EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Building your Citadel, one block at a time

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Building your Citadel, one block at a time

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 29 post(s)
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 350	Posted - 2015.10.26 17:19:37 - [1] - Quote Soldarius wrote: The quantities of T2 salvage required for an XL rig are absolutely batshit insane. There is not enough available market supply across the entire eve universe to build more than a couple of any of these. The price of T2 salvage will go so high no one will ever be able to afford T2 rigs for anything ever again Additionally, I'm not sure that the fuel requirements for using service modules plus the fuel block use during construction is going to be enough to replace the fuel use from POSes when they are eventually sunset'ed. Might be worth considering having the structure fuel blocks also be a component in the destructible rig construction adding more to the demand for those elements and relieving some of the pressure on the salvage market.
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 350	Posted - 2015.10.26 17:23:44 - [2] - Quote Saede Riordan wrote: EvilweaselSA wrote: Saede Riordan wrote: This is for larges specifically which is only important for the larger low class groups that have dozens of capitals needing to be stored. Mediums will be able to be brought in with transports, so an attacking group can just use medium citadels. If you've been building "dozens" of capitals you can build one more. Those capitals have a purpose, and are useful for a lot of things. Its not about the cost, its about the usefulness. A freighter that can't leave is only useful for one thing, deploying large and XL citadels. Why would they make us build a ship that is entirely and completely useless out of deploying large structures? What's wrong with POCO type gantries? And if you want to look at cost, consider that currently, you can store your capitals at a tower with an XL SMA for less then a billion ISK. With these changes, you need to invest in a 7+ billion isk structure, and then another 2 billion isk to build the freighter whose only job is to drop off the citadel. I could have used that isk to build more capitals! Don't forget you're also going to have to purchase a BPC for the Citadel and build the actual citadel in system vs. buying a packaged one off the market.
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 350	Posted - 2015.10.26 17:40:45 - [3] - Quote Azahar Ortenegro wrote: Querns wrote: You don't need to own a citadel/other structure BPO to own one of the structures. Purchase one from someone else. True. But since Citadels replace Ship Maintenance Arrays, Corporate and Personal Hangar Arrays and Control Towers, anyone already owning those BPOs should be able to afford a Medium-siezd Citadel BPO. We're not even close. The current tag price goes from 625 millions (Small Tower) to 1B (Large Tower), for the same services. It's not apples to apples. POSes have fuel requirements from 100-400M/mo. Citadels do not use fuel to provide basic services, only service modules will require them (Market, Cloning, Reprocessing, Compression)
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 350	Posted - 2015.10.26 18:37:18 - [4] - Quote Grorious Reader wrote: I'd just like to point out that "X will be so expensive that only a handful will be built by the biggest alliances" is a demonstrably horrible design philosophy. I'm pretty sure CCP Fozzie previously stated this fact in regard to titans and super caps. Now CCP is doing it again with XL Citadels. I predict Deklein will be filled to the brim with XL citadels within a year. Billions of isk is not cost prohibitive when you have individual players toting around trillions. You really shouldn't paraphrase with quoting: Quote: we want the X-Large to be quite an expensive goal to achieve. This should require significant effort to complete, not something easily achieved by just anyone. That isn't the same as saying that only a handful should be built nor is it designing with cost as a limiting factor.
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 350	Posted - 2015.10.26 18:59:41 - [5] - Quote The structure blog link regarding the hull composition has the Large Citadel structure size at 80km3 http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68671/1/Structurecompositioncomponent.png Unless my EFT is wrong, a max cargo Orca tops out over 100km3 of cargo. That would mean, unless there is a launching restriction to the freighter class, that a Large Citadel could be transported in an Orca which does fit inside lower class wormhole systems. Is there a launching restriction on L and XL Citadels limited them to Freighters or is it purely a cargo limitation, in which case, the Freighter comment in the devblog was incorrect?
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 351	Posted - 2015.10.26 19:49:00 - [6] - Quote Soleil Fournier wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Aryth wrote: These seem awfully cheap at the medium level given their really small vulnerability window. Is there a concern we end up with a very spammable and essentially throwaway level of citadels? They are destructible, so the smaller sizes should be relatively spammable. Also remember 600m ISK it the base hull price. And you thought the sov grind was hellacious in dominion. Think about 20 medium citadels in a system you need to clear out. Each having a different vulnerability timer set for maximum trolling. That means 20 initial reinforcement fights, 20 command node huntings, 20 second reinforcement fights, another 20 command node hunting parties....the implications on the grind here are pretty scarry. Maybe not for highsec, but sov definately will suffer from this type of issue. Then think about the next 5 systems next to it that have the same setup, and that they won't ever go offline because the hulls don't take fuel. There are rich players/alliances out there that will do this. A hard cap doesn't make sense. But I think the above scenerio should at least be discussed before the sov grind gets sent into overdrive. There are no command nodes for Citadel reinforcement and destruction. That is only for sov.
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 351	Posted - 2015.10.27 15:20:24 - [7] - Quote Kynric wrote: Please reconsider needing a freighter to deploy large citadels. There are existing capitals in many low class wormhole systems. Once POS' go away those pilots will either be trapped in their ships, have to self destruct or have to build a land locked freighter, all ofcwhich seem rather burdensome. Alternatively lower class wormholes could be enlargerd to allow freighters through. Building a freighter isn't THAT big of a deal. There's no reason to rage about self destructing capitals. Anyone with the ISK and resources to build one or more capitals in C1-C4 space can afford to factor in the cost of a freighter to the cost of your 7-10B ISK citadel. I'd still like a response to the fact that the Large Citadel is listed at 80km3 which is within the size of an Orca's cargo bay. Is the Freighter restriction a launch restriction (cannot launch from an Orca even if it fits) or a size restriction (in which case the blog is wrong or the size is wrong).
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 351	Posted - 2015.10.27 17:12:58 - [8] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Saede Riordan wrote: Chavez Domingo wrote: wasnt a large citadel at 80.000m-¦ that can fit into a orca... no need for a freighter than... Is this actually going to be the case CCP, or is it an oversight? I want to know whether I need to start building an in-system freighter or not. Dev blog says freighters needed to deploy a large, but by the volume an orca will be able to do it with currently listed value. I don't want to have to build a freighter in my wormhole but I will if I need to. Just yes or no on that. Do I need a freighter to deploy a large, or can I do it with an orca? Probably an oversight Can we get a straight answer? Some of us looking towards building a Large citadel in C1-C4 space have to possibly consider training time for building and/or flying a freighter as well as the resource collection and building of the actual ship. I know the Spring seems like a long way away, but 5 months is not that long when training to fly freighter could be a 30 day plan and the skills to build one another 15 days if you're not an existing industrialist. Add on the 15 days or so to actually build it and we're already to the end of the year if we started today.
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 351	Posted - 2015.10.27 17:25:58 - [9] - Quote Sir SmashAlot wrote: Does the citadel need to be manned by a player for the weapons / defenses to work? Will groups in High Sec (During War), Low, WH, and, Null be forced to have station alts sitting in these things 23/7 in order to blap anyone on grid? Yes. This has been the case since the first devblog You don't have to man them 23/7, only during your vulnerable windows (3 hours / wk for a M)
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 351	Posted - 2015.10.27 17:59:28 - [10] - Quote Khorrdum wrote: Some further explanations would be desired: What is exactly meaned with 'low class wormhole space'? Is the freighter-mandatory only intended for X-Large or for Large and X-Large? What are the design-goals behind it? More informations about that could possibly allow us to give more solution-oriented feedback. I can answer the first. Low-class wormhole space is C1-C4 noted for not allowing capital ships (and freighter) to enter them.

Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 352	Posted - 2015.10.27 20:55:44 - [11] - Quote Octoven wrote: Saede Riordan wrote: Quote: A Medium structure hull may be deployed from an Industrial, Large and X-Large require a freighter. Yes, we do are aware this make things more complicated to deploy a Large or X-Large structure in low class wormhole space. This is intended. CCPlease. Give us low-class wormholers so sort of break here. You're essentially saying that we'll need to build an otherwise completely useless freighter which will be trapped in our wormhole solely for the purpose of deploying large citadels. And make no mistake we need large citadels many of us have large numbers of capitals and we'll need places to put them. I get not wanting us to easily put up XLs, (not that it'd be easy anyway with the ISK cost involved), but come on. None of us are going to leave our capital fleets floating in space outside mediums, we just won't use these structures and we'll keep using towers. You have to give us some realistic option to store our capitals and telling us to build a two billion isk ship that we can't use for anything else is not realistic. Either make them fit into something other then a freighter, or give us a way to shove freighters through our wormholes. This feels like a slap across the face to low class space. This of course will only work until the removal of POSes from the game and then youre boned because you cant dock a freighter to a med citadel sooo id imagine you wont be able to construct one there either. Unless that gets clarified you essentially will have to build the freighter while POSes are still around and hope your L or XL doesn't go pop after they get removed. They've already said that you can dock freighters to a M or larger, regardless of what happens with the launching requirement
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 352	Posted - 2015.10.27 23:34:41 - [12] - Quote Karash Amerius wrote: This is more of a thematic question...one I really don't expect a solid answer to, but it will be important once things are implemented. Scale. Right now, the system sizes...planet and moon diameters, and even NPC stations are laughably out of scale for how they compare to ships. You just need to zoom out completely to notice it. How are Citadels with their huge size going to compound this visual problem? Some of the prelim artwork I am looking at will dwarf a lot of background celestials...or at the very least, continue to break the immersion of Eve. Watch this. It's not EVE, it's your camera https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OttpSwaATl4
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 352	Posted - 2015.10.28 12:54:15 - [13] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: We will change the volume of the L Citadel to prevent Orcas to carry it around. I suppose I can just wait for the number but if you know what it is going to be, will it fit in a Rorqual?
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 352	Posted - 2015.10.28 13:01:14 - [14] - Quote Delt0r Garsk wrote: It should be noted that if you have caps in a c4, with the fact that all caps are getting all the magic hangers and the change that you can deploy from fleet hangers (Others?), you probably can deploy these from a capitol that is not a freighter. Yep, 100% speculation there. But it is more fun that reading all the blogs. AmIRight. Given the challenges in the past with deployables, cargo, and fleet hangers, I'd feel better if we had a definitive answer if these can be deployed from fleet hangers. You are right, if they can, then there are additional choices other than a Freighter for deploying them. My guess, since they did specifically say Freighter, is that it is from Cargo only.
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 352	Posted - 2015.10.28 13:30:16 - [15] - Quote Siliya wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: We will change the volume of the L Citadel to prevent Orcas to carry it around. will we be able to construct these in Wormholes ... or will we have to haul them in 1) You can only haul them into C5-C6 space 2) You can't build them at a POS with the current numbers. You need 127 10km3 parts. The Equipment array at a POS is currently 1M m3. 3) There is no manufacturing module for a M at this time so you also cannot build a M to bulid a L. While it is an easy fix, with the current information, you cannot have a L citadel in C1-C4 space due to the size issue of the construction parts and the hauling size requirements. Can we get an update on how the construction size issue will be resolved or is it intended?
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 352	Posted - 2015.10.28 18:33:53 - [16] - Quote Michal Jita wrote: Ok, I have kept quiet for a while but I can see this going now very, very bad for my corporations and the likes. Just to shed some light on current POS/Starbase: Each corporation has got pottential for 21 defined corp hangers (3 levels of access - corporation, fuel technician, starbase config and 7 configurable hangers) each of these 21 configured separetly, this is going to be limited to 7 as I understand? Each POS has got 3 levels of SMA with corp access, fuel technician access and starbase access these are going to be merged into corp hangers and/or personal level SMA as I understand. You encourage each individual to have their own ships and personal assets and only the individual being able to access these but at the same time you expect a citadel in WH to be down within 48 hours. So each and every plyer needs to login every day in case we are under attack, this is just not always possible! Your structure is only vulnerable 3 or 6 hours (Medium or Large) a week. You do not have to log on every day, only during your vulnerable windows and even then, not during the first attack as you really only need to be there to defend the second timer. This is marked improvement over a POS. While the POS does attack, anyone with an ounce of planning can outsmart your POS defenses and attack your tower at any time putting it into reinforcement and then wait/return 42 hours later to finish the job. There is not added pressure on small corps, only absentee corps that cannot commit to three or six hours a week of activity to defend their space.
