These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel

First post First post
Author
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
Chao3 Alliance
#281 - 2015-05-13 01:21:14 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Also yes docking games suck, so do force field games. We're accepting input on how we can setup the docking / invuln link to improve this, for all of space not just WH.


It is already obvious that you guys want to avoid docking games with the T2 entosis link, by forcing the brawl 250km from the structure, but I am very glad to hear it spelled out so clearly!



Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#282 - 2015-05-13 01:25:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Fredric Wolf
People are saying that are not a fan of the medium, large, and x-l naming convention.

Could we change the naming scheme slightly and have something along the line of Keep = Medium, Chateau = Large, and Citadel = XL It would give variety and also make it easier to know what you are going up against. It doesn't have to be that it could be something more sci-fi I just do not have any good examples.

Other then that I really like what I have seen so far and am waiting for more information as I think some people have raised good points.
Irya Boone
The Scope
#283 - 2015-05-13 01:27:35 UTC
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB

Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#284 - 2015-05-13 01:28:37 UTC
Saisin wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Also yes docking games suck, so do force field games. We're accepting input on how we can setup the docking / invuln link to improve this, for all of space not just WH.


It is already obvious that you guys want to avoid docking games with the T2 entosis link, by forcing the brawl 250km from the structure, but I am very glad to hear it spelled out so clearly!


Could you not make this part of the stations built in self defense that repulses any ships that perform a hostile act within a 5k radius out to 15k.

Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#285 - 2015-05-13 01:32:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Milla Goodpussy
Terranid Meester wrote:
Milla Goodpussy wrote:

they still have yet to come up with a thought process of how players would get their stuff out of space!


How about you think of a way yourself? Ever heard the one about putting all your eggs in one basket?



I have.. and ive checked and there is none

bowhead - nada cant fit 100's of ships in a customer's hanger.. plus it cant jump
freighters - yeah tons of m3 cargo hold space.. cant haul fitted battleships or caps or much in reference to the enormous container that would be spat out into space.. slow as rocks and don't give me that webbing mess..due to not only having to retrieve my own stuff.. I would have to retrieve perhaps 100's of individuals items..

blockade runner --.. hahaha not enough room

itheron or other haulers - negative on cargo space and no way even feasible to use in an op like that during a hot-zone of aggressors laughing their behinds off camping a system where they just blew up a freaking station and drooling at the mouths attempting to hunt down those that are trying to get their things.

we need a "place all eggs in the basket" supreme capital hauler that can perform and out perform anything we have in the game.

unless they decide to compress all items and ships into some cube so the little guy can get stuff out for the big guys.. while the big guys are crying, raging, and kicking puppies.

we need an evac hauler!
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
#286 - 2015-05-13 01:35:58 UTC
I have been waiting for this blog for a while now and I am super excited again. I figured you would have worked backwards and started with drilling platform or research observatory. first making the arrays independent of the control tower but, your going straight for the Control Tower. No more stick around a moon, I'm going to own a space station. Awesome.

Not much was said in the blog, so not much to say right now other than love the visuals, especially the part about Drones defending your station. Thumbs up there, you made a lot people happy with that call.

I see this taking 6-8 months till we see it live. So how about a little something to tie us over. I was thinking in two releases from now, can you remove the mechanic that requires a P.O.S. to be anchored around a moon and let us anchor it anywhere since that feature is coming anyways.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#287 - 2015-05-13 01:55:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Takeo Yanumano wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:


You won't know the configuration of the station once you do warp in there. Blink

TL;DR Station scanning equipment? (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง

With a cycle time longer than the target lock + scramble time to your internet spaceship. (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง



They've already said that cargo scanners and ship scanners would work on citadels, iirc.


The Rifters. The Reapers. THE INVASION.


Our time has come. For 8 years, we prepared. We grew stronger. While you rested in your cradle of power, believing your people were safe... and protected. You were trusted to lead the new Era—but you were deceived, as our powers of the Rifter have blinded you. You assumed no force could challenge you... and now... finally... We have returned.

You were deceived. And now, your Citadels shall fall
.


Raising the issue of current Ship Scanners being inadequately balanced with their 2 sec cycle times and 50 km range.

Gaining crucial intel via such trivial mechanics needs to be looked at and rectified, perhaps, with an introduction of a separate Citadel scanning module.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#288 - 2015-05-13 01:56:51 UTC
I have to say CCP Ytterbium writes the best blogs... i like his style

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#289 - 2015-05-13 02:00:29 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
why not give us the option to simply fit existing weapons to these structures ?


Se we can balance them separately, these weapons will have very different stats to existing ship weapons.



plz give them cool names like found in Master of orion 2.

I want stellar converters and mass drivers and Zeon Missiles...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#290 - 2015-05-13 03:04:04 UTC
Regarding the possibility of a CQ and hangar view delete, it might seem like a great idea to keep players in space, even when docked... but there is a sense of being grounded when you can see your ship or avatar in a station. I get that deleting CQ and hangar is a practical thing to do in a revamp like this, but I recommend living out of a POS while you still can, to get a sense for what happens when you never get a respite from space. It's as if you never have a floor under your feet. If structures are treated as giant POSes, it's important you understand this.
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
#291 - 2015-05-13 03:51:04 UTC
1 - I am curious why you are abandoning such a basic mechaic that a POS has with these new structures: Automated defenses.

