These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nikolai Agnon
Khanid Propulsion Systems
Local Is Primary
#321 - 2015-05-13 10:41:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikolai Agnon
Sequester Risalo wrote:

In my opinion there is no way individual players with a functioning brain will use structures in low class wormholes. Individuals should not be forced to have an appointment with Eve every day, or every week or whatever timeframe you consider aedequate. I would like to still be able to go on vacation. I would like to keep my job which requires me to travel several times a year. This means that a lot of my stuff would be sitting vulnerable in space while I am not able to do anything to defend it.


You do realize that the planned structure overhaul is actually MORE friendly to 'not every day' gameplay than current POS's? They'll have multiple timers rather than the single strontium-based timer. Nowhere in EVE are you able to deploy structures for indefinite periods of time without checking up on them every so often.

With POS's right now, if people have been watching your habits in a wormhole and waiting for the right time to strike (say, when you go to bed), you'd wake up to a reinforced tower, incapacitated guns, and access to almost nothing other than your ship maintenance array. You'd then be aware that you have x number of hours until part 2 happens, which could mean as soon as six hours from when you next logged on, depending on your habits (if you only log on after work, for instance, and put 36 hours of stront, making you choose: do you want your pos and alarm clock to defend it, or get a good night's sleep?).

With the new structure mechanics, you would only be vulnerable during your playtime, and you'd have MULTIPLE timers with which you can respond to the assault. Will a coordinated eviction attempt put you at great risk? Always. Unless the enemy can respond to your vulnerability window reliably, though, you're actually safer this way.

Nikolai Agnon for CSM XI!

FacWar | Lowsec | PVE | API
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#322 - 2015-05-13 10:47:04 UTC
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
Overall, this looks awesome. A lot of my initial worries have been allayed for the time being.

1) However, will destroying these new M-XL class structures generate killmails?

2) When it comes to finding them in space, I agree with other posters that they should not necessarily need probes to scan down. However, maybe make this dependent on a fitted module or rig, where by default you can find the structure via dscan and directly warping to it, but players can customize them to require probes to find--for a cost. Say, a "dscan inhibitor rig" which has relevant drawbacks (e.g., maybe weakens the defenses or reduces the benefits the citadel gives) but then adds the requirement of combat probes to find the structure?

3) When it comes to giving player citadels benefits for trading above NPC stations, I would suggest (as a trader myself) raising the default NPC tax rate on stations. I think something this harsh is needed because it would be the only thing that would--personally--get a player like myself to trade in a player-run market, or start my own. However, how will it work in the market itself? Will public citadels in the region with sell orders--say, seeing nanite paste--appear on the market search, where I can then set destination to this public citadel?

4) Would it be possible to anchor two citadels close enough to one another so that they can fight each other? Citadel versus Citadel pvp??! That would be pretty fun and would open up a lot of gameplay options, especially in WH evictions.

5) Any thoughts yet about how the market will be seeded with the relevant structures and modules? Regular blueprint sales in NPC stations, for instance, or will there also be any BPCs that drop, say, for a Serpentis L Citadel which, like faction towers currently, give certain bonuses above the regular towers etc.?



  1. Why shouldn't they generate killmails? We know how much you guys like your killmail states.

  2. Been answered before.

  3. You've heard it first here guys! If we end up raising taxing on NPC stations, you will have Sven Viko VIkolander to thank for it Twisted More seriously, player structures should be treated exactly like NPC stations if they're set as public, or if you have personal access to them.

  4. Short answer: no. Long answer: noooooooooooooooooo. Because those don't use HP mechanics to be taken down, thanks to the Entosis module, what would you achieve by having them shoot each other? They will not be affected by raw damage.

  5. We will most likely seed blueprints for Tech I versions from the NPC market. Faction variants will drop as loot and LP stores. Tech II variants can be invented. Those act as ships remember, thus they should be acquired in a similar way.
Anthar Thebess
#323 - 2015-05-13 10:57:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Look on this side.
In order to reinforce a tower in WH you need tons of DPS , and ability to survive DPS.
Now to reinforce this structure you need a 1! frigate(ship) able to kite incoming DPS from this citadel.

So let say Tech 3 destroyer , best active tank you can get , max speed and T2 entosis link ( links and implants included ).

This is really downside of all those structures - finding a hole in system is very easy, as abusing it later.

Lets assume this kind of setup ( bit more advanced ).
1. Place links in a system
2. Get well active tanked Tech 3 armor ship, like before having best possible speed and T2 entosis link.
3. Put energy vampires in structure , and have 3-4 cap buddy ships.

Warp to structure , start reinforcing it , while capping up your T3 cruiser from assisting ships ( vampire is offensive , so we are not talking about remote AID Roll)

You are fast, so you migrate most of the dps, and Tech 3 cruisers can take tons, tons of damage.

But wait , our tank is not holding - what we will do!
Move away from the structure few kilometers - and you are out of the grid and safe ( as we don't know how to manipulate the grid Roll)

Next Tip : Guns usually have limited ammo, so why not make them use their ammo by shooting orbiting interceptor?
They are quite cheap, and you can do it afk - people already do it to negate pos guns DPS before real operation.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#324 - 2015-05-13 10:58:34 UTC
per wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

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.


any chances we will use current bpos/pos modules (or some of them) on those new structures or will there be completely new ones and those old ones will be removed once poses are done?


just an idea: would be nice to be able upgrade from medium citadel to large one and from large one to xl - if the requirements and restrictions are met ofc, so some modularity between different sizes maybe?


Nah, new structures will uses a completely new set of blueprints. We'll get rid of the old starbase structure modules (and reimburse them somehow) otherwise it's going to be a mess.

We thought about upgrading smaller sizes into bigger ones, but it adds extra complexity and doesn't really makes sense. Should you be able to upgrade a frigate into a battleship if you put enough money into it? P Both are built for different needs and purposes.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#325 - 2015-05-13 11:00:13 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
would be nice to give us a timeframe these roll out you know,

I mean folks gotta prepare for the transition into fozzisov.. and now these new structures.. you're putting a stress-test on the little guy that may have dreams of building these things..

so when is this rolling? are you just intentionally putting it out there when in fact it may be actually 6 months from now before it hits live??

or is this coming "this summer" during one of the weird expansion names..


eve online : structure-kana or something??

when?

when??

when????????


Soon™
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#326 - 2015-05-13 11:03:09 UTC
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
Will each empire have its own version? or will this be a one type to begin with and lets see if it works thing


No factional variation. You won't have an Amarr, Caldari, Gallente or Minmatar variations. We want types to exist if they have a good role by themselves, not to fit some factional flavor. That doesn't mean they won't be influenced by some specific NPC corporation or faction, but they will not mandate structure number themselves.
Lurifax
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#327 - 2015-05-13 11:04:13 UTC
Will we be able to trade in our current Faction towers and faction guns etc. for the new stuff or are their value reduced to 0?
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#328 - 2015-05-13 11:08:58 UTC
DaReaper wrote:
Sorry if this has been asked, been running round at work so can;t keep up with thread.

Are these going to be able to do reactions? or are they essentially just the pos equivalent storage hub?


Ultimately, it will depend on which kind of Service Module you fit on those structures. Want to do reactions? Fit the reactor module. May not be the best use of a Citadel though, since structures will have bonuses to specific fields, like ships, and Citadels will be bonuses towards defense, office and markets.
Sequester Risalo
German Corps of Engineers 17
Federation of Respect Honor Passion Alliance.
#329 - 2015-05-13 11:30:10 UTC
Nikolai Agnon wrote:
You do realize that the planned structure overhaul is actually MORE friendly to 'not every day' gameplay than current POS's? They'll have multiple timers rather than the single strontium-based timer.
[..]
With the new structure mechanics, you would only be vulnerable during your playtime, and you'd have MULTIPLE timers with which you can respond to the assault. Will a coordinated eviction attempt put you at great risk? Always. Unless the enemy can respond to your vulnerability window reliably, though, you're actually safer this way.


To be frank I didn't really understand what they meant with multiple timers. The example given was e bit confusing as I thought of a solar system with different structures naturally having different timers. So you mean to say that a successful capture of a large structure will take at least a week given the vulnerability windows are seven days apart and success needing two successful entosis attacks? That would indeed be less risky.

Oh by the way. will I receive any royalties for the invention of citadel structures which I suggested here?
Anthar Thebess
#330 - 2015-05-13 11:34:32 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
DaReaper wrote:
Sorry if this has been asked, been running round at work so can;t keep up with thread.

Are these going to be able to do reactions? or are they essentially just the pos equivalent storage hub?


Ultimately, it will depend on which kind of Service Module you fit on those structures. Want to do reactions? Fit the reactor module. May not be the best use of a Citadel though, since structures will have bonuses to specific fields, like ships, and Citadels will be bonuses towards defense, office and markets.

Can we link some structures.

Ok 4 citadels sitting near each other will have just tons of DPS, but 5 reactor farms connected will be just easier to manage.
Forcing players to put 5 different structures 0.01 AU from each other will be just annoying.
You want to create super shipyard ? Why not just connect 10 capital construction arrays.

Can we get possibility to construct something like this

| Trade Hub |
_____|_______
|Large Citadel|- -| Ship Yard | - -| Ship Yard | - -| Ship Yard |
_____I_______
| Ship Mooring |

So you will expand services around the citadel.
It is almost like putting eggs in one basket , but you can build few Citadels all around the system and split the services.
Expanding citadel this way could be also used to add additional timers.

For example XL Citadel have possibility of this kind upgrade scheme :

{U1}{U1}{U1}
{U0} {U0}{U0}
{U0}[XL]{U0}
{U0} {U0}{U0}
{U1}{U1}{U1}

So in order to destroy Citadel you need to first reinforce/destroy U1 upgrades, then do the same to U0 and at the end Citadel itself.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#331 - 2015-05-13 11:35:13 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
Are the structures limited to 8 (HML) slots?


Our current plan is to have a maximum limit of 8 high, 8 medium, 8 low, 8 service and 3 rig slot yes. That doesn't mean all of them will available at once (just like on ships) though.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#332 - 2015-05-13 11:37:20 UTC
]
Redbull Spai wrote:
Is there any benefit whatsoever from forcing to players to base their ships in one point, transport their mined ore to another to refine, then transport it to a third to build? Just looks like a way to punish industrialists that don't have a jump freighter.


Whats keeping you from putting up all three structures in the same system?

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Anthar Thebess
#333 - 2015-05-13 11:46:50 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
]
Redbull Spai wrote:
Is there any benefit whatsoever from forcing to players to base their ships in one point, transport their mined ore to another to refine, then transport it to a third to build? Just looks like a way to punish industrialists that don't have a jump freighter.


Whats keeping you from putting up all three structures in the same system?

It is not about putting but the need of transporting between those structures.

Right now you can:
- refine/build /store on POS
- refine /build/ store / Trade on Station.

What CCP is proposing will lead to :
- fly to refinery
- fly to production facility
- fly to market hub

For small guys like me this will not be big issue , but when you are talking about people building big stuff.
You can bring 1 freighter of compressed ore to refinery , but after this you much , much more freighters of minerals that needs to be moved.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
#334 - 2015-05-13 11:50:04 UTC
I strongly dislike the 'asset safety'. Maybe I got it wrong, but to me it contradicts the harsh-eve environment. I really don't understand where someone would take the effort to down a structure and get "comparebly nothing". On the other hand, why would someone fight to defend it's structure?

Well, okay - do whatever. We'll see.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#335 - 2015-05-13 11:56:37 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
]
Redbull Spai wrote:
Is there any benefit whatsoever from forcing to players to base their ships in one point, transport their mined ore to another to refine, then transport it to a third to build? Just looks like a way to punish industrialists that don't have a jump freighter.


Whats keeping you from putting up all three structures in the same system?



Or even fitting your citadel as an industrial center?

Sure, you won't get the bonuses you would with the industry specific structures, but there's been no specific limit on which you'll be able to put in.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#336 - 2015-05-13 11:59:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Currently there is a Enormous network of alts in each system, all minimally skilled mostly used for moon goop collection or intel. What stops that single alt from logging into the system being linked, arming the defenses and shooting the enemy with a battle station? I am probably missing something but this is currently done with the Siphon units. A API call (or intel), notifies that this pos has a siphon on it, someone logs an alt on, mans a gun, pops it, shoots the logi, and logs off.


I suppose people can do that now with POS's, except dreads usually come to blow it to hell.

Yaay!!!!
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#337 - 2015-05-13 11:59:49 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Isengrimus wrote:
Isengrimus wrote:
Two questions:

- How will "vulnerability" and "destructibility" interact? How would you protect a structure that you want to capture, rather than to destroy? Will you be able to do it at all? How will you avoid accidental killings?

- How will these changes affect NPC Stations in hisec, lowsec and nullsec?



Umm... bump? Sorry to quote myself, but Dear CCP, I believe these are kinda valid questions. ;)


You would protect a structure by using the Entosis module to prevent the opposing party to attack it during its vulnerability window. Or you would use the defenses fitted to kill them all while laughing like a maniac.

Accidental killings are a tricky business. We may either want to forbid you from locking and shooting neutrals in high-sec (permanent safety mechanic), or, if we can do it, allow you to do so but have CONCORD show up and destroy your structure if you commit an act of aggression. Depends on technical and design difficulties, too early to say so far. In all cases AoE weapons will not be allowed in high-sec for obvious reasons.

It's too early to say how NPC stations will be affected. We want those structures to be more efficient than NPC stations though, which either means boosting them or nerfing NPC stations.

Just 1 thing (for now at least). The entosis link is designed for alliance sov warfare and vulnerability windows set by an alliance with duration determined by alliance activities.
The Citadel structures can be deployed by an individual or corp, so where does that leave vulnerability windows?
An individual or corp can't set a vulnerability window, is this likely to change?

Sorry 2 things;
As these are replacing stations and outposts in sov space will they ever include an ihub type mechanic so a corp could technically take sov. Just seems a bit odd an individual or corp can establish a citadel but not gain any benefits of living in the space. Or will personal and corp use be restricted to un-stationed NPC and Wormhole space?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Anthar Thebess
#338 - 2015-05-13 12:07:01 UTC
Jon Hellguard wrote:
I strongly dislike the 'asset safety'. Maybe I got it wrong, but to me it contradicts the harsh-eve environment. I really don't understand where someone would take the effort to down a structure and get "comparebly nothing". On the other hand, why would someone fight to defend it's structure?

Well, okay - do whatever. We'll see.


From very simple reason.
95% of players will just say "it is not worth it"

This is game , and in many cases it can be already threated as a second job.
CCP needs to find balance.

Look at this from this perspective.
You have 80bil on in a citadel - 10 freighters of stuff , and 20 carrier loads (fitted ships) , you go for holiday / to hospital / your computer dies ... and when you login after a week you have nothing.

What CCP propose is already to annoying , think that under new system you will need to move all this stuff from some debris cloud.
I moved 95% of my stuff to NPC station.
When CCP will decide that NPC stations can be destroyed and someone will do it , well this will be my last day of subscription - i am not the ~all day logistics~ type of guy, like many people that i know.



Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Ovv Topik
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#339 - 2015-05-13 12:17:02 UTC
Tetsel wrote:
Could CCP Fozzie translate this please ?

D1ck

"Nicknack, I'm in a shoe in space, on my computer, in my house, with a cup of coffee, in't that something." - Fly Safe PopPaddi. o7

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#340 - 2015-05-13 12:21:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
(shooting neutrals) We may [...] allow you to do so but have CONCORD show up and destroy your structure if you commit an act of aggression.


Wow, that's a huge trolling magnet you're considering there :)

**** no. Make them Entosis **** for hours like everyone else.

Niden wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • When docked you will see surrounding space.


    • Wait whaaat? Explain this to me please!

    /N

    I'll take a guess. My official prediction. The simplest, most practical interpretation is... station interiors are being deleted and when docked your client will center on the structure, and you'll get the station menus you're used to... just while you're in space. EVE players are getting what they want... everyone is about space ships and being in space, right?

    At this point I'm willing to go with it if it's what people want and it's good for the game. But I have my doubts. Most people don't like living out of a POS, and the only difference will be context menus.

    Help, I can't download EVE

    President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

    PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)