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 352	Posted - 2015.10.29 12:20:40 - [17] - Quote Azahar Ortenegro wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: So use a M Citadel? Jeez, it's only a couple of hundred mil more, and you save massively on fuel costs if all you want it for is fitting and storage. A Small Tower BPO costs 125 millions. Building it costs less than 80 millions. Buying one on the market costs less than 70 millions. A Corporate Hangar Array costs less than 5 millions. A Ship Maintenance Array costs around 20 millions. So to replace a 95 millions POS, you suggest a theoretical 600 millions (since the BPO costs 6B, more like 0.9/1B on the market) Medium Citadel. It's not "a couple hunderd mil more." And that structure costs you roughly 1.2B to operate for a year. I don't see the issue with a shift to a 600M ISK structure that has zero operating cost.
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 353	Posted - 2015.10.29 12:55:57 - [18] - Quote Azahar Ortenegro wrote: Fuel cost is only shifted to fitted modules, not removed, and since it's ongoing, it can easily be paid. Oh, and a Small POS is as easily moved around or put offline to cut fuel costs, something you can't do with a Medium Citadel. It is actually only been said that service modules cost fuel currently. The only service modules available on a M are clone services, reprocessing, and compression. All of those can be turned on only as needed. If the offensive/defensive modules require fuel, those would only be used during attack so it can be assumed that the cost of operating a Citadel is significantly less than the cost of fueling a tower 24x7 Nothing about a POS is "easy to move around" compared to a Citadel.
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 353	Posted - 2015.10.29 15:31:19 - [19] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: Obil Que wrote: Azahar Ortenegro wrote: Fuel cost is only shifted to fitted modules, not removed, and since it's ongoing, it can easily be paid. Oh, and a Small POS is as easily moved around or put offline to cut fuel costs, something you can't do with a Medium Citadel. It is actually only been said that service modules cost fuel currently. The only service modules available on a M are clone services, reprocessing, and compression. All of those can be turned on only as needed. If the offensive/defensive modules require fuel, those would only be used during attack so it can be assumed that the cost of operating a Citadel is significantly less than the cost of fueling a tower 24x7 Nothing about a POS is "easy to move around" compared to a Citadel. from the dev blog "Modules: these are structure modules that fit into a structureGÇÖs high, medium and low slots. Similar to their ship module counterparts, they require powergrid and CPU to be properly fitted. Active modules also require capacitor, fuel, or both depending on the circumstances." its very possible that unless you have an unfitted citadel it will require fuel. Yes. As I noted Active modules. Much like your ship, modules are not active when they are not being used like firing guns or repairing ships. It's pretty clear that the fuel requirements for Citadels will be a magnitude less than POSes
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 353	Posted - 2015.10.29 15:35:38 - [20] - Quote Azahar Ortenegro wrote: Delt0r Garsk wrote: First off all a medium is more closely related to a large. By the time you have guns/jams and spares to online hardners etc. It is not that cheap. And we chew through fuel like no tomorrow. I always Leroy in a full freighter of fuel every time we have a high sec. Even at 7B for the large + probably 3-5B for a fit. Cost will not be a factor for us. The XL is out of our range. But then it suppose to be. As are outposts now. Also towers are going to be around for the better part of a year. At least. You can keep your towers for a while. That's my point. Outposts and Large POSes are replaced, not Small and Medium POSes. And for the two above you: deploying a Citadel takes 1 hour and you need a TI Industrial to move it around. Anchoring then onlining a small POS takes 15 minutes, and you can move it in a Blockade Runner. As a side note: I'm not talking for myself here. My alliance uses Large POSes, and we can afford several Citadels. But I often see temporary Small and Medium POSes in high and lowsec systems, and those guys will be kicked out of the Structure part of the game as CCP planned it. Kicked out? No. Playstyle affected? Possibly Really depends on how temporary your temporary claim is, but I would trade HOURS of POS anchoring, onlining and offlining guns and scooping structures for a 24 hour anchor time on a Citadel and the ability to simply fit things to it like a ship and then offline and scoop it when I'm done.