Hiring pirates to defend your structure.... who defends them now? If I have to pay a manufacturing/research fee based on system indices (because there is no 100% automation so I am paying someone to work) will this mean we don't have to pay these fees for the new structures? After all, surely someone can be hired to likewise "man the guns". If the issue is simply: nothing for free: then have this automation certainly use fuel but with less effectiveness than if a player was using the guns themselves. This leads to a sub-question: why does POS fuel not include food for the npcs that apparently live on it - especially in Wormholes?

ie: It is understandable that the guns would be less effective for a non-capsuleer to operate them, but that they can only be operated by a capsuleer seems a gross design oversight. Please reconsider this.


2 - What happens to personal assets in a Citadel if it is offlined? Do these get destroyed or will they fall under the Asset Safety rule that would kick in should the Citadel have been blown up? I would suggest the latter since no one likes losing assets due to someone clicking offline by accident or intent.

3 - I like the idea that they show up on D-Scan. I do not like the idea that you can otherwise warp directly to them. If it is not a system effecting structure and does not otherwise fall into a permissible access category, you should only be able to warp to it if you have probed it down. D-scan simplifies things, making them warp-able by default OVER-simplifies it.

4 - How will moon mining work - I assume you will utilize a "slot" of sorts to prevent multiple Structures mining the same moon for resources.

5 - Are we really going to have to wait 2 hours to offline a structure or was that an example? Might I suggest that offlining is much quicker if there is no threat to the structure IE: no one has reinforced it or using an Entosis link on it.


Overall I am very happy with the direction Structures are going.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.

The Mach
Phocas Legacy
From Ashes we Rise
#292 - 2015-05-13 04:10:59 UTC
Can i walk in them? Will the "Door" be open?
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#293 - 2015-05-13 04:30:04 UTC
will the weapon systems be targetable? Will they still work after the RF cycles but before the final takeover/destruction?

Currently, if you want to kill a pos, you usually take out the most annoying defenses first before shooting the tower. Once the tower is RFed many modules will automatically go offline (points and ewar for example). Since its not mentioned in the blog i guess you would have to tank the structure while doing the entosis capturing without an option to deal with the defenses first?

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Kyoko Sakoda
Achura-Waschi Exchange
Monyusaiya Industry Trade Group
#294 - 2015-05-13 04:33:28 UTC
In the First Time, the great Tranquility core was found. With it came the gift of interstellar travel, and the Yulai trade routes were established, uniting the galaxy in ISK...
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#295 - 2015-05-13 04:41:43 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:

We're considering letting you scan who is docked inside these structures.

Also yes docking games suck, so do force field games. We're accepting input on how we can setup the docking / invuln link to improve this, for all of space not just WH.

relative simple solution regarding docking games:
separate the docking area from the undocking area


if you warp to a new structure you would land at the docking area where you can dock. If you leave the structure you exit at the undocking exit. This is esp feasible with the new structures since like you wrote in the devblog you see the surrounding all the time. You don't need invulnerability timers after undock and you also don't need the option to redock right away since you can make a educated decision if undocking is safe or not. If you want to redock you would have to fly to the docking area.

#dockingGamesFixed

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Sabirah Seldanar
#296 - 2015-05-13 04:54:03 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Max Kolonko wrote:
Thank You CCP. Very excited to see this replace my old POS in WH, so here are some WH related (but also some general) questions about those new structures:


  • Can I anchor them anywhere (appart from some proximity restrictions). Does it have to be moons or can I put them at any spot in space. Can I have more than one on one grid?
  • Can I use market functionality in WH?
  • Can I store ships and items inside just like in stations? Will those be in "corporate" hangar or will I get access to personal hangar like in stations.
  • What about access to corp assets? Will it work like current (or similar to) corp hangar mechanics in stations?
  • How will vulnerability window work for WH? We dont have system upgrades to reduce our window of vulnerability
  • Will citadel be able to shot without anyone piloting the guns?
  • Will there be fuell requirement. And if yes how will it work when structure go offile in terms of destroying it with entosis link? Today if I forgot to fuell my pos and some start to shoot it it will give me still some time to log back, fuell and online it (risking being killed ofc). How this will work with entosis link and offline structures?
  • Will there be a way for attacker to know how many people are inside structure docked and in what ships? (i.e. warping to a pos and assessing defense forces)
  • When docked will I be able to see space or will I have some sort of station intertior? (HINT: We want to be able to see our surrounding, even if optionally)
  • X-L structures in WH?
  • How will refitting work for structures? If I'm under attack or about to be attacked can I swap my guns or something? Will there be a delay before new setup will take effect?
  • pls add some loot drop. Wormholeres dont attack poses for "production materials" and cant stay in system for weeks waititng for defenders to scoop loot
  • WHEN????!!!!


I will answer the questions that don't overlap with my previous reply.


  • So far, our plan is to have them anywhere yes, as long as proximity restrictions are respected.

  • Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn.

  • Fuel is so far only going to be needed to activate the service modules, those structure shouldn't use fuel on their own, please refer to our previous blog for more details.

  • Not sure about being able to know docked people, may be part of scanning mechanics, but open to discussion.

  • When docked you will see surrounding space.

  • Yes, ideally we want all structure sizes and types everywhere. There may be gampeplay restrictions on them and / or their respective modules if needed however.

  • Refitting will most likely drain capacitor (like on ships) so while you could do it in combat, this would not be advisable.


I've two main concerns about this:

First, are you sure it's going to be a good idea to allow these structure everywhere? Other games that allowed free building ruined their own landscapes. In place like high sec we have already the "problem" of abandoned or mothballed POSses, are you sure it's good idea to have also these structures, possibly in time being owned by inactive corps and/or players, everywhere without a proper decay mechanic? What about a mechanic to prove owner is still active and if not they became conquerable by anyone?

Second, are you sure having fuel usage per module is a good idea? We had already in the past POSses using different quantity of fuel based on what they had online, and we moved away from it since people were onlining / offlining modules all the times, what is going to be different this time with these structures? What is going to forbid me to online, let's say, the fitting modules only when I need it, or the insurance, just to put it offline when I'm done?

Thanks in advance
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
#297 - 2015-05-13 06:05:50 UTC
Sabirah Seldanar wrote:

I've two main concerns about this:

First, are you sure it's going to be a good idea to allow these structure everywhere? Other games that allowed free building ruined their own landscapes. In place like high sec we have already the "problem" of abandoned or mothballed POSses, are you sure it's good idea to have also these structures, possibly in time being owned by inactive corps and/or players, everywhere without a proper decay mechanic? What about a mechanic to prove owner is still active and if not they became conquerable by anyone?

Second, are you sure having fuel usage per module is a good idea? We had already in the past POSses using different quantity of fuel based on what they had online, and we moved away from it since people were onlining / offlining modules all the times, what is going to be different this time with these structures? What is going to forbid me to online, let's say, the fitting modules only when I need it, or the insurance, just to put it offline when I'm done?

Thanks in advance


1 - I think the current war dec mechanics would deal with this nicely. Also, considering you won't be structure grinding, it should be very do-able with an Alt.

2 - if there is a limited window to attack, unlike current POSes, then adding decay mechanic based on usage of the structure might be the best solution since these are larger structures than deployables which decay over hours and days. Over time, the medium to large structures will become vulnerable 24/7 - but that would take several months of non-activity: not docking or running jobs at the structure.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.

Vendictus Prime
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#298 - 2015-05-13 06:09:41 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
handige harrie wrote:
I like those designs a lot.

Would it be possible to have multiple designs for structures, so players can choose which one they want and make different systems have a different look to them, instead of seeing the same structure everywhere?


That is sort of the point with the different classes, each size and each class will be a different hull like ships.


The concept art looks great and scale looks very good based on the art details, but I think it was asked earlier, are there going to be variants based on the 4 primary races? The current concept art looks very Caldari in design, which is not really a bad thing.
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#299 - 2015-05-13 06:36:06 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
thebringer wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
When do we get some news on these new structures and how or if they will interact in wormhole space?


We want most of those structures to be available in W-space, but with some special restrictions if need be.


Bringing full docking into wh space will change the place entirely, one of the reasons to live there is to avoid dumb docking games and how intel gathering is important (finding poses, seeing what in them players/ships/structures).

I would rather we stay with the current pos system (at least for wormholes) than this stupid capture the flag rubbish and no loot drops from structures.

But you will do it anyway because who cares about wormholers...

Just please dont break it too badly.


We're considering letting you scan who is docked inside these structures.

Also yes docking games suck, so do force field games. We're accepting input on how we can setup the docking / invuln link to improve this, for all of space not just WH.

Since we ha thus invul thing that will act as force field look-alike nit much should change from current situation. So what a player can play docking games uf he simpky goes in and out of invul area just like old force field. So im not worried about docking games unless this invul area works different than ff because we already have ff games and there are ways to dwal with them.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#300 - 2015-05-13 06:43:14 UTC
A lot to take in, I also speed read all the posts until now.

The first point I would like to make is to do with the weapons systems not allowed in hisec, my suggestion is that you remove Citadels from CONCORD action, the space they are put in is effectively their own and as you are making it so they cannot be within 250 km of something else that should be enough to prevent griefing. Wouldn't that be a better more elegant solution and go with the premise of people owning their own bit of space. In affect the grid around these Citadels becomes CONCORD free space.

In terms of automated defences they need to be, and it should be possible to set them to kill anything not blue for example even in hisec.

It is important to me because after reading your comments on these Citadels being on the overview I realised that this was now worse than having a POS next to a moon in terms of making it easy for people to find.

I realise that what I would ask for is different to what WH player would want as they block other people from putting towers up as part of their defensive strategy, so the put anywhere mode removes one of their defences, but in reality if they get clone bays they get a big improvement to their defence. You cannot please everybody and have to point out the other areas in which they have improvements which balance against the negatives like no longer being able to control all the areas where structures could be placed.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp