These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#421 - 2015-05-13 19:34:51 UTC
Fredric Wolf wrote:
Altirius Saldiaro 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.


Dont screw up J-Space. We dont need that entosis crap in wormholes.


So by your same thought process wormholers shoudnt be able to entosis null members. Yeah you cant have it both ways.


I am talking about structure warfare in wormhole space. Never said anything about kspace.
Takeo Yanumano
Doomheim
#422 - 2015-05-13 19:39:49 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
CCP have pretty much placed themselves between a rock and a hard place with that thing. The sensible answer is obvious (spawn assets in the nearest neutral NPC station) but CCP will never agree to it, so they will come up with some convolute and ultimately useless system which will fail to perform its task of avoiding total loss of assets in the event that a player fails to defend the station.


That's because the proper EVE fix would be to change all NPC stations to destructible player-driven targets as well. The Empire's are losing control. Rise of the capsuleers. If I want to go to war with the Caldari Navy and blow up Jita 4-4 it should be entirely possible to do so. Well not me, but an entity the size of Goonswarm SHOULD be able to pull this off.

You have correctly identified the imbalance that exists between NPC stations and player citadels. The proper fix, however, is not the one you think it is...


The proper fix would be to somehow make NPC stations destructible, but ultimately that is also broken unless players are allowed in some way to fight alongside the NPCs to defend the stations if they wish. Maybe that's where CCP is eventually going with all this stuff though.
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#423 - 2015-05-13 19:42:14 UTC
Dentia Caecus wrote:


Not, at all. Sir. CCP Nullarbor asked for a means to facilitate reimbursement; therefore, I undertook to design a methodology that is fair, provides much requested potential content and may bring people back to the game. I spend a fair amount of time designing, rethinking, drafting and redrafting a workable solution to a complex problem and look forward to equally thoughtful feedback both from the community and CCP.

I very much look forward to suggestions on how to better refine and implement this idea, as I believe the eventual elimination of stations as we know them presents a unique opportunity for CCP to reengage older players that may not be as involved in Nullsec as they once were.


You are missing the point on null sec though and providing a way for users that have been out of area for years on end to end up with isk. This is not a good design. There are risks involved in null sec and losing a station that you put time effort and isk into is one of these. If you have never lived out in null sec or understand what life is like out here maybe you should not be the one coming up with ideas on how to refund upgrades for stations. Or if you do want to weigh in with an idea make sure you fully understand the area in which you are commenting on. What you proposed makes no sense in the way null sec works with risk vs reward and the ability to lose vast fortunes.
EnternalSoul
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#424 - 2015-05-13 19:42:34 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
was about to say that I'll miss sitting outside my pos in wh space but it seems like when docked, we'll still see outside. cool


Yeah it's going to be a new docked state, like a cross between docking in a station and sitting inside a POS shield.


For the Rorqual, right now it sits in the POS shield and activates the Industrial Core and happily gives great Bonuses to the miners. Right now this is all it is good for because we have compression arrays.

Will it still be protected while it has the Industrial Core active (cant move cant jump but is safe because it is in the POS shield)?
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#425 - 2015-05-13 19:44:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Fredric Wolf
Obil Que wrote:


What makes this different from null sec. We have to do the same things you are, but null is not complaining about this. We need to be active and protect our systems not just a single point in a wormhole. WH are making way more of a deal out of this then need be, it sounds the same as when WH were changed and people claimed up and down that WH would be unlivable after the fact but yet I still see billions of isk making its way out of these every day. Stop complaining about things until it is risk free and adapt to the new meta and make it work for you.

There are some clear differences mostly related to geography. My one single WH system can be rendered inaccessible to me through simple combat. My med clone cannot be in my home system. Null-sec does not have this risk. In addition, once I am removed, my known route home (if I have one) can be completely and irrevocably destroyed. The only true way to then ensure that you can be present to combat the timer is to do nothing else during the window that could risk your pod/person being removed from your system.

This is not that different than the situation today except for 1) the exceedingly low bar set for attack of structures under the new system: 1 entosis ship and 2) the lack of any kind of structure based automated defense to that attack. These combined with the vulnerable window will create the environment by which prudent structure owners will have to devote their entire vulnerable window to structure sitting. This is again related somewhat specifically to WH space where all our assets are at risk in a single structure/system with the previously mentioned unique geography limiting our access.




Edit: They have not even released how this will happen yet so wait a second on this but people are sounding more like they want a risk free in WH because its hard to live there with my small group
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#426 - 2015-05-13 19:54:20 UTC
Fredric Wolf wrote:
[What makes this different from today?


Today it takes a considerable force to attack a tower, even one undefended in terms of both time, pilots, and resources.
Under the new system it takes 1 entosis equipped ship

That is a massive difference in the level of commitment you have to bring to reinforce a structure. So much so that it becomes almost lol-worthy just to do it to every structure you see that doesn't have someone sitting in it. Much like groups will get together half a dozen ships to "stront check" a tower without defenses if you find one in your chain but only if you have enough people to make the grind needed not so lengthy as to take an entire day. Under the new system, the commitment is too small given the size and relative value of the structure. See my previous comments about why this is somewhat unique to w-space geography.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#427 - 2015-05-13 19:59:20 UTC
I just feel like all these Entosis issues could be solved if the structures moved to analog.
Ocean Ormand
Bagel and Lox
#428 - 2015-05-13 20:01:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Ocean Ormand
Obil Que wrote:
Fredric Wolf wrote:
[What makes this different from today?


Today it takes a considerable force to attack a tower, even one undefended in terms of both time, pilots, and resources.
Under the new system it takes 1 entosis equipped ship

That is a massive difference in the level of commitment you have to bring to reinforce a structure. So much so that it becomes almost lol-worthy just to do it to every structure you see that doesn't have someone sitting in it. Much like groups will get together half a dozen ships to "stront check" a tower without defenses if you find one in your chain but only if you have enough people to make the grind needed not so lengthy as to take an entire day. Under the new system, the commitment is too small given the size and relative value of the structure. See my previous comments about why this is somewhat unique to w-space geography.


I dont think this is correct - the blog specifically stated that they are giving the towers defensive structures to ward of solo folk trying to reinforce towers. Moreover, you can solo a tower today, even a large one, if you are willing to put in the time and effort, it just takes a while. There is no indication as to how long you will have to circle the tower with your magic beam on before you capture it. So in short, it appears that CCP is designing the towers to make it so that groups of folk are required to capture it and the new meta may very well take the same time or longer (since they are requiring up to three reinforcement cycles) then is currently in use.

In short, my read of it is that this makes the grind more tedious and boring - you circle the tower for an indeterminate time while the tower shoots at you but you cant shoot back at it because your guns dont work on it. That is going to get old real fast, especially with the multiple mandatory reinforcement cycles. Add to that no real loot, and it is just going to be a drag.
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#429 - 2015-05-13 20:04:41 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Lord LazyGhost wrote:
So if iam reading this right all my items i have in it if its destoryed are safe?

Then what is the point in attacking one risking ships for no loot other then a KM ?

sorry i just cant see the advantage atm.

Also not having guns automatic erm wtf..... for the guys that can only play for a few hours a day .

Log on o my pos is vunerable today for 2 hrs i need to go sit in my tower for the only 2 hrs i get to play incase some little troll in a ceptor desides today hes picking on my POS sounds like thrilling game play. even if its ever 3-4 days or so its still one days worth og game time doing nothing.

I for one will make my own little alt army of troll ceptor pilots for this thing. find small corps with muli Poses and hit them all at the same time with alts their small corp cant be everywhere at one time so yer.... sounds fun for them.

Hope you guys are going to create a new modual XXXXXL tear collector array becasue you are going to need it.


You won't be required to defend these everyday like sov, and the structure will drop fittings, fuel maybe in progress industry jobs etc.


Can You elaborate? Does this mean the vulnerabilty timer will be every few days or what?
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#430 - 2015-05-13 20:10:20 UTC
Ocean Ormand wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
Fredric Wolf wrote:
[What makes this different from today?


Today it takes a considerable force to attack a tower, even one undefended in terms of both time, pilots, and resources.
Under the new system it takes 1 entosis equipped ship

That is a massive difference in the level of commitment you have to bring to reinforce a structure. So much so that it becomes almost lol-worthy just to do it to every structure you see that doesn't have someone sitting in it. Much like groups will get together half a dozen ships to "stront check" a tower without defenses if you find one in your chain but only if you have enough people to make the grind needed not so lengthy as to take an entire day. Under the new system, the commitment is too small given the size and relative value of the structure. See my previous comments about why this is somewhat unique to w-space geography.


I dont think this is correct - the blog specifically stated that they are giving the towers defensive structures to ward of solo folk trying to reinforce towers. Moreover, you can solo a tower today, even a large one, if you are willing to put in the time and effort, it just takes a while. There is no indication as to how long you will have to circle the tower with your magic beam on before you capture it. So in short, it appears that CCP is designing the towers to make it so that groups of folk are required to capture it and the new meta may very well take the same time or longer (since they are requiring up to reinforcement cycles) then is currently in use.


Defensive structures that require someone to man the guns. It will not automatically defend itself. Your "solo" tower attacking ship today is far different than the one needed to fit an entosis link and orbit the tower. It doesn't appear that anything is pointing towards a group of people required to take a tower *unless* it is occupied. It is the requirement for active occupation coupled with the vulnerability window and the unique geography of w-space that will lead people to have to structure sit during their windows in order to provide adequate defense.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#431 - 2015-05-13 20:12:59 UTC
To those complaining about how you are gonna be blaped by the stations weapons while running your Entosis Link cause you can't shoot the guns like at a POS.. You're forgetting something.

Now DD's and such are gonna mess you up, so you best be in a Super to run the link.. but for the other weapons, TD, and Firewalling should still be an effective way to keep the ship running the link safe(ish)..

Also the Entosis Link II is a 250km Range.. who knows how much firepower it can put out at that range.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#432 - 2015-05-13 20:17:08 UTC
another thing: i assume if your station has a fighter bay, they won't be able to warp, right?

you don't want to create built-in skynet support

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

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#433 - 2015-05-13 20:26:39 UTC
Vacant Glare wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
will it be configurable if it should appear on the overview or not? One main purpose of it is the functionality as trade hub. And i guess there will be many of those structures around. Things like docking rights, availability of the trade module and visibility of the structure itself must be somehow communicated to the players.

Standing based visibility on the overview? Please don't make us open show info every time.


I would like to show them on the overview if you have access to them yes. We'll have to see if that is at all possible though.

Otherwise a structure browser would provide that functionality.
Would be nice if system owners could see these on the overview but for none blues then hacking the system navigation array (or similar) would turn off a hidden statement letting everyone know where they are.


How would that work in HS / WH's though?

I like the concept though. Maybe have hiding them be something more easily done in 0.0?

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#434 - 2015-05-13 20:27:03 UTC
So, if certain sized structures are to get 'structure doomsdays', does this also mean they will be doomsday'able themselves?....

Pirate

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#435 - 2015-05-13 20:36:24 UTC
Fredric Wolf wrote:
Dentia Caecus wrote:


Not, at all. Sir. CCP Nullarbor asked for a means to facilitate reimbursement; therefore, I undertook to design a methodology that is fair, provides much requested potential content and may bring people back to the game. I spend a fair amount of time designing, rethinking, drafting and redrafting a workable solution to a complex problem and look forward to equally thoughtful feedback both from the community and CCP.

I very much look forward to suggestions on how to better refine and implement this idea, as I believe the eventual elimination of stations as we know them presents a unique opportunity for CCP to reengage older players that may not be as involved in Nullsec as they once were.


You are missing the point on null sec though and providing a way for users that have been out of area for years on end to end up with isk. This is not a good design. There are risks involved in null sec and losing a station that you put time effort and isk into is one of these. If you have never lived out in null sec or understand what life is like out here maybe you should not be the one coming up with ideas on how to refund upgrades for stations. Or if you do want to weigh in with an idea make sure you fully understand the area in which you are commenting on. What you proposed makes no sense in the way null sec works with risk vs reward and the ability to lose vast fortunes.

Easy fix for removal of existing stations.
Convert them to XLarge Citadels
OR (my preference)
1 month after XL Citadels are introduced all Stations/Outposts in sov nul become destructible.
Capital ships are given a 100% bonus to jump range for 60 days or until only 1 station is left.
Last standing station becomes a monument to days gone by and has a searchable list of all those who engaged in the destruction of every other station. List who destroyed each station with kills and losses as part of the monument.

No reimbursement needed except for blueprints. Tons of content for big and small ships. Massive kill/loss mails of all types.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#436 - 2015-05-13 20:37:37 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Papa Django wrote:
Is there a limitation to the distance between 2 structures and the distance between a sov structure and theses new structures ?


There will be deployment restrictions, yes.

Mainly to avoid people to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp / stations, to avoid having space where structure defenses overlap or have them hidden inside landmarks or other anomaly sites.

I have to say I was hoping that the concept of linking structures had not been dropped, that creating structure "cities" or "encampments" in space would be possible.

Basically, yes, restrictions on anchoring too close to other structures UNLESS you link them together. Each individual component would have so many hard points (depending on size) which could be used either for weapons OR as the necessary connection points.

So if you want to build a complex structure in a given area then you would need to sacrifice weapons hard points on each section to use as attachment points to the rest of the structure. This would also allow for free form structures to evolve according to need and player taste.

... but this is good too. Smile


We are thinking at least 250km away from everything else in the game (warp in points, belts, gates, other structures etc), but otherwise you can anchor anywhere.

I think 250km is perfectly reasonable, just disappointed at not being able to form complexes and cities out of structures as was mentioned as a possibility a while back.

I know, idea's are great until they meet the cold, hard reality of the drawing board.

So yes, you certainly have my support and most everyone else's as well. We appreciate very much all of your hard work on the design, mechanics, and graphics involved.

Just please keep in the back of your mind that ultimately, we don't really want various sized structures that sit isolated... with strictly limited capabilities that make for easy balance.

I mean this is certainly great for now, but eventually we want to take the extremely logical step of connecting our structures in space, forming sometimes vast structures, creating designs that make defense easier (see your link in the blog to the star citadels) just by how they are laid out, or facilitate a huge industrial or trade base in one wing, and research in another.

We want to build according to our own designs, with you designing the shape/size/capabilities of the building blocks available to us.

I would not suggest that what you are proposing is unacceptable in any way, it's great actually. Just please keep in the back of your mind when designing these mechanics and in game assets that eventually we'll want to connect the dots... and perhaps even walk around inside them as well. Blink


So much this. Having a massive fortress is conceptually much cooler than having a smattering of strangely isolated structures. In addition if the structures end up being isolated then each structure would need to be fairly powerful defensively (not necessary as powerful as the citadels obviously) otherwise they simply get steam rolled by the first invader.

As a hostile entity I'm not entirely opposed to this model, I'd gladly troll my victims by destroying every one of their structures except their Citadel, while they scramble feebly to defend structures spread out across the entire system.

From a defender and empire builder standpoint though, that doesn't sound like much fun.


Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#437 - 2015-05-13 20:37:42 UTC
So is this supposed to be the replacement for generic POSes used as bases, eg. deathstars and dickstars?

Might I ask why the old outposts are going to remain as is rather than be turned into the new structures, and what will be happening to POS towers?


CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Small structures are going to be the old deployables (like containers, mobile tractor unit, bubbles etc...). But they won't be able to be fitted and won't have most of the advanced mechanics tied with M, L, X-L.

