These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Citadels, sieges and you

First post First post
Author
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2015-08-14 11:16:36 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
xttz wrote:
The decision to only affect new structures via Entosis is both a mistake and a missed opportunity; a kneejerk reaction to the bogeyman of structure grinding.

While the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less central role.
Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. Triage carriers patching up starbases have a similarly mirrored role, frantically trying to restore these assets while making themselves vulnerable.
This was always a fantastic avenue for content, with opponents setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE. It feels like you're scooping a load of sand out of the sandbox.

By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but actively maintained structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. The simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling effect on structures, but actual damage should need to be inflicted in order to destroy them for good, while an investment in repair ability should be required to restore them again.


Yes, please!

I've been promoting this idea for months!


Agreed, make the entosis link disable hardeners/reduce resists rather than destroy the structure. That should still need guns. Big guns. Lots of big guns.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#122 - 2015-08-14 11:22:34 UTC
Kazon Necht wrote:
Lots of good comments here so far. Many echo the things that I've heard on our comms.

It appears to me that the reason CCP appears to have missed the mark, is because the problems that people complained about the most were not really solved. Instead, they were changed into something that appears to be far more hated by most people that use them.

The problem that I see here is that CCP focused so much on what people didn't like, that they didn't focus on what people did like about the POS system. I admit that the structure grind was boring and terrible. But there was so much that was good about POSs. The results of destroying a POS, especially one in use, were good. The fact that there was reward, outside of just blowing them up for fun, made it worth the time. Or at least, part of the time it took.

For one, I like the idea of unifying the POS code into something more intuitive. That rigs will explode with the POS is a great idea. It happens now with ships, and despite the cost, we still fit rigs to our ships. The fact that things are being more unified is good. For me, that's where the positive part of it ends.

Only manual guns? That's not a good idea. Corps used POSs and the automatic guns to catch people in traps and blow them up. Now that's gone. That was a tactic that you've changed.

Transporting loot to a nearby station? Are you serious? This is the worst decision, outside of the 3 step entosis process, that's been made. Right now several entities, especially those of us that live in wormholes, destroy POSs and spend the hours grinding because of the loot that might drop. The fact that you are taking this away and making it "safer" to store things in a citadel is a mistake. One thing EVE has often done is manage risk:reward well, and now, you've completely changed that.

The fact that the entosis link is the ONLY way that citadels can be destroyed seems counter intuitive. The problem before was the time it took to do the grind. Now, suddenly, you've made it take longer and you've managed to make it even more boring. At the end of the day, it would have likely been better if you could RF a POS with a link and then have to destroy it by bringing a fleet to actually shoot it. It leaves a reason for supers to exist and a reason for people to bring their dreads and cap fleets out, along with supporting subcap fleets.

As a wormhole player, I'm absolutely blown away at the disregard for how we operate. Keep in mind that while you did not originally intend for us to live in wormholes forever, wormhole dwellers managed to make it work, even with the broken POS code. EVE players are resourceful like that.

In wormholes, we may spend weeks or months planning the eviction of another corporation. It's our version of sov warfare. We will slowly seed the system with capitals, carefully working around the rules of wormhole masses and timelines. This system works well; it isn't generally complained about by anybody that understands how wormholes work. The reward is the potential to capture ships, modules and other things inside of the wormhole we are attacking. You see, we generally don't want the system, what we want is to fight (PVP), to win and to take our spoils and leave.

By changing it so you don't have to anchor at a moon, you've effectively made it nearly impossible for us to protect our home system without the risk of somebody just putting up a citadel in our system. After all, we can't declare it a home system and somehow stop that. By removing the drops, you've removed any real reason for us to siege other corps, because the reward is bad for the tremendous amount of risk. Not all sieges work out in the aggressor's favor.

It really seems to me that this new system is all about safety. I feel as though it was created to appease the new players who you want to invest their money in buying PLEX and building up what they own. It really ignores the existing players who have, under the existing risk/reward benefits of the existing system, come to understand and accept the risks of POSs.

I play EVE because it's really a difficult game to master and every decision that I make puts me at risk. It's a bit realistic in that sense. By taking it away and making it a "safer" game to play, you may attract new players, but are you going to retain the existing players like me with 5-6 accounts that are willing to spend a lot of time online to grind towards my end goal? Perhaps that isn't your objective here.

I will close with this thought: I do not believe that this system will increase PVP or game enjoyment at all. If those two things aren't your goals, then what are your goals so we can understand why you've changed this system so much?



This is an excellent post.

This bit made me wonder...

Kazon Necht wrote:
The fact that the entosis link is the ONLY way that citadels can be destroyed seems counter intuitive. The problem before was the time it took to do the grind. Now, suddenly, you've made it take longer and you've managed to make it even more boring. At the end of the day, it would have likely been better if you could RF a POS with a link and then have to destroy it by bringing a fleet to actually shoot it. It leaves a reason for supers to exist and a reason for people to bring their dreads and cap fleets out, along with supporting subcap fleets.


What if either way worked for structures? Keep both options alive so that smaller players can harass bigger ones, high sec stuff doesnt need hours upon hours of EHP grinding and at the same time we retain/revitalise some use for capitals?
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2015-08-14 11:23:32 UTC
xttz wrote:
Cynica Deetric wrote:
I see an easy fix to counter the trollcepter is to JUST let the citadels defences work like POS defences do now.... if you want to shoot the guns/mods good if you want to let the **** AI do it, that is ok to.


Or make it so that structures only automatically target active hostile entosis links. That way structures can't be abused into killing anything that comes on grid, but require a bit more thought to compromise than a disposable t1 frigate. The latter is especially important for smaller corps or individuals.

By requiring a little more effort to attack structures, we'll also (hopefully) end up with situations where both sides are invested in a fight, rather than the attackers simply running away if anyone shows up.


Perhaps turn the existing station guns modules into station sentries that do autofire but also have station guns that don't but are manually controlled and more effective. That way the autofiring guns will defend against trollceptors but can be taken out by an attacking force. A real defence would require manning the guns on the station.
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#124 - 2015-08-14 11:25:43 UTC
... since introduction of the dreads ships class, theyr MAIN role was shooting structures...
now, you plan on take away they main role and give it to ... trollceptors; to make it even worse, no one say a thing about what or if dreads will get a new role....
oh, and you keep asking yourself why the palyers are so upset... like really, wth ?
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2015-08-14 11:26:54 UTC
Orm Magnustat wrote:
...

How about keeping the classical POS concept alongside these new "structures" and just let the players decide what kind of station they really want?



I'd think that this is a means to introduce new flexible POS code in such a way as the old POS's and therefore the legacy code can eventually be stropped out completely.
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#126 - 2015-08-14 11:31:56 UTC
Kazon Necht wrote:
......
......

I will close with this thought: I do not believe that this system will increase PVP or game enjoyment at all. If those two things aren't your goals, then what are your goals so we can understand why you've changed this system so much?


Not only it will not increase it it may reduce it. Today if you faint pos bash enemy will try to defend if they have enough people.

With the new system they will turtle in, as their assets are perfectly safe even if you will follow into destruction. They will just log off in scaner and place new citadel while you are gone.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#127 - 2015-08-14 11:40:06 UTC
I have a feeling that both pimped super-expensive XL citadels are equally vulnerable as dirt-cheap throw-away M ones. That's kinda not reasonable...
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#128 - 2015-08-14 11:51:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Also, I have a huge and desperate complain about timezone war.
ATM, we have 2 engagements for a POS. First one is timed by attacker. The second one is timed by the defender, if he cares about his POS. If he doesnt care - attacker can more or less affect the second timer too.
What you suggest - is to make 3 timers, every one of them is controlled by defender. And mind you, they will be set for the worst timezone the attacker has. To wear him down, to bore him to death.

3 timers vs 1 timer!
How does it fit to your goal "Structure combat is more exciting"? (quote)
FFS!
Dash Moore
Betruger Trust Holding AG
#129 - 2015-08-14 12:26:09 UTC
Please have a think about giving us the option to either destroy or capture a citadel.

I think it would give more strategic depth to the whole system by allowing us to take over enemy citadels instead of just destroying them. While you sometimes want to burn everything to the ground sometimes it would be useful to take over an enemy stronghold as a staging point for your campaign.

As an added food for thought, maybe give us the option to deploy dust mercs in breaching ships to capture the station if we want to take it over.

In addition maybe pay out the 10% safety fee to the alliance that destroyed the station would give another incentive for more destruction.


All in all I absolutely love your ideas and visions for these citadels Big smile now it is refinement time.

Good work, well done Team Game of Drones Pirate
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#130 - 2015-08-14 13:07:23 UTC
A common theme I'm seeing from this thread is loss of functionality and depth from existing game mechanics. Specifically the key points are:

1) Structures not engaging targets without manual action

2) Lack of HP-based mechanics and related ship roles (especially capitals)

3) Ability to subvert timezone-based mechanisms (stront-timing and kiting)

I'm a little concerned that CCP have simply written off these concepts, and in doing so are removing a lot of depth from the game. Can we please get some word from a dev about what concerns they have with these ideas, and why they seem to have been so easily dismissed?

I have no doubt a discussion with the Eve community could find a way to retain a varied approach to handling structures that properly reflects the sandbox nature of EVE.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2015-08-14 13:26:40 UTC
[quote=Dash Moore]Please have a think about giving us the option to either destroy or capture a citadel.

.../quote]

Being able to capture them would stifle the market in producing them, make them destructible only in my view..
Leila Numanor
Tritanium Industries and Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#132 - 2015-08-14 13:45:14 UTC
Kazon Necht wrote:
Lots of good comments here so far. Many echo the things that I've heard on our comms.

It appears to me that the reason CCP appears to have missed the mark, is because the problems that people complained about the most were not really solved. Instead, they were changed into something that appears to be far more hated by most people that use them.

The problem that I see here is that CCP focused so much on what people didn't like, that they didn't focus on what people did like about the POS system. I admit that the structure grind was boring and terrible. But there was so much that was good about POSs. The results of destroying a POS, especially one in use, were good. The fact that there was reward, outside of just blowing them up for fun, made it worth the time. Or at least, part of the time it took.

For one, I like the idea of unifying the POS code into something more intuitive. That rigs will explode with the POS is a great idea. It happens now with ships, and despite the cost, we still fit rigs to our ships. The fact that things are being more unified is good. For me, that's where the positive part of it ends.

Only manual guns? That's not a good idea. Corps used POSs and the automatic guns to catch people in traps and blow them up. Now that's gone. That was a tactic that you've changed.

Transporting loot to a nearby station? Are you serious? This is the worst decision, outside of the 3 step entosis process, that's been made. Right now several entities, especially those of us that live in wormholes, destroy POSs and spend the hours grinding because of the loot that might drop. The fact that you are taking this away and making it "safer" to store things in a citadel is a mistake. One thing EVE has often done is manage risk:reward well, and now, you've completely changed that.

The fact that the entosis link is the ONLY way that citadels can be destroyed seems counter intuitive. The problem before was the time it took to do the grind. Now, suddenly, you've made it take longer and you've managed to make it even more boring. At the end of the day, it would have likely been better if you could RF a POS with a link and then have to destroy it by bringing a fleet to actually shoot it. It leaves a reason for supers to exist and a reason for people to bring their dreads and cap fleets out, along with supporting subcap fleets.

As a wormhole player, I'm absolutely blown away at the disregard for how we operate. Keep in mind that while you did not originally intend for us to live in wormholes forever, wormhole dwellers managed to make it work, even with the broken POS code. EVE players are resourceful like that.

In wormholes, we may spend weeks or months planning the eviction of another corporation. It's our version of sov warfare. We will slowly seed the system with capitals, carefully working around the rules of wormhole masses and timelines. This system works well; it isn't generally complained about by anybody that understands how wormholes work. The reward is the potential to capture ships, modules and other things inside of the wormhole we are attacking. You see, we generally don't want the system, what we want is to fight (PVP), to win and to take our spoils and leave.

By changing it so you don't have to anchor at a moon, you've effectively made it nearly impossible for us to protect our home system without the risk of somebody just putting up a citadel in our system. After all, we can't declare it a home system and somehow stop that. By removing the drops, you've removed any real reason for us to siege other corps, because the reward is bad for the tremendous amount of risk. Not all sieges work out in the aggressor's favor.

It really seems to me that this new system is all about safety. I feel as though it was created to appease the new players who you want to invest their money in buying PLEX and building up what they own. It really ignores the existing players who have, under the existing risk/reward benefits of the existing system, come to understand and accept the risks of POSs.

I play EVE because it's really a difficult game to master and every decision that I make puts me at risk. It's a bit realistic in that sense. By taking it away and making it a "safer" game to play, you may attract new players, but are you going to retain the existing players like me with 5-6 accounts that are willing to spend a lot of time online to grind towards my end goal? Perhaps that isn't your objective here.

I will close with this thought: I do not believe that this system will increase PVP or game enjoyment at all. If those two things aren't your goals, then what are your goals so we can understand why you've changed this system so much?


Nice post! To bad they won't here you.. beacons online is coming to wormholes. We found a work around for this horrible problem. We just dismantled all our wh's not to long after this wonderful info came out done, fixed, problem gone.

Next idea entosis asteroid belts for the miners. Rediculious at best!!
Sequester Risalo
German Corps of Engineers 17
Federation of Respect Honor Passion Alliance.
#133 - 2015-08-14 14:03:54 UTC
Aeril Malkyre wrote:
This concerns me. This is a loss of functionality. Right now, someone with the means could set up a solo POS with enough guns and ewar that no one would bother attacking unless they had friends and some time. Now any ******* that happens by during the vulnerability window can Entosis the place, with no defense or recourse, except for the owner to be online and near the structure at that time. That's a massive loss of capability for something that's supposed to be replacing the POS system. I understand that you 'hear' the trollceptor concern, but what is going to be done about it? Are we just expected to play Entosis tug of war for a few days until the attacker gets bored?


Those were my thoughts after the new structures were introduced the first time. I voiced my concers but they remain unheard.

I predicted tha low class wormholes - the home of single player corporations will become deserted wastelands. And I predicted that CCP will not achieve the goal described in http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/ :

"Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack."

I know plenty people who would want to use to use a structure bunt won't do so. because doing it would be stupid under the new rules.

Vincent Athena wrote:
A POS can defend itself while I'm on a week long cruise in the Caribbean, and a war hits. These new Citadels cannot. Why do I want that?


I have answered for myself that I do not want that and taken down and sold my faction pos.

Bienator II wrote:
i don't think it is a big deal to convince someone to man the guns of the new fancy structure. i guess all you have to do is to log in an alt and stay docked. So i pretty much see it as a given that the thing will shoot you. Esp since you have to attack it in the vuln window which implies its the highest activity time of the defender.


I don't think that's how it works. Whoever "mans the guns" will have to actively do something to be useful. Otherwise you could suggest an alt to always stay in space orbiting the citydel. That's not going to be helpful either.

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#134 - 2015-08-14 14:32:15 UTC
Sequester Risalo wrote:
Aeril Malkyre wrote:
This concerns me. This is a loss of functionality. Right now, someone with the means could set up a solo POS with enough guns and ewar that no one would bother attacking unless they had friends and some time. Now any ******* that happens by during the vulnerability window can Entosis the place, with no defense or recourse, except for the owner to be online and near the structure at that time. That's a massive loss of capability for something that's supposed to be replacing the POS system. I understand that you 'hear' the trollceptor concern, but what is going to be done about it? Are we just expected to play Entosis tug of war for a few days until the attacker gets bored?


Those were my thoughts after the new structures were introduced the first time. I voiced my concers but they remain unheard.

I predicted tha low class wormholes - the home of single player corporations will become deserted wastelands. And I predicted that CCP will not achieve the goal described in http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/ :

"Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack."

I know plenty people who would want to use to use a structure bunt won't do so. because doing it would be stupid under the new rules.

Vincent Athena wrote:
A POS can defend itself while I'm on a week long cruise in the Caribbean, and a war hits. These new Citadels cannot. Why do I want that?


I have answered for myself that I do not want that and taken down and sold my faction pos.

Bienator II wrote:
i don't think it is a big deal to convince someone to man the guns of the new fancy structure. i guess all you have to do is to log in an alt and stay docked. So i pretty much see it as a given that the thing will shoot you. Esp since you have to attack it in the vuln window which implies its the highest activity time of the defender.


I don't think that's how it works. Whoever "mans the guns" will have to actively do something to be useful. Otherwise you could suggest an alt to always stay in space orbiting the citydel. That's not going to be helpful either.



I'm looking at the timings and here is what I see. Assuming that you are using a Medium Citadel (being a solo/small corporation) you have a total of 6 hours per week of vulnerable time.

Now, we can immediately make assumptions about a small corporations play time, etc. but you have to leave room for the fact that 6 hours a week of game time in EVE is not an extensive commitment to make especially for a group that has chosen to own a portion of space. There are a number of ways to set up your time, but one could very well be as follows:

3 consecutive hours on Tuesday night (you know you're able to be online most Tuesday nights)
3 consecutive hours on Saturday night

Come Tuesday night, you have RL things to take care of and your structure gets reinforced while you are away. You are now in Reinforced 1.

Because the reinforcement time is half the vulnerability window, the next opportunity to attack the structure will be the next Tuesday reinforcement period. Reinforcement time = 3 hours (6 hours / 2) and because the attack occurred sometime during Tuesday's timer, it would flow through Saturday and into the next Tuesday.

Come next Tuesday, if you still cannot log in at the appropriate time, your structure is in Vulnerable 2 and open for attack during any vulnerable window going forward. To remove this, you have to spend 10 minutes Entosis defending the structure before someone comes along and spends 30 minutes attacking it.

If someone does attack this without you being there again, you enter Reinforced 2 and again, depending on when the attack started, you will have basically an entire week before the next vulnerable phase begins. Then you again have to spend 10 minutes defending the structure vs. the 30 minute attack period.

All in all, unless I'm reading this wrong, it is entirely possible to have a 3 week attack requirement for a medium Citadel where your total effort to thwart is 10 minutes during your preset vulnerable periods of your choosing. It seems from these calculations also that setting your consecutive hours equal to or less than the reinforcement period (total hours / 2) is your best option for extending your time as much as possible away from the initial attack.
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
Red Serpent Alliance
#135 - 2015-08-14 15:03:14 UTC
Thank you devs for answering all those questions about technical details and stuff - but perhaps you should give a little more thought to the more fundamental questions raised in this thread (like the most basic "WHY?") or the general objections formulated by quite some exemplary posts in here .....
You might not be able to adress these openly in this thread, but CCP surely could gain a lot by going through them attentively.

I once played a game where the english publisher depended on an asian developer for whom the english version only seemed to be a niche market - I really pitied those guys then (and had to cut them a lot of slack). They were struggling like hell, but almost never could get what they (and their players) wanted. Instead, after changes in developer studios, the game more and more lost track of its own core during the years, until it came to the point where many players (including myself) could no longer bear to to look at the mutilated corpse of a once loved entity. and quit.

That was when after some time I decided to give eve a chance - game management and development in one hand! wow! "They really can do the right thing without any dependancies" This prospect made me quite enthusiastic. Also i liked the sincerity displayed by devs when the meticulously tried to balance ships, their consideration not to take away functionality from players when they changed skills ..... really thought I might have found heaven then Idea

Sadly for almost a year now I have to watch CCP practically selfdestructing (under all those most advantageous circumstances).
Promoting change for changes sake, ignoring reasonable players wishes and needs, discontinuing core funtionalities and priciples and generally disregarding players efforts and goals. Ugh

Does CCP really feel that it still has too many players?
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
#136 - 2015-08-14 15:23:18 UTC
Kazon Necht wrote:
Lots of good comments here so far. Many echo the things that I've heard on our comms.

It appears to me that the reason CCP appears to have missed the mark, is because the problems that people complained about the most were not really solved. Instead, they were changed into something that appears to be far more hated by most people that use them.

The problem that I see here is that CCP focused so much on what people didn't like, that they didn't focus on what people did like about the POS system. I admit that the structure grind was boring and terrible. But there was so much that was good about POSs. The results of destroying a POS, especially one in use, were good. The fact that there was reward, outside of just blowing them up for fun, made it worth the time. Or at least, part of the time it took.

For one, I like the idea of unifying the POS code into something more intuitive. That rigs will explode with the POS is a great idea. It happens now with ships, and despite the cost, we still fit rigs to our ships. The fact that things are being more unified is good. For me, that's where the positive part of it ends.

Only manual guns? That's not a good idea. Corps used POSs and the automatic guns to catch people in traps and blow them up. Now that's gone. That was a tactic that you've changed.

Transporting loot to a nearby station? Are you serious? This is the worst decision, outside of the 3 step entosis process, that's been made. Right now several entities, especially those of us that live in wormholes, destroy POSs and spend the hours grinding because of the loot that might drop. The fact that you are taking this away and making it "safer" to store things in a citadel is a mistake. One thing EVE has often done is manage risk:reward well, and now, you've completely changed that.

The fact that the entosis link is the ONLY way that citadels can be destroyed seems counter intuitive. The problem before was the time it took to do the grind. Now, suddenly, you've made it take longer and you've managed to make it even more boring. At the end of the day, it would have likely been better if you could RF a POS with a link and then have to destroy it by bringing a fleet to actually shoot it. It leaves a reason for supers to exist and a reason for people to bring their dreads and cap fleets out, along with supporting subcap fleets.

As a wormhole player, I'm absolutely blown away at the disregard for how we operate. Keep in mind that while you did not originally intend for us to live in wormholes forever, wormhole dwellers managed to make it work, even with the broken POS code. EVE players are resourceful like that.

In wormholes, we may spend weeks or months planning the eviction of another corporation. It's our version of sov warfare. We will slowly seed the system with capitals, carefully working around the rules of wormhole masses and timelines. This system works well; it isn't generally complained about by anybody that understands how wormholes work. The reward is the potential to capture ships, modules and other things inside of the wormhole we are attacking. You see, we generally don't want the system, what we want is to fight (PVP), to win and to take our spoils and leave.

By changing it so you don't have to anchor at a moon, you've effectively made it nearly impossible for us to protect our home system without the risk of somebody just putting up a citadel in our system. After all, we can't declare it a home system and somehow stop that. By removing the drops, you've removed any real reason for us to siege other corps, because the reward is bad for the tremendous amount of risk. Not all sieges work out in the aggressor's favor.

It really seems to me that this new system is all about safety. I feel as though it was created to appease the new players who you want to invest their money in buying PLEX and building up what they own. It really ignores the existing players who have, under the existing risk/reward benefits of the existing system, come to understand and accept the risks of POSs.

I play EVE because it's really a difficult game to master and every decision that I make puts me at risk. It's a bit realistic in that sense. By taking it away and making it a "safer" game to play, you may attract new players, but are you going to retain the existing players like me with 5-6 accounts that are willing to spend a lot of time online to grind towards my end goal? Perhaps that isn't your objective here.

I will close with this thought: I do not believe that this system will increase PVP or game enjoyment at all. If those two things aren't your goals, then what are your goals so we can understand why you've changed this system so much?
Not emptying quoting. This is a quality post, and outlines a lot of the troubling concepts around these fundamental changes in gameplay.
Ariete
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#137 - 2015-08-14 15:50:01 UTC
A XL in wormhole space has 42 hours of vulnerability a week which means it has a 21 hour reinforcement window. The structure is vuanrable 6 hours a day.

To put it in to RF will take half and hour, you then have to wait 84 hours for 3.5 vulnerability windows to pass by. You then RF it again taking half and hour then wait another 84 hours. Finally if you haven't got bored and given up it will take another half hour for the structure to go boom.

Total time taken 169.5 hours or 7 days, 1 hour and 30 minutes.


This sounds way to long considering that at the moment to take a POS down in a WH would take no more than 42 hours 1 day, 18 hours.
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#138 - 2015-08-14 15:51:52 UTC
Ariete wrote:
A XL in wormhole space has 42 hours of vulnerability a week which means it has a 21 hour reinforcement window. The structure is vuanrable 6 hours a day.

To put it in to RF will take half and hour, you then have to wait 84 hours for 3.5 vulnerability windows to pass by. You then RF it again taking half and hour then wait another 84 hours. Finally if you haven't got bored and given up it will take another half hour for the structure to go boom.

Total time taken 169.5 hours or 7 days, 1 hour and 30 minutes.


This sounds way to long considering that at the moment to take a POS down in a WH would take no more than 42 hours 1 day, 18 hours.


Tedium is the new constant in the new Eve - didn't you get the memo?
lisa 8
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#139 - 2015-08-14 16:23:11 UTC  |  Edited by: lisa 8
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Mr Grape Drink wrote:
Why are vulnerability windows bigger for bigger structures? Shouldnt they be harder to take than the smaller versions? As it stands in NPC null an XL would be open 12 hours a day if spread across evenly. If you're a mainly USTZ group and you set it during the week to come out after work hours, you would need to set it to say 5PM - 5AM. Gives people of a different TZ plenty of options to hit you while you're asleep.

Nothing like having massive guns and doomsdays attached to your citadel and your gunner asleep at the wheel!

Considering the XL will cost billions and billions of isk, you should be able to really force all engagements on it into your own primetime.



Larger structures implies more members online to cover a larger timezone. It's still only a fraction of the week compared to existing structures, so we are confident the big groups will have no problem covering this.


This thinking on TZ coverage is flawed.
Currently, there is less than a handful of groups in EvE that can provide people to cover multiple TZ's -EUTZ, USTZ as well as AUTZ . So that leaves the majority of the community without that ability & with no automated defenses it leaves the structures open to attack, due to the enforced lengthy vulnerability windows. Also it dosen't answer the ability to kite timers, because capture timers work off when that last slither of entosising is completed.

I also have some questions:

1) "How long will it take to deploy my structure?
Medium - One Hour
Large - Two Hours
X-Large - Four hours"
It took us years to get the deployment times fixed with the current system with POS's & if these are to replace pos's and stations, then why are we going back to these long times under this system?. It makes no sense what so ever.

2) What is going to happen to the Starbase Defence Management skill, since under this new system;
"Will my old POS defense skills work?
No. They are going to require a new line of skills to operate, but most likely use existing gunnery and / or missile support skills. More details as we get them."
Will we be reimbursed SP for this or will be given the new skills at same level as we currently have the SDM skill trained at ?

3) Can you or CCP Seagul, give us some clarification as to how this fits in to the over all vision for EVE, given on 1 hand CCP wants denser larger groups to be able to use & defend & attack these structures, but on the other hand, CCP wants to steer away from large scale fights ( which in the past have been a major draw card in attracting new players to EVE). Vulnerabilty windows & Entosising are not a fun enjoyable activity. So how dose using this system & the more people have to use it, they agree, so how dose this make EvE better ?
Also, given that your phasing out existing structures & thus removing the HP system, Can we please get a update blog, on the question of the role of capitals & if they are will be allowed back into high sec, sooner rather than later.

4) After reading the below comment in the EVENEWS24 article, I was curious as to how you answer the concerns raised in it, as I agree with "some" of the points raised in it;

"The structures look good & on paper this system might look good, but in practical application, it is worse than the HP system. There is no fun & enjoyment factor to be gained from this system. It is, just plain time consuming & boring. Vulnerability windows & Entosis module cycle times have already proven themselves to be too long in Fozzie Sov & have not been rebalanced despite community feed back. So now CCP want to take this bad mechanic and apply it to structures well ?

Additionally, this system alienates & discriminates against people who don't or cant play game everyday or each week, for Real Life reasons like;
* Family Life,
* Being on vacation, or
* Work commitments.
No one wants a game to dictate to them, that they must have to play for X amount of time each day or week, despite the flexibilty being given here to structures, to nominate when X will occur.

Shortening Vulnerability windows & decreasing Entosis link module cycle times are a start in making this better, but even that, is not a solution to the failure of having a system, which forgets it is supposed to be a game, not a job."



Thanks for a reply.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#140 - 2015-08-14 16:40:31 UTC
Orm Magnustat wrote:
The train has caught speed - and I´m pretty sure nothing's gonna stop it .... Straight

Still there' s this one question on my mind. WHY??


Why going through all this pain of reinventing the wheel (POS) with all its uncertainties and potential (surefire) frustration ?!


The introduction of this "other" kind of station will not bring in a single new player by itself. But for sure it will frustrate quite some veterans that built certain playstyles around the classical POS concept during all those years. Its just bringing pain to a lot of people who invested a lot of effort in the old system or just like the prinicple concept of firepower and fat shields that totally made up the inner logic of your game in all these years.

You throw all this out of the window as if you just would like to manage a totally different game.....

Has this entosis crap (that you are betting your farm on) actually stood the test of time in your eyes, so that you have to spread it across the whole of this universe?

How about keeping the classical POS concept alongside these new "structures" and just let the players decide what kind of station they really want?



I would assume bringing in the new Citadel type structures would enable CCP to get around the code problems and reinvent the corporation/alliance roles and permissions. This would then allow multiple corporation safe and secure use of corp structure services. This is the paradise scenario that industrialists have been asking CCP to implement for years. Assuming CCP want to make this a possibility, which I am not sure they have ever said in so many words, then it can be made a reality.

Currently post-Crius I think most people aren't using POSes to do industry etc. The fall in office taxes from millions to maybe tens of thousands of ISK reveals this to be the case. POSes have in effect started to become obsolete. The 'Fozzie-Sov' changes appear to be making capital ships surplus to requirements especially with no need to apply damage to destroy structures. To my mind this doesn't make sense and I worry about the future of EVE Online if this is implemented.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .