| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
1167
   |
Posted - 2015.11.02 02:09:14 -
[1] - Quote
Hi some more,
The structure revamp is well on its way and we are looking to see Citadel enter the game next year. I'd like your thoughts on a few things regarding anchoring and warzone control.
(I am writing a separate post to discuss Citadel bonuses in the warzone)
Citadel, unlike POS, can be docked at. They can be taken down but the system will be a bit different from POS. (Please check the dev blog: Citadels, Sieges and you v2)
Along with changes to attack, XL Citadel will be able to house supers. While capitals are changing in the future (Please see the dev blog: Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins!) this is still a big change in how forces will potentially be able to attack in the future.
I feel that the ability to dock in the new structures creates a different situation than POS does when it comes to fleets having a safe retreat or a base of attack. I'd like to gather your opinions on the topic.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
1167
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 05:24:20 -
[2] - Quote
Oreb Wing wrote:Have them become the structure hub we have to destroy for occupancy to trade hands. This would limit how many there will be and how central they are, or when they can become vulnerable to attack. I did not read anything on where exactly these are going to be allowed to anchor or how ownership is determined. By Corp would make the best spread. I cannot see how a large number of these in low can be good for FW..
They can be anchored anywhere.
They are owned by corporations but will have more granularity. They can also be made public for docking and use of the market and other services.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
1167
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 15:17:32 -
[3] - Quote
Oreb Wing wrote:Sugar Kyle wrote:Oreb Wing wrote:Have them become the structure hub we have to destroy for occupancy to trade hands. This would limit how many there will be and how central they are, or when they can become vulnerable to attack. I did not read anything on where exactly these are going to be allowed to anchor or how ownership is determined. By Corp would make the best spread. I cannot see how a large number of these in low can be good for FW.. They can be anchored anywhere. They are owned by corporations but will have more granularity. They can also be made public for docking and use of the market and other services. What is the delay for reputation changes? From public to non, for example, and will assets be forfeit? Can they be un-anchored? Will owners of assets be informed when these changes occur?
The asset safety mechanics wrap your stuff up and ship them to a NPC station. You do get a notice. You can in some way do this on demand. The standings will probably hit as normal but I'm not 100%. You won't be forfeiting your stuff but you will/can be inconvenienced.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
1167
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 15:19:10 -
[4] - Quote
May Arethusa wrote: By limiting L and XL citadels, we retain the ability to use mediums and smalls as FOBs for system pushes, and provide corporations and alliances with an official home along with significant benefits for holding onto it.
Just tossing in that there are no small citadels. Small structures are our current deployables.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
1175
|
Posted - 2015.11.15 18:41:30 -
[5] - Quote
Oreb Wing wrote:vov It's eve. We like to make people lose things..
Besides. I still think the proliferation of these things is a detriment to FW, in that it introduces a foreign structure that completely ***** on home field advantages. Why should we even have docking restrictions with these present? A tower always created a kind of sadistic convenience; pos are hard to use and quickly ship out of in comparison to a station, which this thing is superior to in every way. Not integrating them into the body of FW, as I've said, makes them arbitrary and something of a nuisance. They will completely ruin the importance geography plays in war. That is a bad thing that reduces content quality and diversity. Sacrificing strategy and tactful thinking for the sake of new stuff is not good. Why can't you see that?
This is why I am looking for discussion both for and against or just in general about these structures. I brought up the docking restrictions in the warzone and that a Citadel is a bit different from a POS. However, currently people can drop and stage from a POS. The take down mechanics are significantly different but are they different enough to warrant exemptions. In wormhole space the movement, access, and usage was enough.
Citadel are a game wide change. I could very well stand nose to nose with the development team and say "No!" That does not mean they will go, "Okay." I also look at what can be done to put these in the best place for FW when they do come.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
| |
|