These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Proposed Structure Combat Mechanics Revision Suite

Author
Evelgrivion
Origin.
Fraternity.
#1 - 2017-04-30 18:25:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Citadels have been around for a year and they're pretty good, but a few significant issues have made themselves known:

  • The three-timer event mechanics is rather tedious and requires no effort on the part of the structure owner to maintain
  • Sovereignty has very little relevance in the current game mechanics
  • Time Zone Tanking of structures often prevents conflict from taking place

I'd like to address these issues with a set of revisions to structure vulnerability windows, structure timers, and sovereignty tie-ins. They do not need to be implemented together, but taken as a whole, can significantly improve the quality of life of the attacker and defender, and help restore value to having sovereignty.

1. Add Fuel Block Consumption to Structure Shields

Structures currently require no upkeep; an abandoned Citadel or Engineering Complex takes just as many man hours to take down as a fully occupied and utilized structure. By adding a single fuel block per hour to structure shields, a constant upkeep cost is added to reduce the value of structure spam, while allowing active structures to maintain their current defenses.

2. Apply ADM Multiplication to Damage Caps Through Access Lists

Aegis sovereignty's distinctions between your capital, busy home systems, and idle backwaters is one of the highlights of the system, but it has no impact or relevance to structures. Attaching the damage cap to Activity Defense Multipliers restores some value to sovereignty itself, and opens the door to increasing the base damage cap value; a 50% or 100% increase in the base damage cap would not go amiss if ADMs begin to affect structures.

While the ADM effects could strictly be applied to in-alliance structures, there are more gameplay opportunities in assigning these multipliers through Access Lists, ranging from sovereignty overlords offering defenses to their protectorates, to rogue directors shutting down the defenses without instantly giving themselves away to the ones they've betrayed. Twisted

3. Coincident Structure Vulnerability Windows with Territorial Claim Unit and Infrastructure Hub Timers

With carrots, must come sticks - and the opportunity to solve two problems at once. Blink Player assigned vulnerability windows make it very difficult to attack alliances that live outside of your own alliance's most active hours. Previous sovereignty and asset defense mechanics included elements outside of the defender's control, ranging from random exit times to fixed reinforcement timers, but hours of attack outside of their control. We can add the former to Structures by attaching a vulnerability timer to the start of Entosis based Node Events. With this mechanic, defenders can be forced to react outside of strictly controlled hours. More importantly, the attacking fleets in a structure node contest have the opportunity to participate in the attack, beyond chasing down the fleets who are hunting down and destroying your own entosis ships.

In Conclusion

While not all of these ideas need to be implemented, the set would serve to reduce the burden of attacking abandoned infrastructure, restore meaning towards and re-balance the state of sovereignty warfare, create entirely new mechanisms for player interaction, and alleviate the frequent complaint that Node Warfare is boring for the attacker.

Thank you for reading. Smile
Crazy Vania
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#2 - 2017-04-30 19:17:59 UTC
I agree with 1 and 2.

Not sure I understand 3, but you're right in saying time zone tanking needs to be fixed somehow.
Evelgrivion
Origin.
Fraternity.
#3 - 2017-04-30 19:24:12 UTC
Crazy Vania wrote:
I agree with 1 and 2.

Not sure I understand 3, but you're right in saying time zone tanking needs to be fixed somehow.


Number three means that if you reinforce a TCU or Ihub, the structures that are inside of the system (all of them) have a vulnerability window that starts at the same, randomly generated time as the node event.
Wallymarts
Drop the Soap
Pandemic Legion
#4 - 2017-04-30 20:36:20 UTC
Since this isnt reddit, i guess i will be serious


1) I completely agree with the fuel being used for the shields. POS shields were reliant on being fueled, why not citadels? If you cant fuel your citadel, then why should you get that free buffer?


2) I like this as well. Im assuming you mean the higher the ADM in the System, the owner gets a smaller Damage cap (Extending how long each timer takes to siege down) and invaders get a higher Damage cap (so their structures can be sieged down quicker) I agree with this.

Setting this up for access lists would open a lot of possibilities as well.

3) Im not really sure how this could be carried out. For instance, if i am an EU entity and my prime times are 1600-1900 and that is what my sov is linked to with decent ADM's. I re read your point a couple times but i dont fully understand how you could force a timer outside of the set vulnerability timers for a group. Unless you are saying get rid of that ability? Structures would not have a set time, but if something gets entosis'd in the system, the citadel will ALSO be vulnerable?


Timezone Tanking is a bit of an annoyance. Groups are forced to wait on friday to entosis (or thursday actually) To get a decent timer for Saturday/Sunday. Kind of silly, but then again it IS sov and shouldnt be very easy to take in the first place.


Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#5 - 2017-04-30 20:40:45 UTC
Point 1) just adds more logistics burden to the WH dwellers, but if Drilling Rigs allowed us to rip ice from moons then that would mitigate this.

How would point 2) and point 3) apply in WH's? I'm assuming no change in 2) and 3) would mean that vulnerability stays the same for citadels outside of sovereignty areas since we can only contrl space by force of arms anyway?
Evelgrivion
Origin.
Fraternity.
#6 - 2017-04-30 20:43:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Wallymarts wrote:
3) Im not really sure how this could be carried out. For instance, if i am an EU entity and my prime times are 1600-1900 and that is what my sov is linked to with decent ADM's. I re read your point a couple times but i dont fully understand how you could force a timer outside of the set vulnerability timers for a group. Unless you are saying get rid of that ability? Structures would not have a set time, but if something gets entosis'd in the system, the citadel will ALSO be vulnerable?


Timezone Tanking is a bit of an annoyance. Groups are forced to wait on friday to entosis (or thursday actually) To get a decent timer for Saturday/Sunday. Kind of silly, but then again it IS sov and shouldnt be very easy to take in the first place.


It's not a hard force, but it goes like this:

  1. Alliance A has sovereignty of a solar system
  2. Alliance A and Alliance B both have Citadels inside of this solar system
  3. Alliance C comes along and successfully reinforces the TCU using an Entosis Link
  4. The TCU is assigned an exit timer of 02:25 by the sov system
  5. Two days later, when the nodes go live at 02:25, Alliance A's and Alliance B's Citadels become vulnerable to attack.
  6. Alliance C's Citadel happens to be attacked at this time. A damage cap is inherited from the ADM of the system Access List for the rest of the event. The rest of the structure combat rules for Armor reinforcement and the final structure timer will proceed as normal, from the time of reinforcement.

The randomization against Time Zone Tanking comes from the lack of direct control over Aegis Sovereignty exit timers.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Point 1) just adds more logistics burden to the WH dwellers, but if Drilling Rigs allowed us to rip ice from moons then that would mitigate this.

How would point 2) and point 3) apply in WH's? I'm assuming no change in 2) and 3) would mean that vulnerability stays the same for citadels outside of sovereignty areas since we can only contrl space by force of arms anyway?


No real design impact or intent is meant for Wormholes or Lowsec. The default damage cap in all areas of space may or may not be adjusted as needed for balancing purposes, but it's not my purpose to change the life cycle of Citadels outside of nullsec.
Elohsa Peanut
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2017-05-01 00:05:45 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Point 1) just adds more logistics burden to the WH dwellers, but if Drilling Rigs allowed us to rip ice from moons then that would mitigate this.



since its 1 block per hour, even a single DST could fuel a citadel for over a year.
(50k m3/ 5m per block / 24 hours = 416 days)
I'd even add max fuel bay for 90 days to still prevent a citadel being alive for a year without interaction.
Your WH logistic team would only need to ship in fuel once a year :)



Evelgrivion wrote:

Wallymarts wrote:

3) Im not really sure how this could be carried out. For instance, if i am an EU entity and my prime times are 1600-1900 and that is what my sov is linked to with decent ADM's. I re read your point a couple times but i dont fully understand how you could force a timer outside of the set vulnerability timers for a group. Unless you are saying get rid of that ability? Structures would not have a set time, but if something gets entosis'd in the system, the citadel will ALSO be vulnerable?


Timezone Tanking is a bit of an annoyance. Groups are forced to wait on friday to entosis (or thursday actually) To get a decent timer for Saturday/Sunday. Kind of silly, but then again it IS sov and shouldnt be very easy to take in the first place.



It's not a hard force, but it goes like this:


Alliance A has sovereignty of a solar system
Alliance A and Alliance B both have Citadels inside of this solar system
Alliance C comes along and successfully reinforces the TCU using an Entosis Link
The TCU is assigned an exit timer of 02:25 by the sov system
Two days later, when the nodes go live at 02:25, Alliance A's and Alliance B's Citadels become vulnerable to attack.
Alliance C's Citadel happens to be attacked at this time. A damage cap is inherited from the ADM of the system Access List for the rest of the event. The rest of the structure combat rules for Armor reinforcement and the final structure timer will proceed as normal, from the time of reinforcement.


The randomization against Time Zone Tanking comes from the lack of direct control over Aegis Sovereignty exit timers.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Point 1) just adds more logistics burden to the WH dwellers, but if Drilling Rigs allowed us to rip ice from moons then that would mitigate this.

How would point 2) and point 3) apply in WH's? I'm assuming no change in 2) and 3) would mean that vulnerability stays the same for citadels outside of sovereignty areas since we can only contrl space by force of arms anyway?



No real design impact or intent is meant for Wormholes or Lowsec. The default damage cap in all areas of space may or may not be adjusted as needed for balancing purposes, but it's not my purpose to change the life cycle of Citadels outside of nullsec.


Having structures become vulnerable after entosising something is a bad idea.
You shouldnt have to attack someone sov to be able to take down their structures.

I'd like the ADM to have effect on the vulnerability window set.
The lower the ADM, the more time gets added to the set vuln-windows

ADM 0 +5h
ADM 1 +4h
ADM 2 +3h
etc


For example:
System A has ADM 0
The structure has a vulnerability window from 15.00-16.00
The actual vuln window would be 12.30-18.30 (set 1h+5h)

System B has ADM 1
The structure has a vulnerability window from 15.00-16.00
The actual vuln window would be 13.00-18.00 (set 1h+4h)


Cade Windstalker
#8 - 2017-05-01 14:46:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
This has kinda been done to death in other threads, so I'll be brief.

  1. Not really needed. Citadels have a high up-front cost where as POSes back-loaded the cost in fuel blocks. A POS is cheaper to set up but more expensive to fuel in the long run. Also it's likely that a change like this would have a massive impact on the fuel market and would require CCP to mess around with ice products since currently the ice market is barely keeping up with demand as is, even with Rorquals gobbling every glacier they can find.

  2. The vast majority of places where Citadels appear don't have ADMs, and places like High Sec or W-Space don't need the damage cap raised. Again, this is just an issue with the timer setup currently, the damage cap is not an issue.

  3. And again, but more so, most places Citadels are anchored do not have Sov. Except this one not only runs into issues where there is no Sov, but it also is easily circumvented by putting your Citadels in a different Corp or Alliance from the one actually holding space. On top of that, as has been discussed repeatedly, the issue with the timer placement isn't that defenders get to set their own window, it's a lack of incentive to have it at a time the defenders will actually be around to defend combined with the lack of ability to even hit the first timer on the attacker's clock.

  4. Removing most of the control defenders have over when a fight happens just removes the ability for the majority of entities in Eve to use these structures, since most corps and alliances aren't large enough to have anything like 24/7 coverage, and these days most probably don't have the ability to pull an alarm clock defense, since real life work trumps Eve work.



Yes, the general consensus is that CCP dialed things too far towards the defenders with this iteration of Citadel timers. This can be fairly easily fixed with relatively small adjustments in mechanics though, not massive swinging changes.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#9 - 2017-05-02 08:04:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Evelgrivion wrote:
1. Add Fuel Block Consumption to Structure Shields

How about not adding this utterly annoying tedium to the structures and instead do it this way: The damage cap feature becomes an actively managed function of the structure. You have to renew its active status every couple of weeks, let's say for the sake of argument every 5 weeks. If you do not do that, the damage cap of the structure turns off and you can kill it with as many supers you like in the blink of an eye. The damage cap cannot be turned on or off during a vulnerability window.

A 5 weeks timer (again only exemplary number) gives enough time to bridge an inactivity gap due to RL issues without being too much time for smaller attackers to lose interest. And it is a lot less time than a fuel block based shield activity status which can go on for months and months (under the assumption of 1 Block per hour, 1440 fuel blocks give you 2 months of active shield) as well as easier to manage for the holder. Graphical indicators on the model or a line in the Show Info's attributes tab can indicate the damage cap activity status.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#10 - 2017-05-12 12:07:49 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:

  • Sovereignty has very little relevance in the current game mechanics]



  • Just wanted to say


    This is not s bad thing. In fact it should be ccps main goal. The point of a system should be that it's a place you can put down infrastructure to buster you're alliances capabilities. Sov and ownership should become more of an abstract concept. Where you own a system because you say you do.

    Do this and toy don't need any fancy exploitable sov mechanics. You don't need to add things like adms to reward "living in" systems because you take away any reason to hold any empty system.

    You can still have benefits for holding a system for x amount of time but do it more organically. Rather than needing x amount of time to install an upgrade give a structure x amount of anchoring.
    Rowells
    Blackwater USA Inc.
    Pandemic Horde
    #11 - 2017-05-12 17:38:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
    For number 3, I personally prefer that invul timers be removed altogether and use RF exit timers instead. Throw that on top of the number of timer scaling with the structure and you've got an actual scaling system of defense capability for different sized structures,

    While the method for number 1 may make people cringe to think of logistics involved, I definitely believe that abandoned structures need to lose some of their strength. With real-estate being almost infinite now, the harder we make it to kill them the more and more trash we'll accumulate. I wouldn't want to see this problem try to be addressed years down the road when the problem is even worse and harder to deal with.