EVE Search - Sticky:[New Structures] Condensed thread

Check My IP Information

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 [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)

CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 4379	Posted - 2015.10.28 14:09:16 - [1] - Quote I'm going to unpin the other structures threads and link them all here as we are running out of space in this forum subsection. You may find the threads there: Mooring and docking Item safety mechanics on structure destruction Market Hubs and Drilling Platforms Assembly Arrays and Research Laboratories Observatory Arrays and Gates Administration Hubs and Advertisement Centers

Dato Koppla Kiwis In Space No Points Necessary 905	Posted - 2015.10.28 14:46:08 - [2] - Quote Nothing to say really, just wanted to be first.
Aivlis Eldelbar Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Curatores Veritatis Alliance 131	Posted - 2015.10.28 15:10:08 - [3] - Quote It would help to know what has CCP taken on board and what not from those threads. Some of them haven't seen a blue post since their creation.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 894	Posted - 2015.10.28 15:17:21 - [4] - Quote I believe that is why CCP Ytterbium created this one. From what I saw in the Vegas Keynote I am actually excited about the citadels. However I am not really fond of the w-space treatment. Feels like wormholers are second or third class citizens of New Eden - the unknown. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 615	Posted - 2015.10.28 15:39:13 - [5] - Quote For a moment i thought this said "condecending thread" and found it very odd that it was stickied. Anyway, yay for more slots on first page. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 4380	Posted - 2015.10.28 15:41:09 - [6] - Quote Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: It would help to know what has CCP taken on board and what not from those threads. Some of them haven't seen a blue post since their creation. Yep, I'm working on that right now


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance 4380	Posted - 2015.10.28 15:56:03 - [7] - Quote Alright, to recap where we're at with this. Tethering: Going to be renamed tethering instead of mooring (mooring is confusing for various reasons). As long as within some specific range of the structure and do not have weapons timer, you ship is tethered, meaning it cannot receive damage or be locked. You can align and move within the specified tethering range and still be protected, as long as you do not go outside the maximum range. You will not be able to tether to the structure if you are warp scrambled from a targeted module (HIC point, regular warp scrambling modules). You will be able to tether to the structure if you are within an AoE warp scramble bubble (HIC AoE bubble, interdictor bubble). Of course you will not be able to warp away however. This is to prevent people from being caught their pants down when logging back on near a structure. Tethering will be shown in the UI and visually in space. We are investigating options to minimize bumping when you are tethered. If your ship has access to dock into the structure it can use tethering. This doesn't mean you ship can dock however. For instance, you may have access to dock into a Medium Citadel as a Titan pilot, but you still are unable to dock. Your Titan will still be tethered when in range of the structure. If you log off you do not stay in space near the structure, you log off as you normally would (which is why calling this feature "mooring" is confusing). If you leave your active ship the tether will not protect the ship left behind and will tether to your capsule. Docking Medium Citadels: all subcapitals can dock. The Orca and Freighters can also dock. Large Citadels: all capitals can dock. This includes the Rorqual. X-Large Citadels: all ships can dock. There are different docking bays depending if you are in a subcapital, capital or supercapital. Depending on the structure, there may be more than one of each. You cannot choose which one to undock from (for now at least). There is no station interior. When you dock the scene is centered around the structure. Some information may be hidden (like the overview or ship modules) since technically you are not in a ship anymore. Since you're tethered it's easy to undock and then dock back up to get this information back. Defense Assuming direct control of the structure brings the overview and structure modules up, since you are now manning its defenses. We're going to require proper user groups to assume direct control. They'll provide more flexibility than roles since groups can be defined for people outside your corporation or alliance. They'll have admins and managers, more on that on the item safety thread. You'll be able to set up groups to kick people out when assuming direct control - just in case that nasty spy is shooting on your own ships during a fleet battle. You won't need to train Starbase Defense Management to assume direct control. One player will control all defenses at once. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be removed (and reimbursed) or properly refurbished when we remove Starbases. New structures will not have automated defenses. Rest of the defense mechanics are explained there. Assets & Asset safety: All citadels have infinite personal and corporation hangar capacity to fulfill their defense and housing role. This may not be the case for all the future structures however. All citadels have asset safety feature. When it is destroyed, all assets are impounded. When impounded, players have to wait a minimum amount of time before being able to access them again. There are 2 ways to recover impounded assets: Deliver to the same solar system: assets can be delivered locally if there are NPC stations or Citadels in the same solar system. Players will have to wait a minimum of 5 days before being able to deliver them. Deliver to another solar system: players will have to pay 15% of the total item value and wait a minimum of 20 days before being able to deliver them. Players cannot choose destination in that case. It will always be the top station in the closest low-security system if the destroyed Citadel was in null or low-security space. If the Citadel was in high-security space, it will be the closest high-security solar system. If there is a NPC station in the same solar system as the destroyed Citadel in high-security or low-security space this option is not available. Further information on asset safety: The timer starts counting down as soon as the structure is destroyed, no button needs to be pressed. This ensure players with lapsing accounts do not need to wait the full duration when coming back into the game. We will automatically move items if no choice is set after 20 days. If there is a NPC station in the solar system, we will move them there. If there aren't, we will move them as discussed in option 2 above. This avoids players to build local ship caches in a null-security system that cannot be removed. In case of remote delivery, the payment can be done on a one item basis for players not having enough cash to pay for the whole fee at once. Current plan is to move capitals and supercapitals as well, so yes they can go to low-security NPC stations. Citadels in wormhole spaces do not benefit from asset safety. All items are lost when the structure is destroyed there.

Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3682	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:07:09 - [8] - Quote One thing I have not been able to find about citadels: How and what happens when you take them down. I don't mean destroy, I mean off-line, unanchor and scoop. It does not seem to be well covered in any blog or thread. (Just that during unanchoring, it is vulnerable). What are the steps I would go through as the owner to take down my citadel? How long does it take? Is the time different for different size structures, or different parts of space? What happens to the modules, services, and rigs? What happens to corp and player assets still in the citadel? What happens to items on the market? What happens to jobs in progress or in the queue? Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1408	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:09:12 - [9] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: I'm going to unpin the other structures threads and link them all here as we are running out of space in this forum subsection. I'm not quite sure why, but I lol'd. Time to trim the fat? http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Anthar Thebess 1363	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:21:09 - [10] - Quote [posting] Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.

Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance 201	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:23:26 - [11] - Quote Quote: There is no station interior. So does this mean the captain's quarters is going bye-bye?
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 309	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:30:49 - [12] - Quote BPO's Are Outpost component BPO's being renamed and we keep research or Will all the BPO's be new and bought at XX date and we have to research them all? When will the new BPO's be available?
Sal Askiras Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:40:51 - [13] - Quote Murkar Omaristos wrote: Quote: There is no station interior. So does this mean the captain's quarters is going bye-bye? This just applies to Citadels. I imagine that NPC stations will still have captain's quarters (and they will still be pointless and useless)
Dutow Sa Ragnar Mining Inc. 2	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:43:40 - [14] - Quote I have a question about anchoring not answered yet in a previous thread: From the Siege V2 blog, anchoring: Quote: 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 This means that the structure won't be usable for 24 hours will be limited in the first 24 hours, some features working, some not (for example, I don't see a required module/rig for docking) will be fully usable even during the first 24 hours ? To clarify it: based on existing structures the first answer is correct, but either choice results in different mechanics than currently. When POSes will be removed (I don't know, if it will be the same date, or later?), a 24 hour long unusable timer will make currently used rapid deployment situations impossible. This includes bigger schemes like attacking null systems, and smaller ones like lowsec mining ops. Also, if we are speaking about mining ops, what about the rorqual, and other fleet support ships, and tethering, will they be able to do it, or not? And +1 for the recent item safety mechanics: Quote: We will automatically move items if no choice is set after 20 days. If there is a NPC station in the solar system, we will move them there. If there aren't, we will move them as discussed in option 2 above. This avoids players to build local ship caches in a null-security system that cannot be removed. But I will still have to pay for them in case of remote delivery, right? So I don't have to pay for the choice, but for accessing a given item.
Swiftstrike1 Swiftstrike Incorporated 888	Posted - 2015.10.28 17:39:12 - [15] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: I'm going to unpin the other structures threads and link them all here as we are running out of space in this forum subsection. Thank you! Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Boson Dubstep Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society Psychotic Tendencies. 8	Posted - 2015.10.28 18:01:19 - [16] - Quote There are a couple of major issues with the citadels feature as I see it. 1) One of the most eagerly anticipated functions of citadels is the ability to dock supercaps in them. By limiting the ability to dock supers in anything but an XL CCP is limiting access to this awesome feature to a extremely select group of individuals, the namely the CFC. By limiting the ability to dock to only the largest, and most inaccessable features, the majority of supers are still going to be coffins for their pilots. CCP should allow the docking of supers in large citadels, as well as extra larges, perhaps limiting the total number titans and supers docked, or some other mechanic. 2) By getting rid of the reinforcement timer, CCP is (unintentionally) encouraging people to not login. Let me explain... I decide I just can't live without the QQY-JR Dyspro. My alliance is USTZ. The defending alliance is an AUTZ alliance. They set all of their vulns to prime AUTZ. I now must commit to at least two AUTZ ops to win the event. None of their players even bother logging in outside of AUTZ, as they know that nobody can ** with their outsize of a set block of hours. Current system: They have their POS stronted for 36 hours, so that if I reinforce their ** in USTZ, I will have an AUTZ timer. Although I need to fight the defenders on their own terms to win the timer, I can reinforce it Thursday night in ustz, and use the weekend surge of people to make the autz timer. Everyone knows when the fight is gunna happen, and can plan their social life accordingly around it, which leads me to... 3)Many people are concerned how the introduction of citadels on tranquility will impact their ability to move their supers, especially once CCP starts to phase out POS. How this will impact someone who was on vacation or away from the game for a supermove op, and now has to make his way through the galaxy alone? With the Poebe changes, what previously was a minor hassle is now one of the most challenging tasks you could possibly take on in eve. When people from the largest and most experienced supercap-capable alliances would rather unsub an account for 6 months and petition CCP for a move, then move 5 mids across eve, it makes me wonder if CCP dev's actually spend much time in supers on the live server, (and in the event that they do, if they have had the pleasure moving their super across new eden, which all but one group have now done multiple times.) This issue will be only exacerbated by the new structure changes, making an incredibly tedious activity (solo moving supers) even less rewarding.
Dreldor Local-Spike Unforgiving. 15	Posted - 2015.10.28 18:57:29 - [17] - Quote Looking at the build layout for the Citadel structures it seems that a Medium Citadel does not require components for: Station Factory Station Laboratory Station Mission Network Station Reprocessing Plant Structure Telescope Lens Structure Acceleration Coils Structure Advertisement Nexus Does that mean that manufacturing, science, reprocessing etc are not available in a Medium Citadel?
Xeator soldiers.fi 62	Posted - 2015.10.28 20:13:48 - [18] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: There is no station interior. When you dock the scene is centered around the structure. Some information may be hidden (like the overview or ship modules) since technically you are not in a ship anymore. Since you're tethered it's easy to undock and then dock back up to get this information back. So is there no interior only when tethered? Do normal subcaps still dock and get an interior? Why not expand this sort of system to all stations though? With 3 modes, the current hangar view, captains quarters and an in space view? One of the most annoying things when docked is that you have no idea what is happening outside. So I guess having no interior lets you see whats happening outside then?
Vyle Feelings Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous 9	Posted - 2015.10.28 21:03:13 - [19] - Quote What is the reason behind the lengthy delay in being able to retrieve impounded assets? Seems like this may discourage players from keeping all of their items in their home citadel. I know I'd be pretty miffed if I found out that my stuff was all tied up for 20 days while I wait for it to be delivered. You've already just lost your citadel, and now you can't even use your assets to rat/PvP/whatever to blow off steam. Are there any plans to improve on the docking radius of stations to eliminate "kick" stations (station with very small dock radius such that shortly after undocking you are unable to dock again)? With these changes it's inevitable that someone's stuff is going to end up in a kick station in low or nullsec. It's not an insurmountable issue, but it'll make logistics out of an "impound station" a lot harder for people if that station is a kick, especially if its in a high traffic system. Seems a bit like kicking someone who's already down since they not only have to wait for the items, pay for them, but also then move them out of that station somehow.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 309	Posted - 2015.10.28 21:22:16 - [20] - Quote Vyle Feelings wrote: What is the reason behind the lengthy delay in being able to retrieve impounded assets? Seems like this may discourage players from keeping all of their items in their home citadel. I know I'd be pretty miffed if I found out that my stuff was all tied up for 20 days while I wait for it to be delivered. You've already just lost your citadel, and now you can't even use your assets to rat/PvP/whatever to blow off steam. Are there any plans to improve on the docking radius of stations to eliminate "kick" stations (station with very small dock radius such that shortly after undocking you are unable to dock again)? With these changes it's inevitable that someone's stuff is going to end up in a kick station in low or nullsec. It's not an insurmountable issue, but it'll make logistics out of an "impound station" a lot harder for people if that station is a kick, especially if its in a high traffic system. Seems a bit like kicking someone who's already down since they not only have to wait for the items, pay for them, but also then move them out of that station somehow. Kick wont' exist, you undock and are tethered for eternity until you do something to lose tethering

Niraia Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory. 375	Posted - 2015.10.28 21:55:12 - [21] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Current plan is to move capitals and supercapitals as well, so yes they can go to low-security NPC stations. Does this mean they can be insured? Niraia EVE Online Hold'Em
klana depp Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion 1	Posted - 2015.10.28 22:24:47 - [22] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Kick wont' exist, you undock and are tethered for eternity until you do something to lose tethering wait what, tethering is for normal stations as well? i thought it was citadel only?
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 309	Posted - 2015.10.28 22:34:15 - [23] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: One thing I have not been able to find about citadels: How and what happens when you take them down. I don't mean destroy, I mean off-line, unanchor and scoop. It does not seem to be well covered in any blog or thread. (Just that during unanchoring, it is vulnerable). What are the steps I would go through as the owner to take down my citadel? How long does it take? Is the time different for different size structures, or different parts of space? What happens to the modules, services, and rigs? What happens to corp and player assets still in the citadel? What happens to items on the market? What happens to jobs in progress or in the queue? right click - unanchor 24 hours - all sizes for now all stay as is - rigs die if you repackage asset recover kicks in market items go to personal or corp hangar PRIOR to asset recovery kicking in Jobs are killed, 99% sure inputs die
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 309	Posted - 2015.10.28 22:35:40 - [24] - Quote klana depp wrote: Kenneth Feld wrote: Kick wont' exist, you undock and are tethered for eternity until you do something to lose tethering wait what, tethering is for normal stations as well? i thought it was citadel only? yeah, i clicked wrong quote box.... I suggest if it happens to you, you scout the location heavily before undocking anything important
Boson Dubstep Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society Psychotic Tendencies. 8	Posted - 2015.10.29 01:30:21 - [25] - Quote Niraia wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: . Does this mean they can be insured? CCP will realize soon enough or has already realized that with their current proposed changes to supers, the only way to offset the increased risk the changes bring is to implement this.
MeBiatch GRR GOONS 2103	Posted - 2015.10.29 02:55:38 - [26] - Quote Just add the ability to semi to fully dock... semi dock is the mechanic as proposed. fully dock is the standard interior dock that allows the current system... CCP please ask yourself how many times has removing existing functionality worked well for you guys? I think the idea of semi docked being able to see whats outside of the citadel is awesome... but please let me fully dock if i want :) There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote: Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
helana Tsero Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 227	Posted - 2015.10.29 06:27:14 - [27] - Quote CCP I would like the Captain Quarters in the citadels. and the following features in it. - the scope videos of current ingame activities available on the screens. - a fish tank and other cosmetic items (to be available from the store) Wish list - room to display the heads of significant players my pvp character has killed - room to display small trophy's of ingame achievements. to all haters.. I just want to say.... I love you all. "... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á \| zoonr-Korsairs \|-á QFT !
Janeway84 Def Squadron Pride Before Fall 178	Posted - 2015.10.29 08:33:08 - [28] - Quote wishlist, please make it so mediums can hold 1 or 2 capitals other than orca , rorqual. Not every alliance got hundreds of billions of isk in their wallets.
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2090	Posted - 2015.10.29 09:12:36 - [29] - Quote Just a quick question concerning what is known as the pos "r@pe cage" for wormhole space evictions... During a eviction, it is common practice to put warp disruption bubbles around pos to prevent the residents from escaping. Before this can happen, the defences must be incapacitated so that the bubbles don't get destroyed. After this is don and the bubbles are up, so long process of reinforcing the pos. Since guns are going to be attached to the citadel, I'm assuming that the guns will become incapacitated once the citadel is reinforced. So my question is, will it take more or less time to erect a "r@pe cage" around a citadel, than it would around a POS? The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Lim Hiaret Hiaret Family 55	Posted - 2015.10.29 09:28:12 - [30] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Citadels in wormhole spaces do not benefit from asset safety. All items are lost when the structure is destroyed there. I'm fine with the term destroyed, but don't let it drop as loot. Otherwise WH citadels will get far more attention than citadels elsewhere. Besides, people would trash everything anyways.

Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2090	Posted - 2015.10.29 09:32:13 - [31] - Quote Lim Hiaret wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Citadels in wormhole spaces do not benefit from asset safety. All items are lost when the structure is destroyed there. I'm fine with the term destroyed, but don't let it drop as loot. Otherwise WH citadels will get far more attention than citadels elsewhere. Besides, people would trash everything anyways. This is the way it works now and the way it should remain. Personally I think there should be a way to limit destroying your own stuff during an eviction. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Dutow Sa Ragnar Mining Inc. 2	Posted - 2015.10.29 10:00:51 - [32] - Quote Lim Hiaret wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Citadels in wormhole spaces do not benefit from asset safety. All items are lost when the structure is destroyed there. I'm fine with the term destroyed, but don't let it drop as loot. Otherwise WH citadels will get far more attention than citadels elsewhere. Besides, people would trash everything anyways. I'm not sure if it's relevant, if we can evacuate our items after the citadel is reinforced (with it's shield layer) You can just anchor two medium citadels, and set one attack window at Monday 12-15 evetime, and the other Thursday 24:00-03:00. Who will be online to attack both? Not small corps, for sure.
DoToo Foo Setenta Corp AL3XAND3R. 53	Posted - 2015.10.29 10:26:54 - [33] - Quote Quote: You won't need to train Starbase Defense Management to assume direct control. One player will control all defenses at once. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be removed (and reimbursed) or properly refurbished when we remove Starbases. I actually like needing skills to use fixed guns. Despite having skillpoints on multiple characters that I will have re-gifted to me, I would rather a use for SDM be found. If not a 'number of guns' skill, then maybe an increased effectiveness per skillpoint. CCP will by now have an idea of DPS (or equivalent for ECM etc) a given structure should be able to do. Drop that by some and then give a per skillpoint bonus. Alternatively, SDM level 1 gives access to basic citadel guns, 3 to ewar and 5 to tech 2. If CCP insists on refunding skillpoints, I will take them. I am just not sure I see the need.
Kendarr Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 55	Posted - 2015.10.29 11:19:54 - [34] - Quote So when you undock, your are automaticly tethered? If this is the case what happened to the "if you are scrammed you cannot dock to stop docking games?" Zebra-Corp
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 309	Posted - 2015.10.29 11:38:28 - [35] - Quote Janeway84 wrote: wishlist, please make it so mediums can hold 1 or 2 capitals other than orca , rorqual. Not every alliance got hundreds of billions of isk in their wallets. Why do they have to dock, why is tethering not good enough?? You do know you can tether a Titan to a medium with no issues right??
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 309	Posted - 2015.10.29 11:40:15 - [36] - Quote Kendarr wrote: So when you undock, your are automaticly tethered? If this is the case what happened to the "if you are scrammed you cannot dock to stop docking games?" Both cases are 100% correct Where you are confused is aggressing If you undock, stay tethered and do anything to agress or get a weapons timer, you are un tethered, and typically someone would wait out the 60 sec timer and redock, well now if you are scrammed, that timer doesn't matter you are there until one ship is destroyed.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 309	Posted - 2015.10.29 11:43:23 - [37] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Lim Hiaret wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Citadels in wormhole spaces do not benefit from asset safety. All items are lost when the structure is destroyed there. I'm fine with the term destroyed, but don't let it drop as loot. Otherwise WH citadels will get far more attention than citadels elsewhere. Besides, people would trash everything anyways. This is the way it works now and the way it should remain. Personally I think there should be a way to limit destroying your own stuff during an eviction. There is: The plan is to try and implement this: Once the citadel is attacked the right click -> trash it feature will cease to function In order to get rid of assets, someone will have to get in a ship and undock, then self destruct, which leaves them wide open to being shot That was the plan that has been talked about, they are still trying to work out feasibility
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 309	Posted - 2015.10.29 11:44:40 - [38] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Just a quick question concerning what is known as the pos "r@pe cage" for wormhole space evictions... During a eviction, it is common practice to put warp disruption bubbles around pos to prevent the residents from escaping. Before this can happen, the defences must be incapacitated so that the bubbles don't get destroyed. After this is done and the bubbles are up, the long process of reinforcing the pos can begin. Since guns are going to be attached to the citadel, I'm assuming that the guns will become incapacitated once the citadel is reinforced. This means that both guns and the citadel will be attacked at the same time, as opposed to the current system... So my question is, will it take more or less time to erect a "r@pe cage" around a citadel, than it would around a POS? Much longer as the citadel is much much much much larger than a pos
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2090	Posted - 2015.10.29 11:58:24 - [39] - Quote Informative as always Kenneth, Thanks... By "much larger" I assume you mean more hit points than the pos shields (before RF) and guns combined. On the self destruct thing, do you know if citadel mooring/tethering feature will be disabled as soon at you start self destructing? The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 309	Posted - 2015.10.29 15:24:31 - [40] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Informative as always Kenneth, Thanks... By "much larger" I assume you mean more hit points than the pos shields (before RF) and guns combined. On the self destruct thing, do you know if citadel mooring/tethering feature will be disabled as soon at you start self destructing? By much larger I mean 150km across for a XL, you can probably bubble the undock, but not even sure you could bubble the whole thing. Someone can undock and stay tethered and mwd around and find an opening in the bubbles AFAIK, when people were talking about SD in WH they made it sound like you could be shot, so I assumed tethering would break, but I can ask to make sure, if not maybe someone who is positive will answer here.

Anthar Thebess 1364	Posted - 2015.10.29 15:57:55 - [41] - Quote Can medium citadels get ability to store limited, and small number of capitals. Currently you can leave in a small tower capital floating under a forcefield , this will probably be not possible in citadels. This gets us from position where investing 100 mil in a small tower allows you to keep somewhere a capital "safe" to a position , that you can do the same investing a 7bil in a large citadel. This will kill smaller groups operations. Giving Medium citadel ability to dock 1-2 capitals could ease small corporations, including WH ones. This ships can be even visible on the citadel structure , so every one will know what ships are docked, or if he can dock another. CCP change from 100mil to 7bil investment , just to keep 1 capital safe is quite big change. For big alliances ability to dock 1-2 capitals to medium citadel will not change much. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 309	Posted - 2015.10.29 16:05:40 - [42] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Can medium citadels get ability to store limited, and small number of capitals. Currently you can leave in a small tower capital floating under a forcefield , this will probably be not possible in citadels. This gets us from position where investing 100 mil in a small tower allows you to keep somewhere a capital "safe" to a position , that you can do the same investing a 7bil in a large citadel. This will kill smaller groups operations. Giving Medium citadel ability to dock 1-2 capitals could ease small corporations, including WH ones. This ships can be even visible on the citadel structure , so every one will know what ships are docked, or if he can dock another. CCP change from 100mil to 7bil investment , just to keep 1 capital safe is quite big change. For big alliances ability to dock 1-2 capitals to medium citadel will not change much. Why do you NEED to dock those capitals? Why is tethering not enough? You can tether up to Titans at a medium
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 474	Posted - 2015.10.29 16:47:20 - [43] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Can medium citadels get ability to store limited, and small number of capitals. Currently you can leave in a small tower capital floating under a forcefield , this will probably be not possible in citadels. This gets us from position where investing 100 mil in a small tower allows you to keep somewhere a capital "safe" to a position , that you can do the same investing a 7bil in a large citadel. This will kill smaller groups operations. Giving Medium citadel ability to dock 1-2 capitals could ease small corporations, including WH ones. This ships can be even visible on the citadel structure , so every one will know what ships are docked, or if he can dock another. CCP change from 100mil to 7bil investment , just to keep 1 capital safe is quite big change. For big alliances ability to dock 1-2 capitals to medium citadel will not change much. If you have capitols, where a very cheap Niggy is like what? 1.5-2B. Dreads start at 2.5B. I mean you got that sort of ISK you can afford the better protection of docking. 7B seams fine. AKA the scientist. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
Terra Chrall Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 56	Posted - 2015.10.29 17:47:27 - [44] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Proper recap of everything we've said so far tied to this. Further information on asset safety: Citadels in wormhole spaces do not benefit from asset safety. All items are lost when the structure is destroyed there. I'm okay with this, though it seems an odd disadvantage over say NULL sec. Of course I understand the increased difficulty for logistical movement of sufficient forces into a WH. I just think it odd that there was no in between of all assets are safe verse all are open to loot. For instance could WH Citadels have 2 classes of personal hangars, 1 unlimited in size and vulnerable to drop everything. And a second smaller one 50-100km3 that would work with a safe asset mechanic? (Edit: to prevent exploiting alts, have a cap based on the size of the structure) My contention is since the risk will be greater there should be advantages so that the risk reward model holds up. Also there was discussion in another thread of trying to keep these engagements to no more than 48 hours. For smaller WH groups this seems to increase the risk even more as they may not have time to stage an evac of their home. WH life is unique and I am all for keeping things that way, including a higher level of risk. But please keep risks vs rewards in mind for those of us that choose to dwell in the holes and new game features..
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 17	Posted - 2015.10.29 18:55:59 - [45] - Quote Murkar Omaristos wrote: Quote: There is no station interior. So does this mean the captain's quarters is going bye-bye? Lame. Sometimes its nice to sit there. Especially if you managing stuff while in station and your not in the mood to ship spin. I was actually looking foward to them opening up stations. WIth dust/ the new stuff coming out(eventually). It opens up some cool things. That and it just me be cool to be able to walk down to an automated hanger and use my character to go to a console to "fit my ship". This would be a cool thing for citadels too.. I don't really see the point in making the larger ones soo expendable. This is just going to open up the possibility of large BLOC's blowing them up just because they want to move their capitol fleet and get big kill mails. "They wouldn't do that. People don't just grief people in eve for the sake of greifing". Not everyone, but this is going to happen. There is no reason for sov expansion as it stands, so just to mess with people, They are going to blow up your XL or L citadels. There's a good amount of alliances that could do this. At least with the outposts, it mixed it up with the entosis. Personally I think it would be better as a mixture, where you need the entosis to flip a station, but you still need the damage dealers there to force into low end structure.
Lt Shard All-Out White Stag Exit Bag 56	Posted - 2015.10.29 21:05:25 - [46] - Quote Please consider removing assets recovery entirely or making a large portion not make it onto the recovery. That or add it back onto wormholes and stop handholding kspace and ******* us in the ass. thanks
Xindi Kraid Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. 1078	Posted - 2015.10.30 03:59:47 - [47] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: I'm going to unpin the other structures threads and link them all here as we are running out of space in this forum subsection. Well last dev post in any of them WAS some months ago. Any idea when we might hear any more thoughts on specialized structures? Hopefully you are thinking where to go next before citadels launch, so you can roll new stuff out without too much delay === I am wondering why you are treating W-space ENTIRELY differently from other areas of space where asset safety is concerned. It really isn't fair to let every single other area recover the entirety of their personal assets while people in W-space lose EVERYTHING. What makes W-space so special that it makes you lose everything? Certainly you can add some sort of asset recovery system that still results in some danger whether it exposes you, or requires you to plop a new structure. At the same time, 100% of assets back seems surprisingly generous for deep null Kenneth Feld wrote: Why do you NEED to dock those capitals? Why is tethering not enough? You can tether up to Titans at a medium Because it means you can't get out of your ship if you want it to remain safe.
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 152	Posted - 2015.10.30 04:46:19 - [48] - Quote Perhaps because Wspace is ENTIRELY different from every other type of space?
Anthar Thebess 1364	Posted - 2015.10.30 11:06:44 - [49] - Quote It is not about me , but new groups don't have tons of isk. I still remember when years ago we gathered isk on our first corp jump freighter, it took ages. We , as a corp had 2 capital pilots , and 1 carrier. This ship provided us whole logistic capabilities for a while. If at this point we would need to invest 7bil to have ability to store a single capital ship , our ventures to null sec could be totally different. Rich and big groups will have no big issue to have a large citadel somewhere , but if we are talking about new 5-10pople corporations, that will try to do something in null or wormhole space, then CCP is drastically raising the stake. From 100mil to have single capital ship secured , to 7bil. Remember that not all people have a spare capital ship pilot to logout ship near the citadel. Just to clarify. This will not affect me, as I'm just finishing training 5th capital character in order to speed up process of moving them. All JDC V. For sake of new players , give them ability to store 1-2 capitals in medium citadel. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 311	Posted - 2015.10.30 11:45:35 - [50] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: I'm going to unpin the other structures threads and link them all here as we are running out of space in this forum subsection. Well last dev post in any of them WAS some months ago. Any idea when we might hear any more thoughts on specialized structures? Hopefully you are thinking where to go next before citadels launch, so you can roll new stuff out without too much delay === I am wondering why you are treating W-space ENTIRELY differently from other areas of space where asset safety is concerned. It really isn't fair to let every single other area recover the entirety of their personal assets while people in W-space lose EVERYTHING. What makes W-space so special that it makes you lose everything? Certainly you can add some sort of asset recovery system that still results in some danger whether it exposes you, or requires you to plop a new structure. At the same time, 100% of assets back seems surprisingly generous for deep null Kenneth Feld wrote: Why do you NEED to dock those capitals? Why is tethering not enough? You can tether up to Titans at a medium Because it means you can't get out of your ship if you want it to remain safe. Hmm, maybe we have different definitions of safe Safe logging from tethered will be inherently more safe than docked, if you are docked and it gets blown up, you have to pay 15% to get your stuff back unless you build a new citadel As far as why W-space is being treated entirely differently is because they we sooooo friggin mad when they heard their **** was going to be safe, we almost had a nuclear meltdown. They had a long talk and town hall with devs and the current policy is what came of it.

