These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#401 - 2015-05-13 18:05:46 UTC
Daerrol wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:

We are leaning towards just showing everything on the system overlay / onboard scanner with the ability to warp to them, or at the very least showing you how many structures of each size exist in system. They will show on the overview if you have access to them.

We aware of the concern of invaders setting up a beach head, and are discussing with the CSM various options for changing anchoring behavior in wormholes to help with this.


I hope I'm clear that free-anchored structures require 100% overview, not overview if you have access. If a player cannot jump into a system and find the POS through dscan alone, then you are destroying a huge portion of wormhole space activity (covert operations). Anything other than warpable overview beacons for free anchored structures will require a scout to launch probes to survey the system and that will immediately alert anyone in the system to their presence.


Take a deep breathe. Remove tinfoil hat and repeat: CCP is not activily destroying wormholes. These structures appear as anomalies so yes, they can be easily D-scanned.


I don't believe they are. The OP said nothing about structures as anomalies. After pressing, CCP has said maybe they will make them warpable. My point is that covert investigation of a wormhole upon entering is a key activity taken by nearly all wormhole entities. If structures are not celestial bound in wormholes and if they are only overview warpable to those that have access, then that covert investigation is not possible and thus something has been taken away from wormholes that is very core to the environment. I don't see it as active agression against wormhole play but a possibly unforseen side effect of the desire for free-anchoring structures which I still struggle to see a benefit of.
159Pinky
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#402 - 2015-05-13 18:05:48 UTC
Morn Hylund wrote:
I hope the Eve sandbox allows for all kinds of gameplay. So that those who do want to play Eve like a "carebear" in hi-sec are allowed to do so. And those who want a no rules kind of game can play in nul-sec.

I think you limit your options if you make all areas of space a "no rules" kind of setting like nul-sec. And in the end, you will just get a bunch of humungous alliances and game playing dictators making the rules for all the rest of the players. I don't think that will be conducive to a real sand box.

Space is a big place - there's room for everyone and all kinds of gameplay.


True, but there should be consequences for staying in a safe environment ( no capital ships, no high end ores, less valuable ded sites etc etc ). So some services might only be available in low and null sec ( higher ME production slots ... ).

And, all player build structures in high sec should be vulnerable to attack ( as are pocos and posses today ).
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#403 - 2015-05-13 18:08:12 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Lord LazyGhost wrote:

Log on o my pos is vunerable today for 2 hrs i need to go sit in my tower for the only 2 hrs i get to play incase some little troll in a ceptor desides today hes picking on my POS sounds like thrilling game play. even if its ever 3-4 days or so its still one days worth og game time doing nothing.



Or you could let the first timer go passed without defence, and be there for the second. Or third.


I'll repeat. In wormhole space especially, you are linked to many random entities over the course of days or weeks through your wormhole connections and the resulting chain. It is very likely that those entities will take every opportunity to entosis structures that lack a warm body in them. Thus your first, second, or third timer will be set upon by the connection of the day putting you and your structure under constant active threat.

The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.
The Tallman
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#404 - 2015-05-13 18:15:30 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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


I am totally shocked that there is any "debate" about letting caps dock in Large Structures!! ARE YOU KIDDING?

Do any of the people who are in this debate at CCP live or have lived in a C5 or C6 WH??? For that matter in 0.0?
Your simple answer that this is "one of the arguments" honestly is a joke. There is no argument, if you can't dock a cap in a Large structure there will be no way to keep them in WH space unless your willing to pay an extra 15 bucks per month per character to do nothing but sit in the cap ship.

Seriously - what a JOKE that your even considering NOT letting caps dock in a Large.... Clueless "argument"
per
Terpene Conglomerate
#405 - 2015-05-13 18:16:10 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
per wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

.......


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.



yeah i understand it adds more complexity / more work to do .. still thx for the answer ... really looking forward for the final product ;)
and btw it actually makes sense if you ask me, i wouldnt upgrade my car to truck (frigate > bs) but i surely would add some floors/rooms to my house quite easily (small station > bigger station) ;) plp like modularity, just saying ;)
Black Pedro
Mine.
#406 - 2015-05-13 18:19:46 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.

