Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
6065
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:14:15 -
[1] - Quote
After great and very useful feedback from you, the player community, we are excited to bring you an update about the new Citadel structures!
Entosis links are not going to work on new structures, to attack those new structures you need to go through their hitpoints. To prevent boring structure grinding, and to prevent the requirement for massive blobs, a new game mechanic that mitigates damage after a certain threshold has been introduced. The attack process has been streamlined as well.
Read more about those new aspects in the latest dev blog from Team Game of Drones (written by CCP Ytterbium): Citadels, Sieges and You v2
We welcome your feedback! Please note that all numbers and proposals are open for discussions and not finalized.
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4059
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:19:59 -
[2] - Quote
We also would like to thank the Art guys for allowing us to put their work in progress concepts into the blog. |
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1434
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:20:18 -
[3] - Quote
My name is CCP Nullarbor and I'm waaay too slow at claiming first reply on my team's blog.
- Signed, CCP Ytterbium
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
drunklies
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:26:05 -
[4] - Quote
CCP - this blog gives me hope, for the first time in far too long. Keep it up. |
Cobat Marland
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:28:54 -
[5] - Quote
I'm unironically looking forward to shooting these structures
Is it safe to assume they can be hit with fighterbombers along with guns? |
drunklies
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:31:03 -
[6] - Quote
Cobat Marland wrote:I'm unironically looking forward to shooting these structures
Is it safe to assume they can be hit with fighterbombers along with guns?
Super's are absent from the damage tables, command ships confirmed. Though a super does approx the same potential dps as a well fit dread, so use that as your metric for now |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1971
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:31:11 -
[7] - Quote
Good stuff -- I'm really glad to see communication lines staying as open as they have been. DPS caps are an interesting mechanic, and one we've often seen floated (casually) for other stuff too. Looking forward to the next devblogs on structures!
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
121
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:38:57 -
[8] - Quote
Definitely looking forward to these. |
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
942
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:39:06 -
[9] - Quote
so it'll take 30mins to reinforce a med citidel? ... but you have to do it 3 times....?
No Worries
|
Wibla
Tactical Narcotics Team
164
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:39:45 -
[10] - Quote
This looks promising. |
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1710
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:40:16 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:We also would like to thank the Art guys for allowing us to put their work in progress concepts into the blog. they seem to get so antsy about wip, yet everyone seems to love seeing it
damage restrictions and vulnerability windows look a little restrictive, but mostly looks good
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
223
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:42:35 -
[12] - Quote
Never let it be said that CCP doesn't listen. These changes look very player-friendly. A new day awaits us capsuleers - a day and era where CCP work with us hand-in-hand to make this game the absolutely best it can be!
Or maybe I'm just too optimistic. Still, this looks good.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Dreekus
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:43:45 -
[13] - Quote
All seems good except one point : Sooo.. if you can't obliterate enemies from grid/system you will eventually loose? (not able to help repair citadel) Enemy shoot 1 hit every 29min 50sec.
Maybe you should add something like min damage required to reset repair timer and/or remote assist modules shorten that timer and/or remote assist modules rise min damage required? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1971
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:45:24 -
[14] - Quote
Also, speaking as someone who has alarm clocked to drop an outpost right before downtime, I am glad to see that (emergent) gameplay go away.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
677
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:46:18 -
[15] - Quote
Very promising indeed, it's great to see so many concerns from the last blog being fully addressed.
|
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
179
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:50:44 -
[16] - Quote
Question: How will the Repair state interact with downtime? Will the timer continue to count down?
For highsec or high-indices nullsec in particular, if the repair timer counts down over downtime we'll be back to structures being deployed right before downtime in an almost entirely riskless manner.
Even for the cases with longer repair timers, extended downtimes happen from time to time and would give easy cover. |
Tobias Frank
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:52:13 -
[17] - Quote
Looks promising!
Also, will we get docking scenes in the new citadels as we have now in stations/outposts when we are docked? Ship spinning is an important feature! |
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Spaceship Bebop
419
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:53:49 -
[18] - Quote
How are you going to prevent a single kiting sniper from applying damage constantly to prolong the repair timer until you have to go to sleep? Ie warp a sniper corm in at range, shoot once, warp off. Repeat this with a single pilot until you have to log off. It's nearly impossible to stop and you have effective control of the grid, but you can never repair your structure since they are taking pot shots at it.
.
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
141
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:57:55 -
[19] - Quote
With Towers requiring fuel before it was very easy to see when a tower was abandoned, it simply went offline and while there was DPS to go through their was no reinforcement state.
Do you have any plans for some sort of abandoned state if a individual or group appears to no longer being using the structure, that won't require the reinforcement cycles? |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1112
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:58:58 -
[20] - Quote
I absolutely love this approach, the damage cap is a great idea. I went from being ugh I don't think I will bother to definitely planning to build one now. Also I don't have to baby sit it too much which is seriously good news, also forcing people to actually scout them is really good too. All in all a first rate job, well done, tres tres bien!!!
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1140
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:59:24 -
[21] - Quote
What are "service modules" - they're referenced in the blog as consuming fuel but without an explanation of whey are. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1275
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 15:59:46 -
[22] - Quote
This is really encouraging, there are probably a lot of happy capital and big fight pilots after seeing this.
(And personally, as a Supercap pilot, I am really pleased to see that capital repairs wont be needed for repairing these structures, even to the point that my relief over that is making me fine with the fact they Supercaps are notable by their absence in the predicted damage charts) |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4060
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:00:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tobias Frank wrote:Looks promising!
Also, will we get docking scenes in the new citadels as we have now in stations/outposts when we are docked? Ship spinning is an important feature!
No docking scene. When you dock, the camera will be centered around the structure instead, so you can now play structure spinning. |
|
TheMercenaryKing
Ultimatum. The Bastion
366
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:00:46 -
[24] - Quote
Couple of thoughts:
Use Entosis Link to disable guns on a Citadel (should they be added) Use Entosis Link to Raise the DPS Mitigation cap. Capital re-balance - Dread damage vs BS+BC and an out of siege damage buff.
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4060
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:01:10 -
[25] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:What are "service modules" - they're referenced in the blog as consuming fuel but without an explanation of whey are.
May want to read this blog if you haven't already. |
|
Sbrodor
Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation
176
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:01:42 -
[26] - Quote
omg. we fall back to the past!
i really dont see the point of difference of the past where 30 super of (choose your name favorite ally) again blobbing at own pleasure player trying to build something with time and effort.
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
231
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:04:47 -
[27] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:How are you going to prevent a single kiting sniper from applying damage constantly to prolong the repair timer until you have to go to sleep? Ie warp a sniper corm in at range, shoot once, warp off. Repeat this with a single pilot until you have to log off. It's nearly impossible to stop and you have effective control of the grid, but you can never repair your structure since they are taking pot shots at it.
I think once its fully Repped your out of luck from how I read it. If it takes no damage in 30 seconds repairs kick in. It takes 15 total minutes to fully repair. So if your kiting ship is not beating its repair rate, as you warp in and out it will have of just repaired itself up. Hence why having Grid control and getting your enemies off is important as quick as possible.
Shoot it once during repair and it stops for 30 seconds. 30 seconds go by and no damage is received in that time repair cycle kicks back in. Kitey ship shoots it again, warps off.. 30 second pause.. DPS doesnt do much of anything to it tho 30 seconds go by and that damage is repped as well as more until the ship lands to shoot it again and then warp off. 30 seconds go by, damage was still negligible so it finished its repair cycle after 15 minutes of self-repair. The repair completed after the vulnerability cycle due to 30 second pauses, and it went back to an Invulnerable state.
Compared to if a fleet was on field shooting it which would keep the repair cycle from restarting and eventually it would get reinforced or chased away.
If reinforced , wash, rinse, repeat x2 more times for armor and Structure.
If chased away and it had time to repair.. wait until next window. |
Barubary Evans
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:07:36 -
[28] - Quote
Quote:If the structure is invulnerable, a timer will be shown counting how much time left before it is vulnerable again Doesn't this completely negate the line in the previous paragraph about having to actually put effort into scouting and infiltrating to know when something will be open to attack?
I would say to not show how long until the structure is vulnerable again, excepting if it's a timer created by damaging it previously. Make people actually do some homework instead of knowing instantly "show up at this time." |
Lord Battlestar
Faulcon de Lazy
215
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:08:27 -
[29] - Quote
I like this idea, as it means dreadnaught pilots like myself actually still have a use, and all that sp doesn't feel like it was wasted.
I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.
|
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12389
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:08:57 -
[30] - Quote
CCp actually listened to player feedback?
Who are you really and what have you done with CCP? |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4060
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:09:30 -
[31] - Quote
Barubary Evans wrote:Quote:If the structure is invulnerable, a timer will be shown counting how much time left before it is vulnerable again Doesn't this completely negate the line in the previous paragraph about having to actually put effort into scouting and infiltrating to know when something will be open to attack? I would say to not show how long until the structure is vulnerable again, excepting if it's a timer created by damaging it previously. Make people actually do some homework instead of knowing instantly "show up at this time."
You still have to scout to get the timer. Full information would be to allow third parties to have full access on how the vulnerability weekly schedule looks like each week, which we won't give. |
|
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
179
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:10:46 -
[32] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:How are you going to prevent a single kiting sniper from applying damage constantly to prolong the repair timer until you have to go to sleep? Ie warp a sniper corm in at range, shoot once, warp off. Repeat this with a single pilot until you have to log off. It's nearly impossible to stop and you have effective control of the grid, but you can never repair your structure since they are taking pot shots at it. I think once its fully Repped your out of luck from how I read it. If it takes no damage in 30 seconds repairs kick in. It takes 15 total minutes to fully repair. So if your kiting ship is not beating its repair rate, as you warp in and out it will have of just repaired itself up. Hence why having Grid control and getting your enemies off is important as quick as possible. Shoot it once during repair and it stops for 30 seconds. 30 seconds go by and no damage is received in that time repair cycle kicks back in. Kitey ship shoots it again, warps off.. 30 second pause.. DPS doesnt do much of anything to it tho 30 seconds go by and that damage is repped as well as more until the ship lands to shoot it again and then warp off. 30 seconds go by, damage was still negligible so it finished its repair cycle after 15 minutes of self-repair. The repair completed after the vulnerability cycle due to 30 second pauses, and it went back to an Invulnerable state. Compared to if a fleet was on field shooting it which would keep the repair cycle from restarting and eventually it would get reinforced or chased away. If reinforced , wash, rinse, repeat x2 more times for armor and Structure. If chased away and it had time to repair.. wait until next window.
Andre has a legitimate concern here. A cormorant with a lot of bookmarks can easily apply damage once every 30 seconds, from >100km out, while being nearly impossible to catch. It doesn't matter that he has **** damage, as long as he can keep the repair timer prolonged (until the rest of his fleet arrives, for example, or just until he gets tired of trolling). |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1436
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:14:18 -
[33] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:How are you going to prevent a single kiting sniper from applying damage constantly to prolong the repair timer until you have to go to sleep? Ie warp a sniper corm in at range, shoot once, warp off. Repeat this with a single pilot until you have to log off. It's nearly impossible to stop and you have effective control of the grid, but you can never repair your structure since they are taking pot shots at it. I think once its fully Repped your out of luck from how I read it. If it takes no damage in 30 seconds repairs kick in. It takes 15 total minutes to fully repair. So if your kiting ship is not beating its repair rate, as you warp in and out it will have of just repaired itself up. Hence why having Grid control and getting your enemies off is important as quick as possible. Shoot it once during repair and it stops for 30 seconds. 30 seconds go by and no damage is received in that time repair cycle kicks back in. Kitey ship shoots it again, warps off.. 30 second pause.. DPS doesnt do much of anything to it tho 30 seconds go by and that damage is repped as well as more until the ship lands to shoot it again and then warp off. 30 seconds go by, damage was still negligible so it finished its repair cycle after 15 minutes of self-repair. The repair completed after the vulnerability cycle due to 30 second pauses, and it went back to an Invulnerable state. Compared to if a fleet was on field shooting it which would keep the repair cycle from restarting and eventually it would get reinforced or chased away. If reinforced , wash, rinse, repeat x2 more times for armor and Structure. If chased away and it had time to repair.. wait until next window. Andre has a legitimate concern here. A cormorant with a lot of bookmarks can easily apply damage once every 30 seconds, from >100km out, while being nearly impossible to catch. It doesn't matter that he has **** damage, as long as he can keep the repair timer prolonged (until the rest of his fleet arrives, for example, or just until he gets tired of trolling).
We will probably do a shorter timer (say 10 seconds) to resume counting down the repair timer as well as a small % damage threshold to trigger the pause. Balancing these will be required to prevent the hit and run tactics which we stated we want to prevent being effective.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation
231
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:14:49 -
[34] - Quote
Sbrodor wrote:omg. we fall back to the past!
i really dont see the point of difference of the past where 30 super of (choose your name favorite ally) again blobbing at own pleasure player trying to build something with time and effort.
Except that the supers arent taking your SOV, They are only shooting citadels. All forms of ships should have some use. Not just rely on a magic Disney Mickey mouse paint wand to zap something until its painted your color.
Think carefully to when you guys had Imperium visit your home. Instead of iHubs they were using as a point, now instead they roll these Citadels which are supposed to replace Outposts. They take 40 or so Citadels out in around 3 days. Still due to blobbing mechanices, no supers needed, just Mickey Mouse paint wands and zapping until it was theirs or destroyed.
Which content would you rather have for ALL your pilots. Sit and watch one dude with entosis on a citadel quickly burn it in a few days with the rest doing nothing but watching Netflix or playing other games on another monitor. Wouldn't you rather have your pilots actually participating in the destruction of said item, letting them be involved in the process and feel useful? I know me personally I would rather be involved in the shooting process vs sitting boredly watching one ship get to do something. I trained my character to fly ships and fire guns for a reason Compared to just roll an alt, train it to infomorph IV and wave a wand with a 30ish day old character.
|
HeXxploiT
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
186
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:15:21 -
[35] - Quote
My thoughts are every bit as convoluted as Eve sovereignty mechanics have become. At least the appearance for those of us attempting to follow sov seems that way.
Remember that quote by William Shakespeare?
Quote:"Sovereignty mechanics are an enigma, wrapped in a conundrum, tied to a riddle that baffles the mind of men"
My concern is that all this back & forth is going to frustrate players more than the changes themselves.
I do appreciate to amount of poise and tact devs have displayed in the face of the onslaught of negative feedback. It has demonstrated an abundance of professionalism on your(devs) part.
Whatever happens I hope this works and things begin to settle down as pilots begin to understand the system. |
Tobias Frank
7
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:19:37 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tobias Frank wrote:Looks promising!
Also, will we get docking scenes in the new citadels as we have now in stations/outposts when we are docked? Ship spinning is an important feature! No docking scene. When you dock, the camera will be centered around the structure instead, so you can now play structure spinning.
Can we keep the spinning-counter at least? |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
23040
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:22:44 -
[37] - Quote
Well, its going to be interesting, that's for sure.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
|
Barubary Evans
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:25:39 -
[38] - Quote
Tobias Frank wrote:Can we keep the spinning-counter at least? This is the most important question in the thread. We need our spin counter, CCP! |
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
94
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:27:07 -
[39] - Quote
I'm on my mobile, so I will keep my question short: Is it possible to mittigate the damage an enemy is causing during Repair phase by repairing the Station with a Logi or carrier? I don't mean to repair shields while in armor-phase, but lets say the enemy has my armour at 50%, can I repair back as long as armor didn't reach 0%? |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
186
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:27:53 -
[40] - Quote
Quote:Entosis links are not going to work on new structures <3 Ytterbium |
|
Asuka Solo
Instant Annihilation This Isn't Going To End Well
2997
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:29:31 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Strikes back.
Thank you guys. This lays a good enough foundation to give capitals new life moving forward..... + 10 interwebz
Just dont relegate the big hulls to pure structure bashing again..... for the love of...
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
Ransu Asanari
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
356
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:31:19 -
[42] - Quote
Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold.
I have mixed feelings about this.
While I think it's good that we are preserving a lot of the gameplay relating to evictions, the change will definitely push out some corps from lower class space.
Was the idea of having the asset security for Citadels in Low Class wormholes, but not High Class ever discussed? My thought was to have Asset Safety in C1-C4, but not C5-C6.
Everyone knows in C1-C3 the reason a lot of smaller groups can set up shop is because of the massive amount of HP you can get out of a large POS, and the EWAR - just makes it incredibly painful to try to siege. A lot of Industrialists will do this, and never have to actually defend their towers.
The change to Citadels means it will be easier to evict people who don't fight, but it also hurts smaller groups - especially if there is no asset safety; smaller corps will be less willing to live in C1-C3.
A lot of the larger groups complained that the amount of time and effort that go into High Class evictions, part of the motivation is the ISK pinata in the form of ships and equipment if they manage to crack the locked-out hangars. If asset safety keeps all of their loot safe, there is less motivation to invade other holes.
Pros:
- Gives smaller groups some measure of safety and allows them to establish in lower class wormholes that aren't nearly as profitable. Industrialists will still have a reasonable amount of assets at risk in the form of build jobs, BPCs, possibly gas/booster reaction products. But if you are there to do some ISK making but also fight (especially at lower skill levels), re-establishing yourself if your Citadel gets destroyed isn't the end of the world. And because the asset system restricts to that W-Space system only, it's still more difficult to retrieve them if someone else sets up shop in that hole, compared to NPC Nullsec.
-I'd expect to see C1-C3 systems trade hands more often, and it might encourage more combat in low class W-Space due to less grinding required to reinforce structures. If there is some ISK to be made by looting the structure wreck, fittings, etc that will be more of an incentive.
-C4 space since getting the second static is becoming a place for more PVP groups to base out of to attack both higher and lower class space. We've seen a few groups move from C5 down to C4 space after the change. This gives it more value as well as having the asset security. A lot of the reason I think C4 should get asset security is because of the lack of capital travel in/out of connections, and lack of capital escalations.
-C5/C6 space should get no asset security because of how valuable they are in terms of ISK generation via capital escalations. If capital escalations are being changed- for example moved to Shattered WH only, or something else - then this doesn't work, but I think it's a very good risk vs reward balance. You can make a lot of ISK in C5/C6 space, but your assets have no security. This allows larger groups to fight in that space and still keeps the motivation to fight in terms of an ISK incentive. It also keeps C5/C6 space from being a place where a group can have their Citadels constantly destroyed and just put new ones down because there is no moon lock.
Cons:
-This may discourage groups from living in C5/C6 space even more than currently because of the lack of protection. I'm honestly not sure how to solve this but I don't think the Citadels change will make that much impact.
-Some of the groups that live in C1-C3 space probably wouldn't be happy that their loot pinatas are going away. There were a few people in the last Townhall that expressed this. I think that if there is more dynamic combat in low class space it'll offset the occasional siege and loot pinata they can get. Also, if the Citadels drop a decent amount of loot in terms of salvage/minerals, and the Citadel modules that will still make it worth it. I expect if someone takes over a wormhole, there will be some negotiations on a meta level to let that person evacuate their assets. |
Cobat Marland
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:35:08 -
[43] - Quote
Sbrodor wrote:omg. we fall back to the past!
i really dont see the point of difference of the past where 30 super of (choose your name favorite ally) again blobbing at own pleasure player trying to build something with time and effort.
30 dudes should always be able to kick over one guys sandcastle doesnt matter what kinda ships they use |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
677
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:37:03 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tobias Frank wrote:Looks promising!
Also, will we get docking scenes in the new citadels as we have now in stations/outposts when we are docked? Ship spinning is an important feature! No docking scene. When you dock, the camera will be centered around the structure instead, so you can now play structure spinning.
Walking in stations nerf confirmed! |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:37:44 -
[45] - Quote
xttz wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tobias Frank wrote:Looks promising!
Also, will we get docking scenes in the new citadels as we have now in stations/outposts when we are docked? Ship spinning is an important feature! No docking scene. When you dock, the camera will be centered around the structure instead, so you can now play structure spinning. Walking in stations nerf confirmed!
And nothing of value was lost. |
drunklies
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:38:04 -
[46] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tobias Frank wrote:Looks promising!
Also, will we get docking scenes in the new citadels as we have now in stations/outposts when we are docked? Ship spinning is an important feature! No docking scene. When you dock, the camera will be centered around the structure instead, so you can now play structure spinning.
Will we get a structure spin counter? Will we be able to zoom in enough to pick out our current ship? |
Lady Aesir
Ghost Recon Inc
19
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:38:56 -
[47] - Quote
WOW CCP are starting to show signs of life.
Bravo this looks very promising and a definite improvement on previous plans |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16641
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:39:33 -
[48] - Quote
This looks rather well thought out on the face of it.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Ariz Black
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:40:31 -
[49] - Quote
Will there be any auto-defenses to deal with small / insignificant fleets trying to take down something big?
Assuming no defenders show up:
E.g. currently, say a gang of 5 battleships, would just die to a deathstar POS. In the new system, the can take down a whole citadel?
There needs to be some basic form of auto-defense which will handle minor threats. |
Thomas Lear
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:41:31 -
[50] - Quote
[quote=Cobat Marland Is it safe to assume they can be hit with fighterbombers along with guns?[/quote]
This I am wondering too. I understand some details maybe under the NDA but can you at least say if Fighters/Fighter Bombers will be able to apply damage to the structures or is it only dread and bellow. |
|
D'Kmal
Variables Unlimited Void..
8
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:47:14 -
[51] - Quote
If lore-wise, when our capsules are destroyed, our clone signals/brainscans/whatever can make it out of a wormhole to k-space, why can't our assets?
On a serious gameplay note, I think that the idea of assets not being entirely safe in WH space is a good added risk to what is higher-rewarding space (compared to Null, Low and HiSec), and totally agree with the decision for it to not just magically pony-express into a NPC station - that would've not beein in line with the Risk vs. Reward system in my opinion.
Also good to see something other than damn entosis links, this system looks really promising as long as the numbers are right - but I'm guessing mass-tests on SiSi or Duality will help fine-tune the numbers. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
4062
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:47:34 -
[52] - Quote
Thomas Lear wrote:Cobat Marland wrote: Is it safe to assume they can be hit with fighterbombers along with guns? This I am wondering too. I understand some details maybe under the NDA but can you at least say if Fighters/Fighter Bombers will be able to apply damage to the structures or is it only dread and bellow. Edit: shitposter confirmed here broken quote
Ah sorry, the table on the blog wasn't clear enough. The table was just a rough representation of various ship class examples and how many of them you would need to bring to reach the damage mitigation.
There nothing preventing other capitals and supercapitals to do damage to such a structure, as long as it fits the damage mitigation limit. |
|
Karbowiak
4M-CORP The-Culture
207
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:48:22 -
[53] - Quote
Well **** me, this is actually the first thing in over a year that i've liked.
Now you just need to give us buildable Stargates and convert all of nullsec into W-Space (or give us ten times the space in W-Space). |
Nasro Drags
Zonk Squad CCLP
12
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:53:03 -
[54] - Quote
Extend the damage mitigation feature to all ships and structures and you'll fix the F1 blob and thus make being in a large fleet far more exciting. |
Cristl
252
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:53:16 -
[55] - Quote
Dreekus wrote:All seems good except one point : Sooo.. if you can't obliterate enemies from grid/system you will eventually loose? (not able to help repair citadel) Enemy shoot 1 hit every 29min 50sec.
Maybe you should add something like min damage required to reset repair timer and/or remote assist modules shorten that timer and/or remote assist modules rise min damage required?
Maybe roll that into the damage mitigation thing. Not only is there a max damage every 30s, but a min too? |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
677
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:54:04 -
[56] - Quote
Some of the WIP artwork has multiple hangars... does that mean multiple undock points are happening? |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
6067
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:54:57 -
[57] - Quote
Lady Aesir wrote:WOW CCP are starting to show signs of life You should also watch tonight's o7 show at 20:00 UTC
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager
|
|
Bed Bugg
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 16:56:30 -
[58] - Quote
Wow GÇô all great except the unbelievably sh*ty wormhole idiocy.
So another way to focus in like a laser on screwing over the little guys.
Way to go! You have now made 90% of the features for citadels worthless in WH space. Smart folks will just develop elaborate workarounds to this.
Welp, told you so.
Ffs unintended consequences.
|
Cobat Marland
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:00:10 -
[59] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:There nothing preventing other capitals and supercapitals to do damage to such a structure, as long as it fits the damage mitigation limit. Thanks man, I just want a role for my 30b isk tryhard chariot.
|
Barubary Evans
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:00:59 -
[60] - Quote
Bed Bugg wrote:Wow GÇô all great except the unbelievably sh*ty wormhole idiocy.
...
Way to go! You have now made 90% of the features for citadels worthless in WH space.
You realize that Wormholers basically asked for the Wormhole exceptions, leaving WSpace a risky venture? There have been meetings and gatherings and townhalls and a fair amount of chat in no small number of boards, forums, and threads, and the overwhelming response has been pushing for such WH exceptions.
If you don't like them, where were you when they were being talked about? |
|
Raz Xym
Speaker for the Dead Get Off My Lawn
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:08:27 -
[61] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote: ...
Was the idea of having the asset security for Citadels in Low Class wormholes, but not High Class ever discussed? My thought was to have Asset Safety in C1-C4, but not C5-C6.
...
Or perhaps having a mechanic tied any known space statics? If you have a hi-sec static, then it perhaps gets hi-sec options? Low-sec, only low sec options. I guess if it null-sec they would need to ensure NPC null is always an option?
Just an idea to add exaggerate variance and different desirability to wormholes of the same class.
I think most WH dwellers will want no asset security, but I figured this option might be interesting if they did implement some version of asset security. |
Bed Bugg
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:10:03 -
[62] - Quote
RL mostly. Work, kids summer. But I have been around. I have voiced my concerns.
There is a definite group of folks who push this meta for sure.
Just think folks should know who is responsible when the unintended consequences of this turns WH space into a wasteland.
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
4885
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:11:53 -
[63] - Quote
I like the wormhole changes, but I do think people should have somewhat safer options, perhaps tied to the class of space and also to size of citadel. Maybe let medium citadels in C1-3 have some partial loot safety (perhaps only the build a new citadel to have the items delivered option), so people can still be hit, and they would have to stick around to get their stuff back.
Also, as suggested above, a minimum average DPS to reset the repair timer seems totally reasonable to me.
CSM 7 Secretary
CSM 6 Alternate Delegate
@two_step_eve on Twitter
My Blog
|
Ransu Asanari
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
356
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:13:13 -
[64] - Quote
Raz Xym - I can't see that working - and we still want structures to behave consistently in W-Space... I think that would add to much confusion, especially since the static connections aren't immediately obvious when you enter the system; unlike the system-wide effects. |
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
147
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:15:06 -
[65] - Quote
Still digesting the changes, but wanted to say, massive respect for the thoughtfulness with which you have reconsidered everything. |
Tritis Mentari
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:15:06 -
[66] - Quote
Is it a design choice that as long as no one notices your anchoring structure in highsec for the first 15 minutes, they won't be able to wardec you in time to prevent its successful deployment? |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3203
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:15:40 -
[67] - Quote
The vulnerability windows are still ridiculously short. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1439
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:19:33 -
[68] - Quote
Tritis Mentari wrote:Is it a design choice that as long as no one notices your anchoring structure in highsec during the first 15 minutes, they won't be able to wardec you in time to prevent its successful deployment?
Yes.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
40
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:21:33 -
[69] - Quote
I'm glad to see HP based combat will remain. I like the migi... whatever that word that brings attack times in line. A few more notes on timers and asset safety i'd like to point out:
> Destroying a structure, like the medium one in the example, needs to be do-able within a reasonable amount of time. Keep those timers reasonable. You already transfer the time-window advantage from the agressor to the defender - this should be enough "safety" and advantage any owner can wish for. Best you can do to motivate agressors is to keep the timers between attack phases within a reasonable time.
> I still strongly disagree on asset safety. The owners advantage mentioned above is already a good safety mechanic. There needs to be no 100% safety by NPC ninja's that get your stuff out. I'd love to see at least wormhole structures drop according to the ship loot mechanics.
> Wormhole gameplay matters a lot based on being able to see what the locals do inside their forcefields. What ships they have ready or switch to and also if they are even online. Is there any plan to keep that alive? I'd love to have a way to know wether players are around or not. Today, a lot of fights start out from the fact, that one party knows the other is around and stays around waiting for the time to act or bait or whatever.... |
Bed Bugg
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:29:32 -
[70] - Quote
Jon Hellguard wrote:I'm glad to see HP based combat will remain. I like the migi... whatever that word that brings attack times in line. A few more notes on timers and asset safety i'd like to point out:
> Destroying a structure, like the medium one in the example, needs to be do-able within a reasonable amount of time. Keep those timers reasonable. You already transfer the time-window advantage from the agressor to the defender - this should be enough "safety" and advantage any owner can wish for. Best you can do to motivate agressors is to keep the timers between attack phases within a reasonable time.
> I still strongly disagree on asset safety. The owners advantage mentioned above is already a good safety mechanic. There needs to be no 100% safety by NPC ninja's that get your stuff out. I'd love to see at least wormhole structures drop according to the ship loot mechanics.
> Wormhole gameplay matters a lot based on being able to see what the locals do inside their forcefields. What ships they have ready or switch to and also if they are even online. Is there any plan to keep that alive? I'd love to have a way to know wether players are around or not. Today, a lot of fights start out from the fact, that one party knows the other is around and stays around waiting for the time to act or bait or whatever....
So basically 100% of the benefits to the aggressors? Well thought out. |
|
Keaden Aemar
4 Marketeers Rura-Penthe
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:38:05 -
[71] - Quote
Barubary Evans wrote:Bed Bugg wrote:Wow GÇô all great except the unbelievably sh*ty wormhole idiocy.
...
Way to go! You have now made 90% of the features for citadels worthless in WH space.
You realize that Wormholers basically asked for the Wormhole exceptions, leaving WSpace a risky venture? There have been meetings and gatherings and townhalls and a fair amount of chat in no small number of boards, forums, and threads, and the overwhelming response has been pushing for such WH exceptions. If you don't like them, where were you when they were being talked about?
Seems like the only people attending those townhalls were the ones who almost exclusively pvp'd in wormholes. As a C2 dweller, I'm not a fan of the exceptions planned for wormhole space. I feel like there shouldn't be any more or less security than null sec. |
Nou Mene
Out of Focus Odin's Call
11
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:45:25 -
[72] - Quote
Great work, keep it up!!
What would you think about making it possible to use Entosis in some way? Suggesting different options:
a) Entosis disables shields (so first reinforcement); b) Entosis increases dps mitigation barrier c) Entosis changes resist profiles
and also, if damage (and skin) is back in the game, couldnt vulnerability windows get a little bit bigger?
Greetings
|
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
449
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:54:21 -
[73] - Quote
Keaden Aemar wrote: Seems like the only people attending those townhalls were the ones who almost exclusively pvp'd in wormholes. As a C2 dweller, I'm not a fan of the exceptions planned for wormhole space. I feel like there shouldn't be any more or less security than null sec.
W-space is not an extension of nullsec, as much as it may seem that way sometimes. |
Current Habit
Rusty Pricks
55
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:54:25 -
[74] - Quote
I would be fine with those changes if I didn't knew (and hadn't used) Slippery petes, sniping tornados and similar long range, hard to probe ships that don't commit whatsoever while dealing enough damage to overpower any threshold.
This leaves the defenders with no way to force a fight while the attacker slowly grinds the structure HP. |
SpaceSaft
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club
160
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:59:56 -
[75] - Quote
I like that I don't have to waste isk on expensive modules now.
The concern I have is that I don't see how this is supposed to produce any content.
Time windows are very small.
Sitting around the same thing for 30 minutes is not something people will want to do either. Even though they're shooting, even though they will have friends with them.
It does not touch the n+1 issue, it does not offer any new tactical toys or chocies as far as I can see.
If you think ANYONE is going to bring anything but a dread to shoot even the smallest stuff, you're lying to yourself.
Can't you give the structures some kind of assault number parity? You need to have at least 15 people shooting at it, no matter the ship size for it to work? Something where 15 frigs = 15 dreads?
Attackers wouldn't have to invest as much, defenders could engage easier targets and if the attacker wants to roflstomp something with 500ppl fleets they still can? |
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Spaceship Bebop
422
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:01:29 -
[76] - Quote
I like the DPS mitigation idea (I actually suggested something similar years ago), but I'm worried about the gameplay that will involve around this. Nobody "small" will drop dreads on a structure, it is just to dangerous as 30 minutes is long enough for somebody bigger to come by and hot drop O'Clock.
The most effective force for grinding a structure will be stealth bombers. At 500-600dps each, we are talking about a really low number, 8 for small and 24 for large, to reach the max dps. If the defender shows up, they just cloak and warp off. They have 15, 30, or 60 minutes to reship and come back and fight it they want to. That is plenty of time. The attacker really gets to dictate the fight and there is no chance for the defender to get the drop on the initial reinforcement.
Ninja dreads were an interesting form of game play where the attacker risked a lot on the initial reinforcement (ie drop dreads), as there was a high probability they could be gone before anybody noticed. If they were noticed during the 5 minutes, it was a fun fight for both sides (ie attack/defend in under 5 minutes before the big targets in space jumped out). WIth the new system, nobody is going to put up a bullseye like that by dropping dreads as it's near 100% chance you will be noticed in 30 minutes. The only people that will drop dreads are those that drop small dreads and a cyno on multiple targets and then have 500 people and 100 supers ready to bridge in wherever needed.
This isn't all bad, but I will miss the risk/reward factor with reinforcing a structure. There is now nothing to gain by risking more valuable targets on the field.
Also, POCO's should also be changed in the same manner as Citadel's, it will get to confusing if they are not.
.
|
Oskolda Eriker
Maple Leafs Nation Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:03:12 -
[77] - Quote
You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
553
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:09:27 -
[78] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Tritis Mentari wrote:Is it a design choice that as long as no one notices your anchoring structure in highsec during the first 15 minutes, they won't be able to wardec you in time to prevent its successful deployment? Yes.
At which point a citadel will appear at the list of warpable objects in system? When anchored or when fully deployed?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Ben Ishikela
60
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:13:20 -
[79] - Quote
Sooooo goood! +1+1+1+1
BUT issues: - Unanchoring a highsec structure when in the 24h waiting time to being wardecced. evasion still possible? or is the unanchortime with a 24h wait before removed from space?
- What about removing the Shield of Stations inside of Wormhole space? -- because of natural phenomena *hrhr* -- - - - Thera and shattered could also remove armor as well. Then its very risky but still possible to stage there. Because it would be awesome.
^^this is on my principle that its better to desincentivice than to forbid.
Remove JumpFreighters/CloakHauler/CloakTrick and make a new T2Freighter(mjd+fleethangar+dock+T2resists-JumpDrive). Because we need more opportunities for piracy, escorts and decentralised economy!
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1971
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:13:28 -
[80] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Oskolda Eriker
Maple Leafs Nation Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:15:20 -
[81] - Quote
Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee. W-Space. Wormholes. WH says something? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1444
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:16:43 -
[82] - Quote
Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee.
And its free if being recovered in the same system.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Eris Tsasa
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:16:49 -
[83] - Quote
Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee.
I thought it was said somewhere that if you're in a ship, and logged off, when the structure is destroyed, the ship goes pop along with your pod. I assume that's what that person was referring to.
On a related note, to Oskolda, Just defend your stuff and you won't have to worry. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1444
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:17:59 -
[84] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee. W-Space. Wormholes. WH says something?
I missed this too, and good point about logging off in wspace. We might let you keep your active ship if it explodes, to maintain consistency with logging off in a POS.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Dreiden Kisada
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:18:17 -
[85] - Quote
The reinforcement system on POSes ensures that both the Attacker and the Defender get to pick a time for their fight.
The current system is entirely for the defender.
If you made it so that the Citadel is always vulnerable on shield, but the other two are only vulnerable when the defender chooses, that would go a long way to evening things out.
Also, I don't think the entire structure should rep. If the attacker gets it down to structure but fails to finish the job, them have it rep up structure. If it survives next vulnerability window, then it reps armor. Then again for shields. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
434
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:22:56 -
[86] - Quote
I am happy mostly with these changes. However i still don't like a massive big arse battle station that will just sit there with its finger up its arse while its getting shot.
As a small wormhole corp i will struggle to be on every timer since i have a job and a life. Where a drive by can just reinforce it in 30mins is crazy when it won't shoot back. You say it gives a false sense of security? Well then what is wrong with letting us have that? And its not. A single dread can't take on a death star (large) solo right now. But if structures don't shoot back they could.
As for asset safety and logging off in space. The problem isn't that assets aren't safe in a citadel (in WH space), it is that log off in space mechanics is overpowered. Nurf log off mechanics.
Personally i still think there should be more asset attrition in all parts of space if your station blows up. Your space station getting blown up should hurt. But it also should shoot back.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
5367
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:24:18 -
[87] - Quote
Quote:By Team Game of Drones Soft Croissant IncorporatedGäó Croque-Monsieur ConglomerateGäó (CMC)
Oh c'mon, we know who really wrote it! |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
274
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:29:42 -
[88] - Quote
I'm still processing this, but my gut reaction is that FOR HIGHSEC, the attacker investment is unreasonable and doubly so given the returns.
- You need either a spy with roles, quite likely director level (in which case you might as well steal their assets), or absolute no life scouts who can watch a structure 24 hours a day for a whole week to determine vulnerability timers.
- You need a wardec, incurring immediate costs and giving the defenders notice and a chance to simply empty and take down the structure and not give a damn. During every week of this wardec you will only have the vulnerability windows available. (QUESTION: What are the conditions and delays involved in changing vulnerability windows? I feel like this was already answered in one of the blogs but I can't find it.)
- Wardecced corps still get free allies.
- You need to turn up at whatever ridiculous time the vulnerability is set to, which could be right before downtime. (QUESTION: what happens if a repair timer is running at downtime? What happens if a structure would go back into the repair state after reinforcement during downtime?)
- You need by your own figures a hundred strong battleship fleet to reach the DPS cap for XL structures which you seem to be planning to allow in highsec. Personally I would actually say that people will in the absence of pos shields use things like blaster megathrons so the figure is a bit lower but this is still a lot of dps to deal with a structure that may be deployed by one guy and his five alts.
- In the absence of information on the reinforcement timers I'm left unsure whether the fleet has to either stay up all night starting at some dumb time the owner corp has set the vulnerability timer to or turn up at said dumb time three days in a row or whether any citadel kill will require a campaign over a multiple weekend wardec AND turning up in the middle of the night local time repeatedly.
- Defenders who can't field a proper fleet get strong defense options from the citadel fitting with no disadvantage to using them because they are not fielding anything that wasn't already at risk.
- You get nothing delicious like BPOs anyway if you reach this point because you decided to make nearly nothing drop.
Final question: given all the above, why would anyone but the absolute largest wardeccers and possibly not even them want to go through all this to kill a citadel? |
Raz Xym
Speaker for the Dead Get Off My Lawn
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:35:25 -
[89] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:Raz Xym - I can't see that working - and we still want structures to behave consistently in W-Space... I think that would add to much confusion, especially since the static connections aren't immediately obvious when you enter the system; unlike the system-wide effects.
Well you want them to operate differently depending on class. And if you are putting up a citadel in a wh without knowing your statics, I am scared.
But I can see your point, it is slightly more complex than some other options. |
Current Habit
Rusty Pricks
55
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:35:54 -
[90] - Quote
Quick question regarding the icon showing how long until the next vulnerability timer:
In this devblog image the icon shows that the time until the next vulnerability window is almost 2/3 done and the time remaining says it's roughly 15h until this window. This would mean the time between the last vulnerability window and the next is roughly 45h, giving us hints how the vulnerability schedule might look like.
Is it safe to do this kind of math ? Currently, the bar showing how long a POS is still reinforced resets every time the viewing person leaves and comes back to grid, rendering such guesstimating moot). |
|
Joanna RB
Twenty Questions RAZOR Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:40:29 -
[91] - Quote
Damage Migitation. Love it.
Almost identical to a game I wrote in the early 1990's (except on mine you had to hit the cap otherwise damage counted as zero)
Always nice to see ideas you thought of over 20 years ago and were ridiculed back then, appear in a large mainstream game like EvE. ;) |
Max Fubarticus
The Scope Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:43:01 -
[92] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:With Towers requiring fuel before it was very easy to see when a tower was abandoned, it simply went offline and while there was DPS to go through their was no reinforcement state.
Do you have any plans for some sort of abandoned state if a individual or group appears to no longer being using the structure, that won't require the reinforcement cycles?
That's a very good question! We see tons of POS(s) littering space. How about...
1. A simple mechanic that allows a corp/alliance to conquer and un-anchor / occupy / loot these structures after a period of time if no one has occupied the structure ( logged in, docked, reset V timer, or some form of transaction involving the structure. Say 30-45 days?
2. Same as above if corp / alliance is closed or disbanded without a transfer of ownership.
Just a thought
"damage restrictions and vulnerability windows look a little restrictive, but mostly looks good "
And that is why you never bring a knife to a gunfight |
Max Fubarticus
The Scope Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:45:31 -
[93] - Quote
On second thought...
That would screw up the market meta wouldn't it. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2002
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:48:33 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:How are you going to prevent a single kiting sniper from applying damage constantly to prolong the repair timer until you have to go to sleep? Ie warp a sniper corm in at range, shoot once, warp off. Repeat this with a single pilot until you have to log off. It's nearly impossible to stop and you have effective control of the grid, but you can never repair your structure since they are taking pot shots at it. I think once its fully Repped your out of luck from how I read it. If it takes no damage in 30 seconds repairs kick in. It takes 15 total minutes to fully repair. So if your kiting ship is not beating its repair rate, as you warp in and out it will have of just repaired itself up. Hence why having Grid control and getting your enemies off is important as quick as possible. Shoot it once during repair and it stops for 30 seconds. 30 seconds go by and no damage is received in that time repair cycle kicks back in. Kitey ship shoots it again, warps off.. 30 second pause.. DPS doesnt do much of anything to it tho 30 seconds go by and that damage is repped as well as more until the ship lands to shoot it again and then warp off. 30 seconds go by, damage was still negligible so it finished its repair cycle after 15 minutes of self-repair. The repair completed after the vulnerability cycle due to 30 second pauses, and it went back to an Invulnerable state. Compared to if a fleet was on field shooting it which would keep the repair cycle from restarting and eventually it would get reinforced or chased away. If reinforced , wash, rinse, repeat x2 more times for armor and Structure. If chased away and it had time to repair.. wait until next window. Andre has a legitimate concern here. A cormorant with a lot of bookmarks can easily apply damage once every 30 seconds, from >100km out, while being nearly impossible to catch. It doesn't matter that he has **** damage, as long as he can keep the repair timer prolonged (until the rest of his fleet arrives, for example, or just until he gets tired of trolling). We will probably do a shorter timer (say 10 seconds) to resume counting down the repair timer as well as a small % damage threshold to trigger the pause. Balancing these will be required to prevent the hit and run tactics which we stated we want to prevent being effective.
Add a minimum damage in a period required to sustain blocking the repair cycle. |
tainted demon
Danger Gnomes Vendetta Mercenary Group
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:54:48 -
[95] - Quote
I am all for new structures in space for people to fight over but if i'm reading this right,
If I want to attack one of these new structures i have to wait for it to be vulnerable (3 hour window a week for a Med tower probably when I should be sleeping) then i get a time to come back to get another timer so finally my fleet can come back to finish it off.
Or
If i'm defending a structure i just man the guns and watch a fleet shooting it then they come back 2 more times (if they are able too) i now don't even have to rep it myself if they take there time returning for stage 2 and when/if it goes pop i troll them in local about how i had 100 plex in there they can't get cos all 100 of those plex are now being auto moved to an npc station
Seems like a lot of effort for nothing imo cant you make them so some loot can drop but whatever doesn't drop is moved to an npc station instead of being destroyed or at least make a safe asset hanger with limited cargo space for the owner to decide what is important to them. Otherwise what is the point of attacking a structure to begin with unless you are in nullsec/WH space evicting someone from your space?
Risk should = reward or consequence and i'm not seeing any of that from these pos's :( |
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two Reckoning Star Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:55:07 -
[96] - Quote
As with previous changes the question that I still cant find an answer to is whether we can repackage ships in M/L/XL citadels or not.
PLEASE CCP, it's a simple question. |
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
292
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:56:38 -
[97] - Quote
Total destructions of assets in W-space citadels is harsh, but I do prefer that to the wonky options presented before.
It would be nice to ensure that the citadel's repair happens by stages over time, so that an attacking force that has not breached shield see the station repaired in a shorter amount of time that an attacking force that narrowly missed breaching hull.
As long as the services from citadels can suffer from entosis like current stations do, it is good to keep structure bashings based on DPS. With this cap system, more DPS simply means ability to atttack more structures at the same time, which is way better for the game in general! I also like that the resists can be adjusted without just adding extra layers of HP.
Very glad to know that vulnerabilities will not be given out on a plate via API (hopefully, no API bugs will "prevent" you to achieve this goal) and that you continue to stand firm on having to man the defense stations for citadels.
Overalll, that sounds good.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Jenn aSide
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
12392
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:02:32 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee. W-Space. Wormholes. WH says something? I missed this too, and good point about logging off in wspace. We might let you keep your active ship if it explodes, to maintain consistency with logging off in a POS.
So in other words, stuff all your stuff into a carrier and be sure to be sitting in that carrier before logging off
|
Ronce
Kikutech Kleinrock Group
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:05:17 -
[99] - Quote
Quote:we do believe existing auto-defenses on Starbases are nothing but a false promise to safety, since they are so easily abused and bypassed by attacking parties. They just give the owner a feeling of safety where none actually exists Except it DID prevent individules from easily trolling. Yeah sure it didn't prevent a large dedicated group from killing it. But the auto defenses of towers that were thought out DID prevent the 1-3 man corps from doing anything. As you currently plan, WH/LS corps will still be forced to POS sit for the whole of their windows just to prevent the random scouting troll from punishing them for wanting to play SPACESHIPS Online, not BABYSITTING Online.
A note on the publicly visible timers. Please only have them visible from combat induced behavior. The current design negates any real effort still with them being "beacons". |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1679
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:07:49 -
[100] - Quote
A clarification please, to shut down a tower means a 24 hr wait before you can unanchor it, at which point it is in hull only until unanchored?
if so Yay! I think I made a suggestion that was actually sensible :D This would mean player corps setting up a station in hisec would have to commit to defending a structure or lose it.
As for WH space how about instead of NPC fairies magicating the stuff out to NPC stations it is ejected and warped off much like planetary launches. If the WH group maintained someone in the hole they can at least map a route and bring the rest of the corp back in to recover some of the stuff but there is still the risk of losing everything if you lose presence in the hole.
I still think that either a rig or module to allow automated defenses would be good, this would allow some defence whilst unmanned but at the expense of the utility of the citadel. |
|
Oskolda Eriker
Maple Leafs Nation Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:08:14 -
[101] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:So in other words, stuff all your stuff into a carrier and be sure to be sitting in that carrier before logging off like good old times.
whats about boost isk/hour in w-space (now in k-space you can have same without WH problems) Now WH it's more like a scorched wasteland
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1445
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:09:40 -
[102] - Quote
Sasha Sen wrote:As with previous changes the question that I still cant find an answer to is whether we can repackage ships in M/L/XL citadels or not.
PLEASE CCP, it's a simple question. (in WH's)
Yes you can, all sizes.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Sigras
Conglomo
1067
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:14:02 -
[103] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:How are you going to prevent a single kiting sniper from applying damage constantly to prolong the repair timer until you have to go to sleep? Ie warp a sniper corm in at range, shoot once, warp off. Repeat this with a single pilot until you have to log off. It's nearly impossible to stop and you have effective control of the grid, but you can never repair your structure since they are taking pot shots at it. I think once its fully Repped your out of luck from how I read it. If it takes no damage in 30 seconds repairs kick in. It takes 15 total minutes to fully repair. So if your kiting ship is not beating its repair rate, as you warp in and out it will have of just repaired itself up. Hence why having Grid control and getting your enemies off is important as quick as possible. Shoot it once during repair and it stops for 30 seconds. 30 seconds go by and no damage is received in that time repair cycle kicks back in. Kitey ship shoots it again, warps off.. 30 second pause.. DPS doesnt do much of anything to it tho 30 seconds go by and that damage is repped as well as more until the ship lands to shoot it again and then warp off. 30 seconds go by, damage was still negligible so it finished its repair cycle after 15 minutes of self-repair. The repair completed after the vulnerability cycle due to 30 second pauses, and it went back to an Invulnerable state. Compared to if a fleet was on field shooting it which would keep the repair cycle from restarting and eventually it would get reinforced or chased away. If reinforced , wash, rinse, repeat x2 more times for armor and Structure. If chased away and it had time to repair.. wait until next window. Andre has a legitimate concern here. A cormorant with a lot of bookmarks can easily apply damage once every 30 seconds, from >100km out, while being nearly impossible to catch. It doesn't matter that he has **** damage, as long as he can keep the repair timer prolonged (until the rest of his fleet arrives, for example, or just until he gets tired of trolling). We will probably do a shorter timer (say 10 seconds) to resume counting down the repair timer as well as a small % damage threshold to trigger the pause. Balancing these will be required to prevent the hit and run tactics which we stated we want to prevent being effective. I would rather see a simple moving average (SMA) or weighted moving average over the repair timer needing to be above some threshold. That would mean consistent damage is more useful than a damage spike every once in a while. |
Michal Jita
Lords Of The Universe
19
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:20:30 -
[104] - Quote
Great improvement on the first proposal, all super up to this point:
Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold.
Quote:We are aware that the long process of sieging a Citadel (up to one week) is considerably longer that whatGÇÖs currently in place in Wormhole space. We do know that controlling traffic in Wormhole space to be a taxing activity, which is why we are considering having further variations in place there so that the total siege doesnGÇÖt exceed 48 hours there.
Now I ain't PVP shy, but there is no way smaller entities will be able to defent, knowing that every citadel will drop everything there will be no point in having anything inside if you are a small corporation.
I heard of proposal where there is 2 tier loot ferry, first stage halfs assets between loot and what can be recovered, second stage loot is divided in destroyed and dropped. Now this sounds OK'ish, I feel better with 50/50 chance of loosing stuff, and attackers will think twice before attacking to 'just get 1/4 of stuff.
48h? seriously, not only I will loose all my stuff, but also if I am small corporation going to fanfest, I will loose it over a single weekend to a reasonably small fleet.
Bad design havily favoring attackers
WH = dangerous, unknown and all, but be serious, it now takes a reasonably big force to dispose of a well defended POS even without defenders, this is taking it way to far.
Please think a bit about all the smaller corporations in WH, not just big bullies - coprorations that got your ear on CSM.
Again just to reitirate, I am all for danger, risk and loosing stuff, initial proposal wasn't good, but this is just ridiculus!!! |
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
108
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:27:29 -
[105] - Quote
Looks bloody amazing.
One small issue is the numbers needed to reach damage mitigation and the time required to reinforce.
In a large fleet battle of say 250 v 200 or so, the attackers can dedicate 50 of their BS/HACs or a secondary fleet to shooting at the citadel, while the rest keep the defenders engaged and still ref the structure. So even if the defenders eventually manage to hold the field, they can lose the station. Makes blobbing a VERY effective tactic and makes it harder for a small force to defend. Dunno if this is what you want, but those numbers may need tweaking.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
678
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:36:51 -
[106] - Quote
Will Ship Scanners (or a new equivalent) allow you to see how a structure is equipped? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1447
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:38:22 -
[107] - Quote
xttz wrote:Will Ship Scanners (or a new equivalent) allow you to see how a structure is equipped?
Yes.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Marech Bhayanaka
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:40:52 -
[108] - Quote
When I read "Damage mitigation" I understand the phrase to mean the amount by which damage is reduced. So when you say a M sized structure has damage mitigation of 4000DPS, that means to me that 4000 DPS will be subtracted from the incoming damage.
But from the accompanying text, you seem to want it to mean the point beyond which no more damage will taken. If I have understood that correctly, I suggest you refer to it as the "DPS cap" rather than the "Damage mitigation". It will be less confusing.
Marech. |
Siobhan MacLeary
Hole Violence Whole Squid
210
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:41:29 -
[109] - Quote
Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold.
I'm as excited as anyone, probably more excited, for Citadels to land. However, as a longtime wormhole resident, this part is something I disagree with. There should absolutely be loot drops in w-space when a Citadel is destroyed, however, I don't think it's fair to treat Citadel storage space like current POS storage space or storage space in ships.
Hear me out here. In the absence of any information saying otherwise, I'm assuming that storage space in Citadels will function more like that of current-day stations than current-day POSes. Namely, a director or corp member with specific roles won't necessarily be able to see and handle your assets should they want to attempt to evac assets during an eviction. Compare to POSes right now, where a director can see the contents of all structures, and the only structure where he cannot touch one's assets is the PHA.
Rather than making Citadel destruction a super-special snowflake case in WHs, where your stuff is either dropped or destroyed, it makes more sense to me for items that are not dropped on Citadel destruction to be recoverable under the same mechanics available to those in k-space - specifically, dropping a new Citadel and recovering assets to it.
Re-establishing a foothold in a WH to get a recovery Citadel in before your entry hole closes, right after being evicted, is a hell of a hail mary. Doing so successfully is a clutch play that should be rewarded with knowing that you may have lost some things to the hostiles, but you can still recover what they didn't get and maybe not lose all your ****.
If stuff is just gone after a Citadel is destroyed, that can spell the end of smaller entities who might have all of their assets in their w-space Citadel. For large entities, once your Citadel is set to be hull-vulnerable it becomes an alarm-clock op to get all of your extraneous **** evac'd before the final timer.
TL;DR: Yes, magical loot fairy on Citadels is great. What doesn't drop should be recoverable, not destroyed. Adds another risk/reward inflection point, adds another chance for aggressors to win the field, increases incentive to fight for you space rather than evacing.
GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ - CCP Soundwave
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
285
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:48:53 -
[110] - Quote
Several questions and clarifications:
Clarification: You list the self-repair rate in "Null Security Space, owner has no index" as 60 minutes, is it correct to assume this includes NPC null sec since there is no index there?
Question: I might have missed it, but when the station is in an invulnerability phase, can people be able to evac the items inside?
Question: I understand the reason for not having auto-defenses, but lets put it this way: just because the lock to your house can be bypassed by an experienced thief, does that mean you stop locking your door?
Question: so what will the future of Entosis modules be? Are you going to phase them out in the future? Unless I read between the lines too deeply there. |
|
Lt Shard
All-Out White Stag Exit Bag
54
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:52:19 -
[111] - Quote
Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold.
AH come on now.
I like shooting pinatas and getting the candy inside, but why should our good friends over in kspace have magic teleporting cans that saves their candy. I'm hitting the pinata to get the candy, not to waste ammo on it.
Just bite the bullet ccp and make them cry more. |
Mdaemon
AirGuard LowSechnaya Sholupen
90
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:56:12 -
[112] - Quote
Full invulnerability for citadel is bullshit. Why can't I shoot this citadel right now? What magic protects it? Please, give citadel's 99.9% omniresist over "invulnerability period", but if I have a huge fleet, I shouldn't wait three hours of vulnerability at Saturday night.
Eve is the game about social interactions. Invulnerability magic kills these interactions |
Camios
Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic
163
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 19:57:46 -
[113] - Quote
I have a concern about what happens after a structure is reinforced.
Quote:The weekly vulnerability window design hasnGÇÖt changed much from the last blog. This still represents a specific amount of hours that have to be assigned on a weekly basis, during which the structure will be vulnerable. Hours are assigned on a calendar and players with proper roles have control when they should happen.
I think that there could be TWO vulnerability windows. One, shorter (like how it is proposed in the DevBlog) and another, longer, which represents the emergency vulnerability window which is activated only after a reinforced state. The emergency vulnerability window indicates when a structure can exit reinforcement mode.
The difference to the proposed system is that the defender would then have more control on how the war will go on. Otherwise they can just decide when an attack can start, but they have no influence on the time of the subsequent attacks.
Possible rules:
- Standard Vulnerability window, weekly total : 6 hours - Emergency Vulnerability window, weekly total : 30 hours (+6 six hours of the standard vulnerability window) - Reinforced mode lasts 12 hours of the emergency vulnerability window
Example: Random Corp Ltd. sets the standard vulnerability window starting at 15.00 and ending at 21.00 on Saturday, the whole 6 hours. They decide to set the emergency vulnerability window (30 hours ) like this:
- None on Sunday, they have kids to watch - None on Monday, because they have to work - 10 hours on Tuesday (14.00-24.00), because they're all on holiday - 6 hours on Wednesday (18.00-24.00) - 6 hours on Thursday (18.00-24.00) - 7 hours on Friday (17.00-24.00)
- They get attacked by Tough Guys GmbH at 20.00 on Saturday and their structure enters reinforced mode on 20.15 on the same Saturday. - Random Corp Ldt will live in panic until Wednesday at 19.15, after 12 hours of reinforced mode in the emergency vulnerability window. They fight and lose, the station enters the second reinforcement mode at 20.00. - The structure becomes vulnerable again at 19.00 on Friday, after another 12 hours of reinforced mode in the emergency vulnerability window. Random Corp Ltd lose again, and station enters the final reinforcement at 19.45 on Friday. - The structure becomes vulnerable again at 14.45 the next tuesday, after another 12 hours of reinforced mode in the emergency vulnerability window. At that time, nobody of Tough Guys is online, and they fail to form up. Random Corp Ltd saves the structure.
Note: I think the emergency vulnerability window should be public too so that an attacker can plan precisely the timing of the starting attack, in order not to end up like Tough Guys GmbH
Perhaps it's more complicated, but solves a possible problem.
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
347
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 20:01:32 -
[114] - Quote
Mdaemon wrote:Full invulnerability for citadel is bullshit. Why can't I shoot this citadel right now? What magic protects it? Please, give citadel's 99.9% omniresist over "invulnerability period", but if I have a huge fleet, I shouldn't wait three hours of vulnerability at Saturday night.
Eve is the game about social interactions. Invulnerability magic kills these interactions
There is no interaction between an attacking fleet and a group who is offline and sleeping while you attack their structure. Timers and windows work the increase the likelyhood of content for both sides by allowing the defender to pick the engagement time and the attacker choosing to engage during that time. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
285
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 20:09:11 -
[115] - Quote
Another question: since you are abandoning the Entosis link for Citadels, why not remove the vulnerability window completely? I tend to be a protectionist kind of person, but even a surprise attack should be surprising.
Why not merge the mechanics you have for POCOs with that of structures? They can be attacked at any point in time. Once you get shields of the Citadel down to 0 you enter the invulnerability window which then exits roughly 48 hours later during a predetermined time zone period (like POCOs). At this point the repair cycle starts, and attackers can continue the attack until the Armor hits 0 and the next invulnerability window starts until it exits at the per-determined window (the attacker will have a good idea when since they just saw it for the shields). Same with the Hull.
This means it can take up to a week to take down a structure, a definite commitment of forces, but the initial attack can occur at any point. |
Bertral
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 20:12:38 -
[116] - Quote
Quote:As mentioned in the previous blog, all structures will have warpable signatures like combat anomalies. They will also show up in space / overview whenever the player can dock inside them
What's the point of showing them as anomalies if anyone can still warp to it ? It belongs in the overview. Did you mean we have to probe down neutral citadels ? |
Mdaemon
AirGuard LowSechnaya Sholupen
90
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 20:15:52 -
[117] - Quote
Obil Que wrote: There is no interaction between an attacking fleet and a group who is offline and sleeping while you attack their structure. Timers and windows work the increase the likelyhood of content for both sides by allowing the defender to pick the engagement time and the attacker choosing to engage during that time.
1. There is no interaction between citadel's owner and enemy fleet, if citadel vulnerable only 3 hours in week 2. How huge fleet needed to destroy citadel with more than 1 billion effective HP (if will be 99.9% omniresist instead full invulnerability)? You need a lot of interactions to organize such a large fleet |
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
800
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 20:30:15 -
[118] - Quote
This is probably a good idea.
DPS mitigation is excellent, 30 minutes is a good time to prevent a ninja-RF, but prevent an unnecessarily long grind for attackers.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Thron Legacy
White Zulu Scorpion Federation
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 20:32:07 -
[119] - Quote
Mdaemon wrote:Obil Que wrote: There is no interaction between an attacking fleet and a group who is offline and sleeping while you attack their structure. Timers and windows work the increase the likelyhood of content for both sides by allowing the defender to pick the engagement time and the attacker choosing to engage during that time.
1. There is no interaction between citadel's owner and enemy fleet, if citadel vulnerable only 3 hours in week 2. How huge fleet needed to destroy citadel with more than 1 billion effective HP (if will be 99.9% omniresist instead full invulnerability)? You need a lot of interactions to organize such a large fleet
Vulnerability while damaged lasts until timer reaches 0, which wont happen when it gets shot all the time. Stop trying to save your dunking departement. |
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
445
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 20:35:34 -
[120] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:How are you going to prevent a single kiting sniper from applying damage constantly to prolong the repair timer until you have to go to sleep? Ie warp a sniper corm in at range, shoot once, warp off. Repeat this with a single pilot until you have to log off. It's nearly impossible to stop and you have effective control of the grid, but you can never repair your structure since they are taking pot shots at it. And this is the reason I still think it would be wise to have at least some sort of automatic defence present.
Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format.
Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
|
|
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 20:50:00 -
[121] - Quote
Thank you for taking the time to listen to the players about this. It's definitely moving in a good direction now and finally getting back to having to risk something of value while being on the offensive. With an XL structure being capable of housing Titans, Supers and all kinds of other lovelies, you better be ready to commit your capitals or fleet.
Quote:How are you going to prevent a single kiting sniper from applying damage constantly to prolong the repair timer until you have to go to sleep?
Undock in a Tier3 Battlecruiser, there be cormorant bits everywhere. Shooting it just pauses the repair, it doesn't restart it ( unless I read this wrong ) |
Zappity
the 57th Overlanders Brigade A Band Apart.
2457
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 20:55:15 -
[122] - Quote
Sorry but this is ridiculously complicated. I began to think of that Black Books tax return scene (http://youtu.be/rtxUdbNKpK0) - "If you live in a council flat, next to a river, but are not blind..."
This is not intuitive. Can't you just have vulnerability windows and cap damage or something?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
436
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 21:04:37 -
[123] - Quote
Alexander Tekitsu wrote:
Undock in a Tier3 Battlecruiser, there be cormorant bits everywhere. Shooting it just pauses the repair, it doesn't restart it ( unless I read this wrong )
Or just have the station shoot back... Seriously why is dumb stations even considered a thing.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Rhyad Ashon
tumirnichtweh Corporation 3.0
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 21:05:02 -
[124] - Quote
Yes, please make it even more simpler Zappity!!
Are all assets locked after the first timer (WH)? If thats not the case, the new system is even safer than the current one. I can't understand the complains about the lack of a magic ferry. |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1447
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 21:32:18 -
[125] - Quote
I like the concept, because it's EvE-like! ... now scrap the Entosis-links, because the reasons why you don't want to have them for structures also apply to sov.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Max Fubarticus
The Scope Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 22:12:19 -
[126] - Quote
Mdaemon wrote:Obil Que wrote: There is no interaction between an attacking fleet and a group who is offline and sleeping while you attack their structure. Timers and windows work the increase the likelyhood of content for both sides by allowing the defender to pick the engagement time and the attacker choosing to engage during that time.
1. There is no interaction between citadel's owner and enemy fleet, if citadel vulnerable only 3 hours in week 2. How huge fleet needed to destroy citadel with more than 1 billion effective HP (if will be 99.9% omniresist instead full invulnerability)? You need a lot of interactions to organize such a large fleet
Hmmm... I don't know about that cowboy. If you were to shoot at my citadel, I would be obliged to give your fleet a bloody nose and a GF in local after you were cap blopped. Is that interaction enough for you?
Yes it will require effort. You know what that is right? It means you have to earn the kill! It also means you will have to use some form of intelligence, and I'm not talking about corp spies either. I am speaking of intellect. You know, the mush that resides between your ears. Use it to plan an effective attack, defensive posture, ingress, egress, things like that. Used properly, it will work, used as a vodka sponge, it may not work so well.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3325
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 22:17:00 -
[127] - Quote
Glad to see (tacit) acknowledgement that the Entosis Link in it's present form has failed, and I look forward to something more like this applied to the existing sovereignty mechanics. There probably is a place for Entosis in the game but not as a replacement for firepower.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
7806
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 22:20:03 -
[128] - Quote
Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold.
As a wormholer, this is absolutely not okay and I if no one else will raise hell over it. Why is wormhole space special in that we alone get to deal with the risk of total asset loss while everyone else gets their stuff magically spirited away to safety? All that is going to do is incentivize people in nullsec (whose assets are safe and unattackable) to attack wormholes for the loot. Not only that, but there's absolutely no counterplay, we can't go attack nullseccers and blow up their ****, its safe. We're getting this huge risk that no one else will have to shoulder, and what do we get out of it? Nothing. We can't hit them back, their assets are untouchable. We don't get sov and it's benefits. This feels like the real **** end of the **** stick.
Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
285
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 22:25:04 -
[129] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold. As a wormholer, this is absolutely not okay and I if no one else will raise hell over it. Why is wormhole space special in that we alone get to deal with the risk of total asset loss while everyone else gets their stuff magically spirited away to safety? All that is going to do is incentivize people in nullsec (whose assets are safe and unattackable) to attack wormholes for the loot. Not only that, but there's absolutely no counterplay, we can't go attack nullseccers and blow up their ****, its safe. We're getting this huge risk that no one else will have to shoulder, and what do we get out of it? Nothing. We can't hit them back, their assets are untouchable. We don't get sov and it's benefits. This feels like the real **** end of the **** stick.
A very good question.
I suspect the reason is this: what motivation is there to attack the structure if the contents do not drop? Then again, why would someone do that to a Citadel from High Sec to Null Sec as their stuff is safe as well? This spins it back to: WHY is wormhole space the exception to this? |
Max Fubarticus
The Scope Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 22:27:26 -
[130] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Glad to see (tacit) acknowledgement that the Entosis Link in it's present form has failed, and I look forward to something more like this applied to the existing sovereignty mechanics. There probably is a place for Entosis in the game but not as a replacement for firepower.
Agree 100% As long as I can remember, Eve was centered around the use of spacecraft and their ability to project firepower to combat enemies. Not some ethereal mind control device from a mythical race of beings ( okay, maybe not mythical, but extinct? ). Nothing beats a good ole knock down and drag out bar brawl. |
|
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
1047
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 22:28:16 -
[131] - Quote
Still haven't seen anything related to other structures.
Have you guys scrapped the plans to have various different structures of which citadels are only one type designed to be highly dependable? Are citadels going to be the only type of structure (essentially replacing POSes), defensible but highly customizable with no other stuff like market hubs or manufacturing structures or are citadels just the pet project getting all the love while other structure types are coming out and we might, eventually get so see previews of those in a devblog? |
Lykouleon
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
1631
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 22:28:50 -
[132] - Quote
Loving what you guys are doing with space chateaux.
However, I feel there is still room for improvement on the blinky bits. We're going to need a lot more blinkies to turn on.
Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
|
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
7806
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 22:35:39 -
[133] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Saede Riordan wrote:Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold. As a wormholer, this is absolutely not okay and I if no one else will raise hell over it. Why is wormhole space special in that we alone get to deal with the risk of total asset loss while everyone else gets their stuff magically spirited away to safety? All that is going to do is incentivize people in nullsec (whose assets are safe and unattackable) to attack wormholes for the loot. Not only that, but there's absolutely no counterplay, we can't go attack nullseccers and blow up their ****, its safe. We're getting this huge risk that no one else will have to shoulder, and what do we get out of it? Nothing. We can't hit them back, their assets are untouchable. We don't get sov and it's benefits. This feels like the real **** end of the **** stick. A very good question. I suspect the reason is this: what motivation is there to attack the structure if the contents do not drop? Then again, why would someone do that to a Citadel from High Sec to Null Sec as their stuff is safe as well? This spins it back to: WHY is wormhole space the exception to this?
The way I see it, it's to try and make wormhole space different. But that's stupid, you can't just make something different for the hell of it, there has to be a real reason.
I for one, want the asset safety system torched and everyone's **** to be at some level of risk. This is EVE not candyland online. However, I know the nullbears and the like will spray salty tear hoses all over everything if their precious stuff is at risk at all, so that might not be feasible from a monetary perspective.
However, it needs to be fair. Either everyone's assets should be safe, or no one's should. All this will do is depopulate wormhole space since it will be the only place your assets aren't safe. Who's going to want to live there? You could just live in null and do day-trips from your nullsec citadel with its magical bowel evacuation system.
Best solution, dev's tell the nullbears to harden the **** up and make all citadels drop loot. Second best solution, make everyone's assets safe and deal with having little incentive to attack anyone's towers since you can't crack it open for its tasty innards.
But this? This isn't a solution at all. This is a huge steaming turd dropped on the wormhole community. This incentivizes people to attack us wormholers for our stuff, and NO ONE ELSE, since their stuff will be safe. Wormhole space will die a slow and agonizing death if this goes through. No one is going to want to live in the one place in EVE where their stuff isn't safe in a station.
Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
|
Camios
Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic
163
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 22:36:49 -
[134] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tobias Frank wrote:Looks promising!
Also, will we get docking scenes in the new citadels as we have now in stations/outposts when we are docked? Ship spinning is an important feature! No docking scene. When you dock, the camera will be centred around the structure instead, so you can now play structure spinning.
This is good. Actually I think that the current form of docking is stupid. It makes you fell cosy and warm, but actually you totally lose contact with the space around you, and you also loose situation awareness. All services provided by a station should be accessible while looking outside.
There are a few concerns though:
1. I need anyway a clear way of seeing what ship I am in, or at least which ship I am going to undock in 2. People possibly like the cosiness of hangars? When you are docked, you should feel safe. I think the new "docked state" visuals should convey that impression of safety.
|
Mixu Paatelainen
Soggy Biscuit. Zero.Four Ops
215
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 23:22:43 -
[135] - Quote
This all sounds thoroughly sensible and should lead to some interesting fights all over New Eden. |
Circumstantial Evidence
220
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 00:19:41 -
[136] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:...However, it needs to be fair. Either everyone's assets should be safe, or no one's should. All this will do is depopulate wormhole space since it will be the only place your assets aren't safe. Who's going to want to live there? WH assets aren't safe today, and folks live out of POS's there. I see expensive ship hanger KM's on a regular basis.
Null-sec'ers make day raids all the time, but most return to their home outpost after making what mess they can, rather than camp in system for the required time to finish a POS.
I thought the magic of asset relocation would be reserved to XL citadels, but after re-reading the original asset blog, it seems to cover all sizes. Have I missed an update / reading it wrong?
If there is a problem which needs fixing, I think K-Space getting a new protection it didn't have before, in the citadel sizes which will replace existing POS's - is it. Rather than helping WH, consider reducing the amount of asset protection in K-Space ;)
What if the "M" or even the "L" size were not covered by the asset relocation feature in K-Space? Perhaps the "L" size could offer "partial asset relocation?"
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2733
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 00:26:02 -
[137] - Quote
Ok, so using an entosis link or shooting it really means about the same thing to me (sit in spot X doing Y for Z amount of time), however the fact that this mechanic still seems to be mostly intact is foreshadowing to the capital changes. It almost seems as though it's being kept around for the sake of the classes themselves, which means to me that the changes are going to continue to revolve around massive amounts of HP abilities (damage, hit points, and repair), which I thought was the biggest separator and cause of imbalance for the largest of ships. Needing to create special rules and exceptions and discouraging certain interactions because of the vast differences. I really just took a blow of confidence in the changes themselves, and I'm hoping I'm just overthinking this. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2733
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 00:28:25 -
[138] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:I thought the magic of asset relocation would be reserved to XL citadels, but after re-reading the original asset blog, it seems to cover all sizes. Have I missed an update / reading it wrong? Same question here. I figured XL was a replacement for outposts and at least kept a portion of the status quo intact. |
Godess Superior
Absurdity of Abstractions Phoebe Freeport Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 00:30:32 -
[139] - Quote
Question!
Not sure if it has be said or asked.
Will Citadels still get guns/ewar? As while not really a threat to large fleets. They do put hurt on anything trying to troll it.
Or
If mooring is gone what happens to supers/Titan docked inside the Cit? |
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
328
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 00:30:43 -
[140] - Quote
Assets destroyed in wormholes, thats awesome for market effects following up on big booms, since aliance need to restock ASAP, that will disrupt markets everywhere, awesome! :D
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
|
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
7806
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 00:32:59 -
[141] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Saede Riordan wrote:...However, it needs to be fair. Either everyone's assets should be safe, or no one's should. All this will do is depopulate wormhole space since it will be the only place your assets aren't safe. Who's going to want to live there? WH assets aren't safe today, and folks live out of POS's there. I see expensive ship hanger KM's on a regular basis. Null-sec'ers make day raids all the time, but most return to their home outpost after making what mess they can, rather than camp in system for the required time to finish a POS. I thought the magic of asset relocation would be reserved to XL citadels, but after re-reading the original asset blog, it seems to cover all sizes. Have I missed an update / reading it wrong? If there is a problem which needs fixing, I think K-Space getting a new protection it didn't have before, in the citadel sizes which will replace existing POS's - is it. Rather than helping WH, consider reducing the amount of asset protection in K-Space ;) What if the "M" or even the "L" size were not covered by the asset relocation feature in K-Space? Perhaps the "L" size could offer "partial asset relocation?"
This I like a lot as an idea. Instead of having the area of space arbitrarily effect asset safety, have it tied to structure size (and thus initial investment cost). Could be like, 100% rellocation with XL, 50% with L, 25% with M. This means you need to put down more ISK in the structure upfront if you want your stuff to be safer. Your 20 Billion ISK X-L citadel has 100% asset safety regardless of where you put it in space (not that it helps if you give your ships away to spais), but you dropped 20 billion ISK into it and the killmail for the structure alone is going to sting at that point.
The other thought I had was that asset recovery could be increased by percentages via sov indexes. Obviously that doesn't effect wormholes, but then you have to invest in sov to protect your stuff, which seems like a fair trade off to me.
Its not that I don't like WH space structures dropping stuff, I absolutely do. Its that I don't like the current asset safety system in general, and it currently feels intentionally stacked against wormhole space. I much prefer the above poster's idea of asset safety being tied to structure size and not region of space.
Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2733
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 00:38:02 -
[142] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:Petrified wrote:Saede Riordan wrote:Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold. As a wormholer, this is absolutely not okay and I if no one else will raise hell over it. Why is wormhole space special in that we alone get to deal with the risk of total asset loss while everyone else gets their stuff magically spirited away to safety? All that is going to do is incentivize people in nullsec (whose assets are safe and unattackable) to attack wormholes for the loot. Not only that, but there's absolutely no counterplay, we can't go attack nullseccers and blow up their ****, its safe. We're getting this huge risk that no one else will have to shoulder, and what do we get out of it? Nothing. We can't hit them back, their assets are untouchable. We don't get sov and it's benefits. This feels like the real **** end of the **** stick. A very good question. I suspect the reason is this: what motivation is there to attack the structure if the contents do not drop? Then again, why would someone do that to a Citadel from High Sec to Null Sec as their stuff is safe as well? This spins it back to: WHY is wormhole space the exception to this? The way I see it, it's to try and make wormhole space different. But that's stupid, you can't just make something different for the hell of it, there has to be a real reason. I for one, want the asset safety system torched and everyone's **** to be at some level of risk. This is EVE not candyland online. However, I know the nullbears and the like will spray salty tear hoses all over everything if their precious stuff is at risk at all, so that might not be feasible from a monetary perspective. However, it needs to be fair. Either everyone's assets should be safe, or no one's should. All this will do is depopulate wormhole space since it will be the only place your assets aren't safe. Who's going to want to live there? You could just live in null and do day-trips from your nullsec citadel with its magical bowel evacuation system. Best solution, dev's tell the nullbears to harden the **** up and make all citadels drop loot. Second best solution, make everyone's assets safe and deal with having little incentive to attack anyone's towers since you can't crack it open for its tasty innards. But this? This isn't a solution at all. This is a huge steaming turd dropped on the wormhole community. This incentivizes people to attack us wormholers for our stuff, and NO ONE ELSE, since their stuff will be safe. Wormhole space will die a slow and agonizing death if this goes through. No one is going to want to live in the one place in EVE where their stuff isn't safe in a station. the difference already exists and changing it could have drastic consequences. K-space has NPC stations everywhere that are the safest locations to store your goods. Another difference between outposts and POSes is how much you can practically store in them. As far as I'm aware, even larger wormhole alliances don't all have a single POS or system where they stage everything out of. There are limitations that physically won't let you do that, mainly hangar space. So the amount of assets stored in a W-space POS and the amount in an outpost can be vastly different, to to the simple difference in gameplay types. Sov wars can result in hundreds of players fighting on an almost regular basis with as much as they can muster, with little choice in deflecting the assault. W-space may have some similar battles, but they are much less common and the tactics you can use to mitigate an attack (rolling holes) can make it much easier to set the circumstances in your favor. It's highly unlikely a wh-corp will suddenly have hundreds of players in the strongest ships they can find, suddenly knocking on your door within a period of hours.
I'm not against some risk to assets in XL structures, but it definitely needs to scale properly with the existing mechanics on the other side of the spectrum as well.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2472
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 01:02:34 -
[143] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:I thought the magic of asset relocation would be reserved to XL citadels, but after re-reading the original asset blog, it seems to cover all sizes. Have I missed an update / reading it wrong? If there is a problem which needs fixing, I think K-Space getting a new protection it didn't have before, in the citadel sizes which will replace existing POS's - is it. Rather than helping WH, consider reducing the amount of asset protection in K-Space ;) What if the "M" or even the "L" size were not covered by the asset relocation feature in K-Space? Perhaps the "L" size could offer "partial asset relocation?" Then it becomes 'XL or GTFO' and the smaller size Citadels simply won't see use the way the Devs want them to. People currently might use POS in K space but they don't keep anything in them that can be kept in an NPC station. So in order for the smaller citadels to actually be a worthwhile investment especially given that they can't come down before a wardec goes through they need the asset safety.
Xindi Kraid wrote:Still haven't seen anything related to other structures.
Have you guys scrapped the plans to have various different structures of which citadels are only one type designed to be highly dependable? Are citadels going to be the only type of structure (essentially replacing POSes), defensible but highly customizable with no other stuff like market hubs or manufacturing structures or are citadels just the pet project getting all the love while other structure types are coming out and we might, eventually get so see previews of those in a devblog? Citadels are meant to be the first structure coming out. The others will follow one by one. Citadels are meant to be the core focus of the new 'homes in space' as the 'fortress' part. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
340
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 01:12:13 -
[144] - Quote
some of the citadel components should be invention ONLY!... yeah I said it, it'll make you devs wake up and go back and fix industry since you removed greyscale's teams vision.. yeah you forgot all about that didn't you. you're sitting up here trying to appease the fanbase cause your numbers have sank to dreadful levels and the higher ups put some boots to some behinds.
that's why you're back tracking and changing cause you know you're headed straight to eve is dead by next year if these plans continued on...
now before you dangle more carrots sir and lady.. go back and fix industry cause just looking at the sheer challenge of building an XL right now is all smoke and mirrors.
the 1st time one blows up in null. you're going to be at even a much dire situation cause well when folks loose their things.. they simply leave.. you're still not providing reason why someone should go thru the challenge of null sov.. why should players put forth such effort to even own sov, while you have these large coalitions running around with supers and titans just waiting to hot drop on these new structures the second a spy tells them to...
so go ahead and continue your tunnel vision so many of us are sitting back laughing at watching how the subs will shrink lower and lower cause of fozziesov, structure-carrot, and what ever else gimmick you decide to come up with.
oh yeah.. I do like the backpeddling of the cap jump fatigue.. thank you very much, and I look forward to your next sets of backpeddling to bring eve online numbers back up..you know this backwards and forth and backwards mess is getting really tired just make up your minds already..
when do we get jove space? when will we see a jove mothership?? when will you create what was created in the eve online : prophecy trailer.. you taking too long and my attention span is reaching coma level..wake me up when you're done - bored player |
Dreiden Kisada
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 01:42:30 -
[145] - Quote
I mentioned it before when Citadels first came up, but I'll re-iterate it here.
When a citadel pops, let the previous owners be he only ones to loot their stuff for 3 days. Each hanger could be considered a seperate container, and each person can only loot their container.
Then, after say 3 days, it becomes available for anyone to loot any container. But you must use a salvager to access the containers.
Then, every down time, some amount of damage is done to the stuff in the boxes. Damage to modules and ships, stacks of non-damagable stuff has some reduction in items.
Then after a week, anything left in it becomes salvage items (again, accessed with a salvager). Now the wreck is destroyable as well.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
220
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 01:43:13 -
[146] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:...What if the "M" or even the "L" size were not covered by the asset relocation feature in K-Space? Perhaps the "L" size could offer "partial asset relocation?" Then it becomes 'XL or GTFO' and the smaller size Citadels simply won't see use the way the Devs want them to. People currently might use POS in K space but they don't keep anything in them that can be kept in an NPC station. So in order for the smaller citadels to actually be a worthwhile investment especially given that they can't come down before a wardec goes through they need the asset safety. I disagree that it's "XL or don't bother." Lower upfront costs for "M" and "L" will help guide the decision. I'll be disappointed if the base "M" citadel costs (much) more than the base "M" control tower today.
While it's smart to keep valuables in an NPC station where possible, EVE lets players make bad choices. I might stash some loot in a small POS even in highsec, forget about it in the following month, if other stuff is going on; think a wardec was issued for some other purpose - and then be rudely reminded that corp hangers are locked during POS reinforcement. I think "M" citadels will get plenty of use as POS's are today, esp. in highsec systems without a station. Good temp storage for mining fleets. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3646
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 01:57:28 -
[147] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:How are you going to prevent a single kiting sniper from applying damage constantly to prolong the repair timer until you have to go to sleep? Ie warp a sniper corm in at range, shoot once, warp off. Repeat this with a single pilot until you have to log off. It's nearly impossible to stop and you have effective control of the grid, but you can never repair your structure since they are taking pot shots at it. I think once its fully Repped your out of luck from how I read it. If it takes no damage in 30 seconds repairs kick in. It takes 15 total minutes to fully repair. So if your kiting ship is not beating its repair rate, as you warp in and out it will have of just repaired itself up. Hence why having Grid control and getting your enemies off is important as quick as possible. Shoot it once during repair and it stops for 30 seconds. 30 seconds go by and no damage is received in that time repair cycle kicks back in. Kitey ship shoots it again, warps off.. 30 second pause.. DPS doesnt do much of anything to it tho 30 seconds go by and that damage is repped as well as more until the ship lands to shoot it again and then warp off. 30 seconds go by, damage was still negligible so it finished its repair cycle after 15 minutes of self-repair. The repair completed after the vulnerability cycle due to 30 second pauses, and it went back to an Invulnerable state. Compared to if a fleet was on field shooting it which would keep the repair cycle from restarting and eventually it would get reinforced or chased away. If reinforced , wash, rinse, repeat x2 more times for armor and Structure. If chased away and it had time to repair.. wait until next window. Andre has a legitimate concern here. A cormorant with a lot of bookmarks can easily apply damage once every 30 seconds, from >100km out, while being nearly impossible to catch. It doesn't matter that he has **** damage, as long as he can keep the repair timer prolonged (until the rest of his fleet arrives, for example, or just until he gets tired of trolling). We will probably do a shorter timer (say 10 seconds) to resume counting down the repair timer as well as a small % damage threshold to trigger the pause. Balancing these will be required to prevent the hit and run tactics which we stated we want to prevent being effective. So they use three cormorants. Any fleet ship that can lock, shoot, and scoot faster than the structure can lock and shot back can keep the repair timer frozen, and also be invulnerable to retaliation from the structure guns.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Sarayu Wyvern
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 02:54:28 -
[148] - Quote
Would it be possible to have hangars of different appearance based on Capital or Sub-Capital with these new structures?
I realize that would be a LOT of Art Team work and they're probably working on far more important projects, but could we one day have those? It would be a really cool addition to these already cool new Citadels.
Alt of MidnightWyvern. (Mobius Wyvern in Dust 514)
|
Lucius Saturninus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 03:10:15 -
[149] - Quote
You cannot be biased if youGÇÖre going to take away Asset Protection in WH Space. It needs to apply to everyone.
If you can warp to a Citadel like a combat anomaly in a WH you had better be able to do it everywhere else.
If itGÇÖs a 48 hours to siege a Citadel in a WH then it needs to be 48 hours in Null, Low and High Sec. Otherwise your just thumbing your nose, again, at people that live in WH space.
Disclosure, I am a fan of automated defenses. But IGÇÖm kind of looking forward to checking out the Drone/Fighter bay module for the Citadels and to see how many you can stuff in them. And see if you field Bombers from it?
|
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
929
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 03:32:27 -
[150] - Quote
Dang, those WIP shots look really cool. The gameplay plans seem decent as well, from the view of someone who has never done the sov thing, only WH living.
Any plans to take the standard NPC stations in the direction of the citadels... in terms of size, multiple undocks, etc?
When docked at a citadel, since we see the citadel instead of a ship hangar, do we also see the surrounding space and the ships nearby? Effectively giving people the "window" that has often been asked for, allowing them to see activity outside? And if so, will NPC stations be converted over to this view as well? |
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
601
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 03:54:44 -
[151] - Quote
I do not believe this system, as currently designed, will produce any significant improvement in game play in high sec.
No one in high sec is likely to use M sized citadels. They are too easy to kill by a relatively small number of attackers. (Note: small POS were popular for BP research, prior to Crius, but I doubt that many people use them these days.)
Killing an XL sized citadel is too difficult. It is extremely problematic to regularly bring 75-225 battleships to attack anyone in high sec.
An L sized citadel is better than an M sized citadel, but why use one, when you can use an XL sized citadel?
High sec players are risk adverse. For most of them, there is no incentive to use a smaller citadel in high sec - only the XL sized citadel. Cost isn't much of a barrier - remember that high sec is where players fly expensive bling-fit ships to run missions.
Due to the size of the fleet required to take down a high sec XL sized citadel (since you can't use caps), there isn't much incentive for someone to attack one, even with an active wardec.
And, if the XL sized citadel is scaled down to become more vulnerable, it also becomes too risky. Then high sec players won't use citadels - they will just move back to NPC stations.
So, in high sec, you have a case where "defenders" have no reason to use anything less than something that "attackers" would be unlikely to ever want to attack. |
FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
54
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 03:54:59 -
[152] - Quote
To add my bit to the debate, the most important thing I have ever seen from CCP about game development is that throw-away line about how an attacker will need to hit a minimal damage threshold to stop the repair timer.
I say this because it means that the devs are finally starting to understand how players will be dicks to each other if given a chance, and design around it. Bravo, and keep it up. Make optimal gameplay choices result in interaction instead of trolltastic time-wasting behavior. |
Galphii
Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn
345
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 04:55:11 -
[153] - Quote
I like these iterations a lot more than the last. The damage cap is an excellent method to prevent server-crashing single-system grinding too, and alleviates some of the the n+1 issues with structure bashing.
This means entosis and system capture is for smaller gangs, and dealing with structures is handled by capitals and perhaps even battleships (depending on the upcoming revision of this class). A good way to include many different styles and sizes of fleet compositions. Nine thumbs up!
"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
287
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 05:00:11 -
[154] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:How are you going to prevent a single kiting sniper from applying damage constantly to prolong the repair timer until you have to go to sleep? Ie warp a sniper corm in at range, shoot once, warp off. Repeat this with a single pilot until you have to log off. It's nearly impossible to stop and you have effective control of the grid, but you can never repair your structure since they are taking pot shots at it. I think once its fully Repped your out of luck from how I read it. If it takes no damage in 30 seconds repairs kick in. It takes 15 total minutes to fully repair. So if your kiting ship is not beating its repair rate, as you warp in and out it will have of just repaired itself up. Hence why having Grid control and getting your enemies off is important as quick as possible. Shoot it once during repair and it stops for 30 seconds. 30 seconds go by and no damage is received in that time repair cycle kicks back in. Kitey ship shoots it again, warps off.. 30 second pause.. DPS doesnt do much of anything to it tho 30 seconds go by and that damage is repped as well as more until the ship lands to shoot it again and then warp off. 30 seconds go by, damage was still negligible so it finished its repair cycle after 15 minutes of self-repair. The repair completed after the vulnerability cycle due to 30 second pauses, and it went back to an Invulnerable state. Compared to if a fleet was on field shooting it which would keep the repair cycle from restarting and eventually it would get reinforced or chased away. If reinforced , wash, rinse, repeat x2 more times for armor and Structure. If chased away and it had time to repair.. wait until next window. Andre has a legitimate concern here. A cormorant with a lot of bookmarks can easily apply damage once every 30 seconds, from >100km out, while being nearly impossible to catch. It doesn't matter that he has **** damage, as long as he can keep the repair timer prolonged (until the rest of his fleet arrives, for example, or just until he gets tired of trolling). We will probably do a shorter timer (say 10 seconds) to resume counting down the repair timer as well as a small % damage threshold to trigger the pause. Balancing these will be required to prevent the hit and run tactics which we stated we want to prevent being effective. So they use three cormorants. Any fleet ship that can lock, shoot, and scoot faster than the structure can lock and shot back can keep the repair timer frozen, and also be invulnerable to retaliation from the structure guns. There is a precedent set by CCP developers already and in current use that can, and should be applied in this case: Damage Thresholds. In DUST shields have a damage threshold. If damage does not exceed that threshold, shields will regen regarless. This prevents peppering by weak weapons from a long distance keeping shields from regenerating.
CCP can easily apply this same logic to Citadels as well. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1084
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 05:11:22 -
[155] - Quote
Looking good. |
Justin Cody
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
306
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 05:13:02 -
[156] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:After great and very useful feedback from you, the player community, we are excited to bring you an update about the new Citadel structures! Entosis links are not going to work on new structures, to attack those new structures you need to go through their hitpoints. To prevent boring structure grinding, and to prevent the requirement for massive blobs, a new game mechanic that mitigates damage after a certain threshold has been introduced. The attack process has been streamlined as well. Read more about those new aspects in the latest dev blog from Team Game of Drones (written by CCP Ytterbium): Citadels, Sieges and You v2We welcome your feedback! Please note that all numbers and proposals are open for discussions and not finalized.
Good blog. I look forward to the post on the exact mechanics in w-space as well as how existing asset loss (outposts and towers) will be compensated for...or if this will be almost a reset with sov entities not getting drop in replacements.
Also one question - the damage mitigation: is it possible battleships (when you do a balance pass on them) could get something like that? Some sort of massive damage mitigation for a short period? Or perhaps introduce a battlehsip only module that acts like a "lite' bastion module but had a cooldown similar to a large micro jumpdrive?
|
Thron Legacy
White Zulu Scorpion Federation
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 05:21:32 -
[157] - Quote
Changes sound good, BUT Entosis makes you unable to catch RR, shooting stufff... Well u know
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2476
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 05:22:58 -
[158] - Quote
Lucius Saturninus wrote:You cannot be biased if youGÇÖre going to take away Asset Protection in WH Space. It needs to apply to everyone.
If you can warp to a Citadel like a combat anomaly in a WH you had better be able to do it everywhere else.
If itGÇÖs a 48 hours to siege a Citadel in a WH then it needs to be 48 hours in Null, Low and High Sec. Otherwise your just thumbing your nose, again, at people that live in WH space.
Disclosure, I am a fan of automated defenses. But IGÇÖm kind of looking forward to checking out the Drone/Fighter bay module for the Citadels and to see how many you can stuff in them. And see if you field Bombers from it?
Can you warp to a POS now without probes. If this is true in the area of space you are in, then it will remain true with citadels. Can you store your stuff in a station without risk of loss of stuff (loss of access does not count). If this is true in the area of space you are in then it will remain true with citadels.
The only point you raise is that the time to destroy should remain fairly constant between area's of space. |
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
20
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 05:47:58 -
[159] - Quote
The vast majority of what I see in this dev blog is pretty cool and I'm happy, and want to know more!
However, I must agree with one or more people on one point:
Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold. That is not okay.
Everybody gets absolutely nonsensically magical asset safety but then destroyed citadels in wormholes can't even shunt their loots to a friendly citadel within the same system?
That is not okay.
Either everybody who sets up a Citadel should get a degree of asset safety out of it, or nobody should. Pickiong wormhole people to not get even the fraction of 'asset safety' that everybody else benefits from.... Even within the heartless world of destruction that is EVE, that's pretty unfair and cruel.
Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2733
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 06:25:49 -
[160] - Quote
Also have another question: I seem to never hear about the other different structures proposed on the original devblog, nor any updates on the multiple sticky threads in F&I. Are citadels now the only structures replacing POSes and outposts? Has the idea of mining platforms, observation posts, and industrial themed structures been forgotten or discarded?
its not fair of me to assume much with the few details I have, but it seems as though citadels don't actually do that much. Especially compared to existing structures. |
|
Beta Maoye
74
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 06:38:17 -
[161] - Quote
Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold.
In case of destruction of structures, it should be either everyone get everything back or everyone lose everything. I don't see any reason why some people should suffer losing everything they hardly earned while some others have the privilege to save all their assets automatically by the game. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1113
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 06:44:17 -
[162] - Quote
I would like to point out that CCP with the vulnerability approach detailed have understood that Citadels would have a usage issue if they were really easy to attack and if they got blown up all would be lost. Could they really see risk averse players bothering to put them up if they were real easy to find and reinforce and then kill, no. My attitude in this game is to be difficult to kill, or to make someone rich at my expense, this means that the first iteration of citadels got a meh, I won't bother approach, with the asset relocation it worked, but the RF and defence side of things was too much hassle for my more laid back just do what I want to have fun approach to Eve.
The vulnerability periods as laid out within the dev blog are perfect for more casual players, but the HTFU fanatics are now having a fit. What they fail to realise is that with the current suggestion a lot of players will build these things now and have a reason to defend them in the time they are vulnerable and there will be loads of them, it just takes effort on your part to find a target that fits your TZ. And so many of you HTFU types talk about Eve being a hard game except when it comes to your own effort. I think CCP have set it at the right level so it is not a damn chore that prevents me from wanting to putt one up what they have suggested works for me, now you lot just need to locate the targets, a bit of work that, and I am so glad no API data too.
I have to say that the WH suggestions got a big meh from me in terms of faster reinforcement, that sucks big time on top of the asset relocation which I understand, I just now cannot see that I would ever go anywhere near living in a WH. I have to ask the questions, in terms of easy to locate static structures, why do they have to be easy to take, this also goes back to the concept you laid out here in normal space, hisec, lowsec and nullsec, so when people talk about expanding the vulnerability period ignore them, when they ask for loot drops ignore them because if you do, do not expect more casual players to be loot pinatas for all those bored HTFU types.
Lets point it out very clearly, I would rather not use Citadels at all if these people have it easy.
And at this point you have it about right apart from that 48 hour suggestion in WH space.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks PowerDucks Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 06:57:29 -
[163] - Quote
Are you serious? Making new features that denies another new feature, which is not implemented well yet...
Now look what you're doing: 1. Entosis is bad, because players want pew-pew. 2. Entosis is good, because it ensures active presence of sides on battlefield. 3. You now take it out and replace with 30min repair timer -> satisfy p.1 4. 30 min timers ensures, that hit&run will be used as primary attack tactic to decrease risks ->broken p.2
Solution: Make damage only appliable while entosis is active (or make it stop repair mechanics while decreasing repair timers) |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
287
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 06:58:05 -
[164] - Quote
Thinking about it, why not keep Entosis modules while retaining the "shoot it till it dies" aspect?
Lets say this: why should everything explode? Sometimes, you might want to capture it rather than annihilate it. So the Entosis module could effect 2 things in this respect: shields and capture. You can use a small fleet or a single ship to entosis a structure and thus "convince" the system to drop the shields placing the structure into the first invulnerability phase. The second use would be to capture the structure: instead of killing the hull off, you use the Entosis module when the hull is in a low % to 'vent air' into space and turn the structures systems to your side.
The defender could counter Entosis to prevent the opponent from dropping shields and in the latter stage the Defender can counter Entosis the capture or even use it to enforce a self destruct resulting in only 25% of a drop instead of 50% - especially for the nose-thumbing defender in WH space.
This would add more options to the table without reducing assets already added to the game (ie: Entosis links) |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1725
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 07:38:01 -
[165] - Quote
Maenth wrote:The vast majority of what I see in this dev blog is pretty cool and I'm happy, and want to know more! However, I must agree with one or more people on one point: Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold. That is not okay. Everybody gets absolutely nonsensically magical asset safety but then destroyed citadels in wormholes can't even shunt their loots to a friendly citadel within the same system? That is not okay. Either everybody who sets up a Citadel should get a degree of asset safety out of it, or nobody should. Pickiong wormhole people to not get even the fraction of 'asset safety' that everybody else benefits from.... Even within the heartless world of destruction that is EVE, that's pretty unfair and cruel.
CCP is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. A very vocal group asked for loot drop in WH space. CCP listened to their arguments and complied. Now the other side is coming out to register their complaints. Personally, I would like to see loot drop in all areas of space.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
242
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 07:48:43 -
[166] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:After great and very useful feedback from you, the player community, we are excited to bring you an update about the new Citadel structures! Entosis links are not going to work on new structures, to attack those new structures you need to go through their hitpoints. To prevent boring structure grinding, and to prevent the requirement for massive blobs, a new game mechanic that mitigates damage after a certain threshold has been introduced. The attack process has been streamlined as well. Read more about those new aspects in the latest dev blog from Team Game of Drones (written by CCP Ytterbium): Citadels, Sieges and You v2We welcome your feedback! Please note that all numbers and proposals are open for discussions and not finalized.
who are you and what have you done to CCP Phantom?!
i have to say this looks much better much better than the magic flashlight version; some numbers may need small tweeks but all in all a good nice system(the dps caps seems al bit low to me, esp on xl structures, but since citadels should be the safest structures out there i can live with it)
one question tho: nul sec owner has no index 60- this include the 0.0 NPC space? like i said before you guys seems to forget about this type of space does exist in eve universe, and each time you reballance something it's ending up in a different category... |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2002
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 08:24:57 -
[167] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Maenth wrote:The vast majority of what I see in this dev blog is pretty cool and I'm happy, and want to know more! However, I must agree with one or more people on one point: Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold. That is not okay. Everybody gets absolutely nonsensically magical asset safety but then destroyed citadels in wormholes can't even shunt their loots to a friendly citadel within the same system? That is not okay. Either everybody who sets up a Citadel should get a degree of asset safety out of it, or nobody should. Pickiong wormhole people to not get even the fraction of 'asset safety' that everybody else benefits from.... Even within the heartless world of destruction that is EVE, that's pretty unfair and cruel. CCP is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. A very vocal group asked for loot drop in WH space. CCP listened to their arguments and complied. Now the other side is coming out to register their complaints. Personally, I would like to see loot drop in all areas of space.
That's how you fix it.
I don't understand why such safety is expected. It's not like there are any other examples of a "sympathy" fairy spiriting your wrecks loot away. |
Dagda Morr
Sabotage Incorporated Executive Outcomes
40
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 08:35:47 -
[168] - Quote
Just when I think CCP have become completely divorced from what makes eve fun you go and post this! Really like the mitigation factor but would like to see the numebrs tweaked a bit - my only concern is that 60x dreads is a fairly trivial number, big coalitions can hit multiple XL citadels at once under this mechanism and make it extremely hard to defend. Hopefully the XL citadels will have some teeth - obviously they shouldn't be able to solo 60x dreads but I hope they can seriously maul an unsupported attacking fleet of dreads. |
Langbaobao
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 08:44:44 -
[169] - Quote
Ok, this is actually not bad, and I can't believe that CCP listened to people saying that structures should be DPSable. It gives me finally some hope for CCP. IMHO sov itself and everything related to sov (like indexes, production and so on) should be entosis driven, while structures should be DPSable or a mix of both DPS and entosis.
Damage mitigation is actually not bad as mechanic to limit the actual DPS amounts that you have to apply, thus lowering the requirements enough that even small entities with 30 man fleets can easily take down stuff. Overall I think it's a good proposal which finally takes into consideration some of the feedback that people have been trying to make CCP aware of in the last few months. There are however a few things that I think need some tweaking, and in particular:
1) Structures and SOV should be separated, the former requiring DPSing, and sov entirely entosis driven. I know that they've mentioned that in the deblog already, but I think it should be emphasized.
2) IMHO the vulnerability windows should be larger. I know that the reasoning behind the reduced vulnerability windows is that it helps smaller entities, but still, 3 hours of vulnerability per week for small citadels and 6 h/week for large ones is a bit too small I think. Especially when the whole vulnerability window can be shoved into one day per week, thus making the structure invulnerable the other 6 days. I think the numbers should be tweaked. Also, maybe a system where there is a diminishing returns system implemented could be the way to go. This way if you set your vulnerability window to be a small amount every day or every second day would incur no or very small penalties, while if you set it all in only one day then you would get a penalty to vulnerability that would increase that window by a certain amount (dunno, maybe 50%?). So for example if you have a large citadel (6 h/week of vulnerability), if you put one hour of vulnerability per day you would have no penalty (=6 h/week total), if you put them every second day the vulnerability window would increase by 25% (=7.5 hours of vulnerability per week), and if you put it all in only one day you get a 50% penalty (9 h/week). Hope this gets my point across.
3) Medium and Large Citadels should have some form of defense akin to current POSes since M and L citadels will be used as a substitute for these. These defenses would not threaten an organized fleet, even a relatively modest one but would discourage trolling. Since you've mentioned that you're looking for a way to discourage trolling without putting throwaway assets, this could be a way to go. XL citadels on the other hand should not have defenses since they will act primarily as substitutes for outposts and will require a non trolly amount of assets to be deployed to affect them or kill them.
|
Gyges Skyeye
Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn
29
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 09:04:10 -
[170] - Quote
On the subject of Damage Mitigation.
Pros: Creates predictable behavior and engagement patterns which can be tweaked for balance Places a sanity check on how many people are needed for a thing
Cons: When the number of people needed for a thing is achieved, everyone else who wanted to participate may as well go f*ck off.
Proposed Change: Damage mitigated instead extends the reinforcement timer by some amount. This number can then be balanced, or provide diminishing returns, as appropriate.
Probable outcomes: Everyone can now participate in an op, in a damage ship, beyond just the first 20 dreads to show up. They can feel useful about doing so.
Extended reinforcement timers allow for skirmishes and pauses, pulses in combat to happen while people jockey for positioning.
Extended reinforcement timers generated in high player count fights allow for distant parties to dogpile into the scrum returning -the chance- of a new B-R, Asakai, etc.
Edge cases of super, 24 hour long reinforcement timers likely wont happen as the structure would probably be blown up before that was even possible.
Default reinforcement timers can probably be balanced to be shorter to reduce pooper scooper duty if players are given a way to sandbox them into longer timers as a result of their active, -committed- actions.
---
That's my 0.02 isk on damage mitigation. |
|
Tara Anju
Tempus Manus
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 09:07:52 -
[171] - Quote
I like the described mechanics but I must admit I am a bit confused now.
Does all this only aply to citadels or other upcoming structures (mining stations, sensor arrays, ...) as well?
What about that command node spawning mechanic?
I really liked that idea of spreding combat over a whole region and making the topography of a regin matter in combat.
Is that all obsolete now?
Please clarify which mechanic applies to which parts of structure / sov warfare. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
678
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 09:10:24 -
[172] - Quote
Will there be any mechanic in place to prevent indefinitely abandoned structures?
I understand this is more of an issue with starbases, as there are a finite number of moons per system. However even with severely reduced anchoring restrictions I can see certain areas of space being packed with old structures from defunct corps. Will there be a more direct method to dispose of (and hopefully loot) these? |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
678
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 09:15:34 -
[173] - Quote
Tara Anju wrote:I like the described mechanics but I must admit I am a bit confused now.
Does all this only aply to citadels or other upcoming structures (mining stations, sensor arrays, ...) as well?
What about that command node spawning mechanic?
I really liked that idea of spreding combat over a whole region and making the topography of a regin matter in combat.
Is that all obsolete now?
Please clarify which mechanic applies to which parts of structure / sov warfare.
This will pretty much apply to all future structures also (aside from sov-related ones like TCUs).
The trouble with command nodes for non-sov structures is two-fold:
1) You're fighting for control of the structure itself, not control of the area as with sov. It makes sense that stand-alone structures are conquered through firepower.
2) These structures are meant to work in all kinds of space rather than just nullsec. This in turn brings around limitations when you move constellation-based fighting to other kinds of space; how would it work in wormholes, or when one side doesn't have the security status to move freely within a full high-sec constellation? It's best to keep things consistent in a way that works everywhere. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1726
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 09:32:54 -
[174] - Quote
afkalt wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Maenth wrote:The vast majority of what I see in this dev blog is pretty cool and I'm happy, and want to know more! However, I must agree with one or more people on one point: Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold. That is not okay. Everybody gets absolutely nonsensically magical asset safety but then destroyed citadels in wormholes can't even shunt their loots to a friendly citadel within the same system? That is not okay. Either everybody who sets up a Citadel should get a degree of asset safety out of it, or nobody should. Pickiong wormhole people to not get even the fraction of 'asset safety' that everybody else benefits from.... Even within the heartless world of destruction that is EVE, that's pretty unfair and cruel. CCP is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. A very vocal group asked for loot drop in WH space. CCP listened to their arguments and complied. Now the other side is coming out to register their complaints. Personally, I would like to see loot drop in all areas of space. That's how you fix it. I don't understand why such safety is expected. It's not like there are any other examples of a "sympathy" fairy spiriting your wrecks loot away.
I completely agree. Asset safety via magical space fairies has no place in Eve.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1680
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 09:58:57 -
[175] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:afkalt wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Maenth wrote:The vast majority of what I see in this dev blog is pretty cool and I'm happy, and want to know more! However, I must agree with one or more people on one point: Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold. That is not okay. Everybody gets absolutely nonsensically magical asset safety but then destroyed citadels in wormholes can't even shunt their loots to a friendly citadel within the same system? That is not okay. Either everybody who sets up a Citadel should get a degree of asset safety out of it, or nobody should. Pickiong wormhole people to not get even the fraction of 'asset safety' that everybody else benefits from.... Even within the heartless world of destruction that is EVE, that's pretty unfair and cruel. CCP is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. A very vocal group asked for loot drop in WH space. CCP listened to their arguments and complied. Now the other side is coming out to register their complaints. Personally, I would like to see loot drop in all areas of space. That's how you fix it. I don't understand why such safety is expected. It's not like there are any other examples of a "sympathy" fairy spiriting your wrecks loot away. I completely agree. Asset safety via magical space fairies has no place in Eve. All structures should have 50% of the contents destroyed and 50% drop as loot. Don't build what you cannot afford to lose.
It's not just the building and losing though, these structures are supposed to be used as market hubs, who will put stuff in them to sell if it can all go boom without some kind of assurances on asset safety? Note I said assurance not insurance as that opens up exploits.
There needs to be some kind of balance between safety and no safety. Perhaps in the event of a wardec in hisec or losec any stuff on the market or belonging to non corp pilots should be magicated away but the structure owning corps stuff is at some degree of risk. I quite liked the idea proposed earlier where larger structures help mitigate losses more (although this would need to be balanced with the increased fuel usage to make smaller structures viable if somewhat more risky.
nullsec and WH should use the proposed mechanic of warp away cans that pop up in the owners planetary launches menu since there won't be NPC's out there to ferry it (NPC null would have magication but some risk of loss perhaps).
Anything that is actually 'lost' should drop as loot.
ED: Another idea, perhaps the NPC magication of goods should be dependent on one or more 'Emergency Evac' modules being fitted. Increased safety for goods would mean decreased utility on the station itself. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
552
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 10:25:11 -
[176] - Quote
Langbaobao wrote:Ok, this is actually not bad, and I can't believe that CCP listened to people saying that structures should be DPSable. It gives me finally some hope for CCP. IMHO sov itself and everything related to sov (like indexes, production and so on) should be entosis driven, while structures should be DPSable.
Damage mitigation is actually not bad as mechanic to limit the actual DPS amounts that you have to apply, thus lowering the requirements enough that even small entities with 30 man fleets can easily take down stuff. Overall I think it's a good proposal which finally takes into consideration some of the feedback that people have been trying to make CCP aware of in the last few months. There are however a few things that I think need some tweaking, and in particular:
1) Structures and SOV should be separated, the former requiring DPSing, and sov entirely entosis driven. I know that they've mentioned that in the deblog already, but I think it should be emphasized.
2) IMHO the vulnerability windows should be larger. I know that the reasoning behind the reduced vulnerability windows is that it helps smaller entities, but still, 3 hours of vulnerability per week for small citadels and 6 h/week for large ones is a bit too small I think. Especially when the whole vulnerability window can be shoved into one day per week, thus making the structure invulnerable the other 6 days. I think the numbers should be tweaked. Also, maybe a system where there is a diminishing returns system implemented could be the way to go. This way if you set your vulnerability window to be a small amount every day or every second day would incur no or very small penalties, while if you set it all in only one day then you would get a penalty to vulnerability that would increase that window by a certain amount (dunno, maybe 50%?). So for example if you have a large citadel (6 h/week of vulnerability), if you put one hour of vulnerability per day you would have no penalty (=6 h/week total), if you put them every second day the vulnerability window would increase by 25% (=7.5 hours of vulnerability per week), and if you put it all in only one day you get a 50% penalty (9 h/week). Hope this gets my point across.
3) Medium and Large Citadels should have some form of defense akin to current POSes since M and L citadels will be used as a substitute for these. These defenses would not threaten an organized fleet, even a relatively modest one but would discourage trolling. Since you've mentioned that you're looking for a way to discourage trolling without putting throwaway assets, this could be a way to go. XL citadels on the other hand should not have defenses since they will act primarily as substitutes for outposts and will require a non trolly amount of assets to be deployed to affect them or kill them.
4) If a citadel is destroyed the person inside should spawn in the ship he was in at the same spot where the citadel was before (akin to what happens currently with POSes). This was discussed previously when we had the first citadel blogs, but I would like to reiterate. Otherwise people will just use the workaround of undocking in their ship from the citadel and log off while being invulnerable and I think CCP has agreed as well that in such a situation is it is basically useless to go again the stream since people will use the workaround and it will make everything just unnecessarily tedious.
5) Also CCP plz, loot pinatas for everyone, not just WH, although not necessarily with the same percentages as WHs. Maybe for example outside of WHs a certain percentage can drop and the rest goes back to the original owner like described in previous blogs (although I'm still against magical Pony Express to lowsec)
Solid post, agree on all points!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2003
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 10:39:31 -
[177] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:FT Diomedes wrote: I completely agree. Asset safety via magical space fairies has no place in Eve. All structures should have 50% of the contents destroyed and 50% drop as loot. Don't build what you cannot afford to lose.
It's not just the building and losing though, these structures are supposed to be used as market hubs, who will put stuff in them to sell if it can all go boom without some kind of assurances on asset safety? Note I said assurance not insurance as that opens up exploits. There needs to be some kind of balance between safety and no safety. Perhaps in the event of a wardec in hisec or losec any stuff on the market or belonging to non corp pilots should be magicated away but the structure owning corps stuff is at some degree of risk. I quite liked the idea proposed earlier where larger structures help mitigate losses more (although this would need to be balanced with the increased fuel usage to make smaller structures viable if somewhat more risky. nullsec and WH should use the proposed mechanic of warp away cans that pop up in the owners planetary launches menu since there won't be NPC's out there to ferry it (NPC null would have magication but some risk of loss perhaps). Anything that is actually 'lost' should drop as loot. ED: Another idea, perhaps the NPC magication of goods should be dependent on one or more 'Emergency Evac' modules being fitted. Increased safety for goods would mean decreased utility on the station itself.
That's a can of worms though. Why do some areas get special snowflake treatment?
It's the same in *every* area of eve. Someone "expecting" a level of item safety in say, a freighter, is laughed off these boards - and rightly so.
Why do other areas qualify for special snowflake treatment?
Did I miss a bit in the blog which says people can't evac when it is RFd? Serisou question, I might have, I was doing a lot at once when I read it. If I did not and evac is viable....there's literally no good reason for this whatsoever.
Ed: Had to chop some quotes |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
679
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 11:01:50 -
[178] - Quote
afkalt wrote: It's the same in *every* area of eve. Someone "expecting" a level of item safety in say, a freighter, is laughed off these boards - and rightly so.
Why do other areas qualify for special snowflake treatment?
Did I miss a bit in the blog which says people can't evac when it is RFd? Serisou question, I might have, I was doing a lot at once when I read it. If I did not and evac is viable....there's literally no good reason for this whatsoever.
In order to lose a freighter you *have* to be logged in and playing the game. You're actively in a position to mitigate any risk via in-game action.
Structures are persistent items that have to balance risk with the concept that players cannot be around 24/7 to mitigate it. EVE is (in theory at least) a video game and not a job. That means accommodating real life events such as players getting sick, going on holiday, looking after family, and any other scenario that could result in them being away from their hobby for a few days or more. By not providing scope for players to step away for a time, CCP would actively alienate a majority of players from using their brand new feature that's receiving so much development time. At best the feature would be under-utilised, at worst players would simply not play anymore.
It's hardly 'special snowflake treatment' to draw a line between a player actively logged in the game and able to take action, and a player who could lose months or years worth of assets to a real life calamity.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2003
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 11:09:09 -
[179] - Quote
xttz wrote:afkalt wrote: It's the same in *every* area of eve. Someone "expecting" a level of item safety in say, a freighter, is laughed off these boards - and rightly so.
Why do other areas qualify for special snowflake treatment?
Did I miss a bit in the blog which says people can't evac when it is RFd? Serisou question, I might have, I was doing a lot at once when I read it. If I did not and evac is viable....there's literally no good reason for this whatsoever.
In order to lose a freighter you *have* to be logged in and playing the game. You're actively in a position to mitigate any risk via in-game action. Structures are persistent items that have to balance risk with the concept that players cannot be around 24/7 to mitigate it. EVE is (in theory at least) a video game and not a job. That means accommodating real life events such as players getting sick, going on holiday, looking after family, and any other scenario that could result in them being away from their hobby for a few days or more. By not providing scope for players to step away for a time, CCP would actively alienate a majority of players from using their brand new feature that's receiving so much development time. At best the feature would be under-utilised, at worst players would simply not play anymore. It's hardly 'special snowflake treatment' to draw a line between a player actively logged in the game and able to take action, and a player who could lose months or years worth of assets to a real life calamity.
You are correct, but the very same situation exists today, in wormholes. 2 days out of the game and the whole place can be torn down.
So the precedent is here today, which is why I'm not seeing the problem.
I do not disagree with your overall reasoning, my question is more down the path of "but this can happen today and that's deemed ok....so why change it?"
Unless we're just placing WH to one side as the special super hardcore snowflakes - in which case I'll shut up |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
552
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 11:12:56 -
[180] - Quote
Well, in order to put yourself in a position where you could lose your assets in a citadel also requires logging in. It's a beneficial choice without any risk.
What this proposed asset safety means in practice is that nobody will ever have to defend it, since their sutff is magicked into safety without any actions from them. You'll only defend a disposable structure, just set up a new one elsewhere and carry on. |
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1114
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 11:16:15 -
[181] - Quote
Langbaobao wrote:Ok, this is actually not bad, and I can't believe that CCP listened to people saying that structures should be DPSable. It gives me finally some hope for CCP. IMHO sov itself and everything related to sov (like indexes, production and so on) should be entosis driven, while structures should be DPSable.
Damage mitigation is actually not bad as mechanic to limit the actual DPS amounts that you have to apply, thus lowering the requirements enough that even small entities with 30 man fleets can easily take down stuff. Overall I think it's a good proposal which finally takes into consideration some of the feedback that people have been trying to make CCP aware of in the last few months. There are however a few things that I think need some tweaking, and in particular:
1) Structures and SOV should be separated, the former requiring DPSing, and sov entirely entosis driven. I know that they've mentioned that in the deblog already, but I think it should be emphasized.
2) IMHO the vulnerability windows should be larger. I know that the reasoning behind the reduced vulnerability windows is that it helps smaller entities, but still, 3 hours of vulnerability per week for small citadels and 6 h/week for large ones is a bit too small I think. Especially when the whole vulnerability window can be shoved into one day per week, thus making the structure invulnerable the other 6 days. I think the numbers should be tweaked. Also, maybe a system where there is a diminishing returns system implemented could be the way to go. This way if you set your vulnerability window to be a small amount every day or every second day would incur no or very small penalties, while if you set it all in only one day then you would get a penalty to vulnerability that would increase that window by a certain amount (dunno, maybe 50%?). So for example if you have a large citadel (6 h/week of vulnerability), if you put one hour of vulnerability per day you would have no penalty (=6 h/week total), if you put them every second day the vulnerability window would increase by 25% (=7.5 hours of vulnerability per week), and if you put it all in only one day you get a 50% penalty (9 h/week). Hope this gets my point across.
3) Medium and Large Citadels should have some form of defense akin to current POSes since M and L citadels will be used as a substitute for these. These defenses would not threaten an organized fleet, even a relatively modest one but would discourage trolling. Since you've mentioned that you're looking for a way to discourage trolling without putting throwaway assets, this could be a way to go. XL citadels on the other hand should not have defenses since they will act primarily as substitutes for outposts and will require a non trolly amount of assets to be deployed to affect them or kill them.
4) If a citadel is destroyed the person inside should spawn in the ship he was in at the same spot where the citadel was before (akin to what happens currently with POSes). This was discussed previously when we had the first citadel blogs, but I would like to reiterate. Otherwise people will just use the workaround of undocking in their ship from the citadel and log off while being invulnerable and I think CCP has agreed as well that in such a situation is it is basically useless to go again the stream since people will use the workaround and it will make everything just unnecessarily tedious.
5) Also CCP plz, loot pinatas for everyone, not just WH, although not necessarily with the same percentages as WHs. Maybe for example outside of WHs a certain percentage can drop and the rest goes back to the original owner like described in previous blogs (although I'm still against magical Pony Express to lowsec)
I think that you make some good points, like 1) I agree with, but there is self interest there in 2) 3) and 5), the smaller the vulnerability window the more structures you will see. Also you seem to forget that there are structures to do different things, so for example my small corp will have a medium citadel and some other structures for manufacturing and even mining and the one taking over the POCO job all in NPC 0.0, so if it gets more than 3 hours per week for the medium level one and I have four or five different structures to juggle with 1 hour of repair timer, I for one won't bother and there are a lot of people like me, there is casual play and there is committed play if you force Eve to do committed play then its going to have small numbers of people.
My reply is based on my own vested interest, if its too easy for people to attack and I have to baby sit them too much I won't bother, but that will hurt gameplay I play minimal as it is to make myself hard to get at and quite a few do the same as me. And the excitement of this game for people like me is to build stuff and use it and have a chance to hold it, I am certainly not there as cannon fodder for easy kills and easy loot. Which gets back to the loot drops, you want to play as a nomadic pirate alliance moving into an area killing stuff and looting, fair enough, but what you get already is the drop that you can get from the Citadel itself which will be quite valuable, be it the rigs and the material to build the rigs and the station, but you want more don't you?
Also there is nothing wrong in having an XL station able to defend itself, I would rather like to see it have a weapon that can kill Titans and Supers, that would shake up things a bit.
And for those people asking for some mechanic for abandoned structures, its not as if they are going to be sitting on moons and stopping others from being there like now, you can drop these things anywhere though I wonder how they will work with moons and as customs offices with multiple ones sitting around these resources, could get quite interesting in terms of local wars but people could do spoilers of course in key areas, is this what you are getting at?
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1278
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 11:23:06 -
[182] - Quote
Gyges Skyeye wrote:On the subject of Damage Mitigation.
Pros: Creates predictable behavior and engagement patterns which can be tweaked for balance Places a sanity check on how many people are needed for a thing
Cons: When the number of people needed for a thing is achieved, everyone else who wanted to participate may as well go f*ck off.
To be honest, I don't see this as a problem. Sure, there is an "ideal world" max number of ships that contribute, but carrying more is never going to be a bad thing. For one, you are going to want to bring ships in case a fight occurs (you'll feel foolish leaving 20 DPS ships behind then get dropped by a fleet with 10 more ships than you), also, carrying more ships allows you to be a bit more casual about having to absolute max-DPS, or make tactical plays that mean changing situations dont cause you to lose max-DPS on the structure. for ex:
- keep the 'extra ships' as a rapid response to deal with harrassing ships (like bombers) without damage having to be taken off the structure to deal with them. - transfer unneeded extra DPS ships into tackle, ECM, or or recons, knowing these ships aren't costing you dps to be there. - you don't need to worry about using max DPS ammo; if you're DPS capped already, it costs you nothing to switch down to T1. - if you have more Dreads on field than you need, you can keep a bunch out of seige so you don't lose the whole fleet in a counter-drop.
There are a lot of tactical options open to groups taking advantage of the fact they have DPS brought that they don't need, these ships aren't automatically 'useless'.
|
Langbaobao
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
61
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 12:01:23 -
[183] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I think that you make some good points, like 1) I agree with, but there is self interest there in 2) 3) and 5), the smaller the vulnerability window the more structures you will see. Also you seem to forget that there are structures to do different things, so for example my small corp will have a medium citadel and some other structures for manufacturing and even mining and the one taking over the POCO job all in NPC 0.0, so if it gets more than 3 hours per week for the medium level one and I have four or five different structures to juggle with 1 hour of repair timer, I for one won't bother and there are a lot of people like me, there is casual play and there is committed play if you force Eve to do committed play then its going to have small numbers of people.
As I said, I'm not entirely sure what would be the necessary amount of vulnerability. I just think it's a bit too short for medium and large citadels, especially since you can push it all to only one day and the remaining 6 days the structure is invulnerable. While I can appreciate that some people play casually, I think that 3 or 6 hours of vulnerability per week (which can all be pushed into one day) are a little too short even for the most casual player. Having to log in once per week to defend shouldn't be the measure of 'casualness'. I think you will agree as well that having only one day of vulnerability (3-6 hours) in each week is a bit too little, especially since nowadays POSes are vulnerable all the time and still people don't go shooting them down all the time. Hence why I also suggested the diminishing returns system as a possible solution together with a tweak in the number of vulnerability hours. Of course my suggestions are only related to the citadels. Smaller, sub-medium citadel structures, like assembly arrays and so on can have smaller vulnerability timers to reduce the chance of drive-by trolling. They won't be in use anyway if whoever owns them doesn't own sov and the actual space they're in, they are basically abandoned if someone is pushed out of their space. Citadels however have a tactical and strategic importance and can be used as bases of operation and as such they should be more susceptible to interdiction. In any case, it's something that can and should be discussed.
Dracvlad wrote:My reply is based on my own vested interest, if its too easy for people to attack and I have to baby sit them too much I won't bother, but that will hurt gameplay I play minimal as it is to make myself hard to get at and quite a few do the same as me. And the excitement of this game for people like me is to build stuff and use it and have a chance to hold it, I am certainly not there as cannon fodder for easy kills and easy loot. Which gets back to the loot drops, you want to play as a nomadic pirate alliance moving into an area killing stuff and looting, fair enough, but what you get already is the drop that you can get from the Citadel itself which will be quite valuable, be it the rigs and the material to build the rigs and the station, but you want more don't you?
TBH, I don't really care about having minerals, building components, rigs and stuff like that being dropped as loot. I don't want it. I would just like to have a loot drop as we currently have with POSes, nothing more. I want the loot pinata that we already have in the game, nothing more or above it. |
Saron Dax
Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 12:08:02 -
[184] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:Couple of thoughts:
Use Entosis Link to disable guns on a Citadel (should they be added) Use Entosis Link to Raise the DPS Mitigation cap.
Have to say I agree with the above two points. Maybe also allow entosis to lower the DPS cap (for small defender advantage).
Whilst I like these changes, it seems strange to have totally abandoned the idea of entosis entirely for a whole class of interactable-things-in-space. Adding some options into the mix for entosis to affect the battle would add some more interesting gameplay options (especially if entosisable nodes were spread around a bit and not all in one place - around grid, or around system maybe) and bring more dynanism to fights by having multiple things going on, rather than just shooting a structure.
The other thing that feels odd with the current proposal is that there are a lot of all-or-nothing mechanics in play. The hard cap for DPS, the fact that the hitpoint are all repaired at the end of the timer (this especially feels very 'gamey'). It would feel less odd I think if these straight lines and hard corners were bent and rounded out (if you'll pardon the analogy).
Example: The DPS cap starts to exponentially take effect after some point - ie diminishing returns, rather than hard cut-off. Example: Structure hit points regen over a short amount of time once the timer expires rather than all at once. |
h4kun4
Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion
32
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 12:29:04 -
[185] - Quote
It was a good read, and it looked mostly fun.
Altough the Damage Mitigation looked awkward to me. A huge Coalition can still bring a bazillion people to the fight against a smaller group repelling any attackers or defenders with no difficulties.
As an attacker you simply put 200+ Carriers with Sentries or alternatively 75 Supers on a Citadel and watch it die within 30 minutes, nobody will do you any real harm, considering Carriers and Supers will still be able to do damage when this change goes live.
Does it need to get actual damage to prevent it from repping or is it enough to agress it with a frigate from lets say 100km off with a civillian autocannon? |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1114
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 12:35:29 -
[186] - Quote
Langbaobao wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I think that you make some good points, like 1) I agree with, but there is self interest there in 2) 3) and 5), the smaller the vulnerability window the more structures you will see. Also you seem to forget that there are structures to do different things, so for example my small corp will have a medium citadel and some other structures for manufacturing and even mining and the one taking over the POCO job all in NPC 0.0, so if it gets more than 3 hours per week for the medium level one and I have four or five different structures to juggle with 1 hour of repair timer, I for one won't bother and there are a lot of people like me, there is casual play and there is committed play if you force Eve to do committed play then its going to have small numbers of people. As I said, I'm not entirely sure what would be the necessary amount of vulnerability. I just think it's a bit too short for medium and large citadels, especially since you can push it all to only one day and the remaining 6 days the structure is invulnerable. While I can appreciate that some people play casually, I think that 3 or 6 hours of vulnerability per week (which can all be pushed into one day) are a little too short even for the most casual player. Having to log in once per week to defend shouldn't be the measure of 'casualness'. I think you will agree as well that having only one day of vulnerability (3-6 hours) in each week is a bit too little, especially since nowadays POSes are vulnerable all the time and still people don't go shooting them down all the time. Hence why I also suggested the diminishing returns system as a possible solution together with a tweak in the number of vulnerability hours. Of course my suggestions are only related to the citadels. Smaller, sub-medium citadel structures, like assembly arrays and so on can have smaller vulnerability timers to reduce the chance of drive-by trolling. They won't be in use anyway if whoever owns them doesn't own sov and the actual space they're in, they are basically abandoned if someone is pushed out of their space. Citadels however have a tactical and strategic importance and can be used as bases of operation and as such they should be more susceptible to interdiction. In any case, it's something that can and should be discussed. Dracvlad wrote:My reply is based on my own vested interest, if its too easy for people to attack and I have to baby sit them too much I won't bother, but that will hurt gameplay I play minimal as it is to make myself hard to get at and quite a few do the same as me. And the excitement of this game for people like me is to build stuff and use it and have a chance to hold it, I am certainly not there as cannon fodder for easy kills and easy loot. Which gets back to the loot drops, you want to play as a nomadic pirate alliance moving into an area killing stuff and looting, fair enough, but what you get already is the drop that you can get from the Citadel itself which will be quite valuable, be it the rigs and the material to build the rigs and the station, but you want more don't you? TBH, I don't really care about having minerals, building components, rigs and stuff like that being dropped as loot. I don't want it. I would just like to have a loot drop as we currently have with POSes, nothing more. I want the loot pinata that we already have in the game, nothing more or above it.
Good answers, but CCP has to get the vulnerability right so more casual players don't get turned off, after all they are replacing POS's . In terms of POS's being shot, well you see people shoot them in hisec for BPC's or even BPO's and stuff they don't really need to leave there, they are shot in WH space because of the mass of stuff in them, in null sec they are shot for moon goo (not for loot) or for strategic reasons, I have about 8 enemy POS's in the systems where I operate, I could easily blow them all up and have contemplated doing so, but there is no value for me apart from low level moon goo and removing a reason for them to come in system.
I realised you don't want the minerals and rig stuff that drop, but that has a value, you just want the ships and nice modules and stuff that people will store in them or the stuff that people are setting up ion their market hubs, but the issue is if CCP do it on the same basis as POS's then whats the point of using one for casual players in any meaningful way, all my stuff will stay in NPC 0.0 stations, which is the current system we have now the only difference between now and this suggestion is the end of fire sales in 0.0 sov systems and while I understand your reasoning we are still talking about a game that has to balance the gameplay against the issue that many people can only play a few hours a day.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
186
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 12:38:16 -
[187] - 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! |
Leatien Cesaille
timeNos
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 13:05:11 -
[188] - Quote
While I do like the idea of shooting things instead of shining pretty lights at it (that's why I prefer hybrid weapons over lasers), something bothers me about this system as presented in the blog. Probably somebody has pointed it out already, but reiteration is always good on the Interwebs, isn't it?
So from what I gather the structure enters the vulnerable timer at a predetermined time but the repair timer starts the moment it gets shot at and will repair the structure to full after the timer runs out. Even if it has been damaged in the previous vulnerability phase.
There are two problems I see with it.
First, there is no real reason to have this vulnerable state going on longer than the repair cycle since all the defender has to do is shoot his own structure once at the beginning (with an out of alliance char if necessary) to start the repair timer and the structure will be as good as new after that relatively short time. An attacker planning to attack near the middle or end of the vulnerable timer will have to start anew. To be fair the current entosis mechanic has a similar consequence that not being on field the moment the vulnerability starts puts you at a potentially huge disadvantage but it still takes time and effort to capture nodes distributed over several systems. It's far more difficult to block an attacker from several systems than from just the system the station is in. Shooting your own structure to help repair it faster seems counter-intuitive to me... There are two ways to address this: If you want to have both attacker and defender to be present on the field the moment the new vulnerability starts just start the damn thing in the repair phase right away. If you do want a bit of flexibility for the attacker to properly deploy at any time or break through a gatecamp during the vulnerability window apply the repair to previously shot down HP pools at the end of the vulnerability window regardless if a repair timer has run it's course or not and allow multiple repair cycles to occur during a single vulnerability period that only deal with damage to the current pool.
Second, I don't think it's right that everything is repaired. What a repair cycle should do is either repair the damage done to the current vulnerable pool or the one before it - and only that one. So let's say the structure is in structure vulnerable mode, survives a vulnerability period uncontested it doesn't get it's shield and armour repped to full but just the armour. It will need a second vulnerability window to get repped to full. To be fair to prevent delaying tactics by a single player (or small force) that has no real hope to actually apply enough dps to be a threat I would like to see some sort of threshold. For example, as the damage to the current pool doesn't exceed - say - 25% the next pool gets repped too after the repair cycle. Or you could just go with repping the current and previous pool although than this is only really relevant if the structure is already in structure. |
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 13:24:14 -
[189] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:As a wormholer, this is absolutely not okay and I if no one else will raise hell over it. Why is wormhole space special in that we alone get to deal with the risk of total asset loss while everyone else gets their stuff magically spirited away to safety? All that is going to do is incentivize people in nullsec (whose assets are safe and unattackable) to attack wormholes for the loot. Not only that, but there's absolutely no counterplay, we can't go attack nullseccers and blow up their ****, its safe. We're getting this huge risk that no one else will have to shoulder, and what do we get out of it? Nothing. We can't hit them back, their assets are untouchable. We don't get sov and it's benefits. This feels like the real **** end of the **** stick.
To be fair, Citadels are planned replacements for outposts. WH space currently has no equivalent and the argument for WH dwellers is why would you bother with a structure that allows you to accumulate more things than you currently do? Is J space the same as K Space? K space has static gates and cynos and other force projection mechanics in place. J Space has dynamic entrances that are a natural protection during the vulnerability window ( 3 hours a week, you do nothing but roll holes, don't bother with guns ).
These structures are not intended as a POS replacement, they are an outpost replacement ( which you currently can't deploy in J Space ), so answer a simple question, K Space has stations/outposts which have asset protection by nature, what equivalent structure exists for J Space?
I honestly don't feel it's fair to WH Dwellers to allow these to be deployed in J Space at all. It promotes accumulation of junk, gives a place to death clone to and also breaks the new(er) Shattered wormholes as they become available to be occupied.
If I kill a WH dweller in null, and get the pod, he can now reship and be back on my doorstep without having to find a way back to his home WH? |
Thron Legacy
White Zulu Scorpion Federation
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 13:54:17 -
[190] - Quote
Alexander Tekitsu wrote:
To be fair, Citadels are planned replacements for outposts. WH space currently has no equivalent and the argument for WH dwellers is why would you bother with a structure that allows you to accumulate more things than you currently do? Is J space the same as K Space? K space has static gates and cynos and other force projection mechanics in place. J Space has dynamic entrances that are a natural protection during the vulnerability window ( 3 hours a week, you do nothing but roll holes, don't bother with guns ).
These structures are not intended as a POS replacement, they are an outpost replacement ( which you currently can't deploy in J Space ), so answer a simple question, K Space has stations/outposts which have asset protection by nature, what equivalent structure exists for J Space?
I honestly don't feel it's fair to WH Dwellers to allow these to be deployed in J Space at all. It promotes accumulation of junk, gives a place to death clone to and also breaks the new(er) Shattered wormholes as they become available to be occupied.
If I kill a WH dweller in null, and get the pod, he can now reship and be back on my doorstep without having to find a way back to his home WH?
They are both POS and Outpost replacement EDIT: you also cant set them as home station/jc when they are in a wh, try harder reading dev blogs |
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
233
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 13:57:20 -
[191] - Quote
What a dirty hack!
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1866
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 14:03:04 -
[192] - Quote
The numbers are a bit low. At this level is isn't quite right on the risk/reward mix for what someone is going to lose in a max XL with stuff in it. You could very easily make the cost analysis to decide to suicide all 3 timers losing a couple fleets of subcaps at most to kill a citadel. Oh sure, the defenders will kill a fleet but probably not both in 30 minutes and then you lose a few while extracting. But who cares if you are losing 20b x 3 if you are blowing up 100s of billions in assets+fees to move. Large entities could do this every week and not care.
Not sure of the best way to balance it. Off hand you could increase the XL DPS required and how long someone must be on field for so the losses are bigger but in the age of logi meaning nothing dies that is iffy. Maybe a way for defenders to rep but cap out at 50% of max dps. So if max DPS was 60k for the attacker. Maybe defender can rep 30k. The structure will still die but it will extend that fight out and make the battle longer and more costly.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 14:05:21 -
[193] - Quote
Thron Legacy wrote:
They are both POS and Outpost replacement EDIT: you also cant set them as home station/jc when they are in a wh, try harder reading dev blogs
Reading is hard work :P Fair point and I raised it as more of a question, but missed my previous mention of it on an edit.
I was thinking of the other structures that are coming later according to the first blog, but see they are just specialized structures that replace the functions of a POS. Rest of the post remains valid. |
Max Fubarticus
The Scope Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 14:06:36 -
[194] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:After great and very useful feedback from you, the player community, we are excited to bring you an update about the new Citadel structures! Entosis links are not going to work on new structures, to attack those new structures you need to go through their hitpoints. To prevent boring structure grinding, and to prevent the requirement for massive blobs, a new game mechanic that mitigates damage after a certain threshold has been introduced. The attack process has been streamlined as well. Read more about those new aspects in the latest dev blog from Team Game of Drones (written by CCP Ytterbium): Citadels, Sieges and You v2We welcome your feedback! Please note that all numbers and proposals are open for discussions and not finalized.
Devs, Will the following relevant topics / concerns be addressed in the next progress blog?
1. Existing skills ( eg Stabase Defense), new skill requirements? How will this be handled to ensure players have sufficient time to train new skills or level up existing skills. Skill book availability and pricing? Will existing skills in gunnery / missiles / drones transfer over into defensive systems integration?
2. Structure modifications / Rigs / Upgrades, New / existing skills? BPO / BPC market seeding with sufficient lead time for research and market price stability. Existing player owned structures conversion / reimbursement.
3. Existing stocks of researched BPO / BPC. Reimbursement or conversion? Fair market price in the conversion process? Consideration of player investment, both isk and time?
4. Citadel variants, Observatory, Market Hub, etc. Will these be separate classes with individual BPO / BPC or one standard variant that becomes a different class through upgrades / rigs. If So, will a player be able to change the class of citadel while anchored by removing / destroying rigs and replacing with ones that create the desired class?
I am sure there are more relevant questions to be asked, and I know that many of the questions asked in this post have been touched upon to some extent. I simply would like to stay ahead of the information curve ( like many others ), to make informed choices in the coming months.
Thanks for the hard work and listening to the player base
Max |
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
121
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 14:08:44 -
[195] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tobias Frank wrote:Looks promising!
Also, will we get docking scenes in the new citadels as we have now in stations/outposts when we are docked? Ship spinning is an important feature! No docking scene. When you dock, the camera will be centered around the structure instead, so you can now play structure spinning. Unless this is a design limitation I do not think this is a good idea.
When you can see outside the citadel you can gather intel, and know what's going on around. It also implies that you are still in your pod, and not out and about inside the citadel.
I think climbing into the citadel to defend should work exactly the same as climbing into a ship. That is, get in your pod and then board your ship of choice, in this case, it is the structure your pod is "plugging into".
I get that these are replacing POSes but are they not also replacing outposts. For the grandiose these things are going for, it will all be lost if you are still just basically sitting in space.
I think being docked working like current outposts should be the same for XL Citadels atleast.
At a bare minimum this will require the defender to undock to know what is going on in space around them, rather than sit in the citadel and know for free (interfaces and all). Only the ones plugged into the citadel and using the defenses should be able to see outside the station, that way it gives reason to undock if you want to actually know what's going on.
Citadels, certainly XL ones, you get out of your ship to go into, not park your ship outside of and just look at, the difference between a drive thru and a restaurant. Otherwise you might as well have a tower with a bubble, and just get rid of the big city looking thing I can't actually go into (even though it looks like I absolutely should). |
Robnik Charante
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
4
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 14:38:55 -
[196] - Quote
I think these changes are great. Really feel like CCP is listening to community feedback on this one.
I think the hard limit on damage mitigation is a little... inelegant and perhaps not ideal. I think a wonderful design goal is to reduce the problem of N+1... but at the same time, there should still be a bit of a carrot for attackers to commit EVEN MOAR. You would also want to avoid a scenario where additional fleet members feel useless if they are not contributing more DPS. My suggestions may not make any sense in the light of future changes to capitals, so these changes are based around what's been disclosed (obviously).
I'd prefer to see the incoming damage DR'd logarithmically rather than simply capped. Suppose 1 dread is needed to RF a Citadel in 30 minutes, sitting right at the damage limit. The goal would be to make 10 dreads speed up the grind by a factor of 50% (15 minutes), or 100 dreads speed up the grind by a factor of 66.67% (10 minutes). Definitely an advantage to having more stuff on the field, but with poor scaling.
I'd suggest the following logarithmic function as an improvement to a hard cop:
If DPS_incoming < DPS_soft_cap, DPS_effective = DPS_incoming If DPS_incoming >= DPS_soft_cap, DPS_effective = DPS_soft_cap*(log10(DPS_incoming/DPS_soft_cap)+1)
I created a graph of these calculations which you can view here. For this example, I chose 6 dreadnoughts as the soft cap (you can consider that to be 60,000 DPS if you like). 6 dreads hit the soft cap, so a XL structure would take 30 minutes to RF. 20 dreads map to 9 effective dreads, so the RF time would drop to 20 minutes. 100 dreads would map to 14 effective dreads, so the RF time would drop to 13 minutes. 1000 dreads (lol) would map to 19 effective dreads, which drops RF time down to about 9.5 minutes.
I think this is a good scaling law that lets attackers bring more to the party while keeping everyone feeling useful, while sidestepping the issues that the hard cap so nicely addresses. |
Raddan Eldre'Thalas
4 Marketeers Rura-Penthe
20
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 14:46:53 -
[197] - Quote
In regards to Wormholes:
So here is what we know about the current system in place comparing Null sec and WH space. Wormhole dwellers use POS's, nullsec does too, but also gets all the lovely sov structures including stations. Risk vs reward are both high in both spaces, however currently it can be argued that Null sec can be much more profitable, also there is more content in null sec, (ie moon mining, ratting, expeditions) that you can't get from living in a WH. If we look at this from a risk vs reward stand point, which keep in mind is a HUGE factor in this game, it clearly points to the fact that the proposed changes to the new citadel structures in WH space should actually be the mechanics of Null sec.
Woah did he just say that? Well no, you actually just read it from a stand point based on a simple game observation. But think about the uproar in Null sec this would cause.
Now lets have another look and base our decision this time on game mechanic discrimination. We have a citadel in Nullsec, cool if it gets attacked and blown up I know that my items, blue prints and ships are all safe. Now we have that SAME structure in a wormhole, well crap... if it gets attacked I lose all my blue prints, ships, manufacturing, poof! all gone. Oh don't forget, I didn't just lose my items, I also my lost foothold in that system. That means corps and alliances that have lived in WH space for years can literately be wiped out in 48hrs. Mean while the person who just lost their citadel in nullsec can happily just pay some isk and setup shop again with alot less repercussions.
Most important point: People wont use these structures if the risk is to high. Unless there is some kind of super boost to the content reward in wormholes it will simply not be worth the effort to try and defend your keep.
TLDR: The risk to reward ratio will be too far off if in WH's you lose all your stuff and nullsec gets to keep theirs. |
BFE
Thee Almitee Ones Paragons Of Virtue
20
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 15:28:00 -
[198] - Quote
Cobat Marland wrote:Sbrodor wrote:omg. we fall back to the past!
i really dont see the point of difference of the past where 30 super of (choose your name favorite ally) again blobbing at own pleasure player trying to build something with time and effort.
30 dudes should always be able to kick over one guys sandcastle doesnt matter what kinda ships they use
Wrong. 30 Ravens shouldn't be able to knock out a Citadel, at least not a L or XL. L Citadels should require 50 BS, or 20 capitals.
XL Citadel should be safe from anything smaller than a 40 capital ship fleet..... or numbers somewhere in that range.....
From the size of the citadels listed in previous posts, the XL citadel seems to be on par with a current NPC station.... and 30 BS wouldn't be able to take one of those out (If there were attackable). |
Ayumi Shekki
Thee Almitee Ones Paragons Of Virtue
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 15:34:35 -
[199] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:After great and very useful feedback from you, the player community, we are excited to bring you an update about the new Citadel structures! Entosis links are not going to work on new structures, to attack those new structures you need to go through their hitpoints. To prevent boring structure grinding, and to prevent the requirement for massive blobs, a new game mechanic that mitigates damage after a certain threshold has been introduced. The attack process has been streamlined as well. Read more about those new aspects in the latest dev blog from Team Game of Drones (written by CCP Ytterbium): Citadels, Sieges and You v2We welcome your feedback! Please note that all numbers and proposals are open for discussions and not finalized.
What is the cost for the Citadels are we talking 100Bill isk for an XL
who is going to leave stuff in a Citadel when they can just log out in a charon with the items which will bypass having them stored in a Citadel at least know your stuff is safe even if the citadel is blowen up, |
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
27
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 15:52:38 -
[200] - Quote
Ayumi Shekki wrote:
who is going to leave stuff in a Citadel when they can just log out in a charon with the items which will bypass having them stored in a Citadel at least know your stuff is safe even if the citadel is blowen up,
Probably those that, like me, have tens of millions of cubic meters of stuff there.
|
|
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 16:09:00 -
[201] - Quote
Raddan Eldre'Thalas wrote:In regards to Wormholes:
So here is what we know about the current system in place comparing Null sec and WH space. Wormhole dwellers use POS's, nullsec does too, but also gets all the lovely sov structures including stations. Risk vs reward are both high in both spaces, however currently it can be argued that Null sec can be much more profitable, also there is more content in null sec, (ie moon mining, ratting, expeditions) that you can't get from living in a WH. If we look at this from a risk vs reward stand point, which keep in mind is a HUGE factor in this game, it clearly points to the fact that the proposed changes to the new citadel structures in WH space should actually be the mechanics of Null sec.
Woah did he just say that? Well no, you actually just read it from a stand point based on a simple game observation. But think about the uproar in Null sec this would cause.
Now lets have another look and base our decision this time on game mechanic discrimination. We have a citadel in Nullsec, cool if it gets attacked and blown up I know that my items, blue prints and ships are all safe. Now we have that SAME structure in a wormhole, well crap... if it gets attacked I lose all my blue prints, ships, manufacturing, poof! all gone. Oh don't forget, I didn't just lose my items, I also my lost foothold in that system. That means corps and alliances that have lived in WH space for years can literately be wiped out in 48hrs. Mean while the person who just lost their citadel in nullsec can happily just pay some isk and setup shop again with alot less repercussions.
Most important point: People wont use these structures if the risk is to high. Unless there is some kind of super boost to the content reward in wormholes it will simply not be worth the effort to try and defend your keep.
TLDR: The risk to reward ratio will be too far off if in WH's you lose all your stuff and nullsec gets to keep theirs.
Most reactions are going to come from change. Nullsec has secure outposts, J Space has POSs which are not secure in either J or K space. I had originally thought that these were alternative sizes/replacements to Outposts only, but after it being pointed out and reviewing, they are also replacements to POS ( albeit, separate structures are required to fully replace the functionality of a POS ). So how do you resolve loot drops with respect to a structure replacing 2 different ones without drastically depreciating the value of one size over another? Right or wrong to blanket all sizes with the same mechanic, the current system allows for secure storage in K Space, but not in J Space. J Space is also more defensible than K Space from larger fleets by nature of travel to/from that system.
J Space dwellers get - Personal Hangars ( so people can't steal your ships ) - More storage ( I can't recall seeing any mention of there being a limit on volume ) - Market - No popped SMA by a passing interceptor because you didn't fuel the POS
K Space dwellers get - Less security of their assets location - More security of assets that would have been in a POS ( Something that used to exist with BPOs being in station, but work with them in a POS )
So unless there is something major I'm missing, I think the proposed structures are more beneficial to J Space than K Space over current mechanics. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
280
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 16:19:49 -
[202] - Quote
I'm liking this revised version much more.
I have one question (still need to re-read/digest detail of the blog more) from the 'example' given:
Quote:The Medium Citadel will stay invulnerable for a specific amount of time (again, how and when is still left to debate). LetGÇÖs say the Medium Citadel will come out of invulnerability 24 hours after the repair timer started, so 19:40GMT on Sunday.
Would you consider using Strontium (up to 24 hours of) for this? Strontium timer 'kiting' i.e. adjusting up/down based upon your opponents expected 'prime time', is a very valid piece of game play at the moment, which would be a shame to lose (as well as the potential of strontium loading 'f-ups'/SPAI drama, and content creation that arises thereafter)
ps. hope you are going to write some cool 'fluff' around this [siege process] too, to go with the visual effects e.t.c. On the note visual effects, if would be cool if the shields flared different colour/effect for the shield/'armour' timers (i.e. it's the shield that becomes temporarily invulnerable during each step)
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Vilar Diin
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
10
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 16:25:44 -
[203] - Quote
Raz Xym wrote:Ransu Asanari wrote: ...
Was the idea of having the asset security for Citadels in Low Class wormholes, but not High Class ever discussed? My thought was to have Asset Safety in C1-C4, but not C5-C6.
...
Or perhaps having a mechanic tied any known space statics? If you have a hi-sec static, then it perhaps gets hi-sec options? Low-sec, only low sec options. I guess if it null-sec they would need to ensure NPC null is always an option? Just an idea to add exaggerate variance and different desirability to wormholes of the same class. I think most WH dwellers will want no asset security, but I figured this option might be interesting if they did implement some version of asset security.
Love the changes! Very much in favor of keeping wormholes dangerous, however have you considered giving wormhole citadels added functionality that's only available to wormholers to compensate their ballsy self imposed added vulnerability?
Eg. Shorter vulnerability, higher bonuses to station modules, lower fuel cost for the modules, unique station weapons only available to wormhole citadels (t3 turrets possibly or just an additional meta weapon) etc. |
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
33
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 16:26:18 -
[204] - Quote
These things are supposed to be important structures for the entities holding them. They shouldn't be trow away items in some foreign region only to be forgotten ( I assume this ).
So why not link the vulnerability windows to the amount of that type of structures a corp / alliance has. Link medium and large ones to a corp and X large to an alliance. This will keep these structures as a strategic asset for the holder and prevent spamming of them because I would go so far as to have those structures vulnerable 24/7 if they really spam too much.
|
Ben Ishikela
60
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 17:05:37 -
[205] - Quote
Q = Will i be able to prevent/fight others who try to kite of the timer? So if my friend's remote repairs get calculated into the 4k/12k/60k dps then over this threshold any remote reps on the structure are in vain or do they reduce the threshold? (imho they should not reduce it) Any way, If the citadel is beyond its vulnerable timer but the repair timer is still on, then ... .. someone could sacrifice a stealthbomber every 30minutes to keep the timer running indefinitely. .. and therefor kite the timer into a timezone of his choosing. ==> i presume that there has to be a tactic to still repair the structure and when the damage is calculated for the repair timer to reset, then the remote repairs are calculated as well. So for example a stealthbomber shoots the station for 30seconds of 400dps and then dies. 3 exequrors repair the station for 300dps each. then 400+(-300)*3 = -800. Its negativ and therefor the repair timer wont be resetted.
Sorry, i just woke up. Thanx for reading ;)
Remove JumpFreighters/CloakHauler/CloakTrick and make a new T2Freighter(mjd+fleethangar+dock+T2resists-JumpDrive). Because we need more opportunities for piracy, escorts and decentralised economy!
|
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1475
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 17:06:52 -
[206] - Quote
Leatien Cesaille wrote:While I do like the idea of shooting things instead of shining pretty lights at it (that's why I prefer hybrid weapons over lasers), something bothers me about this system as presented in the blog. Probably somebody has pointed it out already, but reiteration is always good on the Interwebs, isn't it?
So from what I gather the structure enters the vulnerable timer at a predetermined time but the repair timer starts the moment it gets shot at and will repair the structure to full after the timer runs out. Even if it has been damaged in the previous vulnerability phase.
There are two problems I see with it.
First, there is no real reason to have this vulnerable state going on longer than the repair cycle since all the defender has to do is shoot his own structure once at the beginning (with an out of alliance char if necessary) to start the repair timer and the structure will be as good as new after that relatively short time. An attacker planning to attack near the middle or end of the vulnerable timer will have to start anew. To be fair the current entosis mechanic has a similar consequence that not being on field the moment the vulnerability starts puts you at a potentially huge disadvantage but it still takes time and effort to capture nodes distributed over several systems. It's far more difficult to block an attacker from several systems than from just the system the station is in. Shooting your own structure to help repair it faster seems counter-intuitive to me... There are two ways to address this: If you want to have both attacker and defender to be present on the field the moment the new vulnerability starts just start the damn thing in the repair phase right away. If you do want a bit of flexibility for the attacker to properly deploy at any time or break through a gatecamp during the vulnerability window apply the repair to previously shot down HP pools at the end of the vulnerability window regardless if a repair timer has run it's course or not and allow multiple repair cycles to occur during a single vulnerability period that only deal with damage to the current pool.
Second, I don't think it's right that everything is repaired. What a repair cycle should do is either repair the damage done to the current vulnerable pool or the one before it - and only that one. So let's say the structure is in structure vulnerable mode, survives a vulnerability period uncontested it doesn't get it's shield and armour repped to full but just the armour. It will need a second vulnerability window to get repped to full. To be fair to prevent delaying tactics by a single player (or small force) that has no real hope to actually apply enough dps to be a threat I would like to see some sort of threshold. For example, as the damage to the current pool doesn't exceed - say - 25% the next pool gets repped too after the repair cycle. Or you could just go with repping the current and previous pool although than this is only really relevant if the structure is already in structure.
The repair will start automatically as soon as it comes out of reinforce. There is no "shoot your own structure to trigger a repair faster".
The conditions for repair are pretty simple: if the structure is vulnerable to attack and has any damage it will automatically try to repair itself
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 17:14:53 -
[207] - Quote
Ben Ishikela wrote:Any way, If the citadel is beyond its vulnerable timer but the repair timer is still on, then ... .. someone could sacrifice a stealthbomber every 30minutes to keep the timer running indefinitely.
"As mentioned above, the repair damage stops whenever damage is applied. It will resume counting down 10-30 seconds after the structure stopped receiving incoming damage. When the repair timer hits 0, the structure fully repairs its shields, armor and hull"
From the blog, you would have to sacrifice one every 10-30 seconds for indefinite. /me is learning to read \o/ |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1866
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 17:33:27 -
[208] - Quote
Alexander Tekitsu wrote:Ben Ishikela wrote:Any way, If the citadel is beyond its vulnerable timer but the repair timer is still on, then ... .. someone could sacrifice a stealthbomber every 30minutes to keep the timer running indefinitely.
"As mentioned above, the repair damage stops whenever damage is applied. It will resume counting down 10-30 seconds after the structure stopped receiving incoming damage. When the repair timer hits 0, the structure fully repairs its shields, armor and hull" From the blog, you would have to sacrifice one every 10-30 seconds for indefinite. /me is learning to read \o/ "Be aware that we are actively seeking to prevent types of hit and run tactics that would allow the attacker to apply damage without committing to the battlefield (we are looking at you, Stealth Bombers). If you want to attack someoneGÇÖs assets, be ready to commit your fleet to it." Also from the blog, gotta say, made me smile a bit with the last line.
The issue is the fleet is irrelevant. It took maybe one hour for us to figure out a meta that renders defending pretty much irrelevant. Oh sure, fleets will die but not fleets that cost anywhere near what the XL does.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 18:08:32 -
[209] - Quote
Aryth wrote:The issue is the fleet is irrelevant. It took maybe one hour for us to figure out a meta that renders defending pretty much irrelevant. Oh sure, fleets will die but not fleets that cost anywhere near what the XL does.
That is EVE. I have no doubt that a fleet of rookie ships would also be able to do it with enough numbers ( provided they don't group up and get smoked by 1 AoE Torp ). But at least it isn't 1 cepter with a laser which was more the reason for my comment. |
TheMercenaryKing
Ultimatum. The Bastion
368
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 18:22:01 -
[210] - Quote
Alexander Tekitsu wrote:Aryth wrote:Alexander Tekitsu wrote:Ben Ishikela wrote:Any way, If the citadel is beyond its vulnerable timer but the repair timer is still on, then ... .. someone could sacrifice a stealthbomber every 30minutes to keep the timer running indefinitely.
"As mentioned above, the repair damage stops whenever damage is applied. It will resume counting down 10-30 seconds after the structure stopped receiving incoming damage. When the repair timer hits 0, the structure fully repairs its shields, armor and hull" From the blog, you would have to sacrifice one every 10-30 seconds for indefinite. /me is learning to read \o/ "Be aware that we are actively seeking to prevent types of hit and run tactics that would allow the attacker to apply damage without committing to the battlefield (we are looking at you, Stealth Bombers). If you want to attack someoneGÇÖs assets, be ready to commit your fleet to it." Also from the blog, gotta say, made me smile a bit with the last line. The issue is the fleet is irrelevant. It took maybe one hour for us to figure out a meta that renders defending pretty much irrelevant. Oh sure, fleets will die but not fleets that cost anywhere near what the XL does. That is EVE. I have no doubt that a fleet of rookie ships would also be able to do it with enough numbers ( provided they don't group up and get smoked by 1 AoE Torp ). But at least it isn't 1 cepter with a laser which was more the reason for my comment.
What if there was not only a damage cap before the damage is reduced, but also a DPS minimum, like set an XL tower to 1500 DPS before repair is paused with that 10-30 second timer where if it is below 1500 dps it begins repairing again?
This will require a constant minimum number of people to shoot it. It would be like this: 0-1,500 DPS for a minimum of 10-30 seconds, Repairing 1,500-60,000 DPS, Repairing paused 60,001+ DPS, Repair paused, damage reduced.
This would prevent troll-ceptors or people attempting to not engage/commit. |
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
280
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 18:58:54 -
[211] - Quote
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).
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1680
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 19:37:26 -
[212] - Quote
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).
It would be nice to use all those BPC's for something!
Maybe trade them in at 10 old BPC's for a new Citadel Module BPC :)
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1728
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 19:58:24 -
[213] - Quote
xttz wrote:afkalt wrote: It's the same in *every* area of eve. Someone "expecting" a level of item safety in say, a freighter, is laughed off these boards - and rightly so.
Why do other areas qualify for special snowflake treatment?
Did I miss a bit in the blog which says people can't evac when it is RFd? Serisou question, I might have, I was doing a lot at once when I read it. If I did not and evac is viable....there's literally no good reason for this whatsoever.
In order to lose a freighter you *have* to be logged in and playing the game. You're actively in a position to mitigate any risk via in-game action. Structures are persistent items that have to balance risk with the concept that players cannot be around 24/7 to mitigate it. EVE is (in theory at least) a video game and not a job. That means accommodating real life events such as players getting sick, going on holiday, looking after family, and any other scenario that could result in them being away from their hobby for a few days or more. By not providing scope for players to step away for a time, CCP would actively alienate a majority of players from using their brand new feature that's receiving so much development time. At best the feature would be under-utilised, at worst players would simply not play anymore. It's hardly 'special snowflake treatment' to draw a line between a player actively logged in the game and able to take action, and a player who could lose months or years worth of assets to a real life calamity. Edit: There's also a tangible benefit from players feeling safer; it provides more targets for others to shoot at. I don't know about you, but I'd rather kill 100 structures that drop limited loot, than a loot pinata that rarely ever occurs because no one takes the risk.
I agree that there is a benefit to making players "feel safer." It encourages them to take bigger risks. Still, viscerally, I do not like the implementation of the safety mechanic. I don't want to see items magically transported to safety - even for a hefty fee. I would prefer that the player has to move or recover their own stuff. That they have to eventually get out there in space and become a potential target.
I also agree that people need to be able to not play Eve for a day or two, but really, that is something with which your friends can and should assist. Many years ago, my small corporation seized a lucrative moon in Low Security space. We held it for a while, then most of our members drifted away from Eve. I tried to maintain the moon myself. I thought, "My POS is well-defended. I have three POS gunner alts. I can hold this on my own." Then, I had to make a day trip for work and of course the one day I was out of town is the day a hostile fleet decided to reinforce my moon. I got back to find it would come out of reinforcement in two hours. If I had some friends, we could have held the moon. As it was, I did my best to fight for it, but in the end, I lost a very nice faction tower and a lucrative moon. CCP should not change game mechanics so that there is a different outcome there. I built a nice little sandcastle and someone bigger kicked it over. Welcome to Eve. HTFU.
Players can learn to manage how much stuff they cram into one station - same as people in WH's do now. Don't put all your eggs in one basket seems like a sound old rule. They can also learn to move their stuff to a more secure area before taking an extended break from the game.
With that said, if everyone ends up living in NPC stations and Low Security space (except Goons), then that is also not good for Eve. Eve is all about being able to build sand castles and kick over sand castles. It is also all about one-sided battles. There are very rarely tough fights with heavy losses on both sides in Eve. Most of the time, fights are one-sided massacres. There needs to be a balance between being able to evacuate to the safety of an NPC station and the reward of owning your own destructible fortress. I have yet to really see anything from CCP on what the rewards will be for living in these stations. I'd be inclined to have the NPC stations start to charge hefty fees for docking rights and storage space. Still, something more than that is needed...
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Tyranis Marcus
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1448
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 19:59:03 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tobias Frank wrote:Looks promising!
Also, will we get docking scenes in the new citadels as we have now in stations/outposts when we are docked? Ship spinning is an important feature! No docking scene. When you dock, the camera will be centered around the structure instead, so you can now play structure spinning.
You've got to be kidding?
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
Thron Legacy
White Zulu Scorpion Federation
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 20:20:49 -
[215] - Quote
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 |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1866
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 20:32:27 -
[216] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:Alexander Tekitsu wrote:Aryth wrote:Alexander Tekitsu wrote:Ben Ishikela wrote:Any way, If the citadel is beyond its vulnerable timer but the repair timer is still on, then ... .. someone could sacrifice a stealthbomber every 30minutes to keep the timer running indefinitely.
"As mentioned above, the repair damage stops whenever damage is applied. It will resume counting down 10-30 seconds after the structure stopped receiving incoming damage. When the repair timer hits 0, the structure fully repairs its shields, armor and hull" From the blog, you would have to sacrifice one every 10-30 seconds for indefinite. /me is learning to read \o/ "Be aware that we are actively seeking to prevent types of hit and run tactics that would allow the attacker to apply damage without committing to the battlefield (we are looking at you, Stealth Bombers). If you want to attack someoneGÇÖs assets, be ready to commit your fleet to it." Also from the blog, gotta say, made me smile a bit with the last line. The issue is the fleet is irrelevant. It took maybe one hour for us to figure out a meta that renders defending pretty much irrelevant. Oh sure, fleets will die but not fleets that cost anywhere near what the XL does. That is EVE. I have no doubt that a fleet of rookie ships would also be able to do it with enough numbers ( provided they don't group up and get smoked by 1 AoE Torp ). But at least it isn't 1 cepter with a laser which was more the reason for my comment. What if there was not only a damage cap before the damage is reduced, but also a DPS minimum, like set an XL tower to 1500 DPS before repair is paused with that 10-30 second timer where if it is below 1500 dps it begins repairing again? This will require a constant minimum number of people to shoot it. It would be like this: 0-1,500 DPS for a minimum of 10-30 seconds, Repairing 1,500-60,000 DPS, Repairing paused 60,001+ DPS, Repair paused, damage reduced. This would prevent troll-ceptors or people attempting to not engage/commit.
Fairly interesting. I sorta like it as it would mean you need to have enough left alive near the end to be viable. All the system needs is tweaking to where suicide BLAZE OF GLORY doctrine (There I named it) is cost prohibitive. Right now the ISK cost is so unbalanced CCP would need to be providing Citadels with 50% across the board resists and huge damage/dps/blap. I seriously doubt they are planning stats that come anywhere near solving the ISK ratio. At least not and be consistent with previous statements about Citadels not being able to fend off a fleet solo.
I also like the idea of capitals giving the citadel resistances.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Atan Auden
Gallasen Order
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 21:04:29 -
[217] - Quote
Adding the citadel defences would make the citadel look more realistic. Im sure you could design them as a useful module. for example shooting war targets, corp negative standing targets and any targets which are agressing the citadel. Dont skip that feature....
|
Leatien Cesaille
timeNos
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 21:19:44 -
[218] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: The repair will start automatically as soon as it comes out of reinforce. There is no "shoot your own structure to trigger a repair faster".
The conditions for repair are pretty simple: if the structure is vulnerable to attack and has any damage it will automatically try to repair itself
Thanks for clearing that up, seems as if I misread the blog post. My brain simply did not consider the damage done in the previous vulnerable cycle and assumed that the structure would exit in a vulnerable state (because that's what usually happens in triangle graphs). Should have looked closer at the graph...
I still stand by my second issue. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2012
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 21:26:17 -
[219] - Quote
snipped for quote limit
Aryth wrote:
Fairly interesting. I sorta like it as it would mean you need to have enough left alive near the end to be viable. All the system needs is tweaking to where suicide BLAZE OF GLORY doctrine (There I named it) is cost prohibitive. Right now the ISK cost is so unbalanced CCP would need to be providing Citadels with 50% across the board resists and huge damage/dps/blap. I seriously doubt they are planning stats that come anywhere near solving the ISK ratio. At least not and be consistent with previous statements about Citadels not being able to fend off a fleet solo.
I also like the idea of capitals giving the citadel resistances.
The AoE weapons may provide an answer to the (valid) concern.
The alternate is to have the things ignore hits under a certain value, but that really craps up WH in a fairly big way. So...what about if capitals apply defensive entosis links, hits under XXX damage per hit are ignored? |
Horus V
The Destined
142
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 23:22:32 -
[220] - Quote
"The current plan is for those structures not to have auto-defenses. This is still left to be debated, but we do believe existing auto-defenses on Starbases are nothing but a false promise to safety, since they are so easily abused and bypassed by attacking parties. They just give the owner a feeling of safety where none actually exists, like having a completely out-of-date firewall and anti-virus on your computer."
I disagree because everyone knows that when you have small fleet roaming whs and looking for easy POS to kill, they always think twice when they see a POS with more ressistances and lots of ecm. It just takes ages to kill such POS without dreads.
V
|
|
Absent Sworn
Lamprey Systems Shoot 2 Thrill
13
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 23:59:17 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:After great and very useful feedback from you, the player community, ... Entosis links are not going to work on new structures, to attack those new structures you need to go through their hitpoints.
This is a super promising turnaround, both for future game state and social capital, thank you CCP. The new system looks much better and I look forward to recreating how I currently play EVE in it after all. 'Course the down side of heeding feedback is incentivizing more feedback :) So, a few thoughts that stuck out when reading this blog:
* 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 minor point, but having everything instantly repaired (shields, armor, and hull) doesn't feel right at first blush. If you're attacking hull on a structure and fail you should maybe only have to work back through armor again, if not just have the opportunity to go at hull again next window. Basically work back up the same weekly vulnerability path to full HP (hull attack fails => armor restored, one week later shields restored, or something).
* I can't speak for many but I'm not sure the "auto defenses give a false sense of security" premise holds much water. I don't personally know of anyone that thinks having a few guns on your POS renders you completely safe. Rather, the point is to have a minimal amount of defenses such that an aggressor would actually have to plan an engagement -- a bored small gang of Ishtars can't casually swing by and wreck your stuff while you're at work. And happy coincidence, having a minimal amount of auto defenses would also mitigage the "1+ damage pauses repair timer" issue (if it exists).
Thanks again!
May your mushrooms always be sautéed and your onions always be grilled.
Not Sworn Absent since 2009
|
Grorious Reader
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 04:45:57 -
[222] - Quote
Quote:Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold.
Hoping this doesn't mean CCP has already forgotten what was complained about in previous asset safety discussions. If a Citadel being destroyed means that players logged off inside are podded, nobody will ever log off in the citadel. I don't have a problem with loot being dropped, but I think it's necessary to eject any players logged off in station - along with their active ship - to a random point in space. Otherwise people will just be undocking to log off, which is a needless annoyance.
Regarding defenses Perhaps if a group wants automated defenses they could fit a sort of auto-targeting module to the citadel, like ships can have. If this consumed a high power slot it would reduce the citadel's potential damage output but would provide some degree of automated defense if the owner is willing to make that sacrifice. If not a high power slot, then perhaps a rig slot would be more appropriate, since they represent a bigger commitment. Maybe the rig would allow for some degree of automated defense with targeted weapons, but the weapons would have a reduced fire rate (or other DPS reduction) when under the control of the automated defense system.
Alternatively, drones could be used as an automated defense system. Unlike other weapon types, drones can be destroyed by attackers so they could not continue the defense indefinitely. However, they might be enough to deter uncommitted trolling attacks.
Regarding XL Citadels in WH I know the numbers aren't final or anything, but as they are given the XL citadel will be an incredibly boring grind if it's allowed in w-space. You will basically never get that kind of fire power into somebody else's system. Especially something like a C1 or C2. If those numbers are going to stay in that ballpark, I suggest that XL citadels not be allowed in W-space. If they are designed for super-caps and titans, and L citadels are able to dock/support carriers and dreads, this should not be a loss for anyone and would prevent the sort of "boredom tank" that POSes currently represent in some areas of space. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1620
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 05:23:29 -
[223] - Quote
Grorious Reader wrote:Regarding XL Citadels in WH I know the numbers aren't final or anything, but as they are given the XL citadel will be an incredibly boring grind if it's allowed in w-space. You will basically never get that kind of fire power into somebody else's system. Especially something like a C1 or C2. If those numbers are going to stay in that ballpark, I suggest that XL citadels not be allowed in W-space. If they are designed for super-caps and titans, and L citadels are able to dock/support carriers and dreads, this should not be a loss for anyone and would prevent the sort of "boredom tank" that POSes currently represent in some areas of space. It's the same problem in highsec - the EHP is of the XL is just way too much. The L citadel is proposed to have more EHP than the current large POSes and they are already rarely attacked now in low-class wormholes or in highsec - the tedium is too great. However getting 20 battleships together is at least plausible for a smaller group. But the XL? That will never be lost unless one of the largest groups in the game takes enough interest in you to rope 150+ people into an structure grind. It would take tens of wormholes even to get the battleships into a C2 and a XL in a C1 would be even safer and require more people. This design seems to fail hard, even worse than the current POSes, for allowing players to use boredom as a defensive strategy instead requiring an active defense.
They either need to be limited as to where they can be deployed, there needs to be some way to deliver capital-level DPS against structures in highsec and low-class wormholes, or some mechanism needs to exist to make them much more vulnerable if left undefended (maybe based on entosis ?) so that a group of only 20-30 people have a viable strategy to attack them without grinding them for 10+ hours. As it is, the L and especially the XL will almost never be attacked because of the time cost for the agressors in low-class wormholes and in highsec. |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
187
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 06:54:30 -
[224] - 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. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1115
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 07:04:43 -
[225] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Grorious Reader wrote:Regarding XL Citadels in WH I know the numbers aren't final or anything, but as they are given the XL citadel will be an incredibly boring grind if it's allowed in w-space. You will basically never get that kind of fire power into somebody else's system. Especially something like a C1 or C2. If those numbers are going to stay in that ballpark, I suggest that XL citadels not be allowed in W-space. If they are designed for super-caps and titans, and L citadels are able to dock/support carriers and dreads, this should not be a loss for anyone and would prevent the sort of "boredom tank" that POSes currently represent in some areas of space. It's the same problem in highsec - the EHP is of the XL is just way too much. The L citadel is proposed to have more EHP than the current large POSes and they are already rarely attacked now in low-class wormholes or in highsec - the tedium is too great. However getting 20 battleships together is at least plausible for a smaller group. But the XL? That will never be lost unless one of the largest groups in the game takes enough interest in you to rope 150+ people into an structure grind. It would take tens of wormholes even to get the battleships into a C2 and a XL in a C1 would be even safer and require more people. This design seems to fail hard, even worse than the current POSes, for allowing players to use boredom as a defensive strategy instead of requiring an active defense. They either need to be limited as to where they can be deployed, there needs to be some way to deliver capital-level DPS against structures in highsec and low-class wormholes, or some mechanism needs to exist to make them much more vulnerable if left undefended (maybe based on entosis ?) so that a group of only 20-30 people have a viable strategy to attack them without grinding them for 10+ hours. As it is, the L and especially the XL will almost never be attacked because of the time cost for the agressors in low-class wormholes and in highsec.
What the hell, they are meant to be hard to attack, Eve is supposed to be a hard game which you often say to others and yet you are saying that Xl's and L's are too difficult. If you really want to kill that hisec XL then you will have to hire all of the merc alliances in hisec or gather up allies, there you are done and dusted, can't do that, well that is your fault for not being a good enough player to do that in terms of ISK and contacts.
In reality the XL is going to be a serious investment and needs to be difficult to kill, the L is also a serious investment and really should not be killable by a 3 man corp like yours, hell even an M cannot be killed by your corp which is as it should be, my alliance could kill a Medium and soon we will be able to kill a Large and I am not crying because we cannot kill an XL yet...
CCP another example of the HTFU group of which this player is a member who routinely uses lines like get friends, have allies, your a poor player because you have not got ISK or allies and yet here he is moaning about EHP when he has not set himself up to be able to do this, he wants you to lower it so they can. Now stick to what you said, the EHP is great as is the damage mitigation plus the limited vulnerability periods and repair approach, I am now looking to build some of these things and I can tell you straight, before this latest dev blog I was not even going o bother, so well done, stick to your guns, please make it so the HTFU players have a challenge.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1620
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 07:25:06 -
[226] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: What the hell, they are meant to be hard to attack, Eve is supposed to be a hard game which you often say to others and yet you are saying that Xl's and L's are too difficult. If you really want to kill that hisec XL then you will have to hire all of the merc alliances in hisec or gather up allies, there you are done and dusted, can't do that, well that is your fault for not being a good enough player to do that in terms of ISK and contacts.
You can shout HFTU all you want, but I am just pointing out the reality of the numbers. XLs will never be attacked in highsec/wormoles without caps. There are hardly any groups of sufficient size to field 150+ players over three days to attack them, and that assumes no opposition which with the force multiplier these citadels are suppose to have will put the number of players needed into many several of hundreds.
This design is almost the complete opposite of the original entosis system proposed where one player could contest a structure. The damage mitigation mechanic may even the playing field for smaller groups in lowsec and nullsec, but it the lack of capitals makes this design markedly worse for empowering small groups in highsec and wormhole space. In fact, in completely neuters them.
If they are implemented like this I will continue to exploit the tedium to benefit from the structures with near zero risk like I currently do with large POSes in highsec and my wormhole. That doesn't mean it is good game design. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1115
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 07:41:30 -
[227] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote: What the hell, they are meant to be hard to attack, Eve is supposed to be a hard game which you often say to others and yet you are saying that Xl's and L's are too difficult. If you really want to kill that hisec XL then you will have to hire all of the merc alliances in hisec or gather up allies, there you are done and dusted, can't do that, well that is your fault for not being a good enough player to do that in terms of ISK and contacts.
You can shout HFTU all you want, but I am just pointing out the reality of the numbers. XLs will never be attacked in highsec/wormoles without caps. There are hardly any groups of sufficient size to field 150+ players over three days to attack them, and that assumes no opposition which with the force multiplier these citadels are suppose to have will put the number of players needed into many several of hundreds. This design is almost the complete opposite of the original entosis system proposed where one player could contest a structure. The damage mitigation mechanic may even the playing field for smaller groups in lowsec and nullsec, but it the lack of capitals makes this design markedly worse for empowering small groups in highsec and wormhole space. In fact, in completely neuters them. If they are implemented like this I will continue to exploit the tedium to benefit from the structures with near zero risk like I currently do with large POSes in highsec and my wormhole. That doesn't mean it is good game design.
You say no group has the ability to attack an Xl in hisec, well think again you are totally and utterly wrong, other entities can go into hisec and do this, they can do the same to WH's too. Lets say the AG movement build an XL citadel in hisec and create a market Hub, lets say that this starts to impact CODE and Goon gank squads, you can bet that they will come in and take it down.
The Entosis link was designed to level the playing field to get into sov space, along with changes to anoms and power projection, the final piece is the structures which are far more important than IHUB's and TCU's in my opinion, they need to be damn hard to kill and the leveller here is the damage migration. But you still have to blow it up. Soon my Alliance/Coalition will have the ability to take out a Large, an XL is above us at the moment but taht is my lack of ability in being able to do it, but so what.
We took out Siggy's Medium POS in Niarja, we would have taken out a large POS if we needed to, most mercs don't even try a large POS because its too boring, not because they cannot. all you need to do is get a fleet of Ravens with cruise missiles backed up by logi further back and get to it, takes a long time, so what. Its supposed to be hard.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
280
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 07:51:58 -
[228] - 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 You do know how target spectrum breakers work right?....
Quote:Note: Will affect all targeting computers, including those of friendly vessels, of vessels immune to electronic warfare, and of the host ship itself. Can be fitted to Battleship, Black Ops and Marauder class ships.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1620
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 07:55:30 -
[229] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:We took out Siggy's Medium POS in Niarja, we would have taken out a large POS if we needed to, most mercs don't even try a large POS because its too boring, not because they cannot. all you need to do is get a fleet of Ravens with cruise missiles backed up by logi further back and get to it, takes a long time, so what. Its supposed to be hard. 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.
That is a problem that needs to be addressed before these new citadels are released. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1115
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 08:15:35 -
[230] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:We took out Siggy's Medium POS in Niarja, we would have taken out a large POS if we needed to, most mercs don't even try a large POS because its too boring, not because they cannot. all you need to do is get a fleet of Ravens with cruise missiles backed up by logi further back and get to it, takes a long time, so what. Its supposed to be hard. 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. That is a problem that needs to be addressed before these new citadels are released.
Yes its boring but you can do it, I am not trying to be nasty with you,, but if that POS in Niarja had been a large I would still have taken it down, it would have been harder but we would have done it. I wanted to take it down to make his ganking in Niarja more difficult, boring or not it would have gone.
If you make it too easy then no one will put them up, in reality how many indy/trade alliances in hisec can take on one of the merc groups, as far as I can see none, this means that there needs to be that level of challenge on the XL citadels. In any case I am betting that over time the grip of the Empires will reduce and you will be able to use dreads and carriers in hisec.
Its a challenge, treat it as such.
I keep pointing out in this thread that these things need to be hard to take down and are not easy loot pinata's otherwise people like me will not bother, CCP knows this, I would much rather see a large number of structures floating around with people ready to fight to defend them giving lots of potential targets then only a Goon one sitting near Jita IV with its own market hub. A bit of a stark comparison but that is what you have to be careful of, they also have to be careful of making it too much of a chore for casual players, because I can tell you now I am going to play a couple of space games long term and I will not tolerate being forced to sit next to a structure so that people have it easy to attack them.
I want to build things in Eve, but I do not want to be forced to spend a load of time defending it. All of my alliance members will be playing Star Citizen and Eve, they are different games. What Eve needs is the wonder of building and maintaining your own space city, but not to make it such a chore that you will not bother, the balance CCP have suggested is about right from what I have worked out.
You should wait and see how this develops, if they have it right there will be loads of these things built, I know a load of people who are now waiting impatiently for the build costs, myself included...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
|
Black Romero
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 08:56:52 -
[231] - Quote
You COULD let Entosis links play SOME roll (a hybrid if you will).....
Why not let Entosis links slow the rate of repair once it has started? That way smaller ships have a roll in addition to JUST scouting.
Just an idea. Again...a hybrid one. Entosis mechanics are not bad...just need tweaking. Sort of like hacking the station. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1620
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 09:11:13 -
[232] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: If you make it too easy then no one will put them up, in reality how many indy/trade alliances in hisec can take on one of the merc groups, as far as I can see none, this means that there needs to be that level of challenge on the XL citadels. In any case I am betting that over time the grip of the Empires will reduce and you will be able to use dreads and carriers in hisec.
Its a challenge, treat it as such.
I have no problem with a large citadel requiring 20 people to kill or even an XL requiring 200 people to kill as long as they are actively defended. I am sure the plan will evolve - CCP Ytterbium confirmed on Reddit they know this is a problem - but allowing citadels to not only be immune from attack 95% of the time, and then requiring such a high bar to attack even if the defender doesn't even bother to show up will make them essentially invulnerable. No one will assemble such a force (not that many can in the first place) to kill something that doesn't even drop any loot.
Citadels should be easy to attack but even easier to defend if you want them to drive conflict like the original entosis design. Otherwise, they will just be like current POSes with "dead" ones littering highsec and wormholes, and used by players to do industry with impunity having no responsibility to defend them. They would not even need asset safety as they will never be attacked in highsec in the first place.
Allowing dreads in highsec would solve the problem there (but not in low-class wormholes) but capitals are ungankable in highsec thus this breaks hauling as a profession, at least until CONCORD is removed. So the only options are to play with the EHP of XLs in highsec/wormholes, add another way to attack them, or just ban them completely. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3960
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 09:27:40 -
[233] - Quote
I've just realized that vulnerability windows have an interesting side effect.
Their purpose is to allow the defenders to be there to defend the structure at the time where it can be attacked.
That leads to setting the vulnerability window to the times when the defenders are more active ingame.
Which means that, if I attack them during their vulnerability window, they will need to defend the Citadel instead of doing anything else.
And then if it turns that they are mostly, or only, active during exactly those hours... I will be totally disrupting their gamepaly for as long as they need to defend the citadel!
All I need, is a bunch of friends to go pester that Citadel while I play something else, so *I* am not inconvenienced every time I log in, unlike the defenders.
Am I cunning or what?
Now, if I was a videogame developer, what would be the end scenario of implementing that mechanic?
Big guys will defend and attack any Citadels as they please. Small guys are driven off from owning Citadels. Eventually the only players who use Citadels are those belonging to large alliances, which may find better to sign agreements and don't mess with each other's Citadels rather than be inconvenienced with attacking and defending them forever.
That sounds kinda familiar, but can't put my finger on why...
CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now".
62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?"
CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
440
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 10:40:48 -
[234] - Quote
Right now small groups can't realistically keep a pos as even large POS is not hard to take down. But they have them all the same. I don't think that the risk of losing something has been a deterrent for many to try and have it anyway.
Right now i like the zero Entois link gameplay. I think a soft damage limits would be better but the general idea is a good one. It would be nice not to lose everything if it died in a WH but i get that right now with large POS. But i really want this thing to shoot back. This would be the balance between solo and small corps and mega corps...
I think there needed to be loot outside WH space.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
603
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 10:41:50 -
[235] - Quote
I was thinking that there is a lot of idle and unused junk, in player and corp hangers, in both player and NPC stations. And, since EVE junk never decays, pretty much everything that was stored since the game was launched is still sitting around somewhere.
Now, none of this unused junk really contributes to the game play - it just clutters up the database and makes it run slower.
So, maybe the right direction to go would be to make NPC stations destructible, like citadels, and reduce the drop rate of destoryed citadels and NPC players to something more like 5-25%. This will encourage players to only keep the stuff they really use, and convert the rest of it to ISK (sell it, reprocess it, or whatever). After a few months, the hundreds of destoryed player/NPC stations should really clean up the item database.
Also, as a new ISK sink, the drop rate could be tied to an insurance payment - the higher you pay, the more of your stuff will drop rather than be destroyed. As with ship insurance, the station insurance would only be good for a certain limited time - and also be on a per-station basis (so, the more stuff you have spread out across more stations, the more you'll end up paying to insure it all).
Ok... flame on, forum friends! |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1729
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 11:07:02 -
[236] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote: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.
Target Spectrum Breaker affects ships that are otherwise immune to electronic warfare? I did not know this...
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
281
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 11:11:18 -
[237] - Quote
Yup, though, not sure how high the threshold (number of ships targeting) is for it to have an effect, hence there's probably few, if any instances of it breaking locks on Supers/Dreads.
However, it's there, and could be tweaked into an alternative approach to a 'hard' damage cap for Citadels.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1682
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 11:36:41 -
[238] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:...
Now, none of this unused junk really contributes to the game play - it just clutters up the database and makes it run slower.
...!
Only if it's indexed badly ;) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1682
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 11:39:04 -
[239] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Grorious Reader wrote:Regarding XL Citadels in WH I know the numbers aren't final or anything, but as they are given the XL citadel will be an incredibly boring grind if it's allowed in w-space. You will basically never get that kind of fire power into somebody else's system. Especially something like a C1 or C2. If those numbers are going to stay in that ballpark, I suggest that XL citadels not be allowed in W-space. If they are designed for super-caps and titans, and L citadels are able to dock/support carriers and dreads, this should not be a loss for anyone and would prevent the sort of "boredom tank" that POSes currently represent in some areas of space. It's the same problem in highsec - the EHP is of the XL is just way too much. The L citadel is proposed to have more EHP than the current large POSes and they are already rarely attacked now in low-class wormholes or in highsec - the tedium is too great. However getting 20 battleships together is at least plausible for a smaller group. But the XL? That will never be lost unless one of the largest groups in the game takes enough interest in you to rope 150+ people into an structure grind. It would take tens of wormholes even to get the battleships into a C2 and a XL in a C1 would be even safer and require more people. This design seems to fail hard, even worse than the current POSes, for allowing players to use boredom as a defensive strategy instead of requiring an active defense. They either need to be limited as to where they can be deployed, there needs to be some way to deliver capital-level DPS against structures in highsec and low-class wormholes, or some mechanism needs to exist to make them much more vulnerable if left undefended (maybe based on entosis ?) so that a group of only 20-30 people have a viable strategy to attack them without grinding them for 10+ hours. As it is, the L and especially the XL will almost never be attacked because of the time cost for the agressors in low-class wormholes and in highsec.
Surely here would be the usual argument leveled against small hisec corps being outnumbered...Hire mercs. Also I thought they were considering allowing capitals into hisec. Maybe this is why. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1682
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 11:41:21 -
[240] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Skia Aumer wrote: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. Target Spectrum Breaker affects ships that are otherwise immune to electronic warfare? I did not know this...
Imagine a citadel sized module effect from this! This would guve the graphics team something great to work on too...client rendered ghost returns showing up all around the target citadel... |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1620
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 12:03:20 -
[241] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Surely here would be the usual argument leveled against small hisec corps being outnumbered...Hire mercs. Also I thought they were considering allowing capitals into hisec. Maybe this is why. There aren't enough mercs in all of highsec to field 200 battleships at one time. And that would be only to contest an undefended tower, not one that was actively defending. Only the large nullsec/former nullsec groups can bring the number of players required.
I have no problem with players being forced to put something on the table to contest them (like capitals), but whatever the value of that force is, it has to require less than several hundred players to accomplish. A single player should not be able to put up a tower that is all but immune to the combined efforts of less than 200 other players.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1682
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 12:40:33 -
[242] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Surely here would be the usual argument leveled against small hisec corps being outnumbered...Hire mercs. Also I thought they were considering allowing capitals into hisec. Maybe this is why. There aren't enough mercs in all of highsec to field 200 battleships at one time. And that would be only to contest an undefended tower, not one that was actively defending. Only the large nullsec/former nullsec groups can bring the number of players required. I have no problem with players being forced to put something on the table to contest them (like capitals), but whatever the value of that force is, it has to require less than several hundred players to accomplish. A single player should not be able to put up a tower that is all but immune to the combined efforts of less than 200 other players.
Hmmm, I thought the hisec merc corps were pretty big? My mistake and also interesting...
As to fielding large pieces of kit even as a single player if it is expensive enough then why should it not be hard to kill? However I agree that there would also need to be the means to take it down in a reasonable time too.
If XL stations are to be allowed in hisec space then the corresponding ships required to take it down should also be allowed I guess otherwise it becomes imbalanced and space will be cluttered with massive impregnable stations. otherwise there would need to be a size limit on citadels in hisec. |
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 13:41:43 -
[243] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Surely here would be the usual argument leveled against small hisec corps being outnumbered...Hire mercs. Also I thought they were considering allowing capitals into hisec. Maybe this is why. There aren't enough mercs in all of highsec to field 200 battleships at one time. And that would be only to contest an undefended tower, not one that was actively defending. Only the large nullsec/former nullsec groups can bring the number of players required. I have no problem with players being forced to put something on the table to contest them (like capitals), but whatever the value of that force is, it has to require less than several hundred players to accomplish. A single player should not be able to put up a tower that is all but immune to the combined efforts of less than 200 other players. Hmmm, I thought the hisec merc corps were pretty big? My mistake and also interesting... As to fielding large pieces of kit even as a single player if it is expensive enough then why should it not be hard to kill? However I agree that there would also need to be the means to take it down in a reasonable time too. If XL stations are to be allowed in hisec space then the corresponding ships required to take it down should also be allowed I guess otherwise it becomes imbalanced and space will be cluttered with massive impregnable stations. otherwise there would need to be a size limit on citadels in hisec. This actually raises a good question. A Large is able to house anything that can *currently* fly in highsec space, so why should an XL be put up at all ( or allowed ). Similarly unless you are flying a Super/Titan in J space, a L is capable of everything you want.
You are correct that they will be considered pretty much permanent structures in Highsec. The only reason low/null are different is the level of teamwork between corporations. Highsec alliances ( wardec alliances exempt ) are not utilized as well as low/null alliance/coalitions. Nerfing the structures so small Highsec corps can kill them is not as good of a solution as not allowing XL structures in highsec ( which also eases that most AoE weapons that aren't allowed in highsec anyway could only be installed in an XL ) |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1116
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 14:40:56 -
[244] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Surely here would be the usual argument leveled against small hisec corps being outnumbered...Hire mercs. Also I thought they were considering allowing capitals into hisec. Maybe this is why. There aren't enough mercs in all of highsec to field 200 battleships at one time. And that would be only to contest an undefended tower, not one that was actively defending. Only the large nullsec/former nullsec groups can bring the number of players required. I have no problem with players being forced to put something on the table to contest them (like capitals), but whatever the value of that force is, it has to require less than several hundred players to accomplish. A single player should not be able to put up a tower that is all but immune to the combined efforts of less than 200 other players. Hmmm, I thought the hisec merc corps were pretty big? My mistake and also interesting... As to fielding large pieces of kit even as a single player if it is expensive enough then why should it not be hard to kill? However I agree that there would also need to be the means to take it down in a reasonable time too. If XL stations are to be allowed in hisec space then the corresponding ships required to take it down should also be allowed I guess otherwise it becomes imbalanced and space will be cluttered with massive impregnable stations. otherwise there would need to be a size limit on citadels in hisec.
First of all there is no hisec merc alliance able to take down an XL at this point in time, but that could develop in time. But what could take down a hisec XL are null sec alliances who have the numbers. Most of the kills in hisec are in fact carried out by alts of bored null sec players so the risk is there and is very real, so CCP should let XL's occur in hisec because there is something else to bear in mind. Currently all hisec indy alliances are virtual, having these structires may develop real alliances and corps that can give content and can fight, that is what I am hoping for and this pint is really important because currently the majority of indy is done by one men corps and toons in NPC corps. Structures may change that dynamic and an XL structure may entice people to change the way they operate.
One important aspect of this is that the hisec merc corps are just too good to fight, they use OGB, neutral spies, neutral alts and neutral logistics, they only fight when they have odds in their favour, most of the time I got war decc'd it was the merc alliances that used GTFO ships, it was annoying, so now both sides have an objective to fight over, I think the changes for hisec could be massive and create content for both sides.
And finally an XL citadel is a massive investment, in my opinion it should require 200 people to kill.
Oh and I do believe that as the Empires lose their grip dreads and carriers will appear in hisec.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2733
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 15:15:20 -
[245] - Quote
Have we confirmed that XL will not be restricted in their placement yet? It seems as though they are the equivalent replacement for outposts, and current outposts are not allowed in the areas of space being debated. Did I miss something? |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1620
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 15:18:21 -
[246] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: One important aspect of this is that the hisec merc corps are just too good to fight, they use OGB, neutral spies, neutral alts and neutral logistics, they only fight when they have odds in their favour, most of the time I got war decc'd it was the merc alliances that used GTFO ships, it was annoying, so now both sides have an objective to fight over, I think the changes for hisec could be massive and create content for both sides.
I hope so, but I am telling you now that no group will contest an XL structure in highsec or a low-class wormhole with these numbers. The DPS required is an order of magnitude too difficult for what is possible from the current crop of mercenaries or the typical corporation/alliance in highsec can muster, or what can pass through a C1 or C2 wormhole. No content will result from releasing structures with these numbers and CCP knows it.
Perhaps capitals in highsec is the answer, or perhaps it will be some other mechanism yet to be announced. But there has to be a way less than 200 players can contest a structure or it will never occur. Even now, when you only need 20 or 30 players to contest a large POS in a low-class wormhole or highsec in a reasonable time, it rarely happens.
Citadels should be easy to defend, especially the XL ones, but it should not require a minimum of a few hundred players to even consider attacking them or it just will never happen. Better to not allow them to be deployed if they are effectively immune from attack by other players. |
Kayden Katelo
Mythic Heights
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 15:57:54 -
[247] - Quote
What powers the new citadels? Can a citadel go offline? Can offline citadels be destroyed by damaging only hull HP? If a citadel is offline, can we hack the citadel to recover it for ourselves by either shipping it away or installing it over again as our own? |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3647
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 15:59:10 -
[248] - Quote
Horus V wrote:"The current plan is for those structures not to have auto-defenses. This is still left to be debated, but we do believe existing auto-defenses on Starbases are nothing but a false promise to safety, since they are so easily abused and bypassed by attacking parties. They just give the owner a feeling of safety where none actually exists, like having a completely out-of-date firewall and anti-virus on your computer."
I disagree because everyone knows that when you have small fleet roaming whs and looking for easy POS to kill, they always think twice when they see a POS with more ressistances and lots of ecm. It just takes ages to kill such POS without dreads.
Also why cannot we just improve the defences so its actually a challenge instead of HP grind? The situation when defenders are offline makes the game boring. Lets make the bases intelligent and add some game play! I have to agree. Hardners and ecm are a deterrent. Also: I live in high sec ATM. Say I drop a citadel, then later get a war dec. I realize Real Life will prevent me from being on-line during my vulnerable window. What to do? Scoop! So I propose: you can always just scoop your structure in a timely manner. Like a few hours or less. That means you lose the use of it for the duration, so the war did serve a purpose.
Otherwise, it will not re reasonable to put the structure up in the first place. Why put the thing up if I know real life will get in the way of defending it?
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1621
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 16:19:40 -
[249] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: I have to agree. Hardners and ecm are a deterrent. Also: I live in high sec ATM. Say I drop a citadel, then later get a war dec. I realize Real Life will prevent me from being on-line during my vulnerable window. What to do? Scoop! So I propose: you can always just scoop your structure in a timely manner. Like a few hours or less. That means you lose the use of it for the duration, so the war did serve a purpose.
I believe it has been made clear that you will be able to scoop the structures, but you will lose the rigs which will make up the bulk of the cost and provide the bulk of the bonuses if you do so.
Seems fair to me. If you want the flexibility of dodging a wardec, you just don't install rigs. If you want those bonuses, you have to commit to defending. Worst case though, if real life keeps you away, you just lose the structures and the rigs and your assets are magically teleported somewhere safe. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
274
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 18:35:36 -
[250] - Quote
To put the HP into perspective, a pos bash currently is between about 15M EHP for a small unhardened control tower to 100M EHP for a large hardened control tower (which is already an abusive figure for highsec or low class wormholes) whereas citadels are 27M EHP minimum which has to be done in three sessions at times determined by the defender to 405M EHP for an XL citadel, again in three sessions at times determined by the defender oh and by the way even if you can bring crazy dps you have a minimum of 90 minutes of bashing to take down any of them and if you're late to a timer it automatically goes back to full HP.
My uncensored opinion of this would get me banned from the forum and probably put on several suspected terrorist watchlists. |
|
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
445
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 18:37:53 -
[251] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Grorious Reader wrote:Regarding XL Citadels in WH I know the numbers aren't final or anything, but as they are given the XL citadel will be an incredibly boring grind if it's allowed in w-space. You will basically never get that kind of fire power into somebody else's system. Especially something like a C1 or C2. If those numbers are going to stay in that ballpark, I suggest that XL citadels not be allowed in W-space. If they are designed for super-caps and titans, and L citadels are able to dock/support carriers and dreads, this should not be a loss for anyone and would prevent the sort of "boredom tank" that POSes currently represent in some areas of space. It's the same problem in highsec - the EHP is of the XL is just way too much. The L citadel is proposed to have more EHP than the current large POSes and they are already rarely attacked now in low-class wormholes or in highsec - the tedium is too great. However getting 20 battleships together is at least plausible for a smaller group. But the XL? That will never be lost unless one of the largest groups in the game takes enough interest in you to rope 150+ people into an structure grind. It would take tens of wormholes even to get the battleships into a C2 and a XL in a C1 would be even safer and require more people. This design seems to fail hard, even worse than the current POSes, for allowing players to use boredom as a defensive strategy instead of requiring an active defense. They either need to be limited as to where they can be deployed, there needs to be some way to deliver capital-level DPS against structures in highsec and low-class wormholes, or some mechanism needs to exist to make them much more vulnerable if left undefended (maybe based on entosis ?) so that a group of only 20-30 people have a viable strategy to attack them without grinding them for 10+ hours. As it is, the L and especially the XL will almost never be attacked because of the time cost for the agressors in low-class wormholes and in highsec. The problem regarding XL's in lower class Wormhole systems could easily be resolved by making the initial construct needed to deploy the XL Citadel (Egg? Citadel scaffolding tingie?) so big it could only be carried around in a Freighter. If at the same time CCP chooses to only allow those things to be made in existing stations and/or allready deployed XL Citadels, the problem you stated will never occur. In that case it would not be forbidden to deploy XL's in lower class Wormhole systems, it would just be technically impossible.
Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format.
Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1682
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 19:36:05 -
[252] - Quote
Esrevid Nekkeg wrote:...
They either need to be limited as to where they can be deployed, there needs to be some way to deliver capital-level DPS against structures in highsec and low-class wormholes, or some mechanism needs to exist to make them much more vulnerable if left undefended (maybe based on entosis ?) so that a group of only 20-30 people have a viable strategy to attack them without grinding them for 10+ hours. As it is, the L and especially the XL will almost never be attacked because of the time cost for the agressors in low-class wormholes and in highsec. The problem regarding XL's in lower class Wormhole systems could easily be resolved by making the initial construct needed to deploy the XL Citadel (Egg? Citadel scaffolding tingie?) so big it could only be carried around in a Freighter. If at the same time CCP chooses to only allow those things to be made in existing stations and/or allready deployed XL Citadels, the problem you stated will never occur. In that case it would not be forbidden to deploy XL's in lower class Wormhole systems, it would just be technically impossible.
edit: No special cases, just Volume = *insert ludicrous number here* (750.000 m3 Packaged)[/quote]
For WH space it depends on the fuel requirements to make it viable to run an XL station. If the sheer logistics are prohibitive then they simply won't be built.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1682
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 19:40:13 -
[253] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: I have to agree. Hardners and ecm are a deterrent. Also: I live in high sec ATM. Say I drop a citadel, then later get a war dec. I realize Real Life will prevent me from being on-line during my vulnerable window. What to do? Scoop! So I propose: you can always just scoop your structure in a timely manner. Like a few hours or less. That means you lose the use of it for the duration, so the war did serve a purpose.
I believe it has been made clear that you will be able to scoop the structures, but you will lose the rigs which will make up the bulk of the cost and provide the bulk of the bonuses if you do so. Seems fair to me. If you want the flexibility of dodging a wardec, you just don't install rigs. If you want those bonuses, you have to commit to defending. Worst case though, if real life keeps you away, you just lose the structures and the rigs and your assets are magically teleported somewhere safe.
Another thought occured to me, if the XL citadels required capitals to destroy them they would need anti-capital weapons to defend themselves in any reasonable manner and as far as I have read the biggest nastiest weapons will be non-empire space only, potentially another reason to limit hisec to large stations.
I say potentially as I'm still undecided on that one. A single player is unlikely to invest in an XL simply due to the fuel logistics to get the benefit from it. They would also be in real trouble trying to defend such an investment alone. |
Circumstantial Evidence
227
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 20:27:53 -
[254] - Quote
I see some fixation on "200 battleships" in recent posts. That's not a requirement. CCP's goal is no more than a half-hour of structure bashing, if the attacker brings the maximum supported DPS, but if the attacker can't bring max dps, obviously the structure should still go down, just take longer. |
TheMercenaryKing
Ultimatum. The Bastion
370
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 22:27:06 -
[255] - Quote
So after reading a bit, it seems people are concerned of the self defensive options available on the citadels. I think it is important to be able to fit guns or some form of EWAR on it. The thought of a false sense of security is kind of true and should somehow change.
The problem with the false sense of security is that the guns are effective and maybe too effectuve against a single target but ineffective against a large force. The common idea is to make guns more powerful against targets and kill them faster but that would make them overpowered. My though is to have turrets with an AoE or semi-AoE type turrets/mods.
So the immediate thought is that AOE will hit everything within the blast radius, but there is an obvious problem with that - its kind of OP. If it is possible, then it should be more like a Flak cannon or shotgun blast; Things in the area of the target have a chance of being hit, but will not always be hit like a smartbomb or bomb. Like every gun, the turret will have a sig limit on it so smaller ships take less damage, or maybe can dodge it, but larger ships can be hit more easily but take damage as if it was a smaller ship shooting it. This would scale from S to XL turrets where Small turrets would be good AA vs frigs and fighter/fighterbombers but limited damage vs Battlecruisers and XL would be effective against capital ship clusters but ineffective vs smaller but can *rarely* still hit smaller targets.
One issue people have with these would be if like current POS mechanics, you would need to shoot them. I think rather than remove the entosis links from the new Citadels would be to use the entosis links to disable or take control of the hostile turrets. Instead of splitting damage you can focus your damage on the target and incap turrets at the same time.
- Make turrets useful vs fleets
- Make turrets not overpowered against single targets
- Disable turrets while being able to target the primary objective or targets of importance
These, combined with the other proposed idea I had of a minimum DPS before the repair timer is paused/reset would work in conjunction.
One more thing I want to add is that I really really want the citadels to EVOLVE. That means, observing how players use them and make small changes to them like maybe in the future, their evolution would lead them to be able to jump or move around. Begin with inter-planetary movement, have a citadel move to a strategic point in the system like a gate when you think an enemy fleet is coming (with a long spool up timer and a slow ass warp), then after half a year or year evolve the navigation component of the structure to jump. DO NOT ADD NEW FEATURES TO REPLACE THEM, JUST EVOLVE THEM. |
Memphis Baas
562
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 03:18:56 -
[256] - Quote
As a suggestion, please explain invulnerability and vulnerability windows from a lore point of view. Perhaps whatever the system is that causes all known weapons, including the big dreadnaught and titan weapons, to cause absolutely 0 damage needs to reset itself every so often. Whatever.
All of this design and re-design that you're doing... you're throwing numbers and percentages around and there's no reason behind all of it (other than the fact that you're devs and you want to have a balanced game, which is fine). But, when you finally release it, as an expansion or whatever, present a game plot, rather than a collection of math rules and game mechanics.
I don't know how to explain it... Blizzard and EA don't release "Next expansion will be a boss with an enrage timer at 8 minutes, 5% chance for a PBAoE that kills everyone if the tank loses aggro, and a DPS check of at least 6 million per the 8 minutes." They release the Lich King, or whatever Sith Lord and his new evil scheme. You're releasing vulnerability window charts and graphs.
Last time you released flags. Suspect flag, criminal flag. Ok fine, I guess Concord is an entity and they've made those rules, and they've deployed the electronic monitoring systems to enforce the flags; I can come up with an explanation, but you, CCP, should have presented the expansion that way, as a Concord-related storyline.
At least do this next one right. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 06:43:20 -
[257] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:I see some fixation on "200 battleships" in recent posts. That's not a requirement. CCP's goal is no more than a half-hour of structure bashing, if the attacker brings the maximum supported DPS, but if the attacker can't bring max dps, obviously the structure should still go down, just take longer. 20 players shooting the structure for 10+ hours, where likely any break in the application of damage (like downtime) results in the structure becoming invulnerable again (as the vulnerability window will close) is not a viable attack strategy either. No one will do that. And have to do that 3 times in a row to destroy it?
It is just too many player hours. There needs to be a way for less players to attack in reasonable time, even if they have to use more expensive equipment. No group can commit 200+ player hours (x3) of time for attacking something which drops no significant reward so they never will be attacked. That, or don't put them in highsec/wormholes. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1116
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 08:37:06 -
[258] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:I see some fixation on "200 battleships" in recent posts. That's not a requirement. CCP's goal is no more than a half-hour of structure bashing, if the attacker brings the maximum supported DPS, but if the attacker can't bring max dps, obviously the structure should still go down, just take longer. 20 players shooting the structure for 10+ hours, where likely any break in the application of damage (like downtime) results in the structure becoming invulnerable again (as the vulnerability window will close) is not a viable attack strategy either. No one will do that. And have to do that 3 times in a row to destroy it? It is just too many player hours. There needs to be a way for less players to attack in reasonable time, even if they have to use more expensive equipment. No group can commit 200+ player hours (x3) of time for attacking something which drops no significant reward so they never will be attacked. That, or don't put them in highsec/wormholes.
No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it, if you want to kill it badly enough then you have to get allies or hire more people who have the will power to do so. My Coalition has the ability now to destroy a Medium, soon will be able to take out a Large, but an XL is above us, I accept that we do not have the means to kill the Xl because we are still bad at Eve.
If CCP make it easy then no one will put these things up apart from people who have massive control of their space or are too far away, in other words Deklin and deep in drone lands.
Citadels have the potential to push people in hisec to move away from virtual corps and alliances with most of the toons in NPC corps, that is much more important then making them easier to blap. It may be that once there is enough in space then CCP may adjust it, I would bet money on that to be honest, but you have to look at the big picture to create changes in mentality.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
28
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 08:58:33 -
[259] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:I see some fixation on "200 battleships" in recent posts. That's not a requirement. CCP's goal is no more than a half-hour of structure bashing, if the attacker brings the maximum supported DPS, but if the attacker can't bring max dps, obviously the structure should still go down, just take longer. 20 players shooting the structure for 10+ hours, where likely any break in the application of damage (like downtime) results in the structure becoming invulnerable again (as the vulnerability window will close) is not a viable attack strategy either. No one will do that. And have to do that 3 times in a row to destroy it? It is just too many player hours. There needs to be a way for less players to attack in reasonable time, even if they have to use more expensive equipment. No group can commit 200+ player hours (x3) of time for attacking something which drops no significant reward so they never will be attacked. That, or don't put them in highsec/wormholes.
You are saying again and again that no one will do it. Who considers necessary to destroy the asset will look for a way to do it or will fail trying.
Just go and attack targets that you are willing to engage and leave the rest alone. Not everything in the game must be a toy for you to play with. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 09:38:03 -
[260] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it, if you want to kill it badly enough then you have to get allies or hire more people who have the will power to do so. My Coalition has the ability now to destroy a Medium, soon will be able to take out a Large, but an XL is above us, I accept that we do not have the means to kill the Xl because we are still bad at Eve.
If CCP make it easy then no one will put these things up apart from people who have massive control of their space or are too far away, in other words Deklin and deep in drone lands. No friend, these are not just a massive investment to destroy, they are all but impossible to destroy. It's not a matter of being bad at Eve, it is just a broken numbers game. I can be the richest, most skilled PvP organization around willing to risk a trillion ISK to kill an XL citadel, but unless I have a few hundred players able to log in at the same time, I can do nothing. There is no viable strategy to attack an undefended structure in highsec, even if the person who has deployed it has left the game, no matter how good I am or how many resources I have. Only access to or influence over 200+ accounts will allow you to even try to attack them. That is just broken.
Again, I have no problem with XL citadels requiring 200 people to take it from 10 defenders. They should be a strong force multiplier after all. But requiring 200 people even if no one shows up to defend? That is way too much safety - just deploy and forget - and will result in them never being contested. Almost no one attacks large POSes in highsec or C1-C2 wormholes now, and they only require 20-30 people to take down in a reasonable time (and might actually drop loot). Requiring 150-200 players is completely unreasonable. Basically, the only people who will be able to attack them in highsec and low-class wormholes are the group you alluded to in Deklein. How is adding a nearly indestructible player station going to drive any conflict or make the game better?
This discussion is probably premature since we don't know what is happening with capitals. CCP Ytterbium has acknowledged there is a problem and I have no doubt will not release the citadels like this. Either caps will come to highsec/low-class wormholes or XLs will not or they will come up with some other solution because this is unworkable. I guess we will find out more at Eve Vegas about the capital changes, although if CCP Nullarbor or CCP Ytterbium have some ideas they wish to put forth, I would be happy to continue this discussion here.
|
|
Circumstantial Evidence
229
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 10:09:19 -
[261] - Quote
Note that CCP gives a range in their chart, of 75-225 BS required. The chart is prefaced with "some very rough calculations on how many ship types would be required to reach the indicated damage mitigation" Fleet size needed will depend on their DPS. If I assume CCP's estimate is 75 for max DPS (polarized weapons?) and 225 means max tank, a middle-ground fleet might number 150.
150 in 30m 75 in 1hr 38 in 2hr 19 in 4hr |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
245
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 10:18:53 -
[262] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it, if you want to kill it badly enough then you have to get allies or hire more people who have the will power to do so. My Coalition has the ability now to destroy a Medium, soon will be able to take out a Large, but an XL is above us, I accept that we do not have the means to kill the Xl because we are still bad at Eve.
If CCP make it easy then no one will put these things up apart from people who have massive control of their space or are too far away, in other words Deklin and deep in drone lands. No friend, these are not just a massive investment to destroy, they are all but impossible to destroy. It's not a matter of being bad at Eve, it is just a broken numbers game. I can be the richest, most skilled PvP organization around willing to risk a trillion ISK to kill an XL citadel, but unless I have a few hundred players able to log in at the same time, I can do nothing. There is no viable strategy to attack an undefended structure in highsec, even if the person who has deployed it has left the game, no matter how good I am or how many resources I have. Only access to or influence over 200+ accounts will allow you to even try to attack them. That is just broken. Again, I have no problem with XL citadels requiring 200 people to take it from 10 defenders. They should be a strong force multiplier after all. But requiring 200 people even if no one shows up to defend? That is way too much safety - just deploy and forget - and will result in them never being contested. Almost no one attacks large POSes in highsec or C1-C2 wormholes now, and they only require 20-30 people to take down in a reasonable time (and might actually drop loot). Requiring 150-200 players is completely unreasonable. Basically, the only people who will be able to attack them in highsec and low-class wormholes are the group you alluded to in Deklein. How is adding a nearly indestructible player station going to drive any conflict or make the game better? This discussion is probably premature since we don't know what is happening with capitals. CCP Ytterbium has acknowledged there is a problem and I have no doubt will not release the citadels like this. Either caps will come to highsec/low-class wormholes or XLs will not or they will come up with some other solution because this is unworkable. I guess we will find out more at Eve Vegas about the capital changes, although if CCP Nullarbor or CCP Ytterbium have some ideas they wish to put forth, I would be happy to continue this discussion here. you keep bringing that number up, 200 bs, but really how about a reality check: 60k dps is not 200 batleships omg; or maybe 200 very poor fit bs- even 200 cruisers or t3 destroyers do allot more dps than 60k a max dps bs can go easy over 1.2k-1.5k dps so your "undefended" structure will go down to 40-50 bs in 30'; or 20-25 bs in 60'; eve is hard, i know, how about you get a a clue? |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1116
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 10:33:07 -
[263] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:No friend, these are not just a massive investment to destroy, they are all but impossible to destroy. It's not a matter of being bad at Eve, it is just a broken numbers game. I can be the richest, most skilled PvP organization around willing to risk a trillion ISK to kill an XL citadel, but unless I have a few hundred players able to log in at the same time, I can do nothing. There is no viable strategy to attack an undefended structure in highsec, even if the person who has deployed it has left the game, no matter how good I am or how many resources I have. Only access to or influence over 200+ accounts will allow you to even try to attack them. That is just broken.
Again, I have no problem with XL citadels requiring 200 people to take it from 10 defenders. They should be a strong force multiplier after all. But requiring 200 people even if no one shows up to defend? That is way too much safety - just deploy and forget - and will result in them never being contested. Almost no one attacks large POSes in highsec or C1-C2 wormholes now, and they only require 20-30 people to take down in a reasonable time (and might actually drop loot). Requiring 150-200 players is completely unreasonable. Basically, the only people who will be able to attack them in highsec and low-class wormholes are the group you alluded to in Deklein. How is adding a nearly indestructible player station going to drive any conflict or make the game better?
This discussion is probably premature since we don't know what is happening with capitals. CCP Ytterbium has acknowledged there is a problem and I have no doubt will not release the citadels like this. Either caps will come to highsec/low-class wormholes or XLs will not or they will come up with some other solution because this is unworkable. I guess we will find out more at Eve Vegas about the capital changes, although if CCP Nullarbor or CCP Ytterbium have some ideas they wish to put forth, I would be happy to continue this discussion here.
I don't think that is broken because its supposed to be hard so that people can put them in space. Look further at the changes to mentality that they may create, it may be that some very rich hisec people pull together and create their own market trade hub for blues in an XL citadel, this changes the game a lot. Also does it matter if that XL citadel is there if they have left the game, its not as if its going to be holding up people from putting one up as it is now. And it can still be attacked.
You look at it from a pirate angle, but I look at it from a different angle, I see nothing wrong in people who are small groups who want to loot etc. from not being able to do jack against an XL, that to me is totally balanced. We already agreed that the large POS is doable but being a boring event is not often done.
It might then develop into a serious hisec alliance that is specialised in such takedowns, which then develops hisec further. I happen to think however that you will see a lot of Mediums and Large that you can attack and we should not forget all the other structures they are planning, these will all require defending and have a meaningful value. Don't forget that the rigs to enable stuff in them are going to be very worthwhile to loot.
If we can see hisec move away from virtual corps and alliances then the game will have more conflict that actually matters instead of people looking for GF's or just easy loot pinata's from hit and run pipe camping or sitting on Jita 4-4.
I really do hope that a group of hisec people will set up a hisec based XL trade hub and set it up for agreed trade partners as a blue list, this will make the market a lot more interesting and also give reasons for trade based major conflict which is better than simplistic just get a toon into the station type rubbish, which by the way CCP needs to have something in the control structure that only enables blues to participate in the trading. At this point we will see proper economic warfare...
I agree with you that we need to wait more on changes yet to be announced, my feeling is that they will eventually let carriers and dreads into hisec, these new structures are one reason to do so and I there is another reason which I am not at liberty to say.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 10:54:50 -
[264] - Quote
gascanu wrote: you keep bringing that number up, 200 bs, but really how about a reality check: 60k dps is not 200 batleships omg; or maybe 200 very poor fit bs a max dps bs can go easy over 1.2k-1.5k dps so your "undefended" structure will go down to 40-50 bs in 30'; or 20-25 bs in 60'; eve is hard, i know, how about you get a a clue?
No one will commit 30-50 pirate/faction battleships to attack a structure for no gain. You can't even get those ships into a C1 and you would need at least 3 or 4 separate wormholes to get them into a C2. Further, there is no highsec organization I am aware (maybe RvB?) of that that can field 50 high-skilled battleship pilots at one time. And, realistically you will need at least a hundred to do it within a vulnerability window - and that assumes zero opposition.
Without capitals almost no one will ever attack an XL citadel. I doubt even the Goons would bother unless it is for a significant propaganda reason as the opportunity cost is so large. The number of pilots required is just too high.
In any case, it certainly doesn't meet the stated goal of "the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack" since they are invulnerable to attack by any group unable to field 50-100 top-tier DPS battleships (or 200 entry fit battleships), or in other words almost every group in the game. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2478
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 11:06:12 -
[265] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:No one will commit 30-50 pirate/faction battleships to attack a structure for no gain. You can't even get those ships into a C1 and you would need at least 3 or 4 separate wormholes to get them into a C2. Further, there is no highsec organization I am aware (maybe RvB?) of that that can field 50 high-skilled battleship pilots at one time. And, realistically you will need at least a hundred to do it within a vulnerability window - and that assumes zero opposition. Without capitals almost no one will ever attack an XL citadel. I doubt even the Goons would bother unless it is for a significant propaganda reason as the opportunity cost is so large. The number of pilots required is just too high. In any case, it certainly doesn't meet the stated goal of "the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack" since they are invulnerable to attack by any group unable to field 50-100 top-tier DPS battleships (or 200 entry fit battleships), or in other words almost every group in the game. You know those ships people gank with, what are they called.... Destroyers.... They output a lot of DPS for much lower cost. Also if you look at the blog, if the repair timer is running the vulnerability window can extend a little longer.
So they are quite attackable. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 11:18:10 -
[266] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: You know those ships people gank with, what are they called.... Destroyers.... They output a lot of DPS for much lower cost. Also if you look at the blog, if the repair timer is running the vulnerability window can extend a little longer.
So they are quite attackable.
Ah, so now you want to require a minimum of 3-400 players to even consider attacking an XL citadel? Sure, like that is ever going to happen.
It's not the equipment cost that is the issue it is the number of players required. Most groups in this game cannot field 200 pilots, especially groups based in highsec or wormholes. In fact, setting the bar at even 50 players means they are never going to be attacked. They will not drive conflict or create content in any meaningful sense. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
245
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 11:34:07 -
[267] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote: You know those ships people gank with, what are they called.... Destroyers.... They output a lot of DPS for much lower cost. Also if you look at the blog, if the repair timer is running the vulnerability window can extend a little longer.
So they are quite attackable.
Ah, so now you want to require a minimum of 3-400 players to even consider attacking an XL citadel? Sure, like that is ever going to happen. It's not the equipment cost that is the issue it is the number of players required. Most groups in this game cannot field 200 pilots, especially groups based in highsec or wormholes. In fact, setting the bar at even 50 players means they are never going to be attacked. They will not drive conflict or create content in any meaningful sense.
oh come on, see the bigger picture: a 30 bs gang, no faction bs can reinforce an undefended Xl in about 1h; i think it's much faster that a large pos;
the fact that you don't know of any grout that can field 200 pilots dosen't mean they don't exist; you don't belive me? how about you "donate" a titan kill in one low sec close to jita, and see how many ppl come to shoot it... an xl citadel in high sec will be a static "titan" killmaill waititng to happen. and allot ofbored 0.0 ppl are already preparing for it
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2478
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 12:39:14 -
[268] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Ah, so now you want to require a minimum of 3-400 players to even consider attacking an XL citadel? Sure, like that is ever going to happen.
It's not the equipment cost that is the issue it is the number of players required. Most groups in this game cannot field 200 pilots, especially groups based in highsec or wormholes. In fact, setting the bar at even 50 players means they are never going to be attacked. They will not drive conflict or create content in any meaningful sense. T2 Catalyst, no Implants. 450 DPS (Not quite perfect skills, so.... maybe 1 months training for relevant DPS skills) 67 of them = 30150 DPS. 59 minutes. T2 Mega, no Implants. 1020 DPS. Not quite perfect skills but significantly longer train admittedly. 30 of them = 30,600 DPS. 30 of them = 58 minutes to reinforce the Citadel. T2 Naga, no Implants. 1165 DPS, About the same train as the Mega, but cheaper ship. 30 of them = 51 minutes.
So, if you can field 30 battleships you can reinforce the citadel in under an hour. If you can field 30 ABC's you can reinforce it in under an hour. If you can field 67 Destroyers you can reinforce a Citadel in under an hour.
If for some reason you can't field this, the Case Study also shows that the structure being under attack extends it's vulnerable time. So even if you bring only 15 Battleships, you can reinforce the XL Citadel in 2 hours by maintaining constant fire on the structure so it's repair timer never manages to kick in.
So..... For an XL Citadel, which is meant to be a massive investment of time and commitment for an organisation to build, this is actually an incredibly easy structure to bring down. 15 battleships for 2 hours? And you are complaining it's too hard to attack one, seriously? |
Max Caulfield
Contina AG Mauren
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 12:41:29 -
[269] - Quote
Thinking about the new structures as a player housing, aren't there concerns these will cause less interaction happening between the players? |
Atan Auden
Gallasen Order
7
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 13:31:05 -
[270] - Quote
Horus V wrote:"The current plan is for those structures not to have auto-defenses. This is still left to be debated, but we do believe existing auto-defenses on Starbases are nothing but a false promise to safety, since they are so easily abused and bypassed by attacking parties. They just give the owner a feeling of safety where none actually exists, like having a completely out-of-date firewall and anti-virus on your computer."
I disagree because everyone knows that when you have small fleet roaming whs and looking for easy POS to kill, they always think twice when they see a POS with more ressistances and lots of ecm. It just takes ages to kill such POS without dreads.
Also why cannot we just improve the defences so its actually a challenge instead of HP grind? The situation when defenders are offline makes the game boring. Lets make the bases intelligent and add some game play!
yes we definetly need the DEFENCES!! Please add them to the Citadels!! |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 13:33:03 -
[271] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: T2 Catalyst, no Implants. 450 DPS (Not quite perfect skills, so.... maybe 1 months training for relevant DPS skills) 67 of them = 30150 DPS. 59 minutes. T2 Mega, no Implants. 1020 DPS. Not quite perfect skills but significantly longer train admittedly. 30 of them = 30,600 DPS. 30 of them = 58 minutes to reinforce the Citadel. T2 Naga, no Implants. 1165 DPS, About the same train as the Mega, but cheaper ship. 30 of them = 51 minutes.
So, if you can field 30 battleships you can reinforce the citadel in under an hour. If you can field 30 ABC's you can reinforce it in under an hour. If you can field 67 Destroyers you can reinforce a Citadel in under an hour.
If for some reason you can't field this, the Case Study also shows that the structure being under attack extends it's vulnerable time. So even if you bring only 15 Battleships, you can reinforce the XL Citadel in 2 hours by maintaining constant fire on the structure so it's repair timer never manages to kick in.
So..... For an XL Citadel, which is meant to be a massive investment of time and commitment for an organisation to build, this is actually an incredibly easy structure to bring down. 15 battleships for 2 hours? And you are complaining it's too hard to attack one, seriously?
Yes. Why should you as a single player, get to be completely immune from me unless I bring 50 or 100 of my friends? How is that at all balanced? As I have said several times, I have no problem if it requires 100 players to beat your 10 players actively defending, but setting the bar that high to even attempt to contest a structure if you don't bother showing up? No one, I mean no one, will ever do it.
Right now large POSes have about 60M HP and they are rarely attacked in highsec or low-class wormholes. These XL citadels require over 320M HP of damage to kill. They will almost never be contested without capitals, especially given they drop nothing of value for the attacker. No organization can regularly muster the hundreds of player hours necessary to kill them without capitals, probably not even Goonswarm.
They will provide significant benefit at no real risk for the players deploying them and with no responsibility to defend them. How can one highsec mining corp consider to attack a rival who deploys an XL citadel in their home system? Or how could the typical 10-man wormhole corp even attempt to evict another similarly sized group from a C2 without capitals? They have no reasonable chance with the bar that high.
It is just not good game design nor does it meet the objectives Team Game of Drones laid out for the new structures. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
245
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 14:18:23 -
[272] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote: T2 Catalyst, no Implants. 450 DPS (Not quite perfect skills, so.... maybe 1 months training for relevant DPS skills) 67 of them = 30150 DPS. 59 minutes. T2 Mega, no Implants. 1020 DPS. Not quite perfect skills but significantly longer train admittedly. 30 of them = 30,600 DPS. 30 of them = 58 minutes to reinforce the Citadel. T2 Naga, no Implants. 1165 DPS, About the same train as the Mega, but cheaper ship. 30 of them = 51 minutes.
So, if you can field 30 battleships you can reinforce the citadel in under an hour. If you can field 30 ABC's you can reinforce it in under an hour. If you can field 67 Destroyers you can reinforce a Citadel in under an hour.
If for some reason you can't field this, the Case Study also shows that the structure being under attack extends it's vulnerable time. So even if you bring only 15 Battleships, you can reinforce the XL Citadel in 2 hours by maintaining constant fire on the structure so it's repair timer never manages to kick in.
So..... For an XL Citadel, which is meant to be a massive investment of time and commitment for an organisation to build, this is actually an incredibly easy structure to bring down. 15 battleships for 2 hours? And you are complaining it's too hard to attack one, seriously?
Yes. Why should you as a single player, get to be completely immune from me unless I bring 50 or 100 of my friends? How is that at all balanced? As I have said several times, I have no problem if it requires 100 players to beat your 10 players actively defending, but setting the bar that high to even attempt to contest a structure if you don't bother showing up? No one, I mean no one, will ever do it. Right now large POSes have about 60M HP and they are rarely attacked in highsec or low-class wormholes. These XL citadels require over 320M HP of damage to kill. They will almost never be contested without capitals, especially given they drop nothing of value for the attacker. No organization can regularly muster the hundreds of player hours necessary to kill them without capitals, probably not even Goonswarm. They will provide significant benefit at no real risk for the players deploying them and with no responsibility to defend them. How can one highsec mining corp consider to attack a rival who deploys an XL citadel in their home system? Or how could the typical 10-man wormhole corp even attempt to evict another similarly sized group from a C2 without capitals? They have no reasonable chance with the bar that high. It is just not good game design nor does it meet the objectives Team Game of Drones laid out for the new structures. ok, one last try: i don't know what game are you playing, but in the eve i play there are allot of organizations able to put 100+ members in a fleet; allot! the fact that you cannot, while a tragedy by itself, means exactly nothing/0 for the rest of us; last time i checked, high sec was not on a different server, nor was there any law forbiding null sec alliance/coalitions/megacoalitions members to enter high security space; so while shocking as is its, no one really care if you personally cannot kill some 100+bil structure; the current mechanic is proposed accounting for the large aliances/coalitions that already exist in this game. the significant benefit at no real risk for the players deploying them is only in your head, there are allot of bad ppl out there that will spend allot of effort for a "titan" killmaill, and for the tears. really, grow up, eve is much much bigger that what you think it is
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 14:46:38 -
[273] - Quote
gascanu wrote: i don't know what game are you playing, but in the eve i play there are allot of organizations able to put 100+ members in a fleet; allot!
Friend, there are a handful of highsec and low-class wormhole corps that can field 100 players regularly. The fact that there are some, does not mean that the vast majority of players and organizations will be locked out of contesting XL citadels without access to capitals.
I don't know why many people in this thread, yourself included, are assuming like you that XL citadels will be released as such. CCP Ytterbium has acknowledged this is a problem. We should be discussing ways to address this problem of manpower so that they can be allowed in highsec and wormholes, not trying to justify why it is completely ok that a new game mechanic requires people to be in groups of 100 or more to actually use. There is no way they will be released like that.
Contesting structures should be based on controlling the grid around them, not meeting some arbitrary DPS number. That is just the same grind all over that the new sov system and structures were suppose to address. The problem with the DPS number as this example shows is that it is incredibly difficult to balance across all sectors of space each of which have different ship restrictions. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
274
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 15:31:55 -
[274] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it
"ISK tanking". |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
246
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 17:31:05 -
[275] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:gascanu wrote: i don't know what game are you playing, but in the eve i play there are allot of organizations able to put 100+ members in a fleet; allot!
Friend, there are a handful of highsec and low-class wormhole corps that can field 100 players regularly. The fact that there are some, does not mean that the vast majority of players and organizations will be locked out of contesting XL citadels without access to capitals. I don't know why many people in this thread, yourself included, are assuming like you that XL citadels will be released as such. CCP Ytterbium has acknowledged this is a problem. We should be discussing ways to address this problem of manpower so that they can be allowed in highsec and wormholes, not trying to justify why it is completely ok that a new game mechanic requires people to be in groups of 100 or more to actually use. There is no way they will be released like that. Contesting structures should be based on controlling the grid around them, not meeting some arbitrary DPS number. That is just the same grind all over that the new sov system and structures were suppose to address. The problem with the DPS number as this example shows is that it is incredibly difficult to balance across all sectors of space each of which have different ship restrictions.
XL Citadels. XL ofc you will need allot of man power to contest one, they are the largest type of those structures, and are meant for alliance use . you keep trowing numbers like 200/300/400 when someone few posts earlier told with numbers how many ppl actually you need, and it's not eve close to yours
you keep comparing an XL citadel with a pos; a large faction fitted pos is what 2-3 bil? an xl citadel will be 100 bil +, but still you want that a citadel should die easier that a pos... how about comparing a pos with a medium citadel, see how that goes? as for wh, you keep missing the point, the gameplay is changing; poses are limited to moons, this new things will not be; to you can always anchor you own and start farming kills till they leave/surender; not to mention that building a xl one will be a not so smart decision, since it will draw allot of unwanted attention and so on... |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1116
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 17:31:25 -
[276] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Dracvlad wrote:No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it "ISK tanking".
I hate one liners like that, have you something intelligent to say about it or just like to try to make yourself look smart to those who would agree with you or silly to people who want a deep challenging game.
The Citadel is built for other reasons, one would think that such a massive investment would include defences, seems sensible to me.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 17:44:30 -
[277] - Quote
gascanu wrote:XL Citadels. XL ofc you will need allot of man power to contest one, they are the largest type of those structures, and are meant for alliance use . you keep trowing numbers like 200/300/400 when someone few posts earlier told with numbers how many ppl actually you need, and it's not eve close to yours Ok. Well I am saying you shouldn't. And so is CCP Ytterbium it appears.
There is no way they will be released such that you need 50 or 100 or 200 players to contest them in highsec because it is clear that no one will ever try to contest them if that is the bar. The original proposal allowed 1 person to contest them so clearly CCP wants them to be vulnerable - they even said so in the first structure blog as I linked above. You can't make them invulnerable 95% of the time, require 100 players to attack and drop no loot or no one will ever attack them.
How about we try to come up with some ideas to make them vulnerable then? Otherwise, they will just be locked out of highsec and wormholes which maybe the only solution anyway. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
275
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 17:48:52 -
[278] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Dracvlad wrote:No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it "ISK tanking". I hate one liners like that.
Sounds like a personal problem.
EDIT: Okay, seriously: I could write an essay about how one man's investment of billions of ISK does not justify automatic safety but this has been done many times on this and other forums already. The fallacy of ISK tanking is well known, nothing more needs to be said on the matter. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
246
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 18:00:29 -
[279] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:gascanu wrote:XL Citadels. XL ofc you will need allot of man power to contest one, they are the largest type of those structures, and are meant for alliance use . you keep trowing numbers like 200/300/400 when someone few posts earlier told with numbers how many ppl actually you need, and it's not eve close to yours Ok. Well I am saying you shouldn't. And so is CCP Ytterbium it appears. There is no way they will be released such that you need 50 or 100 or 200 players to contest them in highsec because it is clear that no one will ever try to contest them if that is the bar. The original proposal allowed 1 person to contest them so clearly CCP wants them to be vulnerable - they even said so in the first structure blog as I linked above. You can't make them invulnerable 95% of the time, require 100 players to attack and drop no loot or no one will ever attack them. How about we try to come up with some ideas to make them vulnerable then? Otherwise, they will just be locked out of highsec and wormholes which maybe the only solution anyway.
and here is where you are wrong. why do you think no one will contest them? we are talking about an 100 billion killmaill here, not you average 300 mil pos; ppl are suicide ganking freighters for an 1-2 bil killmaill and for tears but you assume no one will go for the "titan" killmaill just sitting there? what do you think all those bored nul sec guys will do when they see one up? you want to be able to contest one with 20 guys? good luck finding one to kill.. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 18:19:05 -
[280] - Quote
gascanu wrote: and here is where you are wrong. why do you think no one will contest them? we are talking about an 100 billion killmaill here, not you average 300 mil pos; ppl are suicide ganking freighters for an 1-2 bil killmaill and for tears but you assume no one will go for the "titan" killmaill just sitting there? what do you think all those bored nul sec guys will do when they see one up? you want to be able to contest one with 20 guys? good luck finding one to kill..
I am not wrong at all. XL Citadels will easily be contestable with 20 guys in lowsec and nullsec using dreadnoughts. That is perfectly fine with me to require an semi-expensive capital fleet to attack them. In highsec/wormholes? You need 50-200 players to attack depending on their skills. That is way too high. Even Goonswarm didn't field more than 200 players during Burn Amarr recently so what makes you think they would do so for a single killmail?
If Gevlon put up an XL I am sure Goonswarm would torch it. But anyone else? They will not bother to demand such time from their membership to kill a random XL citadel for just a killmail. And this is besides the point. The manpower required is beyond almost every alliance that actually lives in highsec or low-class wormholes they won't even have the option.
It is a non-starter. It won't happen. There is no way CCP will release a structure that requires 100+ hours of player effort to attack even if the defender doesn't show up.
Sorry to break the news, but if that is all you have - that Goonswarm might attack one once because they are bored and are looking for tears - then XL citadels are destined to never be allowed in highsec. |
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1116
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 18:32:23 -
[281] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Dracvlad wrote:No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it "ISK tanking". I hate one liners like that. Sounds like a personal problem. EDIT: Okay, seriously: I could write an essay about how one man's investment of billions of ISK does not justify automatic safety but this has been done many times on this and other forums already. The fallacy of ISK tanking is well known, nothing more needs to be said on the matter.
Please do, that is also a one liner answer in saying that others have said it. An XL citadel is meant to be a massive base at the alliance level, one aspect is ISK the other is its role, if you want to just focus on ISK then that's your own personal problem, see I can be insulting too.
ISK cost is just one aspect of it, the other is that its likely to be a HQ and also could house a market hub, I am not talking about a ship I am talking about a structure which is the biggest and most important structure in the game, over to you to distill all those posts into a valid answer to my points. You certainly won'y sway the GM's with one liners...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Kayden Katelo
Mythic Heights
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 20:08:06 -
[282] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Dracvlad wrote:No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it "ISK tanking". I hate one liners like that. Sounds like a personal problem. EDIT: Okay, seriously: I could write an essay about how one man's investment of billions of ISK does not justify automatic safety but this has been done many times on this and other forums already. The fallacy of ISK tanking is well known, nothing more needs to be said on the matter.
Other than to recognize it when you see it and call it out. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
246
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 20:17:51 -
[283] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:gascanu wrote: and here is where you are wrong. why do you think no one will contest them? we are talking about an 100 billion killmaill here, not you average 300 mil pos; ppl are suicide ganking freighters for an 1-2 bil killmaill and for tears but you assume no one will go for the "titan" killmaill just sitting there? what do you think all those bored nul sec guys will do when they see one up? you want to be able to contest one with 20 guys? good luck finding one to kill..
I am not wrong at all. XL Citadels will easily be contestable with 20 guys in lowsec and nullsec using dreadnoughts. That is perfectly fine with me to require an semi-expensive capital fleet to attack them. In highsec/wormholes? You need 50-200 players to attack depending on their skills. That is way too high. Even Goonswarm didn't field more than 200 players during Burn Amarr recently so what makes you think they would do so for a single killmail? If Gevlon put up an XL I am sure Goonswarm would torch it. But anyone else? They will not bother to demand such time from their membership to kill a random XL citadel for just a killmail. And this is besides the point. The manpower required is beyond almost every alliance that actually lives in highsec or low-class wormholes they won't even have the option. It is a non-starter. It won't happen. There is no way CCP will release a structure that requires 100+ hours of player effort to attack even if the defender doesn't show up.
Sorry to break the news, but if that is all you have - that Goonswarm might attack one once because they are bored and are looking for tears - then XL citadels are destined to never be allowed in highsec.
CCP, eve is hard, pls HALP!
Ps: really man where the hell do you came up with those numbers? :-)) |
Circumstantial Evidence
230
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 22:10:17 -
[284] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:There is no way CCP will release a structure that requires 100+ hours of player effort to attack even if the defender doesn't show up. But they have - if I took a 100 DPS T1 frigate to shoot a large offline tower today, it would probably take 100 hours. It might even be impossible, if that's not enough DPS to beat passive shield regeneration. Fortunately, we can use higher DPS ships. CCP has done nothing wrong in making attacking XL require lots of damage and ships. CCP has always left room for players to make poor, time-wasting decisions. It's a multi-player game, it will always have elements of more is better. The big difference this time around, is the current design has an "Enough!" point. An upper limit on what is needed. Bringing "overkill" to RF an outpost in 5 minutes like the "good old days," won't be possible with Citadels.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2479
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 23:13:05 -
[285] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: It is a non-starter. It won't happen. There is no way CCP will release a structure that requires 100+ hours of player effort to attack even if the defender doesn't show up.
Wow, you seriously didn't even bother to read a single word I actually wrote did you.
I just explained to you that you can reinforce an XL Citadel in 30 man hours with 15 people. FIFTEEN PEOPLE!
Stop whinging on about needing hundreds of people, you don't. You need FIFTEEN and two hours each, for a total of 30 man hours. To kill a structure that is ALLIANCE SIZED!
Seriously, stop being maths illiterate and actually think for yourselves. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
275
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 01:33:35 -
[286] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Stop whinging on about needing hundreds of people, you don't. You need FIFTEEN and two hours each, for a total of 30 man hours.
Then you need to do that two more times to kill it. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2479
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 01:38:58 -
[287] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote: Then you need to do that two more times to kill it.
Oh no! Now please go and tell me how many hours of mining it will take people to build them. And how many man hours it takes to kill a Large POS using the same DPS. It's entirely reasonable for something station sized to take a total of 90 man hours to utterly destroy. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
275
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 02:00:31 -
[288] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Masao Kurata wrote: Then you need to do that two more times to kill it.
Oh no! Now please go and tell me how many hours of mining it will take people to build them.
None because they buy the materials from the market. Who the hell values the time miners spend AFK anyway?
Quote:And how many man hours it takes to kill a Large POS using the same DPS.
About 20% as long, that's how much less HP a large pos has than an XL citadel.
Quote:It's entirely reasonable for something station sized to take a total of 90 man hours to utterly destroy.
No it's not. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2479
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 02:12:13 -
[289] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote: No it's not.
BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yea..... I'm sorry. You are just being unrealistic here expecting to be able to solo kill an XL Citadel in an hour. We are talking the largest heaviest shielded Battle Fortress that players will be able to make. Just because you want to be able to troll anyone who builds one solo.... doesn't make it reasonable. Also buying minerals off the market does not remove the man hours spent mining, and miners don't afk like people claim they do, and are just as important players as everyone else. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2745
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 02:38:03 -
[290] - Quote
overall a good response to some actually logically-based criticism of your naff Space Wand Magic Fairy Entosis Citadel stupidity, CCP.
My question, since you have stated that there's both a lower DPS threshold (above which auto-repair does not come into effect) and an upper damage threshold (above which extra DPS is extraneous), is,
For example, EHP walls are a valid deterrent (especially in low-class wormholes) which protects POSs from attack. Dullstars (ie; hardener-only faction large tower setups) are a valid choice for small corps because they put an overwhelming EHP wall in front of an attacker, who must then resort to other means to evict the foe.
You could get to a situation where a small corporation could opt for an XL citadel in a wormhole (or hisec) and it could become effectively invulnerable to small groups of attackers if the EHP wall is too great.
eg; 4 x 1,000 DPS BS vs Large Citadel = 3 times the budgeted minimum length of time. Thus if your Large is budgeted at 12,000 DPS and should take 1/2 hour to nobble @ 12K DPS, the four BS therefore will take 1.5 hours. This would be fine.
The opposite is also true in that any EHP wall has an effective maximum RF time; if the 12K DPS limit is put in place to create a minimum RF time of 30 minutes @ 12K DPS, and the lower DPS threshold is set at 500 DPS, then one guy in a Harbinger (550) would take 5.5 hours. This creates a dynamic for removing unwanted Citadels via AFK bashing, just like AFK bashing of POSs happens right now.
2) Do all repair states happen simultaneously, or sequentially?
eg, lets say that Pumpkin Spice Sprouted Sourdough Chia hipster Bread Corporation has a Citadel and is attacked over Christmas. They are too full of egg nog to notice the attack until the Citadel is halfway through hull, and then jabber ping their members to man the guns. They drive off the attackers and maintain grid control and dominate the yuletide for 30 minutes.
Does this then mean that automagically the Citadel's eg, 10M hull hitpoints, and 10M armour hitpoints, and 10M shield hitpoints all go back to 100%?
Or does only the hull go up in the first 30 minutes, and then you need another 30 minutes for the armour, and another 30 for the shield?
I ask, because simultaneous repair would put a minimum 72 hours back in front of the attacker from losing grid control for 30 minutes (ie; they need to start over from scratch).
3) There is a case to make that the EHP walls should be linked to structure size not security space.
For example, a hisec repair timer is 15 minutes regardless of structure size, but the minimum RF time on a structure is 30 minutes. There's no realistic reason I can see to change the repair timers in various space beyond making people in more dangerous space have to sit around for longer periods of time nursing their citadels back to life.
This means that a medium citadel, which is more easily attacked by smaller groups, repairs just as fast as XL structures which are much harder to reinforce (more boring, more EHP).
This effectively means that XL structures are more heavily skewed in favour of the defender, regardless of security space. In high security space, XL citadels will be effectively impervious to attack by small organisations, which have to turn up and begin damaging it in a significant way within 15 minutes, or lose potentially 200M EHP worth of grinding.
The alternative is to make mediums repair faster than large and XL citadels. ie; 15 mins Mediums 30 Large 60 mins XL
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 ~~
|
|
Justa Hunni
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 04:29:49 -
[291] - Quote
Ben Ishikela wrote:Sooooo goood! +1+1+1+1
- What about removing the Shield of Stations inside of Wormhole space? -- because of natural phenomena *hrhr* -- - - - Thera and shattered could also remove armor as well. Then its very risky but still possible to stage there. Because it would be awesome.
[/i]
Well this is one of the stupider comments I've ever read, might I assume you are trolling? As it looks like WHs are already being penalized with regards to asset safety (unlike oh you know large alliances who can afford to replace ****), you want to make it even harder to maintain any kind of presence for smaller corps in low-class WHs? Hell why don't we just let you take the stuff without shooting anything, would that make it easy enough for you???
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 08:00:06 -
[292] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Masao Kurata wrote: No it's not.
BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yea..... I'm sorry. You are just being unrealistic here expecting to be able to solo kill an XL Citadel in an hour. We are talking the largest heaviest shielded Battle Fortress that players will be able to make. Just because you want to be able to troll anyone who builds one solo.... doesn't make it reasonable. Also buying minerals off the market does not remove the man hours spent mining, and miners don't afk like people claim they do, and are just as important players as everyone else. Did you even read the devblog?
Team Game of Drones wrote:As further iteration from the previous attack mechanic, we would like structure assaults to take around 30 minutes to complete, no matter where the structure is deployed. This ensures a unified experience and prevents confusion as a whole. So you are saying that it should take 30 minutes to attack any structure (with 10-20 players as the numbers show) everywhere except in highsec and low-class wormholes where it should take 3+ times as long and require 5 times as many players? And this in the spaces where corp/alliances sizes tend to be the smallest?
I don't know why I continue to argue with you as if this is going to be how they are released. There is no way they will be put into the game as such. If they make it to highsec and C1/C2s at all, there will have to be a mechanism by which 20 players can contest them in 30-60 minutes. Otherwise, we just won't see XLs there until when and if dreads make their way into these spaces. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1116
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 08:02:40 -
[293] - Quote
Kayden Katelo wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Dracvlad wrote:No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it "ISK tanking". I hate one liners like that. Sounds like a personal problem. EDIT: Okay, seriously: I could write an essay about how one man's investment of billions of ISK does not justify automatic safety but this has been done many times on this and other forums already. The fallacy of ISK tanking is well known, nothing more needs to be said on the matter. Other than to recognize it when you see it and call it out.
But its still bullshite, you might not have noticed like him but I did not say ISK, I was thinking of the materials and effort to build it and the design of it, its supposed to be the biggest and best structure in the game used as a HQ and market hub and then you get a moronic one liner "ISK Tanking" that adds nothing to the debate. I should also point out it is not a ship, finally so what if a load of moronic Eve forum trolls have added their views to a circle jerk thread, its just their opinion. I suggested that he reply properly and explain in detail why a 3 man corp should be able to blow one up, crickets chirping by the way...
Something that has a serious investment and a major role should not be easy to blow up, I am not crying that at this point my coalition could not blow one up, hell we most probably could not blow up a Titan either...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
187
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 08:13:49 -
[294] - 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. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 08:43:19 -
[295] - Quote
gascanu wrote:Ps: really man where the hell do you came up with those numbers? :-)) Warr Akini never claimed there was more than 2 full DPS wings (50 players per wing) for Burn Amarr, which fits well with Gevlon's killboard analysis estimate of 100-120.
Most of the time we do not have enough players to form a freighter gank fleet, and when we do get a CODE. fleet fully going the fleet size rarely gets much above 40 players.
The Marmite Collective has 91 active PvPers in the last week and P I R A T has 81. And activity drops way down from there. The Devil's Warrior Alliance consists of two corps of less than 20 players each.
So sure, Goonswarm and the few other large low/nullsec entities will be able to shoot an XL in highsec if they want to make an event of it. But practically every corp and alliance that actually lives in highsec, and especially low-class wormholes (which can only support on order of 10 or so players per hole) will not be able to even consider contesting an XL. They cannot field the 100-200 players required to kill them in a reasonable time as is the stated design goal of these structures.
No one will contest them if they are released as such. Ergo, they won't be released as such. I am not sure how many times I have to say this. |
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
147
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 08:56:18 -
[296] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:No one will contest them if they are released as such. Ergo, they won't be released as such. I am not sure how many times I have to say this.
I have this inkling that CCP will actually allow caps into HS along with the release of these citadels.
If they don't it makes sense to not allow XL citadels in HS.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1683
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:00:33 -
[297] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:As a suggestion, please explain invulnerability and vulnerability windows from a lore point of view. ....
Maintenance windows, the bigger the structure the more is required |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1116
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:03:46 -
[298] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:gascanu wrote:Ps: really man where the hell do you came up with those numbers? :-)) Warr Akini never claimed there was more than 2 full DPS wings (50 players per wing) for Burn Amarr, which fits well with Gevlon's killboard analysis estimate of 100-120. Most of the time we do not have enough players to form a freighter gank fleet, and when we do get a CODE. fleet fully going the fleet size rarely gets much above 40 players. The Marmite Collective has 91 active PvPers in the last week and P I R A T has 81. And activity drops way down from there. The Devil's Warrior Alliance consists of two corps of less than 20 players each. So sure, Goonswarm and the few other large low/nullsec entities will be able to shoot an XL in highsec if they want to make an event of it. But practically every corp and alliance that actually lives in highsec, and especially low-class wormholes (which can only support on order of 10 or so players per hole) will not be able to even consider contesting an XL. They cannot field the 100-200 players required to kill them in a reasonable time as is the stated design goal of these structures. No one will contest them if they are released as such. Ergo, they won't be released as such. I am not sure how many times I have to say this.
I am not trying to be a pain, but this is the current situation in hisec you are referring to, these new structures IMO will change hisec as will the Drifter invasions. At the moment all the prey are in small corps or alliances, these structures give a reason to actually have a proper corp or alliance in hisec. The only question is do the hisec players have it in them, from what I saw in the AG movement the answer is possibly yes. If I was running the AG movement, I would build four XL structures either side of the gank pipes and I would then set them up as market hubs. Goons would have to come in, just think of the fun.
These things are serious investments in materials and time, hell I am only planning to put a Medium at this point, but then again I am in NPC null. Some WH people I know are planning a Large, yeah some people might build an XL, my alliance might do it to really try and stick a claim to an area.
In terms of your WH comment you are mixing up the number of people who can live there as against the numbers that can come in, I have seen WH fleets of 20+ Dreads evicting people. So someone with more ISK then sense could put an XL in a C3, does CCP have to make them all easy to kill because someone might do that? But here is the rub, that is a serious investment that means they are going to try and hold that place. I have been involved in building two outposts and both times it was because the people wanted to do it as an experience, they had no hope to keep the space, this changes with the new structures. If someone puts an XL in a C3 that is a statement of intent, they are there to stay.
Of course people will contest them, but it will require serious effort its not a cake walk, Eve is supposed to be hard, its not the same as blowing up a freighter as per your CODE fleet numbers.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
28
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:11:20 -
[299] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:[quote=Masao Kurata] No it's not. So you are saying that it should take 30 minutes to attack any structure (with 10-20 players as the numbers show) everywhere except in highsec and low-class wormholes where it should take 3+ times as long and require 5 times as many players? And this in the spaces where corp/alliances sizes tend to be the smallest?
That's a good conclusion, because, you know, we are talking about high sec, where everything should be more secure.
Please, go where people is willing to fight and stop asking for easy targets.
|
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
28
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:14:54 -
[300] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:No one will contest them if they are released as such. Ergo, they won't be released as such. I am not sure how many times I have to say this.
Don't say that others wont do what you are unable to do.
|
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1683
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:15:48 -
[301] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Masao Kurata wrote: No it's not.
BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yea..... I'm sorry. You are just being unrealistic here expecting to be able to solo kill an XL Citadel in an hour. We are talking the largest heaviest shielded Battle Fortress that players will be able to make. Just because you want to be able to troll anyone who builds one solo.... doesn't make it reasonable. Also buying minerals off the market does not remove the man hours spent mining, and miners don't afk like people claim they do, and are just as important players as everyone else.
But Nevyn...remember that Luke Skywalker managed it in a snub fighter.... |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:20:16 -
[302] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: In terms of your WH comment you are mixing up the number of people who can live there as against the numbers that can come in, I have seen WH fleets of 20+ Dreads evicting people.
Dreads cannot go into a C2. Battleships cannot even go into a C1. The only viable way to attack an XL in the time frame suggested by the devblog is to bring hundreds of players flying smaller ships into the hole. And hundreds of members is exactly what the typical C1 or C2 wormhole corporation does not have.
It will never happen.
As to the rest of your post, CCP will not balance these new structure around what might happen in the future. Currently, no highsec entity can field enough players to contest the XL structures in the targeted time frame indicated by the devblog. Therefore, it would be incredible silly to release them like this, and be directly contrary to their design goal of equaling the playing field between groups of different sizes. I am afraid you will not get them in highsec or low-class wormholes unless there is some counter to their massive HP provided so they can be contested by the smaller groups that live there. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
246
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:34:32 -
[303] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote: In terms of your WH comment you are mixing up the number of people who can live there as against the numbers that can come in, I have seen WH fleets of 20+ Dreads evicting people.
Dreads cannot go into a C2. Battleships cannot even go into a C1. The only viable way to attack an XL in the time frame suggested by the devblog is to bring hundreds of players flying smaller ships into the hole. And hundreds of members is exactly what the typical C1 or C2 wormhole corporation does not have. It will never happen. As to the rest of your post, CCP will not balance these new structure around what might happen in the future. Currently, no highsec entity can field enough players to contest the XL structures in the targeted time frame indicated by the devblog. Therefore, it would be incredible silly to release them like this, and be directly contrary to their design goal of equaling the playing field between groups of different sizes. I am afraid you will not get them in highsec or low-class wormholes unless there is some counter to their massive HP provided so they can be contested by the smaller groups that live there.
dude, that "target time frame" indicated it's not obligatory, can you comprehend that? it's not like you have to reinforce it in max 30' it's the other way around, you can reinforce it in min 30' as about no large high sec entitys, i've seen full fleets (250 members) fo high sec players on several occasions, but yea, keep living in your own bubble
soo, what you want is this: every time you and your 10 man corp is bored, you should be able to go and blow up one xl citadel, and ofc, it should not take longer than 30'. right? |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1116
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:34:49 -
[304] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote: In terms of your WH comment you are mixing up the number of people who can live there as against the numbers that can come in, I have seen WH fleets of 20+ Dreads evicting people.
Dreads cannot go into a C2. Battleships cannot even go into a C1. The only viable way to attack an XL in the time frame suggested by the devblog is to bring hundreds of players flying smaller ships into the hole. And hundreds of members is exactly what the typical C1 or C2 wormhole corporation does not have. It will never happen. As to the rest of your post, CCP will not balance these new structure around what might happen in the future. Currently, no highsec entity can field enough players to contest the XL structures in the targeted time frame indicated by the devblog. Therefore, it would be incredible silly to release them like this, and be directly contrary to their design goal of equaling the playing field between groups of different sizes. I am afraid you will not get them in highsec or low-class wormholes unless there is some counter to their massive HP provided so they can be contested by the smaller groups that live there.
People in this game have a load of ISK, its a bit out of balance, I should have said C3 when I said evictions, but you have to step back and think of the value proposition of putting an XL in a C1, apart from the logistic nightmare of moving the material in and of course building the ship required to launch it, yes it could be done and yes it would be difficult to take, but it is still a C1 or a C2. So CCP has to base their design on someone doing something which is really more ISK then sense.
WH alliances work with others to evict people, just as CODE will work with Goons to kill an XL in hisec.
The design goal is to level the playing field of people getting into space, so they can at least make that attempt. But lets say for arguments sake that a 1 man corp has put an XL in the system where my coalition has its Medium and my coalition has 60 people, I would find that rather amusing, so what? He is only going to control the area around the XL, OK he might come out to be a pain in a combat recon for example, but we will just kill him.
The game has to be looked at from the balance of sensible decisions, not at the worst case scenario that someone with more ISK then sense can do. And while I can see that in this game where people do a lot of trolling or griefing that may happen, its not a serious thing is it, so what some idiot with more ISK then sense has put a huge effort to put an XL in a C1.
Nice straw man arguments in terms of WH's, but CCP cannot base their designs on extremes like putting a XL in C2's or C1's, it might annoy you in that a player can do that to stick his middle finger up at you and you cannot kill it, but is stupid trolling.
Hisec will see them destroyed, because caps will be coming to hisec and structures will change how people operate there!
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:35:15 -
[305] - Quote
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:Black Pedro wrote:No one will contest them if they are released as such. Ergo, they won't be released as such. I am not sure how many times I have to say this. Don't say that others wont do what you are unable to do. Too bad they will never get the chance as the XL structures will never be released like this. CCP Ytterbium has practically confirmed this on reddit as I have linked twice already in this thread.
CCP is not going to release a structure into highsec and low-class wormholes that cannot be attacked by the vast majority of the residents that live there. Especially when in the devblog they say they want the structures to be attacked in 30 minutes in all areas of the game.
This isn't rocket science people. It's just a numbers game. There is no chance they will be released like this without dreads or some other mechanism so that they can be contested by the groups that actually live in the space where they are deployed.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1116
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:37:59 -
[306] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:Black Pedro wrote:No one will contest them if they are released as such. Ergo, they won't be released as such. I am not sure how many times I have to say this. Don't say that others wont do what you are unable to do. Too bad they will never get the chance as the XL structures will never be released like this. CCP Ytterbium has practically confirmed this on reddit as I have linked twice already in this thread. CCP is not going to release a structure into highsec and low-class wormholes that cannot be attacked by the vast majority of the residents that live there. Especially when in the devblog they say they want the structures to be attacked in 30 minutes in all areas of the game. This isn't rocket science people. It's just a numbers game. There is no chance they will be released like this without dreads or some other mechanism so that they can be contested by the groups that actually live in the space where they are deployed.
In which case CCP will have made the game too easy and are swayed by the possibility that someone could put an XL into a C1, not sensible at all...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1683
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:40:44 -
[307] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:Black Pedro wrote:No one will contest them if they are released as such. Ergo, they won't be released as such. I am not sure how many times I have to say this. Don't say that others wont do what you are unable to do. Too bad they will never get the chance as the XL structures will never be released like this. CCP Ytterbium has practically confirmed this on reddit as I have linked twice already in this thread. CCP is not going to release a structure into highsec and low-class wormholes that cannot be attacked by the vast majority of the residents that live there. Especially when in the devblog they say they want the structures to be attacked in 30 minutes in all areas of the game. This isn't rocket science people. It's just a numbers game. There is no chance they will be released like this without dreads or some other mechanism so that they can be contested by the groups that actually live in the space where they are deployed. In which case CCP will have made the game too easy and are swayed by the possibility that someone could put an XL into a C1, not sensible at all...
Would a c1 even be valuable enough to warrant the logistics of keeping an XL station running? This may be the biggest point that would put people off in the first place...if it isn't worth it it simply won't be done
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1116
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:43:59 -
[308] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Black Pedro wrote:Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:Black Pedro wrote:No one will contest them if they are released as such. Ergo, they won't be released as such. I am not sure how many times I have to say this. Don't say that others wont do what you are unable to do. Too bad they will never get the chance as the XL structures will never be released like this. CCP Ytterbium has practically confirmed this on reddit as I have linked twice already in this thread. CCP is not going to release a structure into highsec and low-class wormholes that cannot be attacked by the vast majority of the residents that live there. Especially when in the devblog they say they want the structures to be attacked in 30 minutes in all areas of the game. This isn't rocket science people. It's just a numbers game. There is no chance they will be released like this without dreads or some other mechanism so that they can be contested by the groups that actually live in the space where they are deployed. In which case CCP will have made the game too easy and are swayed by the possibility that someone could put an XL into a C1, not sensible at all... Would a c1 even be valuable enough to warrant the logistics of keeping an XL station running? This may be the biggest point that would put people off in the first place...if it isn't worth it it simply won't be done
There is no fuel cost to have it online, only if you want to use its services, but the value proposition means that only the most richest would do it. Yeah it would be damn secure, but its a bit pointless...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:48:23 -
[309] - Quote
gascanu wrote: dude, that "target time frame" indicated it's not obligatory, can you comprehend that? it's not you have to reinforce it in max 30' it's the other way around, you can reinforce it in min 30' as about no large high sec entitys, i've seen full fleets (250 members) fo high sec players on several occasions, but yea, keep living in your own bubble
Friend, full fleets are the exception rather than the rule. No mechanic is going to be balanced around such numbers.
As I have demonstrated the majority of highsec entities are unable to field fleets of 100+ regularly. Of course some of the largest corps can, but almost everyone else, the vast majority of the players base, cannot. Even Goonswarm couldn't get 225 players (the upper number cited in the devblog) for Burn Amarr. No mechanic will be released that allows a 1-man corp to set up a tower that requires a force of at least 100 to even attempt to attack in the targeted time frame.
The mechanic will just not be released as such. Full stop. Sorry to burst your bubble. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
246
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 10:05:16 -
[310] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:gascanu wrote: dude, that "target time frame" indicated it's not obligatory, can you comprehend that? it's not you have to reinforce it in max 30' it's the other way around, you can reinforce it in min 30' as about no large high sec entitys, i've seen full fleets (250 members) fo high sec players on several occasions, but yea, keep living in your own bubble
Friend, full fleets are the exception rather than the rule. No mechanic is going to be balanced around such numbers. As I have demonstrated the majority of highsec entities are unable to field fleets of 100+ regularly. Of course some of the largest corps can, but almost everyone else, the vast majority of the players base, cannot. Even Goonswarm couldn't get 225 players (the upper number cited in the devblog) for Burn Amarr. No mechanic will be released that allows a 1-man corp to set up a tower that requires a force of at least 100 to even attempt to attack in the targeted time frame. The mechanic will just not be released as such. Full stop. Sorry to burst your bubble.
like i said before, good luck finding one to kill in empire; if you think the 0.0 alliances will just look at those "titan" killmails and do nothing, you are just naive anyway, to be honest, i can't really wait to kill one of those; and since in 0.0 my alliance isn't strong enough to kill one, pls nerf them more in empire so we can kill them faster |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 11:05:44 -
[311] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Would a c1 even be valuable enough to warrant the logistics of keeping an XL station running? This may be the biggest point that would put people off in the first place...if it isn't worth it it simply won't be done
There is no fuel cost to have it online, only if you want to use its services, but the value proposition means that only the most richest would do it. Yeah it would be damn secure, but its a bit pointless... No, if allowed I will set one up in a C1 when I next want to live in a wormhole. We don't know all the numbers, but CCP Nullarbor said most of the cost will be in the rigs and only station services will require fuel.
So I'll just use it unrigged (I'll also want to move out at some point anyway), and without any non-defensive modules, and I will be more than five times safer (320 HP vs. 60 HP) than my current large POS which is already far too much to attack in a C1. And I won't even have to worry about bringing much fuel into the hole to boot!
Pretty much every low-class wormhole has a single player or small corp in it living out of a large POS because they are so safe they never get attacked. Unless the base price of these things (without rigs) is 10-fold more than the current large POSes (say, 5B+ ISK), everyone will just upgrade to an XL citadel and be immune to each other. If they cost more, they will still be used but it will just limit there use to more veteran players and corps with deeper pockets, who will still use them to be 100% safe from their poorer rivals who will have to use the large ones and be vulnerable. ISK tanking indeed.
It's great on paper for safety for me. I will be immune to anyone who can't bring 100 people into my wormhole over three (or perhaps two) days. In other words, 100% safe.
It's also why they won't be released like this.
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
187
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 11:08:05 -
[312] - 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. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
246
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 11:42:32 -
[313] - Quote
one more thing, if you got scouted right away after start anchoring your citadel and war deced, the attackers will only have to kill the structure; and since highsec have allot of ppl around, that will be bound to happen; even if you do not manage to war dec them in the first 15', you can always suicide some ships on it to stretch the repair timer till the war go active |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2487
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 11:45:16 -
[314] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
It's great on paper for safety for me. I will be immune to anyone who can't bring 100 people into my wormhole over three (or perhaps two) days. In other words, 100% safe.
Or you know, 20 Destroyers and 3 hours. Stop talking rubbish about what is needed to reinforce these XL Citadels, you are looking more and more stupid as you do so since you have the numbers so wrong. |
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
28
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 12:44:24 -
[315] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Too bad they will never get the chance as the XL structures will never be released like this. CCP Ytterbium has practically confirmed this on reddit as I have linked twice already in this thread.
If that happens it is just going to be another episode of CCP listening to a few whiners that want the game to be easy mode.
And by the way, all you have got is the impossibility of killing an XL. At least they didn-¦t keep them and allow a 10 people gang to kill it for lolz.
Good job. As I don't like it, is better that nobody have them. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 12:48:10 -
[316] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Or you know, 20 Destroyers and 3 hours. Stop talking rubbish about what is needed to reinforce these XL Citadels, you are looking more and more stupid as you do so since you have the numbers so wrong. And we have come full circle.
No highsec or small WH group is going to spend 20 x 3h x 3 timers, or 180 hours of player time to shoot an XL citadel that doesn't drop any loot. Hardly any of them can in the first place. And what if they are actually defended?
And even if there were groups clamouring to spend all there game time grinding structures, 9 hours/person is a far cry from the 90 minutes per person the devblog says the design is intended to take.
Large POSes have ~1/5th the hp now, let's say 1/2 if really hardened (although the citadels have 20% resistances as well) and they are rarely attacked in highsec and C1/C2 wormholes. There is no way XL will be released like this or they will only very rarely be contested that is clear. I am not sure why people here are unwilling to see the obvious.
|
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
28
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 12:50:46 -
[317] - Quote
Now that you won this one I suppose you will start a crusade to delete Titans from the game, because it is not fair that I cant not kill she with my 10 friends.
Or even better, take out of the game everything that I can't kill 1 v 1. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1623
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 12:56:59 -
[318] - Quote
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:Now that you won this one I suppose you will start a crusade to delete Titans from the game, because it is not fair that I cant not kill she with my 10 friends. Titans aren't allowed in highsec, but neither are their counters (the other capitals). How is it fair to let the strongest structures into highsec/C1/C2, but not their intended counter, the dreadnought?
Oh right, it's fair because you can in theory get together 50 or 100 of your friends and brute force kill an XL structure with way more effort than the design requires everywhere else in the game.
Right. Carebear logic. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
246
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 13:27:26 -
[319] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:Now that you won this one I suppose you will start a crusade to delete Titans from the game, because it is not fair that I cant not kill she with my 10 friends. Titans aren't allowed in highsec, but neither are their counters (the other capitals). How is it fair to let the strongest structures into highsec/C1/C2, but not their intended counter, the dreadnought? Oh right, it's fair because you can in theory get together 50 or 100 of your friends and brute force kill an XL structure with way more effort than the design requires everywhere else in the game. Right. Carebear logic.
was a good troll for a while, i have to admit it, but now you are overdoing it |
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
446
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 13:28:25 -
[320] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dreads cannot go into a C2. Battleships cannot even go into a C1. The only viable way to attack an XL in the time frame suggested by the devblog is to bring hundreds of players flying smaller ships into the hole. And hundreds of members is exactly what the typical C1 or C2 wormhole corporation does not have. As I said before, if CCP makes it technically impossible to deploy XL''s in the lower class Wormholes by making the initial construct too big to import there in the first place, the problem you state will just never occur.
Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format.
Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2488
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 13:29:16 -
[321] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:]And we have come full circle.
No highsec or small WH group is going to spend 20 x 3h x 3 timers, or 180 hours of player time to shoot an XL citadel that doesn't drop any loot. Hardly any of them can in the first place. And what if they are actually defended?
Uh, yes they will, That's a short Op, and a small fight by highsec standards. 180 player hours is nothing, not even for highsec. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
291
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 13:33:48 -
[322] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:Now that you won this one I suppose you will start a crusade to delete Titans from the game, because it is not fair that I cant not kill she with my 10 friends. Titans aren't allowed in highsec, but neither are their counters (the other capitals). How is it fair to let the strongest structures into highsec/C1/C2, but not their intended counter, the dreadnought? Oh right, it's fair because you can in theory get together 50 or 100 of your friends and brute force kill an XL structure with way more effort than the design requires everywhere else in the game. Right. Carebear logic. It would be interesting if, as part of their redo with caps, they allow caps back into high sec.
Taking down structures has always been a chore in high sec. But why should that be an excuse to leave things as they are?
Since AoE weapons won't be allowed on high sec Citadels (how easy would it be to slip a neutral into the fleet and get CONCORD to then finish the work) an attacking fleet will just need to worry about staying alive - something more easily done without AoE hitting your fleet. It will still be just as boring as taking down a well formed large POS in high sec now, but still doable.
CCP could simplify it by blocking XL Citadels from high sec, just as caps are restricted. And it could easily be justified by story line that the simple fact is the 4 empires don't fully trust capsuleers with such large threats to their own power blocks. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1116
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 14:00:58 -
[323] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Or you know, 20 Destroyers and 3 hours. Stop talking rubbish about what is needed to reinforce these XL Citadels, you are looking more and more stupid as you do so since you have the numbers so wrong. And we have come full circle. No highsec or small WH group is going to spend 20 x 3h x 3 timers, or 180 hours of player time to shoot an XL citadel that doesn't drop any loot. Hardly any of them can in the first place. And what if they are actually defended? And even if there were groups clamouring to spend all there game time grinding structures, 9 hours/person is a far cry from the 90 minutes per person the devblog says the design is intended to take. Large POSes have ~1/5th the hp now, let's say 1/2 if really hardened (although the citadels have 20% resistances as well) and they are rarely attacked in highsec and C1/C2 wormholes. There is no way XL will be released like this or they will only very rarely be contested that is clear. I am not sure why people here are unwilling to see the obvious.
We know that you won't, but others may have deeper motives, if CCP make it so that they can be setup as market Hubs for blues there is a great big smoking content creation right there, but if its too easy to kill Cl Citadels then that will never develop as real meaningful gameplay and look oh joy more loot pinata combat or GF combat, which is a stonking big yawn for everyone involved...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Artemis Ellery Sazas
Shock and Awe Inc.
33
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 15:49:32 -
[324] - Quote
If citadels replace POS's, does this mean the end of passive moon goo? |
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
28
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 16:08:45 -
[325] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:If citadels replace POS's, does this mean the end of passive moon goo?
Not necessarily. We will have the mining array, that will allow passive mining or not, depending on what CCP decides. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
246
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 16:10:03 -
[326] - Quote
Artemis Ellery Sazas wrote:If citadels replace POS's, does this mean the end of passive moon goo?
something like that; it's been hinted they want players to active mine moon minerals, but nothing it's 100% atm |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
189
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 16:57:41 -
[327] - 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. |
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
147
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 17:04:58 -
[328] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:And we have come full circle. No highsec or small WH group is going to spend 20 x 3h x 3 timers, or 180 hours of player time to shoot an XL citadel that doesn't drop any loot. Hardly any of them can in the first place. And what if they are actually defended? And even if there were groups clamouring to spend all there game time grinding structures, 9 hours/person is a far cry from the 90 minutes per person the devblog says the design is intended to take. Large POSes have ~1/5th the hp now, let's say 1/2 if really hardened (although the citadels have 20% resistances as well) and they are rarely attacked in highsec and C1/C2 wormholes. There is no way XL will be released like this or they will only very rarely be contested that is clear. I am not sure why people here are unwilling to see the obvious.
Saying the same thing again and again only makes it more tedious, not more convincing, Pedro.
I get your point, and frankly don't think XLs should be anchorable in HS anyway, kinda like player-owned stations. But that's a different thing.
On your point of there not being enough pilots, when Eve presents a challenge, players improvise. Large numbers of players have come together for incursions, FW, pocos, live events etc., and a lot of that has been community-based and not tied just to alliances or corps. It's a different environment than low/nullsec or w-space, and it would be silly to dismiss the potential of emergent gameplay. |
Savant Alabel
Raging Angels Mordus Angels
47
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 17:25:06 -
[329] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee. W-Space. Wormholes. WH says something? I missed this too, and good point about logging off in wspace. We might let you keep your active ship if it explodes, to maintain consistency with logging off in a POS.
Yes, leave it hard as it now. When you log-in on destroyed POS, you warp in, scan signatures, search exit to K-space. Oh, wait, you are log-off on ship without Probe Launcher! Let tears drop!
In new mechanic you just die and revive in K-space, too easy
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
203
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 17:26:48 -
[330] - Quote
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:Black Pedro wrote:And we have come full circle. No highsec or small WH group is going to spend 20 x 3h x 3 timers, or 180 hours of player time to shoot an XL citadel that doesn't drop any loot. Hardly any of them can in the first place. And what if they are actually defended? And even if there were groups clamouring to spend all there game time grinding structures, 9 hours/person is a far cry from the 90 minutes per person the devblog says the design is intended to take. Large POSes have ~1/5th the hp now, let's say 1/2 if really hardened (although the citadels have 20% resistances as well) and they are rarely attacked in highsec and C1/C2 wormholes. There is no way XL will be released like this or they will only very rarely be contested that is clear. I am not sure why people here are unwilling to see the obvious. Saying the same thing again and again only makes it more tedious, not more convincing, Pedro. I get your point, and frankly don't think XLs should be anchorable in HS anyway, kinda like player-owned stations. But that's a different thing. On your point of there not being enough pilots, when Eve presents a challenge, players improvise. Large numbers of players have come together for incursions, FW, pocos, live events etc., and a lot of that has been community-based and not tied just to alliances or corps. It's a different environment than low/nullsec or w-space, and it would be silly to dismiss the potential of emergent gameplay.
There is massive amount of isk in all those cases. Or chance at rare killmails (live events)
Pocos can be killed with 3 afk trail accounts dessys they aren't even in the same range as what an XL is being proposes as/.
|
|
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
147
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 17:38:13 -
[331] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:There is massive amount of isk in all those cases. Or chance at rare killmails (live events)
Pocos can be killed with 3 afk trail accounts dessys they aren't even in the same range as what an XL is being proposes as/.
I mention those examples of emergent gameplay, where the community deemed some action worthy of coming together for a goal. Reading any more into it as an analogy, like ISK value (or HP..) will bring you no joy.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
203
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 17:44:59 -
[332] - Quote
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:Lady Rift wrote:There is massive amount of isk in all those cases. Or chance at rare killmails (live events)
Pocos can be killed with 3 afk trail accounts dessys they aren't even in the same range as what an XL is being proposes as/.
I mention those examples of emergent gameplay, where the community deemed some action worthy of coming together for a goal. Reading any more into it as an analogy, like ISK value (or HP..) will bring you no joy.
you think the community will get together to randomly grind structures for no reason other to structure grind?
these will be no different than the POS of today in high sec unless there is something personal involved no one shoots them.
The community comes together when there is a reason. Right now large POS aren't a reason and I don't see things with better defense being any better of a reason. |
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
147
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 18:49:05 -
[333] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:you think the community will get together to randomly grind structures for no reason other to structure grind?
these will be no different than the POS of today in high sec unless there is something personal involved no one shoots them.
The community comes together when there is a reason. Right now large POS aren't a reason and I don't see things with better defense being any better of a reason.
I have a little more faith in CCP, in that I don't expect them to dump what is comparable to player-owned stations in HS without a reason for people wanting to take them out. Otherwise, the citadel spam will be unbearable.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1116
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 19:16:30 -
[334] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:you think the community will get together to randomly grind structures for no reason other to structure grind?
these will be no different than the POS of today in high sec unless there is something personal involved no one shoots them.
The community comes together when there is a reason. Right now large POS aren't a reason and I don't see things with better defense being any better of a reason.
Actually no one has suggested that people would get together to grind something for no reason, so from your perspective conflict arrives from creating a loot pinata, being easy to kill by limited people, or due to some upset between people. Sounds such deep meaningful reasons.
And what community do you refer to, the Merc groups, the gankers, or null sec alliances, or the player killers, or the HTFU group, or the posters in C&P?
A large POS is cheap, I can't really compare that to an Outpost can I, you are comparing apples with pears, an XL Citadel is to replace an Outpost, in hisec at the moment no one shoots outposts and yet they complain when CCP introduces an outpost sized structure that can be shot, while other new structures will be introduced to replace the functionality of the POS.
The POS is not being replaced by XL structures as such, there are a whole suite of structures coming to replace the POS.
The simple fact is that entities in hisec are small because the environment does not reward people for reaching a certain size, in fact if you are a indy corp, it actively punishes you, and merc or war dec corps tend to be small because of all the emo around certain egos in this game, plus the fact that their prey is largely hiding from them as there is nothing worth fighting over. Oh dear a war dec, lets go play another game while being logged on in a station.
These things are something interesting, something to aspire towards and yet so many Eve players are so blinkered in pushing their own self-interest for easy loot pinatas that they will destroy any chance to create a change in the game and people complain they are too tough.
I am hoping that a major Indy hisec alliance is formed, using the same virtual structure as currently but with a top layer of PvP characters who will put one of these up and create a market hub for blues only if CCP has the vision to introduce that functionality, i.e this means people can only trade there if blue, the conflict from that could be epic, because I know it will upset certain null sec alliances a great deal and yet all we get is moans about how tough they are. They have to be tough, though in all honesty they are not that tough in fact they are at the borderline of not being tough enough certainly for null sec.
Other people have tried to link in the impact of these things on the little groups ion terms of the efforts in Sov, so what if a large alliance has put one up where I have a Medium one, if no one is using the damn thing it hardly bothers me. OK it makes it easier for them to operate should they come in force, but hell a Medium one though painful to lose can be replaced easy enough, I just do the time honoured Eve thing of come back later. The survivability of a home station is key to making people spread out in 0.0.
CCP may listen to people moaning that they are too tough and that will be a major shame for Eve, its a pity that Eve being a tough game is only really tough for those that are prey.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
28
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 21:27:34 -
[335] - Quote
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote: I have a little more faith in CCP, in that I don't expect them to dump what is comparable to player-owned stations in HS without a reason for people wanting to take them out. Otherwise, the citadel spam will be unbearable.
I dont expect thousands of people in HS willing to expend 100+ billions for the sake of it, so I don't think that will be a problem.
Just in case, I hope that the empires will charge a tax, just like in real life, for having real estate in their territory. |
Circumstantial Evidence
230
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 21:56:58 -
[336] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Black Pedro wrote:]And we have come full circle.
No highsec or small WH group is going to spend 20 x 3h x 3 timers, or 180 hours of player time to shoot an XL citadel that doesn't drop any loot. Hardly any of them can in the first place. And what if they are actually defended? Uh, yes they will, That's a short Op, and a small fight by highsec standards. 180 player hours is nothing, not even for highsec. 3 hour ops / sieges are rare, but they happen. Players on the attacker's side may come and go as RL permits, some won't be sitting there for the full 3 hours or even all three attacks. The citadels are planned to drop some loot, depending on who you are, needing to bring out a freighter to loot an XL Citadel wreck may be worth the trouble. I've emphasized the loot drops in this quote from the dev blog, below:
Dev Blog: I feel safe in Citadel city wrote:GÇó All items fitted on the structures are lost, and can drop as loot (just like ships). To all the clever people out there, remember it is not going to be possible for owners to remove fitted structure modules when the reinforced 1 timer starts. GÇó All rigs fitted on the structure will be lost. While the price for M rigs will not that expensive, X-L rigs will have the same price magnitude than outpost improvement and upgrades, so they are not something to be easily dismissed. GÇó Some of the input materials used in manufacturing or science jobs will drop as loot. This does not include blueprints, which will always be safe from greedy attacking raids, except if they would otherwise be consumed as part of the job (invention for instance). We will add more incoming sources as we are migrating starbase functions. For instance, reaction materials could drop in the future. Market orders will not be available as loot and are going to remain safe from raiding, since they are based on player hangars. GÇó The structure will turn into a wreck that will contain a certain percentage of the minerals and components that were needed to build its base hull (not the modules nor rigs). GÇó Items located in personal or corporation hangars will be impounded and saved from destruction. Back in this post, I offered the idea that personal / corp hanger asset protection could be made to depend on the Citadel size class: What if the "M" or even the "L" size were not covered by the asset relocation feature in K-Space? Perhaps the "L" size could offer "partial asset relocation?"
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2490
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 00:35:20 -
[337] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Back in this post, I offered the idea that personal / corp hanger asset protection could be made to depend on the Citadel size class: What if the "M" or even the "L" size were not covered by the asset relocation feature in K-Space? Perhaps the "L" size could offer "partial asset relocation?" And you got told back in that post how that makes it XL or bust and basically no-one would use the M or L size at that point. And were unable to come up with a convincing counter argument. |
Circumstantial Evidence
230
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 04:06:55 -
[338] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Back in this post, I offered the idea that personal / corp hanger asset protection could be made to depend on the Citadel size class: What if the "M" or even the "L" size were not covered by the asset relocation feature in K-Space? Perhaps the "L" size could offer "partial asset relocation?" And you got told back in that post how that makes it XL or bust and basically no-one would use the M or L size at that point. And were unable to come up with a convincing counter argument. That's a valid counter for large alliances launching Outposts today, XL citadels are supposed to be a similar effort and expense and provide a similar safety mechanism. The rest of us who can't afford outpost-level expenses, risk asset loss every day, putting stuff in POS hangers. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
604
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 05:01:17 -
[339] - Quote
I always find the attempts to get high sec players more involved in PVP to be utterly counter-productive. The players who chose to remain in high sec are obviously interested in the PVE aspects of the game, and not interested in PVP, particularly non-consensual PVP. No matter what changes CCP makes to the game, they won't play the PVP game. And, when CCP forces their hand, they simply choose to quietly leave the game - which benefits none of us (esp. CCP, which loses that sub money to another game company).
The whole "EVE is harsh" debacle should provide ample proof. No matter how you spin the numbers, game changes to enable high sec corps and players to be easily attacked - whether via wardecs or ganking or whatever - have not increased the player population in high sec, nor have they encouraged more new players to subscribe. In fact, high sec population has dropped signficantly over the years since "EVE is harsh" became CCP's motto. Why continue down a path proven not to work?
So, my point? Citadels in high sec should always be invulnerable and totally safe. Period.
And, following the risk vs. reward mantra - which should be CCP's real motto - high sec citadels should provide significantly less benefit, as compared to citadels in low or null sec (or WH space). High sec citadels should also be heavily taxed, by the empires and Concord, as you'd expect if they are receiving the benefit of third-party protection.
So, yes, you can manufacture stuff in a high sec citadel for your own corp's use, but you won't be able to compete on the market, price-wise, with someone who manufactures stuff in a low sec citadel, because the low sec citadel would not be taxed and would be more efficient. That would be the risk vs reward trade off. Similarly, with BP research, a low sec citadel would be much more efficient and less expensive to use - something that takes a year to research in high sec may take only a month in low sec, for example.
BTW - as a risk vs reward side note, I think that low sec and WH citadels should actually be *better* than null sec citadels - with the prevailing situation in null sec, it is actually less risky than low sec. Deep inside Goon space, for example, is a much safer place to put up a citadel than any place in low sec. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1625
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 08:25:59 -
[340] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:The whole "EVE is harsh" debacle should provide ample proof. No matter how you spin the numbers, game changes to enable high sec corps and players to be easily attacked - whether via wardecs or ganking or whatever - have not increased the player population in high sec, nor have they encouraged more new players to subscribe. In fact, high sec population has dropped signficantly over the years since "EVE is harsh" became CCP's motto. Why continue down a path proven not to work?
So, my point? Citadels in high sec should always be invulnerable and totally safe. Period. You know the facts don't support your hypothesis at all? The whole "Eve is harsh" thing was the original design of this game. It was conceived of as a single shard, full-time competitive PvP game where players were in constant struggle for each other in a dark, harsh universe. It was designed as a game where players had maximum freedom to kill each other and nowhere is safe. But over the years, this harshness has been constantly eroded and now highsec has never been safer. Highsec back in the day was a much more dangerous place full of can flippers, gankers, wardecers, awoxers and so forth. Crimewatch 2.0 neutered the can flippers, the profitability of suicide ganking has been nerfed into the ground, wardec fees were raised from 2 M ISK to 50M ISK and the "corp drop-reform" exploit was declared no longer an exploit, and highsec awoxing was patched out of the game last March. Highsec has never been a safer place since the game's inception.
Interestingly, the plateau and eventually decline in player counts correlates well with the period in the game (around 2010/11) when CCP started seriously buffing highsec safety, while simultaneously buffing highsec rewards by adding more lucrative PvE content to highsec like incursions. In fact, after the normal post-expansion boost, the game stopped growing and then went into decline ever since the Incursion expansion in November 2010. It's been all downhill since CCP made highsec both the safest and most lucrative sector of the space in the game in an attempt to cater to these PvP-averse highsec residents.
Now these facts are just correlative and other factors obviously contribute to the health of the game other than highsec safety, but it is undeniable that removing/nerfing non-consensual PvP in highsec has not produced any growth over the last five years. Others have explored this point in detail so I won't dwell on it, but it is clear that in fact Eve's fastest and most consistent growth occurred at a time when highsec was much more dangerous. I see no reason why making it even more safe is going to reverse the trend.
The problem is of course, is not giving safety to some risk-averse player who just want to shoot red crosses by themselves; they are almost irrelevant to the game as a whole anyway. No, the problem is that these pockets of lucrative safety draw the "real" Eve players, the ones that are playing the game as the full-time PvP sandbox game it was designed as, away from the more dangerous space to grind an income in safety. This removes targets, content and potential conflict from the other spaces asphyxiating the game elsewhere. It not only turns highsec into a consensual-only PvP zone, but because Eve is an integrated sandbox game, it turns the whole game into a consensual-only PvP zone. This is why I believe Eve is stagnant and players are complaining of lack of content: because when all PvP is consensual, there is nothing meaningful to lose.
This is why we need to be given the tools to, in CCP Seagull's words, "mess with" other players everywhere, but especially in highsec where they are earning their living. XL Citadels if released in highsec they have to contestable by other players in a reasonably easy fashion as we players are suppose to be producing the content for this game. There is no point adding toys to the sandbox that the other players cannot touch. I am not worried though, CCP knows this and seems to have refocused lately on increasing this player-driven gameplay so XL Citadels will have a counter so they can be attacked (without requiring 200+ hours of player effort) or they won't appear there at all. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2490
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 11:03:02 -
[341] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Interestingly, the plateau and eventually decline in player counts correlates well with the period in the game (around 2010/11) when CCP started seriously buffing highsec safety, while simultaneously buffing highsec rewards by adding more lucrative PvE content to highsec like incursions. In fact, after the normal post-expansion boost, the game stopped growing and then went into decline ever since the Incursion expansion in November 2010. It's been all downhill since CCP made highsec both the safest and most lucrative sector of the space in the game in an attempt to cater to these PvP-averse highsec residents. Except of course you fail to ignore multiple factors in that. 1. You attempt to assign buffs to highsec that were in fact placed into every single sector of space. 2. Highsec is not the most lucrative sector of space, as is repeatedly stated by CCP Devs, and proven by other people showing their vastly higher incomes. The only claims that it is the most lucrative sector in space come from known Null groups who are known to be pushing a massive nerf highsec agenda to force people to rent/join them/become farmable targets for them. 3. Incarna/Greed is good.
4. The fact every single MMO of any age shows a downturn at the same time, nearly all of them actually showing a massively larger downturn than EVE, which would actually indicate that relative to the other MMO's EVE is doing better at attracting and maintaining subscribers as a result of changes in recent years. 4 of course being the most important factor of this. However you love seizing on a single figure with no thought of context.
Regarding 'people put things in POS now' That's pretty much rubbish. People do not put anything they can possibly avoid in a POS, and live out of stations. WH space live out of POS simply because they have to. So current POS are not a good argument to have no asset safety on M & L Citadels, because people do not live out of current POS in High, low & Null for the most part anyway. You can bring up isolated examples I'm sure, but 1% examples do not make a good case. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1628
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 11:24:53 -
[342] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: Except of course you fail to ignore multiple factors in that. 1. You attempt to assign buffs to highsec that were in fact placed into every single sector of space. 2. Highsec is not the most lucrative sector of space, as is repeatedly stated by CCP Devs, and proven by other people showing their vastly higher incomes. The only claims that it is the most lucrative sector in space come from known Null groups who are known to be pushing a massive nerf highsec agenda to force people to rent/join them/become farmable targets for them. 3. Incarna/Greed is good.
4. The fact every single MMO of any age shows a downturn at the same time, nearly all of them actually showing a massively larger downturn than EVE, which would actually indicate that relative to the other MMO's EVE is doing better at attracting and maintaining subscribers as a result of changes in recent years. 4 of course being the most important factor of this. However you love seizing on a single figure with no thought of context.
Calm down now, this is a friendly discussion. This thread is about citadels though, so perhaps we shouldn't drag it off topic to why "Eve is dying" as we already have two of those threads going in GD. But I will address your points briefly:
1. Of course, incursions take place everywhere but wormholes. But that doesn't change the fact they dramatically buffed the income potential in highsec. Highsec was made much more lucrative after the Incursion expansion than before. That is a fact. 2. I never said it was the "most lucrative". I said it was too lucrative for how safe it is. And it is. 3. I specifically acknowledged there were other factors. That also doesn't change the fact Eve player counts have declined ever since Incursion was released. That is not proof of anything, just an interesting correlation.
This is all off-topic. I only raised these points to address the previous poster who was presenting factually incorrect information about the history of highsec safety. Citadels should not be "invulnerable and totally safe" as they asserted. They are needed to drive conflict and make player stories, not clutter up highsec as invulnerable monuments until they day the server is switched off.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2490
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 12:05:18 -
[343] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: Calm down now, this is a friendly discussion. This thread is about citadels though, so perhaps we shouldn't drag it off topic to why "Eve is dying" as we already have two of those threads going in GD. But I will address your points briefly:
1. Of course, incursions take place everywhere but wormholes. But that doesn't change the fact they dramatically buffed the income potential in highsec. Highsec was made much more lucrative after the Incursion expansion than before. That is a fact. 2. I never said it was the "most lucrative". I said it was too lucrative for how safe it is. And it is. 3. I specifically acknowledged there were other factors. That also doesn't change the fact Eve player counts have declined ever since Incursion was released. That is not proof of anything, just an interesting correlation.
This is all off-topic. I only raised these points to address the previous poster who was presenting factually incorrect information about the history of highsec safety. Citadels should not be "invulnerable and totally safe" as they asserted. They are needed to drive conflict and make player stories, not clutter up highsec as invulnerable monuments until they day the server is switched off.
Then stop lying. You specifically said 'Most lucrative'. I even quoted that particular part of your quote. You are either deliberately trolling or utterly clueless.
As for the safety of Citadels. I've posted the numbers to show that 15 T1 Battleships or Attack Battlecruisers using T2 only fits with no implants and not even perfect (though decent) skills that are achievable in less than 6 months can reinforce an XL Citadel in two hours. I didn't use Faction Battleships, which are only about double the cost of a T2 Battleship in some cases, or any faction fittings in these numbers. Faction ammo but that's dirt cheap relative to the ship once you are talking larger ships anyway. Since CCP's Dev blog says that if the repair timer is active, the Citadel doesn't go invulnerable, you can't simply set your vulnerability windows into 1 hour chunks to stop that occurring. The fact it takes a little longer than CCP's minimum timer of 30 minutes is irrelevant. The number of man hours is the same if you use 15 over 2 hours or 60 over half an hour.
Now, if 15 battleships and two hours are beyond your ability, well, make more friends. If you feel that 15 battleships and two hours is too difficult a mark to reach in order to take down a structure that is intended to house entire alliances, then you should explain what benchmark you are attempting to set for these structures and explain why that is a good benchmark for an XL structure that costs tens of billions to construct and drops a significant portion of that value as loot when it is destroyed. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1628
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 12:30:56 -
[344] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:[quote=Black Pedro] Then stop lying. You specifically said 'Most lucrative'. I even quoted that particular part of your quote. You are either deliberately trolling or utterly clueless. So hostile. This isn't a court of law or a contest of some sort, but a discussion of a new game mechanic.
But you have my apologies, my language use was imprecise. In that sentence I used "most lucrative" in the ISK/effort sense, not the absolute ISK value amount sense. The point still stands though. Highsec is much more lucrative now (in both senses) than it was before the Incursion expansion.
As for the rest, I think our positions our clear. I don't think we need to rehash what amount of effort we think is appropriate to contest an XL Citadel. Personally, I think one person like the original entosis design would be best minimum to drive conflict in the game. But I am glad though we both agree that they should not be invulnerable in highsec. At least that is a place to start. |
Circumstantial Evidence
230
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 14:33:10 -
[345] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Regarding 'people put things in POS now' That's pretty much rubbish. People do not put anything they can possibly avoid in a POS, and live out of stations. WH space live out of POS simply because they have to. So current POS are not a good argument to have no asset safety on M & L Citadels, because people do not live out of current POS in High, low & Null for the most part anyway. You can bring up isolated examples I'm sure, but 1% examples do not make a good case. Taking a look at zkill, most Ship Maintenance Array KM seem to be in WH, as one might expect. But just looking at the most recent highsec ones, on the first three pages, I found the following valuations: 106m (no), 205m (yes), 295m (no), 1.35b (yes), 22m, 22m, 22m, 61.8m (yes), 22m, 22m, 271m (yes), 22m, 22m, 336m (no), 22m, 826m (no), 3.1b (no) (yes/no after numbers higher than 22m, answers if a station is present in the highsec system.)
Total: 17 SMA's. 8 empty, 9 with stuff, 3 had a lot of stuff. Of the 9 that had ships in them, 4 were in systems with stations! |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
205
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 14:39:13 -
[346] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Lady Rift wrote:you think the community will get together to randomly grind structures for no reason other to structure grind?
these will be no different than the POS of today in high sec unless there is something personal involved no one shoots them.
The community comes together when there is a reason. Right now large POS aren't a reason and I don't see things with better defense being any better of a reason. Actually no one has suggested that people would get together to grind something for no reason, so from your perspective conflict arrives from creating a loot pinata, being easy to kill by limited people, or due to some upset between people. Sounds such deep meaningful reasons. And what community do you refer to, the Merc groups, the gankers, or null sec alliances, or the player killers, or the HTFU group, or the posters in C&P? A large POS is cheap, I can't really compare that to an Outpost can I, you are comparing apples with pears, an XL Citadel is to replace an Outpost, in hisec at the moment no one shoots outposts and yet they complain when CCP introduces an outpost sized structure that can be shot, while other new structures will be introduced to replace the functionality of the POS. The POS is not being replaced by XL structures as such, there are a whole suite of structures coming to replace the POS. The simple fact is that entities in hisec are small because the environment does not reward people for reaching a certain size, in fact if you are a indy corp, it actively punishes you, and merc or war dec corps tend to be small because of all the emo around certain egos in this game, plus the fact that their prey is largely hiding from them as there is nothing worth fighting over. Oh dear a war dec, lets go play another game while being logged on in a station. These things are something interesting, something to aspire towards and yet so many Eve players are so blinkered in pushing their own self-interest for easy loot pinatas that they will destroy any chance to create a change in the game and people complain they are too tough. I am hoping that a major Indy hisec alliance is formed, using the same virtual structure as currently but with a top layer of PvP characters who will put one of these up and create a market hub for blues only if CCP has the vision to introduce that functionality, i.e this means people can only trade there if blue, the conflict from that could be epic, because I know it will upset certain null sec alliances a great deal and yet all we get is moans about how tough they are. They have to be tough, though in all honesty they are not that tough in fact they are at the borderline of not being tough enough certainly for null sec. Other people have tried to link in the impact of these things on the little groups ion terms of the efforts in Sov, so what if a large alliance has put one up where I have a Medium one, if no one is using the damn thing it hardly bothers me. OK it makes it easier for them to operate should they come in force, but hell a Medium one though painful to lose can be replaced easy enough, I just do the time honoured Eve thing of come back later. The survivability of a home station is key to making people spread out in 0.0. CCP may listen to people moaning that they are too tough and that will be a major shame for Eve, its a pity that Eve being a tough game is only really tough for those that are prey.
from the dev blog BACK INTO THE STRUCTURE
Rigs: Will work similarly to ship rigs GÇô they cannot be removed without being destroyed once inserted and will provide various benefits. The main difference remains in the magnitude of the given bonuses, which will be quite dramatic here. They will take over the old Outpost upgrade system as a whole, and may be several ten times (or more) more expensive than the structure hull itself. By extension, we want the new structure equivalent of Outposts to be available for high-security space, but providing less bonuses due to the reduced risk this implies. Rigs will be the means to deliver on that vision, either by having different rigs which can only be used in separate security status areas, or by having rigs bonuses change depending on its parent hull location.
If you read that you will see they do want outpost level structures in high sec and what will be a major driving cost is that a lot of the functionality will be in the rigs. Which means you can save alot of the cost by not using rigs. Also the discussion included low level wh which the only way to bring battleships (c1) or capitals (c2 other than the orca) is to build them in the hole.
A large pos cost ~400 mil to fuel for a month. where as this if just used as a parking garage would be nothing.
"On your point of there not being enough pilots, when Eve presents a challenge, players improvise. Large numbers of players have come together for incursions, FW, pocos, live events etc., and a lot of that has been community-based and not tied just to alliances or corps." it is this community i was referring to you know the one that was defined by the guy I was quoting at the time.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
205
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 14:40:10 -
[347] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Regarding 'people put things in POS now' That's pretty much rubbish. People do not put anything they can possibly avoid in a POS, and live out of stations. WH space live out of POS simply because they have to. So current POS are not a good argument to have no asset safety on M & L Citadels, because people do not live out of current POS in High, low & Null for the most part anyway. You can bring up isolated examples I'm sure, but 1% examples do not make a good case. Taking a look at zkill, most Ship Maintenance Array KM seem to be in WH, as one might expect. But just looking at the most recent highsec ones, on the first three pages, I found the following valuations: 106m (no), 205m (yes), 295m (no), 1.35b (yes), 22m, 22m, 22m, 61.8m (yes), 22m, 22m, 271m (yes), 22m, 22m, 336m (no), 22m, 826m (no), 3.1b (no) (yes/no after numbers higher than 22m, answers if a station is present in the highsec system.) Total: 17 SMA's. 8 empty, 9 with stuff, 3 had a lot of stuff. Of the 9 that had ships in them, 4 were in systems with stations!
to bad we cant find out where those where online or offline POS' |
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 14:52:10 -
[348] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Now these facts are just correlative and other factors obviously contribute to the health of the game other than highsec safety, but it is undeniable that removing/nerfing non-consensual PvP in highsec has not produced any growth over the last five years. Others have explored this point in detail so I won't dwell on it, but it is clear that in fact Eve's fastest and most consistent growth occurred at a time when highsec was much more dangerous. I see no reason why making it even more safe is going to reverse the trend.
So you understand that it is just a correlation, but apparently doesn't grasp the concept fully anyway(see highlighted bold). One can read statements like this(less non-consensual pvp = death of EVE due to analysis of graphs depicting online accounts pr time unit) all over the forums, and it annoys me. Not that I don't agree that more conflict (consensual and non-consensual) is good and less is bad, but simply because you let your personal opinion colour the data you interpret.
This is not only bad practise in science, but also shows that you are not able to comprehend the data(and especially the limitations) you have at hand.
You look at a graph of logged in accounts pr time unit and see a lot trends because, that is how a brain works. But you fail to recognize that the brain can also see patterns where none are. Talk to a person suffering from a Schizophrenic paranoid disorder, if you want to see this taken to the extreme. It is amazing(meant with the highest degrees of respect) to see what they can get correlations between sometimes.
That is the reason why people always drag the good old "correlation doesn't imply causation" horse out of the stable. It is one of the most important things to keep in mind when looking at data, and frankly the importance of this is always underestimated.
Back to the quote: You claim that other factors could contribute, but anyway end up with your favorite hypothesis
Black Pedro wrote: "but it is undeniable that removing/nerfing non-consensual PvP in highsec has not produced any growth over the last five years".
Here is the problem with that: IT ALSO DOENS'T PROVE THAT that removing/nerfing non-consensual PvP in highsec has produced any deline over the last five years. There is a correlation, yes, but only that. The rest of the link between these two occurences are hundred percent in your head, considering the data at hand.
Black Pedro wrote:
but it is clear that in fact Eve's fastest and most consistent growth occurred at a time when highsec was much more dangerous. I see no reason why making it even more safe is going to reverse the trend.
This is one possible hypothesis, yes. Still there is no available proof that the growth has anything to do with how dangerous highsec was. It is very manipulative to look at a graph of online accounts, and couple it to a fictive quantity called "non-consensual pvp in highsec". You have not accounted for what was going on in null or low, because how could you? you have no data that would be able to sheed a light on this. making this discussion void.
Don't take this as a personal attack, it is not.
I am just getting tired, of people on the fora making bigger claims than their evidence can support. This is a general plaque pestering the internet .
I do wish, that people would stop presenting opinions based on correlations as facts. The fact is that no one knows what is behind the player decline. A lot of people have theories based on observations and annecdotes, but no one knows the true picture not even CCP.
You could counter me, with saying "chill dude, this is just a discussion on the internet, no need to go all semantic and total ******", and you are right... I could chill... but I will not.
All these discussions on the fora (plex prices, EVE's economy, EVE's health and balancing) are mostly peoples ill-considered opinions that they cannot back up with evidence. They still demand to be taken serious though, but how can you when their claims are built on non-proveable correlations? the house with a crappy foundation will crumble. No discussion is better than a discussion based on observations disguised as facts.
TLDR: Please, please stop presenting annecdotes, correlations and opinions as facts.
To your oppinion that 1 man should be able to destroy a XL 100 bill. structure in highsec, my oppinion is I would like to see more people. At least 20-30. This is a mmo, and i think it should be a group achievement to remove the biggest citadels no matter where they are.
With my experiences with the internet I do fear I preach for the deaf though,
fly safe 07
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1684
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 15:04:32 -
[349] - Quote
So at this point it is safe to say that it is not hisec that is most lucrative as such but rather Incursions that are most lucrative. They occur everywhere so are not a hisec only feature.
If Nevyn's numbers are correct then I think that leaves such a massive structure a little too vulnerable in hisec given that it can't use the really juicy defensive weapons. Perhaps this is intentional to discourage XL use in hisec?
I think this needs some clarification from the Devs as to how they see citadels being used and just how vulnerable they want them to be. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1117
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 15:10:11 -
[350] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:from the dev blog BACK INTO THE STRUCTURE
Rigs: Will work similarly to ship rigs GÇô they cannot be removed without being destroyed once inserted and will provide various benefits. The main difference remains in the magnitude of the given bonuses, which will be quite dramatic here. They will take over the old Outpost upgrade system as a whole, and may be several ten times (or more) more expensive than the structure hull itself. By extension, we want the new structure equivalent of Outposts to be available for high-security space, but providing less bonuses due to the reduced risk this implies. Rigs will be the means to deliver on that vision, either by having different rigs which can only be used in separate security status areas, or by having rigs bonuses change depending on its parent hull location.
If you read that you will see they do want outpost level structures in high sec and what will be a major driving cost is that a lot of the functionality will be in the rigs. Which means you can save alot of the cost by not using rigs. Also the discussion included low level wh which the only way to bring battleships (c1) or capitals (c2 other than the orca) is to build them in the hole.
A large pos cost ~400 mil to fuel for a month. where as this if just used as a parking garage would be nothing.
"On your point of there not being enough pilots, when Eve presents a challenge, players improvise. Large numbers of players have come together for incursions, FW, pocos, live events etc., and a lot of that has been community-based and not tied just to alliances or corps." it is this community i was referring to you know the one that was defined by the guy I was quoting at the time.
You are pointing out facts on the rigs that I fully understand, the only thing I am not clear about is exactly how they will do the loot drops in terms of them, the way they said it indicated that things may drop from the structure and it may include what went into the rigs, that question I am waiting on.
An XL is a stupidly expensive parking garage..., made doubly stupid by making it in situ in a C1, the mind just boggles at someone doing that...
Its Black Pedro who is saying that there is not enough players in what I can define as the combined HTFU / ganking community, I disagree with him, I think that people will rise to this challenge, if they don't then they are useless scrubs. But it was not clear what community you were talking about.
I and a number of others have noted a spike in buying on certain key rigs stuff and we suspect that a leak has already occurred on what will be used to make these things, typical Eve...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
205
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 15:35:46 -
[351] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Lady Rift wrote:from the dev blog BACK INTO THE STRUCTURE
Rigs: Will work similarly to ship rigs GÇô they cannot be removed without being destroyed once inserted and will provide various benefits. The main difference remains in the magnitude of the given bonuses, which will be quite dramatic here. They will take over the old Outpost upgrade system as a whole, and may be several ten times (or more) more expensive than the structure hull itself. By extension, we want the new structure equivalent of Outposts to be available for high-security space, but providing less bonuses due to the reduced risk this implies. Rigs will be the means to deliver on that vision, either by having different rigs which can only be used in separate security status areas, or by having rigs bonuses change depending on its parent hull location.
If you read that you will see they do want outpost level structures in high sec and what will be a major driving cost is that a lot of the functionality will be in the rigs. Which means you can save alot of the cost by not using rigs. Also the discussion included low level wh which the only way to bring battleships (c1) or capitals (c2 other than the orca) is to build them in the hole.
A large pos cost ~400 mil to fuel for a month. where as this if just used as a parking garage would be nothing.
"On your point of there not being enough pilots, when Eve presents a challenge, players improvise. Large numbers of players have come together for incursions, FW, pocos, live events etc., and a lot of that has been community-based and not tied just to alliances or corps." it is this community i was referring to you know the one that was defined by the guy I was quoting at the time.
You are pointing out facts on the rigs that I fully understand, the only thing I am not clear about is exactly how they will do the loot drops in terms of them, the way they said it indicated that things may drop from the structure and it may include what went into the rigs, that question I am waiting on. An XL is a stupidly expensive parking garage..., made doubly stupid by making it in situ in a C1, the mind just boggles at someone doing that... Its Black Pedro who is saying that there is not enough players in what I can define as the combined HTFU / ganking community, I disagree with him, I think that people will rise to this challenge, if they don't then they are useless scrubs. But it was not clear what community you were talking about. I and a number of others have noted a spike in buying on certain key rigs stuff and we suspect that a leak has already occurred on what will be used to make these things, typical Eve...
I've seen freighters in c1 and c2. If youtime your vurnablity window to before downtime than you force the attackers to bring enough dps cause they will not have the luxury of taking alot of time.
It wasn't Black Pedro it was Awkward Pi Duolus that defined it and it was him I'm replying to. Its just a page or 2 back just above your first post to me.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1628
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 15:50:26 -
[352] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:So you understand that it is just a correlation, but apparently doesn't grasp the concept fully anyway(see highlighted bold). One can read statements like this(less non-consensual pvp = death of EVE due to analysis of graphs depicting online accounts pr time unit) all over the forums, and it annoys me. Not that I don't agree that more conflict (consensual and non-consensual) is good and less is bad, but simply because you let your personal opinion colour the data you interpret.
This is not only bad practise in science, but also shows that you are not able to comprehend the data(and especially the limitations) you have at hand. What are you on about? Correlations are a very important part of science, used all the time to make and test hypotheses especially when controlled experiments cannot be performed.
Draw your own conclusions. But it is noteworthy that the stagnation and decline of the player counts correlates with the bubble-wrapping of highsec and the release of the PvE ISK faucet known as Incursion. As I clearly stated that is not the only factor influencing this number, but it is an interesting and true correlation.
It also fits with CCP's data at fanfest showing a correlation between losing a ship to another player (either to a war or a gank) during the first 30 days and subscribing to the game. The simplest conclusion is that an uninteresting highsec literally bores new players out of the game. Just so you don't start in on me again, I am well aware that is also just a correlation. You can choose to believe that fact means whatever you wish.
Quote:Black Pedro wrote: "but it is undeniable that removing/nerfing non-consensual PvP in highsec has not produced any growth over the last five years".
Here is the problem with that: IT ALSO DOENS'T PROVE THAT that removing/nerfing non-consensual PvP in highsec has produced any deline over the last five years. There is a correlation, yes, but only that. The rest of the link between these two occurences are hundred percent in your head, considering the data at hand. Of course not, I never said it did. All that proves is that player counts were highest when the Incursion expansion was released. They have only gone down since then.
There are many factors contributing to that decline and does not say that incursions are responsible for the numbers. However, it does strongly argue against the hypothesis that incursions (or more lucrative PvE in highsec) are good for the game. If that hypothesis was true, you would have predicted that the player numbers to have continued to go up.
It better fits the idea that a too safe and too lucrative highsec is stifling the game.
Quote:Don't take this as a personal attack, it is not. I am just getting tired, of people on the fora making bigger claims than their evidence can support. This is a general plaque pestering the internet . I do wish, that people would stop presenting opinions based on correlations as facts. The fact is that no one knows what is behind the player decline. A lot of people have theories based on observations and annecdotes, but no one knows the true picture not even CCP. Of course I don't. You present a rational, albeit slightly naive, response to my post. But correlations are facts. They do not prove causation as any first-year university student can tell you, but they do reflect underlying relationships between factors in the dataset. I have looked at the data and come to a conclusion - that's all it is. If you want to look at the data and come to some other conclusion, I would happy to hear your theories, but even that does not prove my assertions wrong. Unless you are aware of some data I am missing?
Reasonable people can look at the data and come to two different conclusions, especially when the data is incomplete and lacking properly controlled tests. Even CCP doesn't have enough data to definitely identify the cause of the decline, and as until recently (the NPE Opportunities test) they never tried any rigorous scientific testing. Are you suggesting because they can't prove something definitively they shouldn't even look at the data and at least try to determine what what the causative factors are? Just throw up their hands and say "we can't know for sure, so why even bother formulating a hypothesis"?
Actually, take that last question as purely rhetorical. I am feeling bad about continuing this discussion here as it way off-topic so I will not continue this discussion on why a safe highsec is bad for the game here unless it directly relates to the citadels.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1628
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 16:07:59 -
[353] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: Its Black Pedro who is saying that there is not enough players in what I can define as the combined HTFU / ganking community, I disagree with him, I think that people will rise to this challenge, if they don't then they are useless scrubs. But it was not clear what community you were talking about.
They will not attack them unless there is a very good reason. Large POSes are almost never killed today in highsec/C1/C2. They at least drop loot.
Removing loot and only giving the victors a killmail and some minerals is not going to induce highsec content creators to do something that they don't do now because it is already far too tedious. Oh, and now it takes 5 times longer. Fantastic.
These things will never be attacked by any highsec group, criminals or otherwise, nor any small wormhole corporation without access capitals or some other counter to the high HP. Your wishing it to be so is not going to make any small group spend 200 hours of their time to do it.
For the last time: they will not be released like this. It is far too onerous a demand on the attackers. You will only see XL citadels in highsec if there are capitals or there is some other mechanism so smaller groups can contest them. The very dev blog we are discussing says they should take 30 minutes to attack in all areas of space. They will not be balanced around the requirement to have 100-200 players to reach that 30 minutes.
Man, I am feeling like a broken record. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
275
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 16:44:37 -
[354] - Quote
The correlation vs causation argument is stupid and off topic, it's not like you can perform a controlled experiment on what changes caused a reduction in player retention.
I'm glad you're optimistic, Black Pedro, I'm sure not. Maybe they'll tone this down a little and it'll only be three times as much structure grinding as large towers are now, which is still far too much. Everyone hates structure grinding, let's give them entosis! Oh actually everyone loved structure grinding, let's give them five times as much! An XL citadel has more HP than an iHub used to! You can't seriously argue in favour of a ridiculous HP wall like that. |
Merlin Harrington
NRDS Anonyme Echoes of Nowhere
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 16:48:36 -
[355] - Quote
You forgot the defender a little too fast. And witch group will have the utility of an XL Citadel. First my apologize for any mistake in the text, english isn't my first language.
Secondly, for now we aren't even sure that an XL in HS will be useful. Since is only advantage on L size is the ability to dock MS and Titan, useless in HS.
Third, use an XL as private market hub in HS will need hundreds of client to be viable. An XL Citadel in HS will not be protect by a 10 players but by hundreds and come to defend it for 10 players will just be boring.
And stop to say we need 100-200 player to have 60k of dps it is easy to have a 1500 dps with bashing bs (60 000/1 500 = 40).
Fly safe. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1630
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 17:42:44 -
[356] - Quote
Merlin Harrington wrote:.And stop to say we need 100-200 player to have 60k of dps it is easy to have a 1500 dps with bashing bs (60 000/1 500 = 40). Sure, let's balance a mechanic that is suppose to be accessible to the all the player base around a near max skilled character flying an expensive pirate battleship.
CCP's own numbers from the devblog say up to 225 players will be needed in battleships so I am perfectly fine with my characterization of 100-200 players to meet the 30 minute target.
But even asking a small WH corp or highsec group to field 40 max-DPS faction/pirate battleships to even attempt to attack them in the time proposed by the design is way too much. Also, don't forget these are the minimum requirements - the citadel is suppose to fight back. |
Merlin Harrington
NRDS Anonyme Echoes of Nowhere
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 17:44:09 -
[357] - Quote
You just an hyperion with polarized blaster and some garde II not a pirate ship.
You will have to dealt with the defender too :). |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
205
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 18:06:30 -
[358] - Quote
Merlin Harrington wrote:You just need an hyperion with polarized blaster and some garde II not a pirate ship, you have that for 300kk.
You will have to dealt with the defender too :).
And you still forgot that the XL Citadel will be the most important player-build structure in the game.
I wonder what the AOE dmg output from the outpost will be (for WH's)
edit: Also they are making a separate thing for markets. so XL's wont be needed for that. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
276
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 18:19:33 -
[359] - Quote
Merlin Harrington wrote:You just need an hyperion with polarized blaster and some garde II not a pirate ship, you have that for 300kk.
Yes please do this, it won't in any way backfire. |
Merlin Harrington
NRDS Anonyme Echoes of Nowhere
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 18:22:25 -
[360] - Quote
Lady Rift, right i mis that.
In this case i don't even see an utility for Citadel in HS. |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1634
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 18:43:00 -
[361] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:I'm glad you're optimistic, Black Pedro, I'm sure not. Maybe they'll tone this down a little and it'll only be three times as much structure grinding as large towers are now, which is still far too much. Everyone hates structure grinding, let's give them entosis! Oh actually everyone loved structure grinding, let's give them five times as much! An XL citadel has more HP than an iHub used to! You can't seriously argue in favour of a ridiculous HP wall like that. The reason I am optimistic is two-fold. First, the original entosis design and that first dev blog showed that CCP really wanted players to be able to attack them easily. From a game design perspective that is a good solution - make attacking so easy even one player can do it, but defending even easier so you have a massive advantage if you show up to fight. That would encourage people to both attack and defend. But I think on balance, they are right to reverse the decision - I see the inherent problem of players seemingly having nothing to do while the timer ticks down if the defenders don't show.
Secondly, CCP Ytterbium confirmed on reddit that this dealing with this issue of the HP wall in highsec is "one of the challenges we have to solve for them being there...". I mean, it doesn't get much more direct than that.
I am still flabbergasted there is still a constant parade of people posting in this thread like it is at all possible that some unassailable XL structures will be released into highsec. The problem with requiring 200+ hours to attack a structure that gives no real gain to the attackers is self-evident to anyone, at least I would have thought. Apparently, self-interest is a pretty powerful blinding force. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2493
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 18:45:50 -
[362] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Sure, let's balance a mechanic that is suppose to be accessible to the all the player base around a near max skilled character flying an expensive pirate battleship. CCP's own numbers from the devblog say up to 225 players will be needed in battleships so I am perfectly fine with my characterization of 100-200 players to meet the 30 minute target. But even asking a small WH corp or highsec group to field 40 max-DPS faction/pirate battleships to even attempt to attack them in the time proposed by the design is way too much. Also, don't forget these are the minimum requirements - the citadel is suppose to fight back. And now we know you are just trolling in order to get CCP to nerf these into uselessness, then wonder why basically no-one uses them after you win, and complain that CCP made useless features and everyone is living out of stations
There is no 30 minute target mark like you keep blathering on about. That is the MINIMUM time to reinforce it. And how they calculated the EHP from the DPS Cap. And it only need SIXTY (60 in case you can't read) players to reach that in battleships or ABC, the Battleships are capable of still fitting a significant tank at that point.
Now consider that these are T1 Battleships with T2 fittings. Go to faction battleships with faction fittings, like most PvP groups actually use in highsec, and now we are down to 30 Battleships to do this in 30 minutes since they can reach 2000 DPS with the implants they use. Or 15 battleships to do it in 1 hour. Or 8 battleships to do it in two hours.
So stop with the stupidly blindly quoting the CCP Table when CCP themselves said it was a very very rough table and probably not accurate, just a vague indication. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
277
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 18:56:49 -
[363] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:And now we know you are just trolling in order to get CCP to nerf these into uselessness.
Requiring the defenders to turn up to at least one of the timers isn't rendering them useless. You are not entitled to structures which are such a chore to destroy that nobody will even attempt it no matter how certain they are that you won't undock.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1634
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 18:59:52 -
[364] - Quote
Why is everything I write "trolling" to you? You could start a post with something like "No, I disagree with you" or, "I am sorry Mr. Pedro but you are mistaken". In this case I am not however:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:There is no 30 minute target mark like you keep blathering on about. That is the MINIMUM time to reinforce it. And how they calculated the EHP from the DPS Cap.
Team Game of Drones wrote:As further iteration from the previous attack mechanic, we would like structure assaults to take around 30 minutes to complete, no matter where the structure is deployed. This ensures a unified experience and prevents confusion as a whole.
Team Game of Drones wrote:As a side note, there wonGÇÖt be hull, armor or shield hardeners, or anything that increases structure EHP since we do not want attack time to drag on forever.
Clearly, the intention of the design team is to reduce and standardize structure grinding across all the spaces. Coupled with CCP Ytterbium's comments I quoted above, I think it is safe to say that XL citadels will not be released in highsec without some way, like perhaps capitals, so a small group can take them down. |
Merlin Harrington
NRDS Anonyme Echoes of Nowhere
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 19:03:29 -
[365] - Quote
I repeat my self but you still ignore that:
Merlin Harrington wrote: Secondly, for now we aren't even sure that an XL in HS will be useful. Since is only advantage on L size is the ability to dock MS and Titan, useless in HS.
Third, use an XL as private market hub in HS will need hundreds of client to be viable. An XL Citadel in HS will not be protect by 10 players but by hundreds and come to defend it for 10 players will just be boring.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2495
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 19:08:13 -
[366] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote: Requiring the defenders to turn up to at least one of the timers isn't rendering them useless. You are not entitled to structures which are such a chore to destroy that nobody will even attempt it no matter how certain they are that you won't undock.
Again, read the numbers I've posted. Black Pedro thinks that these are unreasonable numbers and that no group in HS or a low end WH (Note that in a low end WH you have to build the freighter and XL Citadel in the WH first also) can possibly muster 15 people for 2 hours to reinforce an XL Citadel. So is demanding that their EHP be massively dropped.
What happens if their EHP is dropped is that it becomes childs play to reinforce one even if defenders are present, and then they become giant loot Pinata's. Since just taking the Citadel, if it costs 10 bil to build and fit an XL Citadel, they will be dropping 5 billion in loot even before we get onto any active jobs since they drop their fittings and build minerals. At which point they become useless because they cost so much and are so easy to destroy for the loot. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1117
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 19:13:29 -
[367] - Quote
Merlin Harrington wrote:I repeat my self but you still ignore that: Merlin Harrington wrote: Secondly, for now we aren't even sure that an XL in HS will be useful. Since is only advantage on L size is the ability to dock MS and Titan, useless in HS.
Third, use an XL as private market hub in HS will need hundreds of client to be viable. An XL Citadel in HS will not be protect by 10 players but by hundreds and come to defend it for 10 players will just be boring.
I am expecting a certain group to build an XL Citadel as a market hub and yes the extra hit points will be needed as it will be seen as a number one target. I just hope that CCP do something about people that get blue then dock up and then troll the market by making only blues be able to trade from it, otherwise an interesting type of gameplay will not develop...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1117
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 19:14:20 -
[368] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Masao Kurata wrote: Requiring the defenders to turn up to at least one of the timers isn't rendering them useless. You are not entitled to structures which are such a chore to destroy that nobody will even attempt it no matter how certain they are that you won't undock.
Again, read the numbers I've posted. Black Pedro thinks that these are unreasonable numbers and that no group in HS or a low end WH (Note that in a low end WH you have to build the freighter and XL Citadel in the WH first also) can possibly muster 15 people for 2 hours to reinforce an XL Citadel. So is demanding that their EHP be massively dropped. What happens if their EHP is dropped is that it becomes childs play to reinforce one even if defenders are present, and then they become giant loot Pinata's. Since just taking the Citadel, if it costs 10 bil to build and fit an XL Citadel, they will be dropping 5 billion in loot even before we get onto any active jobs since they drop their fittings and build minerals. At which point they become useless because they cost so much and are so easy to destroy for the loot.
I think you pretty much sussed out his agenda...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
246
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 19:59:37 -
[369] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Why is everything I write "trolling" to you? You could start a post with something like "No, I disagree with you" or, "I am sorry Mr. Pedro but you are mistaken". In this case I am not however: Nevyn Auscent wrote:There is no 30 minute target mark like you keep blathering on about. That is the MINIMUM time to reinforce it. And how they calculated the EHP from the DPS Cap. Team Game of Drones wrote:As further iteration from the previous attack mechanic, we would like structure assaults to take around 30 minutes to complete, no matter where the structure is deployed. This ensures a unified experience and prevents confusion as a whole.
Team Game of Drones wrote:As a side note, there wonGÇÖt be hull, armor or shield hardeners, or anything that increases structure EHP since we do not want attack time to drag on forever.
Clearly, the intention of the design team is to reduce and standardize structure grinding across all the spaces. Coupled with CCP Ytterbium's comments I quoted above, I think it is safe to say that XL citadels will not be released in highsec without some way, like perhaps capitals, so a small group can take them down.
i think you got it the wrong way pedro: it's not that they want to take max 30 min, they want it to take at least 30 mins, so the big coalitions can't just rage reinforce one in under 5 minutes the old structure grinding is dead with the introduction of magic flashlights, this is a new thing, and since CCP want more small alliances out here, putting a minimum time req it's the logical step to do, otherwise noone(except the big blocks) will use theyr new structure stuff, or not everything bigger than the M one
once again, you keep comparing XL citadels with poses which is a mistake, one xl will cost about 50x+ large faction fitted poses; you also lack the basic knowledge about poses, but still insist on arguing about the stuff you don't exacttly know : for example, do you have any idea how long it's taking today to reinforce a full ecm/hard faction fitted large pos with "your 20 man bs gang"? i'll give you a hint, they need to start early or the down time will come before they finish so, you want a structure that costs at least 50 times as a large pos to die easyer than a large pos? who do you think will put one up? like i told you before, an XL citadel is a "titan" killmail just sitting there; i don't know what game are you playing, but in my game, 0.0 alliances will do allot of effort to kill a titan: metagaming, spys, bribes , hours and hours of waiting in fleet for a trap to work, weeks and even months of camping in some cases, all of that for a possible titan kill. you telling how they won't come to high sec for a certain "titan" kill because "effort", it's just silly |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1635
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 20:42:18 -
[370] - Quote
gascanu wrote:i think you got it the wrong way pedro: it's not that they want to take max 30 min, they want it to take at least 30 mins, so the big coalitions can't just rage reinforce one in under 5 minutes the old structure grinding is dead with the introduction of magic flashlights, this is a new thing, and since CCP want more small alliances out here, putting a minimum time req it's the logical step to do, otherwise noone(except the big blocks) will use theyr new structure stuff, or not everything bigger than the M one No, the parts I quoted pretty much say they do not want structure grinding to be too long or different in the different sectors of space. The quote from CCP Ytterbium also directly says they will not release them in highsec unless they can solve this discrepancy.
It would be nice if someone from Team of Drones would drop by and say this explicitly though. Too many of the pages of this thread have been wasted on this tangential point.
I mean the original plan called for a single person to be able to reinforce an XL Citadel by themselves (also, note the standard time across the sectors of space of the first plan). Why weren't you guys all up in arms about how that was "too easy" and unfair somehow to someone? Ok, maybe you were and if so I am sorry I missed it.
But thanks for not calling me a troll though. :)
gascanu wrote:once again, you keep comparing XL citadels with poses which is a mistake, one xl will cost about 50x+ large faction fitted poses; you also lack the basic knowledge about poses, but still insist on arguing about the stuff you don't exacttly know : for example, do you have any idea how long it's taking today to reinforce a full ecm/hard faction fitted large pos with "your 20 man bs gang"? i'll give you a hint, they need to start early or the down time will come before they finish so, you want a structure that costs at least 50 times as a large pos to die easyer than a large pos? who do you think will put one up? like i told you before, an XL citadel is a "titan" killmail just sitting there; i don't know what game are you playing, but in my game, 0.0 alliances will do allot of effort to kill a titan: metagaming, spys, bribes , hours and hours of waiting in fleet for a trap to work, weeks and even months of camping in some cases, all of that for a possible titan kill. you telling how they won't come to high sec for a certain "titan" kill because "effort", it's just silly It's not silly at all. As I said that was the original plan.
First, ISK tanking is a terrible game design and is actively avoided by developers wherever they can. The smallest and cheapest ships can kill the largest and most expensive ships in the game. In the new Sov system a single person in a one-man alliance can attempt to contest Sov from Goonswarm if they wish. Goonswarm enjoys no protection because they are wealthier than anyone else, nor does the Titan pilot get to ignore that fleet of frigates because their ship is 10 000X the value. ISK tanking locks out new players and prevents conflict and is generally all around a bad idea in a PvP game.
My guess is that a 20 man BS gang could reinforce a large POS with 50% resists in about an hour. The same gang can do the proposed new XL structure in a little less than 2 hours (factoring in the 20% resists). Thing is - there aren't many (any?) 20 BS gangs in low class wormholes. They can't support it. And in highsec? Only the largest corps can field that many players in battleships. So what you get is what we have now - hardly anyone does it because it is way too tedious. If no corp is willing to spend the 20-30 player hours it takes now to shoot a large POS, why do you think they suddenly will find the will to spend the 100-120 (3x reinforce) players hours to shoot a structure that only gives a killmail? They won't. And what if the citadel start to fight back?
Perhaps you haven't spent much time in highsec recently, maybe never at all, but there are very few organizations of the size that can mobilize the 100 players it would take to meet the design target that CCP has provided in the dev blog. It is just poor game design to release a structure that can be deployed by one player in highsec, but not contested by almost all of the other players that live in that same system. There just will never be an conflict or content generated by them because it is just to much tedium to fight for a structure that was balanced for large nullsec sized fleets.
Why are you still arguing this point? It's like you all have a blind spot to CCP Ytterbium comments that I have linked three times now. He said these XL citadels will not make it to highsec unless they solve this issue. I feel at this point Team Game of Drones should give me a honourable mention somewhere for doing their communications work in this thread. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2495
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 20:47:15 -
[371] - Quote
No, we are arguing it because your numbers are WRONG. You are blathering on about 100 man BS gangs needed when you can actually reinforce an XL Citadel with 30 BS in 30 minutes. Or 15 in one hour. If you use the actual battleships that people ALREADY USE in highsec.
I used T1 Battleships/ABC with T2 fittings and no implants specifically to make the point that the barrier of entry to be able to affect XL Citadels is low low LOW! And my numbers are still less than half this 100-200 BS you keep inventing from thin air. Really citadels are vastly too easy to reinforce as they already stand, and we were complaining when a single player could entosis them as well as being too easy.
As for why we are ignoring your 'quotes', is because you are massively misquoting by selectively quoting only a tiny portion of the blog in a deliberately out of context situation. If he wants to come here and also say that the maximum time that it should ever take is also 30 minutes, then he can come here and say so, and then we will all laugh our heads off at him for being stupid. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
205
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 21:02:21 -
[372] - Quote
Merlin Harrington wrote:Lady Rift, right i mis that.
In this case i don't even see an utility for Citadel in HS.
Edit : Read the "Shake my Citadel" devblog. the market and office hub become the citadel.
And this stay true : "Secondly, for now we aren't even sure that an XL in HS will be useful. Since is only advantage on L size is the ability to dock MS and Titan, useless in HS.
Third, use an XL as private market hub in HS will need hundreds of client to be viable. An XL Citadel in HS will not be protect by 10 players but by hundreds and come to defend it for 10 players will just be boring."
POS's also become Citadel which has M, L abd and if most of the cost is in the rigs for the thing then it might not be super super expensive |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1117
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 21:24:16 -
[373] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:No, we are arguing it because your numbers are WRONG. You are blathering on about 100 man BS gangs needed when you can actually reinforce an XL Citadel with 30 BS in 30 minutes. Or 15 in one hour. If you use the actual battleships that people ALREADY USE in highsec.
I used T1 Battleships/ABC with T2 fittings and no implants specifically to make the point that the barrier of entry to be able to affect XL Citadels is low low LOW! And my numbers are still less than half this 100-200 BS you keep inventing from thin air. Really citadels are vastly too easy to reinforce as they already stand, and we were complaining when a single player could entosis them as well as being too easy.
As for why we are ignoring your 'quotes', is because you are massively misquoting by selectively quoting only a tiny portion of the blog in a deliberately out of context situation. If he wants to come here and also say that the maximum time that it should ever take is also 30 minutes, then he can come here and say so, and then we will all laugh our heads off at him for being stupid.
Yes and I will tell him that I will do what I do currently with a POS, online it run some refining and then take it down again, nice gameplay that...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2495
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 21:48:05 -
[374] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: Yes and I will tell him that I will do what I do currently with a POS, online it run some refining and then take it down again, nice gameplay that...
You did read you won't be able to do that anymore with Citadels right? They take 24 hours to put up, start in hull right when that wardec comes in and 24 hours to take down
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1684
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 21:52:48 -
[375] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Dracvlad wrote: Yes and I will tell him that I will do what I do currently with a POS, online it run some refining and then take it down again, nice gameplay that...
You did read you won't be able to do that anymore with Citadels right? They take 24 hours to put up, start in hull right when that wardec comes in and 24 hours to take down
I thought it was a normal unanchor time but a 24 hr cooldown period before you can unanchor?
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2495
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 21:58:28 -
[376] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I thought it was a normal unanchor time but a 24 hr cooldown period before you can unanchor?
Quote: Once the unanchoring process has started, the structure will become invulnerable for a specific amount of time Once the invulnerability timers runs out, the structure will be vulnerable for damage yet again, with having a repair process identical of whatGÇÖs been mentioned above. This time however, shields, armor and hulls will be fully available
So you become vulnerable for a significant period then the structure finally unanchors. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1684
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 22:00:27 -
[377] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I thought it was a normal unanchor time but a 24 hr cooldown period before you can unanchor?
Quote: Once the unanchoring process has started, the structure will become invulnerable for a specific amount of time Once the invulnerability timers runs out, the structure will be vulnerable for damage yet again, with having a repair process identical of whatGÇÖs been mentioned above. This time however, shields, armor and hulls will be fully available
So you become vulnerable for a significant period then the structure finally unanchors.
going to need to re-read that bit again and work it out
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1684
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 22:20:49 -
[378] - Quote
OK this is confusing me:
Quote from CCP:
Quote: For anchoring:
The structure goes into a 24 hour invulnerability timer. No damage can be done during that time and the owner cannot cancel this action once it has been confirmed The structure will come out of the invulnerability timer with only its hull layer active and vulnerable to attack (enters the vulnerability states above). As usual, any damage done to the structure while it is vulnerable will cause the repair time to start. Please note however that in this case the structure will only have hull layer available GÇô it is not a fully operational battle station yet, and as such is even more susceptible to damage than usual. Which means if attackers can take it to 0 hit points it will be destroyed on the spot, there will be no further invulnerability phase.
For unanchoring:
Unanchoring may only be started if the structure has full shields and is not within a repair timer. This is to prevent some early bail-out should it be attacked Once the unanchoring process has started, the structure will become invulnerable for a specific amount of time Once the invulnerability timers runs out, the structure will be vulnerable for damage yet again, with having a repair process identical of whatGÇÖs been mentioned above. This time however, shields, armor and hulls will be fully available
This doesn't make much sense to me. How long will the invulnerability timer be after anchoring/unanchoring?
How long to put online/offline, if this even happens now?
surely a station would have shields armour and hull available when anchored and not when unanchored (systems are shut down)?
Could do with some clarification and an example here I think. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2495
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 22:27:30 -
[379] - Quote
Online/Offline no longer happens. You don't consume fuel for being 'online' anymore, and there is no force field, so you are always 'online'. Fuel is consumed with services such as manufacturing being actually used.
Anchoring they were fairly explicit. 24 Hours invulnerable then immediately vulnerable in just hull, and has to repair to full shields before it becomes invulnerable again (assuming timers say it's invulnerable)
Unanchoring you are right, they were a bit unclear on the times with that. But they have said at least 24h in a few places, so assuming that remains true, a war dec will always catch a citadel. And they can always get the fittings and the mineral value of the citadel itself for loot, even if you cancel all current jobs. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1684
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 22:30:46 -
[380] - Quote
OK, so for anchoring it takes a full repair timer to become fully operational.
For unanchoring I thought the 24 hrs was before you could unanchor to guarantee the structure would still be there when a wardec kicks in. what happens after the unanchor is still not clear to me, is it the repair cycle before you can scoop? |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2495
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 22:34:21 -
[381] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:OK, so for anchoring it takes a full repair timer to become fully operational.
For unanchoring I thought the 24 hrs was before you could unanchor to guarantee the structure would still be there when a wardec kicks in. what happens after the unanchor is still not clear to me, is it the repair cycle before you can scoop? It sounds like 'press unanchor' Wait X hours while it is invulnerable. Wait Y hours while it is vulnerable, then scoop. Where X + Y > 24.
But it's unclear to me also, that's just my best read. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1117
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 06:10:36 -
[382] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:OK, so for anchoring it takes a full repair timer to become fully operational.
For unanchoring I thought the 24 hrs was before you could unanchor to guarantee the structure would still be there when a wardec kicks in. what happens after the unanchor is still not clear to me, is it the repair cycle before you can scoop? It sounds like 'press unanchor' Wait X hours while it is invulnerable. Wait Y hours while it is vulnerable, then scoop. Where X + Y > 24. But it's unclear to me also, that's just my best read.
I was reading that as 24 hours to anchor and then unanchor was fairly quick, but I could be wrong, nice of CCP of course to make it harder for the small guy yet again, add the tank of a wet paper bag to the mix and oh joy...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Philip Ogtaulmolfi
We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion
28
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 07:35:42 -
[383] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: Yes and I will tell him that I will do what I do currently with a POS, online it run some refining and then take it down again, nice gameplay that...
Do you plan to lose the expensive rigs every time? Without them the refining will not be too efficient.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1117
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 08:24:19 -
[384] - Quote
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote:Dracvlad wrote: Yes and I will tell him that I will do what I do currently with a POS, online it run some refining and then take it down again, nice gameplay that...
Do you plan to lose the expensive rigs every time? Without them the refining will not be too efficient.
Well that is an issue I have yet to get information on, at the moment I use a POS module, it may be that the rigs will make it impossible to do, though I do tend to gather stuff over a long period and do it as one big batch so it might still be doable, you just have to write the cost off. When us low level plebs get the full information I will obviously work out the strategy, there is too much in the air at the moment for concrete plans.
Also many people have different understandings, one poster here missed the fact that the HQ and Hub structure was combined into a Citadel.
It will be a pity if CCP make them too easy to kill I was actually looking forward to this and it was one of the reasons I re-subbed.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2496
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 10:58:24 -
[385] - Quote
Philip Ogtaulmolfi wrote: Do you plan to lose the expensive rigs every time? Without them the refining will not be too efficient.
Part of the point is that currently people do not risk assets in a POS despite theoretical 'risk' to them. So if a Citadel has to stay up because putting it up and taking it down is not practical then the defence needs to be significantly more than a POS has to be practical to use. And an M Citadel is the same size as a L POS is. So the M Citadel should compare decently in defence and time to attack to a L POS at least, if not significantly exceed it since it can't be removed from risk as fast.
This is certainly not the case currently. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
208
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 13:32:53 -
[386] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Masao Kurata wrote: Requiring the defenders to turn up to at least one of the timers isn't rendering them useless. You are not entitled to structures which are such a chore to destroy that nobody will even attempt it no matter how certain they are that you won't undock.
Again, read the numbers I've posted. Black Pedro thinks that these are unreasonable numbers and that no group in HS or a low end WH (Note that in a low end WH you have to build the freighter and XL Citadel in the WH first also) can possibly muster 15 people for 2 hours to reinforce an XL Citadel. So is demanding that their EHP be massively dropped. What happens if their EHP is dropped is that it becomes childs play to reinforce one even if defenders are present, and then they become giant loot Pinata's. Since just taking the Citadel, if it costs 10 bil to build and fit an XL Citadel, they will be dropping 5 billion in loot even before we get onto any active jobs since they drop their fittings and build minerals. At which point they become useless because they cost so much and are so easy to destroy for the loot.
do it 3 times over the course of a week. and stop speculating on build cost and what it will drop. why use rigs on WH one? its just a parking garage that doesn't take fuel. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2501
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 14:37:45 -
[387] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote: do it 3 times over the course of a week. and stop speculating on build cost and what it will drop. why use rigs on WH one? its just a parking garage that doesn't take fuel.
Read the Dev Blog, they will drop fittings and mineral value relative to their build cost. And XL Citadels have been said to cost as much or more overall than outposts. So it's not 'just a parking garage' It's a mega expensive loot pi+¦ata.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
208
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 14:45:22 -
[388] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Lady Rift wrote: do it 3 times over the course of a week. and stop speculating on build cost and what it will drop. why use rigs on WH one? its just a parking garage that doesn't take fuel.
Read the Dev Blog, they will drop fittings and mineral value relative to their build cost. And XL Citadels have been said to cost as much or more overall than outposts. So it's not 'just a parking garage' It's a mega expensive loot pi+¦ata.
they will cost as much as outpost when fully rigged with the rigs costing 10-100 times what the actual structure cost.
and you don't have to rig it. |
Mikhem
Taxisk Unlimited
307
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 18:08:26 -
[389] - Quote
Structure capture mechanism is planned to be returned to old way which means capital ships taking away hit points. I propose hybrid model (old and new) for structure capture.
1. First you need to destroy structure shields and structure goes to reinforcement. Then you need to destroy armor + reinforcement and then structure to zero.
2. Then structure gets full hit points and structure is in freeport mode and command nodes are activated. Who wins this command node warfare gets structure control. Shooting structure with capital ships when it is in freeport mode is useless.
Comments are welcome for my idea.
Mikhem
Link library to EVE music songs.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
230
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 18:58:04 -
[390] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Part of the point is that currently people do not risk assets in a POS despite theoretical 'risk' to them. It seems to me that people do, see my previous post.
|
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1685
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 08:46:10 -
[391] - Quote
Mikhem wrote:Structure capture mechanism is planned to be returned to old way which means capital ships taking away hit points. I propose hybrid model (old and new) for structure capture.
1. First you need to destroy structure shields and structure goes to reinforcement. Then you need to destroy armor + reinforcement and then structure to zero.
2. Then structure gets full hit points and structure is in freeport mode and command nodes are activated. Who wins this command node warfare gets structure control. Shooting structure with capital ships when it is in freeport mode is useless.
Comments are welcome for my idea.
Structures have to be destroyed to drive the market in producing them, otherwise gradually construction will die as the number of structures reaches a saturation point. Capture mechanics serve no purpose except in sov warfare to define area control, and even then it should only be on an area and not on physical assets. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1122
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 12:09:00 -
[392] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Part of the point is that currently people do not risk assets in a POS despite theoretical 'risk' to them. It seems to me that people do, see my previous post.
I wonder how many of those were owned by people who quit, it would be also interesting to see how many were as a result of hyperdunking?
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Justa Hunni
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 03:39:42 -
[393] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:[quote=gascanu]
No one will contest them if they are released as such. Ergo, they won't be released as such. I am not sure how many times I have to say this.
I think you're missing your Dev tag |
Justa Hunni
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 04:08:07 -
[394] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
It's been all downhill since CCP made highsec both the safest and most lucrative sector of the space in the game in an attempt to cater to these PvP-averse highsec residents.
Wow, you really believe that??? I've lived in Null for the better part of a year and it is much safer and considerably more lucrative than it was in highsec. Maybe you should leave your CODE fleets and go experience more of the game, you seem that have a warped view of it. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1685
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 08:48:10 -
[395] - Quote
Justa Hunni wrote:Black Pedro wrote:
It's been all downhill since CCP made highsec both the safest and most lucrative sector of the space in the game in an attempt to cater to these PvP-averse highsec residents.
Wow, you really believe that??? I've lived in Null for the better part of a year and it is much safer and considerably more lucrative than it was in highsec. Maybe you should leave your CODE fleets and go experience more of the game, you seem that have a warped view of it.
It's one thing that does confuse me when people go to hisec where people stay to try to avoid combat and then complain that the players there are risk averse...
It all depends on what you mean by risk averse anyway. Many people will risk billions of isk in manufacture etc which is at the mercy of the markets but will avoid PvP combat by any and every means they can. Risk is still risk however whether it is on the market, sat in a barge, running through null for relics or simply shooting someone. |
Nathan19601 Deninard
SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 16:00:45 -
[396] - Quote
In a previous patch, skynet was removed to ensure that players were risking their capitals if they wanted to use their fighters/bombers. I am wondering, since the citadels will eventually be replacing the POSes, if assigning fighters could be considered again. Now that there will be no shield to hide behind, I see no reason to hold back on a key feature to differentiate fighters/bombers from the drones. Even though assigning may not be used as often as it was, it would be nice having the option to do it.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1124
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:10:32 -
[397] - Quote
I had some fun in the other thread because I was looking to link in the war dec system to having a structure in space, to have a reason to fight, but talking over there is a waste of time.
Earlier I said that my alliance coalition could not take one down, I realised I was wrong, we could and fairly easily too.
Looking at the numbers, 75 to 225 BS to reach damage mitigation, its more like 50 to 225, the repair of the structure does not kick in until there is no damage incoming for 15 minutes, we know that people will play the adjust timer trick to adjust TZ's, because if its being shot it is still vulnerable, so as long as its being shot it will continue to bleed EHP.
Take a Talos 1200 DPS, I could reinforce an XL Citadel shield 108,000,000 on my own in 25 hours, with my corp at full strength it would take 3 hours, with my alliance 2 hours, with my Coalition it would take 1 hour. I really cannot see what the problem is, are people seriously telling me that people cannot do this, 25 people taking one hour to reinforce that shield with 20% resists it would take 1 hour and 15 minutes. That is a normal player session in Eve.
One of the things we do not know is the weapons system and that is an important missing piece, but this only applies if someone is manning it, so the trick would be to keep it from repairing itself while the player is on-line by using small fast cheap ships then switch to all out damage when RL reared its ugly head for the defender. But even then a proper logi fleet set up could defeat this too.
And I see people moaning about this, its just crazy, no one in their right mind will put one of these up unless they are able to drive an attacker away for 15 minutes in hisec to get it to repair itself.
My Coalition in Stain could take one of these down in hisec without too much effort if its put up by a one man corp.
I have shot SBU's for hours, I have shot IHUB's for hours, it seems that the hisec mercs and ganker/griefiers are such weak willed souls, they cannot even take down large POS's, not because they lack the numbers or ships, but because they do not have the will to do it.
CCP if you seriously adjust the design of XL Citadels to take account of such pathetic willpower than I really have to question your commitment to Eve is hard and have to stand up to your face and scream at you, its only hard if you are a carebear.
Seriously what a load of weak willed quick fix moaning minnies these hisec ganker griefers are.
I was only ever intending to put up a medium myself, there is no way in hell I would put up an XL and anyone doing this as a small alliance is just bonkers. There is no way in hell people will put these up because they are too easy to take down, its is not invulnerable by any means, after sitting down and doing the numbers I cannot see many going up in hisec...
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1674
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:16:28 -
[398] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:I was only ever intending to put up a medium myself, there is no way in hell I would put up an XL and anyone doing this as a small alliance is just bonkers. There is no way in hell people will put these up because they are too easy to take down, its is not invulnerable by any means, after sitting down and doing the numbers I cannot see many going up in hisec... They do have defenses you realize. Bringing a fleet of gank Taloses is likely to end.... badly if the defenders show up.
The original design called for a single attacker with an entosis link fit to be the minimum to "take down" a XL citadel. Version 2 is slightly stronger, but still will require you to show up to actively defend. Perhaps you should wait until the full defense are described by the dev team until you declare these structures too feeble to defend and dead in the water. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1124
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:33:59 -
[399] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I was only ever intending to put up a medium myself, there is no way in hell I would put up an XL and anyone doing this as a small alliance is just bonkers. There is no way in hell people will put these up because they are too easy to take down, its is not invulnerable by any means, after sitting down and doing the numbers I cannot see many going up in hisec... They do have defenses you realize. Bringing a fleet of gank Taloses is likely to end.... badly if the defenders show up. The original design called for a single attacker with an entosis link fit to be the minimum to "take down" a XL citadel. Version 2 is slightly stronger, but still will require you to show up to actively defend. Perhaps you should wait until the full defense are described by the dev team until you declare these structures too feeble to defend and dead in the water.
What a one man corp, don't forget that I would bring in logi too, I have been in a fleet of 25 fleet Talos with 5 logi that reinforced a heavily gunned and manned Large POS in null sec and lost two ships which did not call for reps in time. We did not kill it as they brought allies, but that was null sec. Could the defences be worse than that, perhaps but even then that's not terrible, I could switch to Megathrons and that would still do it easily.
The entosis link idea was a none starter, you should discard it, I had already said to myself that I would never put up a structure with the entosis link it was a no brainer to me, its ok for sov space because its an object to apply system affects or an object in space to flag ownership which is not manned, a Citadel is different. its manned and lived in, so an entosis link working on a manned object seems stupid in terms of lore.
The XL Citadel is too feeble and is not something that a small alliance could realistically put up in hisec, Marmite could take one down in my opinion.
Yes I am waiting, but if it has the same ability as a large POS it won't change the equation much that is for certain.
Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1676
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 19:44:56 -
[400] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: The XL Citadel is too feeble and is not something that a small alliance could realistically put up in hisec, Marmite could take one down in my opinion.
Yes I am waiting, but if it has the same ability as a large POS it won't change the equation much that is for certain.
The devblog said it will take 30 minutes to reinforce across the board which is much faster than the current large POSes with subcaps, and much slower than with capitals and/or supers. But it will feature fearsome weapons and defenses, which on the XL I am sure will trump the near useless weapons featured on the current large POSes. Assaulting a defended XL will require a significant force I am sure, while assaulting an undefended one will be much easier.
The whole design is such that 10-15 people can take an undefended one in 30 (x3) minutes (using cruisers for a M, battleships for a L, and dreads for a XL). The unknown is how difficult it will be to take down a defended citadel. I predict it will be quite difficult to do so - that is require 5-10 times the number of defenders.
But we will have to wait and see how CCP balances them. |
|
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
41
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 21:15:16 -
[401] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:Quote:We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold. As a wormholer, this is absolutely not okay and I if no one else will raise hell over it. Why is wormhole space special in that we alone get to deal with the risk of total asset loss while everyone else gets their stuff magically spirited away to safety? All that is going to do is incentivize people in nullsec (whose assets are safe and unattackable) to attack wormholes for the loot. Not only that, but there's absolutely no counterplay, we can't go attack nullseccers and blow up their ****, its safe. We're getting this huge risk that no one else will have to shoulder, and what do we get out of it? Nothing. We can't hit them back, their assets are untouchable. We don't get sov and it's benefits. This feels like the real **** end of the **** stick.
Wow,when did wh people become such bears? We used to be HC man. Only space where you can really END your opponent..... |
Don Aubaris
136
|
Posted - 2015.09.28 17:13:15 -
[402] - Quote
It's not bad that POS'ses are reviewed, simplified etc..., and the proposals don't look too bad. However I wonder when will they start to understand that people in high sec are not interested in High Sec Citadels that can be attacked. Even if it's only for 3 hours.
I mean really... High Sec War is tedious and pointless. There is nothing to fight over. Nor should there be. In the worst case you just go and play another game while it lasts. The only ones who enjoy it are a few bullies who like to attack people who don't want to fight. Piracy should be be where the violence in high sec ends.
There are builders and destroyers in this game, and any possible combination in between. HighSec should be the area of the peaceful builders. Setting up a personal POS/Citadel should be any builders dream. Instead of doing research/manufacturing in stations, you should only get 1-2 slots in stations. You want more : get your own citadel. With the restriction that you can't build capital stuff for example. For that you need to move to more dangerous space.
Make Concord protect those high-sec citadels. Give the owners the possibility to invest in some automatic weapons to protect their (un)docking clients against pirates. Make those citadels the specialized research/invention/Manufacturing hubs instead of the stations.
That would be a lot more logical high sec.
PS1. the compensation for current POS material and what to do with the existing fuel seems , as usual, an afterthought for the DEVS. Some more attention to it would be welcome.
PS2. The naming is horrible to my taste...small/medium/large/extra-large : mini/small/ medium/ large would have been better considering your small is not behaving like medium. A difference in logical naming wouldn't hurt then. |
Rena'Thras
Strategic Insanity FUBAR.
23
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 05:11:25 -
[403] - Quote
Hm...as one of those weird people in this world that likes playing healers in games, I'm disappointed that remote repair has NO interplay with this system - someone on page 1 suggested it shorten the timer or increase the damage input required from the attackers to keep the timer delayed. I actually liked seeing small corps of newbros field little repair fleets of cap chained T1 logi to bring shields/armor back up to save a structure, and RR parties bringing back up POSes or Outposts have been enjoyable experiences to me to shoot the breeze with Corp/Alliance/Coalition-mates in a sort of lower key group activity.
So I wish you guys could work RR mechanics in somehow.
However, that gripe aside, I like the direction this is going, so kudos for listening and at least doing something (granted, we're still not seeing the FULL picture since we haven't see what you guys are planning for Capitals yet, which might complete the mental image for us when we get around to that.) |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers EVEolution.
378
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 00:51:21 -
[404] - Quote
looking good, i'm liking a lot of what i'm reading in this thread. well done CCP, more of this please. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
281
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 10:57:58 -
[405] - Quote
Any updates/thoughts on some of the feedback in the thread? e.g. the use of the Target Spectrum Breaker mechanic?
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Sallyanne Pimbrook
Corwan Academy Kanen Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 14:40:19 -
[406] - Quote
Hi I have read the Dev Blogs about Citadels. Exciting times are ahead, I hope. I have three issues I would like to comment on. Your goal is to have lots of players use the Citadels as their "Home" . To attract players to make a Citadel their home there are a few things that should be concider:
1. Scan contents of Citadel..... I was very unhappy to see that you were planning to make the Citadels so that any person flying by could scan the contents of my Citadel. I would never want to put any thing of value into my Citadel. If I did then any person that scanned my Citadel would want to declare war and try to take it. Right now POS contents can not be scanned. I feel that should carry over to the new Citadels and other new big structures.
2.Loss of implants..... good grief this did not make me happy either. My implants cost more than my ship. Sometimes a person will have to dock and logout of Eve and real life gets in the way and they can't log back in for a week or so, vacations, family emergancies, work. These real life events are not always something one can plan ahead. If I logged out while in my Citadel and someone declared war and blasted my Citadel, then I would be returning to Eve to find that not only had real been rough but now, in my Eve life, my Citadel was gone and my implants were too.
3.Cost of Citadels..... In the "I feel safe..." Blog I noticed, in the Citadel example, the pretended amounts that you were tossing around like candy. 50 Billion isk, 80 Billion isk !!! Surely you are not planning on the M Citadel to cost any where near that amount. Citadels are to take the place of POS and Outposts. Outpost may cost billions of isk to put up but POS do not. Lots of people put up a small POS in high sec for lots of reasons. But the bottom line is that profits and convenience out weigh the cost. Now I can set up a small POS with a reprocessing array in a good high sec system and mine and refine my ore and make a nice profit and the inital cost is around 200 million. That is not too much and I am happy but if the cost of a M Citadel is 1 billion or more then I will just use the NPC stations and not bother with the Citadels. It would take me months of mining to even recoup the inital cost of the Citadel much less make a profit.
I am really looking forward to the new structures and hoping that they will be a profitable and interesting part of my Eve life.
Sallyanne Pimbrook
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2562
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 09:44:02 -
[407] - Quote
Sallyanne Pimbrook wrote: 1. Scan contents of Citadel.....
2.Loss of implants.....
3.Cost of Citadels....
*snips* Could you reference where you got 1. from, as I think you may have mixed up being able to scan the current fittings of the Citadel, I.E. what guns and services it is currently fitted with & being able to scan the entire cargo list.
2. Well yes, many people have yelled at CCP about that and that logging off in space should not be a better option than logging off in a Citadel, and 'hopefully' they will listen though it seems to only be because of Wormholes that they have any chance of listening.
3. Well yes, M Citadels should be vastly cheaper. |
Thron Legacy
White Zulu Scorpion Federation
24
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 21:30:03 -
[408] - Quote
I'd like to see M class citadels at 200 to 400mil NOT more at all |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1708
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 08:15:16 -
[409] - Quote
Citadels themselves won't be so expensive as such, it'll be the rigs on them that give bonuses to the services that will cost large sums.
|
Mikhem
Taxisk Unlimited
322
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 20:36:05 -
[410] - Quote
Are there any plans to create window for structures that show all services structure contains? Below is list of all important information. 1. Who can dock structure? 2. Structure docking payment? 3. What services are available in structure. 4. Who can access services? 5. What is payment for these services?
Mikhem
Link library to EVE music songs.
|
|
Titus Madullier
Shades of Chaos Gatekeepers Universe
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:00:22 -
[411] - Quote
I have a question about the tethering on the undock
Since you are going to replace pos in the future with these, can you stay tethered and give out mining or pvp boosts?\
Will you getan weapon timer for that and go untethered? |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
459
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 07:09:11 -
[412] - Quote
The released prices are around 600M for meds, 7B for large and 70B for XL. Then you need to fit it. Mods go all the way up in price as well.
But this is the price i expected. I just want them to shoot back even if i am on holiday. Eve is still a game.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Servjen
Giant Industrials
53
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 21:59:56 -
[413] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Leatien Cesaille wrote:While I do like the idea of shooting things instead of shining pretty lights at it (that's why I prefer hybrid weapons over lasers), something bothers me about this system as presented in the blog. Probably somebody has pointed it out already, but reiteration is always good on the Interwebs, isn't it?
So from what I gather the structure enters the vulnerable timer at a predetermined time but the repair timer starts the moment it gets shot at and will repair the structure to full after the timer runs out. Even if it has been damaged in the previous vulnerability phase.
There are two problems I see with it.
First, there is no real reason to have this vulnerable state going on longer than the repair cycle since all the defender has to do is shoot his own structure once at the beginning (with an out of alliance char if necessary) to start the repair timer and the structure will be as good as new after that relatively short time. An attacker planning to attack near the middle or end of the vulnerable timer will have to start anew. To be fair the current entosis mechanic has a similar consequence that not being on field the moment the vulnerability starts puts you at a potentially huge disadvantage but it still takes time and effort to capture nodes distributed over several systems. It's far more difficult to block an attacker from several systems than from just the system the station is in. Shooting your own structure to help repair it faster seems counter-intuitive to me... There are two ways to address this: If you want to have both attacker and defender to be present on the field the moment the new vulnerability starts just start the damn thing in the repair phase right away. If you do want a bit of flexibility for the attacker to properly deploy at any time or break through a gatecamp during the vulnerability window apply the repair to previously shot down HP pools at the end of the vulnerability window regardless if a repair timer has run it's course or not and allow multiple repair cycles to occur during a single vulnerability period that only deal with damage to the current pool.
Second, I don't think it's right that everything is repaired. What a repair cycle should do is either repair the damage done to the current vulnerable pool or the one before it - and only that one. So let's say the structure is in structure vulnerable mode, survives a vulnerability period uncontested it doesn't get it's shield and armour repped to full but just the armour. It will need a second vulnerability window to get repped to full. To be fair to prevent delaying tactics by a single player (or small force) that has no real hope to actually apply enough dps to be a threat I would like to see some sort of threshold. For example, as the damage to the current pool doesn't exceed - say - 25% the next pool gets repped too after the repair cycle. Or you could just go with repping the current and previous pool although than this is only really relevant if the structure is already in structure. The repair will start automatically as soon as it comes out of reinforce. There is no "shoot your own structure to trigger a repair faster". The conditions for repair are pretty simple: if the structure is vulnerable to attack and has any damage it will automatically try to repair itself
So after the 24h anchoring invulnerability timer the repair timer automatically start without any outside influence, yours or 3th party?
This is where I put my signature, right?
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
291
|
Posted - 2015.11.14 16:53:54 -
[414] - Quote
So any update? thoughts on the feedback here e.g. use of target spectrum breaker mechanics as a 'natural' damage cap?
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Pestilen Ratte
Artimus Ratte
44
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 23:57:18 -
[415] - Quote
If we stand back and consider these changes from a very broad perspective, we can make certain predictions based on the economic cost of both offensive and defensive actions.
All war is an economic contest. If one side can cause more economic loss than they suffer when mounting offensive actions, offensive actions will prevail. Alternatively, if a defensive posture can inflict more economic cost on the offensive side than it suffers before being overwhelmed, a committed and robust defence will break an offensive enemy.
It is fairly simple logic to reason that an equilibrium can only exist where defensive postures are sustainable. If offensive strategies yield dividends, they shall be favoured and shall prevail as the dominant strategy. The strong will eclipse the weak, and a state of constant war shall persist until one single offensive alliance has destroyed every weaker party.
The logic here is that offensive beats defensive, and the bigger force has the option to go on the offence, while the weaker is forced to adopt defensive strategy.
Why does the larger force have the initiative to adopt an offensive posture?
Well, each side must balance the enemy forces, or leave themselves obviously exposed to localized defeat. Only the larger side in a stand off has a remainder of forces with which to plan offensive actions. The weaker force will always commit 100% of its forces to a balanced defence, or it must otherwise leave some areas of its line completely exposed with no counter to the enemy. And so the enemy takes the complete initiative on that front, achieving easy wins due to an absence of local opposition.
Students of history may note that static equilibriums between tribes, nations and states have only ever occurred when technological advantages have been spread more or less equally across the world, and where the defensive strategy thus prevailed. Where technology has allowed an offensive strategy to prevail, the stronger side has spread with great speed and across huge distances.
Turning back to Eve, we can predict, with reasonable conviction, that if the Citadel cannot destroy a great ISK value of ships in the vulnerability window than it costs to establish and lose against a committed offensive action, then Citadels will be an obvious waste of time and a certain losing proposition for all players.
If, by contrast, a manned citadel can easily destroy a greater ISK value of attacking ships than it costs to replace after being overwhelmed, then a defensive strategy can use the economics of attrition to defeat a stronger adversary who wishes to use size and strength to prevail with an offensive strategy. The defensive side will lose structures, but over time they can bleed the aggressor dry and prevail through economic might.
At first glance, it seems the greatest difficulty shall be the operation of logistics in the offensive fleet. If the offensive fleet can stop expensive assault ships being destroyed, at all, or even delay their destruction significantly, then the person manning the citadel is never going to inflict a sufficient economic cost of the offensive fleet that can make a defensive war posture effective over time.
It is false logic to imagine that "support fleets" can affect this balance, simply because we must assume that support fleets will suffer ISK losses in direct proportion to the enemy losses they inflict. This is unless they can target and fire from a position of invulnerability, or given some other clear, significant battlefield advantage for the defending forces.
I will wait for the early data to emerge, but at first glance I fear the changes fall well short of allowing a committed defence to inflict the kind of economic harm to a committed offensive fleet that would permit the rational adoption of a defensive posture by a serious party to war.
Unless an assault on a citadel with a competent defence force means serious cost for ANY attcking force, in blood and isk, citadel owners shall become goon fodder and that truth will erode player confidence in the strategic worth of structures. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6879
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 20:42:26 -
[416] - Quote
Pestilen Ratte wrote:Unless an assault on a citadel piloted a competent defensive player means serious (greater than cost of the citadel once destroyed) cost for ANY attacking force, in blood and isk, citadel owners shall become goon fodder and that truth will erode player confidence in the strategic worth of structures. Objective spotted in your citadel of words.
In other words, your isk on field
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1463
|
Posted - 2016.01.19 14:41:38 -
[417] - Quote
Automated defenses may not fend off a properly sized attacking fleet, but pos's do get some great comedy kills. Plus, if you're going to kill someone on a pos solo or with a small group, you need to at least somewhat know what you're doing. Those defenses make them dangerous to be around if you're not welcome there, and that shouldn't be removed.
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
aldhura
Bartledannians Nite Owls
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 00:39:02 -
[418] - Quote
This makes sense
"We revaluated our position on Wormhole space asset safety from our GÇ£I feel safe in Citadel cityGÇ¥ blog. Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold."
and to make it even tastier for the attacker we will...
"We are aware that the long process of sieging a Citadel (up to one week) is considerably longer that whatGÇÖs currently in place in Wormhole space. We do know that controlling traffic in Wormhole space to be a taxing activity, which is why we are considering having further variations in place there so that the total siege doesnGÇÖt exceed 48 hours there."
If you want the wh, it should be taxing.. why make it easy, its not like support can be cyno'd in..
Bartledannians Corporation is recruiting
Nite Owls Alliance is recruiting
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: [one page] |