EVE Information Portal

so let's see:
me player of eve online, deploy one of these new citadels on a dyspro moon; and, assuming worse case scenario- null space without occupancy - i'll have 12 h vulnerability/week;
me, player of eve online, set all the entire 12h window right then, all 12h in one window; then i logoff;
now the funny part begin: even i do absolutely nothing to defend, it will take 3(THREE)WEEKS for the attackers to kill it???! wow... just wow...
oh and the cherry on top: 90%of my mined stuff will go to empire for free....

me, player of eve online ask CCP: bro', do you even eve?

well thx for explaining it to me... easy and intuitive mechanic... lol

while this may be better for contesting player stations - it is much worse and substantially more tedious and terrible for contesting player pos. For instance, say you have a small pos - you show up and shoot it - bring enough dps and it can be killed/reinforced in minutes. In fact, if the owner fails to stront it then it can be killed in one cycle. Now we are being forced into a one size fit all solution for pos, stations and everything else - so now the new small pos citadel equivalent is going to require a mandatory 3 cycles of magic wand waving - and there is no way to speed it up. Much worse then structure grinding.

Then they need to clarify and release an infographic to that effect. Because this is a clusterfuck.

Why are you shoving this convoluted entosis crap down our throats? It looks so uninteresting that I haven't the willpower to even bother learning the process and I cannot simply ignore it any more since it's spreading from sov nullsec

Magic want structure destroying is painfully immersion breaking, especially when done by some little ship. If you must have it, just limit it to first reinforcement or have it disable stuff or something.

Also, say something concrete about caps and supers ASAP because many subscriptions are hanging by a thread waiting for this. Leaving it too late, past the point where people have given up on waiting and caring, will be, I dare say impossible to entice accounts back.

Actually, it is kinda explained, but isn't.
In the example given in the dev blog, Reinforcement timers are based on the what GMT time the structure successfully enters reinforced mode 1 - 23. Say, you set your vulnerability window to cover the hours 9 -13 GMT. Then someone attacks the structure & it enters reinforced mode at 11 GMT, then the window is calculated by the owner, by looking at how they have set up their vulnerability windows and adding 11 to it. It is not 11 + 11 = 22, but rather you look at the spread of when you have set your vulnerability windows and add 11 to the time at which the structure entered reinforce mode, to the vulnerability hours, which of course could be set over multiple days & very well push the exit time to the following week.
But a count down timer will still appear against the structure.
So in that way to go through all 3 phases, yes, it could take 3 weeks to push a structure through phases 1, 2 & 3 depending on how the owner has set the vulnerability windows, under the current proposed formula or by just keeping it in a contested state (see below). Although CCP say they don't want it to take more than a week from start to finish, which means the current proposed formula has to change.

However where the dev blog runs into trouble is here:
"Reinforcement duration may change depending on the structure type and size – larger structures may have a reinforcement timer set to half the vulnerability window, while smaller ones may have longer reinforcement timers to give owners more time to react."
Which suggests there is a alternate way to change the length of the reinforcement timer, but it is not explained further in the blog.

It also hits trouble with The Entosis link contest;
" A structure that is partially contested with an entosis link will delay the vulnerability or deployment timer indefinitely, until such time where the owner uses his own entosis link to remove the contested status, or an attacker chooses to fully attack it. The duration will however count toward the vulnerability or deployment timer – a structure that needs 4 hours to be deployed, but is stuck in a contested state for 5 days can be immediately deployed if the owner removes this particular status with his own entosis link."

So right here CCP acknowledge the timers can be kited, by keeping it in a contested state, but if the attacker pushes it into reinforcement mode, the timer will still be worked against the vulnerability window schedule, set by the owner.
So you can push the timer outside of the vulnerability window in which you choose to attack, say using the above example to 16 GMT, but then the calculation would use 16 instead of 11. Or alternately you could hold a group to ransom by keeping the structure in contested mode indefinitely, So this needs, more explanation and thought given to it because there is nothing to stop this happening in any of the phases, which amounts to bad game play.

Also, why such a disproportionate amount of time between the attack and defence in the entosis link contest ?
That real needs rethinking.

that's is THE DUMBEST thing i've ever heard from ccp... i mean, seriously? CODE. will just fly around in trollceptors now, and reinforce all the things. don't even try to argue about concord. they'll just wardec all the alt structure corps out there. also, hisec wardeccers will have a heyday with all this.
currently, possed can have enough guns to fend off anyone that isn't serious about taking down the POS... as it should be.
not everyone can keep an alt logged in through every vulnerability. ll it does is add another boring job in the game.
I don't play EvE to babysit a structure for hours, so, without non-automated defenses, screw a citadel, i'll just do all my production in a station. it's not even worth the bonuses at that point.

Yes, the key part of that being "smaller structures".
What we have here, is a dev blog that defines the amount of time for vulnerability windows for all structures & the formula for the calculation of length & time of when a structure exits reinforced mode.
In order to achieve the "our rough estimates on this would be a week in total from start to finish" the given formula, has to be changed from that which is currently being proposed. Whatever the final formula ends up being, it has be applied to larger structures equally. The concerns of the ability to keep a structure, in the contested state indefinitely, still stands.

Removed an off-topic post.

It seems to me that this whole timer system was thought of over pizza and vast quantities of beer, and by the one who had drunk the most

It's just waaaay overcomplicated to probably bother with as a small industrialist, and especially as a solo one who has a rl to live as well.

I get the idea behind them, and yeah a new structure would be great. But without the mandatory ties built in.

But every single time I read about the timers it just fries my brain a little more, guys, it's a game...get a grip.

Ok in hs apparently it would still need a wardec and we would be able to take it down, but if it's a public one that will cause so much grief for the guy on holiday with stuff stored in it, it wouldn't even be funny.

So much for trying to make alternate market places

What's this partially contested state as well? If a link is disrupted does that mean it stacks with someone coming along and adding another 20 mins until they hit the whole amount of time needed? Much better would be for it to reset if it's not done in one hit.