| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
1988
   |
Posted - 2015.08.19 14:28:18 -
[91] - Quote
^ Nah doing it like that would make it sov like as apposed to what was suggested. Making it so any duch with an entosis wouldn't fit with wormhole gameplay IMO.
Also these structures shouldn't be at a pos, so there would be no guns to defend it. If you are not online or do not fight to stop it from being destroyed, someone can put a citadel in your system, just like they can now.
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
464
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 15:52:14 -
[92] - Quote
Lim Hiaret wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:Rek Seven wrote:I like the idea that the dev had when he said players could put a structure up to prevent anchoring of new structures. This would keep the barrier to entry for installing a hostile pos but wouldn't need you to put a pos on every moon.
If this new structure had reasonably low HP, no reinforce timer and sent a notification when attacked, I think it would be fine. I'm hoping for this as well. Some people want it to be a module or rig, but having a single relatively weak structure makes it much simpler to understand and interact with. It could also do something cool like let you "name" a w-space or nullsec system... Wouldn't that be wormhole sov again? How about this: Structures can be destroyed by entosis AND by DPS. DPS works all the time and leads to a reinforced and invulnerable state that comes out during the vulnerability window. Outside of the vulnerability window the structures automatic defence should be efficient enough to fight of a reasonable strong force and to incentivise the use of entosis instead but not too strong to rule that option out. Because the guns are mounted on the structure and cannot be incapacitated, it would be more effort and more of a fight to kill the structures HP anyway. Especially if the defence is more like fighter or fighter bomber bays instead of guns. However, the attacker or the defender of the WH would not be bound absolutely by the invulnerability window and would have a chance to stop an invasion in a different time zone through (the apparently so much missed) HP grind. During the invulnerability window guns and offensive modules do not operate automatically (or very slowly and randomly) and have to be manned to be efficient. Thus a single ship can use an entosis link to hack the structure into a reinforced state.
Not sure what you mean about sov. The other suggestions while cool are a very broad departure from current design, I can't imagine they could feasibly be implemented into this model.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
2428
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 19:47:23 -
[93] - Quote
Nothing like sov. It's just the equivalent of putting a POS up at every moon.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
1989
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 09:20:05 -
[94] - Quote
Had a thought last night regarding theses structures...
Imagine if you could fit a module to your citadel that removes it from D-scan or even cloaks it. You could go into someone system, destroy their "anchoring structure" and then set up your own hidden tower... Obviously it would need to be balanced correctly but i think it would be great.
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
464
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 13:53:19 -
[95] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Had a thought last night regarding theses structures... Imagine if you could fit a module to your citadel that removes it from D-scan or even cloaks it. You could go into someone system, destroy their "anchoring prevention structure" and then set up your own hidden tower. If unchecked, you could live in someones systems without them realizing until it was too late.  Obviously it would need to be balanced correctly but i think it would be great.
I've proposed something not not quite as evil, but basically a rig that would remove your structure from the scan overlay so it would have to be combat scanned down. With good placement it would be very easy to not notice, but actually cloaking might be a bit too evil.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
1989
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 14:00:59 -
[96] - Quote
Yeah that's what i was thinking; not visible on D-scan but combat probable... great minds i guess 
I think the cloak idea could be balanced but that's down to you guys and CCP (e.g observatory arrays make them probable).
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
Lim Hiaret
Hiaret Family
31
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 15:02:24 -
[97] - Quote
Two questions about mooring. Will it be possible to use D-scan, probes and/or cloak when moored? Will it be possible to undock to a mooring?
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
464
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 15:29:25 -
[98] - Quote
Lim Hiaret wrote:Two questions about mooring. Will it be possible to use D-scan, probes and/or cloak when moored? Will it be possible to undock to a mooring?
Everyone will undock into a moored/linked state.
As for the other stuff, let's see. Dscan yes I believe is possible. Probes, I'm not sure but it could probably tilt either way at this point, what would you prefer? My guess is cloaking will un link you from the structure, but it hadn't been discussed in detail. Go you have a specific preference or concern for that?
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Bed Bugg
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 19:00:28 -
[99] - Quote
Corbex, Sugar K, CCP Nullabor
For the most part the meeting sounded like it went well. Nice moderation job Sugar.
I am surprised and a bit disappointed that there was not a more diverse group of interests represented. With some notable exceptions there seemed to be a disproportionate interest in turning WHs into a loot pinata heaven.
The folks that did push that point of view did a good job at advancing their meta.
Sadly, I could not be there for the meeting but I have put together some additional considerations for you.
1.) The full loot drop, "safety off" feature is a huge mistake. There are some pretty serious unintended consequences with that idea.
No matter how you slice it, the full loot drop makes most of the market and industrial mods associated with citadels worthless in WH space. You will only do what industry you must do. Everything else will get shipped back to HS asap.
As an example, ask your industry friends how much stuff they need to push through the manufacturing arrays on a large tower at a 10% margin to break even. Then ask them what they need to make a good profit. I think folks that do not do industry will be a little surprised at that math and what kind of commitment in resources it takes to run a full up industrial effort in or out of WH space. Add the risk of catastrophic loss of everything makes station indexes in HS a laughable inconvenience.
2.) The podded when docked idea?? Are you serious--who is fine with that in WH space? The super groups? Certainly not the smaller corporations. Ejected into space in my pod? No thanks on that either. These are an inconvenience in K space--it can be catastrophic in W Space. This is an awful idea.
There are other possible consequences as well, some pretty severe.
Within my group of WH peeps we have been discussing the citadel ideas presented.
While we hated the initial idea of the 10% loss or fine idea that was proposed, our group agreed that we would probably still do some industry and have a small internal exchange market in our WH.
With a full loot drop model... neither will happen.
The work arounds we have been exploring below are all variations on a theme: Log it off. For months if you must.
We already have a name for this mitigation theme for use with citadels.
We will call it Winnebago/Caravan ops. If it does not fit in your Winnebago/Caravan, you do not get to keep it in the WH.
Nothing actually gets stored in the Citadel.
Carrier/Orca/Rorqual/Bowhead, Freighter/Orca all serve as good Winnebago/Caravan combinations.
My CEO has also told us to expect that there will be a corp fine for logging off while docked in a Citadel. Except in the case of a quick DC, logging off while docked will be discouraged.
Most activity will actually get done while just outside the structure and it will just function as a landmark and a safe area etc to move freighters, ships and inventories around.
We will still seed a few of the smallest structures in the system with alts in transports to carry them.
Of course you will need scanning and entosis alts.
In any case, we are all looking forward to launching our first Citadel! Any expected release date info? |
Andrew Jester
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
1339
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 19:39:53 -
[100] - Quote
wow didn't know the brutor tribe had big holdings in WH space
If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
|
|
|
Scott Ormands
The Desolate Order
Brave Collective
55
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 20:01:47 -
[101] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote:wow didn't know the brutor tribe had big holdings in WH space
Rekt |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
464
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 20:27:25 -
[102] - Quote
I'm not opposed to the 50/50 safety/loot compromise suggested. Same result for current looters, better result for future hoarders.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Kynric
Sky Fighters
339
|
Posted - 2015.08.20 23:24:45 -
[103] - Quote
Regarding the invulnerability/mooring, what happens if you DC while invulnerable? Is the behavior different if you have an aggression or npc timer? Is the behavior different if you are in a bubble?
If logging in near the structure what is the docking range? Can others prevent you from docking if you arrive at the citadel from a warp or login? Are you automatically given the invulnerability if you warp to the citadel using the "dock" selection?
Can you safe log while invulnerable?
|
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc.
Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle
201
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 05:47:23 -
[104] - Quote
Bed Bugg wrote:
1.) The full loot drop, "safety off" feature is a huge mistake. There are some pretty serious unintended consequences with that idea.
No matter how you slice it, the full loot drop makes most of the market and industrial mods associated with citadels worthless in WH space. You will only do what industry you must do. Everything else will get shipped back to HS asap.
Within my group of WH peeps we have been discussing the citadel ideas presented.
While we hated the initial idea of the 10% loss or fine idea that was proposed, our group agreed that we would probably still do some industry and have a small internal exchange market in our WH.
With a full loot drop model... neither will happen.
The old pos is a full drop model and yet people still use it... .
No local in null sec would fix everything!
Fleet warp proposal = the rubix cube is back into eve especialy the second part of the saying.
Wh players need to adapt, null sec players get the rules changed.
|
Lamhoofd Hashur
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
27
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 07:14:57 -
[105] - Quote
Bed Bugg wrote:1.) The full loot drop, "safety off" feature is a huge mistake. There are some pretty serious unintended consequences with that idea.
How is this different compared to now? Because that is something I fail to see.
Bed Bugg wrote:2.) The podded when docked idea?? Are you serious--who is fine with that in WH space? The super groups? Certainly not the smaller corporations. Ejected into space in my pod? No thanks on that either. These are an inconvenience in K space--it can be catastrophic in W Space. This is an awful idea.
I don't believe anybody was really happy about this idea in the meeting (for W-space). |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
339
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 12:32:00 -
[106] - Quote
unimatrix0030 wrote:Bed Bugg wrote:
1.) The full loot drop, "safety off" feature is a huge mistake. There are some pretty serious unintended consequences with that idea.
No matter how you slice it, the full loot drop makes most of the market and industrial mods associated with citadels worthless in WH space. You will only do what industry you must do. Everything else will get shipped back to HS asap.
Within my group of WH peeps we have been discussing the citadel ideas presented.
While we hated the initial idea of the 10% loss or fine idea that was proposed, our group agreed that we would probably still do some industry and have a small internal exchange market in our WH.
With a full loot drop model... neither will happen.
The old pos is a full drop model and yet people still use it... .
The old pos model rarely resulted in fights and without "asset safety" the new one will not likely result in fights either. It is one thing to yolo a ship, quite another to yolo all of your ships. When a pilot has a choice between fighting a fight he will likely lose (the invasion would most likely not have happened if the defender had a strong chance) or logging off with a gokd ladden ship (bowhead, carrier, orca, or whatever else stuffed with all the faction bits, my bet is logoff will be selected. So the choice in a way is between only getting the bulky low value stuff (wow this pos had some PI goo and an epithal) with a fight or getting it withoyt a fight. How much do we value the fights? The great the risk the more risk averse the behavior will be. This is a make something better than what we have now yet our knee jerk is to make it just like what we have now.
Three more thoughts:
If the risk in wspace is much greater than it is anywhere else will it be a vibrant busy place or will it be barren and empty populated only by the same old bored people with little new blood? So while getting rid of asset safety everywhere sounds great, getting rid of it only in one part of the game sounds bad for that section.
The new invasion system takes a lot less comitment than the old one so it will likely happen more. The old system had multiple towers to reinforce with massive butt numbing hit point barriers whuch in effect required a comitment of dreads or a lot of people for a long time or both. The unanswered entosis sidesteps that. Is more evictions going to make our space a busy vibrant place? Perhaps we need to make sure the system does not make it too attractive as it is generally pretty dull gameplay.
Mostly, the higher the stakes the more risk averse behavior we will see. Non agression pacts, blueing, empty hangers with few ships which are all logged off and a barren empty landscape are the obvious results if people do not feel safe. We need some measure of safety so that we can have ships to shoot at abd people to interact with. The small guys need safety to grow so we can have a future shooting each other. Otherwise we will crushvthem as infants and then complain that there are only farmers who log on but a few hours a week and leave nothing at risk for the balance of the hours. We really should not bend the entire feature around invasions (which are not all that fun and are also generally only a small part of our time in game) and instead look at it as x a chance to make the majority of our hours in game filled with ships in space. Which gets us more ships in space, strong asset safety or a complete lack of it? We dont get to make it a vastly harsher space than the rest of new eden which is also active and vibrant, the humans at the keyboard wont likely react that way. |
Jeff Kione
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
32
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 12:58:30 -
[107] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I've proposed something not not quite as evil, but basically a rig that would remove your structure from the scan overlay so it would have to be combat scanned down. With good placement it would be very easy to not notice, but actually cloaking might be a bit too evil.
I don't like this idea for a couple of reasons.
1. As it is right now, we can always d-scan to find and warp to a POS. This helps for intel gathering, etc. We don't need to drop probes or otherwise announce that we're in the system in order to gather that intel. That's a huge deal in w-space.
2. Since we can use d-scan and POSes are located at moons, we don't need to bookmark where these structures are. We can note down where their POSes are after we find them the first time.
Your proposed system would:
1. Require you to announce to the system that you were there in order to gather intel and;
2. Require you to either use the very limited corp bookmarks to be able to return to those structures in the future or be stuck announcing yourself every time you wanted to scout a system.
No thanks, not for w-space. The lack of local and lack of intel about whether or not anyone is in the system is one of the defining characteristics of w-space. |
Andrew Jester
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
1340
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 13:01:34 -
[108] - Quote
it's getting pretty NIMBY in here
some random SSC scrub acting like his way is the only way lol. change happens and your **** opinion isn't going to change it so buckle up for CCP's WH Wild Ride kiddo
If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
|
Kynric
Sky Fighters
339
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 13:04:29 -
[109] - Quote
Jeff Kione wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:I've proposed something not not quite as evil, but basically a rig that would remove your structure from the scan overlay so it would have to be combat scanned down. With good placement it would be very easy to not notice, but actually cloaking might be a bit too evil. I don't like this idea for a couple of reasons. 1. As it is right now, we can always d-scan to find and warp to a POS. This helps for intel gathering, etc. We don't need to drop probes or otherwise announce that we're in the system in order to gather that intel. That's a huge deal in w-space. 2. Since we can use d-scan and POSes are located at moons, we don't need to bookmark where these structures are. We can note down where their POSes are after we find them the first time. Your proposed system would: 1. Require you to announce to the system that you were there in order to gather intel and; 2. Require you to either use the very limited corp bookmarks to be able to return to those structures in the future or be stuck announcing yourself every time you wanted to scout a system. No thanks, not for w-space. The lack of local and lack of intel about whether or not anyone is in the system is one of the defining characteristics of w-space.
It would also require that smart pilots combat probe their own system daily. So while some wont and that could be fun it probably is not worth the minutes per day that it would cost many of us. |
Anize Oramara
The Arch Dashing Dashers
321
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 13:37:32 -
[110] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote:it's getting pretty NIMBY in here
some random SSC scrub acting like his way is the only way lol. change happens and your **** opinion isn't going to change it so buckle up for CCP's WH Wild Ride kiddo
Something something fozzie sov |
|
|
Andrew Jester
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
1340
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 13:50:06 -
[111] - Quote
whoah what a cognisant point
If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
467
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 14:59:47 -
[112] - Quote
Kynric wrote:Jeff Kione wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:I've proposed something not not quite as evil, but basically a rig that would remove your structure from the scan overlay so it would have to be combat scanned down. With good placement it would be very easy to not notice, but actually cloaking might be a bit too evil. I don't like this idea for a couple of reasons. 1. As it is right now, we can always d-scan to find and warp to a POS. This helps for intel gathering, etc. We don't need to drop probes or otherwise announce that we're in the system in order to gather that intel. That's a huge deal in w-space. 2. Since we can use d-scan and POSes are located at moons, we don't need to bookmark where these structures are. We can note down where their POSes are after we find them the first time. Your proposed system would: 1. Require you to announce to the system that you were there in order to gather intel and; 2. Require you to either use the very limited corp bookmarks to be able to return to those structures in the future or be stuck announcing yourself every time you wanted to scout a system. No thanks, not for w-space. The lack of local and lack of intel about whether or not anyone is in the system is one of the defining characteristics of w-space. It would also require that smart pilots combat probe their own system daily. So while some wont and that could be fun it probably is not worth the minutes per day that it would cost many of us. Not a huge issue but still another chore that leaders will have to tend to. I would rather get on and look for pew than look for hidden structures in my home.
Fair points.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1236
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 16:01:35 -
[113] - Quote
Once Citadels are deployed, will we be able to *right click -> list people inside with active ship*? Or will it be the *decloak and scan the structure with a scanner module* that was desired by null? Curious here, since not getting intel even being on grid would be pretty much crap. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
467
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 16:26:31 -
[114] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Once Citadels are deployed, will we be able to *right click -> list people inside with active ship*? Or will it be the *decloak and scan the structure with a scanner module* that was desired by null? Curious here, since not getting intel even being on grid would be pretty much crap.
Hopefully, yes. At the very least you should be able to get a player count without uncloaking.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Bed Bugg
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 16:38:55 -
[115] - Quote
Kynric,
I absolutely agree with your points. Well put.
The harsher the space appears, the more risk adverse people become, and the more desolate the landscape.
I would suggest that a more reasonable asset safety mechanism might actually result in larger, more consistent, loot drops from bashing Citadels. Sort of a Wal-Mart principle.
It is counter intuitive to a point.
I am suggesting that there is probably a "knee in the curve" so to speak, where industrialists and traders will accept a certain amount of risk and do larger industry in a citadel and where traders will seed local markets.
When that happens, you will get more interesting loot drops than the low value bulky items like Epithals, heavy water and trit.
|
Jeff Kione
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
32
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 17:25:46 -
[116] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote:it's getting pretty NIMBY in here
some random SSC scrub acting like his way is the only way lol. change happens and your **** opinion isn't going to change it so buckle up for CCP's WH Wild Ride kiddo
I'm pretty sure this SSC scrub presented the reasons why I didn't like Chance's idea instead of just saying "that idea is bad" and not justifying it. He's free to agree or disagree with me if whether or not that type of game play is something that should or should not be preserved in the future. This is an appropriate way of giving someone feedback; you could probably learn from me. |
Andrew Jester
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
1341
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 17:28:34 -
[117] - Quote
Jeff Kione wrote:you could probably learn from me.
please teach me how to pointlessly post and expect it to change things senpai
If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
|
Jeff Kione
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
32
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 17:38:56 -
[118] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote:Jeff Kione wrote:you could probably learn from me. please teach me how to pointlessly post and expect it to change things senpai
Can't do that, but I can teach you how to give constructive feedback to a CSM member's idea.
The idea of hidden citadels is a neat one but my main point of contention would be the fact that you couldn't gather intel (i.e.: what we usually do by watching a tower in a cloaky ship) without giving away the fact that you were in the system, and the idea of having to do it once for every citadel and bookmark it for later doesn't work given the limited number of bookmarks available to a corporation.
Now if you had a different type of probe that would act like combat probes but not show up on d-scan and only allow you to find structures, that might change things. Under that system, you might only choose to probe down citadels where you see ships on d-scan at no signature/ anom. Or you might choose to bookmark the main citadels of notable corporations, and probe down the rest on an as-needed basis. It would be different but maintaining a similar style of play. |
O'nira
Litla Sundlaugin
71
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 16:08:06 -
[119] - Quote
No asset safety and short sieges and we might see a small group just purge every wh system they can in a subcap gang with the entosis risking absolutely nothing
i would prefer asset safety at this point
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
468
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 18:20:30 -
[120] - Quote
O'nira wrote:No asset safety and short sieges and we might see a small group just purge every wh system they can in a subcap gang with the entosis risking absolutely nothing
i would prefer asset safety at this point
What do you think about half safety (loot fairy safety) option?
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |