These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Structure fitting in the EVE: Citadel Expansion

First post
Author
Catalina Franklin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2016-02-10 22:13:15 UTC
Yeah so Im going to add my voice into the fray and state that the 400 stront per 40 fuel blocks is ridiculous and not thought through. I feel many people have accurately made the point of the amount of m^3 needed for a 20000 block run would be crazy plus you just don't get enough through mining at the moment to enable that change. And then there is the impact on manufacturing itself due to the actual cost of the block (if bought, due to the pain to mine in the amounts suggested). You all really need to take a step back and rethink your current position on fuel blocks.
Circumstantial Evidence
#82 - 2016-02-10 22:27:55 UTC
Stont added to fuel blocks: agree with Mr Omniblivion:
Until POS are removed, POS owners would be paying twice for stront: once for their stront bay (which are NOT always completely filled up, for reinforcement timing reasons) and again for what gets added to fuel blocks.

Skills for Citadels: While an improvement over the hard barrier of Starbase Defense Management, adding skills giving any bonuses for structure control, even with a low cost and low multiplier seems to contradict the intent that all players should feel welcome to assume control. These platforms are already very powerful; if the new skills are intentionally mild bonuses... why have them?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#83 - 2016-02-10 22:39:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • We will iterate on reprocessing capabilities to give a higher impact between high and null-sec yes, 1% isn't enough of a difference. - Querns
  • Reprocessing rigs are part of the drilling specialization yes, but we wanted to give them to you right now as they provide significant value. Ideally you wouldn't get such high rates on a Citadel, but we'll leave these numbers until we introduce the Drilling Platform, then reduce them and potentially offer a rig removal. - Hendrink Collie
  • [/list]

    This is very disappointing. The whole argument was that Null sec had to invest more into their outposts so should get more in return. Now you are asking Higsec to invest just as much, yet get less.
    In addition the reprocessing difference actually does not promote local industry, but an import industry, since it means Null can afford to pay more for the same piece of ore than someone in highsec can, meaning they don't bother to mine locally.
    Given the investment in all areas of space is now the same, and yes highsec people don't have to defend against caps but they also don't have caps to defend their structures either so that element balances out, the reprocessing in a Citadel should also be made equal. If Null needs something it should be an advantage in raw material production, not a magic advantage that makes the same piece of ore worth more minerals in different areas of space.

    The fuel block use is also disappointing since we were told it was going to be when the services were actually used, which would therefore have made it easy to assign a tax to individual jobs, since you could tax them based on how many fuel blocks their particular job used, rather than a constant trickle of fuel blocks that you then have to work out how to account for dead time between uses as well.

    Finally, what are the details on Fighters, What is the bandwidth, how many squadrons under the new system, what sort of DPS can we expect to get from said fighters, how many spares can be kept.
    Currently the launcher DPS seems..... weak, and will be trivially easy to ignore for any reasonable attackers, therefore the Citadels won't contribute much to the overall firepower on the field, which seems very contrary to their design goals. So unless the Fighters are actually a huge majority of their DPS, Citadels are going to be outright walk overs.
    Kuetlzelcoatl
    #84 - 2016-02-10 22:49:56 UTC
    Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
    .... if the new skills are intentionally mild bonuses... why have them?


    isk sink?
    Querns
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #85 - 2016-02-10 22:52:56 UTC
    Nevyn Auscent wrote:

    This is very disappointing. The whole argument was that Null sec had to invest more into their outposts so should get more in return. Now you are asking Higsec to invest just as much, yet get less.
    In addition the reprocessing difference actually does not promote local industry, but an import industry, since it means Null can afford to pay more for the same piece of ore than someone in highsec can, meaning they don't bother to mine locally.

    This is incorrect -- there is a significant amount of mining going on in nullsec, and it's advantageous to mine in nullsec still -- shipping costs money, and locally-sourced goods are cheaper than imports. Plus, you can't get ABCs in highsec without paying a premium for it being shipped OUT of nullsec.

    Need proof? I can provide it.

    http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Deklein#adm
    http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind#adm

    Any system with an ADM over 4.5, by necessity, has had people mining in it recently. (Sov index of 5 and military index of 5 = 4.5 ADM.) As of this post, 17 systems in Deklein and 11 systems in Pure Blind have at least some active miners. This does not include systems that could potentially have mining occurring instead of ratting.

    This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

    Soldarius
    Dreddit
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    #86 - 2016-02-10 23:01:23 UTC
    Mr Omniblivion wrote:
    I am all for a change in stront consumption; however, this change to fuel blocks shoild be introduced only once existing POS starbases are removed.

    Stront consumption is not changing much simply by releasing citadels. In fact, we will probably see more siege cycles. Stront usage will fall only when POS are removed from the game, at which time it would make sense to make the stront change in fuel.

    Adding a stront requirement to fuel with the release of the first citadels would be catastrophic to the tech 2 market as fuel cost would skyrocket and drive up the cost of all t2 items. Not to mention, you'd have to immediately change the size of stront or the raw requirements or the supply of stront to keep up with the immediate demand of thousands of towers across eve, each requiring 9 stront per block.


    100% agreement. The current plan will result in a 40% increase in POS fuel costs for Gallente POSes alone. Prepare yourself for 350M isk T2 cruisers. And there is also the volume of stront required issue.


    Next: "We are also going to increase all capital ship signature radius to at least 10km to account for the structure missiles listed above."

    Torpedo Phoenix has a 110k damage volley. Are you sure you want it to have 100% application to every capital ship in the game? I'm pretty sure I remember someone that works for CCP saying that that would be really broken. I might actually finally train JDC5 if this change goes through.

    Finally, have you reconsidered the material requirements for T2 XL rigs? I seem to recall that a couple of them require the entire universal supply of certain kinds of T2 salvage per unit. The requirements were completely unfeasible.

    http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

    Midnight Hope
    Pator Tech School
    Minmatar Republic
    #87 - 2016-02-10 23:38:33 UTC
    Will you be able to tell what's fitted in the Citadel just by looking at it?

    I am not only thinking in weapons (which you can do today with ships, so I assume this is a given), but also with ECM/Scrams/Disruptors/Hardeners which you can definitely do today by looking at the POS modules deployed and online around each POS.
    Rabbit P
    Nuwa Foundation
    Fraternity.
    #88 - 2016-02-10 23:58:40 UTC
    can CCP state clear that "no shattered wormhole Citadel"?

    it only stated in CSM Citadel FAQ , and now said again " All area of space " without mentioning a word of "shattered wormhole"

    just a clarification is needed.
    Alain Colcer
    Nadire Security Consultants
    Federation Peacekeepers
    #89 - 2016-02-11 00:56:35 UTC
    CCP, one Last question

    If the citadel concept is succesful and players adopt them quickly enough, would you consider creating a small sized citadel?.
    Dirk D'Aguilar
    Kraken Exploration and Janitorial Services
    The Initiative.
    #90 - 2016-02-11 01:20:48 UTC
    Alain Colcer wrote:
    CCP, one Last question

    If the citadel concept is succesful and players adopt them quickly enough, would you consider creating a small sized citadel?.


    The medium is cheap enough to be easily in reach of most individual players, so I'm not really seeing a need for a small. Depending on the desired functionality of a medium citadel/mining platform/research lab/etc, your fuel costs can be very low - as low as no fuel required at all. There should be no problem with running costs if you only want a limited -functionality structure, which could have been the other reason you would want a small structure.

    The small deployables in the current plan are structures like mobile depots and the like.
    Hal Morsh
    Doomheim
    #91 - 2016-02-11 03:33:17 UTC
    Captain Campion wrote:
    Can we put a bounty on a Citadel, or any structure for that matter?




    As far as I know, alliance or corporation bounties are also tied to asset destruction. Ya know, Pos's.

    Oh, I perfectly understand, Hal Morsh — a mission like this requires courage, skill, and heroism… qualities you are clearly lacking. Have you forgotten you're one of the bloody immortals!?

    Turrann Dallocort
    The Legion of Spoon
    Curatores Veritatis Alliance
    #92 - 2016-02-11 04:23:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Turrann Dallocort
    So, again, more updates on how the Citadel is going to be used / operated / fit / fueled in space ... The Citadels that are being put in to replace POS's ... And still no answer to the questions about Citadels and Rorquals! Are you going to make the rorq less squishy so it can be legitimately be used IN the belt, while fully boosting? Are you going to make it where the rorq can teather to the Citadel and use mining boost? Are you hoping that rorqual users would have died from oxygen deprivation by now from holding our breath waiting for some rorqual love to happen?

    Heck, going to do away with the rorq all the way and make it a mod to fit in your Citadel?
    SurrenderMonkey
    State Protectorate
    Caldari State
    #93 - 2016-02-11 04:25:02 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
    Yeah, this Strontium business is definitely ill considered.

    Going from 200 m3 per run to 1400 is absurd, not to mention the additional costs for pretty much everything that requires a POS in the interim. The new structure model is cool and all, but they're pretty much a novelty for the time being. POS are going to continue to be the industrial workhorse for quite a while yet.

    "Help, I'm bored with missions!"

    http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

    Kaivar Lancer
    Doomheim
    #94 - 2016-02-11 06:31:41 UTC
    good news for ice miner!
    bp920091
    Black Aces
    Goonswarm Federation
    #95 - 2016-02-11 07:53:16 UTC  |  Edited by: bp920091
    Ran the numbers with a current loadout of stront and fuel blocks (given the 8.8-9 stront/block number you'd get from a 400/run use).

    Currently, to build 175k blocks, i'll use roughly 350 Compressed Dark Glitter and 350 Compressed Glare Crust (plus, you know, Isotopes and PI stuff). To generate the stront needed for the same number of fuel blocks, i'll need 12,500 units of Krystallos (the most stront rich ice in eve). To put that in perspective, that's 15.6 TIMES the combined Dark Glitter and Glare Crust requirements, and i'm still missing heavy water.

    Adding stront to a block is the worst idea, but the numbers are so far from being OK logistically, that it's ridiculous. How about 0.25 Stront a block. This will require 10 stront a load, and, while still require an adjustment in the ice purchased, brings the total logistical level from "Completely Unreasonable" to "Actually Practical"
    BambarbiyaKirgudu
    Real Pilots Group
    #96 - 2016-02-11 09:08:49 UTC
    I agree with you! And again, they wrote already that the price of a small POS and the price is small the citadel is not comparable and that POS has a field and that we are players asking them not to remove from the game - and what we write, don't write - they don't care about the opinion of the miners, production workers and so on! Now these poor injectors which will cause a large imbalance in the game, any noob can now farm and ride on the capital, soon all will go to the capital and make anomaly on cars, frigate soon we will not see! The next step of the developers - kill of capitals and as a consequence, the old players out of games, the fall online, that's when they'll grab your "smart" head, but it's too late, patience "old" gamers to the limit!
    PS there is one famous tank game, it is called WOT , I in it almost since its birth, so - so successful it became, because did the developers along with the players and listening to each their opinion, but in eve it's the opposite!
    (fking google translate make translate)
    Red Deck
    The Tebo Corp
    #97 - 2016-02-11 09:19:53 UTC
    I'd say that adding stront to the fuel blocks is making things unnecessary complex.

    How about we keep stront separate and citadels (or their modules) simply consume some every hour, just like with fuel blocks?

    That should allow for much better fine-tuning during the whole transition from POSes to the new generation of structures.

    This would, of course, not fix the problems related to the extra volume others have pointed out, but would allow for much easier stront consumption adjustments (while keeping the whole fuel block part of the equation untouched).
    CCP Ytterbium
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #98 - 2016-02-11 10:54:46 UTC
    Taosst wrote:
    I see rigs to increase the Office number, but no mention of a base number to start. Do the Citadels only house the corp that deployed it unless additional rigs are used ?



    That will depend on the Citadel size.
    CCP Ytterbium
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #99 - 2016-02-11 11:01:13 UTC
    Vincent Athena wrote:
    Milla Goodpussy wrote:
    Vincent Athena wrote:
    CCP: To help with all the concerns about fuel, I recommend you take advantage of something that you already built into citadels: Infinite storage.

    Store the fuel in a hangar, one big stack that can handle months of use, so I do not have to deal with it very often.




    CCP needs to come out on how they plan to have citadels charge these fuel blocks for industry..
    i mean how many blocks would it take to cook up ships/mods

    do they think 1 person would be the only one making things in a citadel?? what about the fuel cost of 100 builders running jobs at various times throughout the day?

    the numbers are way off.. and detached from reality.

    My guess: A industry service module uses xx blocks per hour, irrelevant of use level. Why do I think that? The reprocessing plant is 5 blocks an hour, and there seems to be no limit on how much it can reprocess in that hour, or how many people can use it at once. In addition, CCP got rid of "manufacturing slots". I doubt they will bring them back in citadels.

    Edit: Maybe the fuel cost will vary with role. A standard medium industry plant will use one fuel amount, but will only be able to make T1 stuff up to battleship size.
    An advanced plant will use more fuel per hour, but make both T1 and T2.
    A large plant will use still more fuel, require a large citadel, and can male up to capital ships.
    Then the extra large.... well, you get the idea.


    Fuel consumption is not going to vary. The numbers you get are what the structure owner will pay to online the service module, then keep it running per hour. Customers or users will not be charged that amount.

    Example:

    You are the owner of a Keepstar. You install a Reprocessing Plant. It will cost you 360 fuel blocks to online, then 5 blocks per hour to maintain online. Any other player using that reprocessing service will not pay fuel blocks. What you will most likely do as an owner however is to set taxes to the customers to offset the fuel block cost and make a profit.
    CCP Ytterbium
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #100 - 2016-02-11 11:02:27 UTC
    Richard Bong wrote:
    Querns wrote:
    Thanks for the reply.

    Another question: adding 400 stront to the build reqs of fuel blocks increases the m^3 required to build fuel blocks considerably. Is this intended? I'd argue to lower the m^3 of stront, but that has knock-on effects with regards to siege, triage, and titans. Are there any metrics on how much stront gets used in a given time period due to POS reinforcement, across all of Eve?



    Considerably is kind of an understatement. "stront is 3m3 per unit. so, if you're doing 20k runs(not at all unreasonable), that's 24 million m3 in cargo just for the stront" that is 24 fully expanded freighters. Even cutting that number in half is way too much, cutting it down to just 40 is still 2.4 million m3.

    This isn't including the cost for 20k runs with 400 stront which is now an extra 6.4b isk at current prices.

    I really hope you take a look at the stront requirements again.


    We'll have a look into Stront volume to address that issue.