Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
611
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 02:22:25 -
[1] - Quote
As it's been outlined in the dev blogs regarding new structures lately, starbases are going away in favor of citadels. While there are a number of good things and ideas behind the new structures, the affordability, mobility and security of a starbase should not be left on the wayside as there are a great number of tactical uses for such a structure that the new citadels simply won't be able to cover.
What i would like to see is starbases be left in their current form, but have their role and certain anchorable structures be removed or re-purposed to reflect the more temporary nature of starbases/staging points as compared to the new citadels.
-lower the armor, shield, and hull HP of all starbase towers by ~25%.
-reduce the material requirements and volume of all starbases by ~33%
-all anchorable weapon and disruption batteries get removed from the game
-extend the shield bubble radius of all starbases by appropriate levels depending on their size
-remove current anchoring restrictions and allow control towers to be anchored anywhere in space
-change the material requirements for all fuel blocks to be entirely contingent on PI materials/remove ice mat requirements
-allow offlined towers to be hackable/recoverable via Entosis links
All of these changes outlined are put in mind with starbases being moved toward a *temporary* role, with the new citadels being more of a permanent fixture. The removal of weapon and disruption batteries is acceptable due to the new defensive mechanics outlined in the citadel structures, and the lowered cost and size of control towers would line up more closely with this new role of a staging point, rather than a place to live out of long-term. This and the anchoring restrictions being removed would provide a more appropriate short-term tactical role for starbases to fulfill relative to their Citadel counterparts, and would make for an easier transition to the new structure mechanics as starbases would not necessarily need to be removed from the game.
Thoughts? Ideas? |
Sigras
Conglomo
1083
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 02:34:47 -
[2] - Quote
I dont understand what "tactical uses" citadels wont be able to cover...
Could you please provide some examples?
Sure it may require a bit more planning and work to set up a staging platform than it currently does, but I believe that's by design. |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
611
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 03:44:03 -
[3] - Quote
Sigras wrote:I dont understand what "tactical uses" citadels wont be able to cover...
Could you please provide some examples?
Sure it may require a bit more planning and work to set up a staging platform than it currently does, but I believe that's by design. For factional warfare (to start out with as an example since it's mostly what i do), a huge part of system capturing involves having cheap, readily-accessible assets in hostile space to reship to during an extended siege, or for continued harassment. Since nullsec appears to be going more towards small-scale combat, cheap staging points like starbases are much more ideal than even a medium citadel. What it comes down to in my mind are two things: affordability and utility. While having a medium citadel that can defend itself is all well and good, it's estimated that these structures will cost over half a billion isk
Please refer to this photo from the most recent dev blog: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68671/1/Structurecompositioncomponent.png That's just the hull price alone; modules and rigs are going to run for a lot more on top of that.
It's inane to think that these are feasable for smaller scale (or individual) operations. Part of the reason for the ubiquity of starbases is their flexibilty and cost. If i'm going to set a POS up in Villore for myself and a few of my friends to work out of, it's easy because even if it gets smashed by a determined enemy fleet, i can just set up another one. Citadels are being represented as a dedicated investment, and subsequently a big target unto themselves. There isn't anything smaller than them that can be considered an equivalent to a small or medium POS in terms of affordability and expendability.
If they came out with small citadels, i'd be fine with it. But they're not, and this is going to cause a lot of problems on the smaller end of PVP (and wormhole living as well). |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
302
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 03:51:43 -
[4] - Quote
If they keep the 24 hour anchoring time for Citadels, a "tactical post" with a shorter anchoring period would be nice to have. Having a very limited number of highs (2-3) and only basic services: office, refitting, and repair. but with a fuel requirement to keep active seems reasonable. You would not be able to add services such as markets or medical.
|
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
611
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 05:32:56 -
[5] - Quote
Petrified wrote:If they keep the 24 hour anchoring time for Citadels, a "tactical post" with a shorter anchoring period would be nice to have. Having a very limited number of highs (2-3) and only basic services: office, refitting, and repair. but with a fuel requirement to keep active seems reasonable. You would not be able to add services such as markets or medical.
I could definitely get behind that. I was mainly using the example of keeping the starbases around simply due to how much easier it would be to keep them around and transition their role. Do you think it would be possible for them to rework them to do what you're talking about? |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
304
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 06:07:48 -
[6] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:Petrified wrote:If they keep the 24 hour anchoring time for Citadels, a "tactical post" with a shorter anchoring period would be nice to have. Having a very limited number of highs (2-3) and only basic services: office, refitting, and repair. but with a fuel requirement to keep active seems reasonable. You would not be able to add services such as markets or medical.
I could definitely get behind that. I was mainly using the example of keeping the starbases around simply due to how much easier it would be to keep them around and transition their role. Do you think it would be possible for them to rework them to do what you're talking about?
Adding something like what we are bantering about should not be a problem for them. Tinkering with current POS mechanics might pose problems - which is why they have taken so long in updating structures.
Tactical Post... CCP... please add this. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2654
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 09:07:35 -
[7] - Quote
So please tell me what value of ships you are staging that NEED a staging point. And that aren't small enough that you can simply use a cloaked carrier to drop them from instead. I'm betting it's a lot more than half a billion.
And also why you should be able to put a staging point up in mere hours.
Also known as stop asking for silly things, the power and abuse this would allow is silly. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1083
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 09:54:37 -
[8] - Quote
half a bil is absolutely nothing... the cost increase is to compensate for being able to drop them anywhere!
Things in space are supposed to be a bit of an investment. The mentality shouldnt be as you said "if you smash it ill just put up another one"
A small caldari tower is 64 million ISK in jita? that is basically free! There's no risk in setting it up (blockade runner) and no risk in the structure itself (64 million ISK lol) and yet it provides 100% safe (at least in low sec) protection for dozens of people to operate out of.
IMHO that kind of staging power requires some actual risk to be put forth. I was at Eve Vegas, I did the math on how much these things cost and TBH I kinda wished they costed more (at least the XL ones) but I'm glad they're priced so that you cant just throw them down willy nilly. |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
614
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 22:32:52 -
[9] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:So please tell me what value of ships you are staging that NEED a staging point. And that aren't small enough that you can simply use a cloaked carrier to drop them from instead. I'm betting it's a lot more than half a billion.
And also why you should be able to put a staging point up in mere hours.
Also known as stop asking for silly things, the power and abuse this would allow is silly. NEWSFLASH: Starbases already exist!
And what i was outlining amounts to a nerf to what they are currently since I'm DROPPING all the ewar and weapon batteries they can use for self-defense.
|
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
614
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 22:36:06 -
[10] - Quote
Sigras wrote:half a bil is absolutely nothing... the cost increase is to compensate for being able to drop them anywhere!
Things in space are supposed to be a bit of an investment. The mentality shouldnt be as you said "if you smash it ill just put up another one"
A small caldari tower is 64 million ISK in jita? that is basically free! There's no risk in setting it up (blockade runner) and no risk in the structure itself (64 million ISK lol) and yet it provides 100% safe (at least in low sec) protection for dozens of people to operate out of.
IMHO that kind of staging power requires some actual risk to be put forth. I was at Eve Vegas, I did the math on how much these things cost and TBH I kinda wished they costed more (at least the XL ones) but I'm glad they're priced so that you cant just throw them down willy nilly.
I really think dropping the ability to defend themselves would make up for any misgivings like the ones you're outlining. To be quite honest, i don't see it as any different to how they currently work in terms of effectiveness or advantages since either way people can use combat probes to find them. If anything it's giving them a huge friggin nerf with not being able to fit any batteries. |
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
306
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 22:58:57 -
[11] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:So please tell me what value of ships you are staging that NEED a staging point. And that aren't small enough that you can simply use a cloaked carrier to drop them from instead. I'm betting it's a lot more than half a billion.
And also why you should be able to put a staging point up in mere hours.
Also known as stop asking for silly things, the power and abuse this would allow is silly.
Currently POSes allow you to create a basic staging ground within 30 minutes. Eventually POSes will be removed. A Tactical Post would replace that lost function. It would be more vulnerable than Citadels, but faster to deploy while allow basic fleet functions and needs to be performed - refitting - docking for player downtime - repair.
Sometimes a cloaked carrier is not sufficient for the job or is not practical - otherwise, why would people use a POS as shelter rather than a carrier? |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
617
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 09:18:02 -
[12] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:So please tell me what value of ships you are staging that NEED a staging point. And that aren't small enough that you can simply use a cloaked carrier to drop them from instead. I'm betting it's a lot more than half a billion.
And also why you should be able to put a staging point up in mere hours.
Also known as stop asking for silly things, the power and abuse this would allow is silly. Currently POSes allow you to create a basic staging ground within 30 minutes. Eventually POSes will be removed. A Tactical Post would replace that lost function. It would be more vulnerable than Citadels, but faster to deploy while allow basic fleet functions and needs to be performed - refitting - docking for player downtime - repair. Sometimes a cloaked carrier is not sufficient for the job or is not practical - otherwise, why would people use a POS as shelter rather than a carrier? *nods* |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2655
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 12:11:33 -
[13] - Quote
Now why should you be able to create a staging post in 30 minutes that other people can't take down for several days? Don't say 'because you can now', because that is not a justification for keeping an overpowered functionality. The only reason it's been accepted is because we victim blame 'they should have covered all the moons' rather than considering how overpowered the concept really is.
Now we are going away from make work of having to cover 50 moons in a single system down to a much smaller number of structures, and you want to skill keep the massive OP ability to make an impregnable staging post within 30 minutes. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1086
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 17:08:01 -
[14] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:I really think dropping the ability to defend themselves would make up for any misgivings like the ones you're outlining. To be quite honest, i don't see it as any different to how they currently work in terms of effectiveness or advantages since either way people can use combat probes to find them. If anything it's giving them a huge friggin nerf with not being able to fit any batteries. It doesn't work any differently to how it currently works.
I'm making the case that it shouldn't work the way it does now.
It is far too easy and risk free to set up a staging point right now. I've played whack-a-mole with small towers before. It's ridiculous and leaves you without a feeling of accomplishment because the towers cost basically nothing.
You should always want to defend the stuff you put up in space because it's expensive. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1289
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 19:03:03 -
[15] - Quote
Her guys you know that equipment bogged down by so much bad code or was just easier to rethink and redo them?
Yeah let's keep these buggy wrecks in the game Katy work around that legacy code so they can do things we could just add a new structure to do
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
617
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 01:56:16 -
[16] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Her guys you know that equipment bogged down by so much bad code or was just easier to rethink and redo them?
Yeah let's keep these buggy wrecks in the game Katy work around that legacy code so they can do things we could just add a new structure to do
EDIT:
and how is it that so many people are so unclear on the fact that citadels are not replacing pos' just a small part of what pos' do there are going to be many more structures and together that will replace and improve the role of the pos Lugh, i'd be fine with them replacing them entirely. I'd just like them to come up with something small, cheap and simple with minimal combat ability that doesn't cost anywhere near as much as a medium citadel. |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
617
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 02:12:36 -
[17] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:I really think dropping the ability to defend themselves would make up for any misgivings like the ones you're outlining. To be quite honest, i don't see it as any different to how they currently work in terms of effectiveness or advantages since either way people can use combat probes to find them. If anything it's giving them a huge friggin nerf with not being able to fit any batteries. You should always want to defend the stuff you put up in space because it's expensive.
Please; relative wealth in this game makes values worthless unless you're poor; people will be using medium citadels in all the ways your imagining anyway, but having something cheap and small is just fine as it is for the role we're discussing here. Everyone has the right to be a giant penis or a 30-something everyman in this game as next as the next person; you shouldn't have to invest heavily in that for something someone's likely enough to knock over anyway. The same concept with ship loss applies here as well; just fly/set up what you can afford and can get the job done. There's no reason at all that there shouldn't be something in between a citadel and a small deployable like this just because it's expendable.
Also i'm on vicoden, so i apologize in advance if my responses are coming across as head-scratchingly weird at times. I'm not in my right mind to proofread. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
438
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 09:54:37 -
[18] - Quote
POS are going away.
One of the primary reasons for that is simply to get rid of the nightmarish POS code...
They will be going away.
But Citadels aren't the be all and end all of the new deployable structures. CCP have stated that POS won't go away until they've been replaced - now that might not be a like for like replacement, the "Tactical Outpost" (or whatever they decide to call the thing they put in as a staging post) won't have all the functionality you currently have in a POS - but you wouldn't expect it to, it doesn't need to manufacture (that's what the manufacturing arrays are for), it won't be able to mine moons (that's what the mining arrays are for) maybe it won't have the invulnerable shields... but perhaps it'll have better guns.
