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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 29 post(s)
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2650	Posted - 2015.10.29 10:22:06 - [361] - Quote Do remember 50% of build costs drop, and 50% of the fitted modules drop also based on what we have been told. So on an XL Citadel that could be 40 Billion in loot just from build costs and modules. Is that not enough loot?
Azahar Ortenegro Astromechanica Maxima Astromechanica Federatis 58	Posted - 2015.10.29 11:59:28 - [362] - Quote 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."
Anize Oramara The Arch Dashing Dashers 488	Posted - 2015.10.29 12:19:12 - [363] - 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." The citadel comes with extra functionality and asset safety. Asset safety alone is worth the extra cost. You argument is not relevant. I also understand there will be additional structures released at a later date with different functionality that may be both cheaper and offer the functionality you're looking for. A guide to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1knVqZEH8qFY0eT44nMEFwcKd3t4PbgcZeuv58SVUxsI/edit?usp=sharing
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 352	Posted - 2015.10.29 12:20:40 - [364] - 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.
Azahar Ortenegro Astromechanica Maxima Astromechanica Federatis 58	Posted - 2015.10.29 12:33:33 - [365] - Quote 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.
Anize Oramara The Arch Dashing Dashers 488	Posted - 2015.10.29 12:41:13 - [366] - 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. Now you're just making stuff up, Unequipping (or presumably turning them off line like you would a ship module) would mean that the citadel is no longer using fuel. Apart from rigs(that are optional) you can unanchor and move around a citadel a LOT easier than a pos with all it's modules. Then you have all the advantages of small invulnerability window, asset safety, ability to dock ships, tethering, the offensive features, etc. It really feels like they're a bit too cheap but I'm not complaining ps. I lived in a wh for a long time. dealing with POS and POS modules was the single biggest PITA in the game. A guide to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1knVqZEH8qFY0eT44nMEFwcKd3t4PbgcZeuv58SVUxsI/edit?usp=sharing
Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 353	Posted - 2015.10.29 12:55:57 - [367] - 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.
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 474	Posted - 2015.10.29 13:57:38 - [368] - 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." 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. AKA the scientist. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
Azahar Ortenegro Astromechanica Maxima Astromechanica Federatis 58	Posted - 2015.10.29 14:59:32 - [369] - Quote 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.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 235	Posted - 2015.10.29 15:20:06 - [370] - Quote 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.

Obil Que Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance 353	Posted - 2015.10.29 15:31:19 - [371] - 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 - [372] - 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.
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 474	Posted - 2015.10.29 16:44:06 - [373] - Quote Obil Que wrote: 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 We don't know what the fuel cost of services are going to be. We just don't know how much fuel it will need. However if it does run of fuel a lot of things still work. Unlike a POS AKA the scientist. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
Xindi Kraid Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. 1078	Posted - 2015.10.29 17:54:07 - [374] - Quote So random ass question/comment. Does it seem at all (thematically) odd to anyone else that Citadels require service components like Station Factory or Station Reprocessing Center, but don't have those services without the appropriate service module? On the other hand, service modules don't require those components, just materials. So what, a station has 90% of what it needs to do something, but you have to build the other 10%? Excuse me while I find the world's largest "Batteries not included" Sign
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2224	Posted - 2015.10.29 18:01:06 - [375] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: So random ass question/comment. Does it seem at all (thematically) odd to anyone else that Citadels require service components like Station Factory or Station Reprocessing Center, but don't have those services without the appropriate service module? On the other hand, service modules don't require those components, just materials. So what, a station has 90% of what it needs to do something, but you have to build the other 10%? Excuse me while I find the world's largest "Batteries not included" Sign They're going to rename the components to remove all of those suggestive, completely-unrelated-to-the-structure's-function names. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Anize Oramara The Arch Dashing Dashers 489	Posted - 2015.10.29 18:23:26 - [376] - 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. This will be at least the 3rd time someone tells you this, probably more I haven't been keeping track, but there will be ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES that are not citadels that will be released before poses go away that will be smaller and do things we use small/medium posses for now. A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 613	Posted - 2015.10.29 19:43:21 - [377] - Quote I've been trying to figure out a reason to use a M Citadel, rather than a L or XL - and, save the minor savings in cost, I don't see much of any reason to ever do so, particularly in low or null space. Perhaps a M Citadel should have some advantage over the L and XL, at least, in low or null - such as the ability to fit a cloaking device (that would be fun), or simply be immune to directional scan (ie. needs to be found using combat probes)?
EvilweaselSA GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1187	Posted - 2015.10.29 19:45:58 - [378] - Quote Sizeof Void wrote: I've been trying to figure out a reason to use a M Citadel, rather than a L or XL - and, save the minor savings in cost, I don't see much of any reason to ever do so, particularly in low or null space. Perhaps a M Citadel should have some advantage over the L and XL, at least, in low or null - such as the ability to fit a cloaking device (that would be fun), or simply be immune to directional scan (ie. needs to be found using combat probes)? how on earth is "is 8.4b cheaper before rigs/mods" not a huge advantage when you're putting up a personal citadel for ratting or mining or the like
Azahar Ortenegro Astromechanica Maxima Astromechanica Federatis 58	Posted - 2015.10.29 19:52:47 - [379] - Quote Anize Oramara wrote: This will be at least the 3rd time someone tells you this, probably more I haven't been keeping track, but there will be ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES that are not citadels that will be released before poses go away that will be smaller and do things we use small/medium posses for now. Perhaps you should read the dev blogs and the FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mEbMx9xUXje3KH4AppvcjSSoALUVtVEaK6ZZ-zy2Lrs/edit?pli=1#heading=h.57i9vw9hyaaz I have read all the devblogs, thanks you. And as I have said several times already (reading the whole thread would be useful, I suggest you do it) nothing is said about those future structures having ship storage or fitting capabilities. According to the devblogs, those capabilities are what Citadels are for (with several improvements and some losses.), except that there's no Citadel fitting the sizes of Small and Medium POSes.
Xindi Kraid Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. 1078	Posted - 2015.10.29 19:59:01 - [380] - Quote Querns wrote: Xindi Kraid wrote: So random ass question/comment. Does it seem at all (thematically) odd to anyone else that Citadels require service components like Station Factory or Station Reprocessing Center, but don't have those services without the appropriate service module? On the other hand, service modules don't require those components, just materials. So what, a station has 90% of what it needs to do something, but you have to build the other 10%? Excuse me while I find the world's largest "Batteries not included" Sign They're going to rename the components to remove all of those suggestive, completely-unrelated-to-the-structure's-function names. Only mention of renaming I saw was that they would be called Structure X instead of Station X, but they SHOULD remove the suggestive names.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2224	Posted - 2015.10.29 20:06:59 - [381] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: Querns wrote: Xindi Kraid wrote: So random ass question/comment. Does it seem at all (thematically) odd to anyone else that Citadels require service components like Station Factory or Station Reprocessing Center, but don't have those services without the appropriate service module? On the other hand, service modules don't require those components, just materials. So what, a station has 90% of what it needs to do something, but you have to build the other 10%? Excuse me while I find the world's largest "Batteries not included" Sign They're going to rename the components to remove all of those suggestive, completely-unrelated-to-the-structure's-function names. Only mention of renaming I saw was that they would be called Structure X instead of Station X, but they SHOULD remove the suggestive names. I can't remember if it was a post on reddit or in this thread, but they said they'd be renaming the comps not only from Station -> Structure, but to remove things like "doomsday mount" and "baguette drying rack" from the names. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Capsups Requiem Knowledge Mortum Ravagers 37	Posted - 2015.10.29 20:09:44 - [382] - Quote CCP RedDawn mentioned in his post here that he wanted to make Data sites more profitable to run. With these new citadels, why don't we use the High-Tech trade goods that can drop from the data sites for production of the citadels and the other new structures? High-Tech Data Chip sounds like something you could use in a citadel, High-Tech Scanner is an obvious candidate for including in the new observatories, High-Tech Manufacturing Tools could easily fit in with the new industry structures while the High-Tech Small Arms could perhaps be used for the new modules that can be fit onto citadels. This could potentially increase the value of data sites immensely and suddenly there's a major demand for people doing exploration sites because there's always a demand for the new structures, just like there are for POS right now.
Balthizarr Unknown Skies Eve Engineering 7	Posted - 2015.10.29 23:05:04 - [383] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Balthizarr wrote: These are going to be MASSIVE floating stations, so not letting you walk around them one day... WIS has to be left for a future year and/or decade, when CCP has the funds they'd need to create detailed interior environments, with things to do inside, all without sacrificing ongoing development of the spaceship game. It probably needs to be a separate game, an expansion to Dust / Legion. EVE is spaceships. More it has a complete lack of compelling game play reasons to be done. Not a single thing people have suggested for it actually adds to gameplay, just pure fluff or in one or two cases pure griefing. Why does making "eve real" have to add gameplay???? These are meant to be our homes away from stations. So like stations where we can dock and walk around the captain quarters prison cell they gave us that doesn't add game play but instead adds alittle realism!!! As I said these are meant to be a new breed of structure's so why not one day make them the cornerstone of there wish to make eve real and one day allow players that want to leave there ship n walk round there homes, possibly furnish there new homes etc! I've played many online games that let you buy homes that you can furnish your own way, even games like GTA 5 online allows you to spend your hard earned cash on a place you call home n invite friends n corp mates into with next to no added game play but instead adding realism to the world you play in! CCP have done an outstanding job of improving eve with new ships and a visually stunning universes after alot of players spat their dummies out over the walking in station expansion so why not stop crying everytime anyone who loved the idea of the walking in station expansion mentions leaving our ships and if its possible to give us alittle of what was proposed in the walking in station expansion allow CCP to do it!!! Oh n my question was put out to ask a dev (assuming they have time to reply) about possible future add-ons to citadels so if your not a dev and nothing more than a player like me who knows only what CCP tell us, keep your empty unimportant opinion to your self seeing as your not anyone that can affectively answer my question!!!
