These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[New Structures] Condensed thread

First post First post
Author
Gabriel Karade
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#201 - 2016-02-07 14:49:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Alright, to recap where we're at with this.


Tethering:


  • Going to be renamed tethering instead of mooring (mooring is confusing for various reasons).
  • As long as within some specific range of the structure and do not have weapons timer, you ship is tethered, meaning it cannot receive damage or be locked.
  • You can align and move within the specified tethering range and still be protected, as long as you do not go outside the maximum range.
  • You will not be able to tether to the structure if you are warp scrambled from a targeted module (HIC point, regular warp scrambling modules).
  • You will be able to tether to the structure if you are within an AoE warp scramble bubble (HIC AoE bubble, interdictor bubble). Of course you will not be able to warp away however. This is to prevent people from being caught their pants down when logging back on near a structure.
  • Tethering will be shown in the UI and visually in space.
  • We are investigating options to minimize bumping when you are tethered.
  • If your ship has access to dock into the structure it can use tethering. This doesn't mean you ship can dock however. For instance, you may have access to dock into a Medium Citadel as a Titan pilot, but you still are unable to dock. Your Titan will still be tethered when in range of the structure.
  • If you log off you do not stay in space near the structure, you log off as you normally would (which is why calling this feature "mooring" is confusing).
  • If you leave your active ship the tether will not protect the ship left behind and will tether to your capsule.


Docking


  • Medium Citadels: all subcapitals can dock. The Orca and Freighters can also dock.
  • Large Citadels: all capitals can dock. This includes the Rorqual.
  • X-Large Citadels: all ships can dock.
  • There are different docking bays depending if you are in a subcapital, capital or supercapital. Depending on the structure, there may be more than one of each. You cannot choose which one to undock from (for now at least).
  • There is no station interior. When you dock the scene is centered around the structure. Some information may be hidden (like the overview or ship modules) since technically you are not in a ship anymore. Since you're tethered it's easy to undock and then dock back up to get this information back.


Defense


  • Assuming direct control of the structure brings the overview and structure modules up, since you are now manning its defenses.
  • We're going to require proper user groups to assume direct control. They'll provide more flexibility than roles since groups can be defined for people outside your corporation or alliance. They'll have admins and managers, more on that at a later date.
  • You'll be able to set up groups to kick people out when assuming direct control - just in case that nasty spy is shooting on your own ships during a fleet battle.
  • You won't need to train Starbase Defense Management to assume direct control. One player will control all defenses at once. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be removed (and reimbursed) or properly refurbished when we remove Starbases.
  • New structures will not have automated defenses.
  • Rest of the defense mechanics are explained there.

.....
........

[/list]
28th October was a long time back; any updates/responses to the feedback given here and elsewhere? Tethering for example, needs to be flipped the other way around to what is proposed here (ship stays tethered, not the capsule).

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

Lyra Gerie
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#202 - 2016-02-07 21:29:10 UTC
I believe the main point of these structures should be to make resources more available but also less secure. The overall goal should be greater production than low or high sec space, even possibly wormhole space. However it should come at the cost of security. In high sec or even low sec it makes sense that there is empire protection over some resources, after all it's space owned by the empires. However these new structures should be focused on extracting the maximum amount of resources while being able to be raided or stolen from. I don't mean just by use of something gimicky like a siphon but rather making these structures more similar to the ESS in nature.

This would mean that while structures collect more, especially when manned, unmanned they are extremely vulnerable, like an unpiloted ship. Anyone could take partial control and raid it's contents perhaps with a simple hacking game or two. All the contents could not be taken in one raid however, maybe something like 10-25% depending on how successful hacks were and such. but given that their main strength would be obtained when manned, if groups really wanted to procure as much resources as possible they should be consistantly manned rather then auto gathering.

This would encourage conflict around boarder systems and give pirate raiders in lowsec an additional reason to venture outside of low. It would also give smaller entities the ability to hurt larger ones that are less organized or have renters that are less reliable for defense. Further this gives little reason to truely destroy many of these kinds of structures as they can be more profitable to keep alive unless the attackers are planning on taking sov or really want to hurt enemy production.
Hafwolf
Krieg 7th Brigade
Darwinism.
#203 - 2016-02-08 17:03:48 UTC
Hey just a crazy Idea for a new structure.

How about a mobile docking rig. Its a personal structure that can has enough room to dock 1 super cap. It has a 50k m3 storage bay.

Now it does not have guns or and larger structure protection. It has a 48 hour reinforce timer. It would be a short stay tactical docking for capitals and super capitals for people that are more Mobile need to dock there ship for short time periods.

Basically it just looks like a large truss box that the ships are inside.

It would be cool if you could anchor this structure within the gun range of a new citadel.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Noctis
Shoot First.
#204 - 2016-02-08 22:54:00 UTC
Concerning the item safety mechanics: I'd suggest highsec (and maybe lowsec) take on the same mechanics as w-space, with hangars dropping loot upon destruction. Having seen just how many derelict towers exist in highsec, I'd hate to see abandoned citadels cluttering up space just as much. By making undefended citadels potential loot sources, you'd create a driver for conflict in highsec AND keep space a lot cleaner. After all, this isn't null. Highsec is littered with NPC stations that could have held all that stuff.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

aldhura
Blackjack and Exotic Dancers
Top Tier
#205 - 2016-02-09 02:09:57 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Concerning the item safety mechanics: I'd suggest highsec (and maybe lowsec) take on the same mechanics as w-space, with hangars dropping loot upon destruction. Having seen just how many derelict towers exist in highsec, I'd hate to see abandoned citadels cluttering up space just as much. By making undefended citadels potential loot sources, you'd create a driver for conflict in highsec AND keep space a lot cleaner. After all, this isn't null. Highsec is littered with NPC stations that could have held all that stuff.



I have a sneaky suspicion that HS stations are going to become a thing of the past or change vastly to encourage (force) players to put up the new structures, kinda just makes sense with the comments from CCP saying citadels will have system wide influence and comments like that.
But agree.. space junk must be made removable\lootable.
But hey, the sky is falling.. so drop and cover!!!!
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#206 - 2016-02-11 11:14:49 UTC
If players dont free up all their assets over time, will there be decay on delivery packages? (on destruction)

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

Anthar Thebess
#207 - 2016-02-11 15:36:23 UTC
TheSmokingHertog wrote:
If players dont free up all their assets over time, will there be decay on delivery packages? (on destruction)

Probably not, i hope not.
This is a game, and people have RL.
Hospitals, schools, deployments, delegations, family issues - in so many cases you simply cannot do some things in game as RL > EVE.

In NPC space stations, or safe storage space need to stay.
People who know that they will be away for longer usually store all stuff there preparing for this.
There are also other reasons.
Imagine yourself SOE , Mordus , Fountan NPC, Stain or any other NPC space if CCP make stations there destructible.
Sov alliances living near, will simply clear all NPC installations living all this space empty.
Less raids, less lost mining ships, less BO gangs, hard deployment against them.

Citadel will not be the answer, as they will be killed at first reinforcement.
To be a threat to sov groups you need to drop Large citadel to store capitals, how many groups can afford to replace L size citadel on weekly basis?

Perfect solution for me is to strip all NPC stations in Lowsec and Nullsec from production related services and force people who decide to live there to put citadels to compensate this.

Tau Rollard
Dynamic Security Solutions
#208 - 2016-02-13 04:32:32 UTC
As a wormhole resident i can understand the reason why citadels in wormhole will not be allowed clone jumping/medical clones as we have them in highsec but i would prefer there be some wiggle room. A compromise.

Make the clone jump system one way. From high sec to wh or the reverse. the point is to allow us wormhole dwellers the ability to come back and forth, while still maintaining a degree of difficulty.

Or in the case of allowing clone jumping why not make it so we cannot install clones in the bay but leave a clone like we do in stations without clone bays that we jump out of.

Or instead of allowing any clone, only allow clones without implants to be used in a special clone bay for wormhole.

Either way i would accept any ridiculous difficulty if it allows us wh residents the same chance to enjoy what citadels can do. This citadel "light" or "diet" approach leaves a bad taste and makes it almost pointless to bring a citadel into wh space. And the point of citadels is to propel us to actually colonize space!

Make it difficult, but let us actually enjoy it!
Fifth Dimension
Fractured Glory
Unspoken Alliance.
#209 - 2016-02-26 11:25:24 UTC
So can i walk in station now?
Nicola Romanoff
Tannhauser C-Beam
#210 - 2016-02-28 16:43:22 UTC
Will the construction of citadels involve any of the P4 PI products? Also, and I may have asked this before but don’t recall, once citadels come out will POS be defunked or will POS still be a thing?
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#211 - 2016-02-29 03:24:03 UTC
Nicola Romanoff wrote:
Will the construction of citadels involve any of the P4 PI products? Also, and I may have asked this before but don’t recall, once citadels come out will POS be defunked or will POS still be a thing?



The inputs for BPO's were release din a blog some months ago, yes P4 is a huge input

POS will eventually go away replaced by structures, Citadels is the first of 9 new structures that will replace POS and outposts
Alex Harumichi
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
#212 - 2016-02-29 07:48:39 UTC
Any info on whether jump freighters will be able to dock into medium citadels, or if that requires a large one?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#213 - 2016-02-29 19:34:36 UTC
Tau Rollard wrote:
As a wormhole resident i can understand the reason why citadels in wormhole will not be allowed clone jumping/medical clones as we have them in highsec but i would prefer there be some wiggle room. A compromise.

Make the clone jump system one way. From high sec to wh or the reverse. the point is to allow us wormhole dwellers the ability to come back and forth, while still maintaining a degree of difficulty.

Or in the case of allowing clone jumping why not make it so we cannot install clones in the bay but leave a clone like we do in stations without clone bays that we jump out of.

Or instead of allowing any clone, only allow clones without implants to be used in a special clone bay for wormhole.

Either way i would accept any ridiculous difficulty if it allows us wh residents the same chance to enjoy what citadels can do. This citadel "light" or "diet" approach leaves a bad taste and makes it almost pointless to bring a citadel into wh space. And the point of citadels is to propel us to actually colonize space!

Make it difficult, but let us actually enjoy it!


i myself have no objection to jumping out of a hole but you should not be able to jump in ever sieges are going to be hard enough with podding ppl out going to be one of the only options

from what i understand we will be able to swap clones in the citadel just not jump out of it
Lugh Crow-Slave
#214 - 2016-02-29 19:35:24 UTC
Alex Harumichi wrote:
Any info on whether jump freighters will be able to dock into medium citadels, or if that requires a large one?


read the quote at top of this page
Grotest the1st Panacan
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2016-03-03 17:46:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Grotest the1st Panacan
Lyra Gerie wrote:
I believe the main point of these structures should be to make resources more available but also less secure. The overall goal should be greater production than low or high sec space, even possibly wormhole space. However it should come at the cost of security. In high sec or even low sec it makes sense that there is empire protection over some resources, after all it's space owned by the empires. However these new structures should be focused on extracting the maximum amount of resources while being able to be raided or stolen from. I don't mean just by use of something gimicky like a siphon but rather making these structures more similar to the ESS in nature.

This would mean that while structures collect more, especially when manned, unmanned they are extremely vulnerable, like an unpiloted ship. Anyone could take partial control and raid it's contents perhaps with a simple hacking game or two. All the contents could not be taken in one raid however, maybe something like 10-25% depending on how successful hacks were and such. but given that their main strength would be obtained when manned, if groups really wanted to procure as much resources as possible they should be consistantly manned rather then auto gathering.

This would encourage conflict around boarder systems and give pirate raiders in lowsec an additional reason to venture outside of low. It would also give smaller entities the ability to hurt larger ones that are less organized or have renters that are less reliable for defense. Further this gives little reason to truely destroy many of these kinds of structures as they can be more profitable to keep alive unless the attackers are planning on taking sov or really want to hurt enemy production.


Well not everyone is in large alliances or corps. Furthermore not all corps feature 90% combat pilots.

Personally i can't stand the combat in eve, but i love the system build around miners/industrialists/haulers with everything included(ganks, intel and so on). When citadels hits though i'm gonna be screwed big time.

Since i don't have many combat pilots in my corp and POS shields are a thing of the past, i won't see any rorq's, orca's hell i wouldn't even fly my skiff. Everytime i get ganked in null(3 times so far because i wasn't paying attention) thats 3 full loads for a proc, 30 for a skiff and a small eternity for a rorq/orca. My alliance won't come to save me so the discussed invoulnerability module might as well be dupped "useless button" that will only extend my life a few minutes.

Adding something like this would mean most industrialists/miners would retreat to highsec because the large risk proposed does not corrispond to the increase in profit.

Citadels are still getting fleshed out i know, and my oppinion might be unpopular but i don't want my playstyle to be removed from null.

Once you go slack, you never go back. Team is meat spelled backwards.

Distrustfull, Paranoid and Compulsive Miner

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#216 - 2016-03-04 00:15:44 UTC
Grotest the1st Panacan wrote:


Since i don't have many combat pilots in my corp and POS shields are a thing of the past, i won't see any rorq's, orca's hell i wouldn't even fly my skiff. Everytime i get ganked in null(3 times so far because i wasn't paying attention) thats 3 full loads for a proc, 30 for a skiff and a small eternity for a rorq/orca. My alliance won't come to save me so the discussed invoulnerability module might as well be dupped "useless button" that will only extend my life a few minutes.


If your alliance won't come help you save a Rorqual, you might want to find a new alliance.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Grotest the1st Panacan
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2016-03-04 12:27:10 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:

If your alliance won't come help you save a Rorqual, you might want to find a new alliance.


Think you're missing the point here. Ally's would like to help, maybe they can help me if it's just a single or a small gang, but a fleet is simply gonna kill me.

These changes means a mid or low sized player organisations are gonna be forced into high or assimilate into other's.

Once you go slack, you never go back. Team is meat spelled backwards.

Distrustfull, Paranoid and Compulsive Miner

Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#218 - 2016-03-04 18:03:16 UTC
Grotest the1st Panacan wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:

If your alliance won't come help you save a Rorqual, you might want to find a new alliance.


Think you're missing the point here. Ally's would like to help, maybe they can help me if it's just a single or a small gang, but a fleet is simply gonna kill me.

These changes means a mid or low sized player organisations are gonna be forced into high or assimilate into other's.


You're in Care Factor mate, when I lived in 1-1 we often had to run to assist them. That is the one downside of living in provibloc and its politics. For the most part you are all independents and only at the risk of Sov will the forces roll out. If you want a group that will protect your Assets I would head GFA , VOLT, -7- any of your versatile groups. Also You are in a Coalition, the problem isn't the factor of you having Small or Large or even combat pilots in your alliance or corp, the problem is no true communication or cohesion is done. It's one of the many reasons I ditched provi and shifted my operations to PB.

These Citadel changes arent going to be your issue. Your problem will be AOE links not a reinforce mode. Our Rorqs/orcas/booster of choice will soon be On-Grid only. If you are in X-radius of booster you receive bonus. If you are a Mining group in Null/Low/Hi/WH space is no different. Your booster will be on grid and your fleet near it. That Reinforce timer is built so if you DO get hit in the belt.. you can Hopefully get a fleet over to you. Contact one of the FC's, grab someone from Golden fleet, find anyone to come to your aid. 5 minutes is a long time on grid for a PVP group. It's also ample time to get a response fleet to you, pending your location and how well your liked. If you are in a good group, It's all hands on deck when a capital is tackled (depending on capital and reason of how). If tethering and reinforce are already causing issues, you're in for a world of shock soon™
Thalesia
System lords Collective
#219 - 2016-03-24 15:21:49 UTC
Is there going to be a sov restriction on super capital production? or station sieze restriction?
Soltys
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#220 - 2016-03-26 02:26:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Soltys
In context of item safety (I think I mentioned it in one of the older threads), I'd suggest perhaps a mixed approach:

Instead of flat 10% of item value retrieval cost, subject the items to specific loot fairy rules while removing magic transport fees altogether

- HS: some flat value between 1% and 5% (TBD) - so each stack has that chance to be dropped on citadel's destruction, the rest is transported as per devblog rules (no fees)

- LS: depending on security, from 6% (0.4) to 9% (0.1) - as above

- NPC null: 10% - as above

- SOV null: to be perfectly honest, if w-space enjoys 100% loot fairy rule, I see little reason why this should be any different in those regions of space; either way - something notably larger than 10%

The advantages I can see from this:

- proper carrot for attackers (and really big carrot for serious alliance vs alliance warfare)
- blowing your own stuff (as someone mentioned earlier) to get magic courier service looks much less interesting

Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl & Kuvl