These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#701 - 2015-05-19 16:44:23 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
w-space was never meant to be occupied. You should not be living there.
I'll let you read CCPs thoughts on wormhole occupation yourself

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/into-the-known-unknowns/
I was going to post this myself!

Heres the important part:
Quote:
We are absolutely happy with how players have taken the wormhole feature and run with it over the last five years and we look forward to many more years of watching the adventures of the wormhole community with joy and awe. Anyone telling you otherwise is woefully mistaken.
Personally I love wormhole space, and try to make sure all those crazy bob worshippers are always considered :)


@CCP Lebowski and Obil Que: I've read that blog front to back at least 3 times if not several times prior to you two linking it, as well as watched the fanfest stream. Here's some more with the passage to which I was referring bolded and underlined:

CCP Fozzie wrote:
By now quite a few players have heard stories about the history of how Wormhole space was designed within CCP. The original vision for this new space was that it would be a place for players to send temporary expeditions in search of riches and adventure. It was believed that the extremely lucrative rewards of this uncharted space would draw players to search for their fortune, but that the difficulties caused by randomly changing wormhole connections would prevent players from settling down permanently in this hellish environment.

Now with the benefits of hindsight this prediction appears amusingly naive. Ingenious players have quite easily overcome any and all challenges and created an entire society within this uniquely hostile environment. You quickly learned the secrets of wormhole spawning and static connections, developed techniques for long-term starbase living that nobody had ever seen before, and created your own set of social norms, vocabulary, and even a shared religion.

Over the years I have seen some players drawn some unfortunate and incorrect conclusions from this story. The belief that CCP is angry about this unintended behavior or that we are trying to somehow eject players from wormhole space to bring it more in line with the original pre-release vision. This belief couldn’t be further from the truth and betrays a regrettable misunderstanding about how CCP approaches ‘unintended’ player behavior in EVE.

There’s a story that our CEO, CCP Hellmar likes to tell about his personal experience playing EVE right after launch in 2003, and the moral of that story applies here as well. Some of you have probably heard the story before - here is a link to the video of him retelling that story from Fanfest 2013. Go ahead and give it a look, the relevant section is about three minutes long.


I never said CCP wasn't happy with the emergent aspect of w-space or that they were trying to bring it more in-line with the original intent. Only that players are using it in a way that is not in-line with the original intent, which is both true and clearly stated in the blog. All the rest of what you came up with is entirely an assumption on your part about what might be on my mind.

In that regard, it's my fault for not giving enough context, and only posting a single snarky remark. My apologies for that. But for future reference, I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

To expound upon my original post, my point is that anyone using the game environment in a way that is not in-line with the intent has little recourse for complaint when the environment gets changed in a way that necessitates moving away from their accustomed play-style. In some cases, that behavior is intentionally generated en masse in order to garner enough player outcry so that obviously bad mechanics would get changed.

There is even an entity within New Eden that specializes in examining game mechanics and taking advantage of unintended play-styles. You may have heard of them. GoonSwarm? Remember the technetium bottleneck? Remember when mining barges and exhumers had no tank? Has everyone forgotten exactly where CCP Fozzie came from? Yes, Fozzie is a goon. And you know what? The vast majority of his work (and CCP in general as of late) has been outstanding.

It is up to CCP to decide whether or not a particular play-style is healthy for the game environment. In the case of w-space, CCP has publicly communicated that the emergent behavior has in general been healthy despite the unintended consequences, and will remain for the most part unchanged. So be it.

CCP is doing their best to update and freshen structure content using player input. So when the chicken-littles start crying a river over how the sky is falling and Eve will be ruined forever and CCP will go out of business without their accounts, I just cringe. I am fairly confident that having to actively participate in the defense of one's assets will not kill Eve.

A valid concern that I have yet to see addressed is with geographical anchoring restrictions being removed, what is to stop someone from anchoring a Citadel in a shattered system? How about Thera? That is clearly directly contradictory to the intended behavior and play-style of those systems (no moons for a reason).

In addition, clearly constellation capture events will not be functional in w-space. System-wide would work. But do you really want that kind of content just for a POS?

What is going to happen to POS modules? Some of those have important functions like compression arrays.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#702 - 2015-05-19 18:15:26 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Has everyone forgotten exactly where CCP Fozzie came from?


Pandemic Legion.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

WhiskeyTango1-1
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#703 - 2015-05-19 19:24:02 UTC
Marcel Devereux wrote:
OMG DRONES! YES MORE DRONES! Can we have Valkyrie characters pilot those fighters!?!


Problem is that, as with any game, players are stupid, and would you really want random people defending your billion isk investments? Maybe if it was made so that they had to be part of the alliance itself, that way they could have recruitment standards. Sadly, as fun as it would be, I fear that it will have negative attributes
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#704 - 2015-05-19 19:53:02 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
I never said CCP wasn't happy with the emergent aspect of w-space or that they were trying to bring it more in-line with the original intent. Only that players are using it in a way that is not in-line with the original intent, which is both true and clearly stated in the blog. All the rest of what you came up with is entirely an assumption on your part about what might be on my mind.

In that regard, it's my fault for not giving enough context, and only posting a single snarky remark. My apologies for that. But for future reference, I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

...

It is up to CCP to decide whether or not a particular play-style is healthy for the game environment. In the case of w-space, CCP has publicly communicated that the emergent behavior has in general been healthy despite the unintended consequences, and will remain for the most part unchanged. So be it.

CCP is doing their best to update and freshen structure content using player input. So when the chicken-littles start crying a river over how the sky is falling and Eve will be ruined forever and CCP will go out of business without their accounts, I just cringe. I am fairly confident that having to actively participate in the defense of one's assets will not kill Eve.

A valid concern that I have yet to see addressed is with geographical anchoring restrictions being removed, what is to stop someone from anchoring a Citadel in a shattered system? How about Thera? That is clearly directly contradictory to the intended behavior and play-style of those systems (no moons for a reason).

In addition, clearly constellation capture events will not be functional in w-space. System-wide would work. But do you really want that kind of content just for a POS?

What is going to happen to POS modules? Some of those have important functions like compression arrays.


No, you only said that we shouldn't be living there. But your clarification is appreciated.

I know for myself I do not claim in any way that EVE will be destroyed nor will I be unusubbing accounts or pulling my corporation from wormhole space pre-emtpively. I do, however, think that some of the design goals pose a significant challenge to be met in wormhole space. If some are implemented without additional consideration, some of these changes, in the context of w-space, may leave the gameplay in w-space so tedious/undesirable/unmanagable that people will not make the effort and instead move onto other areas of space which is a definite negative for w-space which already struggles to fill large portions of its systems today.

The lack of anchoring restrictions is one concern I share though not for shattered wormholes. I fully expect those to be special cased if that feature makes it in. Free anchoring has other implications on covert scouting and hole occupation/beach-heads that need review.

Constellation capture events have clearly been stated as being for XL structures only which do not apply to w-space and are, in essence, Outpost replacements. Entosis capture of M and L structures combined with Citadel defensive systems leaves a disconnect between capture and EHP that may be difficult to balance properly between attacker and defender.

POS module functionality is being replicated through Citadel "slotted" modules which allow you to configure various structures with features (such as compression or refining).

Timezone mechanics need careful consideration as well to ensure they do not devolve into station sitting for smaller corps making their "primetime" too tedious to endure.


Fzhal
#705 - 2015-05-19 20:51:53 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
Timezone mechanics need careful consideration as well to ensure they do not devolve into station sitting for smaller corps making their "primetime" too tedious to endure.

I think that somewhere one of the Devs said that they were hoping to have the vulnerability window length vary based on use of the structure (But maybe it was just XLs). But if vulnerability window lengths are tied to some type of statistical use of the solar system...

If there are modules that increase anomaly spawns, it would likely be a drastic change to how WH space is used. WHs would become home mission systems instead of what they are now, hybrid staging-escalations systems.

If there aren't modules that increase anomaly spawns, this will be a bad mechanism for WH (and many in K-Space too) since it is generally best to run Anomalies in connected systems before running your own (saving for a rainy day). From Wormholers to industrialists, what could be used? Industrialists could have their Vulnerability Window lengths tied to stuff like running jobs, but not wormholes. Since WH corp members are often in other systems, and return to logoff, the best stat I can think of would be the average number of characters active or logged off in that system (which would encourage alt-sitting). However, many C6s WH corps have members that don't play during their peak times and often do down-chain anoms in small groups. These people could be seen as a detriment to the Vulnerability Window's statistics.

But in either case, if you have a REALLY active WH corp that spends a week doing out of system stuff like PvP (main thing CCP wants), then their structures would be much more vulnerable than if they did the more boring thing and ran anoms in system...

So if vulnerability times are variable, unless WH structures get special rules (or I've missed something), wormhole corps would have to deal with sub-optimal vulnerability mechanics.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#706 - 2015-05-20 12:38:24 UTC
Fzhal wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
Timezone mechanics need careful consideration as well to ensure they do not devolve into station sitting for smaller corps making their "primetime" too tedious to endure.

I think that somewhere one of the Devs said that they were hoping to have the vulnerability window length vary based on use of the structure (But maybe it was just XLs). But if vulnerability window lengths are tied to some type of statistical use of the solar system...

If there are modules that increase anomaly spawns, it would likely be a drastic change to how WH space is used. WHs would become home mission systems instead of what they are now, hybrid staging-escalations systems.

If there aren't modules that increase anomaly spawns, this will be a bad mechanism for WH (and many in K-Space too) since it is generally best to run Anomalies in connected systems before running your own (saving for a rainy day). From Wormholers to industrialists, what could be used? Industrialists could have their Vulnerability Window lengths tied to stuff like running jobs, but not wormholes. Since WH corp members are often in other systems, and return to logoff, the best stat I can think of would be the average number of characters active or logged off in that system (which would encourage alt-sitting). However, many C6s WH corps have members that don't play during their peak times and often do down-chain anoms in small groups. These people could be seen as a detriment to the Vulnerability Window's statistics.

But in either case, if you have a REALLY active WH corp that spends a week doing out of system stuff like PvP (main thing CCP wants), then their structures would be much more vulnerable than if they did the more boring thing and ran anoms in system...

So if vulnerability times are variable, unless WH structures get special rules (or I've missed something), wormhole corps would have to deal with sub-optimal vulnerability mechanics.


You are mostly referring to the sov structure vulnerability windows and null-sec system indicies. The most I have seen in this thread regarding M and L Citadel structure vulnerability windows is that they will not be daily. CCP also expressed the desire to have the base indicies in some systems (high-sec and WH space) be higher so that they get the benefit of longer capture times because they cannot influence their system indicies in the same way null-sec does. M and L Citadels do appear to use a very different mechanic for vulnerability window calulation and capture times than sov structures and rightly so.
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
#707 - 2015-05-20 17:11:19 UTC
Ugh, stupid forums ate my post again...(figures the one time i don't cntl-c my post before hitting the button)

Obil Que wrote:
The most I have seen in this thread regarding M and L Citadel structure vulnerability windows is that they will not be daily

Wrong, there was only the indication that the coding was still flexible...i believe the dev said "they don't have to be every day", that does NOT mean it will definately not be daily, only that it is still an option at this stage.

There are still many unanswered concerns that have been raised...CCP's silence means they are either re-working it, or more likely going ahead and pushing it.

Edit...third times a charm?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#708 - 2015-05-20 19:55:32 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
Fzhal wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
Timezone mechanics need careful consideration as well to ensure they do not devolve into station sitting for smaller corps making their "primetime" too tedious to endure.

I think that somewhere one of the Devs said that they were hoping to have the vulnerability window length vary based on use of the structure (But maybe it was just XLs). But if vulnerability window lengths are tied to some type of statistical use of the solar system...

If there are modules that increase anomaly spawns, it would likely be a drastic change to how WH space is used. WHs would become home mission systems instead of what they are now, hybrid staging-escalations systems.

If there aren't modules that increase anomaly spawns, this will be a bad mechanism for WH (and many in K-Space too) since it is generally best to run Anomalies in connected systems before running your own (saving for a rainy day). From Wormholers to industrialists, what could be used? Industrialists could have their Vulnerability Window lengths tied to stuff like running jobs, but not wormholes. Since WH corp members are often in other systems, and return to logoff, the best stat I can think of would be the average number of characters active or logged off in that system (which would encourage alt-sitting). However, many C6s WH corps have members that don't play during their peak times and often do down-chain anoms in small groups. These people could be seen as a detriment to the Vulnerability Window's statistics.

But in either case, if you have a REALLY active WH corp that spends a week doing out of system stuff like PvP (main thing CCP wants), then their structures would be much more vulnerable than if they did the more boring thing and ran anoms in system...

So if vulnerability times are variable, unless WH structures get special rules (or I've missed something), wormhole corps would have to deal with sub-optimal vulnerability mechanics.


You are mostly referring to the sov structure vulnerability windows and null-sec system indicies. The most I have seen in this thread regarding M and L Citadel structure vulnerability windows is that they will not be daily. CCP also expressed the desire to have the base indicies in some systems (high-sec and WH space) be higher so that they get the benefit of longer capture times because they cannot influence their system indicies in the same way null-sec does. M and L Citadels do appear to use a very different mechanic for vulnerability window calulation and capture times than sov structures and rightly so.

Not so sure about that last part.
By all accounts medium and large Citadels will be sov structures, for smaller groups. I agree they shouldn't strictly have the same vulnerability as an xLarge Citadel but if they differ too much no-one but the largest groups will ever use the xLarge ones.

It is one of the biggest hurdles for devs - Finding the right balance for destructible citadel structures, which for all intents and purposes are stations of varying size and capabilities.

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.

Petrified
Grimm Hounds
SONS of BANE
#709 - 2015-05-21 22:10:40 UTC
I didn't see this mentioned, but in terms of fuel:

Since there are no racial Citadels like the current POSes, will these Citadels require a new fuel block type or are you planning to allow any kind of current fuel block to be used as fuel?

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

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.

Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
#710 - 2015-05-22 02:22:37 UTC
So maybe I missed it in the 36 pages, but what happens to all the Star Bases (POS) sitting in hangers and all the guns/hardners/EWAR, etc. we have laying around? I ask because lots of cash in those items throughout EVE.

And will those faction items turn into factions Citadels? Modules for those? etc.
Fzhal
#711 - 2015-05-22 02:37:53 UTC
Vigilant wrote:
So maybe I missed it in the 36 pages, but what happens to all the Star Bases (POS) sitting in hangers and all the guns/hardners/EWAR, etc. we have laying around? I ask because lots of cash in those items throughout EVE.

And will those faction items turn into factions Citadels? Modules for those? etc.

No official answer as to whether CCP will convert existing POS stuff, make it so their only use is for reprocessing, or make them disappear after the transitory period.
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
#712 - 2015-05-22 03:36:47 UTC
Fzhal wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
So maybe I missed it in the 36 pages, but what happens to all the Star Bases (POS) sitting in hangers and all the guns/hardners/EWAR, etc. we have laying around? I ask because lots of cash in those items throughout EVE.

And will those faction items turn into factions Citadels? Modules for those? etc.

No official answer as to whether CCP will convert existing POS stuff, make it so their only use is for reprocessing, or make them disappear after the transitory period.



Well that's billions and billions of isk people are going to pissed about loosing! They need to convert to the something new item at least with Faction considered IMHO.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#713 - 2015-05-22 06:24:36 UTC
Indications are reprocess/refund once POS's get deleted. Which will be months if not years after this new system gets added. Remember that POS's can't be removed till every new structure is up and running, not just the Market/Admin hub structure.
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#714 - 2015-05-22 09:55:46 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Nullarbor
Yes keep in mind we are not removing POS or Outposts or anything just yet. If you want to see details about how we will transition from the older structures over time you should watch CCP Ytterbiums presentation from Fanfest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo#t=38m47s

@ 38 minutes, 47 seconds

We are still a long way from removing POS from the game, and we will make sure any transition plan is announced in detail before it all happens.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#715 - 2015-05-22 12:29:59 UTC
Petrified wrote:
I didn't see this mentioned, but in terms of fuel:

Since there are no racial Citadels like the current POSes, will these Citadels require a new fuel block type or are you planning to allow any kind of current fuel block to be used as fuel?


And pls on a per-use basis - inactive facilities/components not consuming fuel.

PLS
Draahk Chimera
Supervillains
#716 - 2015-05-22 15:54:02 UTC
I am exceedingly sorry if I am reposting but I can not find the energy to trawl all 36 pages.

Are there any plans to deal with the problem of "zombiesticks", IE abandoned bases. I feel when moving to a new type of structure it would be a great time to address this issue. While I am well aware that the chateaux will have no anchoring restrictions I still feel that hundreds of abandoned structures in W-space and highsec will constitute problems - unique in each case.

I therefore humbly propose a "defense deterioration" timer to be imposed on the chateaux. Starting at the last point a player actually interacted with the structure a 7 day (invisible) timer will start. If no player access the structure until this timer has run it's course a new 48-hour visible timer starts. At the end of this second timer the structure shuts down all defenses, including ownership, and may be scooped up by anyone with sufficient cargohold.

404 - Image not found

Black Pedro
Mine.
#717 - 2015-05-22 16:16:36 UTC
Draahk Chimera wrote:
I am exceedingly sorry if I am reposting but I can not find the energy to trawl all 36 pages.

Are there any plans to deal with the problem of "zombiesticks", IE abandoned bases. I feel when moving to a new type of structure it would be a great time to address this issue. While I am well aware that the chateaux will have no anchoring restrictions I still feel that hundreds of abandoned structures in W-space and highsec will constitute problems - unique in each case.

I therefore humbly propose a "defense deterioration" timer to be imposed on the chateaux. Starting at the last point a player actually interacted with the structure a 7 day (invisible) timer will start. If no player access the structure until this timer has run it's course a new 48-hour visible timer starts. At the end of this second timer the structure shuts down all defenses, including ownership, and may be scooped up by anyone with sufficient cargohold.
The entosis link solves this problem. Undefended structures are extremely vulnerable, so much so that a single person can take one down if it is undefended with only a minor grind. In fact, it seems like there will be no automated defenses at all, just a vulnerability window.

The days of plopping down a tower and relying on its massive EHP to protect it are over.

However, like the vulnerability window in nullsec, perhaps the citadel could have a scaling window based on occupancy. For example, in a occupied structure the window could be 2 (or 4, or whatever) hours a day, but this could gradually increase the less the structure is used. Or maybe, if no one has docked in the structure for 30 (or 90, or whatever) days, it could lose the protection of the vulnerability window and be open to attack by anyone, at anytime.



Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#718 - 2015-05-22 16:44:48 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Yes keep in mind we are not removing POS or Outposts or anything just yet. If you want to see details about how we will transition from the older structures over time you should watch CCP Ytterbiums presentation from Fanfest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hen92QFrDUo#t=38m47s

@ 38 minutes, 47 seconds

We are still a long way from removing POS from the game, and we will make sure any transition plan is announced in detail before it all happens.

For what is worth, I hope you'll be writing another blog detailing the transation phase; what was said at Fanfest was as clear as mud.

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.

Fzhal
#719 - 2015-05-22 17:04:57 UTC
CCP, I have a humble request. (Not saying this isn't in your plans, but I just want to make sure) Please ensure that we can check or be alerted to vulnerability times and changes via a healthy number of ways, like notifications / calendar / structure GUI / Corp Management GUI / CREST / EveMail. As you've said, you want structures to be more user friendly. Overlooking this (relatively simple) component would be a big deal to me.

Even better would be to give app developers the tools/knowledge to pull CREST data and use it to notify us if our current week's activity levels will put us below the activity thresholds used to determine vulnerability window length/frequency.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#720 - 2015-05-22 17:29:10 UTC
did we already check and see if current towers will fall under entosis mechanics when fozziesov drops? Or will they remain stront-based until the new structures come out?