These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Oskolda Eriker
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2015-09-17 18:15:20 UTC
Querns wrote:
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.

W-Space. Wormholes. WH
says something?
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#82 - 2015-09-17 18:16:43 UTC
Querns wrote:
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.


And its free if being recovered in the same system.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Eris Tsasa
Fweddit
Free Range Chikuns
#83 - 2015-09-17 18:16:49 UTC
Querns wrote:
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.


I thought it was said somewhere that if you're in a ship, and logged off, when the structure is destroyed, the ship goes pop along with your pod. I assume that's what that person was referring to.

On a related note, to Oskolda, Just defend your stuff and you won't have to worry.
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#84 - 2015-09-17 18:17:59 UTC
Oskolda Eriker wrote:
Querns wrote:
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.

W-Space. Wormholes. WH
says something?


I missed this too, and good point about logging off in wspace. We might let you keep your active ship if it explodes, to maintain consistency with logging off in a POS.

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
Dreiden Kisada
State War Academy
Caldari State
#85 - 2015-09-17 18:18:17 UTC
The reinforcement system on POSes ensures that both the Attacker and the Defender get to pick a time for their fight.

The current system is entirely for the defender.

If you made it so that the Citadel is always vulnerable on shield, but the other two are only vulnerable when the defender chooses, that would go a long way to evening things out.

Also, I don't think the entire structure should rep. If the attacker gets it down to structure but fails to finish the job, them have it rep up structure. If it survives next vulnerability window, then it reps armor. Then again for shields.
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#86 - 2015-09-17 18:22:56 UTC
I am happy mostly with these changes. However i still don't like a massive big arse battle station that will just sit there with its finger up its arse while its getting shot.

As a small wormhole corp i will struggle to be on every timer since i have a job and a life. Where a drive by can just reinforce it in 30mins is crazy when it won't shoot back. You say it gives a false sense of security? Well then what is wrong with letting us have that? And its not. A single dread can't take on a death star (large) solo right now. But if structures don't shoot back they could.

As for asset safety and logging off in space. The problem isn't that assets aren't safe in a citadel (in WH space), it is that log off in space mechanics is overpowered. Nurf log off mechanics.

Personally i still think there should be more asset attrition in all parts of space if your station blows up. Your space station getting blown up should hurt. But it also should shoot back.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#87 - 2015-09-17 18:24:18 UTC
Quote:
By Team Game of Drones

Soft Croissant Incorporated™
Croque-Monsieur Conglomerate™ (CMC)

Oh c'mon, we know who really wrote it!
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#88 - 2015-09-17 18:29:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Masao Kurata
I'm still processing this, but my gut reaction is that FOR HIGHSEC, the attacker investment is unreasonable and doubly so given the returns.

  • You need either a spy with roles, quite likely director level (in which case you might as well steal their assets), or absolute no life scouts who can watch a structure 24 hours a day for a whole week to determine vulnerability timers. EDIT: I may have misunderstood this part. The timer for the current invulnerability will be visible in space to neutrals? Still means a whole week of scouting but that's at least a bit less unreasonable provided that the vulnerability windows can't be easily changed.
  • You need a wardec, incurring immediate costs and giving the defenders notice and a chance to simply empty and take down the structure and not give a damn. During every week of this wardec you will only have the vulnerability windows available. (QUESTION: What are the conditions and delays involved in changing vulnerability windows? I feel like this was already answered in one of the blogs but I can't find it.)
  • Wardecced corps still get free allies.
  • You need to turn up at whatever ridiculous time the vulnerability is set to, which could be right before downtime. (QUESTION: what happens if a repair timer is running at downtime? What happens if a structure would go back into the repair state after reinforcement during downtime?)
  • You need by your own figures a hundred strong battleship fleet to reach the DPS cap for XL structures which you seem to be planning to allow in highsec. Personally I would actually say that people will in the absence of pos shields use things like blaster megathrons so the figure is a bit lower but this is still a lot of dps to deal with a structure that may be deployed by one guy and his five alts.
  • In the absence of information on the reinforcement timers I'm left unsure whether the fleet has to either stay up all night starting at some dumb time the owner corp has set the vulnerability timer to or turn up at said dumb time three days in a row or whether any citadel kill will require a campaign over a multiple weekend wardec AND turning up in the middle of the night local time repeatedly.
  • Defenders who can't field a proper fleet get strong defense options from the citadel fitting with no disadvantage to using them because they are not fielding anything that wasn't already at risk.
  • You get nothing delicious like BPOs anyway if you reach this point because you decided to make nearly nothing drop.


Final question: given all the above, why would anyone but the absolute largest wardeccers and possibly not even them want to go through all this to kill a citadel?
Raz Xym
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2015-09-17 18:35:25 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:
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.



Well you want them to operate differently depending on class. And if you are putting up a citadel in a wh without knowing your statics, I am scared.

But I can see your point, it is slightly more complex than some other options.
Current Habit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2015-09-17 18:35:54 UTC
Quick question regarding the icon showing how long until the next vulnerability timer:

In this devblog image the icon shows that the time until the next vulnerability window is almost 2/3 done and the time remaining says it's roughly 15h until this window. This would mean the time between the last vulnerability window and the next is roughly 45h, giving us hints how the vulnerability schedule might look like.

Is it safe to do this kind of math ? Currently, the bar showing how long a POS is still reinforced resets every time the viewing person leaves and comes back to grid, rendering such guesstimating moot).
Joanna RB
JoJo Industries n Shipbreakers
#91 - 2015-09-17 18:40:29 UTC
Damage Migitation. Love it.

Almost identical to a game I wrote in the early 1990's (except on mine you had to hit the cap otherwise damage counted as zero)

Always nice to see ideas you thought of over 20 years ago and were ridiculed back then, appear in a large mainstream game like EvE.
;)
Max Fubarticus
Raging Main
Bullets Bombs and Blondes
#92 - 2015-09-17 18:43:01 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
With Towers requiring fuel before it was very easy to see when a tower was abandoned, it simply went offline and while there was DPS to go through their was no reinforcement state.

Do you have any plans for some sort of abandoned state if a individual or group appears to no longer being using the structure, that won't require the reinforcement cycles?


That's a very good question! We see tons of POS(s) littering space. How about...

1. A simple mechanic that allows a corp/alliance to conquer and un-anchor / occupy / loot these structures after a period of time if no one has occupied the structure ( logged in, docked, reset V timer, or some form of transaction involving the structure. Say 30-45 days?

2. Same as above if corp / alliance is closed or disbanded without a transfer of ownership.

Just a thoughtBig smile

"damage restrictions and vulnerability windows look a little restrictive, but mostly looks good "

And that is why you never bring a knife to a gunfightShocked

Civil discourse is uniquely human. After all, when is the last time a pride of lions and a herd of water buffalo negotiated SOV over a watering hole? Never. Someone either gets their ass kicked or eaten. At the end of the day someone holds SOV.
Max Fubarticus
Raging Main
Bullets Bombs and Blondes
#93 - 2015-09-17 18:45:31 UTC
On second thought...

That would screw up the market meta wouldn't it.Sad

Civil discourse is uniquely human. After all, when is the last time a pride of lions and a herd of water buffalo negotiated SOV over a watering hole? Never. Someone either gets their ass kicked or eaten. At the end of the day someone holds SOV.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#94 - 2015-09-17 18:48:33 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Aebe Amraen wrote:
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:
Andre Vauban wrote:
How are you going to prevent a single kiting sniper from applying damage constantly to prolong the repair timer until you have to go to sleep? Ie warp a sniper corm in at range, shoot once, warp off. Repeat this with a single pilot until you have to log off. It's nearly impossible to stop and you have effective control of the grid, but you can never repair your structure since they are taking pot shots at it.


I think once its fully Repped your out of luck from how I read it. If it takes no damage in 30 seconds repairs kick in. It takes 15 total minutes to fully repair. So if your kiting ship is not beating its repair rate, as you warp in and out it will have of just repaired itself up. Hence why having Grid control and getting your enemies off is important as quick as possible.

Shoot it once during repair and it stops for 30 seconds.
30 seconds go by and no damage is received in that time repair cycle kicks back in.
Kitey ship shoots it again, warps off.. 30 second pause.. DPS doesnt do much of anything to it tho
30 seconds go by and that damage is repped as well as more until the ship lands to shoot it again and then warp off.
30 seconds go by, damage was still negligible so it finished its repair cycle after 15 minutes of self-repair.
The repair completed after the vulnerability cycle due to 30 second pauses, and it went back to an Invulnerable state.

Compared to if a fleet was on field shooting it which would keep the repair cycle from restarting and eventually it would get reinforced or chased away.

If reinforced , wash, rinse, repeat x2 more times for armor and Structure.

If chased away and it had time to repair.. wait until next window.


Andre has a legitimate concern here. A cormorant with a lot of bookmarks can easily apply damage once every 30 seconds, from >100km out, while being nearly impossible to catch. It doesn't matter that he has **** damage, as long as he can keep the repair timer prolonged (until the rest of his fleet arrives, for example, or just until he gets tired of trolling).


We will probably do a shorter timer (say 10 seconds) to resume counting down the repair timer as well as a small % damage threshold to trigger the pause. Balancing these will be required to prevent the hit and run tactics which we stated we want to prevent being effective.



Add a minimum damage in a period required to sustain blocking the repair cycle.
tainted demon
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#95 - 2015-09-17 18:54:48 UTC
I am all for new structures in space for people to fight over but if i'm reading this right,

If I want to attack one of these new structures i have to wait for it to be vulnerable (3 hour window a week for a Med tower probably when I should be sleeping) then i get a time to come back to get another timer so finally my fleet can come back to finish it off.

Or

If i'm defending a structure i just man the guns and watch a fleet shooting it then they come back 2 more times (if they are able too) i now don't even have to rep it myself if they take there time returning for stage 2 and when/if it goes pop i troll them in local about how i had 100 plex in there they can't get cos all 100 of those plex are now being auto moved to an npc station

Seems like a lot of effort for nothing imo
cant you make them so some loot can drop but whatever doesn't drop is moved to an npc station instead of being destroyed or at least make a safe asset hanger with limited cargo space for the owner to decide what is important to them. Otherwise what is the point of attacking a structure to begin with unless you are in nullsec/WH space evicting someone from your space?

Risk should = reward or consequence and i'm not seeing any of that from these pos's :(
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two
#96 - 2015-09-17 18:55:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Sasha Sen
As with previous changes the question that I still cant find an answer to is whether we can repackage ships in M/L/XL citadels or not.

PLEASE CCP, it's a simple question. (in WH's)
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#97 - 2015-09-17 18:56:38 UTC
Total destructions of assets in W-space citadels is harsh, but I do prefer that to the wonky options presented before.

It would be nice to ensure that the citadel's repair happens by stages over time, so that an attacking force that has not breached shield see the station repaired in a shorter amount of time that an attacking force that narrowly missed breaching hull.

As long as the services from citadels can suffer from entosis like current stations do, it is good to keep structure bashings based on DPS. With this cap system, more DPS simply means ability to atttack more structures at the same time, which is way better for the game in general! I also like that the resists can be adjusted without just adding extra layers of HP.

Very glad to know that vulnerabilities will not be given out on a plate via API (hopefully, no API bugs will "prevent" you to achieve this goal) and that you continue to stand firm on having to man the defense stations for citadels.

Overalll, that sounds good.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#98 - 2015-09-17 19:02:32 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Oskolda Eriker wrote:
Querns wrote:
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.

W-Space. Wormholes. WH
says something?


I missed this too, and good point about logging off in wspace. We might let you keep your active ship if it explodes, to maintain consistency with logging off in a POS.


So in other words, stuff all your stuff into a carrier and be sure to be sitting in that carrier before logging off Big smile
Ronce
Incognito Mode
Brotherhood of Spacers
#99 - 2015-09-17 19:05:17 UTC
Quote:
we do believe existing auto-defenses on Starbases are nothing but a false promise to safety, since they are so easily abused and bypassed by attacking parties. They just give the owner a feeling of safety where none actually exists

Except it DID prevent individules from easily trolling. Yeah sure it didn't prevent a large dedicated group from killing it. But the auto defenses of towers that were thought out DID prevent the 1-3 man corps from doing anything. As you currently plan, WH/LS corps will still be forced to POS sit for the whole of their windows just to prevent the random scouting troll from punishing them for wanting to play SPACESHIPS Online, not BABYSITTING Online.

A note on the publicly visible timers. Please only have them visible from combat induced behavior. The current design negates any real effort still with them being "beacons".
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2015-09-17 19:07:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
A clarification please, to shut down a tower means a 24 hr wait before you can unanchor it, at which point it is in hull only until unanchored?

if so Yay! I think I made a suggestion that was actually sensible :D This would mean player corps setting up a station in hisec would have to commit to defending a structure or lose it.

As for WH space how about instead of NPC fairies magicating the stuff out to NPC stations it is ejected and warped off much like planetary launches. If the WH group maintained someone in the hole they can at least map a route and bring the rest of the corp back in to recover some of the stuff but there is still the risk of losing everything if you lose presence in the hole.

I still think that either a rig or module to allow automated defenses would be good, this would allow some defence whilst unmanned but at the expense of the utility of the citadel.