EVE Search - Sticky:[New Structures] Condensed thread

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[New Structures] Condensed thread

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 67	Posted - 2016.03.26 17:18:18 - [1] - Quote I'm not sure I recall seeing it specifically mentioned..... But can you engage targets in range from a Citadel outside it's vulnerability window? ie - can a Citadel's weapons be used offensively? I suspect not - but would suggest that we can - but with a penalty: - if you use a Citadel aggressively, then an immediate 3 hr vulnerability period commences It seems rather silly to have a Citadel that looks and feels like an other wise normal ship when you sit in it, but can't then use it/them if a battle is occurring on grid with you. However, it would be wrong to be able to engage with it, if it cannot be shot in return. Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 68	Posted - 2016.04.22 11:01:00 - [2] - Quote Glendalee wrote: I just read this saying that the cost of the BPO's for the citadels took a huge jump. The costs are now: 6B, 70b, and 1200b respectively. Is that true? http://i.imgur.com/ysVsc23.png Thanks, Glendalee The last, that for the Keepstar, has gone up - just as the price for the base hull it builds has also gone up - the other two have remained the same. Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 68	Posted - 2016.04.22 14:30:32 - [3] - Quote Crashys wrote: Question: What will happen to the existing Outposts?? One day, in the not yet defined future, it has been suggested that Stations in Conquerable Null (ie the Outposts that were/are player deployed) will become destructible - or could simply be removed. Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 68	Posted - 2016.04.22 14:54:26 - [4] - Quote Crashys wrote: Marcus Tedric wrote: Crashys wrote: Question: What will happen to the existing Outposts?? One day, in the not yet defined future, it has been suggested that Stations in Conquerable Null (ie the Outposts that were/are player deployed) will become destructible - or could simply be removed. So this mean that all the costs done to produce those assets is removed from the game?? Strange call... but i guess it's like that. Well - when I say 'removed' - that doesn't mean that CCP might not do some sort of refund like they are planning with POS. They could, potentially, try a repalcement - but that would be tricky given the lack of one-to-one comparability. Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 69	Posted - 2016.05.04 21:23:39 - [5] - Quote Alexander Otium wrote: I have been saying this stuff for weeks now and everyone kept brushing it off. Citadels are not cost effective as a defensive asset and require a boost to their damage, particularly the bombs (including the neutbomb, its application is too weak). It should be at least as expensive to destroy a defensive asset in a pitched battle as it is to construct the defensive asset. That's my opinion on how expensive or difficult it should be to destroy a Citadel. Perhaps the long recognised general rules of war should be applied.... That a minor fortification needs a 3:1 ratio of attacker to defender to guarantee success and a major fortification 5:1 - with the attacker expecting to take not dissimilar losses. Ergo - a properly managed and setup Medium Citadel (worth 1b for example) would be expected to kill 3b in ships - a 180b XL then would normally kill some ~900b of ships. Citadels, the structure(s) designed for defence, would be completely killable - but would require the attacking fleet to commit and take losses. Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 69	Posted - 2016.05.05 11:19:35 - [6] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ......................... because large established groups should be invincible to new smaller ones Then you should absolutely re-think your rather biased point of view..... For the current situation means that 'smaller groups' have little to no chance against the 'larger established groups'. For if the smaller manages the not inconsiderable feat of establishing its own base, then the larger can really easily blow it up. Don't be silly and just look at my affiliation - read what is written instead Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 70	Posted - 2016.05.07 21:46:36 - [7] - Quote Nikolai Mazinkov wrote: ....................... Also, I couldn't find in here or elsewhere if there is a standings-based docking system or if you can't dock at a citadel if you are at war with the owner, anyone know? You can set up discrete access groups, which can be from an individual to whole groups. I've not yet tried this myself, but I think you can even deny all your enemy's Corps and Alliances and still even let individual bad guys in if you so wished..... Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 86	Posted - 2016.09.13 17:00:34 - [8] - Quote Kenneth Fritz wrote: .................. Perhaps I am simply not looking in the right places. If so I hope someone can point me in the right direction. ............. No, you haven't missed anything - the most 'exciting' thing recently has been the change from 'Industrial Array' to 'Engineering Complex'. We don't even know whether there'll be 3 (M, L, XL) or just one - with rather weak defences....... Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 86	Posted - 2016.09.15 18:33:57 - [9] - Quote TheSmokingHertog wrote: Is this no longer accurate? > http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structure_ISIS5-01.png I honestly don't know - but must admit that's the first time I really looked at the detail in that picture. That the L & XL can be 'entozzled' - many, many unhappy people cried out in the night...... Was really hoping that entozzling was going to be confined to TCUs only within the year....... Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium

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.