Isn't it? If you can't have a single person show up to defend your structure during the small window of vulnerability, with multiple chances to do so, do you really deserve that structure?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Takeo Yanumano
Doomheim
#407 - 2015-05-13 18:29:34 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.

Isn't it? If you can't have a single person show up to defend your structure during the small window of vulnerability, with multiple chances to do so, do you really deserve that structure?


The problem is the ease with which the window of vulnerability is triggered. The tower doesn't just need to be babysat at the windows of vulnerability, but 24/7 if one wishes to prevent said windows of vulnerability since there are apparently no automated defenses on these structures.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#408 - 2015-05-13 18:30:20 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.

Isn't it? If you can't have a single person show up to defend your structure during the small window of vulnerability, with multiple chances to do so, do you really deserve that structure?


It isn't about having 1 person on any given day. The point is that you are *required*, under this new system, to have a person in that tower, every timer period to prevent attack. There is no other deterrent. Take your group out to roam and get podded? Sorry, your tower just got entosis'ed. Try to fly back when you get the notification? Oh, you just got bubbled on the way back and you're out. Tower entosis'ed. Yes, you can log on an alt and go sit at the tower again but are you going to risk that toon now? Nope. Wait until the timer is over. It's not good gameplay.
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#409 - 2015-05-13 18:43:27 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:
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?


As mentioned in the previous blog and Fanfest presentation, we will most likely not replace outposts with those new structures. We will most likely reimburse outpost improvements and upgrades though.



So once the transition is complete... all the outposts will still be there, in addition to the new structures? Like a glorified hangar with no functionality? Seems like a weird thing to have them still floating around. Not to mention, if they're still out there, and can't be flipped, can't be destroyed and have nothing to do with new sov, doesn't that make them the most secure place to store stuff?

I think once the Citadels have been planted, corps/alliances should have the option to self-destruct their outpost and make some kind of ceremony out of it.

Cedric
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#410 - 2015-05-13 18:47:35 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.


Jove technology Supreme.

I liek it. Cool

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#411 - 2015-05-13 18:51:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Rthulhu Voynich wrote:
One rule for the Entosis Link is: „No remote rep”
How is it possible to reinforce a structure with guns that will shoot enemy ships? Every ship is killed before the warm-up cycle is complete.(?)


Bring moar ships for the Citadel to focus fire on.

BRING BATTLESHIPS WITH ENTOSIS. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)

Lil' Brudder Too wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.

So what your saying is, the absolute max number of things you would ever conceivably engage with one of these structures would be 16. As opposed to the current Large POS's ability to engage well over 40 if set up right. This sounds like a defense nerf.


This sounds like you're assuming that the new weapon systems will be equal to current POS turrets. Blink

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#412 - 2015-05-13 18:57:36 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Should we expect outpost upgrade reimbursements to be doled out before these hit. If not, would it be close so that outpost funds could be then spent on the new structures?


Really good question, and we would love feedback on exactly how would be best to do this.

Maybe uninstalling upgrades and reprocessing them?


I do not believe the above idea is either the proper or equitable means to reimburse upgrades, as implementation of this idea will give a windfall to the current station owner, which is not necessarily the installer of the station upgrades. If the game records the corporation that upgraded the station, then that entity should receive a direct refund from CCP the day stations are removed from the game, whenever that may occur, not the current holder of a station irrespective of whether the original, upgrading corp is active. The isk trail should begin and end at the corp that installed the upgrade. Active holding corps should be tightly controlled in terms of roles, so alliances who utilized alliance isk to field upgrades via a holding or executor corp will recoup their investment if corp roles are managed properly. However, the more interesting case is a corp that directly built, fielded and upgraded a station while members of an alliance. These entities, however rare, spent significant time and isk to build and deploy or upgrade stations and may or may not be members of alliances that currently hold stations. Allowing the current owner to rip out an upgrade and take it to market is not a justifiable solution. Giving isk to the owner de jour rewards the capture of the station, a benefit already realized by the conquering entity in terms of potential isk generation, docking of ships and projection of strength. A double bonus is not necessary.