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2650	Posted - 2015.10.29 23:18:50 - [384] - Quote Balthizarr wrote: Oh n my question was put out to ask a dev (assuming they have time to reply) about possible future add-ons to citadels so if your not a dev and nothing more than a player like me who knows only what CCP tell us, keep your empty unimportant opinion to your self seeing as your not anyone that can affectively answer my question!!! Because anything on EVE takes Dev time away from other features. So if you want WiS, work out some real compelling gameplay reasons for WiS in Citadels to actually be important. And if you don't want other peoples input, write it on a piece of paper next to your computer, don't post it in a public discussion thread.
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1648	Posted - 2015.10.30 11:36:06 - [385] - Quote Have few questions and "doubts" about the citadels ... ... tethering effectively means, you are safe on undock and can safely escape to and arrive from warp (bubbles aside); nobody can force you to fight or interact with an invading force, no room for exploiting piloting mistakes, right? ... as Citadels are about to replace not only POSs but also (player) stations, this will drastically reduce options to fight for smaller gangs not able to reinforce the Citadel itself and capable to operate multiple siege events ... also the powerful Citadel weaponry will make it impossible for smaller groups to even stay in range of hostile stations, right? ... Wormholes, today you can shoot down SMAs (everywhere, not only in WH) for loot on an inactive tower pretty easily solo, with the Citadels you always need a multi-stage siege fleet ... this again drastically reduced conflict potential. So is the desired goal of the new mechanics to make Null, Low and WH much much safer for the defender than today? Because this is, what I read from the blogs and don't like ... I'm my own NPC alt.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2224	Posted - 2015.10.30 11:42:41 - [386] - Quote Tipa Riot wrote: Have few questions and "doubts" about the citadels ... ... tethering effectively means, you are safe on undock and can safely escape to and arrive from warp (bubbles aside); nobody can force you to fight or interact with an invading force, no room for exploiting piloting mistakes, right? ... as Citadels are about to replace not only POSs but also (player) stations, this will drastically reduce options to fight for smaller gangs not able to reinforce the Citadel itself and capable to operate multiple siege events ... also the powerful Citadel weaponry will make it impossible for smaller groups to even stay in range of hostile stations, right? ... Wormholes, today you can shoot down SMAs (everywhere, not only in WH) for loot on an inactive tower pretty easily solo, with the Citadels you always need a multi-stage siege fleet ... this again drastically reduced conflict potential. So is the desired goal of the new mechanics to make Null, Low and WH much much safer for the defender than today? Because this is, what I read from the blogs and don't like ... Dear god, man, you're burning through the ellipsis quota at an alarming rate. Save some for the rest of us! How is tethering any different than the undock invulnerability timer, or using an instadock, or a POS shield? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1648	Posted - 2015.10.30 12:26:03 - [387] - Quote Querns wrote: How is tethering any different than the undock invulnerability timer, or using an instadock, or a POS shield? Invuln timer is 30s and can be broken by piloting error, tethering is infinite and fool proof. Instadock spots are open to piloting errors too, tethering means warp to 0 and you are safe (except bubble, but those don't exist in low). Yes, it's more like POS shields, but those are not the default home for most of the people today. I'm my own NPC alt.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2224	Posted - 2015.10.30 12:39:18 - [388] - Quote Tipa Riot wrote: Querns wrote: How is tethering any different than the undock invulnerability timer, or using an instadock, or a POS shield? Invuln timer is 30s and can be broken by piloting error, tethering is infinite and fool proof. Instadock spots are open to piloting errors too, tethering means warp to 0 and you are safe (except bubble, but those don't exist in low). Yes, it's more like POS shields, but those are not the default home for most of the people today. Tethering can be broken by pilot error, too. It deactivates if you accrue a weapons timer, and if you fly out of range. I fail to see how an instadock is open to piloting error. You warp to the bookmark at zero, you dock. You can even engage autopilot in the middle of the warp to make the server forcibly dock you without any interaction on your part. The only difference between being in dock range of a station and being in tethering range is that in the case of a station, you have to hold down the D key and click on the station in order to activate the safety part. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Pine Marten Eight Legged Freaky Starfighters 96	Posted - 2015.10.30 14:26:35 - [389] - Quote Why has the design decision been made to make every station look the same?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2224	Posted - 2015.10.30 14:29:14 - [390] - Quote Pine Marten wrote: Why has the design decision been made to make every station look the same? Citadels aren't the only new station-replacement structures being added. They're just the first. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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