These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lijah
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Memento Moriendo
#761 - 2015-05-26 12:50:16 UTC
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.


If CCP is going to effectively make stations totally destructable (the only for me can is not a fail safe at all) then I'm never storing anything in them. Which means, eventually unsub due to bordem and fustration. I'll have fun till they arrive. Afterwards, I'll leave it to the new geneation of players. Maybe I'm just too old for the new stuff and time to move on. Bad move ifym.
Lijah
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Memento Moriendo
#762 - 2015-05-26 12:54:56 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Gotta throw my hat in with the "do not remove loot drops" side.

Removing the chances of getting something valuable from attacking these things removes a great deal of the reason to attack them at all.

The "immunity to loss" mechanic should be completely scrapped, regardless of sec level.

Changing to destructible stations (Citadels) that includes risk of losing player assets is the best way to ensure no-one has more than absolutely necessary in a given location.

Npc stations would be used for storage of assets and player owned structures would be used for; well I'm not sure what, aside from staging, they would be useful for. (xLarge Citadel will be a very costly staging point, at least they will be reusable)

No-one would manufacture in them on any large scale, kills off CCP's goal of self sufficiency. What manufacturer wants to be risking his or her inventory?

Markets would all be centralized around npc hubs, to remove risk of loss of inventory.

Few players would store large amounts of assets in a place that can be destroyed and drops their assets as loot. Or for that matter simply drops it in a can somewhere in the system. Not every player wants to have to buy and fly a freighter to pick up assets should their Citadel be destroyed. So keeping as few assets as possible in them will become the norm, for all but the largest groups.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
CCP is moving ahead with "everything destructible" and has to be very cautious about the cost to players and groups of "everything destructible".
One guaranteed outcome; the gap between the have's and have not's will grow wider. From the proposed cost structure in the blog, large established groups grow stronger while everyone else live out of npc stations.

Quote:
Rigs; ............... They will take over the old Outpost upgrade system as a whole, and may be several ten times (or more) more expensive than the structure hull itself.
Not many groups have a few billion isk to put into a structure that can be easily destroyed. The difference between a few hundred million to set up a medium or large pos and the cost of setting up a Citadel (where each module will end up costing more than the structure it is on) to do the same job will limit use.



and this is why this is too big a fundamental shift in EVE gameplay. it becomes a totally different game, which we are not familiar with, and for what I didn't sign up for. Even the threat that this might happen is going to make me change my practices, making sure I'm not exposed to a bad impact - might mean unsubbing till happens ... uncertainty around something like is very bad.
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#763 - 2015-05-26 15:43:14 UTC
I promise this cause im totally fed up with ccp turning this game into online gambling.

you make them destructible.
im blowing up my wallet to support you

simple as that.. im unsubbing and removing all future content payments from your epeens..

you can have it!
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#764 - 2015-05-26 16:15:23 UTC
xttz wrote:
"DevBlog" wrote:
Medium, Large and X-Large structures will use a version of the Sovereignty capture mechanic, which means they will only be attacked through the use of the Entosis module.


I think this decision is both a mistake and a missed opportunity; a kneejerk reaction to the bogeyman of structure grinding.

While the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less central role.
Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. Triage carriers patching up starbases have a similarly mirrored role, frantically trying to restore these assets while making themselves vulnerable.
This is a fantastic avenue for content, with opponents setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE.

By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. The simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling effect on structures, but actual damage should need to be inflicted in order to destroy them for good, while an investment in repair ability should be required to restore them again.


I like your idea the Entosis Links would serve as a disabling effect on structures, and some kind of repair time would be required for restoration. I also think it might be the first step to some kind of capture mechanic for structures. Although capture of a structure should come at a cost ... i.e. the economic Production/ISK Sink would not serve EVE well if there was less and less demand for structures being built if everyone opted to just capture them instead. However, if there was an established ISK sink cost for capturing a structure - say when a structure is captured, parts of it would need to be rebuilt and repaired etc.

Agree that structure shooting, even though it is distasteful to some it still has a place in the game. One, it does not seem realistic structures would self-implode based on a magical Entosis links. Second, it seems the entire Capital Ship dynamics in Eve - especially Dreadnoughts is based on the role of structure busting right now, and it seems that the Eve devs are creating a lot of unnecessary work for themselves just to get rid of a mechanic that is realistic. I mean, if you're going to destroy something in space - a ship, a container, or a structure - you have to shoot at it right?

Perhaps other ways of dealing with structures could be considered. Again, the Entosis mechanic being developed could be useful for "capture" mechanics. The sense of "long grinding" with structures might be mitigated by some of the new ideas being introduced/developed to allow structures to put in place more customizable attack and defense components, thus providing more varied challenge to either their capture or destruction. Thus perhaps making their capture less of a grind.
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
Red Serpent Alliance
#765 - 2015-05-26 17:55:25 UTC
Lijah wrote:
......

and this is why this is too big a fundamental shift in EVE gameplay. it becomes a totally different game, which we are not familiar with, and for what I didn't sign up for. Even the threat that this might happen is going to make me change my practices, making sure I'm not exposed to a bad impact - might mean unsubbing till happens ... uncertainty around something like is very bad.


(bold by me)
yep, not sure if devs are in panik mode or totally out of touch with the game I like(d) to play......... turning a universe with big ships and big guns into some "wack a mole" "entosis-hacking" game. Additonally ******* over people like me that simply cant be on every day at a fixed time (there IS this thing called familly and work).

Discontinuing core concepts (like POS and the role of capitals) in a row in this overheated update cycles carries a lot of frustration for your (core) players and risk for the game as it stands (stood for all these years).

If you dont like the game at all - how about leaving it alone and bringing out a completely new one? (just name it ADAM)
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#766 - 2015-05-26 18:04:29 UTC
Lijah wrote:
and this is why this is too big a fundamental shift in EVE gameplay. it becomes a totally different game, which we are not familiar with, and for what I didn't sign up for. Even the threat that this might happen is going to make me change my practices, making sure I'm not exposed to a bad impact - might mean unsubbing till happens ... uncertainty around something like is very bad.


And this is why I don't envy EVE's designers:

"We need a fundamental change to sov gameplay or we're unsubbing!!!1"

"You're making a fundamental change to sov gameplay?! We're unsubbing!!1"

Can't win for trying.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
Red Serpent Alliance
#767 - 2015-05-26 18:27:52 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
......
And this is why I don't envy EVE's designers:

"We need a fundamental change to sov gameplay or we're unsubbing!!!1"

"You're making a fundamental change to sov gameplay?! We're unsubbing!!1"

Can't win for trying.



You can..... but its plain foolish to change too many things at once in to fast succession.

Changing power projection with jump fatigue would have been all fine - but even before enough time passed to "evalutate" this change the next one was already coming .... glorious entosis trolling, discontinuing and overhauling core concepts of this universe as it stood for many years.

Still, so far - so good...... (adapt or ......blabla)

But even before this revolutionary concept makes its debut ingame (and stands the test of reality) the devs think its a good idea to bring this concept to EVERY kind of structure - clever, aint it? Oh, did I mention that they "en passant" came up with discontiuing core concepts like POS (with all its implications to playing styles, ingame economy, etc.) and core funtionalities like auto-defence? Ah, and invented some "just for you" box, something that never was seen before in this universe. Ehm, and didnt capitals (a main skilling target for many "new or not so new" players) totally loose their role in this process?

Well, such a hectic flurry of fundamental changes ... If anybody saw that kind of approach in my line of business you´d have to give some very good answers, to say the least.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#768 - 2015-05-26 18:46:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Orm Magnustat wrote:
You can..... but its plain foolish to change too many things at once in to fast succession.


"Fix sov!" they cried for years, without stopping to think about what a huge and far-reaching project that is.

The sov redo was supposed to drop in Winter 2011/Spring 2012. It's years late. How many more years do you want CCP to drag this out? How many years do you want people to deal with broken and unfun mechanics? How many years of uncertainty do you want?

I get that this is uncomfortable. I do. The question is whether there's any better option.

Orm Magnustat wrote:
Oh, did I mention that they "en passant" came up with discontiuing core concepts like POS (with all its implications to playing styles, ingame economy, etc.) and core funtionalities like auto-defence? Ah, and invented some "just for you" box, something that never was seen before in this universe. Ehm, and didnt capitals (a main skilling target for many "new or not so new" players) totally loose their role in this process?


You're aware that POSes were a temporary kludge that CCP added until they could do structures right... more than a decade ago? They've always been scheduled for demolition. They're balled up into a huge, ugly hairball of legacy code that CCP would love to excise and forget about.

And re: structure self-defense: CCP are talking about all these design changes publicly before they even have basic designs in place, in order to get feedback, and you're complaining about that, too? They're listening. If you want automated defenses, state your case in the appropriate thread.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Rin Valador
Professional Amateurs
#769 - 2015-05-26 19:31:08 UTC
You shouldn't waste your energy Dersen. The Bitter in him is too strong!

"There will be neither compassion nor mercy; Nor peace, nor solace For those who bear witness to these Signs And still do not believe." - The Scriptures, Book of Reclaiming 25:10
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#770 - 2015-05-27 09:38:46 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
... If you want automated defenses, state your case in the appropriate thread.


I believe this would class as an appropriate thread.

I have never really commented about the sov changes as they do not apply to me and I have no experience of them yet. However I have always been against the idea of the Jove magic torch being able to destroy structures of any kind. These are huge investments in time and isk and should likewise take and investment in time and ISK at risk to destroy. This sits alongside the lore based idiocy that is a consciousness being inserted into a POS to implode it. Why would this not simply be countered by having an alt sat in the POS with his consciousness online all Matrix style just waiting to kick such attackers out? Or mind firewalls blocking them from accessing critical systems? Brain virus attacks that can kill the consciousness for invading my cyberspace?

A compromise could be that the entosis links can be used to reduce resists and/or repair functions or similar to cut the EHP of the tower but some form of shooting the structure should still be required. On this point I also strongly dislike the idea of a structure being captured rather than destroyed. Make this an option and the manufacture industry for such structures will die a slow strangulated death.
davet517
Raata Invicti
#771 - 2015-05-27 15:39:41 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
I like "everything's destructible", and I currently have billions in assets spread all over 0.0 from years of playing. I'll tell you why:

For the upper tier of players, 0.0 has become "no risk, all reward". Years worth of moon-goo, cap ship caches, and other assets stockpiled in 100% safety. Someone else takes over that part of the map? Who cares? Caring about that is for the peons. The upper escelon of players have alts (spies, whatever) pretty much anywhere, and uninterrupted, easy access to their stuff, always. Every fight now is just puppet theater. Content to keep the peons interested and logging in. Real risk to the handful of power players ended a long time ago.

0.0 isn't supposed to be about 100% safety for the few, and wasn't like that in the beginning, when "safe" stations were few, and travel was hard. If you want to build an empire, it should come at the risk of potentially losing everything, and being "busted back to Jita" as we said a decade ago.

It needs a shakeup. Those that sit comfortably at the top of the game controlling it through back room deals in 100% safety need to feel the heat, and be exposed to some actual risk. New players will only play a rigged game for so long before it dawns on them that it's rigged.

Whatever shape these changes take, they do need to make 0.0 a riskier proposition for everyone in the game, top to bottom, not just those at ground level.

Edit:

And for those who say "we'll just move our stuff to NPC null", there's an answer there too. Convert the NPC stations to Citadels too, and make them just as destructible. If they get destroyed, let the NPC faction build a new one after a time. We used to be able to conquer NPC stations long ago. No reason not to be able to destroy them now.
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
Red Serpent Alliance
#772 - 2015-05-27 20:55:45 UTC
davet517 wrote:
I like "everything's destructible", .................................................
..........................................................................................
And for those who say "we'll just move our stuff to NPC null", there's an answer there too. Convert the NPC stations to Citadels too, and make them just as destructible. If they get destroyed, let the NPC faction build a new one after a time. We used to be able to conquer NPC stations long ago. No reason not to be able to destroy them now.



Some radical ideas there Twisted
But actually they make more sense to me in the frame of the game than many stuff i read in devblogs lately.

Instead of superflous and artificial ***-pulls (like entosis cables dangling out of my structures or the strange "just for you" safety capsule) a gigantic wave of destruction resetting the blue donut might have done the job in a really entertaining way. Big smile
davet517
Raata Invicti
#773 - 2015-05-28 11:16:22 UTC  |  Edited by: davet517
Orm Magnustat wrote:


Instead of superflous and artificial ***-pulls (like entosis cables dangling out of my structures or the strange "just for you" safety capsule) a gigantic wave of destruction resetting the blue donut might have done the job in a really entertaining way. Big smile


"Just for you" capsules are a step in the right direction compared to invulnerable stuff that you can recollect at your leisure later with a "blue alt" or a jump clone. Having to try to evac under fire or re-take the system to get your stuff is a goodness. Assuming of course that they don't cave to the whining and make the "just for you" container transferable.

It'd be nice to think that these changes will shake things up, but it's highly unlikely that they will. Nullsec is popuated with efficient bureaucrats and politicians now, though they like to pretend to be warlords from time to time. The wars, such as they are, are just theater for the masses. Are you not entertained?
Aker Krane
OMEGADYNE LABS
Rising Darkness
#774 - 2015-05-29 12:06:06 UTC
davet517 wrote:
[quote=Orm Magnustat]

It'd be nice to think that these changes will shake things up, but it's highly unlikely that they will. Nullsec is popuated with efficient bureaucrats and politicians now, though they like to pretend to be warlords from time to time. The wars, such as they are, are just theater for the masses. Are you not entertained?


Amen
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#775 - 2015-05-29 18:14:44 UTC
So, still curious for a response; what sort of 'racial'/faction flavouring will there be?...

...hoping it doesn't involve "Good idea! Lets shaft Gallente again!"

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#776 - 2015-05-29 18:46:54 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Nullarbor
Gabriel Karade wrote:
So, still curious for a response; what sort of 'racial'/faction flavouring will there be?...

...hoping it doesn't involve "Good idea! Lets shaft Gallente again!"


Each class of structure (ie Citadel, Drilling Platform, Observatory) will belong to an NPC corporation which technically belong to a faction, but you wont see the usual Amarr, Minmatar, Caldari, Gallente stylings. We are creating a new style for each which more accurately reflects their purpose.

With that said, we are leaving the option open to have variations within each class + size, but only where we think we can give them meaningful bonuses.

Edit: I listed Gallente last :tinfoil:

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#777 - 2015-05-29 21:26:31 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Gabriel Karade wrote:
So, still curious for a response; what sort of 'racial'/faction flavouring will there be?...

...hoping it doesn't involve "Good idea! Lets shaft Gallente again!"


Each class of structure (ie Citadel, Drilling Platform, Observatory) will belong to an NPC corporation which technically belong to a faction, but you wont see the usual Amarr, Minmatar, Caldari, Gallente stylings. We are creating a new style for each which more accurately reflects their purpose.

With that said, we are leaving the option open to have variations within each class + size, but only where we think we can give them meaningful bonuses.

Edit: I listed Gallente last :tinfoil:


Just don't try to nerf gallente hedonism :clingfilm:
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#778 - 2015-05-29 22:46:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Gabriel Karade wrote:
So, still curious for a response; what sort of 'racial'/faction flavouring will there be?...

...hoping it doesn't involve "Good idea! Lets shaft Gallente again!"


Each class of structure (ie Citadel, Drilling Platform, Observatory) will belong to an NPC corporation which technically belong to a faction, but you wont see the usual Amarr, Minmatar, Caldari, Gallente stylings. We are creating a new style for each which more accurately reflects their purpose.

With that said, we are leaving the option open to have variations within each class + size, but only where we think we can give them meaningful bonuses.

Edit: I listed Gallente last :tinfoil:
I see.... So, we'll be getting, as a Citadel, a 'Quafe Ultra XXX boobies palace'; sole bonus being to 'exotic dancer' bay size, bugger all shield and 90% of its total HP's in structure?

P

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
The Tallman
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#779 - 2015-05-30 18:36:40 UTC  |  Edited by: The Tallman
So as for how these structures will work in WH vs HS vs NS many have brought up great things to consider and work through on this blog.

But CCP unknowingly it seems has solved a major problem they have in game and it seems they don't know it and I have not seen anyone in this blog mention either.

We all debate what NS, HS, LS and WH is "supposed" to be used for. CCP and most on this still believe that the goal in this game is to make it possible for small corps/alliances to move to NS or LS and survive. This will never happen due to the simple math of large alliance blobs pushing out the smaller groups.

WH space has become the answer for smaller alliances/corps to live in and hold for their own. It is solving a problem in-game but people seem to be stuck in the box thinking the end game should still be NS.

Well the reality is people are solving the problem for themselves in game.

So in my opinion CCP should accept the solution made by small groups holding space, in WH's, "it's difficult living in them" so openly consider suggestions people are making regarding living in these new structures in WH as well as NS.

Suggestions like being able to park caps in Large structures and possibly adding cloning to large structures.

Reason being if you can't park caps in Large Sturctures, people won't live in C5's or C6's and those systems will become MORE UNUSED SPACE in eve. Much like large sections of NS are today.

And for those "not supposed to be living in them" guys, think about this. All the people living in them now should be enough proof it's a valuable draw to this game and should be expanded upon.


So let's stop debating the "supposed to be and should be rules of eve" and think outside the box for this game. Isn't that the core spirit for this game anyway???
Random Bacon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#780 - 2015-05-30 22:44:52 UTC
When the time comes, will the Hyasyoda Mobile Laboratory from the Caldari Epic Arc be updated in storage / still available from the Caldari Epic Mission Arc?