Xindi Kraid Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. 1078	Posted - 2015.10.30 17:07:12 - [51] - Quote Ok then maybe flip it around, what makes BFE nullsec special that it DOES save all your **** from being blown up?
ThePiachu Avar KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2015.10.30 17:21:01 - [52] - Quote Questions! 1) CCP Ytterbium wrote: X-Large Citadels: all ships can dock. [/list] Does this mean that supers and titans can dock? The keynote from Vegas was rather confusing on that part, implying that they would be only able to tether. 2) Is there a limit to what system X-Large Citadels can be anchored in? Say, "only in nullsec / w-space", or "nullsec, w-space, lowsec", or will everyone be able to place them everywhere?
Xindi Kraid Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. 1078	Posted - 2015.10.30 17:26:02 - [53] - Quote ThePiachu Avar wrote: Does this mean that supers and titans can dock? The keynote from Vegas was rather confusing on that part, implying that they would be only able to tether. I am pretty sure they explicitly said, yes supercaps can dock at XLs. The art for the XL they even pointed out the avatar for scale was undocking from the station.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 19	Posted - 2015.10.30 18:29:00 - [54] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: ThePiachu Avar wrote: Does this mean that supers and titans can dock? The keynote from Vegas was rather confusing on that part, implying that they would be only able to tether. I am pretty sure they explicitly said, yes supercaps can dock at XLs. The art for the XL they even pointed out the avatar for scale was undocking from the station. And can get blown up too!! What happens if a pilot was logged off in an XL citadel in a Titan and the citadel was blown up with the pilot still in it? Did your corpse and the Titan get hauled away by interbus? or do you log in where the citadel was... Maybe docking at this stage isn't as safe as you think. Personally id like to See Larges and Extra Larges take the place of outposts and tie into Perma sov with the option of tearing them down if you are the owner / sov holder. It's a lot of isk to throw away for someones killmail.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 313	Posted - 2015.10.30 18:59:53 - [55] - Quote Poranius Fisc wrote: Xindi Kraid wrote: ThePiachu Avar wrote: Does this mean that supers and titans can dock? The keynote from Vegas was rather confusing on that part, implying that they would be only able to tether. I am pretty sure they explicitly said, yes supercaps can dock at XLs. The art for the XL they even pointed out the avatar for scale was undocking from the station. And can get blown up too!! What happens if a pilot was logged off in an XL citadel in a Titan and the citadel was blown up with the pilot still in it? Did your corpse and the Titan get hauled away by interbus? or do you log in where the citadel was... Maybe docking at this stage isn't as safe as you think. Personally id like to See Larges and Extra Larges take the place of outposts and tie into Perma sov with the option of tearing them down if you are the owner / sov holder. It's a lot of isk to throw away for someones killmail. Then the titan pilot will get laughed at. You can dock, stretch your legs etc Personally, I will undock, tether and safe log prior to logging out for the night
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 313	Posted - 2015.10.30 19:02:17 - [56] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: Ok then maybe flip it around, what makes BFE nullsec special that it DOES save all your **** from being blown up? === Edit: So the more I think about it, the more I think Small citadels should be a thing in order to make up for smaller sized POSes being removed. Something that goes up and comes down quick (both with the unanchor button and manually with guns) for those quick staging area and tiny corp things. Also, it might not be a bad idea to have a medium rig that adds a captial ship maintenance array (with a limited capacity) so smaller groups that do have capitals can replace their POSes without incurring the ton of extra expense a Large requires. Alternatively add a way to tether unmanned ships (I prefer the former since it leaves less crap floating in space, though it is more limited). Either way, something to mitigate the loss of the leave your capitals floating in the POS shield gameplay that's going to be lost. My own experience in wormholes is that nearly all capital assets end up floating in space for lack of somewhere to put it, and if you are stuck using a medium, that's still a problem since there's usually a hefty need to reship, so you can't just have someone sitting in the capital ships. Because for all except wormholes, if you give a player the chance to use a citadel and get allt heir stuff blown up, vs using a NPC station in lowsec or NPC null, they will move their stuff and no one will use citadels for much other than small time staging CCO will have spent years developing something that at best will get used very little and general player QOL will suffer
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 154	Posted - 2015.10.30 20:42:49 - [57] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: Ok then maybe flip it around, what makes BFE nullsec special that it DOES save all your **** from being blown up? === Edit: So the more I think about it, the more I think Small citadels should be a thing in order to make up for smaller sized POSes being removed. Something that goes up and comes down quick (both with the unanchor button and manually with guns) for those quick staging area and tiny corp things. Also, it might not be a bad idea to have a medium rig that adds a capital ship maintenance array (with a limited capacity) so smaller groups that do have capitals can replace their POSes without incurring the ton of extra expense a Large requires. Alternatively add a way to tether unmanned ships (I prefer the former since it leaves less crap floating in space, though it is more limited). Either way, something to mitigate the loss of the leave your capitals floating in the POS shield gameplay that's going to be lost. My own experience in wormholes is that nearly all capital assets end up floating in space for lack of somewhere to put it, and if you are stuck using a medium, that's still a problem since there's usually a hefty need to reship, so you can't just have someone sitting in the capital ships. Actually this is quite simple to answer. Wormholes allow an incredible amount of income for personal users. No the corps directly don't make isk like moongoo in nullsec but individually you pull the highest isk per hour in the game potentially. The downside to this advantage is risk. You can lose your stuff.. and you cant use all the same toys as everyone else. You have to work a little to get that potential and you have to fight to keep it. A citadel with this level of infinitely scalable isk generation allows a WH corp to seriously exploit the transfer system. One C5 site is enough to buy, deploy, and destroy a small citadel. Safe 100% risk free movement of your stuff to NSpace for a 15% tax? Do you see now why item transference in a WH is a terrible and literally game breaking idea?
O2 jayjay Sickology Together We Solo 48	Posted - 2015.10.30 20:57:51 - [58] - Quote HS Citidal I have a big concern. Lets say I want to have a strong presence in Jita when these stations come out. I place a Large citidal in Jita and try to make it a new trade hub. Its late and i have to woek the the morning so I log off. 2 hours after I log off someone places a Large citidal in Jita to compete with me. 6 hours after he drops his station I log in and im like WTF and want to contest the station being built. I war dec the corp but it takes 24 hours before im able to shoot. The station cannot be fires upon and only has a 15 min window before I have to go thru a long process to destroy it. Can we A: Reduce the war dec timer B: Increase the time it takes a station to deploy to 48hrs C: in the 15 min window, make it availabe to where anyone can attack it but you go suspect. (Without a wardec) D: extend the window to 12 hours on its first deployment. (15 mins apply after the structure was properly deployed and not contested in the 12 hr window.) That way it gives players time to contest citidal being built in their region and we dont get station flying under everywhere. I understand it take 30 mins at its respectable DPS but attacking it 3 times while having days in between is alot of work and if you miss one timer you have to start all over. Can we make it possiable to clear a station in a weekend? Start Friday night and end Sunday night kinda thing? Thank you
Locke Deathroe Clan 86 Antesignani Alliance 20	Posted - 2015.10.30 21:42:02 - [59] - Quote Current POS equipment and BPO's as well as current Outpost and outpost upgrades with the respective BPO's WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THEM?? Owning the vast majority of those BPO's and having them fully researched is a hell of an ISK pool. Several times in the past CCP has removed or changed something and we get a "reimbursement" as you call it that amounts to an insult compared to the actual value of that item or BPO. Given we make a fair amount of these components and sell/trade them it will be a massive blow to not just my alliance but I am sure others as well. To me the ONLY logical solution is to grant replacement BPO's as well as replacement modules that have already been built in a 1 to 1 ratio. I will be understanding of the lost research time on the BPO's but to simply remove the BPO and give us a complete insult amount of ISK for them is a joke. Think about the billions of ISK in faction POS towers and faction POS mods alone that everyone would be out of. Since I have no seen any mention of a citadel that is "faction" I doubt you would even be able to compensate people for that type of loss. In every post / discussion / video CCP keep skirting this issue and to those of us that have made the time and ISK commitment to this part of the game over the last decade I feel something needs to be said. Respectfully, Locke Deathroe ATA Exec
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 19	Posted - 2015.10.30 21:59:47 - [60] - Quote Locke Deathroe wrote: Current POS equipment and BPO's as well as current Outpost and outpost upgrades with the respective BPO's WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THEM?? Owning the vast majority of those BPO's and having them fully researched is a hell of an ISK pool. Several times in the past CCP has removed or changed something and we get a "reimbursement" as you call it that amounts to an insult compared to the actual value of that item or BPO. Given we make a fair amount of these components and sell/trade them it will be a massive blow to not just my alliance but I am sure others as well. To me the ONLY logical solution is to grant replacement BPO's as well as replacement modules that have already been built in a 1 to 1 ratio. I will be understanding of the lost research time on the BPO's but to simply remove the BPO and give us a complete insult amount of ISK for them is a joke. Think about the billions of ISK in faction POS towers and faction POS mods alone that everyone would be out of. Since I have no seen any mention of a citadel that is "faction" I doubt you would even be able to compensate people for that type of loss. In every post / discussion / video CCP keep skirting this issue and to those of us that have made the time and ISK commitment to this part of the game over the last decade I feel something needs to be said. Respectfully, Locke Deathroe ATA Exec They will probably get removed and you may or may not get reimbursed for them.

Locke Deathroe Clan 86 Antesignani Alliance 20	Posted - 2015.10.30 22:47:27 - [61] - Quote Poranius Fisc[/quote wrote: They will probably get removed and you may or may not get reimbursed for them. You sir should work for CCP, you have the vagueness down pat.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2654	Posted - 2015.10.30 23:14:27 - [62] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Poranius Fisc wrote: What happens if a pilot was logged off in an XL citadel in a Titan and the citadel was blown up with the pilot still in it? Did your corpse and the Titan get hauled away by interbus? or do you log in where the citadel was... Maybe docking at this stage isn't as safe as you think. Personally id like to See Larges and Extra Larges take the place of outposts and tie into Perma sov with the option of tearing them down if you are the owner / sov holder. It's a lot of isk to throw away for someones killmail. Then the titan pilot will get laughed at. You can dock, stretch your legs etc Personally, I will undock, tether and safe log prior to logging out for the night Actually I believe CCP have gone back on making your current ship & pod getting blown up on Citadel destruction. Because they realised how stupid it was to be safer logging off in open space than inside a citadel. And you can remove Citadels, they are not 'permanent' like Outposts. It just takes time and they get a vulnerability window at the end of the removal process where anyone can come shoot them.
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 479	Posted - 2015.10.31 00:51:00 - [63] - Quote ThePiachu Avar wrote: Questions! 1) CCP Ytterbium wrote: X-Large Citadels: all ships can dock. [/list] Does this mean that supers and titans can dock? The keynote from Vegas was rather confusing on that part, implying that they would be only able to tether. 2) Is there a limit to what system X-Large Citadels can be anchored in? Say, "only in nullsec / w-space", or "nullsec, w-space, lowsec", or will everyone be able to place them everywhere? You do realise that you just made it really really clear that you have read nothing about anything anywhere. Seriously. Can we get posts just replaced with RTFM? Please? AKA the scientist. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 155	Posted - 2015.10.31 01:40:57 - [64] - Quote Never assume any BPO will be reimbursed or converted to a new item. CCPs stance repeatedly has been "youve gotten use out of it" as a reason for lack of reimbursement. There is, however, an extremely good reason for this stance. It levels the playing field for the new mechanic. While it may seem unfair to lose all of the hard work and time it would be even more unfair to newer players to release a system and then make them compete directly against perfect BPOs.
Xindi Kraid Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. 1078	Posted - 2015.10.31 06:19:40 - [65] - Quote Nafensoriel wrote: Actually this is quite simple to answer. Wormholes allow an incredible amount of income for personal users. No the corps directly don't make isk like moongoo in nullsec but individually you pull the highest isk per hour in the game potentially. The downside to this advantage is risk. You can lose your stuff.. and you cant use all the same toys as everyone else. You have to work a little to get that potential and you have to fight to keep it. A citadel with this level of infinitely scalable isk generation allows a WH corp to seriously exploit the transfer system. One C5 site is enough to buy, deploy, and destroy a small citadel. Safe 100% risk free movement of your stuff to NSpace for a 15% tax? Do you see now why item transference in a WH is a terrible and literally game breaking idea? I was thinking more that they should have either kept the only able to transfer to another citadel in the same system (which requires putting up another structure that can be destroyed), or randomly dump your crap around the system, and you have 20 days to pick it up before it goes poof, and if it's now a hostile system, that could be hazardous. The killmails from people trying to cut their losses could drive further conflict. Like blapping that guy who comes back to salvage and loot his own wreck.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 20	Posted - 2015.10.31 17:28:04 - [66] - Quote Locke Deathroe wrote: Poranius Fisc They will probably get removed and you may or may not get reimbursed for them.[/quote wrote: You sir should work for CCP, you have the vagueness down pat. Look at the character creation date. I've been listening to it for a while... nm.. this isnt my main.. HE"s been around for a long while.
Locke Deathroe Clan 86 Antesignani Alliance 20	Posted - 2015.11.01 00:52:33 - [67] - Quote Nafensoriel wrote: Never assume any BPO will be reimbursed or converted to a new item. CCPs stance repeatedly has been "youve gotten use out of it" as a reason for lack of reimbursement. There is, however, an extremely good reason for this stance. It levels the playing field for the new mechanic. While it may seem unfair to lose all of the hard work and time it would be even more unfair to newer players to release a system and then make them compete directly against perfect BPOs. I wouldn't expect to end up with the new BPO fully researched, that I do understand. It's more a matter of every time they remove something they don't give you what the market cost was for the item based on when they were bought, but what they are worth at the time of replacement. The problem with that is the second they say they are getting rid of something the price falls so fast it's a joke. I've had friends quit over that very fact and see many people in Eve facing the same choice over this given how much ISK we are talking for those that made investments in complete sets.
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 157	Posted - 2015.11.01 03:43:55 - [68] - Quote Understandable point of view.. but in CCPs case they take the lesser of two evils. If they provided market cost then they would have to establish what market cost was.. are we talking peak value, 6 month value, that one expansion in 2006 value? It rapidly becomes an opinion piece that will never satisfy a significant portion of the player base. Additionally if you convert that value to isk and materials you create other major problems. What if I just finished training the BPO to max? Is it fair I get full value compared to a guy who maxed it out 5 years ago? The same applies to minerals as it does to leveling the playing field. A sudden infusion of wealth as reimbursement can never be balanced enough to not be unfair to a majority. This is why the logical and fair thing to do is just say "you've gotten use" and remove them. Even consider for a moment.. You mention people leaving the game over a lost item in this manner.. Statistically consider that while that is a sad case and rather extreme it is still a very insignificant majority of the player base affected by the change. First rule of Dev Work or GM Work... Do what gives you the least amount of hate mail.
Cynica Deetric Quantum Singularities Half Massed 3	Posted - 2015.11.01 06:04:31 - [69] - Quote I would like to know why we can't have both POSs and citadels? I would think giving player more options not less is a better idea. (CCPlease keep both) Also have any of the DEVs taken the time to site down and make a comparison as to what POSs offer/cost vs Citadels? (compaired to the "little" guy/corp) (As it stands I would like to keep my POS over buying a citadel or living in a corp citadel)
Xindi Kraid Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. 1078	Posted - 2015.11.01 06:26:52 - [70] - Quote Cynica Deetric wrote: I would like to know why we can't have both POSs and citadels? I would think giving player more options not less is a better idea. (CCPlease keep both) Also have any of the DEVs taken the time to site down and make a comparison as to what POSs offer/cost vs Citadels? (compaired to the "little" guy/corp) (As it stands I would like to keep my POS over buying a citadel or living in a corp citadel) Mainly because POSes are terrible pieces of **** that are complicated to manage for players and have a horrendous mess of legacy code and should have been replaced years ago. The better question is why the new Structure sizes and costs don't line up very well with the sizes POSes come in.

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2655	Posted - 2015.11.01 08:54:43 - [71] - Quote Locke Deathroe wrote: I wouldn't expect to end up with the new BPO fully researched, that I do understand. It's more a matter of every time they remove something they don't give you what the market cost was for the item based on when they were bought, but what they are worth at the time of replacement. The problem with that is the second they say they are getting rid of something the price falls so fast it's a joke. I've had friends quit over that very fact and see many people in Eve facing the same choice over this given how much ISK we are talking for those that made investments in complete sets. If they are going to reimburse what it cost they should also take away all the isk you made or saved with it since you bought it. Seems only fair that if you want the isk from back years ago you don't get to keep any profit made since. More likely they will reimburse based on the current research costs to get it to ME 10 TE 20 if you did that. Or whatever ME & TE you did. Since the research costs now provide a very concrete value for what a researched blueprint is actually worth. Which in a lot of cases will be far far more than you ever paid for it, and certainly vastly more than it cost you to research it at the time if you did it yourself.
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2063	Posted - 2015.11.01 13:33:12 - [72] - Quote I have a small concern with the deployment of the citadels: The current version of having the 3D mesh with the interior structure of the citadel showing translucent in the placement process is in my opinion nothing but a useless fancy. Judging by the video footage available of the placement of an M Citadel, it is hard to discern what is what on the structure even on that "small" version of it, especially where the undocks are or where they face. Instead of this useless fancy, I would like to see clear and more opaque mesh that really only shows the outer shell of the structure and undocks displayed in a different color or some other means to highlight where they are, and in addition their undock direction indicated with arrows. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Gabriel Karade Noir. Mercenary Coalition 287	Posted - 2015.11.01 13:46:43 - [73] - Quote My concern is that the functionality provided by an XL-SMA (or even starbase forcefields) hasn't be replicated in this proposal, beyond the gold plated XL-Citadel option. This is a major change to anyone who wants to be able to 'stretch their legs' for short periods outside a steel coffin. Is this intended? War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Gabriel Karade Noir. Mercenary Coalition 287	Posted - 2015.11.01 13:51:09 - [74] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Xindi Kraid wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: I'm going to unpin the other structures threads and link them all here as we are running out of space in this forum subsection. Well last dev post in any of them WAS some months ago. Any idea when we might hear any more thoughts on specialized structures? Hopefully you are thinking where to go next before citadels launch, so you can roll new stuff out without too much delay === I am wondering why you are treating W-space ENTIRELY differently from other areas of space where asset safety is concerned. It really isn't fair to let every single other area recover the entirety of their personal assets while people in W-space lose EVERYTHING. What makes W-space so special that it makes you lose everything? Certainly you can add some sort of asset recovery system that still results in some danger whether it exposes you, or requires you to plop a new structure. At the same time, 100% of assets back seems surprisingly generous for deep null Kenneth Feld wrote: Why do you NEED to dock those capitals? Why is tethering not enough? You can tether up to Titans at a medium Because it means you can't get out of your ship if you want it to remain safe. Hmm, maybe we have different definitions of safe Safe logging from tethered will be inherently more safe than docked, if you are docked and it gets blown up, you have to pay 15% to get your stuff back unless you build a new citadel He's referring to being able to get out of a ship for short periods of time, which otherwise cannot dock - tethering doesn't apply to unmanned ships in the way it has been described. This is completely different to existing mechanics. War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 315	Posted - 2015.11.01 14:33:54 - [75] - Quote Gabriel Karade wrote: My concern is that the functionality provided by an XL-SMA (or even starbase forcefields) hasn't be replicated in this proposal, beyond the gold plated XL-Citadel option. This is a major change to anyone who wants to be able to 'stretch their legs' for short periods outside a steel coffin. Is this intended? We don't know yet They sorta kinda have to dock in XL assembly arrays cause they will be built there, they should be significantly cheaper (But with less defense) than a citadel
Flyinghotpocket Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica 508	Posted - 2015.11.01 21:00:56 - [76] - Quote better yet, why isnt this stuff released yet? ive seen this crap on the forums for MONTHS now. Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 158	Posted - 2015.11.01 21:22:51 - [77] - Quote Flyinghotpocket wrote: better yet, why isnt this stuff released yet? ive seen this crap on the forums for MONTHS now. Because it only takes seconds to do a few hundred thousand lines of code, create detailed hundred thousand poly models, and create custom texture maps for things right? I bet you get pissed at McDonalds for taking 60 seconds to cook your burger too.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 20	Posted - 2015.11.01 21:59:06 - [78] - Quote Gabriel Karade wrote: My concern is that the functionality provided by an XL-SMA (or even starbase forcefields) hasn't be replicated in this proposal, beyond the gold plated XL-Citadel option. This is a major change to anyone who wants to be able to 'stretch their legs' for short periods outside a steel coffin. Is this intended? Also, does this satisfy replacing all outposts as well? Perhaps L's and XL's might be better purposed and a break-downable outpost that can be flipped with entosis, but if the enemy flips it, your stuff is required to be shipped out, or you pick it up someplace else for that 15% fee. Why the huge push for rediculous killmails? congrats.. you killed the XL.. now theres no more outposts. If you wnat to hold this system, you need to build something fast. You want to set up what? How many cap's are limited in a medium structure tether?
Cynica Deetric Quantum Singularities Half Massed 3	Posted - 2015.11.01 23:37:10 - [79] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: Cynica Deetric wrote: I would like to know why we can't have both POSs and citadels? I would think giving player more options not less is a better idea. (CCPlease keep both) Also have any of the DEVs taken the time to site down and make a comparison as to what POSs offer/cost vs Citadels? (compaired to the "little" guy/corp) (As it stands I would like to keep my POS over buying a citadel or living in a corp citadel) Mainly because POSes are terrible pieces of ** that are complicated to manage for players and have a horrendous mess of legacy code and should have been replaced years ago. The better question is why the new Structure sizes and costs don't line up very well with the sizes POSes come in. Most of what you said is OPINION, could POSs be improved yes. I do not feel that POSs are a pieces of **. On the management aspect of POSs I don't think it is compicated but I don't think it is as effective as some players would like it to be. I feel that your question is valad and I wouldn't mind the extra cost IF they kept POSs in the game however if they are going to take them out later on down the road they should cost the same as what they are replacing.
Flyinghotpocket Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica 509	Posted - 2015.11.02 00:22:19 - [80] - Quote Nafensoriel wrote: Flyinghotpocket wrote: better yet, why isnt this stuff released yet? ive seen this crap on the forums for MONTHS now. Because it only takes seconds to do a few hundred thousand lines of code, create detailed hundred thousand poly models, and create custom texture maps for things right? I bet you get pissed at McDonalds for taking 60 seconds to cook your burger too. these objects have been in demand for years. not months years. Yah i went to mcdonalds and pre ordered a bigmac for 3 months from now. so no, since the last few years of mostly no new updates, no it doesnt take THAT long to code some new buildings. Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro

Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 164	Posted - 2015.11.02 01:38:32 - [81] - Quote Might want to google that before you assume... CCP is currently rewriting code that has existed since the server was switched on. That isnt trivial. Its not simple... and no you cant do it in a few months. What you are literally complaining about is akin to taking your car to the mechanic for a complete engine replacement and complaining that it isn't done in an hour.
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 479	Posted - 2015.11.02 09:12:29 - [82] - Quote The main reason we are hearing about this soo soon in the dev cycle is because they want feedback. And yea is DOES take that long to "add a few structures" when they behave and operate in complexity different ways. Typical Junior dev comment right there. I wrote my tic tac toe assignment game in just 2 days. Adding all that structures is like only a few weeks of work. Art departments can just give me the models sometime by Tuesday right? Yea right. AKA the scientist. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
ThePiachu Avar KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2015.11.03 07:59:58 - [83] - Quote Question - will the Structure components and Structures themselves be constructable in POS assembly arrays, or only stations / outposts and eventually citadels?
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 19	Posted - 2015.11.03 13:08:03 - [84] - Quote I couldn't find this info anywhere or probably it has not been mentioned before: - Will citadel(s) decay in space if not used / accessed, in the same way mobile depots do? - In case they will / do, will we be able to use let's say entosis link to capture abandoned citadels? - In case we wont be able to use entosis links, what will be their fate is abandoned?
Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1412	Posted - 2015.11.03 14:50:27 - [85] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: I couldn't find this info anywhere or probably it has not been mentioned before: - Will citadel(s) decay in space if not used / accessed, in the same way mobile depots do? - In case they will / do, will we be able to use let's say entosis link to capture abandoned citadels? - In case we wont be able to use entosis links, what will be their fate is abandoned? Space, and not simply high sec, but also low and wh space, is littered by dead sticks that have too many HPs to be destroyed with ease if abandoned. Even a medium citadel need to pass 2 reinforced states from my understanding regardless the owner is active or not, and considering that ccp stated we will be able to see all the citadel / structures in the system, wont we be ending up with a massive amount of citadels in this list, with very little really operative? We had dead sticks for years, are we going to have ghost station for the future? All the Citadels are destructible. If you want to remove an abandoned citadel, blow it up. Since it's abandoned, it should be trivial. It has already been stated that the old structures (outposts and POSes) are being removed. So any dead sticks will magically vanish. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 725	Posted - 2015.11.03 17:06:19 - [86] - Quote Soldarius wrote: All the Citadels are destructible. If you want to remove an abandoned citadel, blow it up. Since it's abandoned, it should be trivial. It has already been stated that the old structures (outposts and POSes) are being removed. So any dead sticks will magically vanish. There should be a mechanic for unused structures to become more vulnerable; perhaps if no one docks / tethers at them for XX days the damage mitigation cap is lifted or the structure is vulnerable 24/7. Remember that this is a long-standing complaint about poses, and new structures are even worse. At least poses ran out of fuel eventually and didn't keep entering new reinforcement timers without owner interaction. As things stand right now, Citadels are shaping up to be far worse in terms of abandoned space debris that starbases ever were.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 19	Posted - 2015.11.03 17:12:11 - [87] - Quote Soldarius wrote: All the Citadels are destructible. If you want to remove an abandoned citadel, blow it up. Since it's abandoned, it should be trivial. It has already been stated that the old structures (outposts and POSes) are being removed. So any dead sticks will magically vanish. Yet, dead sticks are everywhere, none is taking care of them as there's no real reason: free moons are everywhere, you don't need multiple POS for your jobs and why destroy the starbase control tower when you can simply destroy everything around it? Now, a medium citadel present way more defenses than a dead stick, don't misunderstand me, I'm not afraid of a ghost station or of the fact it might or might not abandoned, I'm afraid we are going to have a lot more ghost citadels instead of the actual dead sticks. If people are shying away from the grind of killing a dead stick, why should they be grind a ghost citadel? When I attacked abandoned POSses, I simply destroyed the research and assembly array, an ammunition assembly array has 50k total HP, a small control tower has a 10mil shield alone, and no, i'm not talking about the force field. After killing everything around the stick I looted all (if there was any) and waltzed away, since the tower at best can drop strontium, surely no fuel since it's offline. The sheer amount of passive defense of a citadel, plus the fact it repair itself regardless anyone is around, plus the reinforcment timers, plus the fact that after all the grind it could be empty... because remember, thanks to the loot rules of the citadel, most of the assets in it are going to be sent to a station or another citadel, so you will loot only the mats of jobs actually running, but since it's abandoned you wont get any. Which lead to my concern, is there going to be an inactivity timer that will make them capturable or that will unachor them? I think it would be totally cool to probe (with combat probes) an abandoned citadel, not listed in the local citadel list, use the entosis link and make it your base. Since this kind of stuff create content, feel free to call it "recycled content".
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2658	Posted - 2015.11.03 18:26:18 - [88] - Quote Citadels drop loot, a M Citadel will drop on average 350-400 million loot even if dead. That's why you won't see dozens of citadels clustering every system, because they are actually worth attacking. And only require you to bring 4000 DPS. L Citadels will drop 3.5-4 Billion loot. So I don't believe any inactivity timer is needed, natural greed will make them vanish in balls of fire, thus also keeping the manufacturing market intact while any capture mechanic will kill the market. Remember they have no passive defences, simply a fairly easy to achieve DPS gate. If it shoots back at you, it's not a dead Citadel.
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 171	Posted - 2015.11.03 19:47:19 - [89] - Quote Everything POS do Citadels to better.. Including dying. The point Nevyn made is not really being widely discussed yet its very critical to why citadels are better than POS. They will almost always be worth shooting. A stick is a stick.. its a time consuming multiday(if stronted) mess of utter BS. A citadel is a loot pinata that gives a carrot at the end of the grind.
aldhura Bartledannians 9	Posted - 2015.11.03 21:08:40 - [90] - Quote I really think the mooring feature doesn't make sense. You are basically stuck in the cap ship. I have read that once you leave the moored ship in become vulnerable and your pod is moored, that will mean, as I read it anyway, you are basically stuck in that capital ship. I don't have one anymore, but means there will be no point in getting one. Something like being able to switch ships for a couple hours will be a better approach. What will happen to all our current POS's and pos modules? will we get a "free" swap out for the new structures ? or are we now stuck with more junk we can't get rid of? Bartledannians are recruiting.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6104254#post6104254

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2659	Posted - 2015.11.03 21:27:38 - [91] - Quote aldhura wrote: I really think the mooring feature doesn't make sense. You are basically stuck in the cap ship. I have read that once you leave the moored ship in become vulnerable and your pod is moored, that will mean, as I read it anyway, you are basically stuck in that capital ship. I don't have one anymore, but means there will be no point in getting one. Something like being able to switch ships for a couple hours will be a better approach. What will happen to all our current POS's and pos modules? will we get a "free" swap out for the new structures ? or are we now stuck with more junk we can't get rid of? Dock your Cap ship in a large Citadel. It's pretty easy.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 20	Posted - 2015.11.03 22:07:14 - [92] - Quote Nafensoriel wrote: Everything POS do Citadels to better.. Including dying. The point Nevyn made is not really being widely discussed yet its very critical to why citadels are better than POS. They will almost always be worth shooting. A stick is a stick.. its a time consuming multiday(if stronted) mess of utter BS. A citadel is a loot pinata that gives a carrot at the end of the grind. I'm a bit worried the automatic reinforcment timer are going to be a deterrent by itself - I for one wont go bash for the lulz or for 300 mil a medium citadel that only look abandoned and might fight back, forcing me to show not in a "bash fit" but in a "pvp fit", when in the same timeframe I can go run some null/wh exploration sites for at least 100 mil a hour in relative safety in a ship that cost at best 30 mil. Remember that when the cap changes will go live you wont be able to refit in combat, so your bash fit will be your tomb too. To cap the dps of a medium citadel you need 4 battleship (or attack battlecruisers) or 1 dread, and if something goes wrong you risk to lose more then you are going to gain if you destroy it. I'm sure you wont risk your Moros to bash for the lulz or for 300-400 mil in loot a medium citadel, or even risk 4 battlecruisers worth the half you are going to gain. You wont be ewar immune in your moros, they just need to break your target, drain your cap and slowly chew your down. My point is destroying citadel for a profit is not the same of doing it with dead pos. The risk reward ratio is way different, and with different I don't mean "wrong", I just mean different. Surely at the start we are going to see a lot of citadel destroyed just because they are new and the metagame will be destroying them, but slowly people will tag them as "a boring grind not worth the effort" and just let them rot in space. Obviously destroying an active citadel has a totally different purpose and meaning, and risking your ship to inflict a logistic damage to your opponenent has no real isk value. My talk and concern is only about inactive ones, active one have already plenty of reasons to be destroyed.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 20	Posted - 2015.11.03 22:10:13 - [93] - Quote xttz wrote: Soldarius wrote: All the Citadels are destructible. If you want to remove an abandoned citadel, blow it up. Since it's abandoned, it should be trivial. It has already been stated that the old structures (outposts and POSes) are being removed. So any dead sticks will magically vanish. There should be a mechanic for unused structures to become more vulnerable; perhaps if no one docks / tethers at them for XX days the damage mitigation cap is lifted or the structure is vulnerable 24/7. Remember that this is a long-standing complaint about poses, and new structures are even worse. At least poses ran out of fuel eventually and didn't keep entering new reinforcement timers without owner interaction. As things stand right now, Citadels are shaping up to be far worse in terms of abandoned space debris that starbases ever were. I'm very glad to see I'm not the only one to think it that way.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2659	Posted - 2015.11.03 22:11:42 - [94] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: My point is destroying citadel for a profit is not the same of doing it with dead pos. The risk reward ratio is way different, and with different I don't mean "wrong", I just mean different. Surely at the start we are going to see a lot of citadel destroyed just because they are new and the metagame will be destroying them, but slowly people will tag them as "a boring grind not worth the effort" and just let them rot in space. Please explain to me what profit you make killing a POS Tower that is dead. Not one that has gone offline with modules still anchored, but just the tower hanging there. And how much DPS you have to put on the grid to kill it in the same timeframe. It's easier to kill a Citadel, and you get profit.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 20	Posted - 2015.11.03 22:52:34 - [95] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Please explain to me what profit you make killing a POS Tower that is dead. Not one that has gone offline with modules still anchored, but just the tower hanging there. And how much DPS you have to put on the grid to kill it in the same timeframe. It's easier to kill a Citadel, and you get profit. In fact I've made the example of a control tower with offline anchored modules, as today there's no purpose of destroying the control tower. Yet the whole idea of "you make profit out of it" doesn't hold up, because the gain compared to the amount of effort required is off. If you go read the dev blogs, at the dps cap you need to nuke it for 30 min at least, and the dps is at least 5 battleship for the medium and 15 for the large. These are not my numbers, they come from the dev blog. These structures will go in reinforcment mode 2 times (for 24 hours i think) and pop on the third day. Now depending on the vulnerability windows, assuming you are not sporting the top dps, you will have much likely from one to two hours to send it in reinforced mode. Is it really good money bashing for 3 nights, alone with your alts or with friends, for 1 hour or more each a citadel that might drop around 300 mil for a medium? Surely you wont have 15 battleship alts or 3 dread alts to bash a Large Citadel, so you will have split the loot. Also mind, these numbers are much likely calculated on "top dps fits", and I reiterate, you'll be dead if caught in pvp with a fit like that. So for me, as today, if i'm going to see a citadel in my wh or null I'm not going to destroy it for the loot, but if I'm going to destroy it is going to be because it's a threat to me. If it turns out to be owned by an inactive corp, for all I care, it can rot in space forever, and for the money the combat anomalies / relic sites / data sites are enough of a loot pinata ready to be popped.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2660	Posted - 2015.11.03 23:42:32 - [96] - Quote So you take the best possible example of loot for a POS, which is highly rare. And then compare it to the worst possible example of loot for a Citadel. And then compare the loot from a medium against the number of people you need for a large which drops ten times the loot...... Then claim it's not worth it because you don't get out of bed for less than 100 million/hour. Wow, just wow.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.03 23:46:52 - [97] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: So you take the best possible example of loot for a POS, which is highly rare. And then compare it to the worst possible example of loot for a Citadel. And then compare the loot from a medium against the number of people you need for a large which drops ten times the loot...... Then claim it's not worth it because you don't get out of bed for less than 100 million/hour. Wow, just wow. Can you quote the part I say those things, because I cannot find them in my post.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2660	Posted - 2015.11.03 23:54:36 - [98] - Quote Offline pos with anchored modules. Citadel with no jobs running. You then talk about 300 mil loot from a M Citadel (Which is low from the information we have, not even average), but then talk about needing 15 people in the same sentence for a Large, without mentioning that the large actually will be dropping 10 times the loot roughly, so 3.5 billion - 4 billion depending on modules. So yea, you totally were coming up with the worst possible scenario to claim it wasn't worth attacking a citadel.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.04 00:00:31 - [99] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Offline pos with anchored modules. Citadel with no jobs running. You then talk about 300 mil loot from a M Citadel (Which is low from the information we have, not even average), but then talk about needing 15 people in the same sentence for a Large, without mentioning that the large actually will be dropping 10 times the loot roughly, so 3.5 billion - 4 billion depending on modules. So yea, you totally were coming up with the worst possible scenario to claim it wasn't worth attacking a citadel. Go read again the dev blog on how the loot inside a citadel is handled. You will see that unless you hit a loot pinata of a big corp with a lot of jobs running (so active, and I repeat we are speaking of inactive ones) or a citadel that had a lot of raw materials stored, what you get is pretty much streamlined.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2660	Posted - 2015.11.04 00:09:35 - [100] - Quote Yes, 700 Mil Citadel + modules = 350-400 mil loot for a medium. Which takes you 3 people for a total of 3 hours, or 6 people for 1.5 hours. Since CCP have said you will get drops from a citadel based on it's mineral value and the modules will drop like normal. Which is what I've been assuming that there will be no jobs running. However the normal dead POS stick has no modules attached to it either, and you get zero drops from a POS stick.

Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.04 00:29:52 - [101] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Yes, 700 Mil Citadel + modules = 350-400 mil loot for a medium. Which takes you 3 people for a total of 3 hours, or 6 people for 1.5 hours. Since CCP have said you will get drops from a citadel based on it's mineral value and the modules will drop like normal. Which is what I've been assuming that there will be no jobs running. However the normal dead POS stick has no modules attached to it either, and you get zero drops from a POS stick. However all of this is off topic to my post, you are against the idea of giving the citadel an inactivity timer just because in your opinion they wont survive that long, not because the idea is bad per se, am I right? If that's your point, I think it has been made clear, and we can move on with more opinions from other people. Also we can agree to "disagree" on if destroying an inactive one is worth our time or not, but this is related to our play styles, therefore subjective matters, and not to objective matters.
aldhura Bartledannians 9	Posted - 2015.11.04 00:35:15 - [102] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: aldhura wrote: I really think the mooring feature doesn't make sense. You are basically stuck in the cap ship. I have read that once you leave the moored ship in become vulnerable and your pod is moored, that will mean, as I read it anyway, you are basically stuck in that capital ship. I don't have one anymore, but means there will be no point in getting one. Something like being able to switch ships for a couple hours will be a better approach. What will happen to all our current POS's and pos modules? will we get a "free" swap out for the new structures ? or are we now stuck with more junk we can't get rid of? Dock your Cap ship in a large Citadel. It's pretty easy. In a c1-3 wh ???? Bartledannians are recruiting.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6104254#post6104254
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2661	Posted - 2015.11.04 00:50:32 - [103] - Quote aldhura wrote: In a c1-3 wh ???? Build the M, Build the large in the M (Or in the Factory structure whatever that is). The same way you did with the Cap in the first place.
Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1413	Posted - 2015.11.04 15:22:22 - [104] - Quote Fact remains that Citadels can be much more easily destroyed than a POS. And Citadels won't need to take up a moon. They can be anchored anywhere in space. Since the cap for a medium is 4000dps, bring 4 sentry domis and have at it. If you don't feel the reward is worth the time, don't. Your choice. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Kenny Powers Zanjoahir The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 10	Posted - 2015.11.05 12:02:57 - [105] - Quote How close can one light a cyno to a citadel?
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 736	Posted - 2015.11.05 12:49:00 - [106] - Quote Will there be new skills to control structure weapons, and if so when will be able to find out the details / pre-reqs?
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.05 20:22:39 - [107] - Quote xttz wrote: Will there be new skills to control structure weapons, and if so when will be able to find out the details / pre-reqs? I read somewhere, I don't remember where, you wont need any skills and the actual skill is going to be refunded.
aldhura Bartledannians 9	Posted - 2015.11.05 21:47:03 - [108] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: xttz wrote: Will there be new skills to control structure weapons, and if so when will be able to find out the details / pre-reqs? I read somewhere, I don't remember where, you wont need any skills and the actual skill is going to be refunded. EDIT: Found in csm notes: Will my old POS defense skills work? No. They are going to require a new line of skills to operate, but most likely use existing gunnery and / or missile support skills. More details as we get them. That will be a first, we were never given SP back when DSP's were taken out of the game or when you no longer needed anchoring 5 to train starbase defense. Bartledannians are recruiting.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6104254#post6104254
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.05 22:21:46 - [109] - Quote aldhura wrote: That will be a first, we were never given SP back when DSP's were taken out of the game or when you no longer needed anchoring 5 to train starbase defense. As soon as I'll find it I'll link it, but it's either a refound or free skills, like they did with the drones. I believe from what i read there are going to be something like a "Structure Weapon Operation" skill for the weapon / high slots and a "Structure Defense Operation" skill for the middle / low slots. Regardless we get the sp back or we get the new skill at the level of the old one we are going to win.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2668	Posted - 2015.11.05 22:50:55 - [110] - Quote aldhura wrote: [quote=Roberta Gastoni] That will be a first, we were never given SP back when DSP's were taken out of the game or when you no longer needed anchoring 5 to train starbase defense. Because the skill still existed in the game and did other things for you. Any time CCP have actually removed a skill from the game entirely they have refunded it. Though they may decide it makes more sense to turn it into one of the related skills for citadels, who knows.

aldhura Bartledannians 9	Posted - 2015.11.05 23:53:35 - [111] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: aldhura wrote: [quote=Roberta Gastoni] That will be a first, we were never given SP back when DSP's were taken out of the game or when you no longer needed anchoring 5 to train starbase defense. Because the skill still existed in the game and did other things for you. Any time CCP have actually removed a skill from the game entirely they have refunded it. Though they may decide it makes more sense to turn it into one of the related skills for citadels, who knows. CCP's perception, and well yours, of the extra value of the skills. I have no use for Anchoring 5 and whatever the skill was for DSP's. You can very easily with the right ship scan down just about everything with lvl3 scanning skills. Bartledannians are recruiting.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6104254#post6104254
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2668	Posted - 2015.11.06 00:14:28 - [112] - Quote aldhura wrote: CCP's perception, and well yours, of the extra value of the skills. I have no use for Anchoring 5 and whatever the skill was for DSP's. You can very easily with the right ship scan down just about everything with lvl3 scanning skills. Just because you had no use for the features doesn't mean they didn't exist. CCP have been entirely consistent on their approach in such cases, and yes, some people do end up with things they wouldn't have trained. I don't need Anchoring V myself and would have never trained it, but I did want Starbase Defence Management, and judged Anchoring V worth training for that. And so did you.
Skyleth Bergen Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises 11	Posted - 2015.11.07 23:54:20 - [113] - Quote I thought I'd put this here instead of a new thread... There's been some speculation as to what exactly will happen to faction towers, bpcs, and faction tower module bpcs and it seems like the jury is still out, but they won't be transformed into any of the new structure or module bpcs. As an alternative, I wonder if you'd consider exchanging some of them for skins. For example, instead of giving me isk for my large true sansha tower, just give me an i.o.u. on a potential citadel or other structure skin in the future corresponding to the faction item. It's a nice reward and doesn't actually inject more isk for potentially stockpiles of items that are not being used. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would simply be happy to get a skin instead.
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 176	Posted - 2015.11.08 03:23:25 - [114] - Quote Converting faction towers to skins for citadels would be a cheap and cost effective compromises to the player base. No direct long term value would be added to the game and the functional cosmetic nature of the skins would satisfy a majority of POS owners.
Lotala DLM Enterprises Advent of Fate 8	Posted - 2015.11.08 08:51:15 - [115] - Quote A quick disposable version of the observation array that offers certain features to support black ops operations. It should be more disposable then a mobile depot but less disposable then a small pos. It will need to be quickly erectable (say 5 minutes) and offer reffiting services. Potential features could be service as a covert cynobeacon, delay local, and immune to dscan (though still probable). It would have no reinforce period and few if any weapons.
Saede Riordan Alexylva Paradox Low-Class 7856	Posted - 2015.11.08 18:04:23 - [116] - Quote Okay then. Questions, comments, concerns, ideas. 1) Has it been decided whether Large Citadels will take freighters to deploy or not? CCP keep flip flopping on it and I'd really like a concrete answer so I know whether or not I need to start building a freighter in my wormhole. I'd obviously like them to be deployable by orca, but whichever way it is, we need a concrete answer so we can start preparing. 2) Has there been talk about how large citadels will be built? Currently there is no POS structure large enough to build one inside. Meaning for wormholers, they have to bring in a medium and build the large at the medium, that's a bit of a pain in the ass. I'd like if there was a temporary structure introduced for poses that let us build the new structures at them, just to ease the transitional period. 3) When you anchor a citadel, it instantly becomes invulnerable for 24 hours. This means a ninja-hauler can jump into your system, drop the citadel, and run and hide. They don't have to defend it, and they know exactly when the 15 minute window is after that 24 hour period, so they can have their fleet ready. In a wormhole the only counterplay to this would be to maintain hole control for the entire time and keep them from slipping a fleet inside. I really feel that there should be some immediate vulnerability period when you first start anchoring the structure. The system defenders should have a chance to totally headshot the fetal citadel if you don't protect it for say, the first 15-30 minutes. Having a short vulnerability window like towers do, it forces the attackers to actually invest forces in protecting and securing a beachhead. 4) When drilling rigs totally change the mechanics of moon mining, can we get moon mining in wormholes? I'm assuming it will be a much more active process then the current "set up tower > profit" is, so I think it could be balanced with wormholes in mind. Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
aldhura Bartledannians 11	Posted - 2015.11.08 18:57:55 - [117] - Quote I still have a question on what will happen to the current POS"s and mods, will we be stuck with stuff we can't sell. Also, what will happen to all the dead sticks littering all of new eden Bartledannians are recruiting.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6150832#post6150832
xttz GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 747	Posted - 2015.11.08 19:31:42 - [118] - Quote Saede Riordan wrote: 1) Has it been decided whether Large Citadels will take freighters to deploy or not? CCP keep flip flopping on it and I'd really like a concrete answer so I know whether or not I need to start building a freighter in my wormhole. I'd obviously like them to be deployable by orca, but whichever way it is, we need a concrete answer so we can start preparing. The last devblog specifically said L and XL citadels would require a freighter to deploy, and this was intentional for lower class wormholes. However they won't be on TQ for at least 4 months yet, so there's plenty of time to source a freighter hull yet. Saede Riordan wrote: 2) Has there been talk about how large citadels will be built? Currently there is no POS structure large enough to build one inside. Meaning for wormholers, they have to bring in a medium and build the large at the medium, that's a bit of a pain in the ass. I'd like if there was a temporary structure introduced for poses that let us build the new structures at them, just to ease the transitional period. This also seems to be intentional by CCP. There's also no point in introducing new POS structures when the whole point of Citadels is as the first step to superseding them. Eventually all POS will be removed, so any new add-on for them will be a temporary solution at best and only serve to help entrench people who use older, easier game mechanics over those who come later. Saede Riordan wrote: 3) When you anchor a citadel, it instantly becomes invulnerable for 24 hours. This means a ninja-hauler can jump into your system, drop the citadel, and run and hide. They don't have to defend it, and they know exactly when the 15 minute window is after that 24 hour period, so they can have their fleet ready. In a wormhole the only counterplay to this would be to maintain hole control for the entire time and keep them from slipping a fleet inside. I really feel that there should be some immediate vulnerability period when you first start anchoring the structure. The system defenders should have a chance to totally headshot the fetal citadel if you don't protect it for say, the first 15-30 minutes. Having a short vulnerability window like towers do, it forces the attackers to actually invest forces in protecting and securing a beachhead. I believe they have said that newly anchored structures would show on global overview until secured. This gives everyone nearby a chance to notice and prepare to deal with a new structure.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2680	Posted - 2015.11.08 19:37:20 - [119] - Quote aldhura wrote: I still have a question on what will happen to the current POS"s and mods, will we be stuck with stuff we can't sell. Also, what will happen to all the dead sticks littering all of new eden POS have a year or two before they are phased out since they won't be removed till after all the new structures are in. Citadels are just the first of about eight different structures.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 316	Posted - 2015.11.08 20:44:44 - [120] - Quote Kenny Powers Zanjoahir wrote: How close can one light a cyno to a citadel? Right now, you can light in tether range, so you are safe...... However, that is not a done deal One other suggestion is to light in tether range, but combat ships (JF, freighter and rorqual exempt) get a 60 sec weapons timer when they jump in

Gabriel Karade Noir. Mercenary Coalition 291	Posted - 2015.11.09 22:16:11 - [121] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Alright, to recap where we're at with this. Tethering: Going to be renamed tethering instead of mooring (mooring is confusing for various reasons). As long as within some specific range of the structure and do not have weapons timer, you ship is tethered, meaning it cannot receive damage or be locked. You can align and move within the specified tethering range and still be protected, as long as you do not go outside the maximum range. You will not be able to tether to the structure if you are warp scrambled from a targeted module (HIC point, regular warp scrambling modules). You will be able to tether to the structure if you are within an AoE warp scramble bubble (HIC AoE bubble, interdictor bubble). Of course you will not be able to warp away however. This is to prevent people from being caught their pants down when logging back on near a structure. Tethering will be shown in the UI and visually in space. We are investigating options to minimize bumping when you are tethered. If your ship has access to dock into the structure it can use tethering. This doesn't mean you ship can dock however. For instance, you may have access to dock into a Medium Citadel as a Titan pilot, but you still are unable to dock. Your Titan will still be tethered when in range of the structure. If you log off you do not stay in space near the structure, you log off as you normally would (which is why calling this feature "mooring" is confusing). If you leave your active ship the tether will not protect the ship left behind and will tether to your capsule. Suggestion; flip it round the other way - if you leave your active ship, the tether remains 'attached' to the ship and the capsule is 'free'. Conceptually this makes much more sense (as, when ejecting, the capsule is a new entity on grid), and from a balance perspective, this retains some of the security associated with POS forcefields. War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Anthar Thebess 1372	Posted - 2015.11.10 09:20:23 - [122] - Quote Gabriel Karade wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: I think new citadels should have a separate upgrade to generate bubble similar to pos shield. It don't have to be even as big as medium tower have , but on second though it could vary depending on the upgrade installed. WH people need this. The main difference should be that no part of citadel will be protected by this shield. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
aldhura Bartledannians NEMESIS INC UNITED 16	Posted - 2015.11.10 18:49:36 - [123] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Gabriel Karade wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: I think new citadels should have a separate upgrade to generate bubble similar to pos shield. It don't have to be even as big as medium tower have , but on second though it could vary depending on the upgrade installed. WH people need this. The main difference should be that no part of citadel will be protected by this shield. Being able to "expel" everyone from a **** caged pos is a good mechanic. This capability will cease to exist in the new structure, so if you in your citadel in a wh and its bubbled up, you pretty screwed. In null you can just JC somewhere else or cyno in support. In a wh, you pretty screwed. But hey, wh's can become dead like null.. hs is fun too Bartledannians are recruiting.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6150832#post6150832
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 316	Posted - 2015.11.11 16:35:17 - [124] - Quote Been asked on slack a few times, nothing concrete for answers BPO's get converted from station to structure, complete with current research, that has been said What about pre build components, will they get renamed as well? So, if we build components now to be ready to build citadels on day one (minus the 3 extra BPO's for comps we need) will they get renamed to structure at the same time the BPO's get renamed or will they have some sort of NPC buy order and we need to build structure parts after that time? Along these same lines, will current outposts requirements be changed to structures or will this be the effective end to building outposts?
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.11 20:24:34 - [125] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Been asked on slack a few times, nothing concrete for answers BPO's get converted from station to structure, complete with current research, that has been said What about pre build components, will they get renamed as well? So, if we build components now to be ready to build citadels on day one (minus the 3 extra BPO's for comps we need) will they get renamed to structure at the same time the BPO's get renamed or will they have some sort of NPC buy order and we need to build structure parts after that time? Along these same lines, will current outposts requirements be changed to structures or will this be the effective end to building outposts? Yes, in fact they mentioned how "to make a profit" from the changes. If you check the blog some parts are cheaper to make now and some other cheaper after the changes.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 316	Posted - 2015.11.11 23:08:09 - [126] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: Kenneth Feld wrote: Been asked on slack a few times, nothing concrete for answers BPO's get converted from station to structure, complete with current research, that has been said What about pre build components, will they get renamed as well? So, if we build components now to be ready to build citadels on day one (minus the 3 extra BPO's for comps we need) will they get renamed to structure at the same time the BPO's get renamed or will they have some sort of NPC buy order and we need to build structure parts after that time? Along these same lines, will current outposts requirements be changed to structures or will this be the effective end to building outposts? Yes, in fact they mentioned how "to make a profit" from the changes. If you check the blog some parts are cheaper to make now and some other cheaper after the changes. Yeah, that is why I am asking, I will make some parts now, some later, but I don't want to make some now, then not have them convert They mention market manipulation, but does that mean materials or comps or both, still pretty vague to invest 3-4 hundred bil into without knowing for sure.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2685	Posted - 2015.11.11 23:36:58 - [127] - Quote aldhura wrote: Being able to "expel" everyone from a **** caged pos is a good mechanic. This capability will cease to exist in the new structure, so if you in your citadel in a wh and its bubbled up, you pretty screwed. In null you can just JC somewhere else or cyno in support. In a wh, you pretty screwed. But hey, wh's can become dead like null.. hs is fun too Other than the fact that your structure is only vulnerable for a few hours a day tops, has epic guns that will make POS guns look like childrens toys so can shoot those dictors off the grid, the fact you can prepare your fleet tethered etc. And consider how big a citadel is, and therefore how hard it will be to actually bubble the entire thing if people are defending (And since the guns are awesome, it's much easier to defend). So yes, you won't be able to starburst anymore, but starburst always was a silly mechanic made possible by our poor bump mechinics, despite the lore that top speed is caused by warp drive drag so going over it should be basically impossible.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.13 20:50:37 - [128] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Yeah, that is why I am asking, I will make some parts now, some later, but I don't want to make some now, then not have them convert They mention market manipulation, but does that mean materials or comps or both, still pretty vague to invest 3-4 hundred bil into without knowing for sure. From what they said in the o7 show and in the dev blog, I'm almost certain the components will be converted to the new ones. However since no dev said it clearly, and I'm not planning to make "a profit" out of it, i'm holding out my production for when i'm sure of it, close to the release date.
Phoenix Jones Small-Arms Fire 1578	Posted - 2015.11.13 21:52:08 - [129] - Quote Quick question.. Or maybe a quick request. Currently to attack an opponents structure in highsec you have to wardec them. Could a suggested adjustment to this be done where anybody can shoot a structure wardec or not, during its onlining phase? Basically during the time the structure is anchoring, it has no protection from concord and can be shot or defended by anybody. After the structure is online, the structure receives all deemed protections from concord. Basically create a vulnerability timer for highsec structures based on its time to anchor. Anybody who attacks a structure gets a criminal timer but no concord reprocussions (concord doesn't care about protecting half built crap). I just had that thought as both a method of deali with mass structure and as well as a way to get fights out of people. Onlining structure, even in highsec it's vulnerable. Yaay!!!!
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.14 10:55:05 - [130] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Quick question.. Or maybe a quick request. Currently to attack an opponents structure in highsec you have to wardec them. Could a suggested adjustment to this be done where anybody can shoot a structure wardec or not, during its onlining phase? Basically during the time the structure is anchoring, it has no protection from concord and can be shot or defended by anybody. After the structure is online, the structure receives all deemed protections from concord. Basically create a vulnerability timer for highsec structures based on its time to anchor. Anybody who attacks a structure gets a criminal timer but no concord reprocussions (concord doesn't care about protecting half built crap). I just had that thought as both a method of deali with mass structure and as well as a way to get fights out of people. Onlining structure, even in highsec it's vulnerable. When you anchor a structure it goes invulnerable for 24h, so regardless of the security of the system, nobody can shoot it. If during the vulnerability window in high sec any could shoot the structure, considering 70% of the people are in high sec, that you wont be able to online module designed for low and null sec, and probably you'll still need charters to keep the structure or the modules online, nobody would anchor one. Why get the same penalities and risks of low sec for less reward? If you want to shoot a structure, wardec the corp, and at the designated vulnerability timers show up to attack it, with the risk of defenders being present. Mind, vulnerability timers are the same in all secs. High Sec is intended to be the low risk, low gain zone where newbros or simply casual players hang around. However, your idea might have a use for abandoned structures from inactive corps. Give every citadel a timer after which either they can be captured or attacked without concord intervention, maybe remove them from the overview to be scanned with combat probes as anomalies. I'm more for the capture as I think about the WH space, where while exploring you might probe an abandoned citadel, capture it and make your home, and capturing an inactive citadel in wh space with the current anchor mechanics could be a "content creator".

Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2103	Posted - 2015.11.14 18:07:10 - [131] - Quote Is it still the case that Citadels do not show up in the overview from range (ie. not being on grid) and instead in the probe scanner? UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Kynric Sky Fighters 367	Posted - 2015.11.15 16:46:55 - [132] - Quote What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored?
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 320	Posted - 2015.11.15 18:15:06 - [133] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Is it still the case that Citadels do not show up in the overview from range (ie. not being on grid) and instead in the probe scanner? Yes, no , both, maybe If you have docking rights = shows up in overview if you do NOT have docking rights = shows up in probe scanner window Presumably, they all show up in probe scanner window, but I am not 100% on that
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.15 18:38:24 - [134] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Is it still the case that Citadels do not show up in the overview from range (ie. not being on grid) and instead in the probe scanner? Yes, no , both, maybe If you have docking rights = shows up in overview if you do NOT have docking rights = shows up in probe scanner window Presumably, they all show up in probe scanner window, but I am not 100% on that Having all citadel showing up as soon as you entered a system or, worse, a wormhole is really not for the best. In my opinion only those where you have docking right should show up, the rest should be at best anomalies you should be able to probe. CCP is scared of people hiding citadels in safe spot, I got that, but with grid size increase and directional scanner, we should be able to prevent that
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 320	Posted - 2015.11.15 21:00:40 - [135] - Quote Kynric wrote: What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored? asset safety
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 320	Posted - 2015.11.15 21:01:39 - [136] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: Kenneth Feld wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Is it still the case that Citadels do not show up in the overview from range (ie. not being on grid) and instead in the probe scanner? Yes, no , both, maybe If you have docking rights = shows up in overview if you do NOT have docking rights = shows up in probe scanner window Presumably, they all show up in probe scanner window, but I am not 100% on that Having all citadel showing up as soon as you entered a system or, worse, a wormhole is really not for the best. In my opinion only those where you have docking right should show up, the rest should be at best anomalies you should be able to probe. CCP is scared of people hiding citadels in safe spot, I got that, but with grid size increase and directional scanner, we should be able to prevent that No probing, they are in probe results window with 100% hit already - like an anomoly
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.15 22:04:04 - [137] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Kynric wrote: What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored? asset safety No asset safety in wormhole.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.15 22:05:22 - [138] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: No probing, they are in probe results window with 100% hit already - like an anomoly My point was they shouldn't be 100% like an anomaly, but they should need probing.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 320	Posted - 2015.11.15 22:28:58 - [139] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: Kenneth Feld wrote: Kynric wrote: What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored? asset safety No asset safety in wormhole. ahh, yeah, sorry, didn't notice he said wormhole Also, if they can make it work, once attack starts no "Trash it" while docked either
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 320	Posted - 2015.11.15 22:29:53 - [140] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: Kenneth Feld wrote: No probing, they are in probe results window with 100% hit already - like an anomoly My point was they shouldn't be 100% like an anomaly, but they should need probing. A XL is the largest structure in game They have never even hinted at needing probes, to bring it up now is fighting an uphill battle for sure

Kynric Sky Fighters 368	Posted - 2015.11.16 02:39:59 - [141] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Roberta Gastoni wrote: Kenneth Feld wrote: Kynric wrote: What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored? asset safety No asset safety in wormhole. ahh, yeah, sorry, didn't notice he said wormhole Also, if they can make it work, once attack starts no "Trash it" while docked either Am I the only one that sees a problem with this? It has all of the downside of a personal hangar but its much much larger. A single rouge director could trash all stored ships much more rapidly than is presently possible. This is probably not the best plan if we want wormhole space to be a healthy active area.
H3llHound Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team 55	Posted - 2015.11.16 11:03:55 - [142] - Quote the unanchoring is not instantaneous as with personal hangar mods. and i'm pretty sure such an action will be cancable aswell
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 320	Posted - 2015.11.16 13:09:53 - [143] - Quote Kynric wrote: Kenneth Feld wrote: Roberta Gastoni wrote: Kenneth Feld wrote: Kynric wrote: What happens to member assets if a wormhole citadel is unanchored? asset safety No asset safety in wormhole. ahh, yeah, sorry, didn't notice he said wormhole Also, if they can make it work, once attack starts no "Trash it" while docked either Am I the only one that sees a problem with this? It has all of the downside of a personal hangar but its much much larger. A single rouge director could trash all stored ships much more rapidly than is presently possible. This is probably not the best plan if we want wormhole space to be a healthy active area. Well, in wormholes, there is a tactic used currently to jump in ships and self destruct to deny attackers the spoils If you are allowed to "Trash it" once an attack starts, someone could trash everything and deny all loot, in that spirit, you can still undock and self destruct, but it takes much more time and gives loot, rather than just going away with "trash it"
Kynric Sky Fighters 368	Posted - 2015.11.16 13:35:33 - [144] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Well, in wormholes, there is a tactic used currently to jump in ships and self destruct to deny attackers the spoils If you are allowed to "Trash it" once an attack starts, someone could trash everything and deny all loot, in that spirit, you can still undock and self destruct, but it takes much more time and gives loot, rather than just going away with "trash it" You cant trash an SMAs contents. The timer is not really relevant as reversing or halting an unanchor is not an option. Also we should assume that the process starts after the CEO logs for the night. The risk for wormhole pilots is mych higher than for any other pilots in the game. This concept makes running a wormhole corp harder not easier as adding directors to share the load would be a mistake.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 320	Posted - 2015.11.16 16:14:10 - [145] - Quote Kynric wrote: Kenneth Feld wrote: Well, in wormholes, there is a tactic used currently to jump in ships and self destruct to deny attackers the spoils If you are allowed to "Trash it" once an attack starts, someone could trash everything and deny all loot, in that spirit, you can still undock and self destruct, but it takes much more time and gives loot, rather than just going away with "trash it" You cant trash an SMAs contents. The timer is not really relevant as reversing or halting an unanchor is not an option. Also we should assume that the process starts after the CEO logs for the night. The risk for wormhole pilots is mych higher than for any other pilots in the game. This concept makes running a wormhole corp harder not easier as adding directors to share the load would be a mistake. The timer takes 24 hours to unanchor, so if it happens after CEO logs off, odds are he will login before it finishes You can board and self destruct the contents of a SMA You are lookign at it from a thief perspective and it will be essentially the same now WH complained about it from a invasion perspective and that is why it is setup the way it is. You REALLY need to listen to the wormhole roundtable to gain perspective before you ask too many more questions. It will explain alot for you
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.16 20:40:09 - [146] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: The timer takes 24 hours to unanchor, so if it happens after CEO logs off, odds are he will login before it finishes You can board and self destruct the contents of a SMA You are lookign at it from a thief perspective and it will be essentially the same now WH complained about it from a invasion perspective and that is why it is setup the way it is. You REALLY need to listen to the wormhole roundtable to gain perspective before you ask too many more questions. It will explain alot for you Actually the unanchoring timer has not been stated anywhere, we suppose it's 24 hours like the anchoring, but no dev or dev blog stated how much time to unanchor a citadel. I really don't like how citadels are shaping up for WH: - you cannot haul a large one into an orca, forcing you to build a large from a medium one inside the wormhole - all citadels will show up in the anomalies overview, even in wormholes - there's no asset safety, of any kind, in wormholes All these "problems" with no real reward for risking so much
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 321	Posted - 2015.11.16 20:50:37 - [147] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: Kenneth Feld wrote: The timer takes 24 hours to unanchor, so if it happens after CEO logs off, odds are he will login before it finishes You can board and self destruct the contents of a SMA You are lookign at it from a thief perspective and it will be essentially the same now WH complained about it from a invasion perspective and that is why it is setup the way it is. You REALLY need to listen to the wormhole roundtable to gain perspective before you ask too many more questions. It will explain alot for you Actually the unanchoring timer has not been stated anywhere, we suppose it's 24 hours like the anchoring, but no dev or dev blog stated how much time to unanchor a citadel. I really don't like how citadels are shaping up for WH: - you cannot haul a large one into an orca, forcing you to build a large from a medium one inside the wormhole - all citadels will show up in the anomalies overview, even in wormholes - there's no asset safety, of any kind, in wormholes All these "problems" with no real reward for risking so much Large has been clafirified to be 80K like the dev blog says, so you can in fact carry it in a WH They have also said numerous time you can build L/XL in a POS, so not sure why you would have to build a medium first.....still not sure where that myth started....Yes, i am aware of the size limitations of a pos and so is CCP. lets see what they do before we say we can't do XXX
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.17 06:17:34 - [148] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Large has been clafirified to be 80K like the dev blog says, so you can in fact carry it in a WH They have also said numerous time you can build L/XL in a POS, so not sure why you would have to build a medium first.....still not sure where that myth started....Yes, i am aware of the size limitations of a pos and so is CCP. lets see what they do before we say we can't do XXX The problem is when pos are going to be removed like they said. Seems we all have some doubts or unclear part about the system, but I don't see a dev posting in this thread since it's creation, so far it's us talking philosophy
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 321	Posted - 2015.11.17 12:11:09 - [149] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: Kenneth Feld wrote: Large has been clafirified to be 80K like the dev blog says, so you can in fact carry it in a WH They have also said numerous time you can build L/XL in a POS, so not sure why you would have to build a medium first.....still not sure where that myth started....Yes, i am aware of the size limitations of a pos and so is CCP. lets see what they do before we say we can't do XXX The problem is when pos are going to be removed like they said. Seems we all have some doubts or unclear part about the system, but I don't see a dev posting in this thread since it's creation, so far it's us talking philosophy What part is unclear? Devs are incredibly active on Slack and we have a very good handle on what is happening
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1976	Posted - 2015.11.17 12:20:54 - [150] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: I really don't like how citadels are shaping up for WH: - you cannot haul a large one into an orca, forcing you to build a large from a medium one inside the wormhole - all citadels will show up in the anomalies overview, even in wormholes - there's no asset safety, of any kind, in wormholes All these "problems" with no real reward for risking so much Risk? As far as I can see there is practically no risk for using the larger versions of these citadels in wormholes. The reason CCP originally wanted L and XL citadels to be difficult to deploy in wormholes was because of how difficult they are going to be to attack. The XL citadels in particular are literally going to be invincible in low-class wormholes and highsec to almost every group in the game who cannot field 100-200 battleships, which is pretty much everyone outside of the largest nullsec/lowsec groups. Certainly no low-class wormhole groups have those numbers. Depending how they are balanced offensively the L citadels will also be tough to crack, although at least 20 battleships is a plausible number for a typical-sized wormhole group to assemble. I am hoping Team Game of Drones has something up their sleeves because this v2 of the citadels are shaping up to be way more difficult, or actually impossible for most groups to attack when capitals are unavailable than the original v1 entosis-vulnerable design. Released as such, XLs will almost never be attacked in highsec or low-class wormholes, and certainly never by the local residents of these spaces with a bar that high.

Kynric Sky Fighters 372	Posted - 2015.11.17 13:32:01 - [151] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Roberta Gastoni wrote: I really don't like how citadels are shaping up for WH: - you cannot haul a large one into an orca, forcing you to build a large from a medium one inside the wormhole - all citadels will show up in the anomalies overview, even in wormholes - there's no asset safety, of any kind, in wormholes All these "problems" with no real reward for risking so much Risk? As far as I can see there is practically no risk for using the larger versions of these citadels in wormholes. The reason CCP originally wanted L and XL citadels to be difficult to deploy in wormholes was because of how difficult they are going to be to attack. The XL citadels in particular are literally going to be invincible in low-class wormholes and highsec to almost every group in the game who cannot field 100-200 battleships, which is pretty much everyone outside of the largest nullsec/lowsec groups. Certainly no low-class wormhole groups have those numbers. Depending how they are balanced offensively the L citadels will also be tough to crack, although at least 20 battleships is a plausible number for a typical-sized wormhole group to assemble. I am hoping Team Game of Drones has something up their sleeves because this v2 of the citadels are shaping up to be way more difficult, or actually impossible for most groups to attack when capitals are unavailable than the original v1 entosis-vulnerable design. Released as such, XLs will almost never be attacked in highsec or low-class wormholes, and certainly never by the local residents of these spaces with a bar that high. I think you underestimate how attractive a killmail eorth several trillion isk will be. Also keep in mind the number of battleships listed is what is required to do the deed in the minimum time by hitting damage cap.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1976	Posted - 2015.11.17 13:43:00 - [152] - Quote Kynric wrote: I think you underestimate how attractive a killmail eorth several trillion isk will be. Also keep in mind the number of battleships listed is what is required to do the deed in the minimum time by hitting damage cap. Several trillion? The XLs will only cost ~70B plus the modules. No one is going to spend the 120+ boring player hours to kill something for a kill mail worth less than a Titan. I think you over-estimate the average group size in this game. There are (almost) no groups in highsec or low-class wormholes of that size so no matter how much someone "wants" a kill mail, it will be impossible to get one. And that assumes the structure is undefended. Defended, even larger fleets with significant support ships will be required completely out of the realm of possibility for anyone except the massive nullsec groups. The only XLs that will die in highsec will be ones fitting market modules which will be reinforced by nullsec groups looking to control the market. Private XLs in highsec and in wormholes inaccessible to capitals will never be attacked.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.11.17 17:07:12 - [153] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Several trillion? The XLs will only cost ~70B plus the modules. No one is going to spend the 120+ boring player hours to kill something for a kill mail worth less than a Titan. I think you over-estimate the average group size in this game. There are (almost) no groups in highsec or low-class wormholes of that size so no matter how much someone "wants" a kill mail, it will be impossible to get one. And that assumes the structure is undefended. Defended, even larger fleets with significant support ships will be required completely out of the realm of possibility for anyone except the massive nullsec groups. The only XLs that will die in highsec will be ones fitting market modules which will be reinforced by nullsec groups looking to control the market. Private XLs in highsec and in wormholes inaccessible to capitals will never be attacked. A fully fitted XL citadel is worth as much as a Titan, but I think you are right, nobody is going to bother. Also another of my concerns is that on the paper (of the dev blog) all citadels can be destroyed, but in reallity, who is going to kill a XL citadel in a low class wormhole or in high sec? In a c1-c2 cruiser-only wh a large is already troublesome to take down. However is fun how in just 3-4 pages we passed from people stating "a large and eve XL are a juicy kill mail and they are easy to destroy" to "large and xl in high sec / wh are too hard to kill since the dps requirements are too high". Just a hint, I don't want to convince anyone and it's not directed to black pedro, but people should go have a look at the pos attacks happening in the last year in high sec and low class wormhole: a good number of them are on inactive POS, commited by a single person or a single player on a couple of bashing alts (biggest I've seen lately was 3 bashing alts). Why do you think it's going to be different on medium and large citadels? Because of the loot? The very same loot that will be sent elsewhere due to citadel mechanics or simply lost in wh space? Because of the kill mail? If you want a easy 300 mil kill mail go gank a hulk in a catalyst. Do people want another idea of how people are going to react to "pointless bashing of structures in high sec and low class wh spaces"? Go look the POCOs (Custom Offices), even in WH space, even if they are quite easy to deploy, nobody is attacking a custom office unless the owner corp have setted up some crazy taxes.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1982	Posted - 2015.11.17 18:48:33 - [154] - Quote Roberta Gastoni wrote: Just a hint, I don't want to convince anyone and it's not directed to black pedro, but people should go have a look at the pos attacks happening in the last year in high sec and low class wormhole: a good number of them are on inactive POS, commited by a single person or a single player on a couple of bashing alts (biggest I've seen lately was 3 bashing alts). Why do you think it's going to be different on medium and large citadels? Because of the loot? The very same loot that will be sent elsewhere due to citadel mechanics or simply lost in wh space? Because of the kill mail? If you want a easy 300 mil kill mail go gank a hulk in a catalyst. Do people want another idea of how people are going to react to "pointless bashing of structures in high sec and low class wh spaces"? Go look the POCOs (Custom Offices), even in WH space, even if they are quite easy to deploy, nobody is attacking a custom office unless the owner corp have setted up some crazy taxes. Yes, there is clear precedent for this. As you say, aside from the occasional dead stick, the killboards are showing that practically no-one is shooting large POSes in low-class wormholes and especially in highsec. These XL citadels are about five times more grindy that the current large POSes - no one, I mean no one is going to attack them without a hugely compelling reason. Perhaps these market modules will be enough to get a nullsec entity or two motivated, but otherwise, a drop of a few billion in minerals and a killmail will not result in any one spending the disproportionate amount of player effort to grind them down in highsec or wormholes without dreads. An XL is impossible/too tedious for a group of 20-30 players to attack in highsec, yet 70-100B ISK is not very much for a similarly sized group to gather to put one up. This will result in unassailable XL structures strewn accross highsec, doing nothing but providing absolute safety for their owners, or collecting dust until the end of the game. Removing these artifical HP walls was what the entosis link was all about. I understand why that plan was scrapped, but this new plan, at least as it has been announced so far is not going to result in people fighting over these XL structures in highsec and wormholes. It is several times worse than the current HP walls presented by large POSes to aggressors who are unable to use capital ships to attack.
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 22	Posted - 2015.11.17 22:22:22 - [155] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: .... While your ideas could work with some tuning, I want to bring you to the other level of understanding why there are no real kills of active pos in places like high sec, and why rarely you see small and medium pos in any wormhole. It's not the mass, the cost or the worth of the pos but it all reside in how defender and attacker interact. Let's say Black Pedro Piracy Ltd. war dec my corp, the Robertas Space Industries, aiming to destroy my small pos I use to compress ore during my mining op in high sec, and my large pos where I build stuff and research. Is it worth to defend the small pos? no ofc, I'll tear it down and store it in a station for when the storm has passed. What about my large pos? Inside it I've all my valuable bpo researching me and te, copying my capital parts and building t2 / t3 stuff. Am I going to risk all my stuff just to not interrupt the jobs? No, most are going to cancel all jobs and store everything inside a station, but at this point what's the reason of defending the large pos? There's no reason why should I, so since it's empty, I'm going to tear it down too and guess what, store it into a station. This is not an issue with war decs, because trust me, halting the production of a fully working pos can cost the owner from a few milions to even billions lost, almost like losing it, the difference is you don't see it in the kill mail, but the missed profit it there. Considering a large tower take 30 minutes to anchor, 30 min to online, no time to shut down and I think 30 min to unanchor, I guess large stations are going to be alike, probably to 2 hours to anchor and 1 to unanchor. Mind, the dev blog stated a freshly anchored station will go invul for a day, it didn't state how much time would it take to anchor and unanchor. Long story short, an active medium or large citadel in high sec will probably be unanchored before the war start, so your idea of having the entosis working on them will go down the drain, since only either corp that plan to defend it, or abandoned citadels will be there when the attack starts. So that's why I said in my previous post, entosis yes, but only on inactive structures, so in high sec people will go around hunting for inactive ones, clearing the land scape by unanchoring and selling the citadel or recycling it for their own use. This also will work well in wh space, as finding an abandoned station is going to be a thrilling and new experience, very different from grinding it down for some loot and another killmail. Not to mention, bring a large or xlarge one we already all agreed it's going to be not so easy, so the capture of an abandoned one can be a very valuable find, beyond the simple monetary value of the structure. All of this stuff about wardecs wont apply to wh ofc, because you cannot be able to know when the enemy will hit, but my other point was WH citadels follow the rules of low sec citadels, but WH citadels wont be able to benefit from the real structure defining ability, the assets safety measure. I was just hoping there will be WH specific modules to counterbalance this higher risk of losing everything. Which modules I've no idea, but probably something to not make them show as 100% in the anomaly list and maybe rigs to increase sensor strenght. I wouldn't be scared nobody will able to find them, remember in WHs you don't have mission agents or incursions sending you in random spots outside the DScan, and all anomalies spawn at no more than 4 AU of a celestial object, so a fast hit of the DScan and a couple of probes will find it.
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1455	Posted - 2015.11.18 00:31:21 - [156] - Quote Been wondering. When the new small structures eventually come around for development, will the modular idea still be on the table for those? That sounded really cool. Do not run. We are your friends.
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 321	Posted - 2015.11.18 10:43:27 - [157] - Quote Tyranis Marcus wrote: Been wondering. When the new small structures eventually come around for development, will the modular idea still be on the table for those? That sounded really cool. Small structures are in the game They are: Mobile depot Cyno inhibitor scan inhibitor cans bubbles There isn't going to be a small citadel
Tycho VI Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S 19	Posted - 2015.11.25 10:46:36 - [158] - Quote As it looks currently, an XL Citadel is basically a titan that can not move, which many people will know exactly when and where to attack it. It is very likely that the top 3 forces in the game will take great interest in roaming the galaxy with 40+ supercapitals, with the sole intent on head shotting an XL Citadel over a short deployment belonging to a defender with no hope to face off against that kind of force. Reminiscent of brave in catch against PL. XL Citadels are a huge investment, these sandcastles should require a little more effort then station grid control with an apex force. Yes, eventually with enough effort they should win anyway, but the engagement itself should be more fulfilling then a simple timer battle, and allow the defender with some opportunities. I have thought of a few suggestions that would make an XL citadel battle more interesting and challenging for both attackers and defenders. Note that medium and large citadels won't play by these rules, they are just reserved for the XL. The XL Citadel will be invulnerable indefinitely until the conditions are met: The owner of the XL citadel would need to not hold a TCU in the entire constellation. This means that the attackers would have to remove all the defending TCU's in the constellation if they wanted to start an attack on the citadel. Once this happens, the citadel could either become vulnerable at a set time every day* while this condition persists, or immediately, which ever option CCP likes the most. Should the defender manage to retake a system in the constellation, replacing a TCU, then their Citadel would have to be repaired before it can become invulnerable if it has been under attack. The attackers could still keep it going through it's reinforced cycles as long as the shields remain below a certain percentage. *Removing all of the defender's ihubs in the constellation would have a profound effect as well: If the attacker can manage to win every Ihub timer in the constellation, then the Citadel's vulnerability window could become corrupted. Meaning that while the defenders hold an ihub, then the RF timer will always come out at a set, very narrow time frame. Without any defending ihubs, the window can become much more unpredictable. This is just a simple outline, but I think it would accomplish the goal of making these massive structures require a severe commitment by the largest forces. They would probably want to take systems nearby the defenders to stage from, over a decent period of time, rather then being nomadic and heading in only a few times for the head shot. Not only that, but defenders that have capital ship stockpiles in the citadel would be greatly encouraged to hold the field in surrounding systems as part of the initial defense, and they could be lured into traps, or into victory!
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 321	Posted - 2015.11.25 16:47:01 - [159] - Quote What about a XL in High sec, they could never be attacked or what?
Tycho VI Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S 19	Posted - 2015.11.25 18:21:12 - [160] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: What about a XL in High sec, they could never be attacked or what? They just get a different set of rules :) Not for me to think of, I am largely uninvolved with highsec...but there could be some things requiring entosis to make a highsec XL vulnerable as well, with a wardec required. Like deploying an XL citadel in a highsec system, will place structures in adjacent systems that would need to be entosis simultaneously for a given amount of time for the structure to leave invulnerability, giving notification to defenders. Definitely no nodes there though. idk, but they could be exciting with a similar ruleset, or even just leave them as citadels are currently planned.

Esrevid Nekkeg Justified and Ancient 942	Posted - 2015.11.25 21:52:44 - [161] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Docking Medium Citadels: all subcapitals can dock. The Orca and Freighters can also dock. For clarity, I presume this includes Jump-Freighters as well? CCP Ytterbium wrote: Citadels in wormhole spaces do not benefit from asset safety. All items are lost when the structure is destroyed there. I would very much like to see that all goods present in a Citadel that gets blown up in W-space has a chance to drop as loot. That said, than you for the condensed write-up on where things stand, really appreciated. 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......
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 321	Posted - 2015.11.25 22:41:12 - [162] - Quote Esrevid Nekkeg wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Docking Medium Citadels: all subcapitals can dock. The Orca and Freighters can also dock. For clarity, I presume this includes Jump-Freighters as well? CCP Ytterbium wrote: Citadels in wormhole spaces do not benefit from asset safety. All items are lost when the structure is destroyed there. I would very much like to see that all goods present in a Citadel that gets blown up in W-space has a chance to drop as loot. That said, than you for the condensed write-up on where things stand, really appreciated. I am pretty sure that has changed and everything in a WH citadel has a chance to drop as loot There is some discussion as far as JF, but right now, yes they are going to be allowed to dock
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Phoenix Company Alliance 222	Posted - 2015.11.28 17:13:41 - [163] - Quote Any updates on the Oberservation arrays?
Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 321	Posted - 2015.11.29 05:11:42 - [164] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: Any updates on the Oberservation arrays? Come back in late 2017 There is so much **** that will come before they even remotely think about giant billboards
Xindi Kraid Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. 1081	Posted - 2015.11.30 05:39:49 - [165] - Quote Considering they said industry is most likely next in line, I'd rather hear if they have any thoughts yet on factory and laboratory structures and modules. I haven't heard a thing about their plans to shake up datacores since it was mentioned in the lab structure thread, and there was a fair bit of disagreement in the community as to how it should work.
Gabriel Karade Noir. Mercenary Coalition 291	Posted - 2015.12.07 18:56:11 - [166] - Quote Any update with regards tethering concerns? War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Kenneth Fritz DND Industries FUBAR. 0	Posted - 2015.12.16 17:20:44 - [167] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: aldhura wrote: I really think the mooring feature doesn't make sense. You are basically stuck in the cap ship. I have read that once you leave the moored ship in become vulnerable and your pod is moored, that will mean, as I read it anyway, you are basically stuck in that capital ship. I don't have one anymore, but means there will be no point in getting one. Something like being able to switch ships for a couple hours will be a better approach. What will happen to all our current POS's and pos modules? will we get a "free" swap out for the new structures ? or are we now stuck with more junk we can't get rid of? Dock your Cap ship in a large Citadel. It's pretty easy. I think the point is that not everyone has the 7+ billion isk that will be needed to purchase the large citadels. Of course that is assuming all those people out here building these things won't hike the prices. Since when everyone and their mother starts trying to purchase these structures for their corps and alliances a hefty skew on the supply vs. demand will occur for a while. But that's a whole seperate set of hamster wheels. Who's your end of the world buddy?
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 182	Posted - 2015.12.20 08:52:20 - [168] - Quote With these new structures - the only thing I really wanna see is some staggering on the release of each size. This would allow more after deployment feed back and doesn't end up with some groups investing in a XL to find out that on TQ the citadels have a glitch and the all start blowing up. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
sero Hita Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 91	Posted - 2015.12.20 11:53:31 - [169] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Assets & Asset safety: All citadels have infinite personal and corporation hangar capacity to fulfill their defense and housing role. This may not be the case for all the future structures however. All citadels have asset safety feature. When it is destroyed, all assets are impounded. When impounded, players have to wait a minimum amount of time before being able to access them again. There are 2 ways to recover impounded assets: Deliver to the same solar system: assets can be delivered locally if there are NPC stations or Citadels in the same solar system. Players will have to wait a minimum of 5 days before being able to deliver them. Deliver to another solar system: players will have to pay 15% of the total item value and wait a minimum of 20 days before being able to deliver them. Players cannot choose destination in that case. It will always be the top station in the closest low-security system if the destroyed Citadel was in null or low-security space. If the Citadel was in high-security space, it will be the closest high-security solar system. If there is a NPC station in the same solar system as the destroyed Citadel in high-security or low-security space this option is not available. Further information on asset safety: The timer starts counting down as soon as the structure is destroyed, no button needs to be pressed. This ensure players with lapsing accounts do not need to wait the full duration when coming back into the game. We will automatically move items if no choice is set after 20 days. If there is a NPC station in the solar system, we will move them there. If there aren't, we will move them as discussed in option 2 above. This avoids players to build local ship caches in a null-security system that cannot be removed. In case of remote delivery, the payment can be done on a one item basis for players not having enough cash to pay for the whole fee at once. Current plan is to move capitals and supercapitals as well, so yes they can go to low-security NPC stations. Citadels in wormhole spaces do not benefit from asset safety. All items are lost when the structure is destroyed there. Would it not have made sense, to make the asset evacuation procedure voluntary? Like a rig on the citadel. Something like a evac center, or evac shuttle bay. In order to rescue your stuff you would have to gimp your citadel by taking up a slot. I like the idea of asset safety would cost you something(outside of the 15% charge). "I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Roberta Gastoni Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 37	Posted - 2015.12.20 13:10:57 - [170] - Quote sero Hita wrote: Would it not have made sense, to make the asset evacuation procedure voluntary? Like a rig on the citadel. Something like a evac center, or evac shuttle bay. In order to rescue your stuff you would have to gimp your citadel by taking up a slot. I like the idea of asset safety would cost you something(outside of the 15% charge). Keep in mind asset safety and evacuation is the specialty of the citadels from what CCP told us, and other future structures might not have this feature or have it in a very nerfed state. Your idea might be good on other kind of structures, like the industrial ones, as either they make industrial ones way more efficient than citadels, or people might choose to do industry into a citadel instead.

Yana Shakti Unlawful Combatants 20	Posted - 2015.12.23 15:55:00 - [171] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Assets & Asset safety: All citadels have infinite personal and corporation hangar capacity to fulfill their defense and housing role. ... All citadels have asset safety feature. ... My soul animal is the rat. I'm spending the morning running PVE exploration sites, 'stealing' from the Angel Cartel, and reading Howard's old (1932) Conan the Barbarian stories. It occurs to me that our concept of PVP in EVE is far too generic and restrictive. It mostly involves direct violent attack -- which, by the way I enjoy quite a lot on another toon. However, by contrast, at the moment all I can truly steal in space are some schekels out of leftover ESS's (mostly extinct now) and perhaps some random moon gue from the nearby towers. I do realize that there are market schemes and corp thefts. But I like to do my EVE playing out in space. The new citadels present a brand new opportunity for enterprising thieves to ply their skills. I would encourage CCP to allow the new structures to be hacked directly for profit. The owners are more than welcome to upgrade their defenses, of course. I'd like to see a new meta devoted to hacking and counter-hacking. I don't want to entosis your station to 'own' it. I just want to be able to lift your isk and your modules when you're not looking. You're welcome to try to blow me up as I do.
Ranzera Stez Herald Knights 2	Posted - 2015.12.30 08:03:59 - [172] - Quote I don't see the gain in having no asset protection in WH. You're already removing all the risk of having a personal station in Low Sec. It's simple to have your industry **** on an alt in low sec instead. What's stopping people from building suitcase carriers and logging off their bling while tethered? And didn't we decide that it's a stupid idea to be safer outside the citadel? This is simple for anyone who spends a modicum of time thinking about ways around this arbitrary bullshit. Also lol at the disabling "trash it" while under attack. We can't increase the convenience of evaccing but we sure can increase the convenience of burning down wormhole structures (referring to the plans to decrease destruction time to 48 hours). It seems like the trolls have CCP's ear.
Edwin Rothbard Interstellar Arbitrage 26	Posted - 2016.01.03 11:03:07 - [173] - Quote I've poured over the various vidoes, blogs, and forum posts. I have some questions: Can large/XL be deployed in high security space like regular POSes or will they be limited to null? Will you be able to anchor citadels in systems like Jita, or will they have the same system restrictions as current POSes? Since they can be deployed anywhere in a system, what determines who gets to mine which moon in a system? If a citadel is in immune mode where it cannot be shot, can the owner still man the guns at shoot at ships in low/null/wh space? where will structure components be manufactured? Station only? can that be done with one of the existing POS modules? where will the hulls be built? Station only? somewhere else? what happens to old pos/outpost modules? do they become collector's items, refunded, or converted to new structures? what happens to old bpos like POS and outposts? do they get refunded at npc price, converted, or something else? what happens to faction POS/module bcs? what advantages is there to allow public access to a high sec citadel? can you allow/tax others to use your research/manufacturing/market? can you avoid NPC station taxes/brokers fees if you setup a market in a high sec large/XL citadel? 12 of the 15 structure bpos already exist. you can build them right now. they do not have the new build requirements yet. if you build units today will they get converted to the new units or refunded? IE will a "station market network" module built today work as an input into the new citadels or does it become useless? Rothbard's Casino
Edwin Rothbard Interstellar Arbitrage 26	Posted - 2016.01.03 11:11:05 - [174] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: HS Citidal I have a big concern. Lets say I want to have a strong presence in Jita when these stations come out. I place a Large citidal in Jita and try to make it a new trade hub. Its late and i have to woek the the morning so I log off. 2 hours after I log off someone places a Large citidal in Jita to compete with me. 6 hours after he drops his station I log in and im like WTF and want to contest the station being built. I war dec the corp but it takes 24 hours before im able to shoot. The station cannot be fires upon and only has a 15 min window before I have to go thru a long process to destroy it. Can we A: Reduce the war dec timer B: Increase the time it takes a station to deploy to 48hrs C: in the 15 min window, make it availabe to where anyone can attack it but you go suspect. (Without a wardec) D: extend the window to 12 hours on its first deployment. (15 mins apply after the structure was properly deployed and not contested in the 12 hr window.) That way it gives players time to contest citidal being built in their region and we dont get station being deployed everywhere. I understand it take 30 mins at its respectable DPS but attacking it 3 times while having days in between is alot of work and if you miss one timer you have to start all over. Can we make it possiable to clear a station in a weekend? Start Friday night and end Sunday night kinda thing? Thank you Wait so you want your citadel to only be vulnerable for 15 minutes when deployed but you want any citadels that come after yours to be vulnerable for a much longer period of time? I'm not sure why being "first" should grant some sort of extra protection against newcomers. I'm all for you being able to easy contest other people's citadels as long as we can just as easily contest yours. Rothbard's Casino
Arya Ikahrus 21	Posted - 2016.01.04 23:07:50 - [175] - Quote I'm still against asset protection for mediums and pretty much for it in XL-Citadels. However, I've changed my mind on larges. I think they should be able to get a limited version of it if they are willing to fit a rig for it.
Ranzera Stez Herald Knights 2	Posted - 2016.01.07 20:13:11 - [176] - Quote Arya Ikahrus wrote: I'm still against asset protection for mediums and pretty much for it in XL-Citadels. However, I've changed my mind on larges. I think they should be able to get a limited version of it if they are willing to fit a rig for it. This is a good compromise. I think larges should get full asset predilection though. There's the looming possibility of larges being the biggest structure that won't just attract aggressors.
Arya Ikahrus 21	Posted - 2016.01.08 09:40:10 - [177] - Quote Ranzera Stez wrote: Arya Ikahrus wrote: I'm still against asset protection for mediums and pretty much for it in XL-Citadels. However, I've changed my mind on larges. I think they should be able to get a limited version of it if they are willing to fit a rig for it. This is a good compromise. I think larges should get full asset protection though. There's the looming possibility of larges being the biggest structure that won't just attract aggressors. My thinking is that asset protection really isn't very Eve, however I think I get what CCP is trying to do. I think they hope to encourage null industry and remove a roadblock to lapsed accounts returning by ensuring they can still get their stuff even if it was left in deep null. XL's as alliance 'capitals' or 'trade hubs' works well for that, most groups won't be able to afford or justify lots of XL's. Yeah, goons or PL or someone might blow it up to troll you but considering that incoming damage is capped and they can be armed with AoE doomsdays I don't think that will be as big a problem as some are worried it will be. Slightly less useful L's fitted with evac services as cheap backups/solutions for poorer groups. M's should not get any asset safety at all, ever. They're supposedly going to be quite cheap, have infinite storage and will only be open to attack like 3 hours out of 168. Full item recovery as well is going way over the top.
Ophelia Lemm Electric Sheep Independent Entrepreneurs 69	Posted - 2016.01.10 22:32:17 - [178] - Quote Oh well, all this citadel business only looks cool on the outside, the more I read, the more frustrated I get... Few points I'd like to clarify: 1. So, assuming I can't dock a capital (carrier, dred) in a medium-sized citadel, how can I safely eject from it (to do PI, scouting, ratting, ect.) without having to worry about it being stolen/shot at? For now I only see that tethering allows logging of, and it does not affect ships with no pilots in them. Does phasing-out of POS-fields mean my capital will become a coffin for my character, pretty much like titans do? Since POSes - as they are now - allow for safe storage of capitals with capsules ejected (and smaller caps can be hidden from d-scan too), one would expect same functionality from any citadel. 2. Also, blocking overview/D-scan when docked to a citadel is bad idea, especially in WH-space, where there is no local chat to check for neutrals in system, before undocking something expensive (or anything at all). Assuming-direct-control meme is great and all, but you can't seriously expect that every member of a corp/alliance (not to mention guests) will be given permissions to use it to check local space for safety. And again, does it permit d-scan? Does it permit checking number of signatures/anomalies in current system? As it is now citadel makes players blind to their surroundings, especially those living in wh-space. 3. Will tethering/docking be available via standing system? And a wish-list: 1. Asset protection? I'd rather CCP just drop it, XL included. All the more reason for people to actually try to protect their stuff. 2. Since overview/d-scan is blocked while docked to a citadel, might as well make a proper station interior, otherwise it just don't make sense. If CCP designers too lazy/busy to make new interior for citadel, just reuse what you have already, 90% of PVPers don't give a damn anyway. 3. I find it rather ironic that, while CCP provide so much character customization options, player are devoid of any ability to show it off. Either by having customized frozen corpses (that alone would be grand) or by having some public areas on stations/citadels for toons to interact with each other. Its not like I expect you to release all that stuff with customizable station interiors/NPC traders/twi-lek dancers i saw on youtube in one day. Just a public place to sit and talk in a separate channel would already be utterly awesome.
Anthar Thebess 1404	Posted - 2016.01.11 09:19:22 - [179] - Quote Yes, initial investment for a wormhole that have capitals is Large citadel - it allow you to store capitals. Citadels will not shoot aggressors, so prepare to keep your alt logged and operating guns. Asset protection. This is hard one. You could say that, this will make game more dynamic, demanding, fun. Yes and no - this is only game and you can play it only when you have free time, and can do something. Losing all your stuff because you cannot login today, as your kid got sick - is good example how broken this can be. I am aware that in wormhole space you can lose all your stuff now - but people that don't liked this idea simply didn't move to wormhole space but populated nullsec/lowsec and higsec. I rly hope that CCP will not touch storage and docking possibilities of NPC stations in NPC null regions. Because day they allow them to be destructible like citadels, groups like MOA will be gone. Simplest solution for the big sov players will be destruction of all NPC stations/citadels to reduce staging of all small roaming groups. Some regions will be totally broken by this changes. From what i got till now - if someone destroy your citadel, all stuff will land in lowsec. For regions like Fountain, Stain, Venal ... closest lowsec is 2-3 mids (jf) 5-7 mids ( normal capitals) from the location you had your citadel. Even if the current nearest NPC station in NPC region is like 4 LY away. Yes you can rebuild your citadel, but we both know that there are some situations when this will not be possible ( you where not playing, your alliance lost space, some corp left, maybe disbanded, etc) I hope that CCP will not brake this. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Raydan Ketath Industrial Corporation of EVE Industrial Conglomerate of EVE 0	Posted - 2016.01.12 10:43:46 - [180] - Quote Apologies if this has already been asked - I did have a quick search. Can you transfer ownership of citadels like you can with outposts?

