These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 v2

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Raz Xym
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2015-09-17 17:08:27 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:

...

Was the idea of having the asset security for Citadels in Low Class wormholes, but not High Class ever discussed? My thought was to have Asset Safety in C1-C4, but not C5-C6.

...



Or perhaps having a mechanic tied any known space statics? If you have a hi-sec static, then it perhaps gets hi-sec options? Low-sec, only low sec options. I guess if it null-sec they would need to ensure NPC null is always an option?

Just an idea to add exaggerate variance and different desirability to wormholes of the same class.

I think most WH dwellers will want no asset security, but I figured this option might be interesting if they did implement some version of asset security.
Bed Bugg
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2015-09-17 17:10:03 UTC
RL mostly. Work, kids summer. But I have been around. I have voiced my concerns.

There is a definite group of folks who push this meta for sure.

Just think folks should know who is responsible when the unintended consequences of this turns WH space into a wasteland.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#63 - 2015-09-17 17:11:53 UTC
I like the wormhole changes, but I do think people should have somewhat safer options, perhaps tied to the class of space and also to size of citadel. Maybe let medium citadels in C1-3 have some partial loot safety (perhaps only the build a new citadel to have the items delivered option), so people can still be hit, and they would have to stick around to get their stuff back.

Also, as suggested above, a minimum average DPS to reset the repair timer seems totally reasonable to me.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#64 - 2015-09-17 17:13:13 UTC
Raz Xym - I can't see that working - and we still want structures to behave consistently in W-Space... I think that would add to much confusion, especially since the static connections aren't immediately obvious when you enter the system; unlike the system-wide effects.
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2015-09-17 17:15:06 UTC
Still digesting the changes, but wanted to say, massive respect for the thoughtfulness with which you have reconsidered everything.
Tritis Mentari
The Greater Goon
#66 - 2015-09-17 17:15:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tritis Mentari
Is it a design choice that as long as no one notices your anchoring structure in highsec during the first 15 minutes, they won't be able to wardec you in time to prevent its successful deployment?
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#67 - 2015-09-17 17:15:40 UTC
The vulnerability windows are still ridiculously short.
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#68 - 2015-09-17 17:19:33 UTC
Tritis Mentari wrote:
Is it a design choice that as long as no one notices your anchoring structure in highsec during the first 15 minutes, they won't be able to wardec you in time to prevent its successful deployment?


Yes.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
#69 - 2015-09-17 17:21:33 UTC
I'm glad to see HP based combat will remain. I like the migi... whatever that word that brings attack times in line.
A few more notes on timers and asset safety i'd like to point out:

> Destroying a structure, like the medium one in the example, needs to be do-able within a reasonable amount of time. Keep those timers reasonable. You already transfer the time-window advantage from the agressor to the defender - this should be enough "safety" and advantage any owner can wish for. Best you can do to motivate agressors is to keep the timers between attack phases within a reasonable time.

> I still strongly disagree on asset safety. The owners advantage mentioned above is already a good safety mechanic. There needs to be no 100% safety by NPC ninja's that get your stuff out. I'd love to see at least wormhole structures drop according to the ship loot mechanics.

> Wormhole gameplay matters a lot based on being able to see what the locals do inside their forcefields. What ships they have ready or switch to and also if they are even online. Is there any plan to keep that alive? I'd love to have a way to know wether players are around or not. Today, a lot of fights start out from the fact, that one party knows the other is around and stays around waiting for the time to act or bait or whatever....
Bed Bugg
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2015-09-17 17:29:32 UTC
Jon Hellguard wrote:
I'm glad to see HP based combat will remain. I like the migi... whatever that word that brings attack times in line.
A few more notes on timers and asset safety i'd like to point out:

> Destroying a structure, like the medium one in the example, needs to be do-able within a reasonable amount of time. Keep those timers reasonable. You already transfer the time-window advantage from the agressor to the defender - this should be enough "safety" and advantage any owner can wish for. Best you can do to motivate agressors is to keep the timers between attack phases within a reasonable time.

> I still strongly disagree on asset safety. The owners advantage mentioned above is already a good safety mechanic. There needs to be no 100% safety by NPC ninja's that get your stuff out. I'd love to see at least wormhole structures drop according to the ship loot mechanics.

> Wormhole gameplay matters a lot based on being able to see what the locals do inside their forcefields. What ships they have ready or switch to and also if they are even online. Is there any plan to keep that alive? I'd love to have a way to know wether players are around or not. Today, a lot of fights start out from the fact, that one party knows the other is around and stays around waiting for the time to act or bait or whatever....



So basically 100% of the benefits to the aggressors?
Well thought out.
Keaden Aemar
4 Marketeers
Rura-Penthe
#71 - 2015-09-17 17:38:05 UTC
Barubary Evans wrote:
Bed Bugg wrote:
Wow – all great except the unbelievably sh*ty wormhole idiocy.

...

Way to go! You have now made 90% of the features for citadels worthless in WH space.

You realize that Wormholers basically asked for the Wormhole exceptions, leaving WSpace a risky venture? There have been meetings and gatherings and townhalls and a fair amount of chat in no small number of boards, forums, and threads, and the overwhelming response has been pushing for such WH exceptions.

If you don't like them, where were you when they were being talked about?


Seems like the only people attending those townhalls were the ones who almost exclusively pvp'd in wormholes. As a C2 dweller, I'm not a fan of the exceptions planned for wormhole space. I feel like there shouldn't be any more or less security than null sec.
Nou Mene
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#72 - 2015-09-17 17:45:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Nou Mene
Great work, keep it up!! Big smileBig smile

What would you think about making it possible to use Entosis in some way?
Suggesting different options:

a) Entosis disables shields (so first reinforcement);
b) Entosis increases dps mitigation barrier
c) Entosis changes resist profiles
also:
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
Couple of thoughts:

Use Entosis Link to disable guns on a Citadel (should they be added)
Use Entosis Link to Raise the DPS Mitigation cap.
Capital re-balance - Dread damage vs BS+BC and an out of siege damage buff.



then and also, if damage (and skin) is back in the game, couldnt vulnerability windows get a little bit bigger?

Greetings
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#73 - 2015-09-17 17:54:21 UTC
Keaden Aemar wrote:

Seems like the only people attending those townhalls were the ones who almost exclusively pvp'd in wormholes. As a C2 dweller, I'm not a fan of the exceptions planned for wormhole space. I feel like there shouldn't be any more or less security than null sec.


W-space is not an extension of nullsec, as much as it may seem that way sometimes.
Current Habit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2015-09-17 17:54:25 UTC
I would be fine with those changes if I didn't knew (and hadn't used) Slippery petes, sniping tornados and similar long range, hard to probe ships that don't commit whatsoever while dealing enough damage to overpower any threshold.

This leaves the defenders with no way to force a fight while the attacker slowly grinds the structure HP.
SpaceSaft
Almost Dangerous
Wolves Amongst Strangers
#75 - 2015-09-17 17:59:56 UTC
I like that I don't have to waste isk on expensive modules now.

The concern I have is that I don't see how this is supposed to produce any content.

Time windows are very small.

Sitting around the same thing for 30 minutes is not something people will want to do either. Even though they're shooting, even though they will have friends with them.


It does not touch the n+1 issue, it does not offer any new tactical toys or chocies as far as I can see.

If you think ANYONE is going to bring anything but a dread to shoot even the smallest stuff, you're lying to yourself.

Can't you give the structures some kind of assault number parity? You need to have at least 15 people shooting at it, no matter the ship size for it to work? Something where 15 frigs = 15 dreads?

Attackers wouldn't have to invest as much, defenders could engage easier targets and if the attacker wants to roflstomp something with 500ppl fleets they still can?
Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2015-09-17 18:01:29 UTC
I like the DPS mitigation idea (I actually suggested something similar years ago), but I'm worried about the gameplay that will involve around this. Nobody "small" will drop dreads on a structure, it is just to dangerous as 30 minutes is long enough for somebody bigger to come by and hot drop O'Clock.

The most effective force for grinding a structure will be stealth bombers. At 500-600dps each, we are talking about a really low number, 8 for small and 24 for large, to reach the max dps. If the defender shows up, they just cloak and warp off. They have 15, 30, or 60 minutes to reship and come back and fight it they want to. That is plenty of time. The attacker really gets to dictate the fight and there is no chance for the defender to get the drop on the initial reinforcement.

Ninja dreads were an interesting form of game play where the attacker risked a lot on the initial reinforcement (ie drop dreads), as there was a high probability they could be gone before anybody noticed. If they were noticed during the 5 minutes, it was a fun fight for both sides (ie attack/defend in under 5 minutes before the big targets in space jumped out). WIth the new system, nobody is going to put up a bullseye like that by dropping dreads as it's near 100% chance you will be noticed in 30 minutes. The only people that will drop dreads are those that drop small dreads and a cyno on multiple targets and then have 500 people and 100 supers ready to bridge in wherever needed.

This isn't all bad, but I will miss the risk/reward factor with reinforcing a structure. There is now nothing to gain by risking more valuable targets on the field.


Also, POCO's should also be changed in the same manner as Citadel's, it will get to confusing if they are not.

.
Oskolda Eriker
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2015-09-17 18:03:12 UTC
You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space
Wonders are all around!
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#78 - 2015-09-17 18:09:27 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Tritis Mentari wrote:
Is it a design choice that as long as no one notices your anchoring structure in highsec during the first 15 minutes, they won't be able to wardec you in time to prevent its successful deployment?


Yes.


At which point a citadel will appear at the list of warpable objects in system? When anchored or when fully deployed?

Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Ben Ishikela
#79 - 2015-09-17 18:13:20 UTC
Sooooo goood! +1+1+1+1

BUT issues:
- Unanchoring a highsec structure when in the 24h waiting time to being wardecced. evasion still possible? or is the unanchortime with a 24h wait before removed from space?

- What about removing the Shield of Stations inside of Wormhole space?
-- because of natural phenomena *hrhr* --
- - - Thera and shattered could also remove armor as well. Then its very risky but still possible to stage there. Because it would be awesome.

^^this is on my principle that its better to desincentivice than to forbid.

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#80 - 2015-09-17 18:13:28 UTC
Oskolda Eriker wrote:
You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space
Wonders are all around!

Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.