policy you took out. This will allow you to prioritize what you really want to keep and what you really could be ok with loosing. Same lore behind the ships for delivery and time factor.
Those mods not covered by the insurance, are given the 50% drop rate same as everything else. This approach takes some initial isk understandably, but also takes persistence in keeping it up. It also gives a risk/reward option, as it becomes lootable if someone didnGÇÖt pay. Even if everyone did, and they opted for 100km3 space, but half the alliance has over 1bil m3, then that drop for the attackers is going to be amazing, where still allowing the defenders to ensure their more precious items are kept GÇ£safeGÇ¥.
My thoughts, ~Fenris
That sounds tedious as hell, expensive and makes anyone sane sit in NPC station like rest of the elite pvp crowd and whine about no easy targets in 0.0 ready to fill loot pi+¦atas for us. 10% is already incredibly steep compared to today and not to mention compared to the absolute safety of NPC stations. The citadel would have to be damn good in order for it to be worth even the 10% fee that is proposed by CCP and even more if we turn it into loot pi+¦atas like you and rest of the elite pvp crowd want. I know that bunch of people feel very entitled to have easy targets that drop tons of loot but that is something that miniluv and code got covered already and introducing such a system in 0.0 would effectively kill it as only we would use them thanks to being more or less only group that feels safe enough provided we don't just go **** this tedious **** and move in with moa and then whine like little girls about lack of loot pi+¦atas in 0.0 like the rest.
If you want to suggest changes then you have to think about same things that you want to do to others happening to you too (start with imagining that you don't have the rest of Imperium to back you up). Also you have to think of people who have RL issues, it's hardly a good game design that due to vacation you miss your insurance (LOL like NPC stations have it) and lose everything by the time you get back... |
|
Vol Arm'OOO
Bagel and Lox
714
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 20:33:32 -
[201] - Quote
Seems pretty terrible. The whole point of pos bashing is to get to the player goodies inside. Now those goodies are basically made invulnerable. By magic they are insta shipped - by the space fedex to safety. Its a major step backwards. Especially in whs. Whats the point of going through all the trouble of basing a a new pos 2.0 if all you get is some pos fittings? And it is major hit to the economy since less stuff is being destroyed.
Overall, the new citadels effectively make capitals obsolete - as a result there is likely to be alot of isk floating around that would have been used for caps that is now available to fund huge amounts of subcaps. The lack of the destruction of pos contents, is only going to amplify the problem of too much isk and not enough destruction.
On a different note - there is simply too much immersion breaking content being added. First the magic light and now the magic space fed ex. We need more boom and less wtf magic happening.
I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
|
Maria Kitiare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
13
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 21:02:05 -
[202] - Quote
5 cent:
In goals section CCP say that people wouldnGÇÖt use these new structures, if the assets inside isnGÇÖt safe. I think people have been using POSes for ages for storing some of the most expensive items in the game (Motherships, Capitals, entire corporations). Nullsec corporations have been living out of POSes in NPC regions well knowing that their stuff could get exploded at any time. Risk vs. reward. Null sec is currently a better place to make isk than W-space is for larger groups. The people who earn the big bucks in W-space is the residents of the farming holes, typically a few very old players who run sites with as small a crew as possible, with a minimal setup. However the big coorporations arenGÇÖt actualy making that much isk as a group from W-space sites. Why does nullsec need so little risk for so big rewards, when W-space have been fine having huge risks for very little reward? - Hiding this behind Risk vs reward is stupid. Call it as it is, risk averse players who prop. shouldnGÇÖt even be living in Null sec to begin with.
CCP suggests a system for asset recovering from the citadel when blown up. In C5 w-space we are lacking content, and recent changes hasnGÇÖt exactly made it better. One of the content drivers that have caused most of the larger fights in C5 space over the last year, have been evictions. Some people evict because of a your mom joke, other because of the isk that can be earned. Who would spend a month moving capitals, rolling wormholes, seeding and preparing, if the end result is a few billion isk in Citadel modules(which you then have to sell on a prob. slow moving market). I expect evictions, and in extend the big fleet content, to take a big hit from this increased asset security.
CCP also suggests the asset recovery system for when people canGÇÖt access the citadel anymore. Without the option to pull assets to K-space from W-space, this makes very little sense. The player now have to join a new corporation buy and set up a new citadel, just to retrieve those assets. This will only lead to more boring structure grinding, if the player can even manage to find someone who will spend the isk and trouble trying to place the citadel in the first place.
I suggest: Remove all asset recovery from W-space(and K-space) and let the stuff inside the citadels drop on destruction. If you want the benefits tied to living in a Citadel, you should also embrace the risk of living in a Citadel. Claiming that Null sec players currently donGÇÖt loose their stuff is a bad excuse, cause history have shown null sec alliances blockade other corps stations, preventing extraction. Gameplay that will in the future be lost due to this asset protection. Having the assets drop would give people a reason to evict each other, which is important in W-space, but might just give Null Sec what they crave so much, a reason to move against each other without the need for taking the sov.
CCP suggests podding every player inside the citadel when it explodes. I am confused as to what the goal for adding this is? To make everyone log of in a safespot instead of using the stations? - In W-space, logging of in space in your ship, would be indefinitely more secure, than logging of inside the Citadel you bought to be your GÇ£safe havenGÇ¥.
Other stuff unrelated to the devblog:
CCP suggests that all citadels have personal storage space. As a w-space group, build on trust, with the security that people canGÇÖt steal more than they can take with them through the wormhole, personal storage gives us the opposite effect than it does in Nullsec. Personal storage space does not give more security(you can still lose your stuff, by losing access to the citadel), it does however remove corporate security. We will no longer be able to give our members access to ships and modules they need because we canGÇÖt be sure they wonGÇÖt just drag it to their personal hangar. With POSes, we could see them go through the wormhole and them stop them by being active, but with personal storage, there is no fighting it.
Our only option is to limit members access and making it harder and more expensive to participate in our activities. This will hit the poor people hardest, that being all the new people who wants to try out W-space. The same people who is hit hardest by losing all their assets when we remove their access to the citadel. Would you keep playing EVE if you lost everything you had just managed to grind enough HS missions to get because you wanted to try out wormholes?
Without personal storage, you wouldnGÇÖt have to. We would supply you with the ships and if you left, we could bring your stuff back to you. But with personal hangars, CCP says no! Thou must not play EVE endgame unless thou have moneys to buy more plex to recover! |
Rat Sotken
Wazzat Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 21:02:12 -
[203] - Quote
So first of all, I can have a line of Citadels, each with a departure day, that people can feel free to leave their goods in and at the specified day, I'll scoop it and they have a null delivery service to lowsec for 10% of collateral. Risk free and guaranteed. No limits on capacity. Would definitely save on the JF preparation.
Second, maybe you should have a control where before you can scoop need like 3 people to confirm the scoop, or whatever number of directors in the corp. The one man corp will still be king.
I was hoping for more flexibility, where I can belong to my corp and have my own Citadel on the side independently. Oh well I guess thats what alts are for.
So the only things lootable in the new Citadels, will be job materials and structure hull base materials. So if you can't see the Citadel with any manufacturing/research services, you know your rewards will be low. I will definitely miss free BPO's, how else are they meant to switch hands from inactive players.
If I'm in the attacking force, do I get a killmail for all the people that I podded?
Market Orders, the item market value is based on local system prices or the generic universal price? I'll assume universal.
Picking the closest lowsec station is easily abused. I would suggest maybe give the player the option of three closest lowsec NPC station.
How long will wrecks last? I don't think most haulers will enter a still hostile warzone.
So once items are in limbo, that will be a permanent safe with no expiration? And people can withdraw from it as they please. And recover as they have the funds to pay for it. Seems like a lot of legacy overhead. Maybe have a relinquish option, the original owner can't be bothered shipping the rest of the goods out and it appears as a wreck in the system?
So I can be a spy, steal things from a corp, put it into an alt's Citadel and have it whisked away to safety. |
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
139
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 21:05:58 -
[204] - Quote
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-¦ve 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.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
780
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 21:14:36 -
[205] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:The whole point of pos bashing is to get to the player goodies inside.
Here's the thing though, is it really?
Looking at the POS's I've shot in the last few months, all of them have been moon mining POS's, which means we were shooting them to remove the owner and take control of the minerals, not steal their stuffs.
Citadels are also replacing outposts, and why do people shoot Outposts? Not to steal the stuff, the best they can do is lock the owners out and hope or a firesale. People shoot outposts to evict the former owners, or as a place to live because the former owner isn't there.
So while people will no longer be able to shoot offline SMAs/CHAs and hope for a loot pinata, how often did they really happen outside of wormholes? I haven't kept any ships in a POS (except one mining barge and T1 hauler) since I moved out of wormholes a year or two ago. Wormholes can be balanced a bit differently with personal assets dropping as loot, and they already are already being balanced differently for citadels since they cannot have assets ~transported~ to NPC space in the event of losing a citadel.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Borg Stoneson
SWARTA Mostly Clueless
48
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 21:21:03 -
[206] - Quote
iwannadig wrote:I still don't feel asset saving will be enough to build Citadels over Outposts even after this blog reading.
Well since large portions of the game can't build Outposts even if we have the resources there are already a lot of reasons to build one. Being able to place more than one in a system should be reason enough even for the people that can put down outposts, why put all your toys in one easy to camp location?
I think podding the people docked up is a terrible idea, and I've mentioned what I consider to be a far superior solution elsewhere.
I disagree with the structure auto blowing up at the end of the last reinforced cycle, just seems arbitrary. I say reduce the shields to 0% and make the attackers actually use ammo.
The personal asset shifting seems like too big a safety net to me, but then again I'll benefit from it so I wont be crying. I read somewhere that WH assets wont be saved, makes sense but only if the system has no other friendly structures. Not evacing to k-space = meh fine. Not evacing to the perfectly fine place 501km away? Not so good.
Being destroyed by entosis while being deployed is only a good mechanic for the trolls. I can see why you'd want a way to kill them before they go up but make it destroyable by dps instead (since it's super invuln shield isn't up yet).
"How will you avoid accidental killings?" This has been an issue for us in the past and present with POS's, I'd like to see a "Never shoot at!" list that individual pilots and maybe corps can be added to, the standings system is just too unreliable and arcane.
Vincent Athena wrote:I'm still missing something here as to why I would want one of these things rather than a POS. The main functionality right now is for WH pilots (who CCP still seems to be ignoring), personal asset security is a big issue and working around the games limitations is a constant headache for us.
Really the biggest problems most (i did say most) people seem to be having with the structures is based on them being shoehorned to fit the entosis system, not the structures themselves. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2381
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 21:23:05 -
[207] - 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-¦ve 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. |
Fenris Bloodbound
Easy Co. Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 21:23:22 -
[208] - Quote
Axhind wrote: Also you have to think of people who have RL issues, it's hardly a good game design that due to vacation you miss your insurance (LOL like NPC stations have it) and lose everything by the time you get back...
Make the insurance able to be extended or retracted at any point. Meaning you are 2 months from it going out, you can extend that insurance by another 6 months. now you have 8 months worth of coverage. If you dont take advantage of that, its again your own fault for not taking proper precautions. You play the game, the game shouldn't play itself for you.
Also, you choose to play the game, your putting the time and money in, which means you are the one responsible for your stuff. changing game mechanics because you decided to take some R&R from the game for whatever reason is dumb on the game designers part as thats an unknown they shoudln't have to account for. Should there be leeway on somethings yes. But if you unsubscribe for 6 months and your stuff is gone, you left the game. the fact you have ANYTHING you should be happy about. Game companies do regular purges of characters that are inactive.
Axhind wrote: If you want to suggest changes then you have to think about same things that you want to do to others happening to you too (start with imagining that you don't have the rest of Imperium to back you up).
I did. This was designed with the thought in mind of my own stuff be guarded by myself, not with some other entinty there to protect it. if i loose a ship, or a mod or a bunch of mods, its not the imperiums or my alliances fault. its my own for not taking the 3 seconds to insure the ships/hangar. Then the only person i can blame is myself for the lost stuff. Loot pinata, as you termed, is due to a lack of quality control on my own stuff. I didnt insure it, it goes to someone else. If i had insured it, no one but me woulda gotten it. its a risk but thats part of living in player controlled space. Risk vs reward here.
High sec i agree with shouldn't have the drop policy and as such it wouldnt happen, would just be transfered. you dont like loot pinatas, stay in high sec. but giving an option to be safe and forcing the safe on everyone kills the immersion and risk involved in player space its called lawless space for a reason.
You like NPC null sec stay there. no one is stopping you, but even in this situation, the small guys are still covered if they are active about their assets and where they are. you can set these up and still keep your assets. just takes some doing, not AFK ratting/mining.
Fenris
Was an idea, and appreciate the feedback. Looking at these citadels on a corp level and then alliance level is a bit tough to come to a common ground. but it is possible. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2381
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 22:06:56 -
[209] - Quote
Why bother with insurance. The recovery fee achieves exactly the same purpose without requiring constant clicking. |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3962
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 22:21:59 -
[210] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: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-¦ve 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.
The same extends to docked pods. If a Citadel is the first and only place in the game where you can die while offline, who's gonna be the fool to use them for docking? And what is the use of a dockable structure where you don't want to be docked?
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
|
Justin Cody
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
305
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 22:37:56 -
[211] - Quote
well I guess only w-space has consequences now. Every type of space has its safety valve to prevent mass unsubbing. F@$k W-space! <- appears to be the mantra.
Nerf'd API data Nerf'd rage rolling statics via distant spawning based on mass Nerf'd null sec access to W-space and from W-space
Now citadels come into w-space Pre-nerf'd. Lovely. Do we get something to make up for that EXTRA downside? Its like viagra that guarantees you a priapism. Your embarrassing hard on will always last more than 4 hours and guarantee a trip to the emergency room - every time you take it!
yeah really great. Its like making a medication where the side effects are a feature and you are trying to encourage them! |
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
139
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 23:50:16 -
[212] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: ................................
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.
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 indisdructable by design. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2382
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 00:05:18 -
[213] - 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. |
Grorious Reader
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 00:12:28 -
[214] - Quote
"dev blog" wrote:All players that were docked in the structure are podded. Mrs. Madeleine Truffade loses her implants and is moved to her medical home station, Duripant VII GÇô Moon 6 GÇô Federal Navy Academy. All items located in personal hangars are saved for their owners to claim. This includes MadeleineGÇÖs Megathron. A notification will be sent to Madeleine explaining what happened.
As others have stated, this is an objectively terrible idea. Nobody will ever log off in a citadel if this is the case. They will log off in space in a ship, just like they currently do when using a POS. It would be stupid not to.
Here are other solutions I think are reasonable.
- The pod (implants in tact) and the active ship move to the nearest station, just like the assets.
- The pod and the active ship (if any) are spawned at a random point in space when the player logs back in. Similar to what would happen if they logged off in space.
It would also be stupid to dock and store a super-cap in an XL citadel, as only a handful of alliances in the game would have the resources to lose a significant number of ships and assets (especially super-caps) for 5 days and then build another XL citadel in the same contested system, and defend it without any of the lost ships, just to get those assets back. In most cases the super-caps would just be lost.
Maybe when you reclaim a super-cap the game could just spawn it at a random point in system and warp it to within range of the nearest structure's invulnerability link, and hold it there until somebody boards it. |
Vol Arm'OOO
Bagel and Lox
716
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 00:24:55 -
[215] - Quote
having people podded on citadel destruction is foolish. Cant take a vacation? got to stay on top of the game all the time or risk loss of implants etc? Ofc the solution is to not log off in the citadel, but then players are not actually using citadels - in fact these game mechanics will encourage folk not to use citadels at all.
I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
|
Max Fubarticus
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 00:27:40 -
[216] - Quote
Sabastian Cerabiam wrote:I am more worried about the release timeline then compensation. I'm sure there is plenty of individuals/corps/alliances that are expanding and looking to drop stations/pos's. Anyone that is smart is holding off doing this but that has drawbacks as well.
This is a very valid point considering that any successful corp / alliance conducts long range planning activities. I urge the Devs / CSM to consider the impact that the release timeline has.
1. From an indy / manufacturing aspect, will the skill for outpost construction suffice? Will additional skill sets be added or existing skill levels need further training? Any additional skill books required available with sufficient lead time that allows a character to be prepared for the required changes?
2. Will those who have heavily invested in the basic outpost infrastructure BPO / BPC's have these converted or reimbursed in some fashion.
I know some of these have queries appear redundant, but I can't emphasize enough the importance of delivering a well thought out and properly prioritized package to the player base that permits informed and wise decisions. Looking forward to the possibilities |
Vol Arm'OOO
Bagel and Lox
716
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 00:27:50 -
[217] - Quote
Justin Cody wrote:well I guess only w-space has consequences now. Every type of space has its safety valve to prevent mass unsubbing. F@$k W-space! <- appears to be the mantra.
Nerf'd API data Nerf'd rage rolling statics via distant spawning based on mass Nerf'd null sec access to W-space and from W-space
Now citadels come into w-space Pre-nerf'd. Lovely. Do we get something to make up for that EXTRA downside? Its like viagra that guarantees you a priapism. Your embarrassing hard on will always last more than 4 hours and guarantee a trip to the emergency room - every time you take it!
yeah really great. Its like making a medication where the side effects are a feature and you are trying to encourage them!
Relax. No one will shoot citadel's in wh because whats the point? No player loot - check. Can be anchored anywhere - check. System full of dead citadels littering all of space - double check.
I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
|
Vol Arm'OOO
Bagel and Lox
716
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 00:30:31 -
[218] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote: ................................
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.
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 indisdructable by design.
CCP used to be more circumspect with the immersion breaks. Now magic lights and insta space fedex are popping up all over the place.
I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
|
Kel hound
The Scope Gallente Federation
133
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 00:51:07 -
[219] - Quote
beakerax wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:I'm not making sov my only consideration. I'm not sure what you're saying. I didn't mean you specifically, I meant for balancing in general. Citadels are meant to replace both starbases and outposts, right? But with the asset-safety outlined here, smaller citadels don't behave like starbases, they behave like mini-outposts that can be set up anywhere. I can see that smaller groups in sov null might need something like this in order to viably live in their own space. For everyone else though, this is a fairly significant change in starbase looting mechanics that was not brought on by anything in particular.
Actually not a lot changes for the attacker. Most starbase structures took any loot with them to a fiery grave when they blew up, so the only difference really is no more blueprints and no more ships from SMA's. Also keep in mind that these are also literally serving as outposts of any size. You are supposed to be able to configure citadels to have a very wide array of access, all the way up to public docking rights. What warm blooded player with more than 2 brain cells to rub together is going to want to dock, let alone store goods at, a citadel which could eject all their **** if it is blown up or unanchored.
Like it or not, EVE does need at least some safe spaces. You cannot reasonably expect people to be 100% on their guard 100% of the time or else they get taken for a ride to awox-town. If you think that EVE should be 100% pvp 100% of the time then we go back to the argument of everyone else should be making stupid choices so you can prey on them. Which is just as stupid as expecting nothing bad to ever happen to you in EVE.
|
Max Fubarticus
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 00:57:06 -
[220] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Justin Cody wrote:well I guess only w-space has consequences now. Every type of space has its safety valve to prevent mass unsubbing. F@$k W-space! <- appears to be the mantra.
Nerf'd API data Nerf'd rage rolling statics via distant spawning based on mass Nerf'd null sec access to W-space and from W-space
Now citadels come into w-space Pre-nerf'd. Lovely. Do we get something to make up for that EXTRA downside? Its like viagra that guarantees you a priapism. Your embarrassing hard on will always last more than 4 hours and guarantee a trip to the emergency room - every time you take it!
yeah really great. Its like making a medication where the side effects are a feature and you are trying to encourage them! Relax. No one will shoot citadel's in wh because whats the point? No player loot - check. Can be anchored anywhere - check. System full of dead citadels littering all of space - double check.
I am inclined to agree. First, one must dispel the myth of "safe" in any aspect of Eve. Truth... Nothing is safe! Secondly, there would appear to be a "minority" group of WH dwellers who essentially want to be isolationist and reap the many benefits of WH life without having to exert any extra effort to defend their home. WH space was never designed from its inception to be easy. To be fair though, the Devs / CSM need to spend some extra time considering how the Citadel mechanics affect the unique mechanics and associated game play that goes with WH life. It goes without saying that WH dwellers and their efforts are inexplicably linked to our Eve economy ( as is all sectors of Eve space ) and we don't need to go through another cycle of " this is broke " ( like sov ) |
|
Max Fubarticus
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 01:20:00 -
[221] - Quote
[/quote]I disagree with the structure auto blowing up at the end of the last reinforced cycle, just seems arbitrary. I say reduce the shields to 0% and make the attackers actually use ammo.[/quote] Agreed! Although I don't much care for the Entosis link to begin with. I would be willing to compromise and have the last cycle require some actual combat and not some arbitrary "Borg monkey mind-meld assimilation" module. |
Vol Arm'OOO
Bagel and Lox
718
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 01:52:58 -
[222] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: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-¦ve 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.
Pos are used all over the place outside of wh despite the risk of assets loss. This new system would be fine - a slight improvement over the current situation - if it was limited to stations, but make poses asset immune everywhere is a terrible idea
I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
|
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
139
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 01:57:58 -
[223] - Quote
Max Fubarticus wrote:................WH space was never designed from its inception to be easy. To be fair though, the Devs / CSM need to spend some extra time considering how the Citadel mechanics affect the unique mechanics and associated game play that goes with WH life. It goes without saying that WH dwellers and their efforts are inexplicably linked to our Eve economy ( as is all sectors of Eve space ) and we don't need to go through another cycle of " this is broke " ( like sov )
Its funny, to my perception w-space seems the only portion of this universe that actually worked - at least it produced the least amount of complaints, while null was going on about "broken sov-gameplay" and hisec groaned about ganker-safety (in one way or another).
Ironically CCP seems to do its best to break this last bastion of actually satisfied customers ....... |
Vol Arm'OOO
Bagel and Lox
719
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 02:05:27 -
[224] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vol Arm'OOO wrote:The whole point of pos bashing is to get to the player goodies inside. Here's the thing though, is it really? Looking at the POS's I've shot in the last few months, all but a few of them have been moon mining POS's (one was a safe tower for gatecampers), which means we were shooting them to remove the owner and take control of the minerals, not steal their stuffs. Even when I lived in lowsec we bashed towers for moon mining. Citadels are also replacing outposts, and why do people shoot Outposts? Not to steal the stuff, the best they can do is lock the owners out and hope or a firesale. People shoot outposts to evict the former owners, or as a place to live because the former owner isn't there. So while people will no longer be able to shoot offline SMAs/CHAs and hope for a loot pinata, how often did they really happen outside of wormholes? I haven't kept any ships in a POS (except one mining barge and T1 hauler) since I moved out of wormholes a year or two ago. Wormholes can be balanced a bit differently with personal assets dropping as loot, and they already are already being balanced differently for citadels since they cannot have assets ~transported~ to NPC space in the event of losing a citadel.
The point is - having the same one size fit all approach to both poses and stations is silly. They serve distinct and different functions. The new pos 2.0 should remain destructible. The new station 2.0 - well having magic space fedex is an improvement and provides some penalty for losing the station, without being overly abusive.
Also the entrosis link has proven to be a terrible mechanic - less fun and more tedious than what it replaced. If ccp is hell bent on including the entrosis link it should be as an alternative to a structure grind without replacing it. If folk want to grind a structure because they have the dps and its quicker - why shouldnt they be able to? After all shooting things and space explosions is the whole point of the game.
I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
781
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 02:19:19 -
[225] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:Max Fubarticus wrote:................WH space was never designed from its inception to be easy. To be fair though, the Devs / CSM need to spend some extra time considering how the Citadel mechanics affect the unique mechanics and associated game play that goes with WH life. It goes without saying that WH dwellers and their efforts are inexplicably linked to our Eve economy ( as is all sectors of Eve space ) and we don't need to go through another cycle of " this is broke " ( like sov ) Its funny, to my perception w-space seems the only portion of this universe that actually worked - at least it produced the least amount of complaints, while null was going on about "broken sov-gameplay" and hisec groaned about ganker-safety (in one way or another ). Ironically CCP seems to do its best to break this last bastion of actually satisfied customers .......
The wormholers seem to keep their complaints to the wormhole subforum nowadays. 'Tis a silly place.
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:If folk want to grind a structure because they have the dps and its quicker - why shouldnt they be able to? After all shooting things and space explosions is the whole point of the game.
Because massive ******* blobs of supercapitals, remnants of another age.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Beta Maoye
72
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 02:39:29 -
[226] - Quote
I don't know why dev feel safe in Citadel. I feel safe in NPC station. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2694
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 04:13:38 -
[227] - Quote
Maybe I missed it, but is there a way to get a docked super from a destroyed citadel back without plopping down a second XL citadel? |
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 07:31:44 -
[228] - Quote
I have mixed feelings about the citadels after reading the blogs. Null sec gets one deal, wh has another (similar mechanic but completely different environment). Neither have balance imo.
I still have assets somewhere in null, just collecting dust, not sure when and if I will recover any of it, but with the new structures I would just have them sit at an npc station, with faster recovery? Seems like a buff for personal assets. Don't care for null much but the system is clear and I get it.
However......
I live in a WH, every day could be the day someone comes knocking. With POS there are ships that are ready to be sacrificed, anything of value just sits in a cargo bay ready to cloak up when the time comes.
Citadels will only work for item safety if I have another one up and running in the system, so it looks like nothing will change for me really? Ships will get sacrificed still, except now they just float in space for a few days?
Then what happens? Did I miss something?
If I don't have a citadel in the system they will eventually show up in a can that can be scanned? (would that mean that going from random stuff that drops now its all if there is no citadel to deliver to in the wh?)
How long do I have the option to select a target location in a WH? When does the timer start? When does it end?
Too many devils in the details still not known. |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3963
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 11:51:58 -
[229] - Quote
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:Orm Magnustat wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote: ................................
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.
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 indisdructable by design. CCP used to be more circumspect with the immersion breaks. Now magic lights and insta space fedex are popping up all over the place. They should just make a magic space wizard and be done with any pretense of realism
The immersion break coul be fixed in the way I suggested above (NPC salvage ships, factually invulnerable).
The whole point is that without asset safety the new structures would be dead on arrival, but for wormhole space, which is a small sliver of the demographics.
Even the "podded while offline" death mechanic is plain too stupid for the average player to agree to it and would just call for never login off from a Citadel.
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
425
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 12:15:22 -
[230] - Quote
Wow didn't realize people are soo attached to their pods. But agree, since your invulnerable logged of in space, its stupid that you would be vulnerable in this case.
Overall the idea of asset safety is a good idea. I even like the current idea in WH space. Since i do still lose all my stuff if i get evicted. But perhaps some sort of drop would be in order if it can't get delivered.
Overall however looking forward to deploying these sooner rather than later.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
|
Hal Morsh
Delusions of Granduer Two Drink Minimum
377
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 13:11:47 -
[231] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: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.
If it's the only option people will build them.
Dun'Gal > Hal is simply an imperfect ai, though if drunkeness ever gets programmed into ai's I foresee both a hilarious and tragic end to humanity.
|
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
142
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 15:09:44 -
[232] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
......................................................
The immersion break coul be fixed in the way I suggested above (NPC salvage ships, factually invulnerable).
The whole point is that without asset safety the new structures would be dead on arrival, but for wormhole space, which is a small sliver of the demographics.
Even the "podded while offline" death mechanic is plain too stupid for the average player to agree to it and would just call for never login off from a Citadel.
I see where you come from with looting NPCs and all, yes you can add this narrative and say it works - personally I still feel it would be a major change away from the game i know and its inner logic.
As you put it the asset safety is "needed" indeed - but its only needed cause CCP decided to lump together the formerly completely different entities of POS and Outpost
For a long time people have asked for some minor repairs on POS mechanics and rights management, but what do we get? CCP just decides to completely abolish the whole concept and replace it with something entirely different .... and even drag the outposts into this halfbaked mess.
In the end a lot of variety and flexibility gets discontinued in this universe to be replaced by some unified halfbaked generic bs structure concept (that actually isnt anything more than a slightly modified ripoff of their general ship model).
This super simplifying approach surely will skyrocked the "sense of wonder" and longterm fascination within the old and new playerbase .... (do i need to add the sarcasm flags here?) |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
234
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 15:52:41 -
[233] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
......................................................
The immersion break coul be fixed in the way I suggested above (NPC salvage ships, factually invulnerable).
The whole point is that without asset safety the new structures would be dead on arrival, but for wormhole space, which is a small sliver of the demographics.
Even the "podded while offline" death mechanic is plain too stupid for the average player to agree to it and would just call for never login off from a Citadel.
I see where you come from with looting NPCs and all, yes you can add this narrative and say it works - personally I still feel it would be a major change away from the game i know and its inner logic. As you put it the asset safety is "needed" indeed - but its only needed cause CCP decided to lump together the formerly completely different entities of POS and Outpost For a long time people have asked for some minor repairs on POS mechanics and rights management, but what do we get? CCP just decides to completely abolish the whole concept and replace it with something entirely different .... and even drag the outposts into this halfbaked mess. In the end a lot of variety and flexibility gets discontinued in this universe to be replaced by some unified halfbaked generic bs structure concept (that actually isnt anything more than a slightly modified ripoff of their general ship model). This super simplifying approach surely will skyrocked the "sense of wonder" and longterm fascination within the old and new playerbase .... (do i need to add the sarcasm flags here?)
i could not say it better |
Neo Digital
True Space Fearless
11
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 16:37:09 -
[234] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:How come the entosis link causes the structure to explode?
Why not have it so that a doomsday is required to blow the structure up at the end of the final reinforcement?
You know, a reason for capital ships to exist in the game and everything?
I would think that the entosis link would push the structure into "Critical Vulnerability" which would then require lots of firepower to destroy it. So either a wrecking ball or a few doomsday strikes.
I agree with this completely. Entosis link being a mind-machine link, its guaranteed hacking capability is one thing, but the idea of it turning an object into a wreck would be more suitable for a game called Magic Online.
Regarding this magic module's guaranteed capabilities, there should be a module for citadels that counteracts entosis operation locally. i.e. Redundant Computer Array or off grid (in networking sense) Secondary Control Mainframe. Citadels fitted with such electronic resilience modules would have drastically increased/decreased entosis capture/defense times. As a penalty for fitting defensive modules, citadels could have their other services affected in a negative way, i.e. slow production, no refinery, etc.
o7
~Neo Digital
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1580
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 16:40:20 -
[235] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Maybe I missed it, but is there a way to get a docked super from a destroyed citadel back without plopping down a second XL citadel?
Not as far as I can tell.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Eileen Black
EVE University Ivy League
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 20:18:14 -
[236] - Quote
How to abuse this in WH space:
1. Build some carriers and dreads in a C4 WH, 2. Destroy your outpost(probably unrigged) 3. Wait for new inhabitants to move in, 4. Watch them get richer and richer, 5. Rebuild outpost, transfer assets, 6. Surprise, now this WH has waaaay too much BSes/capitals to be allowed under normal circumstances.
Bad idea for WHs.
Suggestion: 1. Outposts have personal hangars of *limited* size, which get sent to deep space and await the owner(or a person this owner gives permission) to retrieve them, 2. All other items drop with standard drop rate. 3. Players docked and in a ship are sent into deep space upon outpost destruction, after logging in they wake up in the ship, which is damaged with random armor/hull damage of 0-99%; with bias for higher damage for bigger ships.(This is emergency kind of a microjump)
No magical transportation, no "bag of holding" titan transportation, incentive to blow up stuff and loot it. Everyone wins :P |
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
45
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 23:27:15 -
[237] - Quote
If I dock a super in a citadel, and that citadel is destroyed, the super then enters purgatory until xfered to another XL Citadel within the same system.
Unfortunately, there will not always be a 2nd XL citadel in the same system (and if there is it will likely be under assault). And since we lost the fight, we won't be building a 2nd citadel to xfer supers to. This means I will not be able to access my super at all, which is really bad.
So I'd never log off with a super docked in a citadel.
We need another option, such as the super being delivered to a safe spot in the same system rather than a citadel. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
652
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 23:44:53 -
[238] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:If I dock a super in a citadel, and that citadel is destroyed, the super then enters purgatory until xfered to another XL Citadel within the same system.
Unfortunately, there will not always be a 2nd XL citadel in the same system (and if there is it will likely be under assault). And since we lost the fight, we won't be building a 2nd citadel to xfer supers to. This means I will not be able to access my super at all, which is really bad.
So I'd never log off with a super docked in a citadel.
We need another option, such as the super being delivered to a safe spot in the same system rather than a citadel.
This is basically what I brought up in the thread on mooring. It's hard to get the balance right when it comes to supercaps and risk; too far one way and their pilots will never use these new structures, too far the other and it's not really EVE. I think the trick lies in making things largely safe, but still leaving a window for savvy opponents to nail their target:
xttz wrote:Let's say a Nyx is moored at a structure, allowing the pilot to enjoy the use of ships other than a space coffin. An opposing alliance attacks and manages to destroy the structure before the owner can return to it. Instead of giving away such a valuable prize and the owner losing everything, the Nyx activates an automated security system*. On destruction of the attached structure the ship automatically overcharges and activates its jump drive (ignoring any nearby bubbles), vanishes to a safe location and cloaks up. Of course finding a safe location and re-establishing contact with the proper owner is risky, and may take time (likely several days). In order to board the ship again the owner has to wait a random period, then perform some kind of mini-quest to locate his auto-piloted hull. Once found, there would be a short vulnerability period (2-3mins) as the vessel repairs and re-calibrates itself from the emergency jump. Once this is successfully completed, the ship can be used again as normal.
This introduces a small element of risk to losing structures, without the all-or-nothing aspect for people with ~100bn isk hulls. The attacker denies the owner use of a powerful ship for a period of time, and has an opportunity to kill it if they pay very careful attention to the area later. The owner has a decent chance to get their ship back in the event of a disaster, especially if they have friends to help recover it.
Edit: the same mechanic can be used against corp thefts. If a mooring structure is tampered with for whatever reason (perhaps the owning corp wants to pull it down, perhaps someone is misusing their roles), the ship activates its security system in the same way. This gives some peace of mind for the owner.
*if affordable cars can have security systems to prevent theft, why can't futuristic space flagships? |
Ramman K'arojic
Lone Star Warriors Yulai Federation
36
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 00:59:42 -
[239] - Quote
Re: Quote:Are automatically delivered as a single package which has to be opened, like courier contract plastic wraps. This is done not to overwhelm, confuse or mix items that are being delivered with ones already in place in the hangar.
Please separate each hanger into a separate package at a minimum. Extending the scenario if I have 50 containers (eg 1 for each corp member) within a single hanger will I be able to determine what was is in each ? So I can give there stuff back quickly
Please make it all possible; the last thing I want to do after I have had all my stuff relocated is fight internally over who's stack of thorax's was who's.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1582
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 07:49:41 -
[240] - Quote
I've been thinking about this for the past few days. I probably shouldn't bother even providing more feedback, but these are some things to consider and this is more how I would do it:
1. I read the Dev Blogs several times. The word "killmail" appears once in the I feel safe in Citadel City devblog, but only to say that we all love them. It does not appear at all in the Citadels, sieges, and you [Oxford comma added because I am not a peasant, but am a pedant]. CCP has not stated how kill mails will work. Or who will get them. Or what information they will show. I do not consider myself driven by kill mails, but let's be honest: We all like them. If we are not going to be able to scoop 50% of the possessions up from the wreck, we should at least get a kill mail identifying what was destroyed and what was impounded. And somehow, everyone involved in the fight should get that kill mail - not just the dude with the Entosis. I'll be honest, I'm really quite shocked that CCP has omitted to fundamental part of what drives Eve players.
2. As I have mentioned elsewhere on these forums, destruction should involve actually shooting weapons. My post from back in March is still remarkably on point: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5613421#post5613421
I am okay with Entosis as a means of changing ownership of a structure, but asset destruction should come from people shooting at the structure. Preferably with Dreadnoughts.
3. As mentioned in paragraph 2, I would like to see Dreadnoughts required to actually destroy the structure. Ideally the system would be designed to require more than one siege cycle - no matter how many you bring. The way I see it, each structure should have three layers - shield, armor, and structure. Average DPS for a Dreadnought is about 10,000. Multiply that by 5 minutes. Adjust based on size/value of the structure - you want the attacker to commit some significant percentage of a structure's value to the field in order to destroy it quickly - it should take more commitment to destroy an XL structure than a medium structure. So, hypothetically, the shield layer on an XL Citadel could be destroyed by 25 Dreadnoughts in five minutes. Between each layer, there is a 2.5 minute reinforcement timer. Thus, in something like twenty minutes, 25 Dreadnoughts could destroy an XL structure. If someone wanted to bring more ships or fire Doomsday Devices at it to speed it up further, they could do that as well, but you would still have a minimum time on the field, and you would be making a larger commitment. The defender could also show up and attempt to save the structure.
4. Once you make it so that the attacker has to at least commit some serious firepower on the field in order to destroy the structures, then you can get rid of the stupid safety mechanics. You can also now properly reward the attacker for bringing the pain to the fight. If a structure dies, it becomes an indestructible wreck. That wreck contains 50% of ALL the stuff in the structure - except for the structure's rigs.
5. One way to then add some more depth to it is as follows: Each indestructible wreck has a number of salvageable nodes on it. Each node contains one player's stuff (no name on the node). People can now salvage each node to unlock stuff from it. Thus, someone might salvage my ship hangar node to find that I have a Nyx in it. Another might find that his node contains only a rookie ship. People close enough can now loot all the stuff stored in that hangar.
6. As the salvagers cut through the scrap metal, their bays gradually fill up with metal scraps, salvage, and parts from the structure itself. To make it more interesting for them, and add an element of skill, there is a salvaging minigame, which looks like cutting through different parts of a wrecked space station to find the storage areas, living quarters, ship hangars, fuel depots, etc within each node. Players would learn to optimize their path, trying to avoid cutting through heavily armored areas to find easier pathways into the lucrative spots. There could be parts you want to avoid, like cutting into the chemical storage plant or nuclear reactor on the station, which would at least damage/blow up your salvaging ship and others very close to it. Players learn to recognize what different parts of the node look like - chewing on some parts is more lucrative than others. Some parts of the node will be more likely to contain cargo, other parts, ships, etc. The game would be continuous and affected by the other players (i.e. I am racing my friends to find the best deposits). Someone else who comes along later can see that 50% of the nodes have been salvaged. The wreck remains in space until it all the nodes have been completely salvaged.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
236
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 08:13:28 -
[241] - Quote
Quote:Where in space can they be deployed? So far, our plan is to have them in all areas of space, as long as proximity restrictions are respected.
can i anchor my citadel in an asteroid belt, for example? |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3967
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 08:33:46 -
[242] - Quote
gascanu wrote:Quote:Where in space can they be deployed? So far, our plan is to have them in all areas of space, as long as proximity restrictions are respected. can i anchor my citadel in an asteroid belt, for example?
...proximity restrictions...
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
Ludi Burek
Combined Imperial Fleet Darwinism.
305
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 08:44:22 -
[243] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:I've been thinking about this for the past few days. I probably shouldn't bother even providing more feedback, but these are some things to consider and this is more how I would do it:
... good read, thanks ...
Now why can't the dev's think of something like this. This is the new version of eve I'd gladly play, except the salvage mini game because I CBFed with mini games but that's just me.
Their flashlight power version (what is this, Alan Wake?) really makes me wonder why even bother. Entosis destroying structures is so dumb that if a non dev posted it I'd have no doubt they were trolling All the other things I would swallow but entosis is a deal breaker. It's lame, immersion breaking, convoluted. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
236
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 09:10:02 -
[244] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:gascanu wrote:Quote:Where in space can they be deployed? So far, our plan is to have them in all areas of space, as long as proximity restrictions are respected. can i anchor my citadel in an asteroid belt, for example? ...proximity restrictions...
the only proximity restrictions i've eve actually read about are to anchorable structures; yes, it's common sense to asume it will apply to some other things, but well...lately in eve we have magic lights and space hello kitty online, hence my question, just to be sure
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
236
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 09:20:10 -
[245] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:I've been thinking about this for the past few days. I probably shouldn't bother even providing more feedback, but these are some things to consider and this is more how I would do it:
1. I read the Dev Blogs several times. The word "killmail" appears once in the I feel safe in Citadel City devblog, but only to say that we all love them. ..... ... we should at least get a kill mail identifying what was destroyed and what was impounded. And somehow, everyone involved in the fight should get that kill mail - not just the dude with the Entosis. I'll be honest, I'm really quite shocked that CCP has omitted to fundamental part of what drives Eve players.
his is a quite good example of why eve is going down: the inability of some ppl at CCP to understand the most simple things about the players : yes we all like killmails, but most important we like to see our name on that killmail(aka dealing dmg/ecm/whatever on the thing that died) the fact that they seem to not understand a basic thing like this make me wonder about eve future |
Josef Kennet
Zima Corp Infinity Space.
15
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 09:20:49 -
[246] - Quote
If i can lose nyx in citadel while i even not in the game, i will NEVER store it there. For not so valuable stuff, if i can lose it in citadel, i will not store there more than ~200 mil total. So asset safety is MUST HAVE.
And yes i'm talking about sov null and XL citadel (That replace outpost, not a POS). For other areas (WH for example) it should probably be different (POS replacing).
And Q: When we will see these changes on TQ? Any date? This year\next or? |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
695
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 09:26:47 -
[247] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:I've been thinking about this for the past few days. I probably shouldn't bother even providing more feedback, but these are some things to consider and this is more how I would do it: 1. I read the Dev Blogs several times. The word "killmail" appears once in the I feel safe in Citadel City devblog, but only to say that we all love them. It does not appear at all in the Citadels, sieges, and you [Oxford comma added because I am not a peasant, but am a pedant]. CCP has not stated how kill mails will work. Or who will get them. Or what information they will show. I do not consider myself driven by kill mails, but let's be honest: We all like them. If we are not going to be able to scoop 50% of the possessions up from the wreck, we should at least get a kill mail identifying what was destroyed and what was impounded. And somehow, everyone involved in the fight should get that kill mail - not just the dude with the Entosis. I'll be honest, I'm really quite shocked that CCP has omitted to fundamental part of what drives Eve players. 2. As I have mentioned elsewhere on these forums, destruction should involve actually shooting weapons. My post from back in March is still remarkably on point: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5613421#post5613421 I am okay with Entosis as a means of changing ownership of a structure, but asset destruction should come from people shooting at the structure. Preferably with Dreadnoughts. 3. As mentioned in paragraph 2, I would like to see Dreadnoughts required to actually destroy the structure. Ideally the system would be designed to require more than one siege cycle - no matter how many you bring. The way I see it, each structure should have three layers - shield, armor, and structure. Average DPS for a Dreadnought is about 10,000. Multiply that by 5 minutes. Adjust based on size/value of the structure - you want the attacker to commit some significant percentage of a structure's value to the field in order to destroy it quickly - it should take more commitment to destroy an XL structure than a medium structure. So, hypothetically, the shield layer on an XL Citadel could be destroyed by 25 Dreadnoughts in five minutes. Between each layer, there is a 2.5 minute reinforcement timer. Thus, in something like twenty minutes, 25 Dreadnoughts could destroy an XL structure. If someone wanted to bring more ships or fire Doomsday Devices at it to speed it up further, they could do that as well, but you would still have a minimum time on the field, and you would be making a larger commitment. The defender could also show up and attempt to save the structure. 4. Once you make it so that the attacker has to at least commit some serious firepower on the field in order to destroy the structures, then you can get rid of the stupid safety mechanics. You can also now properly reward the attacker for bringing the pain to the fight. If a structure dies, it becomes an indestructible wreck. That wreck contains 50% of ALL the stuff in the structure - except for the structure's rigs. 5. One way to then add some more depth to it is as follows: Each indestructible wreck has a number of salvageable nodes on it. Each node contains one player's stuff (no name on the node). People can now salvage each node to unlock stuff from it. Thus, someone might salvage my ship hangar node to find that I have a Nyx in it. Another might find that his node contains only a rookie ship. People close enough can now loot all the stuff stored in that hangar. 6. As the salvagers cut through the scrap metal, their bays gradually fill up with metal scraps, salvage, and parts from the structure itself. To make it more interesting for them, and add an element of skill, there is a salvaging minigame, which looks like cutting through different parts of a wrecked space station to find the storage areas, living quarters, ship hangars, fuel depots, etc within each node. Players would learn to optimize their path, trying to avoid cutting through heavily armored areas to find easier pathways into the lucrative spots. There could be parts you want to avoid, like cutting into the chemical storage plant or nuclear reactor on the station, which would at least damage/blow up your salvaging ship and others very close to it. Players learn to recognize what different parts of the node look like - chewing on some parts is more lucrative than others. Some parts of the node will be more likely to contain cargo, other parts, ships, etc. The game would be continuous and affected by the other players (i.e. I am racing my friends to find the best deposits). Someone else who comes along later can see that 50% of the nodes have been salvaged. The wreck remains in space until it all the nodes have been completely salvaged. Points 1, 2 and 3 - +1 4,5 and 6 - No, never The structure itself should drop loot, as in wreckage that can be salvaged, maybe even some loot cans containing things like guns or other Citadel modules. If Citadels become nothing more than 50% Loot Pinatas it will break them.
As I said when you first suggested this type of thing - It would price smaller groups out of nulsec and seeing the larger coalition groups (the only ones who could remotely afford an XL Citadel) will never fight each other, Nulsec would soon become even more stagnant than is it now. The only reliable targets for Citadel Pinatas would be small groups who can't afford the biggest and best defenses. They get punished by the larger groups enough, why make it easier to kick them out of their homes?
Lose 50% of assets to destruction then have to pay CCP 10% more to get back what is left? This seems balanced - For those in a position where they have nothing at risk.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
695
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 10:17:34 -
[248] - Quote
Been thinking about this for a while; A role for Supers/Titans as a type of jump capable mini Citadel.
Introduce the option to remove Fighters and Fighter Bombers from Supers and Carriers, to be replaced with player controlled ships. Super lands on grid, 15 player controlled ships launch from it and the fight is on. Clone vat bays and ship maintenance bays would need to be modified so the fleet travelling with the super are already aboard their respective ships when it lands and just undock from it like undocking from a station or outpost. Ship Maintenance bays would need to be increased in size to accommodate, space for reshipping due to ship loss or just a different doctrine.
Titan's could be used in the same way, have the fleet deployed to your titan, pick a target system, jump in, titan deploys, fleet undocks and away you go.
Titan's and Supers could get a new module, "Battle Config" Highslot module - 200k PG, 250 CPU. 5,000,0000 Shield (like a pos shield so fleet members can use it) 5KM radius 10 min cycle time (25 second activation delay, reduces to 5 seconds with lvl 5 skill) no auto repeat 1,000 Strontium per cycle (500 per cycle with lvl 5 skill) Fleet bonuses per Command Ships. (fitting links is the way to go) 1 Extra link fitted per level (Titan/Super skill) 200% bonus to remote energy transfer, shield and armor repairer range and 50% reduction to cycle time. Disallow remote assistance Disallow warp Disable jump drive Disallow activation of offensive modules (can't use it on a titan to be an immune killing machine using Doomsdays) Ewar disallows activation (if you tackle it before the module activates or between cycles - it is a sitting duck) Can not be deployed within 100KM of station, outpost, gate or pos. Can not be deployed within 50KM of a ship fit with similar module.
Carriers could have a similar module but with less shield, (2.5KM radius, 2,500,000 shield).
Shields of the module could be attacked directly by shooting the ship it is activated on but would be immune to Doomsdays. So you can directly attack the ship but it has an extra 5 million shields to kill before you start hurting the ship itself. Better to kill the fleet with it, then concentrate on the capital.
Yes a capital deployed in this fashion, that can't move or shoot back itself would be a nice juicy target for PL (and other groups with many supers). I don't know the answer to that except maybe, those super groups would see the benefit of using their assets differently.
Thoughts? (aside from sounds dumb, etc)
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
146
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 12:30:46 -
[249] - Quote
+1 from me, Sgt.
Ofc, this would need some serious thought about consequences and balance - but at least these are REAL ideas that ADD something to the game (as oposed to the no-show from our devs for a while now).
Taking away their roles from capitals without any clearcut new plan for them was just unbelievable ...... , the game development (tinkering) really seems to have no means of lead, direction and control atm. |
Rengor Elongur
30plus Fidelas Constans
7
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 12:49:14 -
[250] - Quote
Wait...
I WILL loose my exotic dancers?
WTFBBQ?!?!?! |
|
Samsara Nolte
Random Thinking Union Random Thinking
24
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 12:52:43 -
[251] - Quote
So - I read those dev blogs and must say i-¦m far less alienated by them than i thougt i would be. On the other hand im impressed how many are demanding to keep the potential loot pinata POS-¦es intact despite the fact that those Citadels will be a lot more vulnerable especially against smaller groups. This in fact reduces the amount of planning, players and assets required to threaten these structures and all the assets stored in it while on the other hand it forces the respective owners of citadels to invest a great deal of time to watch them (i will go with the term citasitting. - and Yes in w-space this actually means watching not in a metaphoric but in a literaly sense since we got no local or intel channel-¦s warning us from hostiles 20 jumps away.) I mean seriously 42h per weak for an XL-citadel GÇô those are 6h a day 7days a week. All w-space corp-¦s are small in comparison to what you can have in numbers to null or low and the members of w-space corps generally have all the same time of activity (since w-space relies the most on teamwork, depending on the class there isn-¦t much content to be done alone) meaning there won-¦t be anyone online to watch the Citadel all day long since they have to sleep at least sometimes, too. And as i recall the day has only 24h and 1/4 of it you have to babysit your assets - really ? That is only and i mean capital ONLY acceptable if there is some kind of safety net for your assets like the one proposed atm by CCP. I mean it was corectly mentioned, that in w-space the wormholes can be collapsed, die of old age and that we don-¦t get the luxury to just jump clone back inside a wh. Which might contribute to even more evasive behaviour, regarding fights of smaller entites since they need to be back in time to protect their assets since the citadel alone is gonna fall to a Iteron Mark V. Meaning one bad engangement wiping out your fleet GÇô a bad connectivity of your wormhole, resulting in returning taking awfull lot of time, at that moment and said Iteron fitted with entosis is the initiator of your downfall.
Let me explain this downfall a little further GÇô of those corps demanding that the Loot Pianata will stay in the game how many are complainig about no content to be had in w-space and therefore needing null connections ? - my estimated guess would be proabably all - Have you considered what being robbed of the assets you have in w-space means for those corps ? - No ? - It means in 90% of the time this happens the corp on the receiving end disbands. Those of them hardcore enough will join the big fish in w-space the less hardcore but still loving the game ones are going to null or low and the rest which very well might be 50% of the players of said corp are gonna quit eve alltogether. Since they can-¦t see any need to start nearly at zero.
You might think thats some kind of fable, well unfortunately it is not. Not too long ago one of the big corps seeded some capitals into our system, not knowing what their intentions were (since we wouldn-¦t have stood any chance at all against them) we decided to evacuate. Leaving us with our assets but with a strange aftertaste and the loss of some members. They have realised the harsh reality it means to live in w-space. Don-¦t get me wrong they knew of the dangers, but it is something whole different to know of them or to experience them first hand. So now with their eyes opened they recognized that this is too much of a threat permanently lingering above their heads, resulting in them leaving the corp and w-space alltogehter. Most of them seem to enjoy the safety null sec stations offer.
Well my point being GÇô out there are a lot of players who find w-space in general really good and would love to live there. But the risks that when you are away for the weekend and come back to the ruins of all your achievments scares them far too much. That effect seems to be multiplied by the time they have to be away from the game during the week. So they rather choose the easy life null low and high has to offer. Because there your assets are safe.
In my opinion some kind of incresed safety for your assets like the one proposed by CCP atm would help w-space a great deal since it would even allow casual gamers to set up their base in here. So they no longer would have to worry that after a weekend away there is nothing left to return to. That would in turn increase the w-space population density and therefore the content to be found GÇô lets be honest w-space is far too empty. So on this note i really don-¦t get it, why most wh corps are so eager to implement a loot pinata. I mean yeah it rewards the effort needed to evict someone but do you really want to shoot more and more people out of wh space GÇô that will not make the situation any better and it sure as hell won-¦t increase the population density GÇô and that is what you, for the most part, lament about. And do you really want to creat content by using the flashlight on some structures owned by a corp half as large or even smaller than yours ?
In my opinion you can-¦t have both, you either gonna get a higher population density or the Pinata. If i have to choose one - I would always pick more players in w-space - even if that requires (as everybody living in w-space can see it does) some asset protection GÇô then so be it. Im in on it and you should be too. |
Samsara Nolte
Random Thinking Union Random Thinking
24
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 12:54:01 -
[252] - Quote
Josef Kennet wrote:Samsara Nolte wrote:Josef Kennet wrote: 4) For Hi-sec\Low-Sec\WH: disable evacuation. Everything drops (like it is now) 5) About loot: make any ammo\drones that were in player\corp hangars drop as loot from citadels and everything else evacuated. Its not a big deal for every single player who lose ~50mil in drones\ammo but it will be a nice loot for attacker (~25b from citadel with 500 players, etc). And this loot will be for all players in attacker group, not only for that lucky guy "wow, i looted a nyx".
Let me guess - you live in nullsec. Quite daring, if i may say so, to demand the short end of the stick for regions you only pass through at most while retaining the good parts for yourself. Let me guess - you live in NPC station. Maybe make them (hi sec, low sec, npc null) destructible too? No? You dont want to lose all your stuff? So why do I?
actullay i live in w-space - so right back at you why should i lose stuff when you don`t ? |
Josef Kennet
Zima Corp Infinity Space.
15
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 13:22:49 -
[253] - Quote
Samsara Nolte wrote:Josef Kennet wrote:Samsara Nolte wrote:Josef Kennet wrote: 4) For Hi-sec\Low-Sec\WH: disable evacuation. Everything drops (like it is now) 5) About loot: make any ammo\drones that were in player\corp hangars drop as loot from citadels and everything else evacuated. Its not a big deal for every single player who lose ~50mil in drones\ammo but it will be a nice loot for attacker (~25b from citadel with 500 players, etc). And this loot will be for all players in attacker group, not only for that lucky guy "wow, i looted a nyx".
Let me guess - you live in nullsec. Quite daring, if i may say so, to demand the short end of the stick for regions you only pass through at most while retaining the good parts for yourself. Let me guess - you live in NPC station. Maybe make them (hi sec, low sec, npc null) destructible too? No? You dont want to lose all your stuff? So why do I? actullay i live in w-space - so right back at you why should i lose stuff when you don`t ? Because you may lose it now and i dont (Sov null outpost)? And both of us know that when decided to live here or there.
Really a lot of players already said here that pos and outpost mechanics are different and citadels should take this into account.
For me XL citadel (outpost now) should have assets safety (because items are safe there now) and everything smaller should NOT have it (these structures replace current POS). As i understand CPP wont allow XL citadel in WH (because titans\supers there is not a good idea) so this should work.
|
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands
100
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 15:52:17 -
[254] - Quote
While I applaud you for making the new structures more of a sink for ISK and materials, the new structures seem of far more use to lowsec, highsec, and wormholes than to nullsec. Implied in one of the dev posts was your intent to nerf player-built/NPC stations in order to encourage use of the newer structures, but unless you nerf them to something worse than what they were before you buffed them immensely, I fail to see that ever happening. Addtionally, you've yet to address the problem which still stagnates and bottlenecks nullsec content. Please make mechanic changes that actually affect the politics (e.g. decaying moon goo).
Some questions:
Why on earth would I bother docking my supers instead of logging them at a safe or near the citadel if you're going to make me pay to get it back if someone destroys the citadel? Even when not being attacked, why would I dock my supers? Undocking them seems rather riskier than logging into a safe. Is it permissible (or even possible) to bump supers that undock?
Are the 'market prices' of items and their respective % sink ISK cost to get them back going to be based on Jita sell? Jita buy? something between the two? How often will these values be updated? (Bob forbid you try and base these things on the local region market.)
If citadels generate killmails from being entosis'd, where are my IHUB and TCU killmails? |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
301
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 20:49:57 -
[255] - Quote
Josef Kennet wrote:If i can lose nyx in citadel while i even not in the game, i will NEVER store it there. For not so valuable stuff, if i can lose it in citadel, i will not store there more than ~200 mil total. So asset safety is MUST HAVE.
And yes i'm talking about sov null and XL citadel (That replace outpost, not a POS). For other areas (WH for example) it should probably be different (POS replacing).
And Q: When we will see these changes on TQ? Any date? This year\next or?
Anytime anything is considered safe in eve online is missing the point of eve online.
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
275
|
Posted - 2015.08.16 21:51:03 -
[256] - Quote
Was insurance for hanger contents given any consideration during the design process?
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Starfellow Hawke
Distant Light Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 00:49:40 -
[257] - Quote
So what's the ETA on the Citadel launch?
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
696
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 01:49:29 -
[258] - Quote
Josef Kennet wrote:Samsara Nolte wrote:Josef Kennet wrote:Samsara Nolte wrote:Josef Kennet wrote: 4) For Hi-sec\Low-Sec\WH: disable evacuation. Everything drops (like it is now) 5) About loot: make any ammo\drones that were in player\corp hangars drop as loot from citadels and everything else evacuated. Its not a big deal for every single player who lose ~50mil in drones\ammo but it will be a nice loot for attacker (~25b from citadel with 500 players, etc). And this loot will be for all players in attacker group, not only for that lucky guy "wow, i looted a nyx".
Let me guess - you live in nullsec. Quite daring, if i may say so, to demand the short end of the stick for regions you only pass through at most while retaining the good parts for yourself. Let me guess - you live in NPC station. Maybe make them (hi sec, low sec, npc null) destructible too? No? You dont want to lose all your stuff? So why do I? actullay i live in w-space - so right back at you why should i lose stuff when you don`t ? Because you may lose it now and i dont (Sov null outpost)? And both of us know that when decided to live here or there. Really a lot of players already said here that pos and outpost mechanics are different and citadels should take this into account. For me XL citadel (outpost now) should have assets safety (because items are safe there now) and everything smaller should NOT have it (these structures replace current POS). As i understand CPP wont allow XL citadel in WH (because titans\supers there is not a good idea) so this should work. You seem to have a very narrow view of how citadels will impact player groups. Not everyone will have the luxury of owning XL Citadels, due to the cost of building them only a small portion of nul groups will ever have them.
If CCP do end up going with no XL's in wormhole space there is even more reason for asset safety. Reasons; fixed timers and no variance on invulnerability periods (no system indexes to decrease vulnerability), no automatic defenses as exist now (pos guns, ewar, etc) the ease with which an unmanned Citadel can be reinforced/destroyed and the punishing 6 hours per session needed to guard them. (nobody should be forced to be online for 6 hours in a single session to play, eve is a game not a part time job)
If the idea is to remove as many small groups as possible from wormhole space, then by all means let Citadels be loot pinatas. If the idea is to enhance game play and encourage players to actually play the game, the current proposal needs to be looked at.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Circle-Of-Two
48
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 05:10:27 -
[259] - Quote
I'm in alliance A, and have docked my faction pimped Nyx in the XL citadel. I go on vacation for 4 weeks. As I come back, the citadel has been blown up by alliance B and my shiny Nyx is impounded.
As it happens, alliance B has set up a new XL citadel in the same system. If I join a corp in alliance B, would I be able to extract my dear old Nyx from alliance B:s XL citadel?
Could not find this explicitly stated in the FAQ, but it seams logical, right?
CEO Svea Rike
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1588
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 06:46:50 -
[260] - Quote
One of the primary problems, as I see it, is that CCP is trying to go with a "one size fits all" mechanic. Having everything subject to Entosis is silly and stupid. Having only one possible mechanic for every structure and every kind of space is silly and stupid.
Part of what makes Eve fun is understanding how being in different parts of space affects the same mechanic or module.
I think the previous posters who have suggested looking at the new structures and dividing them along the lines of "like a POS" and "like an Outpost" are on to something. A structure that is "like a POS" should definitely drop loot and definitely should not have asset safety. I could see having some kind of asset safety for a structure that is "like an outpost" - although on the whole I think the asset safety mechanics are not good.
Asset loss is an essential part of Eve. If you want to get your stuff out of a structure, then you should do it. Not some space fairy magical gnomes. Don't fly what you cannot afford to lose. Don't store more than you can afford to lose. Move your own stuff before you lose your structure. There are several player-built Outposts that currently have billions, if not trillions, in trapped assets inside them because their owners lost them before they could evacuate.
Really, what CCP should be doing is ripping off the Outpost band-aid. Get rid of all the player-built Outposts. Only NPC stations and the new structures remain. Make an announcement that all players with possessions in a player-built Outpost can designate one non-highsec NPC station to which to move all their stuff. Players who do not make a designation get their things moved to the closest Low Sec station. Give players 30-60 days notice. This is a one-time deal. It never happens again.
Make that announcement the same day the new structures become available. Thirty-sixty days later, all player-built Outposts disappear, with some reimbursement in components to the current owner. Leave it to the players to begin putting out destructible structures where they think they need them.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1588
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 06:47:38 -
[261] - Quote
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:I'm in alliance A, and have docked my faction pimped Nyx in the XL citadel. I go on vacation for 4 weeks. As I come back, the citadel has been blown up by alliance B and my shiny Nyx is impounded.
As it happens, alliance B has set up a new XL citadel in the same system. If I join a corp in alliance B, would I be able to extract my dear old Nyx from alliance B:s XL citadel?
Could not find this explicitly stated in the FAQ, but it seams logical, right?
Sounds logical to me.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
RF Gnaeus Crassus
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 07:17:10 -
[262] - Quote
The magically appearing of goods after a destroyed citadel doesnt really feel within Lore....
Although I am not able to think of an all new system I think there are means of fitting this one better into eve.
There will be a new Insurance plan (we know Insurance )
The group making the insurance possible is unkown, although rumours say.....
To enter the program you need to pay a fee every month....of ...... which is dependent of...(fixed fee, amount of live memebers, percentage of the goods covered at first of month)
This Insurance will not give all stuff back for free, ofcourse there is other costs to make so when the destruction occurs one has to pay an amount at pickup also. ( that sis anotherx% of the value)
But for that money you will have, your stuff back .This unknown party has means of buying all that is lost and put it in a big container for you. Since they need to retrieve new stuff ( your old as been destroyed) all goods will have 100% repaired status. And the money also covers the bringing the stuff to the new locaction (Rumours Red Frog is involved in that are highly exaggerated )
The stuff that was in a citadell is not moved by magic, but simply destroyed, or scattered in space with some (1%?) droprate for the salvager around. Since it is no longer the possesion of anyone, its free for all to take (ninja looters there your go).
Maybe small dev involvement, but mostly can be covered by the storywriters,,my 2cts,
Regards, Gn
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
238
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 08:09:21 -
[263] - Quote
oh btw: how are this structures gonna influence cynos? will we be able to open a cyno at 0 like on an outpost, or you will open it some 20-50km away like on pos? |
Dirk Morbho
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
58
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 12:40:58 -
[264] - Quote
Do fitted ships that get relocated when the citadel goes boom boom.. do they lose modules as well?
[I hope that makes sense, I just took a dbl dose of cold medicine ] |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
696
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 13:04:01 -
[265] - Quote
Terranid Meester wrote:Josef Kennet wrote:If i can lose nyx in citadel while i even not in the game, i will NEVER store it there. For not so valuable stuff, if i can lose it in citadel, i will not store there more than ~200 mil total. So asset safety is MUST HAVE.
And yes i'm talking about sov null and XL citadel (That replace outpost, not a POS). For other areas (WH for example) it should probably be different (POS replacing).
And Q: When we will see these changes on TQ? Any date? This year\next or? Anytime anything is considered safe in eve online is missing the point of eve online. True but why add to the risk by docking in a place that offers no protection at all?
Personally, I'll never have more than 2 or 3 ships in a Citadel at a time. Why pay to get my own stuff back because CCP made it easier for someone to kill things?
Everything destructible is a great concept, as long as there is a relatively level playing field so everyone faces the same risk - Nulsec is far from that, so everything destructible will end badly.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
696
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 13:12:00 -
[266] - Quote
Dirk Morbho wrote:Do fitted ships that get relocated when the citadel goes boom boom.. do they lose modules as well? [I hope that makes sense, I just took a dbl dose of cold medicine ] I believe, whatever is in the Citadel when it gets hit with the magic wand, will magically appear in an npc station nearby. You just need to pay 10% of its value to CCP to get your stuff back.
Nothing will be lost or destroyed, except isk, for a replacement Citadel (if you bother) and return of your assets. With the proposed high costs of Citadels, many groups will only get one and if it dies, they move to npc nul or lowsec.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2696
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 13:57:04 -
[267] - Quote
Also, what happens to assets when a structure is in in unanchored? Are they moved the same way or you have to wait for everyone to get their stuff? |
Sinclair Spectrum ZX
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 15:30:09 -
[268] - Quote
Rather than having your stuff transported to a station. There should just be insurance policies which you can choose to take out or not. |
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
17
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 15:58:51 -
[269] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Personally, I'll never have more than 2 or 3 ships in a Citadel at a time. Why pay to get my own stuff back because CCP made it easier for someone to kill things?
You are welcome to play as you like.
Personally, I hope my alliance will be willing to defend the citadel, that is going to cost us tens of billions to build.
If that's the case, I will have as usual one ship of each doctrine, plus another on or two of the ones most used. About 5 billion in total? I will gladly pay 500 million to recover them in case we do lose the citadel, but it will be really difficult to defend it if you don't have ships in place.
The bulk of the fleet will be on Alliance contracts and market, not in your personal hangar. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1593
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 16:17:08 -
[270] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Terranid Meester wrote:Josef Kennet wrote:If i can lose nyx in citadel while i even not in the game, i will NEVER store it there. For not so valuable stuff, if i can lose it in citadel, i will not store there more than ~200 mil total. So asset safety is MUST HAVE.
And yes i'm talking about sov null and XL citadel (That replace outpost, not a POS). For other areas (WH for example) it should probably be different (POS replacing).
And Q: When we will see these changes on TQ? Any date? This year\next or? Anytime anything is considered safe in eve online is missing the point of eve online. True but why add to the risk by docking in a place that offers no protection at all? Personally, I'll never have more than 2 or 3 ships in a Citadel at a time. Why pay to get my own stuff back because CCP made it easier for someone to kill things? Everything destructible is a great concept, as long as there is a relatively level playing field so everyone faces the same risk - Nulsec is far from that, so everything destructible will end badly.
Why are you so focused on destructible stations? It really is not that different from the current system.
As it currently stands, if my alliance cannot defend our Outpost, then all the stuff we cannot evacuate will get locked into it until we can take it back. My best bet in the current system is to take as much out as I can before we lose the station, then leave a jump clone in the station and try to fire sale everything I cannot evacuate. With the proposed system, rather than having to fire sale it to my worst enemy, I have to pay a 10% tax on whatever I cannot evacuate.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
Tyby
My Little Pony Industries Inc. Out of Sight.
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 16:33:49 -
[271] - Quote
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Personally, I'll never have more than 2 or 3 ships in a Citadel at a time. Why pay to get my own stuff back because CCP made it easier for someone to kill things?
You are welcome to play as you like. Personally, I hope my alliance will be willing to defend the citadel, that is going to cost us tens of billions to build. If that's the case, I will have as usual one ship of each doctrine, plus another on or two of the ones most used. About 5 billion in total? I will gladly pay 500 million to recover them in case we do lose the citadel, but it will be really difficult to defend it if you don't have ships in place. The bulk of the fleet will be on Alliance contracts and market, not in your personal hangar.
yes tell us more of how the pvp mechanics of this game should work.. oh and more about how your alliance will do this and do that...
the idea is that this game is becoming trolling online; i've been playing eve since i was young, omg, and when i was young, if someone was looking bad at you in eve or sayd bad things to you, you just went and jumped in your biggest ship and start shooting the bad guy"s stuff in the face; also, always some good advice was to bring some friends in they'rr big bad shinny ships... now? now, if someone is looking bad at you, you get your friends, jump in ceptors and entosising the bad guy's stuff... till you or the other die of fatigue(not the jump one) this is eve 2.0: i hope it will be better than the eve we all loved and played, but ... i don't know, the last actions from CCP don't really show that they know exactlly what they are doing. maybe i'm wrong. anyway, like many sayed before, let the M structures be poslike structures with no assets safety, and make X_L oneslike the outpostts and one more question: CCP are you or are you not planing to make npc 0.0 stations destroyable ? |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
696
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 23:50:52 -
[272] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Terranid Meester wrote:Josef Kennet wrote:If i can lose nyx in citadel while i even not in the game, i will NEVER store it there. For not so valuable stuff, if i can lose it in citadel, i will not store there more than ~200 mil total. So asset safety is MUST HAVE.
And yes i'm talking about sov null and XL citadel (That replace outpost, not a POS). For other areas (WH for example) it should probably be different (POS replacing).
And Q: When we will see these changes on TQ? Any date? This year\next or? Anytime anything is considered safe in eve online is missing the point of eve online. True but why add to the risk by docking in a place that offers no protection at all? Personally, I'll never have more than 2 or 3 ships in a Citadel at a time. Why pay to get my own stuff back because CCP made it easier for someone to kill things? Everything destructible is a great concept, as long as there is a relatively level playing field so everyone faces the same risk - Nulsec is far from that, so everything destructible will end badly. Why are you so focused on destructible stations? It really is not that different from the current system. As it currently stands, if my alliance cannot defend our Outpost, then all the stuff we cannot evacuate will get locked into it until we can take it back. My best bet in the current system is to take as much out as I can before we lose the station, then leave a jump clone in the station and try to fire sale everything I cannot evacuate. With the proposed system, rather than having to fire sale it to my worst enemy, I have to pay a 10% tax on whatever I cannot evacuate. Oh please. You are telling fairy tales - Your current alliance, as with your previous ones, will never be in a position where they have to defend anything. Your surrounded by an army of blues, which ensures relative safety. Unlike that group, many alliances won't be able to afford XL Citadels and so will be at even greater risk of loss. Not every group has trillions of isk to just build another Citadel if one gets magically destroyed, so the extra 10% to recover assets is yet another barrier for unaligned groups to live in nulsec. On top of that you want Citadels to be loot pinatas.. Lose a Citadel - Lose 50% of your assets - Pay 10% to reclaim remaining assets - Move to NPCnul or Lowsec.
-- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- So far the whole Citadel proposal is based on large groups being successful while reducing the ability of smaller groups to grow or even survive. Smaller unaligned groups can in some cases take and hold sov but once you add the additional cost of building and replacing Citadels worth billions of isk, you remove many of those smaller groups due to cost.
If CCP want eve/sov to be a vibrant active arena of wars and conflict - They need to look at the Citadel proposal all over again, starting with how they are destroyed. Then they need to look at cost, as I said above, not all groups have unlimited isk, so losing a Citadel could and would lead to losing more players. Removing the need for PVP (shooting things) in a PVP game is not good balance. Anything that reduces the need for "guns on grid" is bad in a game supposedly based around "guns on grid". -- - -- - -- - -- Yes Entosis links did add new strategies to sov warfare, they removed the need for fleets to fight for sov. The best strategy for sov is based on conflict avoidance.
Overall - They need to rethink Entosis play, so far it is tedious and quite boring. It is not at all engaging game play, in fact it is too much about not fighting.
-- - -- - -- - -- The lack of destructible stations is not the reason nulsec is so stale and until the underlying reasons for the current state are addressed, introducing Citadels will only further reduce content. Small groups having to align with a larger group to survive, is not going to create content, it will reduce it further. -- - -- - -- 10% to safely get your assets back is a spit in the bucket, replacing a Citadel for many groups would see the bucket overflow.
So to answer your question, "Why am I fixated on destructible stations" - Because it is nothing like what we have now in many ways. It favours the rich well established groups. The proposal is currently, not balanced.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1598
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 02:55:55 -
[273] - Quote
The current system favors rich, well-established groups. Any good system will inevitably do that.
You also still have not answered the question: What is the difference between PL or Goons showing up in a small alliance's space and dead zoning all their stuff in an Outpost versus blowing up a large or XL structure?
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1598
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 03:51:11 -
[274] - Quote
Now that I am on my computer vice my phone, I will respond to more of your post.
Sgt Ocker wrote: Unlike that group, many alliances won't be able to afford XL Citadels and so will be at even greater risk of loss. Not every group has trillions of isk to just build another Citadel if one gets magically destroyed, so the extra 10% to recover assets is yet another barrier for unaligned groups to live in nulsec. On top of that you want Citadels to be loot pinatas.. Lose a Citadel - Lose 50% of your assets - Pay 10% to reclaim remaining assets - Move to NPCnul or Lowsec.
If your alliance can hold space in the new system, then they can afford XL Citadels. How expensive are these things going to be? I've built two Outposts, a Supercarrier, and two Titans myself - and don't even get to play that often these days.
Nothing about the Citadel prevents you from evacuating your stuff before it gets destroyed. The difficulty is having somewhere to which you can evacuate it. That is why I have proposed more NPC 0.0 space - so that small alliances have a way to evacuate their stuff.
Eve is supposed to be a dynamic world. If I am in a small alliance, I expect to have to build, evacuate, rebuild, etc. If you want long term stability, you are going to have to be part of a big coalition - or be very inconspicuous. For the record, my opinions on Eve are my own, and do not reflect the views of my corporation or alliance. So, please, try to take off your "Grr, Imperium!" goggles.
I believe that if I put a ship or structure out in space, it should be at risk. I firmly believe that the only "safe" places in Eve should be NPC stations. I am currently deployed to the Middle East. Before I left, I put all my stuff into "safe" places. Eve needs these "safe" spots, but it also needs to give more powerful incentives for putting things at risk.
Sgt Ocker wrote: -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- So far the whole Citadel proposal is based on large groups being successful while reducing the ability of smaller groups to grow or even survive. Smaller unaligned groups can in some cases take and hold sov but once you add the additional cost of building and replacing Citadels worth billions of isk, you remove many of those smaller groups due to cost.
If CCP want eve/sov to be a vibrant active arena of wars and conflict - They need to look at the Citadel proposal all over again, starting with how they are destroyed. Then they need to look at cost, as I said above, not all groups have unlimited isk, so losing a Citadel could and would lead to losing more players. Removing the need for PVP (shooting things) in a PVP game is not good balance. Anything that reduces the need for "guns on grid" is bad in a game supposedly based around "guns on grid". -- - -- - -- - --
Eve is based on large groups being successful. News at 11!
How is losing a Citadel different than being locked out of an Outpost?
Now, I completely agree with you that Eve should be balanced around "guns on grid." As I have said throughout the past few months, attackers should have to bring out the big ships to destroy your nice things.
Sgt Ocker wrote: Yes Entosis links did add new strategies to sov warfare, they removed the need for fleets to fight for sov. The best strategy for sov is based on conflict avoidance.
Overall - They need to rethink Entosis play, so far it is tedious and quite boring. It is not at all engaging game play, in fact it is too much about not fighting.
Completely agree!
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Landrik Blake
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
7
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 04:07:50 -
[275] - Quote
One of the things that's always made wormhole exploration exciting for me was the possibility of running across an abandoned POS. It's every explorer's dream, and was featured in one of Chance Ravinne's videos some months back. My understanding is that the loot pinata's from POSs will disappear with these changes.
While I'm generally in favor of encouraging industry in null sec through asset safety, I feel like you're going to ruin wormhole gameplay with this. A lot of people prefer wormholes because of the added risk involved. Risk is what makes this game interesting and exciting. The idea that your assets can be completely safe in a destructible structure goes against everything I've grown to love about EVE and will likely have a negative impact on the economy.
There has to be some sort of middle ground. Perhaps an insurance fee that needs to be paid monthly, or a time limit to recover impounded items before they're considered abandoned. |
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 04:11:59 -
[276] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:The current system favors rich, well-established groups. Any good system will inevitably do that.
You also still have not answered the question: What is the difference between PL or Goons showing up in a small alliance's space and dead zoning all their stuff in an Outpost versus blowing up a large or XL structure?
Just a guess, the size of the fleet needed maybe? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1598
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 05:14:34 -
[277] - Quote
Sasha Sen wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:The current system favors rich, well-established groups. Any good system will inevitably do that.
You also still have not answered the question: What is the difference between PL or Goons showing up in a small alliance's space and dead zoning all their stuff in an Outpost versus blowing up a large or XL structure? Just a guess, the size of the fleet needed maybe?
Not really a relevant factor. If the enemy is better organized and bigger than you, it doesn't really matter what size fleet they have.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Blodi deVriis
TIME WARP Corp New Eden Terraform Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 07:11:07 -
[278] - Quote
Dear CCP,
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You introduce a magic transport of assets from a destroyed Citadel to fix other problems. But let me start from the beginning:
The word Citadel implies a strong fortress, a place where you could feel safe. I think, you even wrote it yourself somewhere. So, Citadels should really be strong fortresses. Auto defended, and only to be destroyed by the most massive force. The idea, that the enemy comes with tiny, entosised frigates, attacking during this artificial (completely unlogical) "vulnerability window", finally even destroying the Citadel with nearly no firepower is - sorry - ridiculous .
What is the logical explanation for the transport of assets to the next NPC station in case of a Citadel's destruction? Worse in WH space: I cannot clone jump, but my stuff is being teleported?
Suggestion: make the Citadels really, really strong, auto-defended and limit them to one per Corp (kind of HQ). On the other hand, if someone brigs enough firepower, reward him with part of the stuff inside. No magic transport. Players can make a conscious decision, how much of their assets they want to store in their station.
Next thing: the "invulnerability link". Everyone can easily understand how a force field works. It is some kind of standard in the SciFi literature. And it makes perfect sense you have to fuel it. Beside that, I simply like the the effect. You want to give us a "magical" invulnerability. Ship is outside the station, but still cannot be shot at? Deliver me a logical explanation for that, please!
Suggestion: keep the force field as it currently is.
Finally, it is a WH tactic to place POSes around each moon and deny enemies establishing a beachhead. If you allow to place structures everywhere, this tactic becomes obsolote. From a logical point of view, that is ok. But then, what is the logical explanation, it is not possible to place citadels in shattered WHs?
The rest of your ideas is great, fitting the Citadels like ships, offering new services.
Large scale industrial operations. On demand, on time, on budget.
Selling: T2 ships and components. Buying: minerals, salvage, datacores.
|
Blodi deVriis
TIME WARP Corp New Eden Terraform Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 07:12:26 -
[279] - Quote
Landrik Blake wrote:
There has to be some sort of middle ground. Perhaps an insurance fee that needs to be paid monthly, or a time limit to recover impounded items before they're considered abandoned.
I support the idea of insurances!
Large scale industrial operations. On demand, on time, on budget.
Selling: T2 ships and components. Buying: minerals, salvage, datacores.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1598
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 09:07:00 -
[280] - Quote
Blodi deVriis wrote:Dear CCP,
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You introduce a magic transport of assets from a destroyed Citadel to fix other problems. But let me start from the beginning:
The word Citadel implies a strong fortress, a place where you could feel safe. I think, you even wrote it yourself somewhere. So, Citadels should really be strong fortresses. Auto defended, and only to be destroyed by the most massive force. The idea, that the enemy comes with tiny, entosised frigates, attacking during this artificial (completely unlogical) "vulnerability window", finally even destroying the Citadel with nearly no firepower is - sorry - ridiculous .
What is the logical explanation for the transport of assets to the next NPC station in case of a Citadel's destruction? Worse in WH space: I cannot clone jump, but my stuff is being teleported? ...
The rest of your ideas is great, fitting the Citadels like ships, offering new services.
I agree with you for the most part, except that you did not read the dev blog closely enough: stuff does not get magically transported out of a WH.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
696
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 14:37:51 -
[281] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Now that I am on my computer vice my phone, I will respond to more of your post. Sgt Ocker wrote: Unlike that group, many alliances won't be able to afford XL Citadels and so will be at even greater risk of loss. Not every group has trillions of isk to just build another Citadel if one gets magically destroyed, so the extra 10% to recover assets is yet another barrier for unaligned groups to live in nulsec. On top of that you want Citadels to be loot pinatas.. Lose a Citadel - Lose 50% of your assets - Pay 10% to reclaim remaining assets - Move to NPCnul or Lowsec.
If your alliance can hold space in the new system, then they can afford XL Citadels. How expensive are these things going to be? I've built two Outposts, a Supercarrier, and two Titans myself - and don't even get to play that often these days. Nothing about the Citadel prevents you from evacuating your stuff before it gets destroyed. The difficulty is having somewhere to which you can evacuate it. That is why I have proposed more NPC 0.0 space - so that small alliances have a way to evacuate their stuff. Eve is supposed to be a dynamic world. If I am in a small alliance, I expect to have to build, evacuate, rebuild, etc. If you want long term stability, you are going to have to be part of a big coalition - or be very inconspicuous. For the record, my opinions on Eve are my own, and do not reflect the views of my corporation or alliance. So, please, try to take off your "Grr, Imperium!" goggles. I believe that if I put a ship or structure out in space, it should be at risk. I firmly believe that the only "safe" places in Eve should be NPC stations. I am currently deployed to the Middle East. Before I left, I put all my stuff into "safe" places. Eve needs these "safe" spots, but it also needs to give more powerful incentives for putting things at risk. Sgt Ocker wrote: -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- So far the whole Citadel proposal is based on large groups being successful while reducing the ability of smaller groups to grow or even survive. Smaller unaligned groups can in some cases take and hold sov but once you add the additional cost of building and replacing Citadels worth billions of isk, you remove many of those smaller groups due to cost.
If CCP want eve/sov to be a vibrant active arena of wars and conflict - They need to look at the Citadel proposal all over again, starting with how they are destroyed. Then they need to look at cost, as I said above, not all groups have unlimited isk, so losing a Citadel could and would lead to losing more players. Removing the need for PVP (shooting things) in a PVP game is not good balance. Anything that reduces the need for "guns on grid" is bad in a game supposedly based around "guns on grid". -- - -- - -- - --
Eve is based on large groups being successful. News at 11! How is losing a Citadel different than being locked out of an Outpost? Now, I completely agree with you that Eve should be balanced around "guns on grid." As I have said throughout the past few months, attackers should have to bring out the big ships to destroy your nice things. Sgt Ocker wrote: Yes Entosis links did add new strategies to sov warfare, they removed the need for fleets to fight for sov. The best strategy for sov is based on conflict avoidance.
Overall - They need to rethink Entosis play, so far it is tedious and quite boring. It is not at all engaging game play, in fact it is too much about not fighting.
Completely agree! Yes is based on large groups being successful, it is also the primary reason Eve is in the state it is. As I said in another thread, If devs current goal is to see how few individual subscriptions CCP can survive on, they are headed in the right direction.
I think I explained the difference between being locked out of a station and having to replace Citadels. Just in case it wasn't clear - You get locked out of a station you get a friend in the owning alliance to move your stuff somewhere you can get it. Or, get them to sell it for you to their alliance. You can even in some cases get an alt into a corp blue to the new owners and sort it yourself. If you can't find someone to help you, you can either fire sale or just wait until the station changes hands again. I recently picked up just over 9 bil of assets I've had sitting in a nulsec station for 3 years.
Lose a Citadel - You pay to get your stuff back, then you pay to build another Citadel. With the proposed cost of Citadels, I think it would be far cheaper to fire sale your stuff. Except you won't have that option, you pay 10% to get it back and then pay for a new Citadel or you leave nulsec (and possibly the game). Most groups will never own an XL Citadel due to costs, some will never see one other than in CCP promo videos.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Leto Aramaus
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
211
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 15:50:30 -
[282] - Quote
Sinclair Spectrum ZX wrote:Rather than having your stuff transported to a station. There should just be insurance policies which you can choose to take out or not.
THANK YOU. So much more immersive and realistic than items just magically teleporting to another location.
Who moves asset protected items CCP? Invisible NPC haulers that teleport and are immune to all aggression? Bad idea is bad.
The UI update we deserve
|
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 15:50:49 -
[283] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Sasha Sen wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:The current system favors rich, well-established groups. Any good system will inevitably do that.
You also still have not answered the question: What is the difference between PL or Goons showing up in a small alliance's space and dead zoning all their stuff in an Outpost versus blowing up a large or XL structure? Just a guess, the size of the fleet needed maybe? Not really a relevant factor. If the enemy is better organized and bigger than you, it doesn't really matter what size fleet they have.
Of course it relevant. Currently there is a minimum number of ships that are needed to reinforce a POS, with the new system that number is reduced.
I know you are speaking for null sec mostly, but what may be irrelevant there is not necessarily true for wh's. |
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
469
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 15:57:07 -
[284] - Quote
Sasha Sen wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Sasha Sen wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:The current system favors rich, well-established groups. Any good system will inevitably do that.
You also still have not answered the question: What is the difference between PL or Goons showing up in a small alliance's space and dead zoning all their stuff in an Outpost versus blowing up a large or XL structure? Just a guess, the size of the fleet needed maybe? Not really a relevant factor. If the enemy is better organized and bigger than you, it doesn't really matter what size fleet they have. Of course it relevant. Currently there is a minimum number of ships that are needed to reinforce a POS, with the new system that number is reduced. I know you are speaking for null sec mostly, but what may be irrelevant there is not necessarily true for wh's. Whilst this is a concern for larger groups in deeper Wspace holes (who should be able to muster a defence to at least one of the reinforcement periods), it's positively a fact to celebrate for the newbros that just moved into their first C3 and want to take down the dead sticks left inside by the previous tenants.
but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
|
Greymist
Haight Industries LLC No Forks Given
8
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 21:54:26 -
[285] - Quote
I think that rather than having all your stuff magically appearing somewhere in K space. that there should be a period where you can combat the "escaped" freighter before they dissapear. The freighter of course should have a heavily armed escort. |
beakerax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
187
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 23:09:49 -
[286] - Quote
Leto Aramaus wrote:Who moves asset protected items CCP? Invisible NPC haulers that teleport and are immune to all aggression? Bad idea is bad. SoE sneaks the assets away during that 15 minutes a day when all the capsuleers are mysteriously absent. |
Savant Alabel
Raging Academy
46
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 11:01:34 -
[287] - Quote
I have suggestion: place market sell orders in loot with common loot destroy rules. |
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 18:29:17 -
[288] - Quote
The FaQ wrote:Will Citadel weapons be automated? No.
So, a single cepter can destroy your 10's of billions ISK citadel while you are on vacation, if people want to destroy a structure that has defenses, allow it to defend without being babysat. In an age where spaceships soar through space, can we not get a computer that can recognize a threat and respond? Might be a bit much to ask since it can't even remember a scanned signature result.
This is risk adverse fairy laser madness, if you want to destroy a structure, bring something capable of destroying a structure of that size, risk losing a reasonable amount to the structure you are attacking. This is not flipping a SOV switch, or an outpost ownership switch, itGÇÖs removing assets from game via destruction ( Citadel itself, fuel, fittings, rigs ). People need to risk something to get something, it's the way of EVE. Risk vs Reward, and right now all the Risk is on the owner of a citadel, and all the reward is on the attacker because they don't have to risk anything significant to be rewarded with a potential drop ( which btw, the materials from the structure or a Titan if it was being built? What exactly are you going to haul that in? an armada of freighters? ).
I wonGÇÖt bother ranting about the podding of pilots, or even ejecting their pod into random space, I just wonGÇÖt log off in one ever so at least if it gets destroyed I have a ship ( because pod surfing in Nullsec to losec will end well, really, it will ) Everything else can be relocated to an occupied station that I can't get my stuff out even if I do pay the fee ( low sec roams in mining barges is also a great pastime for a drunken pilots, not so much for a mining fleet ). What to do while all my stuff is in transit? Should I just log off? will that get the active pilots up a bit?
They are paper houses soaked in gasoline and all the kids have matches. These are not suitable replacements for outposts at all and are questionable as even a POS replacement.
So if you want to have fun, look for the low sec station closest to a null sec region and happy trolling, You'll get the drops as they try to get the stuff out of that station. |
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 18:33:19 -
[289] - Quote
-Implants being destroyed when logged off seems too harsh. And many players will start not logging off in a structure which is silly.
-10% fee based on the value of your assets for movement after structure is destroyed is steep. You already are being penalized by not having access to your assets for many days, losing the structure itself, losing all your jobs and materials. Having all your assets relocated. Seems more realistic the fee should be calculated based on the amount and size of assets being moved and how far they are moved, not the value of those assets.
-I like the idea of keeping WH assets in WH space, but perhaps there should be more options on how a player gets back their assets i.e. build a new station OR generate an anomaly where assets can be retrieved safely.
-NPC stations in hi-sec should remain indestructible, but without access to the expanding features of structures in other parts of space that are more vulnerable
|
Vasama
Nosferatu Security Foundation
21
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 22:48:14 -
[290] - Quote
Word Insurance has come up in this thread and IMHO that is what should be pursued instead of asset safety.
Key points:
Individual hangers can be insured for certain ISK value Corp hangars can be insured for up to certain ISK value Once citadel goes BOOM loot drops and gets destroyed and nothing gets magically moved anywhere. There can be a lot of loot. Logistics is part of warfare and some assets can take longer time to build than currently thought model of assets safety would take for their recovery.
When you buy the insurance it will take some time take effect. LetGÇÖs say that you want to insure you hangar on Citadel X in system Z. You buy the insurance for 10 billion isk the insurance will become active a week from the purchase.
If the Citadel dies before you insurance is active...too bad, you paid the fee and get nothing back. If you have less than 10 bil assets in Citadel when it dies you get the insurance value, that should not be 100% but good compensation anyway.
Should you have 14 bil of assets but only 10 bil you would only be compensated from the 10 bil. Should you only have 6 bil worth assets you would only get 6 bil even you insurance was for 10.
Should your corp take the Citadel down while you have goodies in there and if there would be no way for you to evac the goods before structure would be taken down, then the goods would get destroyed but insurance would compensate you with a smaller percentage than if the Citadel would have been lost to enemy action.
Cost of insurance would go down on time (bonus system), but it would remain a constant isk sink - even that after the 1st year the costs might be way down. It would make sense for small in corps and individuals to insure their main hangars, but big entities should think which hangars to insure.
Naturally one could change the insurance plan, but that would mean the delay. Should he make the sum less that it used to be no extra premium would be carried and that could be valid from the time it had been made, but should one want to rise the insurance amount then there should be a time before the insurance would be valid and also a time before the raised insurance fee would get lower.
Citadel hangar insurance would be different than ship insurance and ship insurance would not be in effect while the ship is docked.
The insurance fees could be different depending where the citadel is located. Or even not granted at all to some systems. Anyhow to have security for your goodies would need active play from the player.
An existing plan could be moved to new location. LetGÇÖs say that you move to new place you would not have to start the insurance from the scratch, but naturally there would be administrative fee and delay.
Vasama |
|
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
147
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 06:49:26 -
[291] - Quote
Vasama wrote:Word Insurance has come up in this thread and IMHO that is what should be pursued instead of asset safety.
Key points:
Individual hangers can be insured for certain ISK value Corp hangars can be insured for up to certain ISK value Once citadel goes BOOM loot drops and gets destroyed and nothing gets magically moved anywhere. There can be a lot of loot. Logistics is part of warfare and some assets can take longer time to build than currently thought model of assets safety would take for their recovery.
When you buy the insurance it will take some time take effect. LetGÇÖs say that you want to insure you hangar on Citadel X in system Z. You buy the insurance for 10 billion isk the insurance will become active a week from the purchase.
If the Citadel dies before you insurance is active...too bad, you paid the fee and get nothing back. If you have less than 10 bil assets in Citadel when it dies you get the insurance value, that should not be 100% but good compensation anyway.
Should you have 14 bil of assets but only 10 bil you would only be compensated from the 10 bil. Should you only have 6 bil worth assets you would only get 6 bil even you insurance was for 10.
Should your corp take the Citadel down while you have goodies in there and if there would be no way for you to evac the goods before structure would be taken down, then the goods would get destroyed but insurance would compensate you with a smaller percentage than if the Citadel would have been lost to enemy action.
Cost of insurance would go down on time (bonus system), but it would remain a constant isk sink - even that after the 1st year the costs might be way down. It would make sense for small in corps and individuals to insure their main hangars, but big entities should think which hangars to insure.
Naturally one could change the insurance plan, but that would mean the delay. Should he make the sum less that it used to be no extra premium would be carried and that could be valid from the time it had been made, but should one want to rise the insurance amount then there should be a time before the insurance would be valid and also a time before the raised insurance fee would get lower.
Citadel hangar insurance would be different than ship insurance and ship insurance would not be in effect while the ship is docked.
The insurance fees could be different depending where the citadel is located. Or even not granted at all to some systems. Anyhow to have security for your goodies would need active play from the player.
An existing plan could be moved to new location. LetGÇÖs say that you move to new place you would not have to start the insurance from the scratch, but naturally there would be administrative fee and delay.
EDIT: Fraud prevention. Value of dropped items cannot exceed the value of paid insurance plans.
Vasama
Some real thought - very different from magical space fairies! Still possibilities of fraud would have to be looked into very carefully - conversion of stuff into isk, thats instantly available at the other side of the universe without any logistics effort holds an immense potential for that. |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3988
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 08:32:37 -
[292] - Quote
Vasama wrote:Tl;dr: spend heaps of money to own stuff in a convoluted manner and lose it anyway
...or just use free and 100% safe NPC stations instead of encumbering yourself with a Citadel.
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1606
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 09:28:36 -
[293] - Quote
Sasha Sen wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Sasha Sen wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:The current system favors rich, well-established groups. Any good system will inevitably do that.
You also still have not answered the question: What is the difference between PL or Goons showing up in a small alliance's space and dead zoning all their stuff in an Outpost versus blowing up a large or XL structure? Just a guess, the size of the fleet needed maybe? Not really a relevant factor. If the enemy is better organized and bigger than you, it doesn't really matter what size fleet they have. Of course it relevant. Currently there is a minimum number of ships that are needed to reinforce a POS, with the new system that number is reduced. I know you are speaking for null sec mostly, but what may be irrelevant there is not necessarily true for wh's.
I understand your point, but I've solo reinforced many POS's with just my own alts, so I do not consider that a serious minimum barrier. I think we agree, however, that Aegis Sov has lowered the minimum fleet size substantially. It is still relative power between attackers and defenders that is most important.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
267
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 11:21:01 -
[294] - Quote
The exclusion of blueprints for jobs from the drop system is arbitrary and unnecessary. You can already cancel the job to secure your assets under this system, which is far too easy, so you're just trying to remove all risk from the system. Structure materials and fittings do not make up for this, losing what is for the most part a sunk cost is not the same at all as losing something you were using.
What was wrong with the secure/insecure hangar split ideas? If you're using items they should be available as loot, whereas long term storage can be safe. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
282
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 11:57:56 -
[295] - Quote
Morn Hylund wrote:-Implants being destroyed when logged off seems too harsh. And many players will start not logging off in a structure which is silly.
-10% fee based on the value of your assets for movement after structure is destroyed is steep. You already are being penalized by not having access to your assets for many days, losing the structure itself, losing all your jobs and materials. Having all your assets relocated. Seems more realistic the fee should be calculated based on the amount and size of assets being moved and how far they are moved, not the value of those assets.
-I like the idea of keeping WH assets in WH space, but perhaps there should be more options on how a player gets back their assets i.e. build a new station OR generate an anomaly where assets can be retrieved safely, or have assets delivered to another station but time delay should be very long for WH space.
-NPC stations in hi-sec should remain indestructible, but without access to the expanding features of structures in other parts of space that are more vulnerable
I'm not quite sure what you mean here..Because if you mean HS should have no access to the new structures then you must be taking the ****.
I have a POS now, what am I supposed to use when it goes? NPC facilities? |
Nicolai Serkanner
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective
461
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 12:15:40 -
[296] - Quote
I find the items transport after losing a citadel a bad choice. Losses should have meaning. A lot of gaming incentive will be gone when you ( or you opponents ) don't risk losing your items. Please change. |
Nicolai Serkanner
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. Brave Collective
463
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 13:06:56 -
[297] - Quote
Axhind wrote:Langbaobao wrote:TBH, I don't know how I feel about this whole thing, but having this magical NPC teleport that gets your stuff safe from a citadel that gets destroyed sounds extremely risk-averse and un-EVE like. The level of security that it provides (recovering 90% of your stuff that was stuck) sounds really like a reward for not defending. People are just gonna go: "**** this, let the morons waste time killing it and we'll just grab our stuff in some station". It definitely does not feel like a big loss for the enemy that you're trying to punt out of somewhere. You put in the time to burn their **** and they lose only 10% of their stuff (in the form of ISK impound tax), not to mention the attacker does not get rewarded for killing a structure. Currently killing a POS drops you loot from the hangars and all (the famous loot-pinata) and I can tell you, it's a distinct pleasure when you can loot something out of someone's POS like that. I don't see why stuff should be magically teleported from the destroyed structures. After all, the structures will have reinforce timers like outpost currently have, right? So let them evac their stuff like it's done now in outposts, and if they can't, well, they should have fleeted up and tried. Here are some suggestions that I think might make this system better or at least more rewarding for the people that put in the effort to actually attack the structures:
- Corp and personal stuff should at least in part (25-50%) drop for the attacker like in the current POS mechanics. It would be the reward for wasting time on several reinforcement timers and/or fleet actions.
- I still think people should lose stuff from their citadels like happens with POSes today, however if a system is introduced for people to recover stuff from destroyed structures (magical NPC pony freight service) at least make the loss sting. People should lose at least 50% of their assets if not more, and not a miserly 10% (in ISK no less). The ONLY exception should be the pod and the ship the pilot was sitting in when he logged off. This would mimic the current situation when people log off in POSes can log in after the structure is destroyed and get away with the ship they were currently in. This would make sense as well fluffwise since IIRC the idea was that ships 'moor' into the citadel; and scenes of ships scrambling away from a burning space structure are a dime a dozen in SF movies and so on. It would also prevent having to resort to annoying workarounds like the 'log in in space to save the pod', mentioned previously.
- Related to what was mentioned above, the pilot logging in after his citadel is destroyed should respawn with his ship in the same system where the citadel was. In my opinion they should respawn at the same place where the citadel was placed, but I would consider the option that they appear at a random safe spot somewhere in space, although I'm not so sure about this because it would prevent people being 'bubble-caged' and hence 'reward' them with an increased chance of survival. This would need further discussion. Gotta love such comments from people sitting in NPC stations and talking about risk. If they remove all NPC stations in complete game so that nobody can sit and hide then you have a point. Else nobody sane is going to use the new structures (except maybe us as chances of losing one are low enough).
Got to love a comment by somebody who assumes players have but one character
|
Circumstantial Evidence
212
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 20:57:37 -
[298] - Quote
Citadel destruction / asset loss:
Your assets "magically" moved doesn't bother me, CONCORD is pretty magical. I've never seen a CONCORD freighter - that's how stealthy they are! But if folks are not happy with complete asset safety for the 10% price of moving it, a percentage of random stuff going missing, could be added in. Just like wreck loot drops, but more favorable: perhaps 75% chance of recovery per item.
I also think the insurance idea sounds interesting, it would create a ton of market and industry activity, replacing lost items. But, how would blueprints be handled? Perhaps those could be handled outside an insurance system, considered "digital data" and transmitted to safety (with a 25% chance of a "garbled transmission" per item.) |
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 23:43:36 -
[299] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Citadel destruction / asset loss:
Your assets "magically" moved doesn't bother me, CONCORD is pretty magical. I've never seen a CONCORD freighter - that's how stealthy they are! But if folks are not happy with complete asset safety for the 10% price of moving it, a percentage of random stuff going missing, could be added in. Just like wreck loot drops, but more favorable: perhaps 75% chance of recovery per item.
I also think the insurance idea sounds interesting, it would create a ton of market and industry activity, replacing lost items. But, how would blueprints be handled? Perhaps those could be handled outside an insurance system, considered "digital data" and transmitted to safety (with a 25% chance of a "garbled transmission" per item.) Allow me to explain something between all the "Must have more loot" and "Hey, it's a risk for living in null".
- Currently : I have have billions in assets in an Outpost that is "occupied" by my alliance, and it will always exist.
- Risk : Can lose possession of the station and I would either have to try to join a corp with standings to the current owners, or sell my property ( depending on market, I can make money if I'm patient ). This loss of docking rights can happen while I decide I want to take a year off, but I still know my stuff will be physically there.
- Proposed: I have billions of assets in a Citadel that is OWNED by my corp
- Risk : All my stuff will be transferred to an inconvenient NPC station in an area I would never put those assets and to top it off, I have to pay 10% of those assets "value" to get them back.
- Risk: I have to move my stuff ( including non-combat ships like Freighter, Noctus etc ) at greater risk than I would have chosen had I been online to evac my stuff.
- Risk: Someone decides to pack up the Citadel, all my stuff gets wisked away by fairies? I'm not even sure if I have to pay to recover that, but I know it probably won't be where I want it and see above.
- Risk: Rather than building an outpost, I pay the same for an XL Citadel, which can use even more expensive upgrade modules, has full weaponry, but cannot defend itself like a POS would and can be blown up by a guy rubbing his wand in a ceptor a few times.
- Reward: ???
So everyone chanting for loot, you should consider we are now being asked to risk losing far more than we currently would with no additional reward for living in a more dangerous region than NPC Highsec in structures that can explode at any time and don't even attempt to save themselves despite being armed.
Now answer, Why would I want to stay in null at all? What motivation do I have? is it the constant trolling in Cepter Sov? The chance to make billions of isk?
I know you enjoy the POS loot pinatas, but these are NOT POS class structures and I see 0 reason to look forward to the additional risk and babysitting being proposed.
Typing this up, I think I'm even more confused by the mixed messages. "We want small alliances to get out in null", "We've made null sec mining better, so you can actually build things!! yay!", "We want nullsec manufacturing independence!", "Your house is made of explosives", "Well, sorry you were away for a week in the hospital, I guess there's always low sec, next time drive safe". |
Circumstantial Evidence
212
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 01:21:09 -
[300] - Quote
Alexander Tekitsu wrote:Now answer, Why would I want to stay in null at all? What motivation do I have? is it the constant trolling in Cepter Sov? The chance to make billions of isk? I think you've answered it - billions of isk. It does seem that any change is designed to add risk, but this comes after buffs to outpost industry bonuses that caused highsec industry to complain bitterly. Highsec's revenge? lol. Already null has the best mining, ratting, moons, etc.
The proposed changes tax your assets and add the inconvenience of moving them back where you'd prefer them. CCP doesn't want players to have much choice on where assets are moved, because too much player control could be meta-gamed.
Keeping the existing system, where outposts and assets are safe, is leading to a sov null with an outpost in every system. That sounds like a recipe for a stagnant endgame, once the last outpost is built.
Change is coming; I don't think its possible to balance the demands for safety against the demands for new content, without making one side or the other unhappy. |
|
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 03:20:24 -
[301] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Alexander Tekitsu wrote:Now answer, Why would I want to stay in null at all? What motivation do I have? is it the constant trolling in Cepter Sov? The chance to make billions of isk? I think you've answered it - billions of isk. It does seem that any change is designed to add risk, but this comes after buffs to outpost industry bonuses that caused highsec industry to complain bitterly. Highsec's revenge? lol. Already null has the best mining, ratting, moons, etc. The proposed changes tax your assets and add the inconvenience of moving them back where you'd prefer them. CCP doesn't want players to have much choice on where assets are moved, because too much player control could be meta-gamed. Keeping the existing system, where outposts and assets are safe, is leading to a sov null with an outpost in every system. That sounds like a recipe for a stagnant endgame, once the last outpost is built. Change is coming; I don't think its possible to balance the demands for safety against the demands for new content, without making one side or the other unhappy. Although my "Chance to make billions of isk" was more sarcastic as the cost of living there is much higher and a more inherent risk of losses, I suppose for some it could be true, however for a small alliance that they are encouraging to go to null, that isn't going to happen for a while, as would be the same for most people. I can make billions of isk sitting in highsec blitzing L4's for LP, Combat site running, milking incursions or building.
I don't think it's fair to say the average member in a Null sec alliance is making billions faster than you could in Highsec with a lot less risk. |
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 05:36:43 -
[302] - Quote
I was trying to find information on citadels whether we are going to be able to repackage ships in worm holes now, but no luck.
Any information regarding repackaging ships? |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5821
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 00:29:12 -
[303] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: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.
The path my thinking is taking is that NPCs are obviously too safe and cheap.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Vasama
Nosferatu Security Foundation
23
|
Posted - 2015.08.23 22:11:12 -
[304] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:Some real thought - very different from magical space fairies! Still possibilities of fraud would have to be looked into very carefully - conversion of stuff into isk, thats instantly available at the other side of the universe without any logistics effort holds an immense potential for that.
Agreed on the fraud part. However the money does not need to available as a flash. There could be delay on payment or the payment could also be paid on several parts.
Vasama |
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 08:31:16 -
[305] - Quote
WTB response whether we will be able to repackage ships in WH space |
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
150
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 13:44:56 -
[306] - Quote
Sasha Sen wrote:WTB response whether we will be able to repackage ships in WH space
My bitter guess would be that the devs responsible for this "new structures" idea dont even understand what you are talking about or why you are talking about it ...
|
Blodi deVriis
TIME WARP Corp New Eden Terraform Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 14:39:36 -
[307] - Quote
Another thing I just noticed: it is possible to fit an autopilot-auto-tracking-combat computer into the 5 m3 of a drone, but it is not possible to equip a Citadel with auto defenses? Or a launcher, to get these nice little drones into space?
I think it is bitter, that there is even no inner logic...
Large scale industrial operations. On demand, on time, on budget.
Selling: T2 ships and components. Buying: minerals, salvage, datacores.
|
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
150
|
Posted - 2015.08.24 18:35:26 -
[308] - Quote
Blodi deVriis wrote:Another thing I just noticed: it is possible to fit an autopilot-auto-tracking-combat computer into the 5 m3 of a drone, but it is not possible to equip a Citadel with auto defenses? Or a launcher, to get these nice little drones into space?
I think it is bitter, that there is even no inner logic...
true....
But if I get going about logic in the context of this citadel/entosis crap I have to vomit blood a lot earlier:
Each of those mighty "citadels" that cost multitudes of billons of isk HAS A VIRTUAL USB CABLE DANGLING out at its lower end THAT ALLOWS TO CONNECT AND TAKE OVER THE SYSTEM !
Surely some masterpiece of CCP engineering .... every little frigate can take over / destroy my fortress if I am not at home and it has just half an hour to connect to that plug. Yeah, thats how security will work according to CCP in the future to come.
To counter the obvious effects of this illogical nonsense CCP had to total artificial and randomly bring in those "vulnerability windows". Sorry I cant even make up a mock logic explanation for that kind of bullshyt...... It totally restricts player (attacker) freedom in the most artificial and random way. Sandbox?? Dont make me laugh.
Our current wh POS can be attacked 24/7 (as just happend last week) - in that way it offers content and entertainment to others at their discretion and timeschedule, the new "citadels" will just be an annoyance for everyone.
Ah, yes - and an insult to above mentioned logic ! |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
4012
|
Posted - 2015.08.25 06:50:19 -
[309] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:Blodi deVriis wrote:Another thing I just noticed: it is possible to fit an autopilot-auto-tracking-combat computer into the 5 m3 of a drone, but it is not possible to equip a Citadel with auto defenses? Or a launcher, to get these nice little drones into space?
I think it is bitter, that there is even no inner logic...
true.... But if I get going about logic in the context of this citadel/entosis crap I have to vomit blood a lot earlier: Each of those mighty "citadels" that cost multitudes of billons of isk HAS A VIRTUAL USB CABLE DANGLING out at its lower end THAT ALLOWS TO CONNECT AND TAKE OVER THE SYSTEM ! Surely some masterpiece of CCP engineering .... every little frigate can take over / destroy my fortress if I am not at home and it has just half an hour to connect to that plug. Yeah, thats how security will work according to CCP in the future to come. To counter the obvious effects of this illogical nonsense CCP had to total artificial and randomly bring in those "vulnerability windows". Sorry I cant even make up a mock logic explanation for that kind of bullshyt...... It totally restricts player (attacker) freedom in the most artificial and random way. Sandbox?? Dont make me laugh. Our current wh POS can be attacked 24/7 (as just happend last week) - in that way it offers content and entertainment to others at their discretion and timeschedule, the new "citadels" will just be an annoyance for everyone. Ah, yes - and an insult to above mentioned logic !
Logic in my EVE? Oh come on, and what would be next? Maybe you'd ask for fun mechanics?
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
Geanos
V I R I I Ineluctable.
30
|
Posted - 2015.08.25 15:32:06 -
[310] - Quote
In the killmail, rather than generating a very long list of items could you just put the total ISK destroyed? And also add the extra ISK lost due to impounds? People would be happy to see the total ISK damage they inflicted to their enemies |
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
705
|
Posted - 2015.08.25 22:16:53 -
[311] - Quote
Geanos wrote:In the killmail, rather than generating a very long list of items could you just put the total ISK destroyed? And also add the extra ISK lost due to impounds? People would be happy to see the total ISK damage they inflicted to their enemies Nothing is lost due to the death of a Citadel (except the structure and fittings), no isk is "lost" due to "impounds" (strange thing to call, having your stuff moved to safety - so it is not lost) and simply the fact they are generating killmails for something that is supposed to involve a group but is only killed by 1 player is so very unbalanced.
TCU's and iHubs don't generate killmails, whack a mole with magic lasers does not generate killmails - Talk about removing the will for many to participate - A pvp game where there are no killmails for the most highly prized parts of the game. Then you want to add killmails for structures rewarding a single players efforts while disregarding all other involvement.
As soon as Citadels are introduced and destroyed by EL's - Killmails involving structures become redundant and should not be a part of structures..
The current game design is not about big fights and killmails - It is about trolling, whether it be The Imperium trolling Provi or 1 guy trolling Goons. Citadels will simply be an extension of the current trolling meta and so, no killmails required. EL mechanics are unbalanced because sov is unbalanced - Neither will bring about the sort of game play that gets people to "want" to login.
Watching supers (who know they can't be contested) taking R64's and earning income from them without the need for sov, is a clear indication - The current sov and moon income mechanics are broken.
The sooner CCP release Citadels - The sooner Eve's "end game" will become apparent. (it really is a shame Devs don't listen to players - they clearly have no idea what "fun and engaging" is)
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Geanos
V I R I I Ineluctable.
32
|
Posted - 2015.08.25 23:24:28 -
[312] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Geanos wrote:In the killmail, rather than generating a very long list of items could you just put the total ISK destroyed? And also add the extra ISK lost due to impounds? People would be happy to see the total ISK damage they inflicted to their enemies Nothing is lost due to the death of a Citadel (except the structure and fittings), no isk is "lost" due to "impounds" (strange thing to call, having your stuff moved to safety - so it is not lost) and simply the fact they are generating killmails for something that is supposed to involve a group but is only killed by 1 player is so very unbalanced.
Ships boarded and clones (implants) are also destroyed with the citadel. And people having to pay, let's say XXX tax to get their things back, is isk that is no longer in their wallets.
|
Blodi deVriis
TIME WARP Corp New Eden Terraform Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 06:22:01 -
[313] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:Each of those mighty "citadels" that cost multitudes of billons of isk HAS A VIRTUAL USB CABLE DANGLING out at its lower end THAT ALLOWS TO CONNECT AND TAKE OVER THE SYSTEM ! Surely some masterpiece of CCP engineering .... every little frigate can take over / destroy my fortress if I am not at home and it has just half an hour to connect to that plug. Yeah, thats how security will work according to CCP in the future to come.
May I cite you? It makes me somehow nevous, that CCP might secure my account similarly ....
Large scale industrial operations. On demand, on time, on budget.
Selling: T2 ships and components. Buying: minerals, salvage, datacores.
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
706
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 11:12:04 -
[314] - Quote
Geanos wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Geanos wrote:In the killmail, rather than generating a very long list of items could you just put the total ISK destroyed? And also add the extra ISK lost due to impounds? People would be happy to see the total ISK damage they inflicted to their enemies Nothing is lost due to the death of a Citadel (except the structure and fittings), no isk is "lost" due to "impounds" (strange thing to call, having your stuff moved to safety - so it is not lost) and simply the fact they are generating killmails for something that is supposed to involve a group but is only killed by 1 player is so very unbalanced. Ships boarded and clones (implants) are also destroyed with the citadel. And people having to pay, let's say XXX tax to get their things back, is isk that is no longer in their wallets. Active ship and clone is being reconsidered, you might want to keep up with Devs latest attempts to make this proposal look like more than what it actually is.
Any killmail generated should never include payments made to CCP to get stuff back. You did not kill anything, you did not generate any loss, the payment is automatically generated by a contrived mechanic, which knowing Devs will not be balanced and players will end up out of pocket The only loss that was generated was the structure, done by 1 player with a magic wand, therefore it must be done solo with no assistance what so ever for a killmail to be generated. You really think 100+ guys are going to turn out so YOU can get a killmail? (like the new sov, ccp have committed to something they have not really thought through - in its current guise, it has the potential to see player numbers decrease faster than ever seen before) NPC stations are likely to end up so crowded it just ends up becoming a gaming industry joke.
Lose the active ship + clone + cost to retrieve assets + cost of Citadel = Eve end game. Devs have stated Citadels will cost more than an outpost and are making them destructible - Who will be the ONLY groups in the game able to afford to lose a Citadel - Would it be the same groups who are not going to be at risk of losing one, or will it be the average alliance just making ends meet and getting by.
No-one but the permanently invulnerable Imperium will ever log off in a Citadel. Few will ever keep more than exactly what they need in a Citadel.
Many will just quit, either nulsec or Eve once destructible Citadels impact their game play in a negative way. CCP want to continue down the line of "how few subscriptions can we survive with" Citadels are another step in the right direction.
No killmail should ever be generated if everyone involved with the kill is not listed as having participated. Can't do that with magic sov lasers - Why there are no killmails for the most prized structures in the game anymore. (a big yellow flash as the TCU/iHub explodes magically after being hit with a sov wand, is not engaging, fun game play for all involved - it won't be when Citadels magically explode either)
CCP - beaking eve, one patch at a time.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
6996
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 07:10:45 -
[315] - Quote
"Items located in personal or corporation hangars will be impounded and saved from destruction."
No. Just no. But since you're going to anyway, while you're at it, let's just throw down some bind points and fast travel while you're at it. Also, mounts. Every good themepark ride game needs mounts.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Samsara Nolte
Random Thinking Union Random Thinking
24
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 07:43:50 -
[316] - Quote
I recently listened to the structure blog and sounding board and got to admit it distrubed me a little. I originally thougt w-space was the last Bastion for small groups of players. The last place where you are able to build your sandcastle together with a handful of friends not needing raw numbers going in the hundreds and above to be able to defend what you own.
But apparently this was a misconception of mine and most likely a lot of other players living in wormholespace GÇô a missconception which, i-¦m now sure of, will be corrected by the larger w-space entities after those citadels are introduced.
Then what stopped them before from evicting every one smaller than themselves was the huge effort in time and players to evict someone by destroying their POS (a painstaking and boring endeavor) and furthermore there was in most cases no real financial incentive to do so, because most of those who recognized their attempt to defend theirselves as a hopeless cause were at least able to deny the attacker most of the reward in form of dropped assets. But since that is gonna change,
by introducing assets locks after the citadel is reinforced lowering the threshold for an attack considerably pointing out that citadel are forcemultipliers GÇô a fact that does nothing for small corps since you don-¦t have a force to multiplied (what is true for every low class w-space corp) no docking while pointed (resulting in a lot of defensive situation that translate in do or die GÇô and die means you get podded ... we know what that means in w-space)
the majority of w-space community seems to pursue this goal, i doubt that there will be any small corp left after a few months. They either got kicked out or decided to leave themselves after witnessing others in the dozens being kicked out. What in my opinion will be a more than reasonable decision, since you have no hope of defending yourself as a C3 (usally consisting of about 3-5 players) or a C1 (consisting of 1-2 players) against entities occupying higher class wormholes.
I ask you what player in their right mind would choose to live here, when no such corp is gonna be able to defend theirselves against such attacks ? When your assets everywhere else in the game are, compared to this, well protected and given the small income differences to a null ratting system. Why would i choose to live here ?
What wormhole space needs to attract players and therefore results in an increase of ships in space is an incentive to life here. And when the prospect of the riches isn-¦t enough (what it isn-¦t when you compare the risk vs reward ratio of citadels in its current proposition offered to us) there either needs to be something else to justify this or we should accept the fact that w-space is also in need of asset protection and push for this. Then in my opinion, if we as a community fail to do this, when assest safety everywhere else is guaranteed w-space is becoming the new dominion nullsec. Where small entites can only exist if they are allowed to do so by the large entites. Since steamrolling them out is a matter of small effort. I-¦ dont know about you, but that-¦s not for what i signed up for when i came into w-space. And im not sure if i will be able to tolerate this.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
792
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 01:15:03 -
[317] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:"Items located in personal or corporation hangars will be impounded and saved from destruction."
No. Just no. But since you're going to anyway, while you're at it, let's just throw down some bind points and fast travel while you're at it. Also, mounts. Every good themepark ride game needs mounts.
Feel better? Now that you got it out of your system? Good, because as it is when an outpost is captured you don't get any loot, you don't get to destroy the other people's stuff, you remove their influence. That's what Citadels are doing here.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
152
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 00:15:07 -
[318] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:"Items located in personal or corporation hangars will be impounded and saved from destruction."
No. Just no. But since you're going to anyway, while you're at it, let's just throw down some bind points and fast travel while you're at it. Also, mounts. Every good themepark ride game needs mounts. Feel better? Now that you got it out of your system? Good, because as it is when an outpost is captured you don't get any loot, you don't get to destroy the other people's stuff, you remove their influence. That's what Citadels are doing here.
You talk about citadels as replacements for outposts - others talk about citadels as replacements for POS.
Of course everybody comes to different personal conclusions and concerns with such different starting points ..... instead of bickering with each other over uncomparable details, trying to compile the picture as a whole would be more helpful.
For me the most prominent point of this whole citadel idea is CCP axing down big time on the variety and flexibility EVE offered its players till now ..... I dont like the prospect given at all.
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
715
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 13:06:47 -
[319] - Quote
Orm Magnustat wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:"Items located in personal or corporation hangars will be impounded and saved from destruction."
No. Just no. But since you're going to anyway, while you're at it, let's just throw down some bind points and fast travel while you're at it. Also, mounts. Every good themepark ride game needs mounts. Feel better? Now that you got it out of your system? Good, because as it is when an outpost is captured you don't get any loot, you don't get to destroy the other people's stuff, you remove their influence. That's what Citadels are doing here. You talk about citadels as replacements for outposts - others talk about citadels as replacements for POS. Of course everybody comes to different personal conclusions and concerns with such different starting points ..... instead of bickering with each other over uncomparable details, trying to compile the picture as a whole would be more helpful. For me the most prominent point of this whole citadel idea is CCP axing down big time on the variety and flexibility EVE offered its players till now ..... I dont like the prospect given at all. Bottom line is, Eve belongs to CCP and if they want to turn it into a theme park with content scheduled around pre-selected time zones (maybe, sometimes, less and less, if players bother at all), magic wands and constellation wide whack a mole, instead of ships of all sizes spewing DPS at things - It is their game their choice.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
DetKhord Saisio
Seniors Clan
81
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 21:27:16 -
[320] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium's blog url=http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/i-feel-safe-in-citadel-city/ wrote:Another option is to have all livestock goods be wrecked and appear as frozen meat when delivered through this feature (example: exotic dancers, fedos, liverstock etc..) spellcheck ftw. ftfy. Another option is to have all livestock goods be wrecked and appear as frozen meat when delivered through this feature (example: exotic dancers, fedos, livestock etc..) |
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
242
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 08:10:12 -
[321] - Quote
soo, sry if i have missed the answer to this question, will loot fairy drop the stuff from destroyed structures to the NPC 0.0 stations also or only NPC low sec stations? |
Rod Blaine
Gilded Goose Brokerage
17
|
Posted - 2015.10.20 13:51:59 -
[322] - Quote
Sounds pretty horribad CCP.
I really dont get what the goals are here, or why you're going about it in such a strange manner.
You've added fozziesov, making sov more easily contestable (albeit in a really immersion-breaking manner ) You will replace POS's with new structures that give the needed bonuses to holding sov
Why don't you simply decouple outpost ownership from sov, transfer everything but the market and ship fitting functions to the new citadels, allow outposts to be taken much more easily then they are now (say, 50 DPS ships need two hours) and at any time, and then let both exist in parallel?
That way, all general supplies will remain in outposts, from which people can be locked out unless they remain a contesting party in the area
All supplies needed for production, research and other specific use in citadels must be brought there, and risk getting destroyed with it. Hell, even let some of it drop as loot. That way, you get to have both relative safety of personal/corp gear AND capital battles for worthwhile structure targets.
Try this first, playtest is for a while, see wether you still want to do rather convoluted things like described in this devblog. |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
112
|
Posted - 2015.10.22 00:09:24 -
[323] - Quote
Fractured Non-Linear detrimental progress based on Lo-sec gank type thinking, result will be little or no player engagement with this idea either on the usage front or content provision, Similar to the poor response to ICE belt nerfs and a dozen other half thought through concepts based on trying to 'Force' players to do something that intrinsically they know is not in there best interests.
Individual Player Risk Aversion is a powerful demotivating driver far in excess of the meager content offered by these new structures except in very specific environments like wormholes or Sov incursions which your past tinkerings have rendered unnecessary. |
Chatelaine Superior
Angels Dust
4
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 09:18:32 -
[324] - Quote
hello CCP and EVE community
i got simple question about super capitals and Citadels, please take your time and give me an answer.
I have small corporation and basically all members are my alts. I have a titan and mainly use it for bridging frieghters. Citadel gonna cost 70 bil., right .... I understand I don't have any chance defend it against big group of pilots. And I will be a perfect target, right? Buy mercenaries to defend? I could, but mercs do stuff one time, they can't watch some citadel 24/7 they don't care.
Do this new citadels are end of small groups like me having super capitals? Should I forget my accs with supers for this time?
Thanks for answers! |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
462
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 10:17:16 -
[325] - Quote
Chatelaine Superior wrote:hello CCP and EVE community
i got simple question about super capitals and Citadels, please take your time and give me an answer.
I have small corporation and basically all members are my alts. I have a titan and mainly use it for bridging frieghters. Citadel gonna cost 70 bil., right .... I understand I don't have any chance defend it against big group of pilots. And I will be a perfect target, right? Buy mercenaries to defend? I could, but mercs do stuff one time, they can't watch some citadel 24/7 they don't care.
Do this new citadels are end of small groups like me having super capitals? Should I forget my accs with supers for this time?
Thanks for answers! Serious question. How the hell to you keep your titan now? i mean a large POS is not exactly fort nox. And 100B for just bridging freighters?
Don't get me wrong. I want citadels to work for small groups as well. And as they are with the whole won't shoot unless manned, they are a no go for me. I am away from eve for a week or so fairly often, and a driveby would be just too easy. Also being in a WH i lose everything.
POS will be around for the better part of a year, and probably longer until all structures are out, so we can stick with those in the mean time.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Soltys
33
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 18:58:24 -
[326] - Quote
In context of magic fedex (or slowdex) fairy saving everyone's assets that happens on the citadel's destruction - of course I understand why you're doing this - but it feels so artificial it almost hurts.
So perhaps instead of single 10% "delivery" fee (in case of npc station) and 0% in own-station case: dedicate 10%-20% or so of everyone's assets to the "loot pool" (that is 10%-20% per person/corp to keep things fair) that get dropped upon the station's destruction (regardless where the stuff would be delivered later) - and then drop that single case delivery fee altogether ?
Jita Flipping Inc.: Solmp / Kovl
|
Redd Dredd
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 06:28:20 -
[327] - Quote
This sounds like an awesome way to keep people from coming back to the game. If I am taking a break and come back to find my implants lost and my gear held for ransom, the part of me that wanted to return is going to have second thoughts. Especially if I dont have the isk to pay to get my stuff back.
Also, how are you handling jump clones? Just simply deleting them? Here's to potentially losing two sets of implants while being unsubbed or logged out. yay. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
479
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 09:32:15 -
[328] - Quote
Redd Dredd wrote:This sounds like an awesome way to keep people from coming back to the game. If I am taking a break and come back to find my implants lost and my gear held for ransom, the part of me that wanted to return is going to have second thoughts. Especially if I dont have the isk to pay to get my stuff back.
Also, how are you handling jump clones? Just simply deleting them? Here's to potentially losing two sets of implants while being unsubbed or logged out. yay. Don't unsub. Or move to a NPC station first. Seriously where do you people get off. You unsub in a POS guess how well that is going to work out for you? That goes for you JC as well.
seriously the level of entitlement.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
765
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 12:26:42 -
[329] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Chatelaine Superior wrote:hello CCP and EVE community
i got simple question about super capitals and Citadels, please take your time and give me an answer.
I have small corporation and basically all members are my alts. I have a titan and mainly use it for bridging frieghters. Citadel gonna cost 70 bil., right .... I understand I don't have any chance defend it against big group of pilots. And I will be a perfect target, right? Buy mercenaries to defend? I could, but mercs do stuff one time, they can't watch some citadel 24/7 they don't care.
Do this new citadels are end of small groups like me having super capitals? Should I forget my accs with supers for this time?
Thanks for answers! Serious question. How the hell to you keep your titan now? i mean a large POS is not exactly fort nox. And 100B for just bridging freighters? Don't get me wrong. I want citadels to work for small groups as well. And as they are with the whole won't shoot unless manned, they are a no go for me. I am away from eve for a week or so fairly often, and a driveby would be just too easy. Also being in a WH i lose everything. POS will be around for the better part of a year, and probably longer until all structures are out, so we can stick with those in the mean time. Most smaller groups only use their Titans for bridging - Drop 2 or 3 titans on any field your guaranteed of getting 3rd partied by everything that can get there. Once Citadels come into play, small groups will need to rely on dead space log offs. For most this will mean, save location, log it off and forget it.
CCP is doing their level best to ensure no-one but the largest groups can play the capital game. Citadels and capital balancing with its bias toward large groups, is all but removing small groups from capital use.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Redd Dredd
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 18:30:59 -
[330] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Redd Dredd wrote:This sounds like an awesome way to keep people from coming back to the game. If I am taking a break and come back to find my implants lost and my gear held for ransom, the part of me that wanted to return is going to have second thoughts. Especially if I dont have the isk to pay to get my stuff back.
Also, how are you handling jump clones? Just simply deleting them? Here's to potentially losing two sets of implants while being unsubbed or logged out. yay. Don't unsub. Or move to a NPC station first. Seriously where do you people get off. You unsub in a POS guess how well that is going to work out for you? That goes for you JC as well. seriously the level of entitlement.
More people have unsubbed from Eve than are currently playing, and in case you haven't noticed, current subscription levels are dropping. People unsub for lots of different reasons, why make it more difficult for them to want to return? |
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
480
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 20:15:40 -
[331] - Quote
Redd Dredd wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Redd Dredd wrote:This sounds like an awesome way to keep people from coming back to the game. If I am taking a break and come back to find my implants lost and my gear held for ransom, the part of me that wanted to return is going to have second thoughts. Especially if I dont have the isk to pay to get my stuff back.
Also, how are you handling jump clones? Just simply deleting them? Here's to potentially losing two sets of implants while being unsubbed or logged out. yay. Don't unsub. Or move to a NPC station first. Seriously where do you people get off. You unsub in a POS guess how well that is going to work out for you? That goes for you JC as well. seriously the level of entitlement. More people have unsubbed from Eve than are currently playing, and in case you haven't noticed, current subscription levels are dropping. People unsub for lots of different reasons, why make it more difficult for them to want to return? More people unsub than play *ALL MMOs *. It is a natural state of MMOs. More people try something than stick around.
If you unsub in the middle of space, then that is your problem. If CCP has to pay upkeep on every single account ever created, they may as well shut up shop now. No one can afford that, even WoW can't afford that and its a team park.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
480
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 20:19:39 -
[332] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Most smaller groups only use their Titans for bridging - Drop 2 or 3 titans on any field your guaranteed of getting 3rd partied by everything that can get there. Once Citadels come into play, small groups will need to rely on dead space log offs. For most this will mean, save location, log it off and forget it.
CCP is doing their level best to ensure no-one but the largest groups can play the capital game. Citadels and capital balancing with its bias toward large groups, is all but removing small groups from capital use.
What? A titan hull is worth *more* than a XL citadel hull. They where never meant for solo play. In fact Titans where mostly Epean.
If you can afford a titan. You can afford a XL citadel. If not used the tether mechanic with a sitter as you do now. And you got at least a year before POSes are gone.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Redd Dredd
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 23:12:04 -
[333] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Redd Dredd wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Redd Dredd wrote:This sounds like an awesome way to keep people from coming back to the game. If I am taking a break and come back to find my implants lost and my gear held for ransom, the part of me that wanted to return is going to have second thoughts. Especially if I dont have the isk to pay to get my stuff back.
Also, how are you handling jump clones? Just simply deleting them? Here's to potentially losing two sets of implants while being unsubbed or logged out. yay. Don't unsub. Or move to a NPC station first. Seriously where do you people get off. You unsub in a POS guess how well that is going to work out for you? That goes for you JC as well. seriously the level of entitlement. More people have unsubbed from Eve than are currently playing, and in case you haven't noticed, current subscription levels are dropping. People unsub for lots of different reasons, why make it more difficult for them to want to return? More people unsub than play *ALL MMOs *. It is a natural state of MMOs. More people try something than stick around. If you unsub in the middle of space, then that is your problem. If CCP has to pay upkeep on every single account ever created, they may as well shut up shop now. No one can afford that, even WoW can't afford that and its a team park.
Un-subbing in space isnt the issue. Un-subbing in what was once an indestructible station that was completely safe at the time is.
Also, of course CCP keeps every single account ever created. You really dont have any idea how this works, do you. |
token trade alt
Slamming Mad B-Balls
8
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 06:12:21 -
[334] - Quote
Redd Dredd wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Redd Dredd wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Redd Dredd wrote:This sounds like an awesome way to keep people from coming back to the game. If I am taking a break and come back to find my implants lost and my gear held for ransom, the part of me that wanted to return is going to have second thoughts. Especially if I dont have the isk to pay to get my stuff back.
Also, how are you handling jump clones? Just simply deleting them? Here's to potentially losing two sets of implants while being unsubbed or logged out. yay. Don't unsub. Or move to a NPC station first. Seriously where do you people get off. You unsub in a POS guess how well that is going to work out for you? That goes for you JC as well. seriously the level of entitlement. More people have unsubbed from Eve than are currently playing, and in case you haven't noticed, current subscription levels are dropping. People unsub for lots of different reasons, why make it more difficult for them to want to return? More people unsub than play *ALL MMOs *. It is a natural state of MMOs. More people try something than stick around. If you unsub in the middle of space, then that is your problem. If CCP has to pay upkeep on every single account ever created, they may as well shut up shop now. No one can afford that, even WoW can't afford that and its a team park. Un-subbing in space isnt the issue. Un-subbing in what was once an indestructible station that was completely safe at the time is. Also, of course CCP keeps every single account ever created. They hope at some point that person will come back and play.
"oh what, I just came back to the game and have to pay 10% of my billions of assets in liquid isk to have it moved out of the space we're essentially being evicted from, i'll just go back to whatever else i was doing" |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
481
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 15:21:20 -
[335] - Quote
Redd Dredd wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Redd Dredd wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Redd Dredd wrote:This sounds like an awesome way to keep people from coming back to the game. If I am taking a break and come back to find my implants lost and my gear held for ransom, the part of me that wanted to return is going to have second thoughts. Especially if I dont have the isk to pay to get my stuff back.
Also, how are you handling jump clones? Just simply deleting them? Here's to potentially losing two sets of implants while being unsubbed or logged out. yay. Don't unsub. Or move to a NPC station first. Seriously where do you people get off. You unsub in a POS guess how well that is going to work out for you? That goes for you JC as well. seriously the level of entitlement. More people have unsubbed from Eve than are currently playing, and in case you haven't noticed, current subscription levels are dropping. People unsub for lots of different reasons, why make it more difficult for them to want to return? More people unsub than play *ALL MMOs *. It is a natural state of MMOs. More people try something than stick around. If you unsub in the middle of space, then that is your problem. If CCP has to pay upkeep on every single account ever created, they may as well shut up shop now. No one can afford that, even WoW can't afford that and its a team park. Un-subbing in space isnt the issue. Un-subbing in what was once an indestructible station that was completely safe at the time is. Also, of course CCP keeps every single account ever created. They hope at some point that person will come back and play. Newsflash, NPC stations are not going away. Also no CCP has not kept every account around. They did a purge a while back. Also they don't promise to keep unsubbed accounts around longer than a fix time. 1 year IIRC.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
token trade alt
Slamming Mad B-Balls
8
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 22:47:51 -
[336] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote: Newsflash, NPC stations are not going away. Also no CCP has not kept every account around. They did a purge a while back. Also they don't promise to keep unsubbed accounts around longer than a fix time. 1 year IIRC.
For someone who's so caustic, you're not particularly good at reading. He's talking about keeping stuff in outposts, which are currently indestructible. Most players who need to take a break don't jump at the thought of "oh boy I am looking forward to moving millions of m3 to a nearby system before I stop playing, that certainly won't kill my motivation to come back at some point." The problem I'm seeing is that they keep saying they want people to live in nullsec, and move out there, yet they seem to be doing everything in their power to make it more of an inconvenience to live there while providing no additional benefits.
With no 'asset safety', people will likely keep a bare minimum in null and have excess shipped to highsec. That's not really living in null, if you ask me, but that's what will happen. |
Zander Kumamato
Perkone Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 02:47:59 -
[337] - Quote
That leaves us with player docked inside the structure when it was lost:
[*] The player has to fly out of the exploding wreckage in first person view, avoiding hazards and hoping to reach the exit on time or they will be podded. |
Jin Maci
Synergy Holdings Inc
5
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 02:50:56 -
[338] - Quote
actually they only purged triasl accounts that had never been subbed. |
Portmanteau
oooh ponies
202
|
Posted - 2015.11.14 15:27:29 -
[339] - Quote
With the amount of magic entosis wand this and magic respawn asset that in EvE's future, can I ask if you have any plans to finally make a wizard's hat available to buy for Aurum ? |
Meta2
Meta Holdings Corporation
5
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 16:21:26 -
[340] - Quote
So what exactly happens with wormhole space here? Your saying medium citadels can't dock capital ships when generally even a C3 will have a carrier or two these days and maybe a dread for defense. So does that mean they get left in space and possibly outside a shield? Well I am sure that will help all those folks that like to steal ships because as we all know billion dollar starships have actually no security on who can fly them.
For a C3 corp a large citadel would be prohibitively expensive ... and supposedly those are the only ones that have certain services that a large pos can already provide in a C3. Your taking away an important aspect of gameplay for C3 folks and those who don't want to have to team up with larger game entities to play.
...and seriously come on.... these things can be destroyed and they drop all their stuff and then some towing service can be purchased to drop it off at the nearest station? Like that would ever happen in real life (yes I know its a game but this isn't World of Warcraft where you pop a magic save my stuff spell and are magically transported to safety),
Are all these changes really necessary? What exactly is prompting them? I understand the game needs to evolve at some point... I think it would be better to finish improvements that already exist and go into new areas like making planets capable of being owned by corporations and able to build populations and defense industries (micromanagement et cetera). Also the walking in stations could be finished. |
|
Meta2
Meta Holdings Corporation
5
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 16:24:21 -
[341] - Quote
Portmanteau wrote:With the amount of magic entosis wand this and magic respawn asset that in EvE's future, can I ask if you have any plans to finally make a wizard's hat available to buy for Aurum ?
Yes have you noticed that EVE may be turning into World of Warcraft? I never thought it would go that route. The shark is being jumped. |
Meta2
Meta Holdings Corporation
5
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 16:32:09 -
[342] - Quote
"If CCP has to pay upkeep on every single account ever created, they may as well shut up shop now. No one can afford that, even WoW can't afford that and its a team park"
The database space to retain all the information in my accounts probably represents less than 10 mb of disk space even with all the crap I have retained over 10 years. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
484
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 22:30:42 -
[343] - Quote
Meta2 wrote:So what exactly happens with wormhole space here? Your saying medium citadels can't dock capital ships when generally even a C3 will have a carrier or two these days and maybe a dread for defense. So does that mean they get left in space and possibly outside a shield? Well I am sure that will help all those folks that like to steal ships because as we all know billion dollar starships have actually no security on who can fly them. For a C3 corp a large citadel would be prohibitively expensive ... and supposedly those are the only ones that have certain services that a large pos can already provide in a C3. Your taking away an important aspect of gameplay for C3 folks and those who don't want to have to team up with larger game entities to play. ...and seriously come on.... these things can be destroyed and they drop all their stuff and then some towing service can be purchased to drop it off at the nearest station? Like that would ever happen in real life (yes I know its a game but this isn't World of Warcraft where you pop a magic save my stuff spell and are magically transported to safety), Are all these changes really necessary? What exactly is prompting them? I understand the game needs to evolve at some point... I think it would be better to finish improvements that already exist and go into new areas like making planets capable of being owned by corporations and able to build populations and defense industries (micromanagement et cetera). Also the walking in stations could be finished. Soo your saying they can afford to construct billions worth of capitol ships, but not a large citadel worth, well probably less that just the capitol ships alone? that does not make sense. Building a large citadel is about the same as building a few caps.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
EnForceR Zealot
A.Y.N.I.K The Methodical Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 19:09:10 -
[344] - Quote
make regular stations destroyable make new structures competitive |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6878
|
Posted - 2015.12.19 04:34:01 -
[345] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Meta2 wrote:So what exactly happens with wormhole space here? Your saying medium citadels can't dock capital ships when generally even a C3 will have a carrier or two these days and maybe a dread for defense. So does that mean they get left in space and possibly outside a shield? Well I am sure that will help all those folks that like to steal ships because as we all know billion dollar starships have actually no security on who can fly them. For a C3 corp a large citadel would be prohibitively expensive ... and supposedly those are the only ones that have certain services that a large pos can already provide in a C3. Your taking away an important aspect of gameplay for C3 folks and those who don't want to have to team up with larger game entities to play. ...and seriously come on.... these things can be destroyed and they drop all their stuff and then some towing service can be purchased to drop it off at the nearest station? Like that would ever happen in real life (yes I know its a game but this isn't World of Warcraft where you pop a magic save my stuff spell and are magically transported to safety), Are all these changes really necessary? What exactly is prompting them? I understand the game needs to evolve at some point... I think it would be better to finish improvements that already exist and go into new areas like making planets capable of being owned by corporations and able to build populations and defense industries (micromanagement et cetera). Also the walking in stations could be finished. Soo your saying they can afford to construct billions worth of capitol ships, but not a large citadel worth, well probably less that just the capitol ships alone? that does not make sense. Building a large citadel is about the same as building a few caps. Concerned troll.
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Arden Bastilla
Defiance LLC
2
|
Posted - 2015.12.19 20:08:17 -
[346] - Quote
Ok not sure if someone has brought this up yet.
For the new fuel blocks that are required to use service modules here is an idea to reduce management of the fuel blocks.
So as stated right now if you online a service module it starts consuming fuel blocks I believe. Why not move the fuel blocks as a requirement to start the job. Meaning when you go to start your job the mfg window well tell you how many fuel blocks it well take to run the job (applies to all service modules requiring fuel? ). Then you have to have the blocks in the inventory to start the job.
This method might not work for things that aren't for mfg though I admit and might cause another system to be in place.
I'm just thinking of corporations that don't mfg heavily so leaving it on all the time well cost a lot more than only having on when needed, but we'll cause more management overhead turning it on and off. This way might actually consume more fuel blocks than the always on method. You might be able to make this a selectable feature for prior that make their citadel open to others to use.
If this method overly complicates things another method that could help the individual entrepreneur is to allow them to set an hourly charge for use for mfg either in lieu of a tax. A direct hourly charge more closely relates to fuel block costs than a tax does.
Thoughts? ? |
Vlada Silni
Kumovi The G0dfathers
17
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 14:22:42 -
[347] - Quote
Even thou I usually do not comment on eve forums, this time I like idea CCP has, so i will try to give some ideas:
* Once Citadel is destroyed certain % of asset is destroyed and rest is scattered in space and locked in container for some time. Owner has an option to pay a fee to some new fancy NPC corp (sansha transport group or whatever) for assets to be transported. -20% fee means assets will be transported to closest random 00 NPC station. -30% fee means it wll go into low-sec -40% fee means you will get asset delivered into random high-sec NPC station
Attackers that destroyed Citadel have 50% of tax payed to their account in case owner has decided to pay the "transportation fee". NPC Convoy cannot be attacked but attacker will know what is total ISK value of and assets that have been left in debris so in theory what kind of reward can they expect (some sort of kill mail) in case owners decide to pay this fee. If owner is not ready to pay the fee after certain period (30 days) assets will be lost.
Regarding pods / jump clones same fee will apply (based on their SP and implants).
I do think this will make kind of ISK sink and could provide some rewarding pvp, but i'm afraid everyone will move asset to NPC stations...
* Regarding reimburse on already existing objects - CCP could hand over new citadel/module BPO's in the value of objects reimbursed - 10%.
Hope it helped :)
|
Bob Fegaipeor
Bob-Alliance Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 21:03:46 -
[348] - Quote
Has there been any thought put into having a third option of after waiting the x amount of recovery days we can just come to the wreck with a ship and load up our stuff to move else where?
Does not make much since that we are force to pay npcs to haul our stuff when we already have ships that can haul it. Any reason this is not a third option for asset recovery? |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
5679
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 23:15:59 -
[349] - Quote
The blog covers citadel destruction.
What about assets stuck in a citadel one doesn't have access to any longer?
Example: You keep your assets in a public citadel, and one day the owner decides to no-longer be public. |
Luna Bowman
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 21:33:52 -
[350] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:The blog covers citadel destruction.
What about assets stuck in a citadel one doesn't have access to any longer?
Example: You keep your assets in a public citadel, and one day the owner decides to no-longer be public.
probably same as with player held outposts that you have stuff in, if its stuck, its stuck :) |
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
71
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 04:14:01 -
[351] - Quote
Naw - citadel and other station-like structures should be more destructive to contents. This will help keep EVE databases lean and fast. Counteract player hoarding of rarely if ever used equipment. Encourage 53% max recycling over hoarding.
Somewhat more should also drop to encourage frequent structure assaults. But probably not intact fitted ships.
Thus
(1) All assembled ships inside a structure should drop their own lootable wrecks when the structure is destroyed. Whether active or not.
Its more logical that only moored or unassembled ships might survive an explosion. Distance + emergency tanking or compact streamlined package ejection.
(2) Moored ships should take damaged based on distance etc. (CCP can do some magic to simulate explosion center or weak points if they want.). They might still be destroyed.
(3) Player-Corp content saving should not be perfect. Some of it needs to drop as loot. Some simply destroyed. And some maybe just gets lost in random space due to damaged systems. But recovery cost on what is saved should be minimal as recovery system was built in advance of destruction as part of structure. But yeah 10% net chance of loss is good.
PS Ref: Podding pilots.
(a) Obviously also covers offline pilots docked at that station.
(b) If a moored ship is NOT destroyed and pilot was online -- then there probably should be a 50% chance that the pilot was not podded. They might have been physically on ship rather than station. Opportunity for an easy kill mail due to pilot stupidity. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
71
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 04:23:30 -
[352] - Quote
Udonor wrote:Naw - citadel and other station-like structures should be more destructive to contents. This will help keep EVE databases lean and fast. Counteract player hoarding of rarely if ever used equipment. Encourage 53% max recycling over hoarding.
Somewhat more should also drop to encourage frequent structure assaults. But probably not intact fitted ships.
Thus
(1) All assembled ships inside a structure should drop their own lootable wrecks when the structure is destroyed. Whether active or not.
Its more logical that only moored or unassembled ships might survive an explosion. Distance + emergency tanking or compact streamlined package ejection.
(2) Moored ships should take damaged based on distance etc. (CCP can do some magic to simulate explosion center or weak points if they want.). They might still be destroyed.
(3) Player-Corp content saving should not be perfect. Some of it needs to drop as loot. Some simply destroyed. And some maybe just gets lost in random space due to damaged systems. But recovery cost on what is saved should be minimal as recovery system was built in advance of destruction as part of structure. But yeah 10% net chance of loss is good.
PS Ref: Podding pilots.
(a) Obviously also covers offline pilots docked at that station.
(b) If a moored ship is NOT destroyed and pilot was online -- then there probably should be a 50% chance that the pilot was not podded. They might have been physically on ship rather than station. Opportunity for an easy kill mail due to pilot stupidity.
P.P.S. If CCP fears too much loot dropped by structures
then I suggest considering the more visually attractive multiple explosion model in which loot wrecks can drop and be damage or destroyed by separate explosions. This might lure attackers into risky loot grabs during the final destruction sequence. Stories of humorous greed awaiting the telling.
Specifically pre-divide the station into sections and then at destruction assign 1+ section to each explosion after which loot is dropped. Spread the explosions out over time with most explosions more likely to cluster near start. A really late explosion can always add comedy or the drama of saving loot to the tale of eager raiders. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
4780
|
Posted - 2016.02.20 08:14:15 -
[353] - Quote
Udonor wrote:I wan ttohe rpaleyrs to fillt hier staiton with tears so I cna ahrvest their tears, becuase I am evne mroecluless than CCP.
See, berserkerboy, so far the chances that anything between 50 and 90% of the players in the game risk anything worth more than 5 tritanium by storing it in a citadel rather than a NPC station are slim. Your proposal would just render them absolutely empty shells.
When CCP made the poll on structures, they forgot/dismissed to ask the single most important question.
"Why you don't use structures?"
The answer to that question, albeit easy to guess, probably would had put under a inconvenient light the whole Rubicon Plan to add new structures and new space worth to PvP for.
CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now".
62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?"
CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
|
Major Trant
CTRL-Q Spaceship Bebop
1435
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 17:48:57 -
[354] - Quote
1. Will we be able to store clones in Citadels? 2. If we can store clones what happens to them if the Citadel is destroyed - particularly their implants. 3. If a player has a Nyx stored in his hanger when the Citadel is destroyed and there is no alternative XL Citadel in the same system, can the player opt to have the rest of his things delivered to a low sec station. If so, is the Nyx then destroyed or does it remain available for recovery if and when a new Citadel becomes available in that system or does he have to make a choice and leave all his impounded assets in stasis in the forelorn hope that one day a XL Citadel recovery option becomes available.
CTRL-Q are recruiting - Gallente Faction Warfare, Small Gang, Low Sec PvP, New Player friendly
Want to know the truth about low sec?
Diary of a Low Sec Capsuleer
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |