These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: I feel safe in Citadel city

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two
#281 - 2015-08-18 15:50:49 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sasha Sen wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
The current system favors rich, well-established groups. Any good system will inevitably do that.

You also still have not answered the question: What is the difference between PL or Goons showing up in a small alliance's space and dead zoning all their stuff in an Outpost versus blowing up a large or XL structure?



Just a guess, the size of the fleet needed maybe?


Not really a relevant factor. If the enemy is better organized and bigger than you, it doesn't really matter what size fleet they have.


Of course it relevant. Currently there is a minimum number of ships that are needed to reinforce a POS, with the new system that number is reduced.

I know you are speaking for null sec mostly, but what may be irrelevant there is not necessarily true for wh's.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#282 - 2015-08-18 15:57:07 UTC
Sasha Sen wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sasha Sen wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
The current system favors rich, well-established groups. Any good system will inevitably do that.

You also still have not answered the question: What is the difference between PL or Goons showing up in a small alliance's space and dead zoning all their stuff in an Outpost versus blowing up a large or XL structure?



Just a guess, the size of the fleet needed maybe?


Not really a relevant factor. If the enemy is better organized and bigger than you, it doesn't really matter what size fleet they have.


Of course it relevant. Currently there is a minimum number of ships that are needed to reinforce a POS, with the new system that number is reduced.

I know you are speaking for null sec mostly, but what may be irrelevant there is not necessarily true for wh's.

Whilst this is a concern for larger groups in deeper Wspace holes (who should be able to muster a defence to at least one of the reinforcement periods), it's positively a fact to celebrate for the newbros that just moved into their first C3 and want to take down the dead sticks left inside by the previous tenants.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Greymist
CollapseTrap
#283 - 2015-08-18 21:54:26 UTC
I think that rather than having all your stuff magically appearing somewhere in K space. that there should be a period where you can combat the "escaped" freighter before they dissapear. The freighter of course should have a heavily armed escort.
beakerax
Pator Tech School
#284 - 2015-08-18 23:09:49 UTC
Leto Aramaus wrote:
Who moves asset protected items CCP? Invisible NPC haulers that teleport and are immune to all aggression? Bad idea is bad.

SoE sneaks the assets away during that 15 minutes a day when all the capsuleers are mysteriously absent.
Savant Alabel
Phoenix Tag.
GF Company
#285 - 2015-08-19 11:01:34 UTC
I have suggestion: place market sell orders in loot with common loot destroy rules. Pirate
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy
Caldari State
#286 - 2015-08-19 18:29:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexander Tekitsu
The FaQ wrote:
Will Citadel weapons be automated?
No.


So, a single cepter can destroy your 10's of billions ISK citadel while you are on vacation, if people want to destroy a structure that has defenses, allow it to defend without being babysat.
In an age where spaceships soar through space, can we not get a computer that can recognize a threat and respond? Might be a bit much to ask since it can't even remember a scanned signature result.

This is risk adverse fairy laser madness, if you want to destroy a structure, bring something capable of destroying a structure of that size, risk losing a reasonable amount to the structure you are attacking. This is not flipping a SOV switch, or an outpost ownership switch, it’s removing assets from game via destruction ( Citadel itself, fuel, fittings, rigs ). People need to risk something to get something, it's the way of EVE. Risk vs Reward, and right now all the Risk is on the owner of a citadel, and all the reward is on the attacker because they don't have to risk anything significant to be rewarded with a potential drop ( which btw, the materials from the structure or a Titan if it was being built? What exactly are you going to haul that in? an armada of freighters? ).

I won’t bother ranting about the podding of pilots, or even ejecting their pod into random space, I just won’t log off in one ever so at least if it gets destroyed I have a ship ( because pod surfing in Nullsec to losec will end well, really, it will ) Everything else can be relocated to an occupied station that I can't get my stuff out even if I do pay the fee ( low sec roams in mining barges is also a great pastime for a drunken pilots, not so much for a mining fleet ). What to do while all my stuff is in transit? Should I just log off? will that get the active pilots up a bit?

They are paper houses soaked in gasoline and all the kids have matches. These are not suitable replacements for outposts at all and are questionable as even a POS replacement.

So if you want to have fun, look for the low sec station closest to a null sec region and happy trolling, You'll get the drops as they try to get the stuff out of that station.
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#287 - 2015-08-19 18:33:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Morn Hylund
-Implants being destroyed when logged off seems too harsh. And many players will start not logging off in a structure which is silly.

-10% fee based on the value of your assets for movement after structure is destroyed is steep. You already are being penalized by not having access to your assets for many days, losing the structure itself, losing all your jobs and materials. Having all your assets relocated. Seems more realistic the fee should be calculated based on the amount and size of assets being moved and how far they are moved, not the value of those assets.

-I like the idea of keeping WH assets in WH space, but perhaps there should be more options on how a player gets back their assets i.e. build a new station OR generate an anomaly where assets can be retrieved safely, or have assets delivered to another station but time delay should be very long for WH space.

-NPC stations in hi-sec should remain indestructible, but without access to the expanding features of structures in other parts of space that are more vulnerable
Vasama
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#288 - 2015-08-19 22:48:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Vasama
Word Insurance has come up in this thread and IMHO that is what should be pursued instead of asset safety.

Key points:

Individual hangers can be insured for certain ISK value
Corp hangars can be insured for up to certain ISK value
Once citadel goes BOOM loot drops and gets destroyed and nothing gets magically moved anywhere. There can be a lot of loot.
Logistics is part of warfare and some assets can take longer time to build than currently thought model of assets safety would take for their recovery.

When you buy the insurance it will take some time take effect. Let’s say that you want to insure you hangar on Citadel X in system Z. You buy the insurance for 10 billion isk the insurance will become active a week from the purchase.

If the Citadel dies before you insurance is active...too bad, you paid the fee and get nothing back.
If you have less than 10 bil assets in Citadel when it dies you get the insurance value, that should not be 100% but good compensation anyway.

Should you have 14 bil of assets but only 10 bil you would only be compensated from the 10 bil. Should you only have 6 bil worth assets you would only get 6 bil even you insurance was for 10.

Should your corp take the Citadel down while you have goodies in there and if there would be no way for you to evac the goods before structure would be taken down, then the goods would get destroyed but insurance would compensate you with a smaller percentage than if the Citadel would have been lost to enemy action.

Cost of insurance would go down on time (bonus system), but it would remain a constant isk sink - even that after the 1st year the costs might be way down. It would make sense for small in corps and individuals to insure their main hangars, but big entities should think which hangars to insure.

Naturally one could change the insurance plan, but that would mean the delay. Should he make the sum less that it used to be no extra premium would be carried and that could be valid from the time it had been made, but should one want to rise the insurance amount then there should be a time before the insurance would be valid and also a time before the raised insurance fee would get lower.

Citadel hangar insurance would be different than ship insurance and ship insurance would not be in effect while the ship is docked.

The insurance fees could be different depending where the citadel is located. Or even not granted at all to some systems. Anyhow to have security for your goodies would need active play from the player.

An existing plan could be moved to new location. Let’s say that you move to new place you would not have to start the insurance from the scratch, but naturally there would be administrative fee and delay.

EDIT: Fraud prevention. Value of dropped items cannot exceed the value of paid insurance plans.

Vasama
Orm Magnustat
Red Serpent Industries
Red Serpent Alliance
#289 - 2015-08-20 06:49:26 UTC
Vasama wrote:
Word Insurance has come up in this thread and IMHO that is what should be pursued instead of asset safety.

Key points:

Individual hangers can be insured for certain ISK value
Corp hangars can be insured for up to certain ISK value
Once citadel goes BOOM loot drops and gets destroyed and nothing gets magically moved anywhere. There can be a lot of loot.
Logistics is part of warfare and some assets can take longer time to build than currently thought model of assets safety would take for their recovery.

When you buy the insurance it will take some time take effect. Let’s say that you want to insure you hangar on Citadel X in system Z. You buy the insurance for 10 billion isk the insurance will become active a week from the purchase.

If the Citadel dies before you insurance is active...too bad, you paid the fee and get nothing back.
If you have less than 10 bil assets in Citadel when it dies you get the insurance value, that should not be 100% but good compensation anyway.

Should you have 14 bil of assets but only 10 bil you would only be compensated from the 10 bil. Should you only have 6 bil worth assets you would only get 6 bil even you insurance was for 10.

Should your corp take the Citadel down while you have goodies in there and if there would be no way for you to evac the goods before structure would be taken down, then the goods would get destroyed but insurance would compensate you with a smaller percentage than if the Citadel would have been lost to enemy action.

Cost of insurance would go down on time (bonus system), but it would remain a constant isk sink - even that after the 1st year the costs might be way down. It would make sense for small in corps and individuals to insure their main hangars, but big entities should think which hangars to insure.

Naturally one could change the insurance plan, but that would mean the delay. Should he make the sum less that it used to be no extra premium would be carried and that could be valid from the time it had been made, but should one want to rise the insurance amount then there should be a time before the insurance would be valid and also a time before the raised insurance fee would get lower.

Citadel hangar insurance would be different than ship insurance and ship insurance would not be in effect while the ship is docked.

The insurance fees could be different depending where the citadel is located. Or even not granted at all to some systems. Anyhow to have security for your goodies would need active play from the player.

An existing plan could be moved to new location. Let’s say that you move to new place you would not have to start the insurance from the scratch, but naturally there would be administrative fee and delay.

EDIT: Fraud prevention. Value of dropped items cannot exceed the value of paid insurance plans.

Vasama


Some real thought - very different from magical space fairies! Idea
Still possibilities of fraud would have to be looked into very carefully - conversion of stuff into isk, thats instantly available at the other side of the universe without any logistics effort holds an immense potential for that.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#290 - 2015-08-20 08:32:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Vasama wrote:
Tl;dr: spend heaps of money to store and insure your stuff in a convoluted manner and lose it anyway


...or just use free and 100% safe NPC stations instead of encumbering yourself with a Citadel.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#291 - 2015-08-20 09:28:36 UTC
Sasha Sen wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sasha Sen wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
The current system favors rich, well-established groups. Any good system will inevitably do that.

You also still have not answered the question: What is the difference between PL or Goons showing up in a small alliance's space and dead zoning all their stuff in an Outpost versus blowing up a large or XL structure?



Just a guess, the size of the fleet needed maybe?


Not really a relevant factor. If the enemy is better organized and bigger than you, it doesn't really matter what size fleet they have.


Of course it relevant. Currently there is a minimum number of ships that are needed to reinforce a POS, with the new system that number is reduced.

I know you are speaking for null sec mostly, but what may be irrelevant there is not necessarily true for wh's.


I understand your point, but I've solo reinforced many POS's with just my own alts, so I do not consider that a serious minimum barrier. I think we agree, however, that Aegis Sov has lowered the minimum fleet size substantially. It is still relative power between attackers and defenders that is most important.

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

Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#292 - 2015-08-20 11:21:01 UTC
The exclusion of blueprints for jobs from the drop system is arbitrary and unnecessary. You can already cancel the job to secure your assets under this system, which is far too easy, so you're just trying to remove all risk from the system. Structure materials and fittings do not make up for this, losing what is for the most part a sunk cost is not the same at all as losing something you were using.

What was wrong with the secure/insecure hangar split ideas? If you're using items they should be available as loot, whereas long term storage can be safe.
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#293 - 2015-08-20 11:57:56 UTC
Morn Hylund wrote:
-Implants being destroyed when logged off seems too harsh. And many players will start not logging off in a structure which is silly.

-10% fee based on the value of your assets for movement after structure is destroyed is steep. You already are being penalized by not having access to your assets for many days, losing the structure itself, losing all your jobs and materials. Having all your assets relocated. Seems more realistic the fee should be calculated based on the amount and size of assets being moved and how far they are moved, not the value of those assets.

-I like the idea of keeping WH assets in WH space, but perhaps there should be more options on how a player gets back their assets i.e. build a new station OR generate an anomaly where assets can be retrieved safely, or have assets delivered to another station but time delay should be very long for WH space.

-NPC stations in hi-sec should remain indestructible, but without access to the expanding features of structures in other parts of space that are more vulnerable



I'm not quite sure what you mean here..Because if you mean HS should have no access to the new structures then you must be taking the ****.

I have a POS now, what am I supposed to use when it goes? NPC facilities?

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#294 - 2015-08-20 12:15:40 UTC
I find the items transport after losing a citadel a bad choice. Losses should have meaning. A lot of gaming incentive will be gone when you ( or you opponents ) don't risk losing your items. Please change.
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#295 - 2015-08-20 13:06:56 UTC
Axhind wrote:
Langbaobao wrote:
TBH, I don't know how I feel about this whole thing, but having this magical NPC teleport that gets your stuff safe from a citadel that gets destroyed sounds extremely risk-averse and un-EVE like. The level of security that it provides (recovering 90% of your stuff that was stuck) sounds really like a reward for not defending. People are just gonna go: "**** this, let the morons waste time killing it and we'll just grab our stuff in some station". It definitely does not feel like a big loss for the enemy that you're trying to punt out of somewhere. You put in the time to burn their **** and they lose only 10% of their stuff (in the form of ISK impound tax), not to mention the attacker does not get rewarded for killing a structure. Currently killing a POS drops you loot from the hangars and all (the famous loot-pinata) and I can tell you, it's a distinct pleasure when you can loot something out of someone's POS like that. I don't see why stuff should be magically teleported from the destroyed structures. After all, the structures will have reinforce timers like outpost currently have, right? So let them evac their stuff like it's done now in outposts, and if they can't, well, they should have fleeted up and tried. Here are some suggestions that I think might make this system better or at least more rewarding for the people that put in the effort to actually attack the structures:

- Corp and personal stuff should at least in part (25-50%) drop for the attacker like in the current POS mechanics. It would be the reward for wasting time on several reinforcement timers and/or fleet actions.

- I still think people should lose stuff from their citadels like happens with POSes today, however if a system is introduced for people to recover stuff from destroyed structures (magical NPC pony freight service) at least make the loss sting. People should lose at least 50% of their assets if not more, and not a miserly 10% (in ISK no less). The ONLY exception should be the pod and the ship the pilot was sitting in when he logged off. This would mimic the current situation when people log off in POSes can log in after the structure is destroyed and get away with the ship they were currently in. This would make sense as well fluffwise since IIRC the idea was that ships 'moor' into the citadel; and scenes of ships scrambling away from a burning space structure are a dime a dozen in SF movies and so on. It would also prevent having to resort to annoying workarounds like the 'log in in space to save the pod', mentioned previously.

- Related to what was mentioned above, the pilot logging in after his citadel is destroyed should respawn with his ship in the same system where the citadel was. In my opinion they should respawn at the same place where the citadel was placed, but I would consider the option that they appear at a random safe spot somewhere in space, although I'm not so sure about this because it would prevent people being 'bubble-caged' and hence 'reward' them with an increased chance of survival. This would need further discussion.


Gotta love such comments from people sitting in NPC stations and talking about risk. If they remove all NPC stations in complete game so that nobody can sit and hide then you have a point. Else nobody sane is going to use the new structures (except maybe us as chances of losing one are low enough).


Got to love a comment by somebody who assumes players have but one character What?
Circumstantial Evidence
#296 - 2015-08-20 20:57:37 UTC
Citadel destruction / asset loss:

Your assets "magically" moved doesn't bother me, CONCORD is pretty magical. I've never seen a CONCORD freighter - that's how stealthy they are! But if folks are not happy with complete asset safety for the 10% price of moving it, a percentage of random stuff going missing, could be added in. Just like wreck loot drops, but more favorable: perhaps 75% chance of recovery per item.

I also think the insurance idea sounds interesting, it would create a ton of market and industry activity, replacing lost items. But, how would blueprints be handled? Perhaps those could be handled outside an insurance system, considered "digital data" and transmitted to safety (with a 25% chance of a "garbled transmission" per item.)
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy
Caldari State
#297 - 2015-08-20 23:43:36 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Citadel destruction / asset loss:

Your assets "magically" moved doesn't bother me, CONCORD is pretty magical. I've never seen a CONCORD freighter - that's how stealthy they are! But if folks are not happy with complete asset safety for the 10% price of moving it, a percentage of random stuff going missing, could be added in. Just like wreck loot drops, but more favorable: perhaps 75% chance of recovery per item.

I also think the insurance idea sounds interesting, it would create a ton of market and industry activity, replacing lost items. But, how would blueprints be handled? Perhaps those could be handled outside an insurance system, considered "digital data" and transmitted to safety (with a 25% chance of a "garbled transmission" per item.)

Allow me to explain something between all the "Must have more loot" and "Hey, it's a risk for living in null".

  • Currently : I have have billions in assets in an Outpost that is "occupied" by my alliance, and it will always exist.
  • Risk : Can lose possession of the station and I would either have to try to join a corp with standings to the current owners, or sell my property ( depending on market, I can make money if I'm patient ). This loss of docking rights can happen while I decide I want to take a year off, but I still know my stuff will be physically there.


  • Proposed: I have billions of assets in a Citadel that is OWNED by my corp
  • Risk : All my stuff will be transferred to an inconvenient NPC station in an area I would never put those assets and to top it off, I have to pay 10% of those assets "value" to get them back.
  • Risk: I have to move my stuff ( including non-combat ships like Freighter, Noctus etc ) at greater risk than I would have chosen had I been online to evac my stuff.
  • Risk: Someone decides to pack up the Citadel, all my stuff gets wisked away by fairies? I'm not even sure if I have to pay to recover that, but I know it probably won't be where I want it and see above.
  • Risk: Rather than building an outpost, I pay the same for an XL Citadel, which can use even more expensive upgrade modules, has full weaponry, but cannot defend itself like a POS would and can be blown up by a guy rubbing his wand in a ceptor a few times.
  • Reward: ???


So everyone chanting for loot, you should consider we are now being asked to risk losing far more than we currently would with no additional reward for living in a more dangerous region than NPC Highsec in structures that can explode at any time and don't even attempt to save themselves despite being armed.

Now answer, Why would I want to stay in null at all? What motivation do I have? is it the constant trolling in Cepter Sov? The chance to make billions of isk?

I know you enjoy the POS loot pinatas, but these are NOT POS class structures and I see 0 reason to look forward to the additional risk and babysitting being proposed.

Typing this up, I think I'm even more confused by the mixed messages. "We want small alliances to get out in null", "We've made null sec mining better, so you can actually build things!! yay!", "We want nullsec manufacturing independence!", "Your house is made of explosives", "Well, sorry you were away for a week in the hospital, I guess there's always low sec, next time drive safe". Twisted
Circumstantial Evidence
#298 - 2015-08-21 01:21:09 UTC
Alexander Tekitsu wrote:
Now answer, Why would I want to stay in null at all? What motivation do I have? is it the constant trolling in Cepter Sov? The chance to make billions of isk?
I think you've answered it - billions of isk. It does seem that any change is designed to add risk, but this comes after buffs to outpost industry bonuses that caused highsec industry to complain bitterly. Highsec's revenge? lol. Already null has the best mining, ratting, moons, etc.

The proposed changes tax your assets and add the inconvenience of moving them back where you'd prefer them. CCP doesn't want players to have much choice on where assets are moved, because too much player control could be meta-gamed.

Keeping the existing system, where outposts and assets are safe, is leading to a sov null with an outpost in every system. That sounds like a recipe for a stagnant endgame, once the last outpost is built.

Change is coming; I don't think its possible to balance the demands for safety against the demands for new content, without making one side or the other unhappy.
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy
Caldari State
#299 - 2015-08-21 03:20:24 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Alexander Tekitsu wrote:
Now answer, Why would I want to stay in null at all? What motivation do I have? is it the constant trolling in Cepter Sov? The chance to make billions of isk?
I think you've answered it - billions of isk. It does seem that any change is designed to add risk, but this comes after buffs to outpost industry bonuses that caused highsec industry to complain bitterly. Highsec's revenge? lol. Already null has the best mining, ratting, moons, etc.

The proposed changes tax your assets and add the inconvenience of moving them back where you'd prefer them. CCP doesn't want players to have much choice on where assets are moved, because too much player control could be meta-gamed.

Keeping the existing system, where outposts and assets are safe, is leading to a sov null with an outpost in every system. That sounds like a recipe for a stagnant endgame, once the last outpost is built.

Change is coming; I don't think its possible to balance the demands for safety against the demands for new content, without making one side or the other unhappy.

Although my "Chance to make billions of isk" was more sarcastic as the cost of living there is much higher and a more inherent risk of losses, I suppose for some it could be true, however for a small alliance that they are encouraging to go to null, that isn't going to happen for a while, as would be the same for most people. I can make billions of isk sitting in highsec blitzing L4's for LP, Combat site running, milking incursions or building.

I don't think it's fair to say the average member in a Null sec alliance is making billions faster than you could in Highsec with a lot less risk.
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two
#300 - 2015-08-21 05:36:43 UTC
I was trying to find information on citadels whether we are going to be able to repackage ships in worm holes now, but no luck.

Any information regarding repackaging ships?