Current thinking will not reimburse builders of un-upgraded stations. I vehemently disagree with this thought process. Not all stations are upgraded or need to be upgraded for various reasons. Gallente and Caldari stations sometimes remain in their original, un-upgraded state due to their unenhanced bonuses. Alternatively, an alliance may already hold an upgraded station a few jumps away form a place where they field another station and upgrading a station in close proximity to a previously upgraded station does not make financial sense. In essence, the proposed idea punishes builders of stations which are un-upgraded for making a smart strategic or smart financial decision.

Bottom line: If an entity undertook the monumental task to build/buy and deploy a station, the same original deploying entity should be reimbursed for the colossal amount of time, isk and/or and resources it invested. Often this will reach back many years. This could be a good thing. Station eggs are expensive in terms of time and materials used to build or even buy them and the PI and minerals dumped into the eggs at lunch represent an large amount of time and isk. This isk could restart dormant corps or allow people who are in the game the chance to field the new citadels. Alternatively, the isk cold potentially fund new alliances, as corps who realize the benefit of refunded isk from deployed stations start their own, smaller alliances. This is in line with CCP's current thinking of the occupation of nullsec by smaller entities. Moreover, this could provide content in terms of politics and eventual fighting.

CCP should undertake a two-step process when they issue reimbursements. First, the each station’s original builder should be reimbursed for the both the price of the station egg and additionally, minerals and PI necessary for launch. Upgrades present a slightly more complicated process because upgrading a station itself is a two-step process, at a minimum. The upgrading entity should be reimbursed for the appropriate platform(s) they purchased and the minerals and PI necessary launch the platform. They should also be reimbursed for the actual upgrade and the minerals and PI used to install the upgrade into the station. Is this more work on the part of CCP? Yes, it is. However, players undertook a substantial amount of work to build and upgrade stations and implementing a knee-jerk, quick fix does not square with either the massive change in the landscape of Eve implemented by the eventual elimination of stations or the significant investment of time by players.

The original builders of all stations, not just upgraded stations should be reimbursed for the massive undertaking in terms of time and isk. The potential and tangible benefits to both players and corps are sizable, will likely create content across several levels and represents a highly equitable solution by CCP.
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#413 - 2015-05-13 19:00:01 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.

Isn't it? If you can't have a single person show up to defend your structure during the small window of vulnerability, with multiple chances to do so, do you really deserve that structure?


It isn't about having 1 person on any given day. The point is that you are *required*, under this new system, to have a person in that tower, every timer period to prevent attack. There is no other deterrent. Take your group out to roam and get podded? Sorry, your tower just got entosis'ed. Try to fly back when you get the notification? Oh, you just got bubbled on the way back and you're out. Tower entosis'ed. Yes, you can log on an alt and go sit at the tower again but are you going to risk that toon now? Nope. Wait until the timer is over. It's not good gameplay.


What makes this different from null sec. We have to do the same things you are, but null is not complaining about this. We need to be active and protect our systems not just a single point in a wormhole. WH are making way more of a deal out of this then need be, it sounds the same as when WH were changed and people claimed up and down that WH would be unlivable after the fact but yet I still see billions of isk making its way out of these every day. Stop complaining about things until it is risk free and adapt to the new meta and make it work for you.
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#414 - 2015-05-13 19:04:57 UTC
Dentia Caecus wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Should we expect outpost upgrade reimbursements to be doled out before these hit. If not, would it be close so that outpost funds could be then spent on the new structures?


Really good question, and we would love feedback on exactly how would be best to do this.

Maybe uninstalling upgrades and reprocessing them?


