EVE Information Portal

*nods* Shout it from the roof tops

No automated defenses - You have to babysit your towers during vulnerable windows to prevent lol-Entosis
Automated defenses - DPS threshold of a tower with limited slots is calculated and beaten like PvE
Manned defenses - Entosis ships are sitting ducks OR they tank as above and the defenses are useless

I don't particularly like those scenarios very much

Right now there is some "strategy" to how you setup a pos, i.e. where you place the guns and other offensive and defensive structures. Also there is the ability to anchor more structures then you need and online them as necessary. There is also some "strategy" to attacking a pos - attacking certain structures to mitigate ecm or incoming dps first then the tower, etc. . .

After the structure change, every pos will be nothing more then the equivalent of a big red stationary x. If it is unmanned it will be a big red stationary npc x; while manned it will be a big red stationary pc x. What sort of strategy will there be for attacking such a thing? You cant shoot it but it can shoot at you. You cant help the entosis ship being shot at. So options are simply orbit at range in a fast tanked ship or bring lots of disposable ships to apply entosis links. Neither options sounds like much fun and seem to be steps backward from the current approach.

Whatever merit entosis links have for sov play - they certainly do not seem to belong with pos structures. If CCP is hell bent on making entrosis also apply to pos then it should be in addition to being able to bash a pos in the usual manner. That way an attacker can make a decision - use entrosis or just bring dps.

CCP wants us to be occupying and using the system we put the XL in. Not a solo thing but a Corp level thing to keep it Occupied. That is why they do not want automated defenses but ones that you sit in there box and press fire.

Am I interpreting something wrong or is this right, Solo Entosis Link on an XL will be useless cause you have to go do so many little missions in the adjacent systems in order to do any harm to it?

I will admit that my concerns are colored from being a wormhole resident. I'm not concerned with XL structures and the future capture mechanism that is applied but rather the M and L structures with the aforementioned multiple reinforce timers. But truly I am concerned that CCP is introducing a mechanic (no automatic, limited slots) that promotes structure babysitting during vulnerable windows and a solvable defense equation. All of this combined with a near-zero reward structure for your efforts does not make the entire system very appealing as a conflict mechanism.

The whole Entosis thing isn't necessarily broken, but instead it is the "Can't receive assistance" part that actually creates the problem. It makes the equation very simple if Citadel has guns (automated or not):

1. If one ship can solo tank the structure's guns, then it is too easily exploited.
2. If one ship can't solo tank the structure's guns, then multiple people/ships/entosis are needed. (Flying out of range of Entosis/Guns has not been discussed by devs?)

2 is the obvious answer. But what should be the amount of people/ISK needed to take down?

Medium Citadel:

Large Citadel:

XL Citadel:

(I personally believe that an attacker should have to risk (I didn't say sacrifice) at least as much ISK that it costs to buy/build the structure, being that defending with static defenses are typically more cost-effective than mobile weaponry.)

Read what you wrote. It does not replace current Player Owned Stations, it replaces current Player Owned Stations? Wat.



I know you don't. Picture every single moon in any system being wracked with indestructible POS that have doomsday weapons capable of destroying entire fleets of ships, squads of capital ships, and possibly even motherships and titans, and that is without mentioning or going into detail the preposterous military planning necessary to actually invade and conquer an entire region of space literally packed with them. Heavy regulation is a necessity if it is to survive its release and subsequent use.

If you do not see a problem with with its initial design, there is nothing that can be said to you to convince you otherwise. However, because of the nature of your posts, you are so far behind the learning curb I will only be responding to experienced players from this point forward.

As I've stated before, the concept of another type of more powerful, and thus, secure POS system is not the problem. The initial concepts that were, obviously, hastily put together are in need of severe redacting and modification. In any event, doomsday weapons on a POS unless they are severely limited in their placement and use is so outside the realm of anything else in EvE it begs for reassessment, and they are POS, regardless of words and terms used to label them.

Citadel Structures immediately need redacting because of one fundamental reason, besides those that follow; The unforeseen consequences of this need to be taken into consideration before CCP even contemplates signing off on this idea. It needs no explanation. Good luck doing that with AOE weapons and Doomsday coming at you, in any capacity.

Docking of Motherships, while not a terrible idea, would require an enormous docking bay at least 3.5k by 3.5k on the structure itself, and if this would be allowed, why not just go all the way with it and allow titans. The structure is certainly large enough to accommodate many titans, though the size of the bay taking up 1/6 of the structures size and the impossible internal structure needed to accommodate them would look awkward and be unrealistic. For good reasons, it isent allowed. Not too mention the unrealistic logistical problems of actually docking and storing a ship of that size. Besides this, it would provide a perverted strategic advantage that is unrivalled elsewhere in the galaxy and by other powers, only again helping to make null static and stagnant, while protecting entire fleets of supers from being lost to any type of neglect, when docked, or theft.

The single target weapons alone render and obsolete several aspects of current gameplay, making ships like dreadnoughts far less valuable as they are meant for siege warfare, these guns offer the opportunity for a few pilots to bring down (possibly?) several dreads looking to do damage, single handedly.

Launcher with Area of effect missiles are similar in initial design to miniature doomsday day devices, which were toned down because of their OP ability to clear entire battlefields by themselves. If this was actually approved, it needs severe damage reduction from the initial suggestion, although the idea of forcing fleets to scatter out and use more complicated logistics isent without its merits. Energy draining missiles is just ridiculous and allowing them to mass drain entire clusters of ships needs a realistic explanation and application on how to actually return the energy to the Citadel and for what purpose, maybe energy neutralizing missiles, but certainly draining, implies the energy is returned to some source and somehow. Furthermore, trying to actually use an entosis link even on a massive scale would be impractical and a death sentence.

Doomsday weapons on a POS, besides its open threat and obvious immediate cost to anyone bringing Titans and Supers to the fight, is such a bloody mess of an idea that if it were to be implemented, it must come at catastrophic cost to every other usable system at the Cits disposal. This would also limit, or at great cost to invading fleets allow, the use of capitals. The cause of this is apparent that after taking just one system even pock marked with these weapons, they wouldent have much of a capital fleet left to continue on in conquest afterwords, nevermind taking a region because it would be military and economic suicide.

If it is not an option to belay its release, until it is properly toned down, and it has already been determined it will be a part of the upcoming installments, its rush will do far more harm then good when it is put to use and has to be (inevitably) hacked and nerfed to ribbons later on. It runs the gambit of alienating players that immediately go to putting it in use. Furthermore, its benefits are one sided towards existing alliances and even the suggestion of its development should be examined. Misuse and improper implementation of this idea will have unforeseen blowback that could cause severe consequences, in all respects.

You make the system out to be a care-bear's delight, when it is in fact far from it. The attacker will (I think) have the option to take ownership of your structure instead of destroying it. (Now that I think about it, this would make for more reward for that person who deserves your loot.) If the attacker didn't want to do all the logistics to offline and take the structure, they could take the modules and destroy it. THEN, your stuff is still somewhere hidden in a hostile system for you to retrieve later. At which point others can find you with your stuff and take it.

Your point about this making Eve into a sim for you is just silly. It is like standing on a miles-long beach and arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand. Again, your feelings on what Eve should be are mostly irrelevant because Eve should become what keeps it thriving, and it is obvious that CCP has infinitely more objective ways to know what that direction should be.

If Eve were as realistic as you think/want, we'd be able to put explosive charges in our cargoholds that would detonate on ship destruction to keep others from getting the stuff. The fact that the new item safety mechanic is not possible in a current-day simulation has nothing to do with a futuristic sim.

If its true that you have to chase after little missions in other systems in addition to showing up for the two or three reinforcement cycles, isnt that a much worse grind than what we have now?

Now to kill a tower - I shoot it, and if it is stornted come back for after reinforcement cycle to shoot it again. With the new system I have to shoot it at 2 or three vulnerable periods and go play whack a mole in an untold number of adjacent systems. Sounds worse to me.

^This (for the most part)^

* High Sec & Low Sec Stations, including NPC Null Sec, should remain unchanged
* Converting all current player outposts to XLarge Citadels would solve the outpost reimbursement issue, provided these outposts come already fitted, using a determinable fitting.
* The converted XLarge Citadels should contain player assets, that are subject to some drop rate; this would provide additional motivation for groups to move to Null Sec initially & provide immediate feedback for the entosis link
* Assets of inactive accounts (+3 months or something) within current player outposts should be moved to the nearest Low Sec Station; this limits the damage done to the unknowing & limits r3tarded loot drops

As for the reimbursement of current Starbases:
* Tech 1 (non-faction) Control Towers & pos mods in general should be reimbursed on full input value (minerals/PI), through direct ISK or the return of the input items
* Faction Control Towers & pos mods in general should be reimbursed as stated above, with the addition of compensation for the meta(Pirate < Rare Pirate) & size of the tower/mod

Example: est. Rare Pirate Large Towers = Tech 1 reimbursement + 700mil
Rare Pirate Medium Tower = Tech 1 reimbursement + 250mil
Rare Pirate Small Tower = Tech 1 reimbursement + 170mil

*Not reimbursing the Faction aspect of Starbase Structures is practically equivalent to taking away an entire race(faction) of ship modules away from the players without due compensation, the players that have invested in these should be compensated in some shape, form, or fashion.

A) Your conclusion is flawed, because you begin from the wrong premise. Vernacular Translation: You have no idea what you are talking about.

B) You cannot fathom a far reaching idea designed to bring in more subscriptions, add diversity to null and increase pvp so you shove a square peg into a round hole, attempt square it with the way you perceive the game and assume it is some sort of money grab. Translation: Not everyone thinks as you do. Do not make assumptions. Google that old saw about assuming something....

I stand by my original suggestion to CCP Nullarbor and thank the nay-sayers for the continued opportunities to flesh out this idea.