These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Darirol
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2015-05-12 16:46:01 UTC
what about courier contracts?

1. you can start and deliver courier contracts only from / to stations, does it work with those new things too?

2. freighter are capital sized. jumpfreighter and rorqual even more. are we supposed to stock the medium and large one with 50k m3 haulers?

3.how does the game mechanic react if there are courier contracts up and the destination "station" got destroyed / unanchored?
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#82 - 2015-05-12 16:48:54 UTC
Darirol wrote:
what about courier contracts?

1. you can start and deliver courier contracts only from / to stations, does it work with those new things too?

2. freighter are capital sized. jumpfreighter and rorqual even more. are we supposed to stock the medium and large one with 50k m3 haulers?

3.how does the game mechanic react if there are courier contracts up and the destination "station" got destroyed / unanchored?


Couriers are a good question, and we don't have detailed answers for this yet.

If / when we do they will be a service module that you can add to access contracts. On destruction I imagine the contracts will be treated with the same asset safety mechanics as your inventory.

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

Centurax
Blackbird Security Networks
R A P T O R
#83 - 2015-05-12 16:50:17 UTC
Nice work really excited about the new structures and the weapons :)

Will the structure be conquerable or is it kill only, was not too clear on that?

Also what kind of personalization will these structures have, so can you put Corp/Alliance logo holograms on them in the first version or that planned later also will there be skins similar to the ships planned for them?
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#84 - 2015-05-12 16:50:54 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.


Reuse the impounding code that already exists. All your stuff back but some nasty tax. Like 25% of Est value.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#85 - 2015-05-12 16:51:20 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Papa Django wrote:
Is there a limitation to the distance between 2 structures and the distance between a sov structure and theses new structures ?


There will be deployment restrictions, yes.

Mainly to avoid people to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp / stations, to avoid having space where structure defenses overlap or have them hidden inside landmarks or other anomaly sites.

I have to say I was hoping that the concept of linking structures had not been dropped, that creating structure "cities" or "encampments" in space would be possible.

Basically, yes, restrictions on anchoring too close to other structures UNLESS you link them together. Each individual component would have so many hard points (depending on size) which could be used either for weapons OR as the necessary connection points.

So if you want to build a complex structure in a given area then you would need to sacrifice weapons hard points on each section to use as attachment points to the rest of the structure. This would also allow for free form structures to evolve according to need and player taste.

... but this is good too. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#86 - 2015-05-12 16:51:40 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselSA
How exactly do these defenses protect against a lone trollceptor if they don't auto-fire at all? I mean, you say in the blog that's part of the point, discouraging a lone trolling entosis.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#87 - 2015-05-12 16:51:41 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
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????!!!!


I will answer the questions that don't overlap with my previous reply.


  • So far, our plan is to have them anywhere yes, as long as proximity restrictions are respected.

  • Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn.

  • Fuel is so far only going to be needed to activate the service modules, those structure shouldn't use fuel on their own, please refer to our previous blog for more details.

  • Not sure about being able to know docked people, may be part of scanning mechanics, but open to discussion.

  • When docked you will see surrounding space.

  • Yes, ideally we want all structure sizes and types everywhere. There may be gampeplay restrictions on them and / or their respective modules if needed however.

  • Refitting will most likely drain capacitor (like on ships) so while you could do it in combat, this would not be advisable.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#88 - 2015-05-12 16:52:26 UTC
Aryth wrote:

Reuse the impounding code that already exists. All your stuff back but some nasty tax. Like 25% of Est value.

god no, its buggy as all hell
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#89 - 2015-05-12 16:52:40 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Papa Django wrote:
Is there a limitation to the distance between 2 structures and the distance between a sov structure and theses new structures ?


There will be deployment restrictions, yes.

Mainly to avoid people to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp / stations, to avoid having space where structure defenses overlap or have them hidden inside landmarks or other anomaly sites.

I have to say I was hoping that the concept of linking structures had not been dropped, that creating structure "cities" or "encampments" in space would be possible.

Basically, yes, restrictions on anchoring too close to other structures UNLESS you link them together. Each individual component would have so many hard points (depending on size) which could be used either for weapons OR as the necessary connection points.

So if you want to build a complex structure in a given area then you would need to sacrifice weapons hard points on each section to use as attachment points to the rest of the structure. This would also allow for free form structures to evolve according to need and player taste.

... but this is good too. Smile


We are thinking at least 250km away from everything else in the game (warp in points, belts, gates, other structures etc), but otherwise you can anchor anywhere.

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

Vacant Glare
Nefariam Cementarii
#90 - 2015-05-12 16:53:03 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.
Would be nice if system owners could see these on the overview but for none blues then hacking the system navigation array (or similar) would turn off a hidden statement letting everyone know where they are.
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2015-05-12 16:53:47 UTC
was about to say that I'll miss sitting outside my pos in wh space but it seems like when docked, we'll still see outside. cool
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#92 - 2015-05-12 16:54:56 UTC
Centurax wrote:
Nice work really excited about the new structures and the weapons :)

Will the structure be conquerable or is it kill only, was not too clear on that?

Also what kind of personalization will these structures have, so can you put Corp/Alliance logo holograms on them in the first version or that planned later also will there be skins similar to the ships planned for them?


Ideally we want the structures to have the same SKIN system than ships.
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#93 - 2015-05-12 16:56:04 UTC
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
was about to say that I'll miss sitting outside my pos in wh space but it seems like when docked, we'll still see outside. cool


Yeah it's going to be a new docked state, like a cross between docking in a station and sitting inside a POS shield.

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

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#94 - 2015-05-12 16:56:43 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.


For the reasons I listed above, pure timezone mechanics only are insufficient for wormhole space where access to your space can be controlled by third parties quite easily. Why introduce a lore-breaking "pirate NPC" mechanic that is likely to be gamed and just let the defenses be automated to the level that they can defend against harassing attackers but not repel a significantly organized force?
RainReaper
Bras-Tek Industries
Nefatari Union
#95 - 2015-05-12 16:57:08 UTC
ok i have a legit question here. will it be possible to switch out these service modules from an anchored structure for something else? and can we turn of service modules that are not in use to save fuel?
Elenahina
Embark
Triumvirate.
#96 - 2015-05-12 16:57:24 UTC
Aryth wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.


Reuse the impounding code that already exists. All your stuff back but some nasty tax. Like 25% of Est value.


I like that. Call it the Interbus Evacuation Fee.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Elenahina
Embark
Triumvirate.
#97 - 2015-05-12 16:59:48 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Papa Django wrote:
Is there a limitation to the distance between 2 structures and the distance between a sov structure and theses new structures ?


There will be deployment restrictions, yes.

Mainly to avoid people to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp / stations, to avoid having space where structure defenses overlap or have them hidden inside landmarks or other anomaly sites.

I have to say I was hoping that the concept of linking structures had not been dropped, that creating structure "cities" or "encampments" in space would be possible.

Basically, yes, restrictions on anchoring too close to other structures UNLESS you link them together. Each individual component would have so many hard points (depending on size) which could be used either for weapons OR as the necessary connection points.

So if you want to build a complex structure in a given area then you would need to sacrifice weapons hard points on each section to use as attachment points to the rest of the structure. This would also allow for free form structures to evolve according to need and player taste.

... but this is good too. Smile


We are thinking at least 250km away from everything else in the game (warp in points, belts, gates, other structures etc), but otherwise you can anchor anywhere.


I cannot give you enough tumbs for this, so I'll let Chuck speak for me: Chuck says Yes.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation
#98 - 2015-05-12 17:00:32 UTC
Any word on how the transition will happen. If an alliance/corp already owns an outpost will it be auto-converted to the new citadel structure or will they need to build a new one? If the former, and the outpost has upgrades, will those modules be auto-fitted and prefueled? If the latter, what is the deploy time frame and where will assets already in the outpost go?

Cedric

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#99 - 2015-05-12 17:02:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Obil Que
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Papa Django wrote:
Is there a limitation to the distance between 2 structures and the distance between a sov structure and theses new structures ?


There will be deployment restrictions, yes.

Mainly to avoid people to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp / stations, to avoid having space where structure defenses overlap or have them hidden inside landmarks or other anomaly sites.

I have to say I was hoping that the concept of linking structures had not been dropped, that creating structure "cities" or "encampments" in space would be possible.

Basically, yes, restrictions on anchoring too close to other structures UNLESS you link them together. Each individual component would have so many hard points (depending on size) which could be used either for weapons OR as the necessary connection points.

So if you want to build a complex structure in a given area then you would need to sacrifice weapons hard points on each section to use as attachment points to the rest of the structure. This would also allow for free form structures to evolve according to need and player taste.

... but this is good too. Smile


We are thinking at least 250km away from everything else in the game (warp in points, belts, gates, other structures etc), but otherwise you can anchor anywhere.


This again is very disconcerting for wormhole space both from a defensive and offensive standpoint. Offensively in that unless you make them appear on the overview, the act of covertly scouting a system for structures and occupation will be impossible. You cannot implement free anchoring without 100% having all structures warpable on the overview.

Defensively, allowing invaders to anchor structures at any point in space is, I feel, too strong of an advantage to an invading force, especially give the reliance on timezone windows for disposing of structures. You essentially give anyone wanting to set up shop in your space a free license to do so for multiple days AND they can set their structures to be vulnerable only in your off timezone to prevent an adequate defense. The act of tying structures to celestials is a key component in wormhole selection as well as the practice of moon-locking as a defensive measure. Removing this defensive posture is again hurting wormhole space in ways that will likely be very detrimental.
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#100 - 2015-05-12 17:03:33 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


  • Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn.




  • Then I honestly don't see how these could be owned by an individual (or really small groups) as stated in the Dev bog. Unless the NPC reinforcement idea can bring at least the same level of defense the POS guns do now.