These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Citadels, sieges and you

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Juan Mileghere
Mackies Raiders
Wild Geese.
#41 - 2015-08-13 17:29:36 UTC
So NPC 0.0 will be similar to High/Low due to being NPC space or similar to Sov 0.0 because of some silly/stupid reason?

Blobbing Explained
Mr Grape Drink
Doomheim
#42 - 2015-08-13 17:33:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Grape Drink
POS Trader wrote:
Mr Grape Drink wrote:
Why are vulnerability windows bigger for bigger structures? Shouldnt they be harder to take than the smaller versions? As it stands in NPC null an XL would be open 12 hours a day if spread across evenly. If you're a mainly USTZ group and you set it during the week to come out after work hours, you would need to set it to say 5PM - 5AM. Gives people of a different TZ plenty of options to hit you while you're asleep.

Nothing like having massive guns and doomsdays attached to your citadel and your gunner asleep at the wheel!

Considering the XL will cost billions and billions of isk, you should be able to really force all engagements on it into your own primetime.



Let me answer this one for you.

Structure size is apparently linked to who uses it. Its intended audience. XL structures are meant for alliances and M are for very small groups of players. The timers are meant to allow more flexibility for smaller groups to "show up". If you have 100 real people in your XL structure, then getting 25 or 50 to show up should not be that much of a problem during a wider window.


The size matching who uses it is true. But this would mean having to have that strong of a presence in EVERY tz. If a group had 100 active in their prime, but only 10 people 11 hours later because of having jobs, and a group from a different tz focus shows up, what can you do?

Main point being its too vulnerable for its value
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#43 - 2015-08-13 17:40:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
i like most things i read there but my initial reaction to 1h of entosing a lowsec M citadel in 3 stages is far too much effort for a medium structure in lowsec. Esp combined with the fact that the defender can undo your progress in 10minuts which does not give you enough time to reship for a second strike if you lose a single fight. (in other words: it will be much longer than 1h in reality)

keep in mind that you have to tank that thing for 1h. There is no way to disable the weapons like on poses which means that your logistics pilots will need a lot of beer to not completely go insane after a structure kill.


edit: we still don't know how much they will cost. If a M structure costs 10bil minimum it might be enough motivation to go through all that. But it is an entry level price like 200mil i am not sure about that. (those are completely random numbers since i really don't know how much they will cost)

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
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#44 - 2015-08-13 17:45:52 UTC
Mr Grape Drink wrote:
Why are vulnerability windows bigger for bigger structures? Shouldnt they be harder to take than the smaller versions? As it stands in NPC null an XL would be open 12 hours a day if spread across evenly. If you're a mainly USTZ group and you set it during the week to come out after work hours, you would need to set it to say 5PM - 5AM. Gives people of a different TZ plenty of options to hit you while you're asleep.

Nothing like having massive guns and doomsdays attached to your citadel and your gunner asleep at the wheel!

Considering the XL will cost billions and billions of isk, you should be able to really force all engagements on it into your own primetime.



Larger structures implies more members online to cover a larger timezone. It's still only a fraction of the week compared to existing structures, so we are confident the big groups will have no problem covering this.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Black Pedro
Mine.
#45 - 2015-08-13 17:47:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Just to be clear. In highsec, if I want to remove say a M Citidel from a rival I will need to declare war for at least three weeks? Say they set their vulnerability window for all three hours on Saturday morning. I would declare war the Friday morning to wait for the war to go live, and then would have to renew the war two more times before I could finally destroy it as each vulnerability window lasts a week?


No that was something left out of this blog, but the time between vulnerability windows will be shorter for the smaller structures, and our rough estimates on this would be a week in total from start to finish. This is something we want a lot of feedback on though, exactly how many hours and the times between cycles.


Excellent. But I don't see how you can do that unless you make a minimum 23h gap between each of the 3 vulnerability hours if you are going to only have 3 hours of vulnerability per week. Otherwise, a defender or attacker can just whip through them all in a row.

EDIT: Actually, if it takes 60 minutes to entosisify in highsec, what happens if it finished mid-way through the next vulnerability window? That alone might guarantee that an attack would take at least a week if you put them all in a row as you would have to skip a vulnerability window so the third one would always fall on the following week's first or second window.

But that would mean you would always require two weeks of wardecs to destroy a medium citadel in highsec if the vulnerability windows are in a single block.

And as to discovering the vulnerability window, there needs to be some way for an attacker to "scout" the vulnerability window schedule other than sitting cloaked straight for 168 hours checking each hour if it is vulnerable or not. I would suggest the simplest would be that if you are on grid you can "show info" and see when the next vulnerability window starts (like getting wormhole lifetime information). Then you could check a few times during the week and reconstruct the vulnerability schedule.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#46 - 2015-08-13 17:47:58 UTC
Hendrink Collie wrote:
Quick question:

How will jump beacons and cyno beacons work with these new structures. Since ultimately the citadels will be replacing POSes, is the module still going to be floating in space a ways from the citadel, or will it be more along the lines of randomly showing roughly 30km from the undock?

Thanks! Big smile


They will be moved to service modules on the Gate structures, so the entire structure effectively becomes a beacon / bridge.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
#47 - 2015-08-13 17:50:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Aeril Malkyre
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Absent Sworn wrote:
So, no mention of some minimal level of automated defense structures to prevent the lone entosing trollceptor. The CSM FAQ simply says "No", is that still the case and planned direction?


Correct there will be no automatic guns, but the concerns about trollceptors have been heard loud and clear.
This concerns me. This is a loss of functionality. Right now, someone with the means could set up a solo POS with enough guns and ewar that no one would bother attacking unless they had friends and some time. Now any ******* that happens by during the vulnerability window can Entosis the place, with no defense or recourse, except for the owner to be online and near the structure at that time. That's a massive loss of capability for something that's supposed to be replacing the POS system. I understand that you 'hear' the trollceptor concern, but what is going to be done about it? Are we just expected to play Entosis tug of war for a few days until the attacker gets bored?
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#48 - 2015-08-13 17:50:46 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
i like most things i read there but my initial reaction to 1h of entosing a lowsec M citadel in 3 stages is far too much effort for a medium structure in lowsec. Esp combined with the fact that the defender can undo your progress in 10minuts which does not give you enough time to reship for a second strike if you lose a single fight. (in other words: it will be much longer than 1h in reality)

keep in mind that you have to tank that thing for 1h. There is no way to disable the weapons like on poses which means that your logistics pilots will need a lot of beer to not completely go insane after a structure kill.


edit: we still don't know how much they will cost. If a M structure costs 10bil minimum it might be enough motivation to go through all that. But it is an entry level price like 200mil i am not sure about that. (those are completely random numbers since i really don't know how much they will cost)



You do realize the only way to "Tank" it is if someone is manning the guns, they are manual only

Smaller entities which a medium is meant for may not be able to get a sizeable force in 30 minutes. I don't imagine they have irc or sms pings to get them online immediately.

So, to make it easier for you, they should have to be able to get online and defend it from you before you get bored?
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#49 - 2015-08-13 17:55:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
i like most things i read there but my initial reaction to 1h of entosing a lowsec M citadel in 3 stages is far too much effort for a medium structure in lowsec. Esp combined with the fact that the defender can undo your progress in 10minuts which does not give you enough time to reship for a second strike if you lose a single fight. (in other words: it will be much longer than 1h in reality)

keep in mind that you have to tank that thing for 1h. There is no way to disable the weapons like on poses which means that your logistics pilots will need a lot of beer to not completely go insane after a structure kill.


edit: we still don't know how much they will cost. If a M structure costs 10bil minimum it might be enough motivation to go through all that. But it is an entry level price like 200mil i am not sure about that. (those are completely random numbers since i really don't know how much they will cost)



You do realize the only way to "Tank" it is if someone is manning the guns, they are manual only

Smaller entities which a medium is meant for may not be able to get a sizeable force in 30 minutes. I don't imagine they have irc or sms pings to get them online immediately.

So, to make it easier for you, they should have to be able to get online and defend it from you before you get bored?


i don't think it is a big deal to convince someone to man the guns of the new fancy structure. i guess all you have to do is to log in an alt and stay docked. So i pretty much see it as a given that the thing will shoot you. Esp since you have to attack it in the vuln window which implies its the highest activity time of the defender


if you have your guys available you can react right away to defend an attack. If you don't, you defend it after the first reinforcement timer. Thats why we have RF timers in the frist place. Giving an opportunity for both parties to show up. A structure has 3 of them. So you have enough opportunities, even if you can not react to the initial attack. Thats why i think 1h is simply to long.

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
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#50 - 2015-08-13 17:58:51 UTC
xttz wrote:
The decision to only affect new structures via Entosis 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 was always 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. It feels like you're scooping a load of sand out of the sandbox.

By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but actively maintained 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.


Yes, please!

I've been promoting this idea for months!

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#51 - 2015-08-13 18:03:10 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
What role do you see Capitals playing in sieging these structures?


Entosis is supposed to measure who controls the field and capitals should have a role to play in that. How effective that visions works out will depend a lot on the capital rebalance which is gaining some momentum at the moment.



Wait...What!!? Capital rebalance!? Can we stop this silly talk about structures and get back to spaceships! Seriously though, is there a timeline for some devblogging on Capitals?

Cedric
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
#52 - 2015-08-13 18:04:40 UTC
First thoughts: too complex, too safe.

We'll see how it turns out, but really i doubt to see more action around structures. Might as well dock at planets.... I don't see this work as interaction option for smaller groups at all. But yeah, hope to see null enjoying it then.
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#53 - 2015-08-13 18:07:20 UTC
So CCP choose to ignore wormholes - Again.

Could You please tell me WHY would a WH group choose to attack another WH??? Main recompensation for booooring weekend was phat loot, and its gone (dont even mention the petty drop of minerals - few billion tops).

If that players want loot they dont get it, if they want to evict someone they will just comes back week later with new citadel and regain all lost stuff and essentially rebuild with a click of a button.

So not only the time it takes to take down structures huuugly increased (with balanced timeslots - 6hour per day - XL structure will be destroyed after almost a week when second reinforcment will end) WH will became stangant farmville where everyone farms because they will fill invulnerable. their assets will be safe unless someone else will move in and decide to stay in system.

And im not talking about attacking small entity, Im talking about attacking large one in both sides prime time.

So instead of one weekend op we end up with a week long deployment with no reward for it.

Can we have a WH Citadel roundtable/townhall or something so we can discuss this? No promise that it wont end up just like FozzieSov roundtable few days ago :P

Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2015-08-13 18:11:43 UTC
Aeril Malkyre wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Absent Sworn wrote:
So, no mention of some minimal level of automated defense structures to prevent the lone entosing trollceptor. The CSM FAQ simply says "No", is that still the case and planned direction?


Correct there will be no automatic guns, but the concerns about trollceptors have been heard loud and clear.
This concerns me. This is a loss of functionality. Right now, someone with the means could set up a solo POS with enough guns and ewar that no one would bother attacking unless they had friends and some time. Now any ******* that happens by during the vulnerability window can Entosis the place, with no defense or recourse, except for the owner to be online and near the structure at that time. That's a massive loss of capability for something that's supposed to be replacing the POS system. I understand that you 'hear' the trollceptor concern, but what is going to be done about it? Are we just expected to play Entosis tug of war for a few days until the attacker gets bored?



Not to mention this literally demands someone stay home for XX hours per week in WHs.

Sure, we can use alts...but that's a stupid solution to a problem we shouldn't have.
Mr Grape Drink
Doomheim
#55 - 2015-08-13 18:12:52 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Mr Grape Drink wrote:
Why are vulnerability windows bigger for bigger structures? Shouldnt they be harder to take than the smaller versions? As it stands in NPC null an XL would be open 12 hours a day if spread across evenly. If you're a mainly USTZ group and you set it during the week to come out after work hours, you would need to set it to say 5PM - 5AM. Gives people of a different TZ plenty of options to hit you while you're asleep.

Nothing like having massive guns and doomsdays attached to your citadel and your gunner asleep at the wheel!

Considering the XL will cost billions and billions of isk, you should be able to really force all engagements on it into your own primetime.



Larger structures implies more members online to cover a larger timezone. It's still only a fraction of the week compared to existing structures, so we are confident the big groups will have no problem covering this.



I agree, 50% of the week is a fraction of 100%. Maybe its not even so much that the larger structures are higher than the smaller ones, but more of the NPC null factor of it. An XL in high or low , spread evenly across a week is only 3 hours a day. That's absolutely reasonable. But if a group ACTUALLY LIVES in a particular system in NPC, it doens't help them at all. Isnt the point of the new system so that the defender doesnt have to play alarm clock games anymore like the current towers? Or should we just not build these in NPC null and instead move all manufacturing and such to the closest low sec to get 1/4 the window, not actually live there, and only have to show up for anything in our primetime?
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#56 - 2015-08-13 18:22:41 UTC
Can You pls confirm If i get it right.

Imagine XL structure in WH, 42h per week vulnerability time, assuming its spread even - 6h per day from 18:00 to mindnight of defender tz time.

Enemy comes to my home around 23:00 on friday and entosis my poor XL structure just before midnight.

15 vulenrability hours later - that means monday around 21:00 it is again vulnerable. until that point My citadel is fully working, but i cant refit it.

So around 21:00 on monday my citadel is again vulnerable to entosis. My enemy (being good sport) comes in force and manages to entosis my poor citadel around 22:00.

Now reinforce once again starts counting down 15h of vulnerabilty which ends at thursday around 19:00. untill that time my citadel is very limited in use. I can not use services and production stops.

So on thursday around 22:00 enemy finishes final stage of destruction and entosis my structure for third time - killing my poor citadel

Is above correct? Or is there third reinforcment timer im missing? (maybe im tired but blog was not very clear on that)

Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Cynica Deetric
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#57 - 2015-08-13 18:25:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Cynica Deetric
I see an easy fix to counter the trollcepter is to JUST let the citadels defences work like POS defences do now.... if you want to shoot the guns/mods good if you want to let the **** AI do it, that is ok to.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#58 - 2015-08-13 18:27:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
The Tasty Fougasse Republic™
It is like trying to add pineapples to a pizza
Soft Croissant Incorporated™
The Alluring Baguette Syndicate™
The Mighty Bouillabaisse Conglomerate™
The Daring Tartiflette Expedition™

Your blogs are making me hungry.

Though I'm not French, I do live in a predominantly French neighbourhood, and disagree with your ideas of pizza toppings.

I like Hawaiian pizza (widely considered to be the choice of software developers), but I personally like a "Mexican" pizza: Mozzarella & Cheddar cheese, drained browned ground beef (preferably spiced, but just adding pepper will do in a pinch), mushrooms, green peppers, onions, Jalapeño peppers, and hot mixed peppers.
Sabastian Cerabiam
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#59 - 2015-08-13 18:29:43 UTC
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#60 - 2015-08-13 18:37:09 UTC  |  Edited by: xttz
edit: double post