Lyra Jedran POS Party 6	Posted - 2016.01.13 05:44:33 - [181] - Quote I believe in one of the original dev blogs it was mentioned that medium citadels could be anchored with an orca while large and XL citadels would require a freighter. Has this been changed or is this still the case?
Ophelia Lemm Electric Sheep Independent Entrepreneurs 69	Posted - 2016.01.14 12:48:57 - [182] - Quote Oh and by the way. Can one build a Citadel on a POS, or a station/outpost/other citadel is requiered assemble the final product?
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 1095	Posted - 2016.01.15 12:47:18 - [183] - Quote Ophelia Lemm wrote: Oh and by the way. Can one build a Citadel on a POS, or a station/outpost/other citadel is requiered assemble the final product? Citadels are supposed to replace POS and outposts, so probably they are not needed. On stations, I'm not sure. I imagine CCP wouldn't design reliance of everyone on hisec/lowsec into new structure system. I also doubt "another citadel only" idea. What if all of them are destroyed? Naah. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Lexia Stone Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 8	Posted - 2016.01.17 15:52:38 - [184] - Quote Nafensoriel wrote: Never assume any BPO will be reimbursed or converted to a new item. CCPs stance repeatedly has been "youve gotten use out of it" as a reason for lack of reimbursement. There is, however, an extremely good reason for this stance. It levels the playing field for the new mechanic. While it may seem unfair to lose all of the hard work and time it would be even more unfair to newer players to release a system and then make them compete directly against perfect BPOs. That has to be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread so far. Might as well just reset everyone's SP and wallet once a year to make it "fair" to new players, right?
Loki Feiht Feiht Family Clan 207	Posted - 2016.01.20 13:12:43 - [185] - Quote Lexia Stone wrote: Nafensoriel wrote: Never assume any BPO will be reimbursed or converted to a new item. CCPs stance repeatedly has been "youve gotten use out of it" as a reason for lack of reimbursement. There is, however, an extremely good reason for this stance. It levels the playing field for the new mechanic. While it may seem unfair to lose all of the hard work and time it would be even more unfair to newer players to release a system and then make them compete directly against perfect BPOs. That has to be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread so far. Might as well just reset everyone's SP and wallet once a year to make it "fair" to new players, right? Edit: And it's a legitemate concern for station/pos owners regardless of the BPOs. Stations and towers are a huge investment even for large alliances, so will they be replaced 1:1 with the new structures or will owners be SOL? It's one thing to lose a tower or station to reds when you have a chance to defend it, it's quite another just to lose it because CCP. CCP have stated multiple times there will be a crossover time period and the outposts and pos will be phased out NOT converted, outposts may stick around but with reduced usefulness, if CCP back track on this I will personally be very disappointed as I've already sold all of my assets regarding pos and outposts, but hey, it wouldn't be the first time. More NPC - Randomly Generated Modular Content-áthread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=220858
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 182	Posted - 2016.01.20 21:14:49 - [186] - Quote Soooo ... let me get this straight. POS + Capital ship maintenance array = LARGE Citadel? Because with a medium you're always stuck in your capital. That about correct?
Asanora RIM Enterprises 0	Posted - 2016.01.21 02:43:17 - [187] - Quote Lyra Jedran wrote: I believe in one of the original dev blogs it was mentioned that medium citadels could be anchored with an orca while large and XL citadels would require a freighter. Has this been changed or is this still the case? I think the deployment sizes are 8k, 80k and 800k so hauler for the medium and freighter for the XL, can probably launch the L from a cargo fitted orca or rorqual
Gabriel Karade Noir. Mercenary Coalition 296	Posted - 2016.01.21 20:57:09 - [188] - Quote Any update on concerns/issues raised here? Gone awfully quiet, considering it is getting closer to release. War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Pesadel0 the muppets Spartan Republic 124	Posted - 2016.01.22 10:48:21 - [189] - Quote Gabriel Karade wrote: Any update on concerns/issues raised here? Gone awfully quiet, considering it is getting closer to release. Awfully quiet?We dont have any info apart from the components to build them , I mean i get it CCP are still working on the details but shouldn't we at least know the base stats for the citadels?
Beanhead2 The Bean Consortium 6	Posted - 2016.01.22 13:07:11 - [190] - Quote Very exited about new structures but still have not found an answer to the question "What will happen to old structures?" With so much hard earned ISK tied up in in POS towers ect all over New Eden will we get anything for them? or will we be left with a useless collectors item? Flysafe...ish

Annexe I N E X T R E M I S Tactical Narcotics Team 19	Posted - 2016.01.23 23:43:18 - [191] - Quote Not sure if this has been asked or mentioned, but.. Do Citadels actually have a SHIP hanger? I just re-watched CCP Nullarbors Eve Vegas presentation, there was a lot of talk about Personal and Corporation Hangers, assets, docking and fitting services. But I did not hear anything about a ship hangers and being able to change your ship. One would assume this is the function of a citadel, with the potential to replace outposts in the future, but is this something that can be confirmed, or are supers/titans still coffins? Also, no more interior? No more ship spinning? I hope this is early stage too, as a 'switch between' interior and exterior view would be cool. Annexe ITAI - VIP "i will pop your wreck with faction loot"
Alexander Otium The Scope Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2016.01.28 09:28:15 - [192] - Quote The current info seems to be that Medium citadels will not be able to fit a market service module. This definitely has some selfish reasons from myself behind it, but I do feel that this is too limiting. You won't be able to set up a small trade outpost someplace, or in my case, be able to set up a Medium Citadel in a wormhole with market features for people living there. Leaving Market services only on Large and Extra Large limits that too much to people with more money and, more importantly, more people. The longer vulnerability periods make it a necessity to have a larger group that can dedicate more time if you want to have a Citadel with any market features. Might I propose a more limited version of the market module for Medium Citadels? A longer cooldown for modifying orders, a lower cap on how many orders an individual can place, a maximum amount of ISK that can be put into escrow on a given order. These would allow Medium Citadels, and by extension smaller groups, the opportunity to try out operating a market center, and would lower the barrier of entry for competition.
ISD Rontea ISD RUS 655	Posted - 2016.01.28 09:53:44 - [193] - Quote Annexe wrote: EDIT: I docked in a Citadel last night on Duality. Opening the inventory I saw the ship hanger. yay! Also, no more interior? No more ship spinning? I hope this is early stage too, as a 'switch between' interior and exterior view would be cool. No interior and ship spinning in Citadel. You can spin you ship on a station or outpost. ISD Rontea Vice Admiral -Æ-+-+-+-+-é-æ-Ç -¦-Ç-â-+-+-ï -+-+ -¦-+-¦-+-+-+-¦-¦-¦-ü-é-¦-+-Ä -ü -+-¦-Ç-+-¦-¦-+-+ Interstellar Services Department
Eris Tsasa Golden Apple Hideaway 1	Posted - 2016.01.28 11:09:15 - [194] - Quote ISD Rontea wrote: Annexe wrote: EDIT: I docked in a Citadel last night on Duality. Opening the inventory I saw the ship hanger. yay! Also, no more interior? No more ship spinning? I hope this is early stage too, as a 'switch between' interior and exterior view would be cool. No interior and ship spinning in Citadel. You can spin you ship on a station or outpost. Why? Part of the reason I dock up now is to give myself a break from open space and to give my graphics card a little break.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 184	Posted - 2016.01.28 11:43:13 - [195] - Quote I would consider being able to see the undock a feature .... can we haz this for outposts/stations too?
Soldarius O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore 1442	Posted - 2016.01.28 15:16:30 - [196] - Quote Alexander Otium wrote: The current info seems to be that Medium citadels will not be able to fit a market service module. This definitely has some selfish reasons from myself behind it, but I do feel that this is too limiting. You won't be able to set up a small trade outpost someplace, or in my case, be able to set up a Medium Citadel in a wormhole with market features for people living there. Agreed. I thought one of the main features of a Citadel was that we would be able to set up a market hub? http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Nana Skalski Poseidaon 4323	Posted - 2016.02.02 15:04:07 - [197] - Quote ISD Rontea wrote: Annexe wrote: EDIT: I docked in a Citadel last night on Duality. Opening the inventory I saw the ship hanger. yay! Also, no more interior? No more ship spinning? I hope this is early stage too, as a 'switch between' interior and exterior view would be cool. No interior and ship spinning in Citadel. You can spin you ship on a station or outpost. Laaaaaazy design. Now you will have people ridiculing EVE as "you are a citadel in this game". ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°)/ =ƒÅ¦ - my sandcastle Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2903	Posted - 2016.02.03 07:03:11 - [198] - Quote It's gonna be weird. Having all those station service windows open and still looking outside. Has the UI for those changed at all?
Master Darklight SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 5	Posted - 2016.02.03 15:46:22 - [199] - Quote Can we pleeeease get the ability to do a regular dock? By which I mean a ship hangar, the thing you normally spin your ship in. Maybe just let us choose between the already implemented station hangars, that shouldn't be too hard. It's kinda weird how you could always dock and 'be inside', and now you are never really seeing the inside. It also seems like a bit of corner cutting going on, so why not just give us the ability to use the old ones?
Mister Ripley Ministry of War Amarr Empire 143	Posted - 2016.02.05 11:44:46 - [200] - Quote Since Devs are busy karma whoring on reddit... again... CCP Ytterbium wrote: Hello there, do you have time to talk about our lord and savior, the Station Interior? You may remember this reddit thread we created a while back that summarized various points regarding the new Citadels. One point that stood out quite a lot was your disappointment regarding the lack of station interior in Citadels. We discussed that quite a bit internally and decided to revert that decision. So yes, Citadels will have station interiors. Several reasons for that. First is psychological. We want Citadels to feel like home, like your little protected bubble away from harm. Having an outside view of space around the structure doesn't convey that. In fact, it gives the feeling you're exposed to external factors, which is the exact opposite of the goal we wanted. Compare that with NPC stations and Outposts, where you feel safe spinning your ship despite having an army of angry nerds waiting outside. Again, it purely is a psychological effect, since Citadels will still be destructible, but we feel it's important point to keep. Second, we have technical concerns by only having an external view mode. What if there is a lot of visual noise happening around the structure when you're docked? (ex: fleet fight) Well then you have a lot of rendering to do in the client, significantly slowing the docked experience. While you'll still have TiDi if you are in a station interior in a busy system, your client won't have to load all the effects around, which is a serious advantage. So, based on all of that, here is how it's going to work: If you are in a subcapital or capital ship and you dock into a Citadel, you will get a regular station interior with ship spinning like you would on NPC stations or Outposts. If you are in a supercapital (titan or supercarriers) and you dock, you will get another station interior but with fixed camera (can't spin the ship). That's because there are various technical reasons tied to that. When inside either of these station interiors, you can also go look at the window, which is the external view we were giving you before. It most likely won't have the overview or ship brackets, but it will at least give you a general tactical assessment of what's outside. If not, you can always undock (tethering will keep you safe), look around then dock back. If nothing else it can also serve as a nice scenery when activity is going on outside the structure If you take direct control of the structure you will of course have the overview and ship brackets, since you need these to fire the structure defenses. No captain quarters in the new structures. Hope that helps! link Why do we even have official forums?

Gabriel Karade Noir. Mercenary Coalition 296	Posted - 2016.02.07 14:49:39 - [201] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Alright, to recap where we're at with this. Tethering: Going to be renamed tethering instead of mooring (mooring is confusing for various reasons). As long as within some specific range of the structure and do not have weapons timer, you ship is tethered, meaning it cannot receive damage or be locked. You can align and move within the specified tethering range and still be protected, as long as you do not go outside the maximum range. You will not be able to tether to the structure if you are warp scrambled from a targeted module (HIC point, regular warp scrambling modules). You will be able to tether to the structure if you are within an AoE warp scramble bubble (HIC AoE bubble, interdictor bubble). Of course you will not be able to warp away however. This is to prevent people from being caught their pants down when logging back on near a structure. Tethering will be shown in the UI and visually in space. We are investigating options to minimize bumping when you are tethered. If your ship has access to dock into the structure it can use tethering. This doesn't mean you ship can dock however. For instance, you may have access to dock into a Medium Citadel as a Titan pilot, but you still are unable to dock. Your Titan will still be tethered when in range of the structure. If you log off you do not stay in space near the structure, you log off as you normally would (which is why calling this feature "mooring" is confusing). If you leave your active ship the tether will not protect the ship left behind and will tether to your capsule. Docking Medium Citadels: all subcapitals can dock. The Orca and Freighters can also dock. Large Citadels: all capitals can dock. This includes the Rorqual. X-Large Citadels: all ships can dock. There are different docking bays depending if you are in a subcapital, capital or supercapital. Depending on the structure, there may be more than one of each. You cannot choose which one to undock from (for now at least). There is no station interior. When you dock the scene is centered around the structure. Some information may be hidden (like the overview or ship modules) since technically you are not in a ship anymore. Since you're tethered it's easy to undock and then dock back up to get this information back. Defense Assuming direct control of the structure brings the overview and structure modules up, since you are now manning its defenses. We're going to require proper user groups to assume direct control. They'll provide more flexibility than roles since groups can be defined for people outside your corporation or alliance. They'll have admins and managers, more on that at a later date. You'll be able to set up groups to kick people out when assuming direct control - just in case that nasty spy is shooting on your own ships during a fleet battle. You won't need to train Starbase Defense Management to assume direct control. One player will control all defenses at once. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be removed (and reimbursed) or properly refurbished when we remove Starbases. New structures will not have automated defenses. Rest of the defense mechanics are explained there. ..... ........ [/list] 28th October was a long time back; any updates/responses to the feedback given here and elsewhere? Tethering for example, needs to be flipped the other way around to what is proposed here (ship stays tethered, not the capsule). War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Lyra Gerie Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 81	Posted - 2016.02.07 21:29:10 - [202] - Quote I believe the main point of these structures should be to make resources more available but also less secure. The overall goal should be greater production than low or high sec space, even possibly wormhole space. However it should come at the cost of security. In high sec or even low sec it makes sense that there is empire protection over some resources, after all it's space owned by the empires. However these new structures should be focused on extracting the maximum amount of resources while being able to be raided or stolen from. I don't mean just by use of something gimicky like a siphon but rather making these structures more similar to the ESS in nature. This would mean that while structures collect more, especially when manned, unmanned they are extremely vulnerable, like an unpiloted ship. Anyone could take partial control and raid it's contents perhaps with a simple hacking game or two. All the contents could not be taken in one raid however, maybe something like 10-25% depending on how successful hacks were and such. but given that their main strength would be obtained when manned, if groups really wanted to procure as much resources as possible they should be consistantly manned rather then auto gathering. This would encourage conflict around boarder systems and give pirate raiders in lowsec an additional reason to venture outside of low. It would also give smaller entities the ability to hurt larger ones that are less organized or have renters that are less reliable for defense. Further this gives little reason to truely destroy many of these kinds of structures as they can be more profitable to keep alive unless the attackers are planning on taking sov or really want to hurt enemy production.
Hafwolf Intersteller Trash Disposal 13	Posted - 2016.02.08 17:03:48 - [203] - Quote Hey just a crazy Idea for a new structure. How about a mobile docking rig. Its a personal structure that can has enough room to dock 1 super cap. It has a 50k m3 storage bay. Now it does not have guns or and larger structure protection. It has a 48 hour reinforce timer. It would be a short stay tactical docking for capitals and super capitals for people that are more Mobile need to dock there ship for short time periods. Basically it just looks like a large truss box that the ships are inside. It would be cool if you could anchor this structure within the gun range of a new citadel.
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks 3540	Posted - 2016.02.08 22:54:00 - [204] - Quote Concerning the item safety mechanics: I'd suggest highsec (and maybe lowsec) take on the same mechanics as w-space, with hangars dropping loot upon destruction. Having seen just how many derelict towers exist in highsec, I'd hate to see abandoned citadels cluttering up space just as much. By making undefended citadels potential loot sources, you'd create a driver for conflict in highsec AND keep space a lot cleaner. After all, this isn't null. Highsec is littered with NPC stations that could have held all that stuff. Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
aldhura Bartledannians Nite Owls 35	Posted - 2016.02.09 02:09:57 - [205] - Quote FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: Concerning the item safety mechanics: I'd suggest highsec (and maybe lowsec) take on the same mechanics as w-space, with hangars dropping loot upon destruction. Having seen just how many derelict towers exist in highsec, I'd hate to see abandoned citadels cluttering up space just as much. By making undefended citadels potential loot sources, you'd create a driver for conflict in highsec AND keep space a lot cleaner. After all, this isn't null. Highsec is littered with NPC stations that could have held all that stuff. I have a sneaky suspicion that HS stations are going to become a thing of the past or change vastly to encourage (force) players to put up the new structures, kinda just makes sense with the comments from CCP saying citadels will have system wide influence and comments like that. But agree.. space junk must be made removable\lootable. But hey, the sky is falling.. so drop and cover!!!! Bartledannians Corporation is recruiting Nite Owls Alliance is recruiting
TheSmokingHertog Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium 370	Posted - 2016.02.11 11:14:49 - [206] - Quote If players dont free up all their assets over time, will there be decay on delivery packages? (on destruction) "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 =-
Anthar Thebess 1451	Posted - 2016.02.11 15:36:23 - [207] - Quote TheSmokingHertog wrote: If players dont free up all their assets over time, will there be decay on delivery packages? (on destruction) Probably not, i hope not. This is a game, and people have RL. Hospitals, schools, deployments, delegations, family issues - in so many cases you simply cannot do some things in game as RL > EVE. In NPC space stations, or safe storage space need to stay. People who know that they will be away for longer usually store all stuff there preparing for this. There are also other reasons. Imagine yourself SOE , Mordus , Fountan NPC, Stain or any other NPC space if CCP make stations there destructible. Sov alliances living near, will simply clear all NPC installations living all this space empty. Less raids, less lost mining ships, less BO gangs, hard deployment against them. Citadel will not be the answer, as they will be killed at first reinforcement. To be a threat to sov groups you need to drop Large citadel to store capitals, how many groups can afford to replace L size citadel on weekly basis? Perfect solution for me is to strip all NPC stations in Lowsec and Nullsec from production related services and force people who decide to live there to put citadels to compensate this. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Tau Rollard Dynamic Security Solutions The Obsidian Front 3	Posted - 2016.02.13 04:32:32 - [208] - Quote As a wormhole resident i can understand the reason why citadels in wormhole will not be allowed clone jumping/medical clones as we have them in highsec but i would prefer there be some wiggle room. A compromise. Make the clone jump system one way. From high sec to wh or the reverse. the point is to allow us wormhole dwellers the ability to come back and forth, while still maintaining a degree of difficulty. Or in the case of allowing clone jumping why not make it so we cannot install clones in the bay but leave a clone like we do in stations without clone bays that we jump out of. Or instead of allowing any clone, only allow clones without implants to be used in a special clone bay for wormhole. Either way i would accept any ridiculous difficulty if it allows us wh residents the same chance to enjoy what citadels can do. This citadel "light" or "diet" approach leaves a bad taste and makes it almost pointless to bring a citadel into wh space. And the point of citadels is to propel us to actually colonize space! Make it difficult, but let us actually enjoy it!
Fifth Dimension Fractured Glory Feign Disorder 0	Posted - 2016.02.26 11:25:24 - [209] - Quote So can i walk in station now?
Nicola Romanoff Reasonable People Of Sound Mind 27	Posted - 2016.02.28 16:43:22 - [210] - Quote Will the construction of citadels involve any of the P4 PI products? Also, and I may have asked this before but donGÇÖt recall, once citadels come out will POS be defunked or will POS still be a thing?

Kenneth Feld Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 332	Posted - 2016.02.29 03:24:03 - [211] - Quote Nicola Romanoff wrote: Will the construction of citadels involve any of the P4 PI products? Also, and I may have asked this before but donGÇÖt recall, once citadels come out will POS be defunked or will POS still be a thing? The inputs for BPO's were release din a blog some months ago, yes P4 is a huge input POS will eventually go away replaced by structures, Citadels is the first of 9 new structures that will replace POS and outposts
Alex Harumichi Icecream Audit Office 34	Posted - 2016.02.29 07:48:39 - [212] - Quote Any info on whether jump freighters will be able to dock into medium citadels, or if that requires a large one?
Lugh Crow-Slave 1625	Posted - 2016.02.29 19:34:36 - [213] - Quote Tau Rollard wrote: As a wormhole resident i can understand the reason why citadels in wormhole will not be allowed clone jumping/medical clones as we have them in highsec but i would prefer there be some wiggle room. A compromise. Make the clone jump system one way. From high sec to wh or the reverse. the point is to allow us wormhole dwellers the ability to come back and forth, while still maintaining a degree of difficulty. Or in the case of allowing clone jumping why not make it so we cannot install clones in the bay but leave a clone like we do in stations without clone bays that we jump out of. Or instead of allowing any clone, only allow clones without implants to be used in a special clone bay for wormhole. Either way i would accept any ridiculous difficulty if it allows us wh residents the same chance to enjoy what citadels can do. This citadel "light" or "diet" approach leaves a bad taste and makes it almost pointless to bring a citadel into wh space. And the point of citadels is to propel us to actually colonize space! Make it difficult, but let us actually enjoy it! i myself have no objection to jumping out of a hole but you should not be able to jump in ever sieges are going to be hard enough with podding ppl out going to be one of the only options from what i understand we will be able to swap clones in the citadel just not jump out of it Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1625	Posted - 2016.02.29 19:35:24 - [214] - Quote Alex Harumichi wrote: Any info on whether jump freighters will be able to dock into medium citadels, or if that requires a large one? read the quote at top of this page Citadel worm hole tax
Grotest the1st Panacan Independent Miners Guild Care Factor 3	Posted - 2016.03.03 17:46:58 - [215] - Quote Lyra Gerie wrote: I believe the main point of these structures should be to make resources more available but also less secure. The overall goal should be greater production than low or high sec space, even possibly wormhole space. However it should come at the cost of security. In high sec or even low sec it makes sense that there is empire protection over some resources, after all it's space owned by the empires. However these new structures should be focused on extracting the maximum amount of resources while being able to be raided or stolen from. I don't mean just by use of something gimicky like a siphon but rather making these structures more similar to the ESS in nature. This would mean that while structures collect more, especially when manned, unmanned they are extremely vulnerable, like an unpiloted ship. Anyone could take partial control and raid it's contents perhaps with a simple hacking game or two. All the contents could not be taken in one raid however, maybe something like 10-25% depending on how successful hacks were and such. but given that their main strength would be obtained when manned, if groups really wanted to procure as much resources as possible they should be consistantly manned rather then auto gathering. This would encourage conflict around boarder systems and give pirate raiders in lowsec an additional reason to venture outside of low. It would also give smaller entities the ability to hurt larger ones that are less organized or have renters that are less reliable for defense. Further this gives little reason to truely destroy many of these kinds of structures as they can be more profitable to keep alive unless the attackers are planning on taking sov or really want to hurt enemy production. Well not everyone is in large alliances or corps. Furthermore not all corps feature 90% combat pilots. Personally i can't stand the combat in eve, but i love the system build around miners/industrialists/haulers with everything included(ganks, intel and so on). When citadels hits though i'm gonna be screwed big time. Since i don't have many combat pilots in my corp and POS shields are a thing of the past, i won't see any rorq's, orca's hell i wouldn't even fly my skiff. Everytime i get ganked in null(3 times so far because i wasn't paying attention) thats 3 full loads for a proc, 30 for a skiff and a small eternity for a rorq/orca. My alliance won't come to save me so the discussed invoulnerability module might as well be dupped "useless button" that will only extend my life a few minutes. Adding something like this would mean most industrialists/miners would retreat to highsec because the large risk proposed does not corrispond to the increase in profit. Citadels are still getting fleshed out i know, and my oppinion might be unpopular but i don't want my playstyle to be removed from null. Once you go slack, you never go back. Team is meat spelled backwards. Distrustfull, Paranoid and Compulsive Miner
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2309	Posted - 2016.03.04 00:15:44 - [216] - Quote Grotest the1st Panacan wrote: Since i don't have many combat pilots in my corp and POS shields are a thing of the past, i won't see any rorq's, orca's hell i wouldn't even fly my skiff. Everytime i get ganked in null(3 times so far because i wasn't paying attention) thats 3 full loads for a proc, 30 for a skiff and a small eternity for a rorq/orca. My alliance won't come to save me so the discussed invoulnerability module might as well be dupped "useless button" that will only extend my life a few minutes. If your alliance won't come help you save a Rorqual, you might want to find a new alliance. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Grotest the1st Panacan Independent Miners Guild Care Factor 3	Posted - 2016.03.04 12:27:10 - [217] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: If your alliance won't come help you save a Rorqual, you might want to find a new alliance. Think you're missing the point here. Ally's would like to help, maybe they can help me if it's just a single or a small gang, but a fleet is simply gonna kill me. These changes means a mid or low sized player organisations are gonna be forced into high or assimilate into other's. Once you go slack, you never go back. Team is meat spelled backwards. Distrustfull, Paranoid and Compulsive Miner
Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation 294	Posted - 2016.03.04 18:03:16 - [218] - Quote Grotest the1st Panacan wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: If your alliance won't come help you save a Rorqual, you might want to find a new alliance. Think you're missing the point here. Ally's would like to help, maybe they can help me if it's just a single or a small gang, but a fleet is simply gonna kill me. These changes means a mid or low sized player organisations are gonna be forced into high or assimilate into other's. You're in Care Factor mate, when I lived in 1-1 we often had to run to assist them. That is the one downside of living in provibloc and its politics. For the most part you are all independents and only at the risk of Sov will the forces roll out. If you want a group that will protect your Assets I would head GFA , VOLT, -7- any of your versatile groups. Also You are in a Coalition, the problem isn't the factor of you having Small or Large or even combat pilots in your alliance or corp, the problem is no true communication or cohesion is done. It's one of the many reasons I ditched provi and shifted my operations to PB. These Citadel changes arent going to be your issue. Your problem will be AOE links not a reinforce mode. Our Rorqs/orcas/booster of choice will soon be On-Grid only. If you are in X-radius of booster you receive bonus. If you are a Mining group in Null/Low/Hi/WH space is no different. Your booster will be on grid and your fleet near it. That Reinforce timer is built so if you DO get hit in the belt.. you can Hopefully get a fleet over to you. Contact one of the FC's, grab someone from Golden fleet, find anyone to come to your aid. 5 minutes is a long time on grid for a PVP group. It's also ample time to get a response fleet to you, pending your location and how well your liked. If you are in a good group, It's all hands on deck when a capital is tackled (depending on capital and reason of how). If tethering and reinforce are already causing issues, you're in for a world of shock soonGäó
Thalesia System lords Collective 10	Posted - 2016.03.24 15:21:49 - [219] - Quote Is there going to be a sov restriction on super capital production? or station sieze restriction?
Soltys Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 114	Posted - 2016.03.26 02:26:32 - [220] - Quote In context of item safety (I think I mentioned it in one of the older threads), I'd suggest perhaps a mixed approach: Instead of flat 10% of item value retrieval cost, subject the items to specific loot fairy rules while removing magic transport fees altogether - HS: some flat value between 1% and 5% (TBD) - so each stack has that chance to be dropped on citadel's destruction, the rest is transported as per devblog rules (no fees) - LS: depending on security, from 6% (0.4) to 9% (0.1) - as above - NPC null: 10% - as above - SOV null: to be perfectly honest, if w-space enjoys 100% loot fairy rule, I see little reason why this should be any different in those regions of space; either way - something notably larger than 10% The advantages I can see from this: - proper carrot for attackers (and really big carrot for serious alliance vs alliance warfare) - blowing your own stuff (as someone mentioned earlier) to get magic courier service looks much less interesting Jita Flipping Inc.: Solmp / Kovl

Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 67	Posted - 2016.03.26 17:18:18 - [221] - 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
Archeras Umangiar CRY.NET Nihilists Social Club 28	Posted - 2016.04.05 11:54:59 - [222] - Quote https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5604286#post5604286 "... NPC agent spread ..." what does this mean? more specificly? Hire Npc agents to be at your administrative structure? Will those be low/null-sec only? (wormhole maybe?)
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 6	Posted - 2016.04.06 09:13:03 - [223] - Quote I'd just like to share that I think Citadel E-war should really be AoE to some degree, otherwise it's sort of silly because enemies will be attacking you in large groups, so jamming/painting/whatever single individual targets isn't too useful I feel.
Edwin Zavut 0	Posted - 2016.04.06 14:53:44 - [224] - Quote I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system.
Jaqueline Geoliere M4gnum P.I. 2	Posted - 2016.04.14 20:59:55 - [225] - Quote I do agree I think Clone bays should actually work in Wormholes
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 10	Posted - 2016.04.14 22:34:41 - [226] - Quote BIGASS STRUCTURE OFFENSE/DEFENSE CRITIQUE I've been piddling about with the stats on SiSi and, to be frank, I'm underwhelmed by the capabilities of a Fortizar citadel for defending itself. These are all with level 4 in all structure skills. Subcap Missiles Anti-small: 80.2 dps per launcher. This actually I don't think is too bad. Frigates aren't much of a major physical threat to the Citadel itself and would usually be serving more of a support role, i.e. E-war. The Citadel shooting at Frigates wouldn't be something that happens particularly often. Anti-medium: 160.5 dps per launcher. Now we're getting into something that has some trouble, I feel. With logi repping, 481.5 dps, reduced by the weak application of the Citadel missiles (250m/s explosion velocity), is negligible. A Tech1 battleship gets around twice as much DPS, with T3C's going even higher, that's simply absurd. There's no reason for a structure to be able to put out less damage than a tech 1 battleship that costs an infinitesimal fraction of the cost, and is mobile. Anti-Large: 535 dps per launcher. With a total of 1605 dps with 3 launchers, we're now around twice the dps of a single tech1 battleship, while only being able to apply damage effectively to a battleship. There's many battleships that can tank this damage, then you throw in logi support and the Citadel can't even kill anything, even with the highest-damage missiles. T3C's can even dish out more damage than this. GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉ Save the anti-small missiles, all of these need a buff across the board. Personally, I'd like to see burst damage remain low, but up the firing rate immensely. Repping the primary but seeing his health gradually tick down anyways would be a much more interesting effect than seeing him bursted into his pod. Bombs: Anti-Small: 2000 burst, 100 dps This is mainly intended for killing frigates, so as with the anti-small missiles earlier, I'm not too concerned about their current stats. The Citadel focusing on killing frigates is something that won't happen particularly often, and when it does it's unlikely to be because those Frigates are a threat to the Citadel itself. Anti-Medium: 5800 burst, 193.33 dps This one, though, is underwhelming to me. Currently it doesn't have an explosion velocity, so I'll assume that doesn't factor in to application. It also doesn't have an effective radius listed, so I can't comment on that. The burst damage against T1 cruisers, which the application points towards being its minimum target size, seems pretty good. A Caracal gets around 25k EHP, so a single bomb can burst about 23% of its HP. This damage is applied to every ship in range, as well, meaning blobs will end up with their logi being forced to spread reps, reducing their survivability. Against targets other than a T1 cruiser though, the damage, percentage-wise, becomes really low. T3C's, battleships, etc all end up with a small, single-digit percentage of their health being affected by the bomb. GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉ Bomb damage output needs a buff as well. It is my opinion that, while missiles serve for gradual DPS, bombs should be for burst damage. Taking on a structure should be a costly endeavor, and with how the stats are now it would be possible to take one on with 0 casualties. Citadels shouldn't be a solo castle of doom that can stand entirely on its own without any ship support, but it should be able to go down swinging even if it has no support. Side note, Citadel E-war needs to be AoE. That includes warp scrams and webs. Jamming or painting a single target doesn't mean jack when you're defending yourself against a fleet.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2089	Posted - 2016.04.14 22:47:45 - [227] - Quote Edwin Zavut wrote: I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system. problem with this is it then becomes very very hard to evict anyone from the WH as they will have superior firepower when it comes to capitals and they can just keep spawning while your guys have to keep getting back in. the clone swapping mechanic is more than enough Citadel worm hole tax
Quesa Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 97	Posted - 2016.04.15 04:33:32 - [228] - Quote Edwin Zavut wrote: I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system. Yeah, no. Wormholes weren't supposed to be used as permanent homes, despite how they are used today. There needs to be that disconnect.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2167	Posted - 2016.04.16 19:20:59 - [229] - Quote Quesa wrote: Edwin Zavut wrote: I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system. Yeah, no. Wormholes weren't supposed to be used as permanent homes, despite how they are used today. There needs to be that disconnect. I don't agree with this reasoning if players have found a better way too experience an aspect of the game even if unintended ,then there is nothing wrong with building on that Balance is the reason it should not be allowed Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2167	Posted - 2016.04.16 19:23:54 - [230] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: 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. You can do everything but warp disrupt and there is no need for a penalty if your not attacking the structure then don't fight on their front lawn citadels are doing a lot to limit station games. (My favorite is you can't dock or tether if pointed Citadel worm hole tax

biz Antollare Suddenly Carebears 137	Posted - 2016.04.16 20:57:09 - [231] - Quote I apologize in advance if this has been talked about already but i couldnt find it. a Dev post specifically said: "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." So are the Large Citadels going to be increased in size from 80,000 so they cant be launched from Orcas? I have level 1 industrial command ships (crappiest orca pilot) and i can fit an orca with the ability to hold 84,799 m3 which is more than enough to launch a large citadel. Is this an oversight?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2168	Posted - 2016.04.16 21:11:25 - [232] - Quote biz Antollare wrote: I apologize in advance if this has been talked about already but i couldnt find it. a Dev post specifically said: "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." So are the Large Citadels going to be increased in size from 80,000 so they cant be launched from Orcas? I have level 1 industrial command ships (crappiest orca pilot) and i can fit an orca with the ability to hold 84,799 m3 which is more than enough to launch a large citadel. Is this an oversight? No they have since alerted it so that lagers can fit into orcas after people pointed out it was a bit ridiculous that they needed freighters and not just when it came to wh Citadel worm hole tax
biz Antollare Suddenly Carebears 137	Posted - 2016.04.16 21:29:20 - [233] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: biz Antollare wrote: I apologize in advance if this has been talked about already but i couldnt find it. a Dev post specifically said: "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." So are the Large Citadels going to be increased in size from 80,000 so they cant be launched from Orcas? I have level 1 industrial command ships (crappiest orca pilot) and i can fit an orca with the ability to hold 84,799 m3 which is more than enough to launch a large citadel. Is this an oversight? No they have since alerted it so that lagers can fit into orcas after people pointed out it was a bit ridiculous that they needed freighters and not just when it came to wh thats lame.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2172	Posted - 2016.04.16 21:44:19 - [234] - Quote biz Antollare wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: biz Antollare wrote: I apologize in advance if this has been talked about already but i couldnt find it. a Dev post specifically said: "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." So are the Large Citadels going to be increased in size from 80,000 so they cant be launched from Orcas? I have level 1 industrial command ships (crappiest orca pilot) and i can fit an orca with the ability to hold 84,799 m3 which is more than enough to launch a large citadel. Is this an oversight? No they have since alerted it so that lagers can fit into orcas after people pointed out it was a bit ridiculous that they needed freighters and not just when it came to wh thats lame. Lol why it was just unwieldy to move larges that way you still need freighters for xl Citadel worm hole tax
Alex Davies Nucleotide 0	Posted - 2016.04.18 15:00:10 - [235] - Quote My first ever forum post.so go easy on me I have noticed that the structure components to build the Citadel hull are 100,000m3 is this "in progress" or will they stay that size a medium needs AFAIK 11 structure parts can I assume they will compress significantly when the hull is built?
Alexa Sabezan Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2016.04.18 16:50:59 - [236] - Quote Been searching around but couldn't find anything so sorry if this is a repeat. With Citadels coming out with reprocessing services, are the POS reprocessing arrays going to be loosing their bonuses with this release, or is that going to wait till more of the new structures are released later? On SISI at the moment the bunuses are still there but wanted to ask since one of the dev blogs mentioned a plan to remove bonuses from the POS modules when their functions were implemented in the new structures. Thnanks in advance
Edwin Zavut 0	Posted - 2016.04.18 19:26:39 - [237] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Edwin Zavut wrote: I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system. problem with this is it then becomes very very hard to evict anyone from the WH as they will have superior firepower when it comes to capitals and they can just keep spawning while your guys have to keep getting back in. the clone swapping mechanic is more than enough Thats true. So wormhole revival should be limited by time - for example, one per day. That is awesome to overcome random death, but not a massive advantage of defenders. Looks like its the only reason for wh citadel, because trade, titan docking and other functions are useless.
Ligraph Metallurgy Incorporated 11	Posted - 2016.04.18 20:11:17 - [238] - Quote Edwin Zavut wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Edwin Zavut wrote: I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system. problem with this is it then becomes very very hard to evict anyone from the WH as they will have superior firepower when it comes to capitals and they can just keep spawning while your guys have to keep getting back in. the clone swapping mechanic is more than enough Thats true. So wormhole revival should be limited by time - for example, one day of delay before next one. That is awesome to overcome random death (drifters...), but not a massive advantage of defenders. Looks like its the only reason for wh citadel, because trade, titan docking and other functions are useless. I like that. Maybe start at 3 days and have rigs/modules to decrease time. Although it would be a niche rig/module. Fuzzy cloaking Wormhole Stabilizer citadels Cloaky Fleet Transport
Terrorfrodo Renegade Hobbits for Mordor 727	Posted - 2016.04.18 23:57:00 - [239] - Quote I just wondered whether Citadels (specifically in wormholes) will have the "trash it" functionality. Where you can destroy a huge pile of items forever and completely with one click. Was this addressed somewhere? On the one hand it's very useful to quickly get rid of worthless junk and clean up the hangar. But in wspace it would make it extremely easy to nuke everything when hopelessly sieged. Currently, loot denial at least requires some work on the part of the defender, blowing up ships one by one. I hope it will not be possible to just burn all of one's own assets with one click when sieged. Maybe this functionality (and possibly other ways to destroy assets, like self-destruct) could be frozen whenever a Citadel is either being shot at, in repair state or in-between vulnerability phases after a successful assault. .
Captain Semper OEG Freedom Among the Stars 113	Posted - 2016.04.19 08:19:39 - [240] - Quote Does new citadels have reinforced mechanics like outposts? Or it can be destroy fully by one strike?

Lugh Crow-Slave 2230	Posted - 2016.04.19 08:46:55 - [241] - Quote Ligraph wrote: Edwin Zavut wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Edwin Zavut wrote: I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system. problem with this is it then becomes very very hard to evict anyone from the WH as they will have superior firepower when it comes to capitals and they can just keep spawning while your guys have to keep getting back in. the clone swapping mechanic is more than enough Thats true. So wormhole revival should be limited by time - for example, one day of delay before next one. That is awesome to overcome random death (drifters...), but not a massive advantage of defenders. Looks like its the only reason for wh citadel, because trade, titan docking and other functions are useless. I like that. Maybe start at 3 days and have rigs/modules to decrease time. Although it would be a niche rig/module. So uhh do I just not play for three days until I'm revived or what? Can I just jump back in after three days (I can already think of ways to break this) Citadel worm hole tax
Edwin Zavut 0	Posted - 2016.04.19 17:51:41 - [242] - Quote [/quote] So uhh do I just not play for three days until I'm revived or what? Can I just jump back in after three days (I can already think of ways to break this) [/quote] My final suggestion. Every capsuleer can have ADDITIONAL AMOUNT of WH clones. He can set clone - being docked at citadel. Capsuleer can choose additional WH clone for possible respawn - only being docked at THIS SPECIFIC citadel. Capsuleer can cancel possibility of WH respawn - always and everywhere. Conditions for wh respawn: null timer, location in system with established and CHOOSEN wh clone. All other cases triggers normal clone respawn (hi, low or null systems). Every wh respawn starts timer. No jumps.
Ligraph Metallurgy Incorporated 12	Posted - 2016.04.20 20:26:03 - [243] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Ligraph wrote: Edwin Zavut wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Edwin Zavut wrote: I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system. problem with this is it then becomes very very hard to evict anyone from the WH as they will have superior firepower when it comes to capitals and they can just keep spawning while your guys have to keep getting back in. the clone swapping mechanic is more than enough Thats true. So wormhole revival should be limited by time - for example, one day of delay before next one. That is awesome to overcome random death (drifters...), but not a massive advantage of defenders. Looks like its the only reason for wh citadel, because trade, titan docking and other functions are useless. I like that. Maybe start at 3 days and have rigs/modules to decrease time. Although it would be a niche rig/module. So uhh do I just not play for three days until I'm revived or what? Can I just jump back in after three days (I can already think of ways to break this) I assume that if you die inside the timer you end up somewhere, maybe Jita? I would like to change the original idea so that if you die in the constellation, you revive at the citadel. Or, if your friends bring your corpse back to the citadel it can revive you if you already have a clone there (this may need balance considerations... corpse freighters). I also think a week would be better than 3 days. That way if your citadel gets attacked you'll be able to jump back in at most once before it either goes into armor reinforced (and the clone bay shuts off) or the attackers are repelled. The timer could be modified to two weeks as well. Fuzzy cloaking Wormhole Stabilizer citadels Cloaky Fleet Transport
Pryce Caesar Evil Young Flesh 67	Posted - 2016.04.20 23:57:17 - [244] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: I'm going to unpin the other structures threads and link them all here as we are running out of space in this forum subsection. You may find the threads there: Mooring and docking Item safety mechanics on structure destruction Market Hubs and Drilling Platforms Assembly Arrays and Research Laboratories Observatory Arrays and Gates Administration Hubs and Advertisement Centers If you have items in an POS that was captured by another alliance, when the removal of Outposts begins, will your items be moved to an NPC station in Low-Sec, or will they be moved elsewhere?
Tau Rollard Dynamic Security Solutions 4	Posted - 2016.04.21 01:51:03 - [245] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Ligraph wrote: Edwin Zavut wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Edwin Zavut wrote: I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system. problem with this is it then becomes very very hard to evict anyone from the WH as they will have superior firepower when it comes to capitals and they can just keep spawning while your guys have to keep getting back in. the clone swapping mechanic is more than enough Thats true. So wormhole revival should be limited by time - for example, one day of delay before next one. That is awesome to overcome random death (drifters...), but not a massive advantage of defenders. Looks like its the only reason for wh citadel, because trade, titan docking and other functions are useless. I like that. Maybe start at 3 days and have rigs/modules to decrease time. Although it would be a niche rig/module. So uhh do I just not play for three days until I'm revived or what? Can I just jump back in after three days (I can already think of ways to break this) this game is supposed to be hard. if you are adding a new mechanic, ADD IT, dont just run around it to avoid angering the grim darks. i really like the longer timer idea meta it by saying the charge to send it out so far takes longer. and yeah you HAVE to wait the time etc. it is a price we are willing to pay for the amount of time and effort we put into living out in the black. make it a special kind of jump clone bay that has to be numbered, only a certain amount of jump clones in a specific citadel in wh space
Glendalee AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing 0	Posted - 2016.04.22 01:32:14 - [246] - Quote 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
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 68	Posted - 2016.04.22 11:01:00 - [247] - 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
Crashys Zonk Squad Spartan Republic 5	Posted - 2016.04.22 13:48:01 - [248] - Quote Question: What will happen to the existing Outposts??
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 68	Posted - 2016.04.22 14:30:32 - [249] - 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
Crashys Zonk Squad Spartan Republic 5	Posted - 2016.04.22 14:33:41 - [250] - Quote 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.

Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 68	Posted - 2016.04.22 14:54:26 - [251] - 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
Lugh Crow-Slave 2269	Posted - 2016.04.23 14:25:21 - [252] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: 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. Yes the only one that has gone up is the keep The rest look like they have gone up do to the market reacting to them. Everyone is buying the build mats up and few ppl are selling prices should normalize in less than a month after release Citadel worm hole tax
Celgar Thurn Department 10 186	Posted - 2016.04.23 14:46:46 - [253] - Quote I was just watching the Twitch feed for 'Structures' at Fanfest and one of the questions asked afterwards came close to what I would like to know but not quite. The Assembly structure and Drilling Platform structures seem to come close to what needs to be replaced under the current system running but neither appear to do the current job and/or will be likely prohibitively expensive. Currently the average miner operating in high sec system will use a small POS tower along with and reprocessing array and/or a compression array. I haven't played EVE for a while for various reasons but the outlay for the tower and arrays used to be about 100 million ISK roughly. I expect it is still roughly that amount or not that much more. The cost could arguably be less if constructed by the user themselves. It appears like the nearest structure available to replace this option post all the changes and removal of POSEs would be the medium sized citadel which is sort of like cracking a walnut open with a cruise missile warhead. Therefore can CCP tell me/us what ideas you have for miners doing compression and reprocessing of ore in high sec space post the changes. Emphasis would probably be more on compression in high sec as there are other options for reprocessing in high sec. * My years subscription is about to end and will not be renewed as well as my other accounts due to not liking most of the recently announced changes. Too many to list here. But I will still be 'observing' from the 'outside' and if things improve or become more attractive I will return to playing EVE. Nevertheless I am still interested in hearing news on the future of ore compression in high sec space. * Fly safe o7.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2269	Posted - 2016.04.23 16:13:09 - [254] - Quote Celgar Thurn wrote: I was just watching the Twitch feed for 'Structures' at Fanfest and one of the questions asked afterwards came close to what I would like to know but not quite. The Assembly structure and Drilling Platform structures seem to come close to what needs to be replaced under the current system running but neither appear to do the current job and/or will be likely prohibitively expensive. Currently the average miner operating in high sec system will use a small POS tower along with and reprocessing array and/or a compression array. I haven't played EVE for a while for various reasons but the outlay for the tower and arrays used to be about 100 million ISK roughly. I expect it is still roughly that amount or not that much more. The cost could arguably be less if constructed by the user themselves. It appears like the nearest structure available to replace this option post all the changes and removal of POSEs would be the medium sized citadel which is sort of like cracking a walnut open with a cruise missile warhead. Therefore can CCP tell me/us what ideas you have for miners doing compression and reprocessing of ore in high sec space post the changes. Emphasis would probably be more on compression in high sec as there are other options for reprocessing in high sec. * My years subscription is about to end and will not be renewed as well as my other accounts due to not liking most of the recently announced changes. Too many to list here. But I will still be 'observing' from the 'outside' and if things improve or become more attractive I will return to playing EVE. Nevertheless I am still interested in hearing news on the future of ore compression in high sec space. * Fly safe o7. How does the drilling platform (you know the one that can refine better than a citadel) not fulfill your need a citadel gets 54%refine in hs that is 2%more than now and this is less than what the drilling platform gets you. The drilling platforms will also be cheaper than citadels. How did you watch the presentation and not pick up on any of this? Citadel worm hole tax
Jack Roulette Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2016.04.23 18:21:59 - [255] - Quote Quick question regarding Citadels and anchoring. On the Eve Uni Wiki, it says that during the anchoring stage "[Citadels] do not appear on directional-scan while anchoring and not on the overview, unless you're on grid." and that "Combat probes don't work." Can a dev please confirm this as true or false? Here's the problem scenario: If you jump into a wormhole with a Viator (or other cloaky haulers) which is able to carry a medium citadel, you can then warp to a random spot in space, begin anchoring a citadel, and then cloak up. Since the anchoring citadel is invisible to d-scan, overview, and combat probes, it is essentially impossible for any players already occupying the hole to find it and prevent the anchoring from completing - which also makes the 24 hour timer kind of pointless. Since the ship doing the anchoring is cov-ops, there is a very small window of time to find it. If you do this with 2 citadels at the same time, and give them non-overlapping vulnerability timers (that's the difference between this and doing the same with POSes), it is possible to establish a "beachhead" in a wormhole that is essentially impossible to remove. Only one citadel would ever be vulnerable at a time, and it's virtually impossible to stop new ones being anchored and defended given that they don't need fuel for basic functions.
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 11	Posted - 2016.04.23 22:59:10 - [256] - Quote I am redoing my earlier damage critique post with the new stats on missiles and bombs. Again, these are all with level 4 in all structure skills in a Fortizar citadel in highsecm on SiSi. The station has 2 ballistic control systems and 2 guidance enhancers. Subcap Missiles Anti-small: 144.4dps per launcher. The damage from these getting a buff is nice to see, but the application concerns me. They have an explosion radius of 100m and velocity of 200 m/s. Presumably, these are intended for destroying frigates and destroyers, which are both easily capable of having a significantly smaller signature radius and a significantly higher speed than the missiles can apply to. Against cruisers, they shouldn't have much difficulty applying the damage, but ~450dps against cruisers is lackluster for a military station, especially since it only takes a couple of T1 cruisers to put out more DPS and a bit of logi to outrep it. Anti-medium: 481.5 dps per launcher. Again, damage buff is nice to see, and it's nice that it seems to have gone the route I suggested with increasing firing rate instead of burst damage. Application seems to be okay too against cruisers and up. Despite this, a total of around ~1440 DPS with 3 launchers, while far better than before, is easily countered with just a bit of logi, and easily outshined by 3-5 T1 cruisers. For a military station as costly as a Fortizar, that is simply too weak. It leaves it not only possible, but easy, to take on a fortizar without any casualties. Anti-Large: 963 dps per launcher. DPS from a single launcher is a bit higher than a T1 battleship, but that just means that it only takes 4 T1 battleships to out-DPS the Citadel. Total DPS from 3 launchers is ~2889dps, which can be outrepped by just 2 logi cruisers. Once more, against an actual fleet, the Fortizar would be incapable of even inflicting any casualties, never mind fighting them off. GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉ Increasing firing rate as a good step in the right direction, but they still need to be stronger. I still think that they should serve more as a c onstant stream of DPS than burst damage, and said constant stream needs to be able to break through logi, otherwise the Citadel can't even kill a single ship in an attacking fleet. Bombs: Anti-Small: 1200 burst, 60 dps This is just silly. it's such a tiny amount of damage, T1 frigates can tank it with no difficulty and be repped up without a second thought, Never mind that the 100m explosion radius application means that its damage will be reduced by the fact that frigates are smaller than that. it's just a negligible amount of damage. The firing rate of bombs should be majorly reduced, and the damage should be huge. Seeing a bomb launched from the Citadel should be a major "oh **" moment. It shouldn't be enough to burst things off the field, but it should be enough to cause a big chunk of damage that would make the logi scramble to heal everyone that was affected. Perhaps even have it cause enough damage to clear the ship's main layer and bleed a little bit into the next, depending on the fit. Anti-Medium: 4000 burst, 200 dps Again, this is silly. 4000 burst damage every 20 seconds is insignificant to even a T1 cruiser. it's less than 10% of its HP, and just gets more and more useless as the attacker's ship size goes up. As said with the smaller bomb, seeing a bomb launch should be a source of fear for the attacking fleet. It should have a harrowing effect, the attacking FC should be keeping track of how much longer until the next bomb launches so they can maneuver. It should drive the enemy fleet to reconsider blobbing so that they don't all get caught in the blast. It should cause a major amount of damage that makes the logi panic and scramble to get everyone repped up before the next one hits. GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉGÿ+GòÉ As with the first critique, I think bombs should be for a huge** amount of burst damage but have very low DPS due to reload. It should be near impossible to attack a Citadel with zero casualties, even if you win the fight. With how the Citadels damage output is, you end up not being able to kill anyone when there's logi on the field. Burst damage of missiles should be low, with very high DPS. Burst damage of bombs should be exceedingly high, with very low DPS. Maintaining that Citadel E-war needs to be AoE, including warp scrams and webs. Jamming or painting a single target doesn't mean jack when you're defending yourself against a fleet. I won't be commenting on fighters, because I haven't had an opportunity to experiment with them.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 255	Posted - 2016.04.24 04:24:11 - [257] - Quote I think you fail to take your Defense Fleet into account.
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 11	Posted - 2016.04.24 06:12:28 - [258] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: I think you fail to take your Defense Fleet into account. Right now, a Citadel can't even out-DPS 4 tech1 battleships. A military emplacement should be far more powerful than 4 battleships that are a minute fraction of the cost, and are mobile.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 255	Posted - 2016.04.24 13:43:53 - [259] - Quote ...and unless your Citadel DPS start ALPHAing people off the field, your argument will always be the same: logi counters "everything" according to some.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2281	Posted - 2016.04.24 13:47:17 - [260] - Quote Alexander Otium wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: I think you fail to take your Defense Fleet into account. Right now, a Citadel can't even out-DPS 4 tech1 battleships. A military emplacement should be far more powerful than 4 battleships that are a minute fraction of the cost, and are mobile. Why? The citadel is only supposed to be an advantage not something to fight the battle for you Citadel worm hole tax

Pryce Caesar Evil Young Flesh 70	Posted - 2016.04.24 20:08:55 - [261] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: ...and unless your Citadel DPS start ALPHAing people off the field, your argument will always be the same: logi counters "everything" according to some. Just blow up the logi and then move on to the rest. It's like "shooting the Medic" in Team Fortress 2: kill the healer, and the attackers will fall in short order. As for the weapons review, it seems that they neglected to post the fire rate of the weapons. The actual damage of the missiles and bombs is the fire rate multiplied by damage per second, although they only seem to explain the "burst damage" for the bombs. For that matter, the burst damage of the bombs as a whole is equal to almost the whole EHP value of a single ship of their class size (NOT 10%), and the bombs apply this damage to all ships in range of the detonation. They're meant for AoE, not mini-Doomsdays. Yes, problems would arise with resistances, but even that can easily be dealt with by concentrated fire or multiple bomb drops. Moreover, with Citadels as a whole, best thing to do is likely to target and destroy the heavier DPS ships first, and then shift your attention to the lesser ships that deal less damage. When you're as big as a Citadel, you can't afford to have Battleship-sized ships sticking around. If they have logistics, pop the logistics first and then take care of the big ships and work your way down to smaller ships. Combine that with webbers or other EWar items, and any potential down-sides are rectified. Did Alexander Otium actually use these things in a mock battle, or just look at the statistics. The Citadel, like any ship, needs to be battle-tested before its effectiveness is to be judged.
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 12	Posted - 2016.04.24 20:37:23 - [262] - Quote Pryce Caesar wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: ...and unless your Citadel DPS start ALPHAing people off the field, your argument will always be the same: logi counters "everything" according to some. Just blow up the logi and then move on to the rest. It's like "shooting the Medic" in Team Fortress 2: kill the healer, and the attackers will fall in short order. As for the weapons review, it seems that they neglected to post the fire rate of the weapons. The actual damage of the missiles and bombs is the fire rate multiplied by damage per second, although they only seem to explain the "burst damage" for the bombs. For that matter, the burst damage of the bombs as a whole is equal to almost the whole EHP value of a single ship of their class size (NOT 10%), and the bombs apply this damage to all ships in range of the detonation. They're meant for AoE, not mini-Doomsdays. Yes, problems would arise with resistances, but even that can easily be dealt with by concentrated fire or multiple bomb drops. Moreover, with Citadels as a whole, best thing to do is likely to target and destroy the heavier DPS ships first, and then shift your attention to the lesser ships that deal less damage. When you're as big as a Citadel, you can't afford to have Battleship-sized ships sticking around. If they have logistics, pop the logistics first and then take care of the big ships and work your way down to smaller ships. Combine that with webbers or other EWar items, and any potential down-sides are rectified. Did Alexander Otium actually use these things in a mock battle, or just look at the statistics. The Citadel, like any ship, needs to be battle-tested before its effectiveness is to be judged. With the missiles I posted their DPS, with the bombs I posted their burst damage and DPS. DPS is damage per shot multiplied by firerate. Damage per second is NOT "the fire rate multiplied by damage per second". The problem with killing the logi first is that the damage dealt by the Citadel is so small that the logi can very easily heal each other faster than the Citadel can deal damage. That is just silly, a Citadel is supposed to be a military emplacement, a Citadel, a fortress. It should not be easy to take one on with zero casualties. With the stats right now, having a Citadel on field gives you about the same DPS, under optimal conditions, as 4 tech1 battleships, for an immensely higher cost and without mobility. I admits that I have not factored Fighters into this. I don't know where you get the idea that the bombs deal the entire EHP of their class size. How is 4k damage equal to a Tech1 Cruiser's HP? Or a battlecruiser? or a battleship? One thing that I failed to factor in was the neut bombs. They neut 4000 raw GJ, with an explosion radius of 500. Against a Guardian logi cruiser, for example, that comes out to only 14% effectiveness due to its signature of ~70. 4000GJ from the bomb, multiplied by 0.14 due to the target's signature, comes out to about 560GJ neuted. Divided by the 20 second firing rate of the bombs, that's only 28GJ/s neuted. To me, that sounds negligible.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2282	Posted - 2016.04.24 20:54:52 - [263] - Quote Then it's a good thing you have a fleet there to give you the rest of the dps you need Citadel worm hole tax
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 12	Posted - 2016.04.24 21:07:04 - [264] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Then it's a good thing you have a fleet there to give you the rest of the dps you need If you need a fleet strong enough to beat the attackers on their own to defend a Citadel, why have the Citadel? Your fleet can beat them without its help anyways, so what military purpose does the Citadel serve?
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 79	Posted - 2016.04.24 21:19:27 - [265] - Quote But you do not need a fleet strong enough to defend the Citadel alone. The citadel is still quite strong, and should be able to defend from small fleets without much problems. For example the ECM has a strength of 60 when scripted, so it should be able to shut down basically everything. And with the dps from fighters+missiles even the small citadel can kill a logistic in a short time. So a few logi is not a problem... just pop then one after the other while you ecm the rest. Of course a large number of logi will be a problem... but thats ok, a citadel should not be able to beat everything alone. If the enemy fleet is large then you need a support fleet, but still a much smaller one.
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 12	Posted - 2016.04.24 21:29:34 - [266] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: But you do not need a fleet strong enough to defend the Citadel alone. The citadel is still quite strong, and should be able to defend from small fleets without much problems. For example the ECM has a strength of 60 when scripted, so it should be able to shut down basically everything. And with the dps from fighters+missiles even the small citadel can kill a logistic in a short time. So a few logi is not a problem... just pop then one after the other while you ecm the rest. Of course a large number of logi will be a problem... but thats ok, a citadel should not be able to beat everything alone. If the enemy fleet is large then you need a support fleet, but still a much smaller one. It only takes 3-5 logi ships to outrep the damage from a Citadel depending on composition, and if you're using basilisks or guardians said logi ships can out-cap the citadel's neuts. You can only fit 5 ECM max, which means only 5 logi can be jammed, so if you bring 10-15 logi and 5-10 tech 1 battleships, your citadel is being outperformed and will not be able to defend itself. A station that is difficult to manufacture, difficult to transport, difficult to construct, and difficult to maintain, should not be able to be destroyed by 20 ships that cost a minute fraction of the cost and effort. If a fortification is difficult and expensive to put up, it should be more difficult and expensive to take it down.
Crazy KSK Tsunami Cartel 109	Posted - 2016.04.24 21:33:18 - [267] - Quote Alexander Otium wrote: Citadels offensive capabilities against subcapitals are inadequate. I agree, citadels should be more powerful then they currently are in accordance with their price in relation to comparable ships. Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 79	Posted - 2016.04.24 21:38:41 - [268] - Quote Alexander Otium wrote: so if you bring 10-15 logi and 5-10 tech 1 battleships, your citadel is being outperformed and will not be able to defend itself. yeah, so? A fleet with 10-15 logi in it is not really small anymore, at that point its ok that you cant solo that with a small citadel.
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 12	Posted - 2016.04.24 21:53:28 - [269] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Alexander Otium wrote: so if you bring 10-15 logi and 5-10 tech 1 battleships, your citadel is being outperformed and will not be able to defend itself. yeah, so? A fleet with 10-15 logi in it is not really small anymore, at that point its ok that you cant solo that with a small citadel. This is a Fortizar, a Large, not a Medium.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2284	Posted - 2016.04.24 23:09:14 - [270] - Quote Alexander Otium wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: But you do not need a fleet strong enough to defend the Citadel alone. The citadel is still quite strong, and should be able to defend from small fleets without much problems. For example the ECM has a strength of 60 when scripted, so it should be able to shut down basically everything. And with the dps from fighters+missiles even the small citadel can kill a logistic in a short time. So a few logi is not a problem... just pop then one after the other while you ecm the rest. Of course a large number of logi will be a problem... but thats ok, a citadel should not be able to beat everything alone. If the enemy fleet is large then you need a support fleet, but still a much smaller one. It only takes 3-5 logi ships to outrep the damage from a Citadel depending on composition, and if you're using basilisks or guardians said logi ships can out-cap the citadel's neuts. You can only fit 5 ECM max, which means only 5 logi can be jammed, so if you bring 10-15 logi and 5-10 tech 1 battleships, your citadel is being outperformed and will not be able to defend itself. A station that is difficult to manufacture, difficult to transport, difficult to construct, and difficult to maintain, should not be able to be destroyed by 20 ships that cost a minute fraction of the cost and effort. If a fortification is difficult and expensive to put up, it should be more difficult and expensive to take it down. Yes 3-5 logi can out rep the citadels damage but every bit of damage they need to rep because of the citadel is damage they can bit rep from your fleet. When ccp announced citadles they said that without a defending fleet even a shall attack force could siege them. Also remember the mods we have now are only meta 1 so they can't be all that strong so that there is still room for higher meta weapons. Citadel worm hole tax

Lugh Crow-Slave 2284	Posted - 2016.04.24 23:10:28 - [271] - Quote Alexander Otium wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: Alexander Otium wrote: so if you bring 10-15 logi and 5-10 tech 1 battleships, your citadel is being outperformed and will not be able to defend itself. yeah, so? A fleet with 10-15 logi in it is not really small anymore, at that point its ok that you cant solo that with a small citadel. This is a Fortizar, a Large, not a Medium. What's your point citadels are not supposed to be able to defend themselves at any size they are only supposed to aid the fleet that is defending them Citadel worm hole tax
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 12	Posted - 2016.04.25 01:29:43 - [272] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Alexander Otium wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: Alexander Otium wrote: so if you bring 10-15 logi and 5-10 tech 1 battleships, your citadel is being outperformed and will not be able to defend itself. yeah, so? A fleet with 10-15 logi in it is not really small anymore, at that point its ok that you cant solo that with a small citadel. This is a Fortizar, a Large, not a Medium. What's your point citadels are not supposed to be able to defend themselves at any size they are only supposed to aid the fleet that is defending them if we're talking military and combat strength, why have a Citadel when a couple of battleships is more effective for a fraction of the cost?
La loca Fappuccino Lazerhawks 20	Posted - 2016.04.25 02:05:53 - [273] - Quote Because you can't set up hangars, be invulnerable for all but 9 hours of the week, set up a market and contracts and everything else in 2 battleships. Citadels are not meant to be unkillable. If they were much stronger, nobody would ever be able to kill them alongside a defense fleet - and nothing is meant to be unkillable in this game. Making a large Citadel able to take on a fleet of 30 people and win, without any backup support, is not good for promoting content at all. If you want to keep your citadel, get your ass out of it and start defending it. This is not a tower defense game.
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 12	Posted - 2016.04.25 02:48:16 - [274] - Quote If it's not going to be a fortress, why call it a Citadel? With how weak its defenses are, all it's useful as is a market platform, not as any kind of military emplacement. Their name should be changed to "Economic Platform" or similar if their combat ability is going to be so anemic. for the cost of a Fortizar with tech 2 rigs, you can buy about 90 or so tech 1 battleships, and you only need a handful of those to kill a Fortizar With how it is now, only the big powerblocs will be able to deploy and maintain Citadels because of the manpower required to defend them. Only the big established powerblocs will be capable of keeping them alive longer than the first vulnerability window. I thought CCP was trying to steer things away a bit from big monolithic powerblocs? Even in highsec, you won't be able to deploy and maintain the Citadels, even an Astrahus, without a big group because of wardecs. It's just silly, it's like a joke from a sci-fi comedy. The big incompetent space empire builds a huge war station, and they arm it with slingshots and popcorn blowguns. Imagine every sci-fi movie or show about a battlestation being attacked, except make them unable to kill even a single one from a group of 5-10 ships. Pretty boring battle sequence, isn't it? Underwhelming and dissatisfying. That's how Citadel battles will end up if they aren't buffed significantly. I still repeat, it would be FAR BETTER for the Citadels to be overpowered at release than underpowered. It would be pretty crappy if people deployed Citadels, they got destroyed in a complete curbstomp, then CCP buffed them afterwards. It would be much less objectionable for them to be too difficult to destroy at first, then CCP tuning them down afterwards.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2285	Posted - 2016.04.25 03:54:24 - [275] - Quote right because everyone and there grand mother is going to want to kill these things. people manage to put up plenty off POS that are never bothered even long after the corp that put them there is dead and citadels are harder to kill and have a far lower loot potential than pos do. so tell me why are so many ppl gunna go out of their way to kill them? citadels are already very hard to kill if you have a support fleet with them. the large gets about 2k dps from sub cap launchers and then can get another 3-4 from its fighters. on top of that it has very powerful e-war and nuets. and again these are only t1 meta 1 mods so they are the bottom of the line Citadel worm hole tax
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 256	Posted - 2016.04.25 04:55:24 - [276] - Quote I think you severely underestimate the area of effect abilities, as well as the remote bump / minidoomsdays. As "special ability" support for your fleet, they'll definitely make for interesting combats! Time will tell.
Pryce Caesar Evil Young Flesh 70	Posted - 2016.04.25 06:38:11 - [277] - Quote Alexander Otium wrote: Pryce Caesar wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: ...and unless your Citadel DPS start ALPHAing people off the field, your argument will always be the same: logi counters "everything" according to some. Just blow up the logi and then move on to the rest. It's like "shooting the Medic" in Team Fortress 2: kill the healer, and the attackers will fall in short order. As for the weapons review, it seems that they neglected to post the fire rate of the weapons. The actual damage of the missiles and bombs is the fire rate multiplied by damage per second, although they only seem to explain the "burst damage" for the bombs. For that matter, the burst damage of the bombs as a whole is equal to almost the whole EHP value of a single ship of their class size (NOT 10%), and the bombs apply this damage to all ships in range of the detonation. They're meant for AoE, not mini-Doomsdays. Yes, problems would arise with resistances, but even that can easily be dealt with by concentrated fire or multiple bomb drops. Moreover, with Citadels as a whole, best thing to do is likely to target and destroy the heavier DPS ships first, and then shift your attention to the lesser ships that deal less damage. When you're as big as a Citadel, you can't afford to have Battleship-sized ships sticking around. If they have logistics, pop the logistics first and then take care of the big ships and work your way down to smaller ships. Combine that with webbers or other EWar items, and any potential down-sides are rectified. Did Alexander Otium actually use these things in a mock battle, or just look at the statistics. The Citadel, like any ship, needs to be battle-tested before its effectiveness is to be judged. With the missiles I posted their DPS, with the bombs I posted their burst damage and DPS. DPS is damage per shot multiplied by firerate. Damage per second is NOT "the fire rate multiplied by damage per second". [ The problem with killing the logi first is that the damage dealt by the Citadel is so small that the logi can very easily heal each other faster than the Citadel can deal damage. That is just silly, a Citadel is supposed to be a military emplacement, a Citadel, a fortress. It should not be easy to take one on with zero casualties. Then you severely misinterpreted what I said. The damage per second for any missile is equivalent to to its base damage divided by its rate of fire. And I said "the actual damage", not "damage per second". Did you ever bother testing it out in an actual battle? Even then, a Citadel is not made to be some nigh-impenetrable fortress. Like every ship in the game, it is able to be killed, even if it takes longer than other ships due to the fact that it goes into an invulnerability state every time the shields and armor get down to zero for an extended period of time. You sound like you are arguing over a single, protracted engagement; Citadels in Null-Sec, last I heard, could stretch out any attempts to destroy them to over a week. The Citadels are meant to defend themselves, not be single-handed destroyers of fleets. You and your Corp are supposed to be able to step in to defend and fight alongside your Citadel. Quote: With the stats right now, having a Citadel on field gives you about the same DPS, under optimal conditions, as 4 tech1 battleships, for an immensely higher cost and without mobility. I admit that I had not factored Fighters into it. [/quote] Honestly, DPS is not all there is to Citadels. They perform a wide variety of other functions as well, and those 4 tech 1 Battleships can effectively add up to 2-4 Dreadnoughts w/o Siege Modules. Besides, missiles and bombs are not the only thing that Citadels have going for them. Quote: Looking at fighters now, taking Dragonfly I's as the example, 5 full squadrons gets you 718.2dps according to my skills on the test server. 718 from fighters, plus 1443 from 3 anti-cruiser missile launchers, and you have about 2161 DPS applicable to cruisers and up. This is still outdone with 2-3 Tech1 battleships, and very easily outrepped by a small amount of logi. Again, as it stands, it's impossible for the Citadel to even kill any attackers unless it has an equally large and powerful fleet with it, because it is outperformed by a handful of ships that take a minute fraction of the cost. And if you need to have a fleet that's more powerful than the enemy fleet, what help is the Citadel? it offers no military advantage and would be more of a liability due to its cost and immobility. One thing that I failed to factor in was the neut bombs. They neut 4000 raw GJ, with an explosion radius of 500. Against a Guardian logi cruiser, for example, that comes out to only 14% effectiveness due to its signature of ~70. 4000GJ from the bomb, multiplied by 0.14 due to the target's signature, comes out to about 560GJ neuted. Divided by the 20 second firing rate of the bombs, that's only 28GJ/s neuted. To me, that sounds negligible. THEN FIRE EVERYTHING AT THE LOGI AND BLOW THEM OUT OF THE SKY. If they are that much of a concern to you and that much of a worry, then use the Citadel to wipe the Logistics out, and then take care of the rest. The Citadels have a monumental amount of HP for a reason. You are only focusing on the DPS, and that is your problem. The Citadels can also fit a wide range of Ewar modules, webs, and other associated Medium Modules that it can also use on enemies. Problems with enemy Frigate speed? Web them, paint them, and then shoot them. Same goes for Logistics if you are that concerned. If you are that concerned about weapon effectiveness, then pair them with the Medium support modules. But even with all that said,a Citadel shouldn't be without a fleet to help defend itself, anyway.
Pryce Caesar Evil Young Flesh 70	Posted - 2016.04.25 06:41:43 - [278] - Quote Quote: I don't know where you get the idea that the bombs deal the entire EHP of their class size. How is 4k damage equal to a Tech1 Cruiser's HP? Or a battlecruiser? or a battleship? Not taking into account any shield, armor or hull resistances, that is how the numbers add up. The Bombs are single-damage type based, correct? A single bomb of the appropriate type should at least carve straight through the shields of most Cruisers in one detonation. But I digress, since you seem intent on only focusing on individual attributes, rather than concerning yourself with how you can use all the attributes of the Citadel together to mount an effective defense.
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 12	Posted - 2016.04.25 16:07:22 - [279] - Quote Pryce Caesar wrote: Quote: I don't know where you get the idea that the bombs deal the entire EHP of their class size. How is 4k damage equal to a Tech1 Cruiser's HP? Or a battlecruiser? or a battleship? Not taking into account any shield, armor or hull resistances, that is how the numbers add up. The Bombs are single-damage type based, correct? A single bomb of the appropriate type should at least carve straight through the shields of most Cruisers in one detonation. But I digress, since you seem intent on only focusing on individual attributes, rather than concerning yourself with how you can use all the attributes of the Citadel together to mount an effective defense. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. Bombs deal equal damage of each type as of last night when I was actually on SiSi toying with them. There are AS and AM sized bombs. The AS bombs do 300 damage of each type every 20 seconds. 1200 damage total. The AM bombs do 1000 damage of each type every 20 seconds. 4000 damage total. Tech 1 cruisers easily have over 30k EHP on their tank type (Shield or Armor). Using an anti-cruiser bomb against cruisers, using 30k as the health amount, and you only do 7.5% of their health under these very generous ideal conditions. You only deal, at most, 4k damage without factoring in resistances. This is repped with no significant effort. The Citadel is less effective than 3 or 4 tech1 battleships. How is that so hard to understand? Why do people seem to be okay with that? A structure that is literally called a "Citadel", as in a fortress, is outperformed by a couple of battleships that are a fraction of the size and cost? It's silly. You're talking about things you haven't actually even read about and your replies show it.
aldhura Bartledannians Nite Owls 37	Posted - 2016.04.25 19:58:26 - [280] - Quote Anyone know if orca mining boosts will work while tethered ? I can't seem to find any info on this. Bartledannians Corporation is recruiting Nite Owls Alliance is recruiting

Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 13	Posted - 2016.04.25 20:33:41 - [281] - Quote aldhura wrote: Anyone know if orca mining boosts will work while tethered ? I can't seem to find any info on this. Boosts are becoming AoE anyways, so even if they do the people out in the belt won't be recieving them. Your orca needs to be out in the belt with the miners.
Sisi Collins School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 4	Posted - 2016.04.25 20:37:35 - [282] - Quote aldhura wrote: Anyone know if orca mining boosts will work while tethered ? I can't seem to find any info on this. As CCP announced on FANFEST, before links will be changed to AoE ongrid buffs, it will be possible to give bonuses on rorq and orca while tethered, but possible this summer you will need to be in grid to give bonuses
Jon Dekker Dekker Corporation 51	Posted - 2016.04.25 23:57:28 - [283] - Quote The new structures are turning out quite nice. One nitpick that I have is the animated lights that are supposed to represent traffic. Would it be possible to add a distance falloff map so that traffic lights in the distance are much more feint and small? At the moment it tends to clutter the scene. Another request is to randomize the colors used, and vary the intensities to differentiate between different sizes and kinds of traffic. All in all I really like the direction of giving more life to New Eden, like it's actually populated by people other than Capsuleers.
Terrorfrodo Renegade Hobbits for Mordor 733	Posted - 2016.04.26 09:58:54 - [284] - Quote Not loooked at it myself yet, but sounds like it will look weird in wormholes. Who are those people traveling around my lone Citadel deep in wormhole space with no open connections? .
Terrorfrodo Renegade Hobbits for Mordor 734	Posted - 2016.04.26 10:06:44 - [285] - Quote Alexander Otium wrote: if we're talking military and combat strength, why have a Citadel when a couple of battleships is more effective for a fraction of the cost? Even if a Citadel was not better than 4 t1 battleships, that is still huge. Because you have the firepower of 4 battleships, but you have that while being un-killable, un-neutable, un-jammable. You just have a small but powerful extra fleet that you can add to whatever else you can put on the field and that your enemy cannot take out during the fight. And of course those special weapons that no ship has... some of them appear to be quite powerful. .
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 13	Posted - 2016.04.27 04:04:05 - [286] - Quote Terrorfrodo wrote: Alexander Otium wrote: if we're talking military and combat strength, why have a Citadel when a couple of battleships is more effective for a fraction of the cost? Even if a Citadel was not better than 4 t1 battleships, that is still huge. Because you have the firepower of 4 battleships, but you have that while being un-killable, un-neutable, un-jammable. You just have a small but powerful extra fleet that you can add to whatever else you can put on the field and that your enemy cannot take out during the fight. And of course those special weapons that no ship has... some of them appear to be quite powerful. You have less power than 4 battleships, for the cost of 90 battleships. A fortizar can be killed by a gang of 4 battleships and 2 logi, repping faster than the Citadel can hurt (by a huge amount), and generating cap far faster than the Citadel can neut, not factoring in jamming. Even factoring in jamming, if you use all 5 mid slots for jams, that just means that you can't fight off a gang of 7 logi and 9 battleships. A huge-ass battlestation, literally called a Fortizar Citadel, that costs 25-30bil ISK, can't defend itself from 6-16 ships? The only unique weapon that the Fortizar has is the bomb launcher, and the damage bombs and neut bombs are so weak that they may as well not be used. 4k damage with the anti-cruiser bomb? That does nothing significant to even a tech 1 cruiser, never mind tech 2 ships and battleships.
TheSmokingHertog Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium 375	Posted - 2016.04.27 05:22:57 - [287] - Quote Sisi Collins wrote: aldhura wrote: Anyone know if orca mining boosts will work while tethered ? I can't seem to find any info on this. As CCP announced on FANFEST, before links will be changed to AoE ongrid buffs, it will be possible to give bonuses on rorq and orca while tethered, but possible this summer you will need to be in grid to give bonuses What if you are tethered and an astroid belt is on grid? "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 =-
Lugh Crow-Slave 2317	Posted - 2016.04.27 05:33:56 - [288] - Quote The boosts will not be grid wide Citadel worm hole tax
Pryce Caesar Evil Young Flesh 72	Posted - 2016.04.27 06:36:05 - [289] - Quote Alexander Otium wrote: Terrorfrodo wrote: Alexander Otium wrote: if we're talking military and combat strength, why have a Citadel when a couple of battleships is more effective for a fraction of the cost? Even if a Citadel was not better than 4 t1 battleships, that is still huge. Because you have the firepower of 4 battleships, but you have that while being un-killable, un-neutable, un-jammable. You just have a small but powerful extra fleet that you can add to whatever else you can put on the field and that your enemy cannot take out during the fight. And of course those special weapons that no ship has... some of them appear to be quite powerful. You have less power than 4 battleships, for the cost of 90 battleships. A fortizar can be killed by a gang of 4 battleships and 2 logi, repping faster than the Citadel can hurt (by a huge amount), and generating cap far faster than the Citadel can neut, not factoring in jamming. Even factoring in jamming, if you use all 5 mid slots for jams, that just means that you can't fight off a gang of 7 logi and 9 battleships. A huge-ass battlestation, literally called a Fortizar Citadel, that costs 25-30bil ISK, can't defend itself from 6-16 ships? The only unique weapon that the Fortizar has is the bomb launcher, and the damage bombs and neut bombs are so weak that they may as well not be used. 4k damage with the anti-cruiser bomb? That does nothing significant to even a tech 1 cruiser, never mind tech 2 ships and battleships. That's because Citadels serve as a whole lot more than normal battleships - they are the places where Corporations and Alliance store their goods, and serve a majority of the same functions as outposts. Not to mention that they are packing an exponentially greater amount of EHP overall (on top of the damage mitigation once you hit a certain point). And I believe I've re-iterated it before: target the Logistics first if you are that scared-to-the-bone of them. Once the Logi are gone, it should not be that much of an issue to take out the Battleships next with concentrated fire. But at the end of the day, you appear to be all about "a Citadel should be able to wipe out entire fleets on their own", when a Citadel's best performance is alongside a supporting fleet. After all, the Corps/Alliances that control the Citadel have a stake in protecting them in the first place. They're meant to be powerful, but not overpowered. What were you wanting? For the Fortizar to have the fire-power of four Titans?
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 14	Posted - 2016.04.27 19:28:41 - [290] - Quote What part of "A Fortizar Citadel can';t even kill a gang of 4 battleships" do you not understand?

aldhura Bartledannians Nite Owls 38	Posted - 2016.04.27 20:23:00 - [291] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: The boosts will not be grid wide If they do it any other way it will just complicate their code execution, ie setting a distance from booster will invoke a ton of code running. Imagine 4000 people in a system and every second each player is checked distance from booster. Bartledannians Corporation is recruiting Nite Owls Alliance is recruiting
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 14	Posted - 2016.05.02 04:52:21 - [292] - Quote Would a Citadel in a Pulsar wormhole receive the neut bonus? Further, what about wormhole effects in general?
Cyan Moonwinder Cyta Corp 3	Posted - 2016.05.03 00:01:01 - [293] - Quote I feel there is a needless complexity with the service rigs. Two for Ice? One for HS Minerals? One for Lowsec/Null Minerals? We used to just slap a refinery up, and that was it. This makes me wonder if the bonuses for manufacturing are going to be needlessly complex as well. Am I going to have to build multiple citadels to get bonuses for manufacturing fuel/ammo/capship parts and so on? I can understand different high/low/null rigs, but these are nothing in comparison to the versatility and simplicity of a starbase. I can understand the 3-rig system for the current citadels as they are designed for combat. But for the upcoming manufacturing arrays, I really hope they include more than 3. Or perhaps dedicated service module rig slots, and keep the traditional 3 for combat.
Xindi Kraid Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. Arataka Research Consortium 1107	Posted - 2016.05.03 15:36:44 - [294] - Quote Cyan Moonwinder wrote: I feel there is a needless complexity with the service rigs. Two for Ice? One for HS Minerals? One for Lowsec/Null Minerals? We used to just slap a refinery up, and that was it. This makes me wonder if the bonuses for manufacturing are going to be needlessly complex as well. Am I going to have to build multiple citadels to get bonuses for manufacturing fuel/ammo/capship parts and so on? I can understand different high/low/null rigs, but these are nothing in comparison to the versatility and simplicity of a starbase. I can understand the 3-rig system for the current citadels as they are designed for combat. But for the upcoming manufacturing arrays, I really hope they include more than 3. Or perhaps dedicated service module rig slots, and keep the traditional 3 for combat. That's only for mediums larges only have one each for ice and ore while XL have one for all reprocessing. They already stated this would be the case, larger structures can be more generalized both by being able to fit more services and that the rigs will be more generalized at larger sizes and more specific at smaller sizes.
Pryce Caesar Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans 78	Posted - 2016.05.03 16:44:43 - [295] - Quote Alexander Otium wrote: What part of "A Fortizar Citadel can';t even kill a gang of 4 battleships" do you not understand? Your obsession with the fact is what I don't understand. You say all of this, but I doubt you ever even tested it in an actual battle. Citadels are supposed to be more than floating fortresses, and CCP certainly didn't mean for them to be treated as such. Besides, a Citadel deserves to be blown up if the alliance/Corporation that controls it cannot be bothered to mobilize to protect it, which is part of the reason why they are built as such. They are designed to promote alliance based PVP, and they are meant to be the eventual replacements of the Outposts and other Player-owned Stations.
Cyan Moonwinder Cyta Corp 4	Posted - 2016.05.03 22:53:28 - [296] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: That's only for mediums larges only have one each for ice and ore while XL have one for all reprocessing. They already stated this would be the case, larger structures can be more generalized both by being able to fit more services and that the rigs will be more generalized at larger sizes and more specific at smaller sizes. They're losing a lot of bonuses compared to starbases. A starbase can be a refinery, research lab, factory, with bonuses, all at the same time. Mediums were also supposed to be the starbase equivalent, as they said, and if they are not, they are failing on their word. Med/Large Citadel DPS is already sounding lackluster to even what a medium POS could deal, so why rip down a literal pillar of the foundations of EVE for a downgrade?
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 493	Posted - 2016.05.03 23:22:18 - [297] - Quote Cyan Moonwinder wrote: Xindi Kraid wrote: That's only for mediums larges only have one each for ice and ore while XL have one for all reprocessing. They already stated this would be the case, larger structures can be more generalized both by being able to fit more services and that the rigs will be more generalized at larger sizes and more specific at smaller sizes. They're losing a lot of bonuses compared to starbases. A starbase can be a refinery, research lab, factory, with bonuses, all at the same time. Mediums were also supposed to be the starbase equivalent, as they said, and if they are not, they are failing on their word. Med/Large Citadel DPS is already sounding lackluster to even what a medium POS could deal, so why rip down a literal pillar of the foundations of EVE for a downgrade? The said the new structures would replace these things eventually. But they also said there would be more specialized structures with bonus based around there intended use. Although you can use a citadel for refining. It is not its intended use, there will be structures in upcoming releases that give bonus to that sort of thing. AKA the scientist. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium 432	Posted - 2016.05.04 19:55:04 - [298] - Quote Would like to say that the citadel (medium) seems underwhelming. 'The power of 4 battleships' is pretty weak sauce compared to how a large pos can be fit: dickstar, dullstar, straight damps, or whatever... I've had mediums make a. 6-8 person fleet work even un manned. Being able to roll these with 2-3 logi (dommi ball?) Seems like a shame. I think we need to agree on what kind of force ahould be required to take out one of these. If the intent is that a casual attack can jack them up the price is way off. There needs to be a reason in wh space to pick one of these over a pos... right now I don't see it.
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 14	Posted - 2016.05.04 20:21:32 - [299] - Quote 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.
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 69	Posted - 2016.05.04 21:23:39 - [300] - 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

Pryce Caesar Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans 80	Posted - 2016.05.04 21:46:33 - [301] - 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. Because everyone else understands the common sense of having a supporting fleet to back up the Citadel, instead of incessantly asking for personal Death Stars that can wipe out fleets on their own. Stop thinking in terms of DPS and start thinking in terms of the overall utilities a Citadel - A SPACE STATION - is supposed to provide. Citadels are priced as such because they are expected to replace Outposts, and serve similar functions to the older Player-owned Stations, not be a player's personal armed bunker. They are meant to support a Corporation and/or Alliance by being a place where all their assets are held. That's why they are so priced. If your corporation or Alliance cannot commit to the defense of your assets, that is as good as saying you don't deserve a Citadel in the first place.
Aurare Bel Continuous Frequency Deviations 0	Posted - 2016.05.05 05:23:45 - [302] - Quote Just gonna throw this out here, if one has fighters deployed while in control of a citadel and for whatever reason, leaves that position, thus causing the fighters to be disconnected. As far as i can tell, there is no way to reconnect them, without having to haul a indy to each group to scoop. Thanks in advance.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2430	Posted - 2016.05.05 05:40:42 - [303] - Quote Aurare Bel wrote: Just gonna throw this out here, if one has fighters deployed while in control of a citadel and for whatever reason, leaves that position, thus causing the fighters to be disconnected. As far as i can tell, there is no way to reconnect them, without having to haul a indy to each group to scoop. Thanks in advance. the hot key for reconnect still seems to work Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2430	Posted - 2016.05.05 05:42:20 - [304] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: 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. because large established groups should be invincible to new smaller ones Citadel worm hole tax
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found 2221	Posted - 2016.05.05 06:02:02 - [305] - Quote I would like station interiors/captains quarters to be in citadels, and I doubt it would be difficult to implement... Why is it not being included? The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Aurare Bel Continuous Frequency Deviations 0	Posted - 2016.05.05 06:09:45 - [306] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Aurare Bel wrote: Just gonna throw this out here, if one has fighters deployed while in control of a citadel and for whatever reason, leaves that position, thus causing the fighters to be disconnected. As far as i can tell, there is no way to reconnect them, without having to haul a indy to each group to scoop. Thanks in advance. the hot key for reconnect still seems to work Not in my case http://imgbox.com/yD8Y1mpr
Lugh Crow-Slave 2432	Posted - 2016.05.05 06:11:48 - [307] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: I would like station interiors/captains quarters to be in citadels, and I doubt it would be difficult to implement... Why is it not being included? probably because ccp didn't want to look into the UI and didn't want to have ppl needing to click that button twice to get to the camera they wanted. but i agree this would be nice. i would also like it if we could pick our interiors (even if its just for the hangers and cq is never added) so i can have my citadel with a gal/amarr station hanger Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2432	Posted - 2016.05.05 06:12:37 - [308] - Quote Aurare Bel wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Aurare Bel wrote: Just gonna throw this out here, if one has fighters deployed while in control of a citadel and for whatever reason, leaves that position, thus causing the fighters to be disconnected. As far as i can tell, there is no way to reconnect them, without having to haul a indy to each group to scoop. Thanks in advance. the hot key for reconnect still seems to work Not in my case http://imgbox.com/yD8Y1mpr hmm send in a bug report i haven't been able to test since things left sisi and moved onto tq Citadel worm hole tax
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 69	Posted - 2016.05.05 11:19:35 - [309] - 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
Lugh Crow-Slave 2434	Posted - 2016.05.05 12:28:08 - [310] - Quote O.o i hadn't even looked at your affiliation. i was talking as a small group who would like to be able to siege these if the defender doesn't bother to show up. no matter what the smaller group is going to be in trouble if they get sieged by a major force Citadel worm hole tax

Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium 432	Posted - 2016.05.05 14:25:03 - [311] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: O.o i hadn't even looked at your affiliation. i was talking as a small group who would like to be able to siege these if the defender doesn't bother to show up. no matter what the smaller group is going to be in trouble if they get sieged by a major force That's not really the issue though. The issue is how little it takes. 5 man corp throws a citadel up, 6 people can knock it down.. and how hard is it to find 6 peolple when you have 3 guys meeting the dps minumum and 2 logi tanking it (assuming no ecm). At least in HS there has to be a wardec. Oh the corp is forming up a defense fleet in low, null, wh? Great, say the words 'we have pew' in any number of channels and you'll have peolle coming out of the wordwork... and it takes no great effort on the attackers part to make thaf happen. My only point is that atfacking medium pos should be at least as difficult as attacking a large especially considering someone has to actually sit in it and t bhai us not be avail in a ship. If I can kick someones sand castle with 6 dudes compared to the 10-20 a large pos takes... then why would people bother?
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 278	Posted - 2016.05.05 20:36:44 - [312] - Quote I think this is one of those things CCP throws out there not knowing for certain how people will adapt to it. Maybe 5 guys are not supposed to run a Citadel? Maybe sometime in the future another citadel-like structure will come up more closely resembling a medium POS (like a SMALL citadel) ?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2440	Posted - 2016.05.05 21:32:04 - [313] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: O.o i hadn't even looked at your affiliation. i was talking as a small group who would like to be able to siege these if the defender doesn't bother to show up. no matter what the smaller group is going to be in trouble if they get sieged by a major force That's not really the issue though. The issue is how little it takes. 5 man corp throws a citadel up, 6 people can knock it down.. and how hard is it to find 6 peolple when you have 3 guys meeting the dps minumum and 2 logi tanking it (assuming no ecm). At least in HS there has to be a wardec. Oh the corp is forming up a defense fleet in low, null, wh? Great, say the words 'we have pew' in any number of channels and you'll have peolle coming out of the wordwork... and it takes no great effort on the attackers part to make thaf happen. My only point is that atfacking medium pos should be at least as difficult as attacking a large especially considering someone has to actually sit in it and t bhai us not be avail in a ship. If I can kick someones sand castle with 6 dudes compared to the 10-20 a large pos takes... then why would people bother? why would you assume no ECM when a citadel can kick out very powerful ecm i feel like ppl are only looking at the DPS of citadel missile launchers and nothing else. a M citadel is far more defensible than a large POS Citadel worm hole tax
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 14	Posted - 2016.05.05 23:59:18 - [314] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Noxisia Arkana wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: O.o i hadn't even looked at your affiliation. i was talking as a small group who would like to be able to siege these if the defender doesn't bother to show up. no matter what the smaller group is going to be in trouble if they get sieged by a major force That's not really the issue though. The issue is how little it takes. 5 man corp throws a citadel up, 6 people can knock it down.. and how hard is it to find 6 peolple when you have 3 guys meeting the dps minumum and 2 logi tanking it (assuming no ecm). At least in HS there has to be a wardec. Oh the corp is forming up a defense fleet in low, null, wh? Great, say the words 'we have pew' in any number of channels and you'll have peolle coming out of the wordwork... and it takes no great effort on the attackers part to make thaf happen. My only point is that atfacking medium pos should be at least as difficult as attacking a large especially considering someone has to actually sit in it and t bhai us not be avail in a ship. If I can kick someones sand castle with 6 dudes compared to the 10-20 a large pos takes... then why would people bother? why would you assume no ECM when a citadel can kick out very powerful ecm i feel like ppl are only looking at the DPS of citadel missile launchers and nothing else. a M citadel is far more defensible than a large POS With a Fortizar you can only jam 5 people, max, and that's assuming you don't fit any other kind of E-war like painters or scrams. So they bring 7 Guardians instead of 2, five get jammed, and you can still outrep all of the Citadel's damage for a fraction of the cost. Aside from that, a Fortizar is just not cost-effective as a defensive asset. You can get much more defensive power by spending the ISK on tech 1 battleships. You can buy ~90 fully-fitted battleships for the price of a fully-fitted Fortizar, and you can use 4-5 of them to do more damage than a Citadel, with the advantage of mobility so you can use it offensively as well.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2441	Posted - 2016.05.06 01:45:43 - [315] - Quote then its a good thing they don't have to defend themselves alone huh Citadel worm hole tax
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium 433	Posted - 2016.05.06 17:44:50 - [316] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: then its a good thing they don't have to defend themselves alone huh You seem to fixate on one piece of every argument to prove your point... you could just acknowledge that I assumed no ecm tomade the conversation easier and for comparison purposes. I mean do we want to get into scram strength per ecm (fyi citadel is signifacantly lower). Structures aren't meant to be owned by 5 man corps? We need to take a step back here and assume that we're using examples... great lets say its a 20 man corp, or 50 casual players.. or 1000 risk adverse bears. The point is, the structure is **** in comparison to the tools we have to defend ourselves now, why are we paying more for less? There is 0 incentive for me as a wh corp to pull down my large and pop up a medium citadel. Can you give me one good reason outside of corporate theft?
Nikolai Mazinkov Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 0	Posted - 2016.05.07 21:10:26 - [317] - Quote I agree that a citadel should have better DPS and defensive capability. A thing that is that huge and expensive should be more capable. Look at a Large citadel vs a Supercarrier, carrier, dread, or battleship. You should get more ability rom thestructure, even if that means scrapping or changing the DPS mitigation system and vulnerability windows. 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? *"Momento Mori"*, Remember That You Must Die www.rvbeve.com
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 70	Posted - 2016.05.07 21:46:36 - [318] - 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
TheSmokingHertog Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium 376	Posted - 2016.05.08 03:32:29 - [319] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: 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..... And then let them worry about that "spy" that you let in by "accidentally". "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 =-
Nikolai Mazinkov Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 0	Posted - 2016.05.09 20:20:11 - [320] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: 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..... Fantastic, that is exactly the answer I was hoping for :) Thanks *"Momento Mori"*, Remember That You Must Die www.rvbeve.com

elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1204	Posted - 2016.05.13 00:36:16 - [321] - Quote It looks like the Deep Space Nine project had a flew and became Empok' Nor. Yeay-ish. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Jessie McPewpew U2EZ 8	Posted - 2016.05.14 01:31:57 - [322] - Quote Please, don't bother phasing POSs out anymore.
aldhura Bartledannians 41	Posted - 2016.05.15 19:37:27 - [323] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: I would like station interiors/captains quarters to be in citadels, and I doubt it would be difficult to implement... Why is it not being included? Why do you want it ? What do you actually do with with it ? This was the start to WIS, which thankfully has been abandoned, its a space ship game.. you need to undock to fly a spaceship. Bartledannians Corporation is recruiting
Alexander Otium Oasis Freeport Wormhole Citadel 21	Posted - 2016.05.17 08:37:12 - [324] - Quote Citadels are unaffected by wormhole effects, correct? does that also apply to the missiles and guided bombs fired by Citadels?
Auron Orlenard Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found 2	Posted - 2016.05.22 17:45:04 - [325] - Quote Dear CCP, we demmand citadel firework launchers+charges.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 3480	Posted - 2016.05.29 20:42:20 - [326] - Quote I agree with the above, Citadels should have a way to celebrate, make a module for 'disco mode' or a weapons package and a am sure poeple would buy and use them. boots n pants n boots n pants n . . .. m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Lugh Crow-Slave 2690	Posted - 2016.05.30 04:43:23 - [327] - Quote make it a a FDS firework delight system :p Citadel worm hole tax
helana Tsero Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 512	Posted - 2016.06.01 00:39:11 - [328] - Quote All i want is my CQ in citadels. and a pony. also get rid of that uselss external view.. and add CQ instead. Would be trivial to implement surely. Everything is already ingame and working. "... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where eve is placed... not in cave..." \| zoonr-Korsairs \| QFT !
helana Tsero Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 512	Posted - 2016.06.01 00:43:19 - [329] - Quote . "... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where eve is placed... not in cave..." \| zoonr-Korsairs \| QFT !
Yuuto Amakawa Freeport Expedition Association 0	Posted - 2016.06.03 12:15:16 - [330] - Quote Hi: First time posting on the forums, so thanks for all that you do! I was curious if there were any plans to allow Citadel owners to fit their structures during the initial 15 minute vulnerability window after anchoring? Currently, it is impossible to fit Citadels during that time. This, to me, is there to encourage people to show up to actually defend things, which is the point of course. However, my corporation is very small (5 members and actively recruiting), and it is impossible for us to defend a structure without it being able to provide fire support in low, null, or wormhole space. As can be expected, there are roaming gangs just looking for sand castles to knock over outside of high-sec (that's cool, this IS Eve, so I expect that). However, we cannot hold our own against much larger more well equipped fleets who understandably see that first window as an easy kill. Being a young corporation, many of our members are newer players who want to begin exploring other parts of the game outside of high-sec and have a base of operations they can fall back on. POS structures online faster, but are being phased out. I always believed that the spirit of Citadels, particularly the more affordable Astrahus class, was designed to give small, but active, groups outside of the larger corporations a fighting chance provided that they show up to defend the place. I don't want that initial vulnerability window to go away. I am just suggesting that anyone who shows up to knock the castle over gets a good fight for those 15 minutes. Feel free to share your thoughts.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2755	Posted - 2016.06.04 08:35:31 - [331] - Quote Yuuto Amakawa wrote: Hi: First time posting on the forums, so thanks for all that you do! I was curious if there were any plans to allow Citadel owners to fit their structures during the initial 15 minute vulnerability window after anchoring? Currently, it is impossible to fit Citadels during that time. This, to me, is there to encourage people to show up to actually defend things, which is the point of course. However, my corporation is very small (5 members and actively recruiting), and it is impossible for us to defend a structure without it being able to provide fire support in low, null, or wormhole space. As can be expected, there are roaming gangs just looking for sand castles to knock over outside of high-sec (that's cool, this IS Eve, so I expect that). However, we cannot hold our own against much larger more well equipped fleets who understandably see that first window as an easy kill. Being a young corporation, many of our members are newer players who want to begin exploring other parts of the game outside of high-sec and have a base of operations they can fall back on. POS structures online faster, but are being phased out. I always believed that the spirit of Citadels, particularly the more affordable Astrahus class, was designed to give small, but active, groups outside of the larger corporations a fighting chance provided that they show up to defend the place. I don't want that initial vulnerability window to go away. I am just suggesting that anyone who shows up to knock the castle over gets a good fight for those 15 minutes. Feel free to share your thoughts. it is to balance them considering how long it takes to take one out after it is anchored right now it may be hard because they are shiny new and everyone wants the KM give it a few more months and ppl will care about bashing them about as much as they care about POS' Citadel worm hole tax
aldhura Bartledannians The Ascendancy Protocol 45	Posted - 2016.06.06 19:37:45 - [332] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Yuuto Amakawa wrote: Hi: First time posting on the forums, so thanks for all that you do! I was curious if there were any plans to allow Citadel owners to fit their structures during the initial 15 minute vulnerability window after anchoring? Currently, it is impossible to fit Citadels during that time. This, to me, is there to encourage people to show up to actually defend things, which is the point of course. However, my corporation is very small (5 members and actively recruiting), and it is impossible for us to defend a structure without it being able to provide fire support in low, null, or wormhole space. As can be expected, there are roaming gangs just looking for sand castles to knock over outside of high-sec (that's cool, this IS Eve, so I expect that). However, we cannot hold our own against much larger more well equipped fleets who understandably see that first window as an easy kill. Being a young corporation, many of our members are newer players who want to begin exploring other parts of the game outside of high-sec and have a base of operations they can fall back on. POS structures online faster, but are being phased out. I always believed that the spirit of Citadels, particularly the more affordable Astrahus class, was designed to give small, but active, groups outside of the larger corporations a fighting chance provided that they show up to defend the place. I don't want that initial vulnerability window to go away. I am just suggesting that anyone who shows up to knock the castle over gets a good fight for those 15 minutes. Feel free to share your thoughts. it is to balance them considering how long it takes to take one out after it is anchored right now it may be hard because they are shiny new and everyone wants the KM give it a few more months and ppl will care about bashing them about as much as they care about POS' It doesn't take long to take down a wh citadel. Bartledannians Corporation is recruiting
Lugh Crow-Slave 2776	Posted - 2016.06.08 14:38:21 - [333] - Quote aldhura wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Yuuto Amakawa wrote: Hi: First time posting on the forums, so thanks for all that you do! I was curious if there were any plans to allow Citadel owners to fit their structures during the initial 15 minute vulnerability window after anchoring? Currently, it is impossible to fit Citadels during that time. This, to me, is there to encourage people to show up to actually defend things, which is the point of course. However, my corporation is very small (5 members and actively recruiting), and it is impossible for us to defend a structure without it being able to provide fire support in low, null, or wormhole space. As can be expected, there are roaming gangs just looking for sand castles to knock over outside of high-sec (that's cool, this IS Eve, so I expect that). However, we cannot hold our own against much larger more well equipped fleets who understandably see that first window as an easy kill. Being a young corporation, many of our members are newer players who want to begin exploring other parts of the game outside of high-sec and have a base of operations they can fall back on. POS structures online faster, but are being phased out. I always believed that the spirit of Citadels, particularly the more affordable Astrahus class, was designed to give small, but active, groups outside of the larger corporations a fighting chance provided that they show up to defend the place. I don't want that initial vulnerability window to go away. I am just suggesting that anyone who shows up to knock the castle over gets a good fight for those 15 minutes. Feel free to share your thoughts. it is to balance them considering how long it takes to take one out after it is anchored right now it may be hard because they are shiny new and everyone wants the KM give it a few more months and ppl will care about bashing them about as much as they care about POS' It doesn't take long to take down a wh citadel. 49.5 hrs minimum is a long time in a hostile hole.. not to mention that after anchored it could be up to 7 days before you can even start the attack so yeah it takes a while then they also have to be balanced for the rest of eve where once they get out of the first repair timer there is nothing you can do about it for pottialy two weeks depending on the vulnerability timers Citadel worm hole tax
Renton Landing Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2016.06.16 19:26:22 - [334] - Quote Will it be possible to anchor the different major types of structures closer than 1000 km apart? Major type = primary structure role, so office and market hubs, assembly arrays, research laboratories, drilling platforms, and observatory arrays. Example: I've a market hub (say Fortizar) in sov-null where I buy and process minerals into ore. I then want to use that ore to build something or other. It would be nice if say 10km away from my Fortizar, I have my Assembly Array anchored so I can easily move the required materials there to build whatever I am looking to build. In other words, a small cluster of structures, that can support each other in operations rather than having to string my manufacturing out across an entire grid, with 1km gaps between each structure. (I'm assuming here that some of the structures would be defenseless also, and would need to rely on the defenses of a citadel in order to be secure.) There might need to be some exclusions, such as an administration array or a gate not being able to be in range with an office and market hub but it would remove the need to waste time moving things between structures and buying and setting up multiple defense systems for each structure.
Bad Bobby Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust 1459	Posted - 2016.07.12 01:32:33 - [335] - Quote aldhura wrote: Rek Seven wrote: I would like station interiors/captains quarters to be in citadels, and I doubt it would be difficult to implement... Why is it not being included? Why do you want it ? What do you actually do with with it ? This was the start to WIS, which thankfully has been abandoned, its a space ship game.. you need to undock to fly a spaceship. I want it because it has less flashing lights and billboards than the station interior and is generally a more serene place for me to be. I would be far happier with a better designed station interior, since the loading times and general responsiveness of CQ leaves something to be desired. Unfortunately, I can't spend all my time undocked. When I'm docked I have to deal with an unsatisfactory station interior. I've had to resort to covering up the station interior with windows in order to have a more comfortable experience. The recent dock/undock animation caused me to resort to CQ for relief from the additional unpleasant side effects I was getting from that and I've now found that I do not want to return to the station interior even after the dock/undock animation has been made optional. There is also the fact that I and many others have obviously been crying out for more control when in station. The idea that we are only allowed to enjoy the game in a spaceship seems a little limiting. I like spinning my ship as much as the next guy, but I also like walking around my ship, walking inside my ship and all the other things I can only do in my imagination.
Anderson Coop Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation 11	Posted - 2016.08.15 15:35:15 - [336] - Quote When are we getting any kind of manufacturing capability with the new structures?
Pirokobo Perkone Caldari State 30	Posted - 2016.08.16 16:20:34 - [337] - Quote My concern is related specifically to the proposed research labs. Years ago I invested a lot of time and money to fill all of my character slots with datacore alts. Though the returns are small, it appeals to me because it is a continuously accruing investment that has absolutely no limit on how long it can accumulate without player interaction (unlike PI or moonmining, which eventually need to be emptied). I have no problem building a structure for continuing to do datacore farming. In fact I look foreard to that part. However... I would expect that the returns ON datacore farming would continue to scale based on the number of characters researching at that structure, their skill level in the research they are performing, and the number of research jobs they can manage. Provided that is all the case, then as soon as research labs became available I would construct a datacore mart.
Freedom7 Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 8	Posted - 2016.08.17 11:31:36 - [338] - Quote Indy Citadels ------ This needs to hurry up and arrive IMO
Kinizsi FREE GATES FREE GATES COALITION 9	Posted - 2016.08.22 13:13:49 - [339] - Quote Please CCP reconsider the whole defence mechanism of citadels. 1, Citadels rarely die, there are only a few kills/day on the killboards vs Check how many POS dies a day (citadels don't make content) 2, 80% or more of the citadels die after anchoring while they're unfitted an unable to shoot back. (Real fun, real content? ) 3, After they're anchored they rarely die cause noone intrested in 3 timers. (why would someone return and siege something 3 TIMES when the owners of the citadel can get nearly all their stuff out by the asset safety mechanisms, really don't you see that there is no real pont of attacking the citadels cause there is no reward for it?) 4, There is no way to interfere the siege timers. Attackers have 0 chance to alter the reinforce timer they don't really have any chance of making the citadel come out on a time more favored by the attacker. (you can not interfere with different time zone player assets..... what is the point of being a sandbox game when you can not even touch different TZ structures? ) -Please consider alterable Reinforce timers on citadels. (exactly the same as it's now with POS's) This means remove vulnerability settings completely, and make them vulnerable any time, but let owners decide the end of reinforce time by setting the correct ammount of some emergency fuel. Make their defences shoot automatically if it's not piloted. It worked so well for years and now you simply deny any non TZ content. Why you hate EU and AUS timezone players so much? -Please decrease required siege count to destroy citadels. Don't make players suffer 3 times to destroy something what don't even worth 2 Billion ISK. At least scale them please. Asrahus 1 reinforce timer, 2 reinforce timer for Fortizar, and Keep 3 for Keepstars if you want, but come on please get rid of 3 timers on Asrahuses it's like having 2 more timers on each control tower. -Pretty please don't make the same mistakes on the upcoming structures, please don't make them nearly indestructible and completely ignorable like you did with Citadels.
Resa Moon New Eden Miners Association 15	Posted - 2016.08.23 02:48:54 - [340] - Quote So much for the nomadic nature of Eve for miners/industrialists. With the POS mechanics we could move in a heartbeat compared to 24 hours to anchor and a week to unanchor. Put a small POS, compression array and corp hangar array in the Orca and hit the road. Have something that retains our ability to remain reasonably nomadic. New Eden Mining Blog

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3542	Posted - 2016.08.23 02:57:50 - [341] - Quote Resa Moon wrote: So much for the nomadic nature of Eve for miners/industrialists. With the POS mechanics we could move in a heartbeat compared to 24 hours to anchor and a week to unanchor. Put a small POS, compression array and corp hangar array in the Orca and hit the road. Have something that retains our ability to remain reasonably nomadic. See what they do with the Rorq. If it keeps compression but no longer needs the industrial core to use it, there you go.
Resa Moon New Eden Miners Association 15	Posted - 2016.08.23 03:01:26 - [342] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Resa Moon wrote: So much for the nomadic nature of Eve for miners/industrialists. With the POS mechanics we could move in a heartbeat compared to 24 hours to anchor and a week to unanchor. Put a small POS, compression array and corp hangar array in the Orca and hit the road. Have something that retains our ability to remain reasonably nomadic. See what they do with the Rorq. If it keeps compression but no longer needs the industrial core to use it, there you go. Not in highsec. New Eden Mining Blog
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3542	Posted - 2016.08.23 05:40:28 - [343] - Quote Resa Moon wrote: Not in highsec. Highsec has these things called stations, often several in each system for you to be Nomadic in. I hear they even almost all have 50% refining in them. Oh, not to mention all those freeport Citadels springing up around the place. You are complaining that you can't be nomadic inside a highly developed city here, get over it.
Resa Moon New Eden Miners Association 15	Posted - 2016.08.23 08:19:22 - [344] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Resa Moon wrote: Not in highsec. Highsec has these things called stations, often several in each system for you to be Nomadic in. I hear they even almost all have 50% refining in them. Oh, not to mention all those freeport Citadels springing up around the place. You are complaining that you can't be nomadic inside a highly developed city here, get over it. What nonsense. With a small POS you can do with ore what you want, such as compress, refine, or even build, where you want. Highsec stations don't compress, by the way. Also, not every system has a station. New Eden Mining Blog
Kenneth Fritz DND Industries FUBAR. 9	Posted - 2016.09.13 04:32:56 - [345] - Quote With many people being up in arms over the upcoming changes to command links and the leadership skills I am wondering if an equally important matter is being overlooked. I have, so far, been unable to locate any official information about either the Engineering Complex nor the Mining Platform. Other than the names and that the former is coming out in November and latter in Winter I can't find any hard information on them. Perhaps I am simply not looking in the right places. If so I hope someone can point me in the right direction. However, if the case is that information is available, I ask that CCP release what they can so that the potentially game changing mechanics that these structures might represent don't blindside the players. And who knows some of us might catch something that was missed or provide insight on a mechanic you're having trouble implementing. Who's your end of the world buddy?
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 86	Posted - 2016.09.13 17:00:34 - [346] - 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
TheSmokingHertog Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium 426	Posted - 2016.09.13 17:39:26 - [347] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: 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....... Is this no longer accurate? > http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67008/1/Structure_ISIS5-01.png "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 =-
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 86	Posted - 2016.09.15 18:33:57 - [348] - 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
Lugh Crow-Slave 3114	Posted - 2016.09.15 22:05:35 - [349] - Quote that link is so old... the assembly structures will be the same as a citadel just with different role bonuses and iirc no asset safety basically citadel are vaults industry platforms are manufacturing plants BLOPS Hauler
sstabeler Echerie Virgin Plc Evictus. 2	Posted - 2016.09.18 12:38:52 - [350] - Quote I think the idea is that the Hub and Headquarters are supposed to be strategic assets- that is, you aren't supposed to leave them unguarded, or someone will take them from you. The idea, I suspect is that Structures are supposed to represent the equivalent of having de jure authority over a system ( Sov) but not necessarily having de facto authority ( if your enemies have taken over your Structures, you might own the system, but it doesn't mean a great deal)- in some ways, the idea is that instead of needing to take the whole system at once, you can take it over slowly- use Citadels to defend your part of the system, gradually either capturing enemy Citadels, or deploying more citadels to bring more of the system under your control- making it a much more realistic simulation of what interstellar warfare would actually be like- the idea would be to gradually force one side or the other to retreat from the system moon-by-moon, planet-by-planet, belt-by-belt, taking over- or destroying- Structures to gradually make it harder and harder for the defenders- or attackers- to defend themselves. In other words, Structures are designed to make for a whole new strategic balance in warfare- rather that the " take over the whole system at once" of current tactics, it would be possible for wars to be fought on- potentially- a much smaller scale, taking over smaller bits of territory at once. ( for that matter, it could also allow for insurgency-type operations- a sufficiently-defended Citadel far behind enemy lines could become a pain in the ass- at a minimum, it would mean the enemy had to divert attention to deal with the problem, making it easier to defend the frontline.

erg cz Eleutherian Guard Villore Accords 491	Posted - 2016.09.26 10:32:33 - [351] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: the assembly structures ... iirc no asset safety That would be very unfortunate. BPO with weeks of ME or TE research may be very , very valuable... Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get your extra week of Eve for free!
Auron Orlenard Art Of Explosions 5	Posted - 2016.10.10 17:14:26 - [352] - Quote One concern, the last picture on the devpost shows a titan being assembled. Will the ships being constructed be visible from outside the citadel? Will we know if a titan/super be on the cooker just by warping to the citadel?
Fred Undead Respice Ad Astra 0	Posted - 2016.10.10 17:59:01 - [353] - Quote One question re: Engineering Complexes - Will the Rorqual be made as an exception to the "Capital ships can only dock in XL Complexes" rule? As it stands right now, if I live in a C3 or C4 Wormhole that rarely or never gets a reasonably safe, capital sized hole, and I want my corporation to have access to a Rorqual in our system, I will need both a Fortizar and an Azbel. I will need the Azbel both to build the Rorqual and support enough manufacturing to keep up with a new and improved Rorq boosted fleet. However, I will not be able to dock said Rorqual into that Azbel after it is launched....... Which requires I spend more than double the money and make another risky Orca trip just to have a Fortizar to dock the Rorqual, or commit a pilot to man it 24/7 Titan style. Even if I HAD the Fortizar to dock the Rorqual with, if I ever decide that it should self-haul for the fleet (Inefficient as that may be), any ore that Rorq brings back would have to be shuttled from the Fortizar to the Azbel to reprocess and manufacture. This stands out to me because it seems not in line with the spirit of what Engineering Complexes are intended to allow, which is an affordable, convenient place for industrialists to make a base of operations. Requiring a second, equally large, twice-as-expensive structure intended for defense rather than industry just to house the literal heart of my industrial operation seems somewhat odd. This could be overcome with something as simple as a Service Module that allows the docking of exactly 1 Rorqual in L Engineering Complexes. I'd happily pay the per-hour fuel cost to run a service module but only require the one structure, until the Rorqual has allowed me to acquire a Fortizar and/or Sotiyo. Even cooler, if you install this hypothetical module, it should be something visible from space which will make that Azbel a much juicier target, encouraging it's owners to buy or build bigger, meaner structures anyway. Plenty of risk for the reward of a Rorqual that is dockable in an Azbel. TL;DR - Requiring an XL Engineering Complex or L Citadel to dock a Rorqual makes Industry life very challenging and un-intuitive for many Wormhole dwellers who plan to bring in a Rorq. Otherwise, RAA is foaming at the mouth for the changes in Ascension! Thank y'all!
Now Life The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.10.11 12:17:22 - [354] - Quote I like the idea of Engineering Complexes but what you are coming is weak. 64 M-Set engineering Rigs , Raitaru = 3rig slots (we need to install 11 Raitaru's ? ) 32 L-Set engineering Rigs , Azbel = 3 rig slots 8 XL-Set engineering Rigs , Sotiyo = 3 rig slots Now we just on-line and of-line POS modules in accordance with that you need them When you get a wardec just stop research of-line Labs and online the guns/launchers and rest of defence. Now with the Engineering Complexes take a seat and watch how your complex get in reinforset / destroyed. Raitaru 9h /week vulnerability and no fichter bays and just 1 launcher Azbel 18h / week vulnerability Sotiyo 36h / week vulerebility is that we do not have other things to do in EVE and / or real life So the most valuable items(BPO's) of a corp / alliance we place them in the weakest and least self-defensive complexes.
Zerzzes Markarian McCloud and Markarian Trade and Logistics Corp. 5	Posted - 2016.10.11 12:28:29 - [355] - Quote Will there be an extra post about the Engineering Complexes? Overall, I think these look very nice. Some comments: - Why was the copying removed from the Design Lab? Now you need both labs, if you want to do Tech II invention. - Not being able to dock a Rorqual even to the large one make them much less useful. - My main concern is that they are not really a proper replacement for POS for small industry corps. With a small POS, Labs, and Assembly Arrays you can start researching for a modest investment of 200M ISK and running costs of 10 blocks/hour. But even the smallest complex will be much more expensive and also the running costs are much higher. To do research and manufacturing, you need 60 blocks/hour. - If they really drop materials that were used for production, that would be a great ganking target. Not sure that high-sec producer will like that. Is there a way to find out how much production is going on? Could the owners exploit that, by self destructiing it when they see that others are building stuff for 1T ISK?
exiik Shardani Imperial Spacedrill and Logistics 84	Posted - 2016.10.11 15:38:38 - [356] - Quote What about faction structures and bonuses for lowsec? I mean thukker assembly or so... sry for my English :-(
Zad Murrard Frozen Dawn Inc Frozen Dawn Alliance 41	Posted - 2016.10.11 17:09:51 - [357] - Quote Given the fuel costs - without considerable nerfs to current alternatives I see no reason to build new industry structures if one is doing industry even semi-actively.
Zerzzes Markarian McCloud and Markarian Trade and Logistics Corp. 5	Posted - 2016.10.11 18:00:16 - [358] - Quote Zad Murrard wrote: Given the fuel costs - without considerable nerfs to current alternatives I see no reason to build new industry structures if one is doing industry even semi-actively. You can open your labs and production lines for a small tax, so that other people pay for your fuel. But the more people building, the juicier the target becomes.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1310	Posted - 2016.10.12 12:48:34 - [359] - Quote My question, and I am sure a lot of people share it, when are these going to be on Sisi so we can test them? We're already mid october and this should, given the six week cycle, go live on or around nov 22. Do we have any time frame on when we're actually going to get to play with these to see what they're like in practice as opposed to the theory? Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Je'ron The Happy Shooters 2	Posted - 2016.10.15 09:43:14 - [360] - Quote Close this thread and continue on thread Dev blog: Building Dreams: Introducing Engineering Complexes

Arronicus Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc. 1539	Posted - 2016.10.24 11:40:28 - [361] - Quote Je'ron wrote: Close this thread and continue on thread Dev blog: Building Dreams: Introducing Engineering Complexes Not sure if troll, or stupid, but this thread is for ALL upcoming structures, not just citadels, engineering complexs, drilling platforms, or observatory arrays.
Erasmus Grant Immortal Wanderers Zaibatsu Mercantile 31	Posted - 2016.10.24 21:16:34 - [362] - Quote No exemplar sites for the Engineering Complexes like the Citadels got in the hype to their release?
Erasmus Grant Immortal Wanderers Zaibatsu Mercantile 31	Posted - 2016.10.28 19:40:37 - [363] - Quote Also curious if the Lab from the Caldari Epic Arc will be convert to a stand up citadel module
Endellur Nexus Intelligence Agency 0	Posted - 2016.10.29 15:15:30 - [364] - Quote As a high sec player why would I want to use one of these new structures over an NPC station as my home base? If I make one of these structures my home I risk losing all my assets for some number of days and getting podded if the structure is destroyed. I think industry and research failure is an acceptable loss for the added benefits to those processes but in their current state I can't see players logging off in these structures in high sec with NPC stations next door.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5433	Posted - 2016.10.29 16:22:33 - [365] - Quote Endellur wrote: As a high sec player why would I want to use one of these new structures over an NPC station as my home base? If I make one of these structures my home I risk losing all my assets for some number of days and getting podded if the structure is destroyed. I think industry and research failure is an acceptable loss for the added benefits to those processes but in their current state I can't see players logging off in these structures in high sec with NPC stations next door. I believe that is the idea...to give you a choice. If you are that concerned about risk, then yes, maybe stations are best for you and you'll have to give up some of your revenues and thus costs to do so. And if the markets you are involved with change enough you might even have to find new markets. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Endellur Nexus Intelligence Agency 0	Posted - 2016.10.29 19:48:31 - [366] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Endellur wrote: As a high sec player why would I want to use one of these new structures over an NPC station as my home base? If I make one of these structures my home I risk losing all my assets for some number of days and getting podded if the structure is destroyed. I think industry and research failure is an acceptable loss for the added benefits to those processes but in their current state I can't see players logging off in these structures in high sec with NPC stations next door. I believe that is the idea...to give you a choice. If you are that concerned about risk, then yes, maybe stations are best for you and you'll have to give up some of your revenues and thus costs to do so. And if the markets you are involved with change enough you might even have to find new markets. I am not concerned with any of the benefits vs risks of the market, industry or research bonuses. I'm only talking about making the citadels home. The citadels are designed to be used as a home base but there are no benefits from living in one when it comes to your basic storage and docking and only negatives from losing your items for days and getting podded when they are destroyed. Seems like those things either need to change or there should be some benefit from taking that risk. If not, then the citadels will only be pit stops at best in high sec.
sstabeler Echerie Virgin Plc Evictus. 2	Posted - 2016.10.29 21:00:53 - [367] - Quote because that's not the purpose of Citadels- they are a "jack of all trades" Structure for situations where a specialist Structure isn't really needed- particularly when structures are expensive to keep fueled. If you are just storing stuff in a Citadel, then you don't actually need one in that system. the actual "home base" structure is going to be the Administration Hub- which is where you can have Corp offices, for example. It's just Citadels were done first since they are the area defense/jack-of-all-trades structure. Basically, Citadels are in more-or-less direct descent of the POS, and are intended to function similarly. Whereas the other Structures are what give the actual bonuses to various activities- Engineering Complexes are in direct descent of the various industrial arrays available at the moment- they allow you to do industry more efficiently. Drilling Platforms will likely allow benefits to Mining ( I imagine they may be able to Compress ore, for example, while Engineering Complexes Reprocess it.)
Endellur Nexus Intelligence Agency 0	Posted - 2016.10.29 22:30:55 - [368] - Quote sstabeler Echerie wrote: because that's not the purpose of Citadels- they are a "jack of all trades" Structure for situations where a specialist Structure isn't really needed- particularly when structures are expensive to keep fueled. If you are just storing stuff in a Citadel, then you don't actually need one in that system. the actual "home base" structure is going to be the Administration Hub- which is where you can have Corp offices, for example. It's just Citadels were done first since they are the area defense/jack-of-all-trades structure. Basically, Citadels are in more-or-less direct descent of the POS, and are intended to function similarly. Whereas the other Structures are what give the actual bonuses to various activities- Engineering Complexes are in direct descent of the various industrial arrays available at the moment- they allow you to do industry more efficiently. Drilling Platforms will likely allow benefits to Mining ( I imagine they may be able to Compress ore, for example, while Engineering Complexes Reprocess it.) Ah I see, I thought the citadel was the final name for the admin hub. Maybe the admin hub will have different rules or it will be handled later.
Andreve en Distel Eretsu-Prishta Industries 0	Posted - 2016.10.30 05:40:31 - [369] - Quote sstabeler Echerie wrote: Drilling Platforms will likely allow benefits to Mining ( I imagine they may be able to Compress ore, for example, while Engineering Complexes Reprocess it.) CCP Fozzie confirmed HERE that at least part of the plan for Drilling Platforms is to make them the bonused structure for reprocessing, which at present for service modules would mean reprocessing and compressing, since they're baked into a single module. I've noticed on the SiSi market that the reprocessing service module is listed separately from the Citadel Service Modules and Engineering Service Modules, so it looks like steps are already being taken to prep the system for potentially adding additional "Mining" service modules. Bearing that in mind, it makes me eager/anxious to learn more about Drilling Platforms. As a small-time Industrialist, I can only hope that they either function differently from the Citadels and ECs (not very likely) or they at least have a "Small" tier available...even with recent tweaks to things like fuel costs, I'd be having a hard time keeping a single Medium EC running and guarded during vulnerability. If I have to have a second Medium structure with those kinds of upkeep costs and babysitting required, no way I could manage both.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5434	Posted - 2016.10.30 05:57:08 - [370] - Quote Endellur wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Endellur wrote: As a high sec player why would I want to use one of these new structures over an NPC station as my home base? If I make one of these structures my home I risk losing all my assets for some number of days and getting podded if the structure is destroyed. I think industry and research failure is an acceptable loss for the added benefits to those processes but in their current state I can't see players logging off in these structures in high sec with NPC stations next door. I believe that is the idea...to give you a choice. If you are that concerned about risk, then yes, maybe stations are best for you and you'll have to give up some of your revenues and thus costs to do so. And if the markets you are involved with change enough you might even have to find new markets. I am not concerned with any of the benefits vs risks of the market, industry or research bonuses. I'm only talking about making the citadels home. The citadels are designed to be used as a home base but there are no benefits from living in one when it comes to your basic storage and docking and only negatives from losing your items for days and getting podded when they are destroyed. Seems like those things either need to change or there should be some benefit from taking that risk. If not, then the citadels will only be pit stops at best in high sec. There are substantial benefits. Go to Perimeter, a substantial portion of the PLEX market has moved to citadels. People are putting PLEX in citadels and lots of them. Other goods are slowly moving over to them too. Eventually Perimeter could be the new mega trade hub in New Eden. So yeah, it is a question of risk vs. rewards. And it looks like a number of players think the risks are worth it. Now, as an independent invention/manufacturer of T2 stuff...no I won't be launching my own citadel anytime soon. But if there is a citadel that has good taxes/fees/etc. and there is good reason to think it will be well defended...yeah I might move. Heck, I'd even join in on defense fleets (always love some good pew pew). But only if it entails a cost advantage over my competitors. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Soltys Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 158	Posted - 2016.10.30 11:52:23 - [371] - Quote Quote: Other goods are slowly moving over to them too. Eventually Perimeter could be the new mega trade hub in New Eden. No other goods besides plex/injectors/extractors made any move anywhere - and those three only in a small part. Everything else is an occasional exception. And everytrhing is being of course proxied (or offshored how some tend to say) to the nearest hub, but that's as far as it goes. Citadels still have broken / non-implemented features (I'm looking at you, ***** "deliveries") and one crucial thing CCP has been blisfully ignoring: courier contracts and ability to deny docking rights at corp's whim. Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl**
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5435	Posted - 2016.10.30 20:17:35 - [372] - Quote Soltys wrote: Quote: Other goods are slowly moving over to them too. Eventually Perimeter could be the new mega trade hub in New Eden. No other goods besides plex/injectors/extractors made any move anywhere - and those three only in a small part. Everything else is an occasional exception. And everytrhing is being of course proxied (or offshored how some tend to say) to the nearest hub, but that's as far as it goes. Citadels still have broken / non-implemented features (I'm looking at you, ******* "deliveries") and one crucial thing CCP has been blisfully ignoring: courier contracts and ability to deny docking rights at corp's whim. Yes, there are still alot of stuff sitting on the market in Jita but the question is where are the trades taking place. People who have put up 50 PLEX for sale are not going to move them to Perimeter, bu the prices in Perimeter are always better. That is where I buy PLEX and skill injector/extractors for the most part now, not Jita. And in fitting out several new ships I noticed that periodically some modules were cheaper in perimeter. Still, that price differential was not enough to induce me to undock and go buy stuff there, mainly because it was so sporadic. So if it gets to the point where I can outfit an entire ship or nearly so I'll probably start buying even more stuff in Perimeter. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Kalido Raddi Echelon Research Goonswarm Federation 56	Posted - 2016.12.07 16:48:31 - [373] - Quote Does anyone else get a bug where you can't remotely start industry jobs that are situated in a Citadel, even if you have enough skill to do so? Sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm not reading 18+ pages to find out.
TheGunzo Sarz'na Khumatari 1	Posted - 2016.12.12 14:49:05 - [374] - Quote Good day all, After going through the kill mails (took me 1 minute on zkill), I have found the original structures (M & L) are pretty useless in killing anything. So imagine the usefulness of the new engineering structures in killing ships. I would hope if an Alliance/Corp were to set one up, I would hope they would have some ability to depend themselves. Make it some risk for the attackers. A 14B (+ standups + WH loot) investment should not be a free KM. Consider this, the # of wardecs in HS, the number of structures in LS, NS and WH and there are basically NO kills by those structures. I'm not looking for insta kills, but if the attacking team isn't on the ball, they could easily lose ships when attacking a defended structure. Defended = someone 'manning' the guns/fighters. I think you'd agree, the number should not be this low. Gunzo
Sisi Collins School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 9	Posted - 2017.01.10 14:01:35 - [375] - Quote Just watched new Scope video on Evenews24 and noticed that - http://c2n.me/3GfWkwD . I hope this is about new structure - Gates As waiting until Fall for drilling platforms looks a little bit absurd.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: [one 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.