Rather than trying to save POS (you won't) perhaps begin from the Mobile Depots and consider what functionality you would want to add to it to build the "Tactical Outpost" you feel might cover your needs. You presumably want corp control and a ship maintenance array to begin with... How do you want to defend it? How do you want to defend the fleet while you're handing out ships? How will other deployables change the way it functions? How quickly do you feel it needs to be deployed (it takes a couple of hours to get a POS up; but a Mobile Depot is a lot quicker)? |
Lotala
DLM Enterprises Advent of Fate
7
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 14:26:37 -
[19] - Quote
Personally I don't think the new changes to structure will seriously affect your typical nullsec or low sec pirate. I am aware of one such group who raids about 4 regions of space that I know and their fits are seriously blingy so they can afford. I have also seen that 3 of these regions are empty enough that they can establish a base almost any where in 3 of these regions, even with the 24 hour timer. The only thing it currently changes It makes us slightly more motivated to hunt down their base as it would be a bit more annoying for them to replace and we get a bit more expensive of a killmail. It just not worth hunting down a 60m kill mail in 4 regions for something that can be replace in 15 mins. Is it going to happen probably not but now its on the radar. |
Lyra Gerie
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 17:16:27 -
[20] - Quote
I actually really like the idea of re-purposing current POS into a staging point. Their tedious enough to make them no spammed and their anchor requirements limit their usefulness compared to new structures. Everything is for the most part exposed showing intel to whoever flies by but the shields project and have mechanics to allow it to be a perfect forward staging point.
Just some slight changes to their hp and possible removal or great reduction of reinforcement timers and these could be pretty cool. |
|
Sigras
Conglomo
1089
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 10:15:45 -
[21] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:Sigras wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:I really think dropping the ability to defend themselves would make up for any misgivings like the ones you're outlining. To be quite honest, i don't see it as any different to how they currently work in terms of effectiveness or advantages since either way people can use combat probes to find them. If anything it's giving them a huge friggin nerf with not being able to fit any batteries. You should always want to defend the stuff you put up in space because it's expensive. Please; relative wealth in this game makes values worthless unless you're poor; people will be using medium citadels in all the ways your imagining anyway, but having something cheap and small is just fine as it is for the role we're discussing here. Everyone has the right to be a giant penis or a 30-something everyman in this game as next as the next person; you shouldn't have to invest heavily in that for something someone's likely enough to knock over anyway. The same concept with ship loss applies here as well; just fly/set up what you can afford and can get the job done. There's no reason at all that there shouldn't be something in between a citadel and a small deployable like this just because it's expendable. Also i'm on vicoden, so i apologize in advance if my responses are coming across as head-scratchingly weird at times. I'm not in my right mind to proofread. 2 things about this.
1. half a billion is far more relevant than 65 million
2. towers provide 24 hours of absolute safety for less than the cost of a battlecruiser. In fact, in low sec, they provide literal absolute safety, and you want to make them even cheaper?
Absolute safety is stupid in a cutthroat game like Eve and it should be made more rare/more expensive not more common/cheaper. |
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
618
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 22:48:15 -
[22] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:Sigras wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:I really think dropping the ability to defend themselves would make up for any misgivings like the ones you're outlining. To be quite honest, i don't see it as any different to how they currently work in terms of effectiveness or advantages since either way people can use combat probes to find them. If anything it's giving them a huge friggin nerf with not being able to fit any batteries. You should always want to defend the stuff you put up in space because it's expensive. Please; relative wealth in this game makes values worthless unless you're poor; people will be using medium citadels in all the ways your imagining anyway, but having something cheap and small is just fine as it is for the role we're discussing here. Everyone has the right to be a giant penis or a 30-something everyman in this game as next as the next person; you shouldn't have to invest heavily in that for something someone's likely enough to knock over anyway. The same concept with ship loss applies here as well; just fly/set up what you can afford and can get the job done. There's no reason at all that there shouldn't be something in between a citadel and a small deployable like this just because it's expendable. Also i'm on vicoden, so i apologize in advance if my responses are coming across as head-scratchingly weird at times. I'm not in my right mind to proofread. 2 things about this. 1. half a billion is far more relevant than 65 million 2. towers provide 24 hours of absolute safety for less than the cost of a battlecruiser. In fact, in low sec, they provide literal absolute safety, and you want to make them even cheaper? Absolute safety is stupid in a cutthroat game like Eve and it should be made more rare/more expensive not more common/cheaper. It's not absolute safety because it has no guns to defend itself, and there are these things littered about the games called "stations". You can dock in them and not get shot at by anyone for free. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |