These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Information Portal

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Dev blog: Citadels, sieges and you

First post First post
Circle of Steel Inc.
#101 - 2015-08-14 02:15:12 UTC
Corporation members with enough roles to do so will have full information on vulnerability, reinforcement, capture timers. Notifications will be sent for those particular states to make sure people can respond and defend their structures in a timely manner.
Any external party to the corporation will only be able to see the timer related to the current state.

Can you please, please consider allowing a more flexible arrangement for access to this information, as well as who is able to "man the citadel" to defend it? At the very least, give alliance level access as well.

For the L and XL structures, which are aimed at alliances, limiting the administration and defense to a single corporation is not good. When an Alliance holds assets jointly in a holding corp to make logistics and admin easier, but most characters are in individual corporations, limiting this to corporations only will make it very hard to participate in the citadel game.
Rei Lithium
New Canada
#102 - 2015-08-14 02:22:32 UTC
Carriers kill Sub-caps. Dreds kill Carriers. This is the basics of how new structure combat will work in Null.

You will need to bring anti-cap Dreads to deal with the Carriers who can turn your sub-cap fleets into expanding balls of plasma very very quickly.
Nethcanus Inc
#103 - 2015-08-14 02:37:20 UTC
Absent Sworn wrote:
Aeril Malkyre wrote:
[quote=CCP Nullarbor]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?

This is a big concern of mine as well, as I am a low sec industrialist and operate a couple POS effectively solo.

Now, maybe part of the point here is that CCP feels that a few people being able to maintain a structure that is impervious to all but groups of a size many times larger than themselves shouldn't be a thing. I don't think I've read that anywhere and I doubt it's the case, but let's suppose it is for a moment so I can bring up my main concern: it just doesn't make sense. Look, if things change such that my current enterprise (and I would expect a non-trivial number of others with similar setups) becomes unfeasible I'll just do something else, that's fine. I don't need to make drugs, I do it because it's fun and aligns with my casual play style. I'll tear my stuff down and try something else. But I'll still find these changes bothersome, not so much for mechanics reasons which on paper seem mostly fine from my perspective, but because they are thematically nonsensical.

I am wondering if a bit of laser focus on mechanics here by CCP has attributed to this byproduct of really kicking the flavor side of things in the junk. That a starbase can be destroyed without inflicting a single point of damage is just silly, and that's putting it very lightly. It doesn't feel fun and it doesn't feel like EVE. I like logging out at my drug house knowing that anyone who comes snooping around will be shot at. More importantly I am extremely comfortable with the notion that any group of a sufficient size that really wants to make a concerted effort to ruin my day can come over and blow up my stuff at any time. I am not at all comfortable with the notion that an individual or even a few individuals can swing by and click entosis unfettered, even if it's only for a few hours weekly.

Maybe I represent a micro niche in EVE that CCP is just not overly concerned about, but for whatever it's worth I can say of myself that I won't bother trying to reproduce how I currently play EVE under this new system as it's currently being presented. Not in a rage, just with a sigh.

I concur. In fact, I would go farther by saying the whole process seems absurd and arbitrary from a hi-sec point of view., from the number of vulnerability hours in a week to the complete lack of firepower required to destroy a citadel. Why not just run a hacking game on the structures and assume control of it?? I'm not an expert in null-sec activities, so if this works there, fine. But it does seem very non-Eve like.
Professor Frederick Johansen
Edge Dancers
Pan-Intergalatic Business Community
#104 - 2015-08-14 02:50:28 UTC
So now you've decided to turn wormholes into Nullsec, complete with station games.

The reason people like myself live in wormholes is because we don't care for Nullsec, we like the environment provided by living in a wormhole..

But some bright spark has decided "hey, let's turn wormholes into Nullsec, because that's what they want"...

CCP, this is a dumb idea, and you know it is
Edwin Wyatt
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2015-08-14 03:36:07 UTC
Sweet, I've already dropped down from three accounts to one. Time to sell off my main and take the isk to play market games in Jita while the rest of you lemmings scurry about with your assets impounded all over new eden.

CCP 0 Subs -2

Keep up the great work.

M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Stay Feral
#106 - 2015-08-14 03:41:54 UTC
Edwin Wyatt wrote:
Sweet, I've already dropped down from three accounts to one. Time to sell off my main and take the isk to play market games in Jita while the rest of you lemmings scurry about with your assets impounded all over new eden.

CCP 0 Subs -2

Keep up the great work.

I'm playing EVE Change Bingo, and "unsubbing my accounts" was the last square I needed, thanks!

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#107 - 2015-08-14 03:52:41 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:

If the only use for caps is to kill other caps, there's no incentive to move them anywhere or field them first.

Caps are also very good at both killing & supporting battleships.
Which are in theory very good at killing battlecruisers.
Who 'should' be good at killing cruisers.

The BC's killing Cruisers is the point where the meta breaks down badly atm and why CCP have mentioned an upcoming BC/BS buff, which once BC & BS get used to escalate vs Cruisers, then naturally causes caps to become part of the escalation cycle around fighting for control of a grid of a citadel.

There's no reason to use caps for killing battleships when we have stealth bombers, Tengus, and more battleships of our own.

In any case, if this is the role for capitals to come then it's still very poorly defined and not particularly inspiring.
Arthur Aihaken
#108 - 2015-08-14 04:19:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If they can fix some of the... frankly baffling portions of this, and make roles and such not a headache, they will be head and shoulders above the POS system. Seriously, POSes are one of the worst mechanics in modern gaming.

There's a lot of "ifs" in this statement... When a POS runs out of fuel, you can scoop or shoot the arrays. And when you shoot the POS, it's either reinforced - or it isn't. In any event, you can return in 24 hours (not a week or more) to finish it off. And all of this actually entails shooting - something that is infinitely more fun than using an Entosis link.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

The Chodak
Void Alliance
#109 - 2015-08-14 04:41:09 UTC  |  Edited by: PAPULA
So if i have 1 kronos in the "station" that gets destroyed i have to pay 10% to get it "moved" to NPC station ?
That would mean at least 120mil for moving it to npc station ?

Not going to happen, if this is how it will work, i am moving to NPC space, period.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#110 - 2015-08-14 04:58:46 UTC
PAPULA wrote:
So if i have 1 kronos in the "station" that gets destroyed i have to pay 10% to get it "moved" to NPC station ?
That would mean at least 120mil for moving it to npc station ?

Not going to happen, if this is how it will work, i am moving to NPC space, period.

Would you rather it got destroyed completely? Or ended up locked up in a station you could not access forever?

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

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#111 - 2015-08-14 06:07:11 UTC
People have over years on end demanded destructible outposts and conquerable stations because it would be so much fun -- now they get destructible outposts and destructible conquerable stations and suddenly it is not so much fun anymore. It is funny how quickly people's minds change as soon as the powerful turn their demands and wishes into hard reality. Roll

That is, however, not to say that I am particularly happy with these developments either. If there were no superpowers in EVE that can destroy your new player stations without you being able to do anything at all against them (except joining them which is not going to happen), these NPS would be a lot easier to sell and use. But the way it is in EVE, and with the general incapability for EVE players to act reasonable and not like a child in front of the treats shelf in a supermarket, these structures are tainted with a lot of risk and little to no rewards.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#112 - 2015-08-14 07:30:53 UTC
First of all as an Anglais en France, I really enjoyed the food related corp names, my favourite was The Mighty Bouillabaisse Conglomerate. LOL.

I like what you are trying to do here, I am a little bit concerned about NPC 0.0 space in terms of no indexes and the impact on my structure(s) in terms of having 12 hours per week per structure... I guess I will have to suck it and see..., I thing it is really a very good first pass. And I like that the combat is local to the structure too.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

14th Legion
#113 - 2015-08-14 09:20:15 UTC
I share the concerns of some that there is no dps element at all involved in the destruction of these structures, and I really feel that is a mistake.
Capturing this is one area, but destroying them I think needs to have some portion of it involving ships using weapons rather than just entosis links.

My suggestion would be that the third and final entosising, rather than destroying the structure, causes its shields to fail leaving a measure of armour and hull to be burned through with dps ships.
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#114 - 2015-08-14 09:27:17 UTC
So.. a dinky little rifter could have the role in taking down an XL citadel? Dear Lord...

Also, I don't get the point of all this complexity. If you want to make stations destructible, just add the asset safety thing to current stations and be done with it?
Misfits of the Unknown
Sigma Grindset
#115 - 2015-08-14 10:07:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Janwaar
FT Diomedes wrote:
PAPULA wrote:
So if i have 1 kronos in the "station" that gets destroyed i have to pay 10% to get it "moved" to NPC station ?
That would mean at least 120mil for moving it to npc station ?

Not going to happen, if this is how it will work, i am moving to NPC space, period.

Would you rather it got destroyed completely? Or ended up locked up in a station you could not access forever?

i would rather ccp paid my insurance on the destruction of whatever ships i lost.

just out of interest how would you gauge the price of the items cost ?
tasman devil
Phoenix Cartel.
#116 - 2015-08-14 10:29:18 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
Work on the the new Citadel structures is proceeding well. Now it is the time to discuss the design how you can attack, defend and conquer a Citadel.

All Citadels, no matter their size, will have 3 vulnerability windows and will be attacked via Entosis Link mechanics (though no Command Node spawning).

Please read CCP Ytterbium's blog Citadels, sieges and you and inform yourself about all the details! We encourage you also to read the companion blog I feel safe in Citadel city.

Constructive discussions and questions are most welcome, additionally the CSM has compiled an excellent FAQ for your convenience.

Too many windows [of entosis], too many hassle. Not enough reward!

Stations should be destroyable. Permanently! Not just entosis the sh*t out of it... and then something might happen... geez.. Sorry people but even I could come up with a better idea of nullsec than this.

And I live in High Sec!!!

(okay, for a reason but this just doesn't give me enough of a fizz to go to null)

I don't belive in reincarnation I've never believed in it in my previous lives either...

CCP Ytterbium
C C P Alliance
#117 - 2015-08-14 10:46:44 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.

Vulnerability timers are bigger for L and XL because those are meant to be large corporation assets, with more manpower to protect them than M. Besides L and XL will have access to advanced weaponry that M doesn't have (in low/null/wormhole space) so it makes sense for them to require more effort to maintain.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P Alliance
#118 - 2015-08-14 10:48:06 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

It will most likely be showing in space near to the structure - it ultimately depends on how the implementation is going to be, where are not there yet P
Bearing Srl.
#119 - 2015-08-14 11:06:58 UTC
so, where will 0.0 NPC space end up in? sov with occupancy, sov without occupancy? high/low sec npc? wh???
Kazon Necht
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#120 - 2015-08-14 11:08:41 UTC
Lots of good comments here so far. Many echo the things that I've heard on our comms.

It appears to me that the reason CCP appears to have missed the mark, is because the problems that people complained about the most were not really solved. Instead, they were changed into something that appears to be far more hated by most people that use them.

The problem that I see here is that CCP focused so much on what people didn't like, that they didn't focus on what people did like about the POS system. I admit that the structure grind was boring and terrible. But there was so much that was good about POSs. The results of destroying a POS, especially one in use, were good. The fact that there was reward, outside of just blowing them up for fun, made it worth the time. Or at least, part of the time it took.

For one, I like the idea of unifying the POS code into something more intuitive. That rigs will explode with the POS is a great idea. It happens now with ships, and despite the cost, we still fit rigs to our ships. The fact that things are being more unified is good. For me, that's where the positive part of it ends.

Only manual guns? That's not a good idea. Corps used POSs and the automatic guns to catch people in traps and blow them up. Now that's gone. That was a tactic that you've changed.

Transporting loot to a nearby station? Are you serious? This is the worst decision, outside of the 3 step entosis process, that's been made. Right now several entities, especially those of us that live in wormholes, destroy POSs and spend the hours grinding because of the loot that might drop. The fact that you are taking this away and making it "safer" to store things in a citadel is a mistake. One thing EVE has often done is manage risk:reward well, and now, you've completely changed that.

The fact that the entosis link is the ONLY way that citadels can be destroyed seems counter intuitive. The problem before was the time it took to do the grind. Now, suddenly, you've made it take longer and you've managed to make it even more boring. At the end of the day, it would have likely been better if you could RF a POS with a link and then have to destroy it by bringing a fleet to actually shoot it. It leaves a reason for supers to exist and a reason for people to bring their dreads and cap fleets out, along with supporting subcap fleets.

As a wormhole player, I'm absolutely blown away at the disregard for how we operate. Keep in mind that while you did not originally intend for us to live in wormholes forever, wormhole dwellers managed to make it work, even with the broken POS code. EVE players are resourceful like that.

In wormholes, we may spend weeks or months planning the eviction of another corporation. It's our version of sov warfare. We will slowly seed the system with capitals, carefully working around the rules of wormhole masses and timelines. This system works well; it isn't generally complained about by anybody that understands how wormholes work. The reward is the potential to capture ships, modules and other things inside of the wormhole we are attacking. You see, we generally don't want the system, what we want is to fight (PVP), to win and to take our spoils and leave.

By changing it so you don't have to anchor at a moon, you've effectively made it nearly impossible for us to protect our home system without the risk of somebody just putting up a citadel in our system. After all, we can't declare it a home system and somehow stop that. By removing the drops, you've removed any real reason for us to siege other corps, because the reward is bad for the tremendous amount of risk. Not all sieges work out in the aggressor's favor.

It really seems to me that this new system is all about safety. I feel as though it was created to appease the new players who you want to invest their money in buying PLEX and building up what they own. It really ignores the existing players who have, under the existing risk/reward benefits of the existing system, come to understand and accept the risks of POSs.

I play EVE because it's really a difficult game to master and every decision that I make puts me at risk. It's a bit realistic in that sense. By taking it away and making it a "safer" game to play, you may attract new players, but are you going to retain the existing players like me with 5-6 accounts that are willing to spend a lot of time online to grind towards my end goal? Perhaps that isn't your objective here.

I will close with this thought: I do not believe that this system will increase PVP or game enjoyment at all. If those two things aren't your goals, then what are your goals so we can understand why you've changed this system so much?