These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scott Ormands
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2015-05-12 16:28:28 UTC
few questions.

1. Larges; if we cant dock caps in them then how will we keep them in WH space especially since it seems that XL's are going to replace stations and hence wont really be allowed in HW's, plus they are supposed to be very expensive.

2. Vulnerability window; how will that work in WH space where we cant claim SOV to boost our indicies to reduce our vulberability timer.

3. Will the office, cloning, and market functions work in WH space.

4. How will these structures accommodate or replace the current practice in WH's to have Squad POS's with members of each POS having a specific corp hanger division assigned to them and their alts.

EX. 10 members are living in a WH, each with multiple alts, there are two towers with 5 members assigned to each with secret passwords to restrict access to those assigned. In tower 1 Scott is assigned division 5 and the other members are assigned the remainder. Scott has 4 alts and each of them have the same hanger division assigned allowing for easy consolidation of modules and items such as PI and minerals/Ore. Will this functionality be preserved?

5. How will ship storage be maintained, will it be similar to the current SMA mechanics or will it be more like stations with hangers divided restricted to each character. Maybe a combination of each allow you the option to set up shared hangers?

Thanks
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#62 - 2015-05-12 16:29:09 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
First, I have to say I am super excited about the path structures are taking!

The impression I get is that the defenses will have the option to be managed by a player to operate? Is that correct? If a player does interact with the defenses will they take standings loss for shooting something like they would if they were in a normal ship?

Example: AoE weapon is activated by myself with a mix of enemy and friendly ships/drones nearby (friendlies forgot to ball up, undocked, etc). Will my standings be absolutely torched?


Unlike existing Starbases, you won't need multiple guys to operate the weapons. Those structures will be like ships, so you will only need one guy to control them all. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be reworked into something else or refunded when Starbases are removed.

Regarding standings, this would in essence be the same situatin than launching a bomb into a pack of friendlies Twisted. Those are AoE weapons, be careful where you shoot them.


The lack of automated defenses is disconcerting specifically as it relates to wormhole space and smaller corporations trying to build up or start out in low-class wormhole space. Wormhole space has unique challenges related to system access that are not present in k-space. There is no option to med clone to your home system, cyno behind an enemy gate camp, or otherwise return to your structure if you are podded out from your wormhole. A small number of aggressors can effectively block out an equally small corporation from being able to effectively access their system after a minor skirmish of opportunity. And given that the aggressor need only bring small ships to reinforce structures, the lack of any kind of automated defense to discourage such griefing behavior is very concerning. These possibilities could essential force smaller entities to "bunker down" during their vulnerability window daily to avoid being locked out and to defend against a minuscule attacking force.

I strongly believe that these structures need to have some level of automatic, even if marginally ineffective to deter casual reinforcement in wormhole space where defenders are at a distinct geographical disadvantage due to how wormhole space operates.


We have been discussing the idea of a module that recruits pirate spawns to defend against people entosis linking your structure, but ultimately how customizable the timezone mechanics are will be the key here.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2015-05-12 16:30:11 UTC
Vacant Glare wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Are these things intended to have offices and markets? I'm sort of puzzled by what looks like a deathstar pos replacement being in the 'old' office/market category and trying to wrap my head around what exactly this is going to do.
This will be the most easily defended structure, and have bonuses to office capacity and market functionality.

The intention is this is the best place to put all your stuff, hence it has the most fortress like appearance.
How can it be the best place to put your market trade stuff if it can be destroyed. No marketeer is going to have 10's of billions in assets in a structure that can blow up while there on vacation

I think I recall either in the last fanfest or in a blog that your stuff will not be destroyed if the structure is destroyed. Your personal containers will be jettisoned out into space and only you or I suppose authorized players will be able to pick it up.
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#64 - 2015-05-12 16:32:18 UTC
Vacant Glare wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Are these things intended to have offices and markets? I'm sort of puzzled by what looks like a deathstar pos replacement being in the 'old' office/market category and trying to wrap my head around what exactly this is going to do.
This will be the most easily defended structure, and have bonuses to office capacity and market functionality.

The intention is this is the best place to put all your stuff, hence it has the most fortress like appearance.
How can it be the best place to put your market trade stuff if it can be destroyed. No marketeer is going to have 10's of billions in assets in a structure that can blow up while there on vacation


We have yet to release a lot of details about this, but there will be an element of asset safety so you don't lose everything when it explodes.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2015-05-12 16:32:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Max Kolonko
Thank You CCP. Very excited to see this replace my old POS in WH, so here are some WH related (but also some general) questions about those new structures:


  • Can I anchor them anywhere (appart from some proximity restrictions). Does it have to be moons or can I put them at any spot in space. Can I have more than one on one grid?
  • Can I use market functionality in WH?
  • Can I store ships and items inside just like in stations? Will those be in "corporate" hangar or will I get access to personal hangar like in stations.
  • What about access to corp assets? Will it work like current (or similar to) corp hangar mechanics in stations?
  • How will vulnerability window work for WH? We dont have system upgrades to reduce our window of vulnerability
  • Will citadel be able to shot without anyone piloting the guns?
  • Will there be fuell requirement. And if yes how will it work when structure go offile in terms of destroying it with entosis link? Today if I forgot to fuell my pos and some start to shoot it it will give me still some time to log back, fuell and online it (risking being killed ofc). How this will work with entosis link and offline structures?
  • Will there be a way for attacker to know how many people are inside structure docked and in what ships? (i.e. warping to a pos and assessing defense forces)
  • When docked will I be able to see space or will I have some sort of station intertior? (HINT: We want to be able to see our surrounding, even if optionally)
  • X-L structures in WH?
  • How will refitting work for structures? If I'm under attack or about to be attacked can I swap my guns or something? Will there be a delay before new setup will take effect?
  • pls add some loot drop. Wormholeres dont attack poses for "production materials" and cant stay in system for weeks waititng for defenders to scoop loot
  • WHEN????!!!!

Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#66 - 2015-05-12 16:33:22 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
First, I have to say I am super excited about the path structures are taking!

The impression I get is that the defenses will have the option to be managed by a player to operate? Is that correct? If a player does interact with the defenses will they take standings loss for shooting something like they would if they were in a normal ship?

Example: AoE weapon is activated by myself with a mix of enemy and friendly ships/drones nearby (friendlies forgot to ball up, undocked, etc). Will my standings be absolutely torched?


Unlike existing Starbases, you won't need multiple guys to operate the weapons. Those structures will be like ships, so you will only need one guy to control them all. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be reworked into something else or refunded when Starbases are removed.

Regarding standings, this would in essence be the same situatin than launching a bomb into a pack of friendlies Twisted. Those are AoE weapons, be careful where you shoot them.


The lack of automated defenses is disconcerting specifically as it relates to wormhole space and smaller corporations trying to build up or start out in low-class wormhole space. Wormhole space has unique challenges related to system access that are not present in k-space. There is no option to med clone to your home system, cyno behind an enemy gate camp, or otherwise return to your structure if you are podded out from your wormhole. A small number of aggressors can effectively block out an equally small corporation from being able to effectively access their system after a minor skirmish of opportunity. And given that the aggressor need only bring small ships to reinforce structures, the lack of any kind of automated defense to discourage such griefing behavior is very concerning. These possibilities could essential force smaller entities to "bunker down" during their vulnerability window daily to avoid being locked out and to defend against a minuscule attacking force.

I strongly believe that these structures need to have some level of automatic, even if marginally ineffective to deter casual reinforcement in wormhole space where defenders are at a distinct geographical disadvantage due to how wormhole space operates.



They could just let us jump clone into wormholes at long last?

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2015-05-12 16:33:31 UTC
BadAssMcKill wrote:
I feel like you should have gone with shooting instead of entosis to maybe give dreads a use or something like that


I'm not sure you understand the entire purpose and premise of the structure/e-link overhaul.

Suffice to say, if they had made this choice, they would have no work to do, because it already exists.
Scott Ormands
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2015-05-12 16:35:00 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
First, I have to say I am super excited about the path structures are taking!

The impression I get is that the defenses will have the option to be managed by a player to operate? Is that correct? If a player does interact with the defenses will they take standings loss for shooting something like they would if they were in a normal ship?

Example: AoE weapon is activated by myself with a mix of enemy and friendly ships/drones nearby (friendlies forgot to ball up, undocked, etc). Will my standings be absolutely torched?


Unlike existing Starbases, you won't need multiple guys to operate the weapons. Those structures will be like ships, so you will only need one guy to control them all. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be reworked into something else or refunded when Starbases are removed.

Regarding standings, this would in essence be the same situatin than launching a bomb into a pack of friendlies Twisted. Those are AoE weapons, be careful where you shoot them.


The lack of automated defenses is disconcerting specifically as it relates to wormhole space and smaller corporations trying to build up or start out in low-class wormhole space. Wormhole space has unique challenges related to system access that are not present in k-space. There is no option to med clone to your home system, cyno behind an enemy gate camp, or otherwise return to your structure if you are podded out from your wormhole. A small number of aggressors can effectively block out an equally small corporation from being able to effectively access their system after a minor skirmish of opportunity. And given that the aggressor need only bring small ships to reinforce structures, the lack of any kind of automated defense to discourage such griefing behavior is very concerning. These possibilities could essential force smaller entities to "bunker down" during their vulnerability window daily to avoid being locked out and to defend against a minuscule attacking force.

I strongly believe that these structures need to have some level of automatic, even if marginally ineffective to deter casual reinforcement in wormhole space where defenders are at a distinct geographical disadvantage due to how wormhole space operates.


We have been discussing the idea of a module that recruits pirate spawns to defend against people entosis linking your structure, but ultimately how customizable the timezone mechanics are will be the key here.


But how would that work in WH space. If I can recruit Sleepless guardians to defend me I'm going to call it now and predict people farming off of an alt's defended tower.
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#69 - 2015-05-12 16:36:43 UTC
I like those designs a lot.

Would it be possible to have multiple designs for structures, so players can choose which one they want and make different systems have a different look to them, instead of seeing the same structure everywhere?

Baddest poster ever
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#70 - 2015-05-12 16:37:26 UTC
will it be configurable if it should appear on the overview or not? One main purpose of it is the functionality as trade hub. And i guess there will be many of those structures around. Things like docking rights, availability of the trade module and visibility of the structure itself must be somehow communicated to the players.

Standing based visibility on the overview? Please don't make us open show info every time.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#71 - 2015-05-12 16:37:40 UTC
Will they require fuel?

JUSTK is recruiting
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#72 - 2015-05-12 16:38:48 UTC
handige harrie wrote:
I like those designs a lot.

Would it be possible to have multiple designs for structures, so players can choose which one they want and make different systems have a different look to them, instead of seeing the same structure everywhere?


That is sort of the point with the different classes, each size and each class will be a different hull like ships.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#73 - 2015-05-12 16:40:07 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:


We have been discussing the idea of a module that recruits pirate spawns to defend against people entosis linking your structure, but ultimately how customizable the timezone mechanics are will be the key here.


a module which ejects a corpse every now and then to bait drifters :P

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#74 - 2015-05-12 16:40:14 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
will it be configurable if it should appear on the overview or not? One main purpose of it is the functionality as trade hub. And i guess there will be many of those structures around. Things like docking rights, availability of the trade module and visibility of the structure itself must be somehow communicated to the players.

Standing based visibility on the overview? Please don't make us open show info every time.


I would like to show them on the overview if you have access to them yes. We'll have to see if that is at all possible though.

Otherwise a structure browser would provide that functionality.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#75 - 2015-05-12 16:40:19 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Looks good - in particular seems to sooth some of the concerns over Supercapital security (especially if docking gets the go-ahead), and some of those weapon systems sound damn good (in particular the aoe missiles, point defences, and structure doomsdays).

I agree that it seems a little odd that these are being touted as the "market/office structure" given that it feels more like a military staging base, but I'll trust you know what you are doing there.

In all, and encouraging start.

Which is probably why they are calling them Citadels instead now. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2015-05-12 16:40:53 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
Will they require fuel?

For the X-Large structures I heard Amarr citadels will require capsuleer corpses.
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#77 - 2015-05-12 16:41:04 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
Will they require fuel?


Yes but the amount of fuel will depend on the fittings, and they will remain online without fuel (the services will go offline though).

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
#78 - 2015-05-12 16:41:41 UTC
Upkeep costs?

Which functions are built into the hull, and which functions are provided by fitting modules and rigs?

Anchoring restrictions concerning "deep" safes (incursion and mission bookmarks - they still can be more than 15AU off the nearest celestial).
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#79 - 2015-05-12 16:45:08 UTC
Scott Ormands wrote:
few questions.

1. Larges; if we cant dock caps in them then how will we keep them in WH space especially since it seems that XL's are going to replace stations and hence wont really be allowed in HW's, plus they are supposed to be very expensive.

2. Vulnerability window; how will that work in WH space where we cant claim SOV to boost our indicies to reduce our vulberability timer.

3. Will the office, cloning, and market functions work in WH space.

4. How will these structures accommodate or replace the current practice in WH's to have Squad POS's with members of each POS having a specific corp hanger division assigned to them and their alts.

EX. 10 members are living in a WH, each with multiple alts, there are two towers with 5 members assigned to each with secret passwords to restrict access to those assigned. In tower 1 Scott is assigned division 5 and the other members are assigned the remainder. Scott has 4 alts and each of them have the same hanger division assigned allowing for easy consolidation of modules and items such as PI and minerals/Ore. Will this functionality be preserved?

5. How will ship storage be maintained, will it be similar to the current SMA mechanics or will it be more like stations with hangers divided restricted to each character. Maybe a combination of each allow you the option to set up shared hangers?

Thanks



  1. You would still have the invulnerability link, but yes, you are right, that's one of the arguments in favor to allow capitals in the Large Citadels.

  2. What we are thinking so far is to have high-sec and W-space have higher indices that null-sec by default. So they will be naturally less vulnerable there. We are also thinking about modules, rigs and gameplay options to affect the vulnerability window, but at a price.

  3. It depends on which kind of gameplay we want to have in W-space. So far, office and market functions look fine, cloning does not. Again, not set in stone at this point.

  4. Sounds so complicated. How about we give you guys personal hangers instead, just like in NPC stations / outposts? And then, if you don't want people to dock in a specific structure you can set restrictions to do so.

  5. See above P
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#80 - 2015-05-12 16:45:15 UTC
Torgeir Hekard wrote:
Upkeep costs?

Which functions are built into the hull, and which functions are provided by fitting modules and rigs?

Anchoring restrictions concerning "deep" safes (incursion and mission bookmarks - they still can be more than 15AU off the nearest celestial).


Storage, security and fitting service will be on the hull. Corp offices, market, industry, clones etc will all be modules that have to be added and fueled.

We are considering showing all structures on the on board scanner / sensor overlay allowing you to either warp directly to them or atleast show you that structures are anchored in system so you can probe them down.

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