I do not believe the above idea is either the proper or equitable means to reimburse upgrades, as implementation of this idea will give a windfall to the current station owner, which is not necessarily the installer of the station upgrades. If the game records the corporation that upgraded the station, then that entity should receive a direct refund from CCP the day stations are removed from the game, whenever that may occur, not the current holder of a station irrespective of whether the original, upgrading corp is active. The isk trail should begin and end at the corp that installed the upgrade. Active holding corps should be tightly controlled in terms of roles, so alliances who utilized alliance isk to field upgrades via a holding or executor corp will recoup their investment if corp roles are managed properly. However, the more interesting case is a corp that directly built, fielded and upgraded a station while members of an alliance. These entities, however rare, spent significant time and isk to build and deploy or upgrade stations and may or may not be members of alliances that currently hold stations. Allowing the current owner to rip out an upgrade and take it to market is not a justifiable solution. Giving isk to the owner de jour rewards the capture of the station, a benefit already realized by the conquering entity in terms of potential isk generation, docking of ships and projection of strength. A double bonus is not necessary.

Current thinking will not reimburse builders of un-upgraded stations. I vehemently disagree with this thought process. Not all stations are upgraded or need to be upgraded for various reasons. Gallente and Caldari stations sometimes remain in their original, un-upgraded state due to their unenhanced bonuses. Alternatively, an alliance may already hold an upgraded station a few jumps away form a place where they field another station and upgrading a station in close proximity to a previously upgraded station does not make financial sense. In essence, the proposed idea punishes builders of stations which are un-upgraded for making a smart strategic or smart financial decision.

Bottom line: If an entity undertook the monumental task to build/buy and deploy a station, the same original deploying entity should be reimbursed for the colossal amount of time, isk and/or and resources it invested. Often this will reach back many years. This could be a good thing. Station eggs are expensive in terms of time and materials used to build or even buy them and the PI and minerals dumped into the eggs at lunch represent an large amount of time and isk. This isk could restart dormant corps or allow people who are in the game the chance to field the new citadels. Alternatively, the isk cold potentially fund new alliances, as corps who realize the benefit of refunded isk from deployed stations start their own, smaller alliances. This is in line with CCP's current thinking of the occupation of nullsec by smaller entities. Moreover, this could provide content in terms of politics and eventual fighting.

CCP should undertake a two-step process when they issue reimbursements. First, the each station’s original builder should be reimbursed for the both the price of the station egg and additionally, minerals and PI necessary for launch. Upgrades present a slightly more complicated process because upgrading a station itself is a two-step process, at a minimum. The upgrading entity should be reimbursed for the appropriate platform(s) they purchased and the minerals and PI necessary launch the platform. They should also be reimbursed for the actual upgrade and the minerals and PI used to install the upgrade into the station. Is this more work on the part of CCP? Yes, it is. However, players undertook a substantial amount of work to build and upgrade stations and implementing a knee-jerk, quick fix does not square with either the massive change in the landscape of Eve implemented by the eventual elimination of stations or the significant investment of time by players.

The original builders of all stations, not just upgraded stations should be reimbursed for the massive undertaking in terms of time and isk. The potential and tangible benefits to both players and corps are sizable, will likely create content across several levels and represents a highly equitable solution by CCP.


Lol did you upgrade a lot of space and then lose it? People take over stations and get the benefits of owning and using upgrades. You should not get reimbursed for items you no longer own control.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#415 - 2015-05-13 19:08:20 UTC
Fredric Wolf wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
The idea that WH residents will have to babysit their towers every timer period is very much real and not at all an improvement in gameplay.

Isn't it? If you can't have a single person show up to defend your structure during the small window of vulnerability, with multiple chances to do so, do you really deserve that structure?


It isn't about having 1 person on any given day. The point is that you are *required*, under this new system, to have a person in that tower, every timer period to prevent attack. There is no other deterrent. Take your group out to roam and get podded? Sorry, your tower just got entosis'ed. Try to fly back when you get the notification? Oh, you just got bubbled on the way back and you're out. Tower entosis'ed. Yes, you can log on an alt and go sit at the tower again but are you going to risk that toon now? Nope. Wait until the timer is over. It's not good gameplay.


What makes this different from null sec. We have to do the same things you are, but null is not complaining about this. We need to be active and protect our systems not just a single point in a wormhole. WH are making way more of a deal out of this then need be, it sounds the same as when WH were changed and people claimed up and down that WH would be unlivable after the fact but yet I still see billions of isk making its way out of these every day. Stop complaining about things until it is risk free and adapt to the new meta and make it work for you.


There are some clear differences mostly related to geography. My one single WH system can be rendered inaccessible to me through simple combat. My med clone cannot be in my home system. Null-sec does not have this risk. In addition, once I am removed, my known route home (if I have one) can be completely and irrevocably destroyed. The only true way to then ensure that you can be present to combat the timer is to do nothing else during the window that could risk your pod/person being removed from your system.

This is not that different than the situation today except for 1) the exceedingly low bar set for attack of structures under the new system: 1 entosis ship and 2) the lack of any kind of structure based automated defense to that attack. These combined with the vulnerable window will create the environment by which prudent structure owners will have to devote their entire vulnerable window to structure sitting. This is again related somewhat specifically to WH space where all our assets are at risk in a single structure/system with the previously mentioned unique geography limiting our access.
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#416 - 2015-05-13 19:09:33 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:

Yes all these structures will get personal hangars.


How large will the hangars and ship storage be? Will they be small like a pos ir large like a station?
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#417 - 2015-05-13 19:21:56 UTC
Fredric Wolf wrote:
Dentia Caecus wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Should we expect outpost upgrade reimbursements to be doled out before these hit. If not, would it be close so that outpost funds could be then spent on the new structures?


Really good question, and we would love feedback on exactly how would be best to do this.

Maybe uninstalling upgrades and reprocessing them?


I do not believe the above idea is either the proper or equitable means to reimburse upgrades, as implementation of this idea will give a windfall to the current station owner, which is not necessarily the installer of the station upgrades. If the game records the corporation that upgraded the station, then that entity should receive a direct refund from CCP the day stations are removed from the game, whenever that may occur, not the current holder of a station irrespective of whether the original, upgrading corp is active. The isk trail should begin and end at the corp that installed the upgrade. Active holding corps should be tightly controlled in terms of roles, so alliances who utilized alliance isk to field upgrades via a holding or executor corp will recoup their investment if corp roles are managed properly. However, the more interesting case is a corp that directly built, fielded and upgraded a station while members of an alliance. These entities, however rare, spent significant time and isk to build and deploy or upgrade stations and may or may not be members of alliances that currently hold stations. Allowing the current owner to rip out an upgrade and take it to market is not a justifiable solution. Giving isk to the owner de jour rewards the capture of the station, a benefit already realized by the conquering entity in terms of potential isk generation, docking of ships and projection of strength. A double bonus is not necessary.

Current thinking will not reimburse builders of un-upgraded stations. I vehemently disagree with this thought process. Not all stations are upgraded or need to be upgraded for various reasons. Gallente and Caldari stations sometimes remain in their original, un-upgraded state due to their unenhanced bonuses. Alternatively, an alliance may already hold an upgraded station a few jumps away form a place where they field another station and upgrading a station in close proximity to a previously upgraded station does not make financial sense. In essence, the proposed idea punishes builders of stations which are un-upgraded for making a smart strategic or smart financial decision.

Bottom line: If an entity undertook the monumental task to build/buy and deploy a station, the same original deploying entity should be reimbursed for the colossal amount of time, isk and/or and resources it invested. Often this will reach back many years. This could be a good thing. Station eggs are expensive in terms of time and materials used to build or even buy them and the PI and minerals dumped into the eggs at lunch represent an large amount of time and isk. This isk could restart dormant corps or allow people who are in the game the chance to field the new citadels. Alternatively, the isk cold potentially fund new alliances, as corps who realize the benefit of refunded isk from deployed stations start their own, smaller alliances. This is in line with CCP's current thinking of the occupation of nullsec by smaller entities. Moreover, this could provide content in terms of politics and eventual fighting.

