EVE Search - Structure blog and sounding board

All Channels

Wormholes

Structure blog and sounding board

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1388	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:17:22 - [1] - Quote The next structure blog is up http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/citadels-sieges-and-you/ CCP Nullabor is happy to come along and listen to people discuss issues on this topic. It will be 17.00 eve time 18th of August. This will be limited to 15 to 20 people. TS details will be sent out the day of the sounding board and you'll need to log on to TS with who ever posts in this thread. Here is a FAQ with some more stuff that may help. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mEbMx9xUXje3KH4AppvcjSSoALUVtVEaK6ZZ-zy2Lrs/preview?sle=true Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 4	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:31:20 - [2] - Quote First? eh-hem I'm really looking forwards to this, and hope there will be lots of good questions. Rob K.
Kynric Sky Fighters 331	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:42:35 - [3] - Quote What size hauler is required to move the M, L and XL deployables respectively? This is significant as it would limit what could be deployed where.
calaretu Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 368	Posted - 2015.08.13 15:54:31 - [4] - Quote Signing up for structure soundboard :) ~Bringer of happiness http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ .ORLY is recruiting
gr33nCO Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 0	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:04:46 - [5] - Quote Singing up to attend
Braxus Deninard Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 513	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:04:48 - [6] - Quote Signing up for the structure soundboard as well. I think the asset safety is a significant concern in w-space.
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1389	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:11:32 - [7] - Quote Braxus Deninard wrote: Signing up for the structure soundboard as well. I enjoy a lot of these changes but think the asset safety is a significant concern in w-space. asset safety is up for discussion in w space. Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Enta en Bauldry EVE University Ivy League 41	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:29:17 - [8] - Quote x
Urziel99 Multiplex Gaming The Bastion 123	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:34:05 - [9] - Quote Count me in. I've been hasing out these structures for months on podside. Would be nice to talk both ways on this.
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1329	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:34:05 - [10] - Quote is pee el allowed to attend this one?! If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Jezza McWaffle ShipRekt 241	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:52:37 - [11] - Quote I'll be there again. Take a look at my startup C5 PvP WH corp adventures, we are recruiting
Jim Suletu Dropbears Anonymous Brave Collective 5	Posted - 2015.08.13 16:59:11 - [12] - Quote I and one or two of my officers will be around :)
Shilalasar Dead Sky Inc. 162	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:22:27 - [13] - Quote Will not be around, but I want to say after yesterdays roundtable "discussion" I have a newfound appreciation for these WH soundingboards.
Ruffio Sepico Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 74	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:24:37 - [14] - Quote corbexx wrote: Braxus Deninard wrote: Signing up for the structure soundboard as well. I enjoy a lot of these changes but think the asset safety is a significant concern in w-space. asset safety is up for discussion in w space. It should be up for discussion for all space imho. Double standards just for wh space is silly. Magic loot fairy protection based on what part of space you live in is not very eve-like... It would just encourage more players to go null (or other places) rather than wspace. Just let it all blow up for purdy kill mails and put the loot fairy to sleep. Much more healthy for the economy too. More stuff need to be replaced -)
Glasgow Dunlop The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 282	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:27:26 - [15] - Quote ill be der @glasgowdunlop #tweetfleet TDSIN Recruitment Director : Join 'TDSIN pub' Glasgow / Edinbvrgh Meet Organiser
Maria Kitiare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 12	Posted - 2015.08.13 17:57:35 - [16] - Quote With a limitation at 20 attending, it might be a good idea to get a nice spread from the different areas of w-space instead of just first comes first served. Anyway, x'ing up. But also asking, If I end up not being able to attend, can I send a different SSC'er in my place? :)
Kermit Pental Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 2	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:06:18 - [17] - Quote Will try and be there for this might have to fake my death to get out of work early :D
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1390	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:06:34 - [18] - Quote Maria Kitiare wrote: With a limitation at 20 attending, it might be a good idea to get a nice spread from the different areas of w-space instead of just first comes first served. Anyway, x'ing up. But also asking, If I end up not being able to attend, can I send a different SSC'er in my place? :) if we get over the number (depending on how many over) then yes i will be picking a cross section to get a decent spread of people. yes you can send some one else but they will have to post on this thread. Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Jeff Kione Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 28	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:54:35 - [19] - Quote Middle of the work day for us USTZ guys, so no x from me. Few things I've been thinking about: 1. Asset protection in w-space obviously doesn't make sense and runs contrary to how things have been handled in the past. It seems weird that even in other areas of space that these structures (POS stand-ins) would not drop loot like POSes would. I don't like that I can fill my personal hangar with PLEX and have it returned to me after someone else blows up my Citadel. The very fact that you can lose all of your belongings makes POSes inherently very valuable, which simultaneously makes them worth defending. I'm not sure you'd have the same effect with Citadels if your personal assets are never placed at risk. Alternatives: - Maybe some of your stuff drops as loot, some gets destroyed and the rest gets picked up by the movers? Now it's up to the RNG gods. - Traditional loot dropping 2. Your defenses aren't automated? You're telling me that my behemoth of a Citadel isn't smart enough to defend itself when being attacked/ when a hostile is on grid? I can imagine that from a design point of view you want people actively defending but this means you always need to have someone (or an alt) sitting at your Citadel in order to defend it should someone try to knock over your sandcastle. I can see this becoming a problem similar to trollceptors in sov-null. As it stands currently, I'm not afraid to leave my POS because my POS will defend itself against lone/ unorganized attackers even if I am somewhere down the chain. If the defenses aren't automated, however, if I am not there to personally guard my Citadel during vulnerability timers, I can be stuck with a reinforced structure that I need to show up later to defend (and chances are it was just a troll in the first place). This does not make sense to me. I'm sure more will come to me as I continue to digest what I've read today.
Wander Prian Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 73	Posted - 2015.08.13 18:54:59 - [20] - Quote I will be there as well!
Samantha Elroy Atztech Inc. Ixtab. 32	Posted - 2015.08.13 19:13:41 - [21] - Quote x
Lorik'rach Limited Power Inc It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake 1	Posted - 2015.08.13 19:14:40 - [22] - Quote Signing up for sounding board
La loca Fappuccino Sleeper Insanity Wrong Hole. 14	Posted - 2015.08.13 19:15:44 - [23] - Quote Signing up to attend.
King Creator Out of Focus Odin's Call 14	Posted - 2015.08.13 19:18:56 - [24] - Quote Signing up to attend
Mira Thanis Dropbears Anonymous Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2015.08.13 19:57:59 - [25] - Quote gonna attend.
Bronya Boga Isogen 5 582	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:09:26 - [26] - Quote Such a bad time for me :( would have liked to be there.
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1769	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:27:44 - [27] - Quote I might actually be able to make this, I thought initially I might miss it, Invite please Corbexx? There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Athanor Ruthoern 13. Enigma Project 19	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:43:42 - [28] - Quote I would like to come
Aladar Dangerface 13. Enigma Project 207	Posted - 2015.08.13 20:46:20 - [29] - Quote Hopefully we can show the nullbears what its like when adults actually talk about things. I don't need twitter. I'm already following you.
Keskora Yaari POS Party Low-Class 147	Posted - 2015.08.13 22:32:57 - [30] - Quote All signed up!
Ransu Asanari AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 315	Posted - 2015.08.13 22:41:00 - [31] - Quote I'd like to attend this. It's in the middle of my workday but I'll try to make the time. WIll work on some good discussion points and questions.
NoobMan Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 184	Posted - 2015.08.13 22:54:20 - [32] - Quote Would like to sign up to represent HK. Operations Director of Hard K(n)ocks Inc.
Sylvanium Orlenard Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 82	Posted - 2015.08.14 05:16:18 - [33] - Quote I won't be able to attend because its in the wrong timezone, however, please someone ask this question. Will one be able to set-up contracts in a citatel, including, Item Exchanges, Auctions and most importantly Courier Contracts? If the answer to the above is yes, will one be able to set up courier contracts to and from a wormhole system?
Winthorp 3617	Posted - 2015.08.14 06:21:35 - [34] - Quote So no mention at all in devblog about ducking and undocking points, radius, safety timers or anything we really need to know. Will you be able to get dscan information when inside a Citadel of the outside. What information on the docked people will you have from the outside also. These are pretty important i feel to foster interaction between players. Wish i could make it. I hope you could ask those questions for me. I am Winthorp, you might remember me from such films as "Winthorp is to blame for permanent signature ID's". Please note i don't engage in any meaningful discussion with NPC alts, nut up or shut up...
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1800	Posted - 2015.08.14 07:44:42 - [35] - Quote I cannot make this (and am a small fish in the WH pond anyway) however if we could get some awareness/clarity raised around these questions I had from the main thread that would be awesome: They came in regards to WH having such long windows and with no way to shrink them as well as the fundamental differences between k and j space: I think they are unreasonably long and that it is not valid to treat WH like other space. The common rally cry, of course, is "live in your space". Which is fine when your space is outside a WH. afkalt wrote: Because being 4 jumps away in K-space is nothing LIKE being 4 away in J-space? I actually think it's unreasonably long, given the constraints of J-space. Routes home can disappear in a heartbeat Deathcloning home is not an option Anomalies and income sources are randomly spawned so living out of a single system isn't viable as it can be k-space. This literally demands someone stay home and do nothing for XX hours per week in WHs. Sure, we can use alts...but that's a stupid solution to a problem we shouldn't have. Potential things which may help: Shrink windows to mitigate the time spent babysitting? Things that actually shoot interlopers so that a single ship can't play logoffski games (this is obviously massively amplified by the lack of local, you need eyes on the grid for the duration)? Changes to allow it to be more practical to stay home in the window? Chuck out more anoms in that window maybe? I'm not sure, just something to make staying home to babysit not an activity you do in a minimized screen whilst doing other things. I'm not sure what else to do, which doesn't create an artificial nonsense level of special treatment for WHers.
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 774	Posted - 2015.08.14 09:06:02 - [36] - Quote So could we maybe finally get clone swapping in the medical facility? We've been asking about it for only several years... SSC Brokering Service
Bleedingthrough 186	Posted - 2015.08.14 09:46:14 - [37] - Quote Not sure if I can be around for this. A few questions/remarks I want to throw at you: - I think it makes sense to explain the blogs content before starting any discussion. I didnGÇÖt find this blog an easy read with all that new terminology and such. - Reinforcement timers seem a bit long in the example. This would be way too long to maintain a tight WH control during a WH siege. I would expect to see lot more parties involved in sieges or the besieged having an easier time to pull assets out if they donGÇÖt want to fight for their space. Not sure if this is good or bad for the game but certainly very different and probably bad. Adjustments? - It seems a bit counter-intuitive that larger structures have longer vulnerability windows and shorter time spans between two vulnerability phases. I would not want to pay more for a less secure fortress. This makes no sense to me. (unless see next point) - How will defenses of M, L and XL be like compared to a decent POS? Will XL be a capital no go zone? If so, it might not be a good idea to have them in w-space. - Trollceptors GÇª I would so pay fuel/ISK for a hired NPC defense crew that mans the guns. There are a lot of very small groups in lower class WHs that canGÇÖt be online for every vulnerability. I would hate to see them leave in frustration once their default vulnerability becomes vulnerability 2. (I am very sure people like me will do this.) Maybe make this an option for M and L citadels only? - Wormhole stabilizersGÇª just kidding.
Galdur Trudaihnel 13. Enigma Project 27	Posted - 2015.08.14 11:26:06 - [38] - Quote Will there be a discussion about putting the number of WH space to null connections and the time they are open for back to previous levels ?
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1392	Posted - 2015.08.14 12:02:53 - [39] - Quote Galdur Trudaihnel wrote: Will there be a discussion about putting the number of WH space to null connections and the time they are open for back to previous levels ? there maybe. but that wont be this one. and it would be pointless to bring it up since its not CCP Nullabors team. You'll also annoy me for not keeping it on topic. Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Alundil Isogen 5 998	Posted - 2015.08.14 12:41:33 - [40] - Quote Ustz blah blah. Open questions/points of contention 1. Asset safety in Wspace? I don't think it belongs tbh. 2. I thougt I recalled reading that the structures would be able to defend themselves against lone/small attackers. If not, the trollceptor problems will simply reappear in wspace as well. 3. Will these structures allow clone swapping in wspace? 4. Why are citadels warpable anomalies? I dislike knowing that my 'home' location is so lazily located. I would have preferred some dscan based method of location detection. Or some method of triangulation. But not just 'check box to show anoms r click warp'. All in all I was pleased with the latest structure blogs. I'm right behind you
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1332	Posted - 2015.08.14 12:55:42 - [41] - Quote afkalt wrote: I think they are unreasonably long and that it is not valid to treat WH like other space. The common rally cry, of course, is "live in your space". Which is fine when your space is outside a WH. live in your space only works in sov because of the indices. I'm most interested in the vuln windows for WH space too, but 8h isn't THAT long, 4h is prolly too short, so 6h maybe is a good compromise If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 345	Posted - 2015.08.14 13:32:58 - [42] - Quote I don't believe I can attend but I will leave these thoughts here to echo what others are saying as feedback The asset safety recovery and move mechanics have too much opportunity to be gamed. Between seeding your own citadel full of ships and scooping to leave ships inside a system and the "free move" of assets to NPC stations, players will game this to the fullest extent possible. Asset safety as a concept is understandable considering that you are looking at the XL structures as replacements for Outposts in null-sec. As such, I believe the proposal for asset safety to be a rig/module with sov as a fitting requirement is a good one and I would extend that to being an XL rig only. This removes asset safety entirely from high, low, and w-space while providing a fitting choice/reasonable replacement for Outpost functionality in null-sec. I do not feel that corporate hangers should be protected by any asset safety mechanism. Leave protection only for personal hangers. While players can "game" this system as well by moving assets to personal hangers prior to destruction, it is not much different than loading up a ship and logging off in terms of protection and also leaves assets vulnerable to theft by the player. As a result, asset safety should result in a journal entry created for the players personal property. This allows players and opportunity to retrieve their stuff currently not possible in a lost Outpost but does not allow for the "free move" gaming noted above. Corporation assets are dropped per standard loot drops. Arguably, those assets should have been protected by the corporation in the first place making their loss a reasonable risk/result of the attack. As far as the actual capture mechanic, I'll leave this post here as I have to review the timers, etc. before giving feedback as the implications are pretty extensive depending on the size and layout of your vulnerability timers.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1802	Posted - 2015.08.14 13:40:21 - [43] - Quote Andrew Jester wrote: afkalt wrote: I think they are unreasonably long and that it is not valid to treat WH like other space. The common rally cry, of course, is "live in your space". Which is fine when your space is outside a WH. live in your space only works in sov because of the indices. I'm most interested in the vuln windows for WH space too, but 8h isn't THAT long, 4h is prolly too short, so 6h maybe is a good compromise It's 6/12/42 for M/L/XL according to the blog.
Hoffi V6 Vision Inc Hole Control 3	Posted - 2015.08.14 13:46:11 - [44] - Quote I want to be there.
Ariete Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 44	Posted - 2015.08.14 16:24:33 - [45] - Quote X will be there So CSM IX ????
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 201	Posted - 2015.08.14 19:21:48 - [46] - Quote x i will be there also. 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.
Luft Reich Snuff Box Snuffed Out 114	Posted - 2015.08.15 05:06:38 - [47] - Quote COOOOOOOOREBEEEEEX can I come? I have Hard Question Asker trained to 5! "ohhhh luft you are in snuff box they not WH corp grrrrr" Welp SSC people are coming too. GET IT GET IT...Ok I'm done ISD Cyberdyne liked your forum post
Heiluri Unpublished Chapter Chapters. 1	Posted - 2015.08.15 09:00:41 - [48] - Quote I would like to come if there is room.
Adarnof Free Trade Monopoly You Are Being Monitored 93	Posted - 2015.08.15 16:32:14 - [49] - Quote I'd like to attend if you've got room.
Faldor MacLeod New Jovian Exploration Department A Band Apart. 1	Posted - 2015.08.15 19:36:54 - [50] - Quote I would like to be there.
Seraph Essael eXceed Inc. Triumvirate. 1133	Posted - 2015.08.15 21:54:04 - [51] - Quote Ruffio Sepico wrote: corbexx wrote: Braxus Deninard wrote: Signing up for the structure soundboard as well. I enjoy a lot of these changes but think the asset safety is a significant concern in w-space. asset safety is up for discussion in w space. It should be up for discussion for all space imho. Double standards just for wh space is silly. Magic loot fairy protection based on what part of space you live in is not very eve-like... It would just encourage more players to go null (or other places) rather than wspace. Just let it all blow up for purdy kill mails and put the loot fairy to sleep. Much more healthy for the economy too. More stuff need to be replaced -) So much this... Asset protection... If we bash a tower we wants the shinies Although I am curious: These new Citadels, they state everyone inside the station is podded...So what happens if you take an extended period of time away from Eve, but you are logged out in one of these? Are you also podded along with everyone else or does it not work like that / have I misunderstood?? Cannot attend personally I am afraid... Quoted from Doc Fury: "Concerned citizens: Doc seldom plays EVE on the weekends during spring and summer, so you will always be on your own for a couple days a week. Doc spends that time collecting kittens for the on-going sacrifices, engaging in reckless outdoor activities, and speaking in the 3rd person."
Scott Ormands The Desolate Order Brave Collective 55	Posted - 2015.08.15 23:14:04 - [52] - Quote I am interested if possible.
Ibn Khatab Bittervets Inc. 3	Posted - 2015.08.16 00:57:06 - [53] - Quote I would love the opportunity to attend this conversation.
Ruffio Sepico Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 76	Posted - 2015.08.16 08:18:09 - [54] - Quote Seraph Essael wrote: Ruffio Sepico wrote: corbexx wrote: Braxus Deninard wrote: Signing up for the structure soundboard as well. I enjoy a lot of these changes but think the asset safety is a significant concern in w-space. asset safety is up for discussion in w space. It should be up for discussion for all space imho. Double standards just for wh space is silly. Magic loot fairy protection based on what part of space you live in is not very eve-like... It would just encourage more players to go null (or other places) rather than wspace. Just let it all blow up for purdy kill mails and put the loot fairy to sleep. Much more healthy for the economy too. More stuff need to be replaced -) So much this... Asset protection... If we bash a tower we wants the shinies I rather it all blow up and you get a nice kill mail + whatever mats/resources those citadels will drop as default. More healthy for the economy. Then hitting on players would be more based on do it to get pvp, rather than just do it to get "shinies"
GizzyBoy Aperture Harmonics K162 180	Posted - 2015.08.16 09:18:18 - [55] - Quote From twitter. Doc containing questions and answers relating to the new structures. Its worth reading answers most questions. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mEbMx9xUXje3KH4AppvcjSSoALUVtVEaK6ZZ-zy2Lrs/edit
Amak Boma Dragon Factory 140	Posted - 2015.08.16 16:19:40 - [56] - Quote any ETA when they will be available to play with?
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 201	Posted - 2015.08.16 19:17:43 - [57] - Quote Last thing about time i read was before the end of the year. 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.
Pendico Novus Spiritus Novus Dominatum 2	Posted - 2015.08.16 20:42:25 - [58] - Quote X-ing up for the townhall meeting.
Ilaister Isogen 5 232	Posted - 2015.08.17 08:21:13 - [59] - Quote RSVPing incase of noshows.
Ilaister Isogen 5 232	Posted - 2015.08.17 08:31:07 - [60] - Quote Obil Que wrote: This could have a very chilling effect on smaller groups as they see themselves attacked for no other reason than they are in an open vulnerable window. Today's POS EHP wall prevents most casual attack of towers other than very poorly fit defenses. You imply that a group belongs in wspace if they cannot protect their assets. This has never been the case. You fail to recognise that it works both ways, if your small group wants, it can go do the same to other small groups = way more fun than AFK gasmining. Way better for our environment than those that turtle up and log off as soon as a non-purple shows up in chain. Granted 0.0 is different, they know their neighbours etc. but casually wanding any vulnerable structure is already a thing out there. It's not a specific Wspace issue. Wormholes go there too (just in smaller numbers than we're used to ) We are all telling nullbears to HTFU and live in their space if they want to keep it. Same applies to us.
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1396	Posted - 2015.08.17 09:24:14 - [61] - Quote Owing to the amount of people who have posted I'm going to have to limit it to 2 per alliance, So if SSC, HK and Isogen5 can let me know which 2 people they want to attend that would be sweet. Apologies again to SSC and TDSIN, for having to cancel last night due to over running, we'll sort it out for another time so don't worry. I'll send mails out tomorrow lunch time with all the details please when you do come on ts, make sure you use the name you posted on this thread with. Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Necharo Rackham The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 61	Posted - 2015.08.17 11:35:39 - [62] - Quote I would be interested in attending also.
Chunky Lafunga Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 9	Posted - 2015.08.17 11:38:38 - [63] - Quote I too, would be interested in attending this. "Why am I fighting to live... If im just living to fight"
GizzyBoy Aperture Harmonics K162 180	Posted - 2015.08.17 12:34:13 - [64] - Quote will try to attend for K162,
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1236	Posted - 2015.08.17 13:19:23 - [65] - Quote I'd like to check in as representative for c4/5 farm-holes.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2697	Posted - 2015.08.18 00:06:54 - [66] - Quote Ilaister wrote: Obil Que wrote: This could have a very chilling effect on smaller groups as they see themselves attacked for no other reason than they are in an open vulnerable window. Today's POS EHP wall prevents most casual attack of towers other than very poorly fit defenses. You imply that a group belongs in wspace if they cannot protect their assets. This has never been the case. As I pointed out in my blog, and in a rant on the Devblog comments, what you have now is a system where one guy can protect himself against basically anyone just by paying some ISK. ie; they spend money on a large tower (250M), some utility (140M), some hardeners (24M) and a buttload of guns (240M+) and as long as they don't leave gaping holes in the resists, or ECM, or DPS profiles, that one guy corp can effectively deter whole alliances worth of foes. That's just the system people are used to, and while it has problems, no it does not require any form of defence whatsoever. You can sit in your POS, even if you can't man the guns, and the POS defends you from your own ineptitude. Does this have to change? Arguably, yes. It is utterly ridiculous that oe guy can via the magic of buying from the market, fend off all manner of attacks, in all space. EHP walls be damned, this is about automatic defences. I hate the cowardly, mouthy little twits who scuttle back to POS and log off. I would love to be able to use my magic laser pointer / space wand for 30 minutes while he's sitting in his Citadel and put a timer on the field. But I don't think it's well thought out that a) I can do it with total impunity because of automated defences or b) if the defences were automated I couldn't do it because Entosis prevents RR and Citadels are going to have hilarious DPS no doubt That's the crux of the problem. Trolling will happen to all manner of people, and yes it's likely small groups / solo bears / smallholding farmers will be evicted quite easily. But it's also likely that a manned Citadel will become a massive headache. I want to see the numbers. We're going toward a system based around sov entosis where the attacking ship has no ability to receive RR, and we're putting POS guns on the field. So how is this going to be balanced? The current system has its problems. They are, viz. 1) EHP walls are probably too big 2) People can anchor infinite guns around a POS. You can even online extra guns when the POS is crippled! 3) The POS can have DPS which is balanced against threatening an attacking dread; this then threatens subcaps and puts a minimum size of an attacking force onto the field (see elsewhere for remedy to this :) 4) POSs can have literally insane amounts of EWAR. Like....crazy 5) POSs require no active interaction to protect; they self-protect All up, this is the biggest force multiplier in the game. it is broken insofaras it multiplies a force of zero up to being equivalent with, oh, I dunno, 50-60+ people if you set your POS up right. Here's my POS setup. Note ALL are ONLINE. Yes. Online. 10 Faction Large Pulses (4400 DPS) 4 Faction Webs 4 Dissys 8 ECMs 80 Sensor damps. EIGHTY. 25% minimum resist panel SMA, CHA it will defend itself against....well, you guys are welcome to figure out what. The fact we'd be around to take advantage of the 120M EHP of sensor damps you haven't RFed by the time we wake up, well, thats a problem for you. But equally possible is that one dude playing solo by himself can build this POS and deploy it (takes a day...) and literally no one an attack it or will attack it. Turn this into the Citadel, and the problems are gone. Kinda. 1) Zero EHP! Whee, you don't need a single gun. 2) Eight guns. Whee! 3) DPS is currently flapping in the breeze. But it has zero automated guns. The corrollary is, as soon as the guns are manned, its suicide to be an Entosis link ship because you can't get RR. Could result in incredibly short-lived sieges. 4) TBA on the EWAR, but lets assume it's not 80 damps worth. Solved? 5) Whee! If people aren't around, you get to trample their stuff with impunity. So you're kinda solved the problems, but now they are just new problems. Viz; 1) If it's not vulnerable, it's not vulnerable. Full stop. No game can be played, no content can be generated. You must walk away. Currently, you can attack a POS off-TZ in order to take advantage of a lack of defences, an AFK defender, or to put a timer on the field that suits you. No more. bad. 2) If it is vulnerable, it is vulnerable to anyone pending this trollceptor problem CCP is aware of and has magic fix for. Really? 3) Link ships are totally vulnerable to a Citadel with active guns, due to no inbound reps. Right now, no idea on whether guns can be KO'ed. 4) If guns can be KO'ed and don't shoot back...well, you see where I'm going here (hint: every siege ever done in w-space was from badly set up POSs which don't shoot back). This is also stupid. The question is, are these new problems of trollceptrs attacking POSs that don't shoot back better than EHP walls? At the end of the day, I would be in favour of Citadels having automated guns you can knock out. Less of them, far far less of them, and none you can anchor around in case of rainy day. Make them degradable. Make them repairable (with truckloads of nanite?) even in RF, not replaceable. This puts onto the table a deterrence from trollceptors, even if the defender is AFk. You have to reduce the Citadel defences with guns, a fleet, and logi just like now. Once gone, deploy the link ship, get the timer on the field. The defender can then spend a bunch of nanites repping the guns for the final push / defence. Expensive, but that's your problem for being AFK and/or being a mouthy twit. You can then defend your POS at the timer, using your guns and a link ship. Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
GizzyBoy Aperture Harmonics K162 180	Posted - 2015.08.18 01:26:51 - [67] - Quote first you need a reason to even rage camp some ones system, our bar used to be pretty low, now its comparatively high because of the effort involved, both for logistics and hole control people wont stop scuttling to where ever either warping some where and cloaking and waiting out there timer before safe logging or other types of tricks to evade pvp. in regards to links ships, you can land with 4-5 tornado's and get 2 volleys in before warping when they will typically pop, we have tried it many times, some successful some failed because they either warped or ducked back into shields.
Necharo Rackham The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 61	Posted - 2015.08.18 09:47:26 - [68] - Quote GizzyBoy wrote: in regards to links ships, you can land with 4-5 tornado's and get 2 volleys in before warping when they will typically pop, we have tried it many times, some successful some failed because they either warped or ducked back into shields. I believe the reference was to a ship with an entosis (rather than warfare) link.
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1396	Posted - 2015.08.18 11:15:49 - [69] - Quote closing this now as we are super full. I still need to hear from hk and ssc on who they want to go we're more than I wanted tbh so people will have to be on best behavor. if people cause issues i'll just kick them. There will be no need to record this we'll sort 2 people to do that and put it on sound cloud for everyone to listen to. mails will be going out in next hour or so. Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Rek Seven The Scope Gallente Federation 1986	Posted - 2015.08.18 11:41:38 - [70] - Quote I speak for HK You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 780	Posted - 2015.08.18 12:13:50 - [71] - Quote corbexx wrote: I still need to hear from hk and ssc on who they want to go cant we just pick the two most competent among us who are online at the time? (ie. almost certainly not me) SSC Brokering Service
Winthorp 3622	Posted - 2015.08.18 12:27:24 - [72] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: cant we just pick the two most competent among us? Two you say... I am Winthorp, you might remember me from such films as "Winthorp is to blame for permanent signature ID's". Please note i don't engage in any meaningful discussion with NPC alts, nut up or shut up...
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1396	Posted - 2015.08.18 12:27:25 - [73] - Quote i'd really rather not i'm trying to keep stuff as simple as possible. If we do that then everyone will want to do taht and its going to make it a huge pain in the ******* arse for me to keep track of. Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2932	Posted - 2015.08.18 18:30:00 - [74] - Quote Meeting is over, watch this space for the soundcloud link an an hour or so Initial impressions? Holy cow, this was a respectful and adult conversation . . . . I was knocked out. m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Aladar Dangerface 13. Enigma Project 214	Posted - 2015.08.18 18:45:36 - [75] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Meeting is over, watch this space for the soundcloud link an an hour or so Initial impressions? Holy cow, this was a respectful and adult conversation . . . . I was knocked out. m Wh culture and null culture are very different and is the reason most of us stay in Whs. I don't need twitter. I'm already following you.
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 281	Posted - 2015.08.18 19:04:21 - [76] - Quote When is the HS sounding board?
Niamh Aldreheim Dropbears Anonymous Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2015.08.18 19:08:08 - [77] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: When is the HS sounding board? Speak to your CSM rep(s) to organize one!
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2932	Posted - 2015.08.18 19:12:29 - [78] - Quote https://soundcloud.com/mike-azariah/structruechatt there ya go m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
corbexx GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1396	Posted - 2015.08.18 19:16:16 - [79] - Quote Thanks very much to everyone who attended, apolgies to people I had to turn down. I won't lie after the last one I was very concerned. Its one of the reasons I was so strick and wanted to limit numbers. As it was my 15 to 20 turned in to 35 even after limiting it and having to turn people away on the day. Everyone was fantastically well behaved, Better than i could have dreamed of. So I really appreciate that. I'll also hopefully allow more people next time. CCP found this constructive. Once the sound cloud is out we'll have it here and also put it on confluence so the rest of the dev team can listen to it. thanks again. edit holy **** mikes got it up already Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 281	Posted - 2015.08.18 19:43:55 - [80] - Quote Niamh Aldreheim wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: When is the HS sounding board? Speak to your CSM rep(s) to organize one! Do we have one?
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 780	Posted - 2015.08.18 20:42:18 - [81] - Quote Regarding the personal hangar security issue mentioned in the chat, proposed solution was that members could tick a box saying "im ok with directors having access to my personal hangar." Imho this should rather be like the current friendly fire option for corps, so the box gets ticked by the CEO and has a timer. So it is "if you join this corp, directors will have access to your personal hangar in citadels." The trashing could be another box, per citadel, ie. "this citadel does not allow trashing" etc. SSC Brokering Service
Tyrant Scorn 194	Posted - 2015.08.18 20:53:23 - [82] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: https://soundcloud.com/mike-azariah/structruechatt there ya go m Thank you Mike, could you make it available for Download, currently only able to listen on Soundcloud itself. I like to put it on my iphone to listen to it at work. Legacy Of A Capsuleer Podcast Eve Online Hold 'Em \| EveTimeCode.com \| GameTimeZone.com
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2936	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:21:08 - [83] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Niamh Aldreheim wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: When is the HS sounding board? Speak to your CSM rep(s) to organize one! Do we have one? /me waves Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2936	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:25:50 - [84] - Quote Tyrant Scorn wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: https://soundcloud.com/mike-azariah/structruechatt there ya go m Thank you Mike, could you make it available for Download, currently only able to listen on Soundcloud itself. I like to put it on my iphone to listen to it at work. sorry, I always forget to do that done m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Tyrant Scorn 194	Posted - 2015.08.18 21:33:17 - [85] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Tyrant Scorn wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: https://soundcloud.com/mike-azariah/structruechatt there ya go m Thank you Mike, could you make it available for Download, currently only able to listen on Soundcloud itself. I like to put it on my iphone to listen to it at work. sorry, I always forget to do that done m Thank you ! Legacy Of A Capsuleer Podcast Eve Online Hold 'Em \| EveTimeCode.com \| GameTimeZone.com
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 1986	Posted - 2015.08.19 09:20:19 - [86] - Quote 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. You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
Winthorp 3622	Posted - 2015.08.19 11:49:21 - [87] - Quote I just listened this and am glad Corbexx limited numbers somewhat, it made for easy listening with less neckbeards talking over each other with stupid questions that have been answered many times. I liked hearing that loveable brits (Ilaister) helpful voice and Noobman had some very good discussion points that got discussed. All in all it was a good that CCP Nullabor seemed very willing to listen to our needs. This wasn't my experience with discussions with him previously so i just hope his understanding in this sounding board translates into a much wiser devblog or two coming soon. I found one point odd that people were so happy to still allow people continuing access to their ships/stuff going forward even if it was directors. How many times have corps been just ruined from "rouge" directors/spais.... I am Winthorp, you might remember me from such films as "Winthorp is to blame for permanent signature ID's". Please note i don't engage in any meaningful discussion with NPC alts, nut up or shut up...
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 462	Posted - 2015.08.19 13:06:52 - [88] - Quote 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... You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Andrew Jester ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1336	Posted - 2015.08.19 13:39:39 - [89] - Quote Winthorp wrote: I found one point odd that people were so happy to still allow people continuing access to their ships/stuff going forward even if it was directors. How many times have corps been just ruined from "rouge" directors/spais.... stockholm syndrome If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy
Lim Hiaret Hiaret Family 30	Posted - 2015.08.19 13:49:26 - [90] - Quote 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.
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
Kynric Sky Fighters 343	Posted - 2015.08.23 02:45:43 - [121] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: 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? Half safety is better than no safety but I think it still misses the mark. Let's apply a Seldon like approach to the citadel design problem in the context of wormholes (Hari Seldon was a character in Asimov's Foundation who believed that while the future actions of an individual are unpreductable the cumlative actions of a group can be predicted, he then set out to create a desired future outcome.) For me the desired outcome is that our space be a vibrant active place with lots of ships moving about. I want to find people in my chains rather than just emptiness. Perhaps others desired end conditions are different but this is the outcome I desire. To get the active space we need for it to be an acceptable combination of reward and safety when compared to other options. If it does not meet that standard the majority will find some other niche that does. Wormholes are not terrible on the rewards but there are other competituve options, as such they cant be substantially less safe than those other lifestyles. It would be one thing to advocate for a lack of asset safety game wide (and that is something I could get behind) but quite another to encourage it only in one area (unless the goal is to have a lower population in that area.) We need pilots to feel safe enough to live in the space and trust their possesions to the citadels lest our space be reduced to daytrippers and emptiness. The alternative approaches of living in an npc station and diving wormholes or living light and logging everything of value off will be common if the safety is too little and those are not consistent with the desired outcome of a vibrant active space.
Kynric Sky Fighters 343	Posted - 2015.08.24 02:44:31 - [122] - Quote The full asset safety with a large portion of the salvage fee going to the bashers seemed like a good suggestion. It provides an immediate cash reward while not elevating the risk substantially above what is encountered in other spaces.
Anize Oramara The Arch Dashing Dashers 323	Posted - 2015.08.24 10:48:47 - [123] - Quote Considering that the more industrious WH corps can afford to run and gun with rather expensive ships, having the full safety would be an interesting isk sink (paying to recover the expensive items) and would allow a more fluid gameplay in WHs without punishing the residents themselves too hard. I'd even be up for having the recover cost be 1.5x or even 2x the cost in null. and even have a base (1x) reovery charge when a citadel is rebuilt in the same system. These are wormholes after all.
GizzyBoy Aperture Harmonics K162 182	Posted - 2015.08.24 13:47:33 - [124] - Quote Its kind of tragic people are more worried about how the theoretical loot drops, something will drop/be destroyed a enemy inconvenienced, how much or little can be changed comparatively easily I more concerned with if the mechanics of deployment, physical size, build cost and if the fuelling methods will be easier or worse than things are now. There's some critical issues I've seen that crop up in null that will now become a wh problem too, Id like to know how they can be resolved. While loot drops are a thing we like to have happen, when you sit down and think logically of other things that could happen loot drops will be the lest of the potential problems that could come up.
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 201	Posted - 2015.08.25 05:42:56 - [125] - Quote What is the worrie about the physical size they released the sizes already? Fueling will be only for services, probably with some form of fuel block. Loot drops and asset destruction are important because with the current 10% only loss(unless you are an industrialist , then you lose all your buildjobs minus bpo) why would anybody even bother to defend? It will be cheaper just to pay up the 10% and wait it out. Also the cycle of destruction is broken because the goods magicly reapear. Basicly the asset safety makes that less items will be needed to be build by industrialists and less fights . Because it is cheaper to just not defend if one of the big alliances(or a bigger one then you) comes knocking on your door... . And it is not like we have many points of conflict already in w-space, why do you guys want to remove an other one? And industialist basicly all need to change over their production to citadels and their rigs and weapons because less ships and modules will get destroyed in pos bashes. I can understand the need for asset safety in k-space only in the XL citadels, the M and L's also should not have asset safety in k-space. No local in null sec would fix everything! Fleet warp proposal = the rubix cube is back into eve especialy the second part of the saying. Wh players need to adapt, null sec players get the rules changed.
Bleedingthrough 189	Posted - 2015.09.01 01:55:44 - [126] - Quote I was very pleased with the round table, a civilized exchange of ideas. However, the citadels will be bad if the fundamental problems with the entosis mechanics are not being solved. These problems are 1. You have to commit nothing of value to potentially threaten someoneGÇÖs very existence in w-space. This will lead to lot of frustration for smaller and more casual groups in lower class WHs (and farming alt corps in C5+ class WHs.) I brought this up during the round table: ATM these groups are rather safe behind their automated guns and hitpoint barrier and this is a good thing. The entosis mechanic will totally change the risk vs. reward balance for subcap holes and they will become just as vulnerable as capital holes. Do you acknowledge that there is a problem? 2. If people actually camp a WH for half a week (or how long it will take) they at least want a killmail for their trouble and they want to shoot stuff. Hacking is cool to turn services/hardeners etc. offline but really is not what people want as a method of structure destruction. 3. To generate content there has to be something on the field worth killing, e.g. dreads or a sizeable subcap fleet. With this mechanic I donGÇÖt see why a smart attacker should commit/field more than the bare minimum to get the job done. There is no gain to have more on the field. Will we see a few 4km/s scimmies chasing a few 4km/s cruisers with the real fleet hidden somewhere and not at risk? A partial solution could be 1. Phase: Control the field In order to lower a Citadels defenses you need to win the entosis war. This will turn off hardeners, shield extenders, services etc.. 2. Phase: Expose something worth killing Only with hardeners/shield extenders turned offline you can grind through the citadels hitpoints and RF or destroy it.
Samsara Nolte Random Thinking Union Random Thinking 24	Posted - 2015.09.05 07:51:22 - [127] - Quote Kynric wrote: 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 gold 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 getting the bulky low value stuff (wow this pos had some PI goo and an epithal) without a fight or providing some asset safety and getting a fight. How much do we value the fights? The great the risk the more risk averse the behavior will be. This is an opportunity to make something better than what we have now yet our kneejerk 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 which 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 crush them 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 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 yet is also active and vibrant; the humans at the keyboard wont likely react that way. I think not having asset safety anywhere is interesting but having it everywhere except one spot is terrible. The desired outcome of "ships in space" requires some safety otherwise our land will be populated only by day trippers and those who bring little and log everything off. So true - assets safety everywhere except in w-space spells disaster for the health of it. CCP has in my opinion two choices eihter destroy w-space for every small entity and therefore in the longrun for everybody or by introducing no asset safety for us or give us similar asset safety measueres as everywhere else hoping that this might at least stop the decline of the number of people living there.
Jezza McWaffle Isogen 5 243	Posted - 2015.09.05 12:20:38 - [128] - Quote I disagree, if you take a look at the new mechanics with these structures it will still be fairly easy to keep your assets safe. 1. You can have multiple of these structures just like POS's and they can be of varying sizes so it will take multiple entosis ships and potentially fleets to put the structures into the initial reinforcement. 2. The structures have several stages of reinforcement, meaning an attacker has to fully deploy to the system which in the case of higher class holes will also mean their own caps to counter the defending structures. 3. The vulnerability times are player set throughout the week, meaning with multiple structures it will be incredibly easy to have the different structures set to come out during different points (both time zones and days), therefore anyone actually wanting to evict or destroy you will have to fully commit, if you set your structures to be vulnerable at the same time then your too blame for lack of strategic thinking. 4. The defenses of the structure when actively manned or whatever will be a much stronger force multiplier against hostile forces than the existing POS defenses. And since you only need to defend your structure during your set vulnerability times then their defense utility is massively increase. At the end of the day if someone wants to attempt to reinforce your structure but are not going to commit to the system they will be able to, however if your smart then either they will fail in their attempt or it won't matter anyway, because multiple structures with varied vulnerability times. And if someone wants to evict you they will require superior force (or planning) and commitment to take multiple structures, with multiple reinforcement times, over multiple days potentially weeks. Take a look at my startup C5 PvP WH corp adventures, we are recruiting
Samsara Nolte Random Thinking Union Random Thinking 24	Posted - 2015.09.06 00:28:10 - [129] - Quote well i strongly disagree with you - as pointed out before in the POS system you needed a considerable force and time to just reinforce a structure, so you wouldn-¦t have done that just for the lulz instead you would have done that for an agenda in most cases eviction-¦s. In the system the bar for reinforcing a structure if you happen to be around when it is vulnerable is far too low. Some simple example why this is a bad idea. You only need to be more at the time GÇô there is nothing that a small corp for example living in a c3 can do against one of the bigger c5 corps who decided to just reinforce a structure of said c3 corp to see what happens. The c3 corp, given they know what they do, will realize that undocking is suicide considering station games are gonna be a no go. So they have to watch, even if online, how their structures (or one of their structure depending on their timers) are gonna get reinforced. The big corp is gonna leave after nothing happened GÇô because they never intended to go through with their pretended eviction leaving the c3 corp with a reinforced structure. So and what then happens every one living in w-space is gonna know GÇô Everybody who sees this reinforced timer as long as it persist knows that there is gonna happen something. If not you make it happen. So with a little bad luck the c3 is gonna have another large c5 corp in their chain they see it and they will go for it GÇô again giving the c3 corp no chance of defending their assets. Well if you ask me that sounds like a incredible fun mechanic for every small corp in w-space. - Sarcasm Most have barely enough players to reach an activity niveau which allows them to come by GÇô they certainly won-¦t have enough to protect their structure in different timezones GÇô especially since most w-space corps live all in the same. And considering the fact that the citadels are gonna be Force multipliers GÇô you need to be aware that before something can be multiplied you need to have a force. And which c3 corp has a force that even multiplied would stand a chance against a c5 corp ? I, for my part, don-¦t know of one. I can understand that if you are a big pvp corp the changes are gonna be great GÇô you will be able with minimal effort if you happen to stumbel upon vulnerable structures to force a fight out of the inhabitants or they have to deal with a reinforced timer which is bad in null the worst in wormholespace. But you shpul knwo not everybody especially living in w-space is having a 200 member corp backing him. (most of us are here to be not just another number) So you are right if someone is intending to evict you, you can be a pain in the ass by very strange vulnerabilty times GÇô but i doubt that it is gonna alter the outcome.
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle 202	Posted - 2015.09.06 17:56:37 - [130] - Quote You are quite wrong samsara. If a big wh corps wants to evict a smaller one, it will happen no mater what , even today. I have even been in a few posh bashes with only 5 people (small pos, no hardners,... )wich were just for fun(nothing else in chain). Have you even read the dev blogs? If you undock you are protected untill you do an agressive act or warp away. You seem to forget that the new structures have defenses , defenses wich should be able to easly kill a force of 2-3 ships. And have you seen the time on a Medium citadel ? Only 6 hours of vulnarability a week, so 6 days of an hour or 3 days of 2 hours, or 1 day of 6 hours, ... . Wich you even can organise and put in wich times a week it is. And the worst part for an attacker is that he has no control over when the next fase is... . Evictions will take more then a week if you time the vulnarability correct... . If you are less then 6 hours a week online should you be in a wh with assets? Big corps/alliances will still be able to stomp smaller ones as is now, why should that change? The thing is with the asset safety there is no reason to do it. Every small corp , and even pve-only corps/alliances that get a citadel reinforced will just pay the 10% "Please no pvp for me" tax and there won't be any content. The attackers get nothing of note, one dude gets a killmail and that is it. Even c6 evictions it would make it cheaper just to pay the "no pvp" tax and come back after a few weeks. If a c6 pve-only corp has 100 bil in stuff in their citadel and the big blue blob comes in to evict, it would be cheaper to pay the 10% no pvp tax then to actualy call someone in to defend. They will log off and come back next month... . What do the attackers get, salvage frome the guns and citadel? Now does that lead to more content or less? Also, t is even worse for small wh's safety, how would you know there isn't a complete fitted fleet in asset safety in that wormhole? Imagine to wake up and have 50 dudes coming in by frigate wh's in pods, droping their replacement citadel and go after you with a complete t3 fleet... . You guys seem to forget that killing a pos is one of the few content things that we have. There is no ihub or stations to take over, no system upgrades to defend, .... . Why else would people bat phone for if not posh bashes? I even would say that in k-space in null it should be like most of the wh people want , you lose as much as you lose now in a pos. It should drop stuff the same way the pos does now. So that attackers who put a fleet at risk even have a incentive to get something out of it. No asset safety at all. I want to make exceptions for XL citadel because of the impact they have on null replaceing the stations. 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.
Samsara Nolte Random Thinking Union Random Thinking 26	Posted - 2015.09.06 18:32:36 - [131] - Quote I read the dev blog and listened to the the soundboard - and in it there was the argument that it is impossible for an attacker to hold hole control for as long as a week, which could have been a possibility as you and those who attended the sounding board noticed - this was even brought up and the dev asked if 48h for reinforment timer would suffice and the attendess agreed - so if i have not misunderstood thi completly there is a very high chance that somehting along the lines the timer aren-¦t allowed to be more than 48h apart is gonna be implemented invalidating your statement. and yes you are moored if you undock - i know that so what is your point, i stated nothing disregarding that fact. and you are right every big corp will still be able to evict you if they want to - but that was never my point nor is my intention to remove this mechanic i-¦m aware that this a major content driver for us. What im getting at - this mechanic is playing out completly different than everywhere else than in w-space those starting a reinforce timer, to force some kind of reaction from the ones living there, will be seldom the ones ending it - what is not so in most cases in w-space. So what might be okay in k-space because only your neighbours are gonna be involved in the fight and you choose to live next them for whatever reason is gonna be a completly different matter in w-space what i tried to explain in length in my last post. And this whole thing is also not about the length of time you might have to citasit your citadel. it is about the fact than i longer can choose to not fight someone, when my structure is vulnerable. If a big is rolling into some smaller and they are sick of rolling their hole they are gonna start to reinforce my Citadel and force me to fight - and this is gonna happen a lot - tell me under the POS system how often have you started to reinforce for example of a c3 corp just because they didn-¦t wanna fight a 200 mann corp. and didn-¦t wanna get gankend by a blob of 30 T3-¦s I-¦m fairly cerain this hasn-¦t happened at all. especially if it was a large POS. Now this is going to be the thing ! And under such pretenses and the fact that everywhere else my assets are gonna be protected by asset safety by if you ask me considerably higher risks i stated above - why would anybody choose not already living in w-space wanna live here ? (especially as member of a small corp) i for one have no idea - what this change is also gonna promote next to a lot of people moving out are fusion-¦s of corps and the big groups getting even bigger because those atm being in a medium to mid sized w-corp not wanting to leave w-space are gonna join them. Escalating this stated problem even further.
Sha lia Abteilung-8 Random Thinking 3	Posted - 2015.09.06 18:44:53 - [132] - Quote unimatrix0030 wrote: You are quite wrong samsara. If a big wh corps wants to evict a smaller one, it will happen no mater what , even today. I have even been in a few posh bashes with only 5 people (small pos, no hardners,... )wich were just for fun(nothing else in chain). Have you even read the dev blogs? If you undock you are protected untill you do an agressive act or warp away. You seem to forget that the new structures have defenses , defenses wich should be able to easly kill a force of 2-3 ships. And have you seen the time on a Medium citadel ? Only 6 hours of vulnarability a week, so 6 days of an hour or 3 days of 2 hours, or 1 day of 6 hours, ... . Wich you even can organise and put in wich times a week it is. And the worst part for an attacker is that he has no control over when the next fase is... . Evictions will take more then a week if you time the vulnarability correct... . If you are less then 6 hours a week online should you be in a wh with assets? Big corps/alliances will still be able to stomp smaller ones as is now, why should that change? The thing is with the asset safety there is no reason to do it. Every small corp , and even pve-only corps/alliances that get a citadel reinforced will just pay the 10% "Please no pvp for me" tax and there won't be any content. The attackers get nothing of note, one dude gets a killmail and that is it. Even c6 evictions it would make it cheaper just to pay the "no pvp" tax and come back after a few weeks. If a c6 pve-only corp has 100 bil in stuff in their citadel and the big blue blob comes in to evict, it would be cheaper to pay the 10% no pvp tax then to actualy call someone in to defend. They will log off and come back next month... . What do the attackers get, salvage frome the guns and citadel? Now does that lead to more content or less? Also, t is even worse for small wh's safety, how would you know there isn't a complete fitted fleet in asset safety in that wormhole? Imagine to wake up and have 50 dudes coming in by frigate wh's in pods, droping their replacement citadel and go after you with a complete t3 fleet... . You guys seem to forget that killing a pos is one of the few content things that we have. There is no ihub or stations to take over, no system upgrades to defend, .... . Why else would people bat phone for if not posh bashes? I even would say that in k-space in null it should be like most of the wh people want , you lose as much as you lose now in a pos. It should drop stuff the same way the pos does now. So that attackers who put a fleet at risk even have a incentive to get something out of it. No asset safety at all. I want to make exceptions for XL citadel because of the impact they have on null replaceing the stations. So you really think with 0 asset saftey you will have content? What stops me, from loading all stuff in a carrier, undock, do a safety logoff, in mooring and sit you out? Like kynric explained, even this is for lowclass wh space an opportunity, that is most likely not coming. Because why should someone risk all, when he just need a const. to scan and daytrip in wh space, which isn`t changing the live of lowclass whlers so much because they live out of their static. And yes i dont want the asset safety, which is explained in the devblog because as you said its ridiculous, but what you ignor, is the fact, that for the effort you need to destroy the structure, the salvage and so on (see devblog what drops) is propably a fair amount of loot that you get depending on how much these structures will cost.

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.