EVE Information Portal

In case of destruction of structures, it should be either everyone get everything back or everyone lose everything. I don't see any reason why some people should suffer losing everything they hardly earned while some others have the privilege to save all their assets automatically by the game.

Are you serious? Making new features that denies another new feature, which is not implemented well yet...

Now look what you're doing:
1. Entosis is bad, because players want pew-pew.
2. Entosis is good, because it ensures active presence of sides on battlefield.
3. You now take it out and replace with 30min repair timer -> satisfy p.1
4. 30 min timers ensures, that hit&run will be used as primary attack tactic to decrease risks ->broken p.2

Solution:
Make damage only appliable while entosis is active (or make it stop repair mechanics while decreasing repair timers)

CCP is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. A very vocal group asked for loot drop in WH space. CCP listened to their arguments and complied. Now the other side is coming out to register their complaints. Personally, I would like to see loot drop in all areas of space.

That's how you fix it.

I don't understand why such safety is expected. It's not like there are any other examples of a "sympathy" fairy spiriting your wrecks loot away.

Ok, this is actually not bad, and I can't believe that CCP listened to people saying that structures should be DPSable. It gives me finally some hope for CCP. IMHO sov itself and everything related to sov (like indexes, production and so on) should be entosis driven, while structures should be DPSable.

Damage mitigation is actually not bad as mechanic to limit the actual DPS amounts that you have to apply, thus lowering the requirements enough that even small entities with 30 man fleets can easily take down stuff. Overall I think it's a good proposal which finally takes into consideration some of the feedback that people have been trying to make CCP aware of in the last few months. There are however a few things that I think need some tweaking, and in particular:

1) Structures and SOV should be separated, the former requiring DPSing, and sov entirely entosis driven. I know that they've mentioned that in the deblog already, but I think it should be emphasized.

2) IMHO the vulnerability windows should be larger. I know that the reasoning behind the reduced vulnerability windows is that it helps smaller entities, but still, 3 hours of vulnerability per week for small citadels and 6 h/week for large ones is a bit too small I think. Especially when the whole vulnerability window can be shoved into one day per week, thus making the structure invulnerable the other 6 days. I think the numbers should be tweaked. Also, maybe a system where there is a diminishing returns system implemented could be the way to go. This way if you set your vulnerability window to be a small amount every day or every second day would incur no or very small penalties, while if you set it all in only one day then you would get a penalty to vulnerability that would increase that window by a certain amount (dunno, maybe 50%?). So for example if you have a large citadel (6 h/week of vulnerability), if you put one hour of vulnerability per day you would have no penalty (=6 h/week total), if you put them every second day the vulnerability window would increase by 25% (=7.5 hours of vulnerability per week), and if you put it all in only one day you get a 50% penalty (9 h/week). Hope this gets my point across.

3) Medium and Large Citadels should have some form of defense akin to current POSes since M and L citadels will be used as a substitute for these. These defenses would not threaten an organized fleet, even a relatively modest one but would discourage trolling. Since you've mentioned that you're looking for a way to discourage trolling without putting throwaway assets, this could be a way to go. XL citadels on the other hand should not have defenses since they will act primarily as substitutes for outposts and will require a non trolly amount of assets to be deployed to affect them or kill them.

4) If a citadel is destroyed the person inside should spawn in the ship he was in at the same spot where the citadel was before (akin to what happens currently with POSes). This was discussed previously when we had the first citadel blogs, but I would like to reiterate. Otherwise people will just use the workaround of undocking in their ship from the citadel and log off while being invulnerable and I think CCP has agreed as well that in such a situation is it is basically useless to swim against the stream since people will use the workaround anyway and it will make everything just unnecessarily tedious.

5) Also CCP plz, loot pinatas for everyone, not just WH, although not necessarily with the same percentages as WHs. Maybe for example outside of WHs a certain percentage can drop and the rest goes back to the original owner like described in previous blogs (although I'm still against magical Pony Express to lowsec)

I like the described mechanics but I must admit I am a bit confused now.

Does all this only aply to citadels or other upcoming structures (mining stations, sensor arrays, ...) as well?

What about that command node spawning mechanic?

I really liked that idea of spreding combat over a whole region and making the topography of a regin matter in combat.

Is that all obsolete now?

Please clarify which mechanic applies to which parts of structure / sov warfare.

This will pretty much apply to all future structures also (aside from sov-related ones like TCUs).

The trouble with command nodes for non-sov structures is two-fold:

1) You're fighting for control of the structure itself, not control of the area as with sov. It makes sense that stand-alone structures are conquered through firepower.

2) These structures are meant to work in all kinds of space rather than just nullsec. This in turn brings around limitations when you move constellation-based fighting to other kinds of space; how would it work in wormholes, or when one side doesn't have the security status to move freely within a full high-sec constellation? It's best to keep things consistent in a way that works everywhere.

It's not just the building and losing though, these structures are supposed to be used as market hubs, who will put stuff in them to sell if it can all go boom without some kind of assurances on asset safety? Note I said assurance not insurance as that opens up exploits.

There needs to be some kind of balance between safety and no safety. Perhaps in the event of a wardec in hisec or losec any stuff on the market or belonging to non corp pilots should be magicated away but the structure owning corps stuff is at some degree of risk. I quite liked the idea proposed earlier where larger structures help mitigate losses more (although this would need to be balanced with the increased fuel usage to make smaller structures viable if somewhat more risky.

nullsec and WH should use the proposed mechanic of warp away cans that pop up in the owners planetary launches menu since there won't be NPC's out there to ferry it (NPC null would have magication but some risk of loss perhaps).

Anything that is actually 'lost' should drop as loot.

ED: Another idea, perhaps the NPC magication of goods should be dependent on one or more 'Emergency Evac' modules being fitted. Increased safety for goods would mean decreased utility on the station itself.

That's a can of worms though. Why do some areas get special snowflake treatment?

It's the same in *every* area of eve. Someone "expecting" a level of item safety in say, a freighter, is laughed off these boards - and rightly so.

Why do other areas qualify for special snowflake treatment?

Did I miss a bit in the blog which says people can't evac when it is RFd? Serisou question, I might have, I was doing a lot at once when I read it. If I did not and evac is viable....there's literally no good reason for this whatsoever.

Ed: Had to chop some quotes

You are correct, but the very same situation exists today, in wormholes. 2 days out of the game and the whole place can be torn down.

So the precedent is here today, which is why I'm not seeing the problem.

I do not disagree with your overall reasoning, my question is more down the path of "but this can happen today and that's deemed ok....so why change it?"

Unless we're just placing WH to one side as the special super hardcore snowflakes - in which case I'll shut up