Aww bummer, I was hoping the deployables would be reworked to fit under the new mechanics. For instance a MTU would become a generic harvesting structure with a tractor beam fitted and a role bonus service that buffs tractor beams
Metal Icarus
Wraithguard.
The Wraithguard.
#438 - 2015-05-13 20:39:21 UTC
Empress Jamyl Sarum's Judgement

An example Officer doomsday for XL Citadels

Just saying
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#439 - 2015-05-13 20:42:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Dentia Caecus
Fredric Wolf wrote:
Dentia Caecus wrote:


Not, at all. Sir. CCP Nullarbor asked for a means to facilitate reimbursement; therefore, I undertook to design a methodology that is fair, provides much requested potential content and may bring people back to the game. I spend a fair amount of time designing, rethinking, drafting and redrafting a workable solution to a complex problem and look forward to equally thoughtful feedback both from the community and CCP.

I very much look forward to suggestions on how to better refine and implement this idea, as I believe the eventual elimination of stations as we know them presents a unique opportunity for CCP to reengage older players that may not be as involved in Nullsec as they once were.


You are missing the point on null sec though and providing a way for users that have been out of area for years on end to end up with isk. This is not a good design. There are risks involved in null sec and losing a station that you put time effort and isk into is one of these. If you have never lived out in null sec or understand what life is like out here maybe you should not be the one coming up with ideas on how to refund upgrades for stations. Or if you do want to weigh in with an idea make sure you fully understand the area in which you are commenting on. What you proposed makes no sense in the way null sec works with risk vs reward and the ability to lose vast fortunes.


I understand that I will never change your opinion, Mr. Wolf, however flawed it may be, and I will not try. Instead, I will address the points he raises in the hope that I might find the ears of less close minded individuals.

In response to Mr. Wolf points:

It is the considered opinion of this author, a multi-year veteran of nullsec life, that Mr. Wolf is correct when he states there are inherent risks in nullsec, including risk of major or catastrophic loss. However, his repetition of this truism is utterly irrelevant, as is his tiresome reliance on the risk/reward analogy. Furthermore, his argument typifies the thinking that resulted in both the big blue doughnut and stagnation in nullsec that CCP has taken great pains to eliminate.

Mr. Wolf's misses or ignores much of the thrust of my argument and further misses one of the extraordinarily obvious, salient issues I present: removal of stations is a once in a game opportunity to bring newly formed entities into nullsec or bring people back into null who have been missing for a long time. Either result brings more entities into nullsec, further diversifying it and creating more opportunities for both economic pvp and traditional pvp content.

Returning to the point at hand, to both enrich and entrench current residents simply because they are there is a small point compared to the potential advantages of implementation of my proposal. In a majority of cases, at the time of removal and reimbursement for stations, the builders and entities who upgraded stations will be the current owners, rendering Mr. Wolf's points moot. However, sometimes they will not be the owners. To overlook the huge opportunity to bring more people into nullsec would be a tragic waste of a unique point in time in Eve.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#440 - 2015-05-13 20:50:46 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Marcus Tedric wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Quote:
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.


This is a bit of a slippery slope eh? I know you want individuals to feel that they can use the medium structures, but relying on NPC pirates to provide defense is... questionable on a number of levels.

No offense intended.


You would not rely in NPC defense at all, it would be a mild deterrent against a lone ship at best, the point is to show up for your timers and defend.

As I mentioned the balance will be how frequently this happens so that it's not a chore, but still provides opportunities for an interesting engagement.


So, you now require anyone who wishes to be involved with structures to so arrange their lives such that they can be playing EVE every single day; 365 days per year?



Good news Smile

No need to.

A: The vulnerability window isn't necessarily going to be every day.
B: you can let it slide one day, let it get reinforced, then save it phase 2. Or even 3.


Is current discussion leaning towards this depending on anything? Like sec status of the area, owner member count etc? If it's everywhere it could certainly alleviate some of the blitzkrieg issues 0.0 alliances could face.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.