CCP should undertake a two-step process when they issue reimbursements. First, the each station’s original builder should be reimbursed for the both the price of the station egg and additionally, minerals and PI necessary for launch. Upgrades present a slightly more complicated process because upgrading a station itself is a two-step process, at a minimum. The upgrading entity should be reimbursed for the appropriate platform(s) they purchased and the minerals and PI necessary launch the platform. They should also be reimbursed for the actual upgrade and the minerals and PI used to install the upgrade into the station. Is this more work on the part of CCP? Yes, it is. However, players undertook a substantial amount of work to build and upgrade stations and implementing a knee-jerk, quick fix does not square with either the massive change in the landscape of Eve implemented by the eventual elimination of stations or the significant investment of time by players.

The original builders of all stations, not just upgraded stations should be reimbursed for the massive undertaking in terms of time and isk. The potential and tangible benefits to both players and corps are sizable, will likely create content across several levels and represents a highly equitable solution by CCP.


Lol did you upgrade a lot of space and then lose it? People take over stations and get the benefits of owning and using upgrades. You should not get reimbursed for items you no longer own control.


Not, at all. Sir. CCP Nullarbor asked for a means to facilitate reimbursement; therefore, I undertook to design a methodology that is fair, provides much requested potential content and may bring people back to the game. I spend a fair amount of time designing, rethinking, drafting and redrafting a workable solution to a complex problem and look forward to equally thoughtful feedback both from the community and CCP.

I very much look forward to suggestions on how to better refine and implement this idea, as I believe the eventual elimination of stations as we know them presents a unique opportunity for CCP to reengage older players that may not be as involved in Nullsec as they once were.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#418 - 2015-05-13 19:27:08 UTC
blog:
Quote:
Unlike existing Outposts, nothing is to prevent us from having the new structures destroyed after a successful Entosis capture.


i am not actually sure if i understand that correctly. What happens after the capture? Do you own it or does it explode? Or can you choose?

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
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#419 - 2015-05-13 19:31:11 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Lord LazyGhost wrote:
So if iam reading this right all my items i have in it if its destoryed are safe?

Then what is the point in attacking one risking ships for no loot other then a KM ?

sorry i just cant see the advantage atm.

Also not having guns automatic erm wtf..... for the guys that can only play for a few hours a day .

Log on o my pos is vunerable today for 2 hrs i need to go sit in my tower for the only 2 hrs i get to play incase some little troll in a ceptor desides today hes picking on my POS sounds like thrilling game play. even if its ever 3-4 days or so its still one days worth og game time doing nothing.

I for one will make my own little alt army of troll ceptor pilots for this thing. find small corps with muli Poses and hit them all at the same time with alts their small corp cant be everywhere at one time so yer.... sounds fun for them.

Hope you guys are going to create a new modual XXXXXL tear collector array becasue you are going to need it.


You won't be required to defend these everyday like sov, and the structure will drop fittings, fuel maybe in progress industry jobs etc.

This doesn't sound completely thought through yet. It has the potential to greatly unbalance the current highsec risk meta - if you don't have the prospect of good drops then these things won't get attacked. It might be your aim to shift the highsec risk meta but it should be deliberate and thought through, not accidental.

Do you want to make whatever replaces current POS safer? Because if the drops aren't good that is what you will do. An offline POS right now is a juicy target. If only in progress jobs dropped then I certainly wouldn't bother with a wardec to take one down.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#420 - 2015-05-13 19:32:30 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
CCP have pretty much placed themselves between a rock and a hard place with that thing. The sensible answer is obvious (spawn assets in the nearest neutral NPC station) but CCP will never agree to it, so they will come up with some convolute and ultimately useless system which will fail to perform its task of avoiding total loss of assets in the event that a player fails to defend the station.


That's because the proper EVE fix would be to change all NPC stations to destructible player-driven targets as well. The Empire's are losing control. Rise of the capsuleers. If I want to go to war with the Caldari Navy and blow up Jita 4-4 it should be entirely possible to do so. Well not me, but an entity the size of Goonswarm SHOULD be able to pull this off.

You have correctly identified the imbalance that exists between NPC stations and player citadels. The proper fix, however, is not the one you think it is...