EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Citadels, sieges and you v2

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Citadels, sieges and you v2

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 186	Posted - 2015.09.17 16:27:53 - [1] - Quote Quote: Entosis links are not going to work on new structures <3 Ytterbium
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 186	Posted - 2015.09.18 12:38:16 - [2] - Quote Game of Drones wrote: Damage mitigation Now that you've vocalized the problem - we can work on the solution. First of all, this iteration is infinitely better than the previous. But still not perfect. The proposed solution is a very straight-forward one, and it has a huge drawback - it's hard limit. I'm strongly against hard limits, as they leave little to no room for inventive emerging gameplay, which is a hallmark of EVE. Furthermore, they set strong mental anchors - in this case, for fleet size and composition. Enthosis links are the opposite pole, providing virtually no restrictions for fleets (so ~fleet~ often degrades to a single trollceptor). I believe that the optimal solution, as it usually happens, is somewhere in-between. So lets set a soft limit instead, shall we? There is a very interesting and promising (yet half-baked) ship module, that was once invented to solve the same problem of blob warfare. It's called Target Spectrum Breaker. If we tweak it and build it into Citadels - that's be great. I have an immediate example how this can be more interesting than static DPS limit. Let's suppose attackers bring a moderate number of dreads to shoot a Citadel - their target lock is not often lost. Defenders form up and land on grid. As this is a rage-formup, their fleet is inferior and they cannot defeat attackers right away. But they can "jam" dreads by getting more target locks on Citadel! Thus, they force attackers to react to their skirmishes instead of just grinding the structure. Fun times!
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 187	Posted - 2015.09.19 06:54:30 - [3] - Quote Thron Legacy wrote: Gabriel Karade wrote: I really like the 'built-in Target Spectrum Breaker' idea of Skia Aumer, soft cap as opposed to hard cap, and can be implemented using something already in game (though would need some tweaking I think). so you feel safe in your m-class citadel cause it got ecm suddenly marauders Target Spectrum Breaker is not ECM and it affects marauders, dreads and supers.
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 187	Posted - 2015.09.21 08:13:49 - [4] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: That's what I am saying - it is too boring to kill a large POS in highsec and so people mostly don't do it. These XLs are 10 times worse. No one will ever try to kill them. Large POS costs like 300 mil. XL Citadel costs like 30 to 100 bil. That's a huge difference. It's something like killing a mothership or a titan. When you tackle those - hundreds of players will run as fast as they can to score a kill. And citadels are already ~tackled~. So if anything, I think the risk is still too high, but at least it's far better than it was in enthosis version. And complains about things being safer in highsec, seriously? It's designed to be safer.
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 187	Posted - 2015.09.21 11:08:05 - [5] - Quote I think he's trolling us. A Talos can sport as much as 1400 DPS with T2 fit. I've seen a single person mining with 20 Mackinaws, so I assume there is a person who can field 20 Taloses too. It'll take him a little over an hour to reinforce XL. The same miner can easily mine 3 hours straight, so 1 hour is nothing. Case closed.
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance 189	Posted - 2015.09.21 16:57:41 - [6] - Quote Absent Sworn wrote: This wasn't clear to me, but if only 1+ damage is required to pause the repair timer that is probably easily exploitable. This is a point of my concern too. A Trollibis(tm) making some minuscule damage can keep you awake all night long. This is bullcrap. Dont get me wrong, I'm really happy to see the victory condition for attacker as "do a lot but moderate DPS". But the victory condition for defender being "sustain zero DPS over some time" will just not work. I agree that remote reps are a potential cancer so we better keep them out of equation. Maybe we can get use of entosis link here? For example, defender wins if vulnerability window lapses - but attacker can keep the window open as long as there is at least one entosis active.

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.