These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy
Caldari State
#201 - 2015-09-18 16:09:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexander Tekitsu
Raddan Eldre'Thalas wrote:
In regards to Wormholes:

So here is what we know about the current system in place comparing Null sec and WH space. Wormhole dwellers use POS's, nullsec does too, but also gets all the lovely sov structures including stations. Risk vs reward are both high in both spaces, however currently it can be argued that Null sec can be much more profitable, also there is more content in null sec, (ie moon mining, ratting, expeditions) that you can't get from living in a WH. If we look at this from a risk vs reward stand point, which keep in mind is a HUGE factor in this game, it clearly points to the fact that the proposed changes to the new citadel structures in WH space should actually be the mechanics of Null sec.

Woah did he just say that? Well no, you actually just read it from a stand point based on a simple game observation. But think about the uproar in Null sec this would cause.

Now lets have another look and base our decision this time on game mechanic discrimination. We have a citadel in Nullsec, cool if it gets attacked and blown up I know that my items, blue prints and ships are all safe. Now we have that SAME structure in a wormhole, well crap... if it gets attacked I lose all my blue prints, ships, manufacturing, poof! all gone. Oh don't forget, I didn't just lose my items, I also my lost foothold in that system. That means corps and alliances that have lived in WH space for years can literately be wiped out in 48hrs. Mean while the person who just lost their citadel in nullsec can happily just pay some isk and setup shop again with alot less repercussions.

Most important point: People wont use these structures if the risk is to high. Unless there is some kind of super boost to the content reward in wormholes it will simply not be worth the effort to try and defend your keep.

TLDR: The risk to reward ratio will be too far off if in WH's you lose all your stuff and nullsec gets to keep theirs.


Most reactions are going to come from change. Nullsec has secure outposts, J Space has POSs which are not secure in either J or K space. I had originally thought that these were alternative sizes/replacements to Outposts only, but after it being pointed out and reviewing, they are also replacements to POS ( albeit, separate structures are required to fully replace the functionality of a POS ). So how do you resolve loot drops with respect to a structure replacing 2 different ones without drastically depreciating the value of one size over another? Right or wrong to blanket all sizes with the same mechanic, the current system allows for secure storage in K Space, but not in J Space. J Space is also more defensible than K Space from larger fleets by nature of travel to/from that system.

J Space dwellers get
- Personal Hangars ( so people can't steal your ships )
- More storage ( I can't recall seeing any mention of there being a limit on volume )
- Market
- No popped SMA by a passing interceptor because you didn't fuel the POS

K Space dwellers get
- Less security of their assets location
- More security of assets that would have been in a POS ( Something that used to exist with BPOs being in station, but work with them in a POS )

So unless there is something major I'm missing, I think the proposed structures are more beneficial to J Space than K Space over current mechanics.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#202 - 2015-09-18 16:19:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
I'm liking this revised version much more. Cool

I have one question (still need to re-read/digest detail of the blog more) from the 'example' given:

Quote:
The Medium Citadel will stay invulnerable for a specific amount of time (again, how and when is still left to debate). Let’s say the Medium Citadel will come out of invulnerability 24 hours after the repair timer started, so 19:40GMT on Sunday.


Would you consider using Strontium (up to 24 hours of) for this? Strontium timer 'kiting' i.e. adjusting up/down based upon your opponents expected 'prime time', is a very valid piece of game play at the moment, which would be a shame to lose (as well as the potential of strontium loading 'f-ups'/SPAI drama, and content creation that arises thereafter)



ps. hope you are going to write some cool 'fluff' around this [siege process] too, to go with the visual effects e.t.c. On the note visual effects, if would be cool if the shields flared different colour/effect for the shield/'armour' timers (i.e. it's the shield that becomes temporarily invulnerable during each step) with the minor/major hull damage visible underneath.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Vilar Diin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#203 - 2015-09-18 16:25:44 UTC
Raz Xym wrote:
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.


Love the changes! Very much in favor of keeping wormholes dangerous, however have you considered giving wormhole citadels added functionality that's only available to wormholers to compensate their ballsy self imposed added vulnerability?

Eg. Shorter vulnerability, higher bonuses to station modules, lower fuel cost for the modules, unique station weapons only available to wormhole citadels (t3 turrets possibly or just an additional meta weapon) etc.
159Pinky
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#204 - 2015-09-18 16:26:18 UTC
These things are supposed to be important structures for the entities holding them. They shouldn't be trow away items in some foreign region only to be forgotten ( I assume this ).

So why not link the vulnerability windows to the amount of that type of structures a corp / alliance has. Link medium and large ones to a corp and X large to an alliance. This will keep these structures as a strategic asset for the holder and prevent spamming of them because I would go so far as to have those structures vulnerable 24/7 if they really spam too much.
Ben Ishikela
#205 - 2015-09-18 17:05:37 UTC
Q = Will i be able to prevent/fight others who try to kite of the timer?
So if my friend's remote repairs get calculated into the 4k/12k/60k dps then over this threshold any remote reps on the structure are in vain or do they reduce the threshold? (imho they should not reduce it)
Any way, If the citadel is beyond its vulnerable timer but the repair timer is still on, then ...
.. someone could sacrifice a stealthbomber every 30minutes to keep the timer running indefinitely.
.. and therefor kite the timer into a timezone of his choosing.
==> i presume that there has to be a tactic to still repair the structure and when the damage is calculated for the repair timer to reset, then the remote repairs are calculated as well.
So for example a stealthbomber shoots the station for 30seconds of 400dps and then dies. 3 exequrors repair the station for 300dps each. then 400+(-300)*3 = -800. Its negativ and therefor the repair timer wont be resetted.

Sorry, i just woke up. Thanx for reading ;)

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.

CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#206 - 2015-09-18 17:06:52 UTC
Leatien Cesaille wrote:
While I do like the idea of shooting things instead of shining pretty lights at it (that's why I prefer hybrid weapons over lasers), something bothers me about this system as presented in the blog. Probably somebody has pointed it out already, but reiteration is always good on the Interwebs, isn't it?

So from what I gather the structure enters the vulnerable timer at a predetermined time but the repair timer starts the moment it gets shot at and will repair the structure to full after the timer runs out. Even if it has been damaged in the previous vulnerability phase.

There are two problems I see with it.

First, there is no real reason to have this vulnerable state going on longer than the repair cycle since all the defender has to do is shoot his own structure once at the beginning (with an out of alliance char if necessary) to start the repair timer and the structure will be as good as new after that relatively short time. An attacker planning to attack near the middle or end of the vulnerable timer will have to start anew. To be fair the current entosis mechanic has a similar consequence that not being on field the moment the vulnerability starts puts you at a potentially huge disadvantage but it still takes time and effort to capture nodes distributed over several systems. It's far more difficult to block an attacker from several systems than from just the system the station is in.
Shooting your own structure to help repair it faster seems counter-intuitive to me...
There are two ways to address this: If you want to have both attacker and defender to be present on the field the moment the new vulnerability starts just start the damn thing in the repair phase right away. If you do want a bit of flexibility for the attacker to properly deploy at any time or break through a gatecamp during the vulnerability window apply the repair to previously shot down HP pools at the end of the vulnerability window regardless if a repair timer has run it's course or not and allow multiple repair cycles to occur during a single vulnerability period that only deal with damage to the current pool.

Second, I don't think it's right that everything is repaired. What a repair cycle should do is either repair the damage done to the current vulnerable pool or the one before it - and only that one. So let's say the structure is in structure vulnerable mode, survives a vulnerability period uncontested it doesn't get it's shield and armour repped to full but just the armour. It will need a second vulnerability window to get repped to full. To be fair to prevent delaying tactics by a single player (or small force) that has no real hope to actually apply enough dps to be a threat I would like to see some sort of threshold. For example, as the damage to the current pool doesn't exceed - say - 25% the next pool gets repped too after the repair cycle. Or you could just go with repping the current and previous pool although than this is only really relevant if the structure is already in structure.


The repair will start automatically as soon as it comes out of reinforce. There is no "shoot your own structure to trigger a repair faster".

The conditions for repair are pretty simple: if the structure is vulnerable to attack and has any damage it will automatically try to repair itself

CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones

Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy
Caldari State
#207 - 2015-09-18 17:14:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexander Tekitsu
Ben Ishikela wrote:
Any way, If the citadel is beyond its vulnerable timer but the repair timer is still on, then ...
.. someone could sacrifice a stealthbomber every 30minutes to keep the timer running indefinitely.

"As mentioned above, the repair damage stops whenever damage is applied. It will resume counting down 10-30 seconds after the structure stopped receiving incoming damage. When the repair timer hits 0, the structure fully repairs its shields, armor and hull"

From the blog, you would have to sacrifice one every 10-30 seconds for indefinite. /me is learning to read \o/

"Be aware that we are actively seeking to prevent types of hit and run tactics that would allow the attacker to apply damage without committing to the battlefield (we are looking at you, Stealth Bombers). If you want to attack someone’s assets, be ready to commit your fleet to it."

Also from the blog, gotta say, made me smile a bit with the last line.
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#208 - 2015-09-18 17:33:27 UTC
Alexander Tekitsu wrote:
Ben Ishikela wrote:
Any way, If the citadel is beyond its vulnerable timer but the repair timer is still on, then ...
.. someone could sacrifice a stealthbomber every 30minutes to keep the timer running indefinitely.

"As mentioned above, the repair damage stops whenever damage is applied. It will resume counting down 10-30 seconds after the structure stopped receiving incoming damage. When the repair timer hits 0, the structure fully repairs its shields, armor and hull"

From the blog, you would have to sacrifice one every 10-30 seconds for indefinite. /me is learning to read \o/

"Be aware that we are actively seeking to prevent types of hit and run tactics that would allow the attacker to apply damage without committing to the battlefield (we are looking at you, Stealth Bombers). If you want to attack someone’s assets, be ready to commit your fleet to it."

Also from the blog, gotta say, made me smile a bit with the last line.


The issue is the fleet is irrelevant. It took maybe one hour for us to figure out a meta that renders defending pretty much irrelevant. Oh sure, fleets will die but not fleets that cost anywhere near what the XL does.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Alexander Tekitsu
State War Academy
Caldari State
#209 - 2015-09-18 18:08:32 UTC
Aryth wrote:
The issue is the fleet is irrelevant. It took maybe one hour for us to figure out a meta that renders defending pretty much irrelevant. Oh sure, fleets will die but not fleets that cost anywhere near what the XL does.


That is EVE. I have no doubt that a fleet of rookie ships would also be able to do it with enough numbers ( provided they don't group up and get smoked by 1 AoE Torp ). But at least it isn't 1 cepter with a laser which was more the reason for my comment.
TheMercenaryKing
Ultimatum.
#210 - 2015-09-18 18:22:01 UTC
Alexander Tekitsu wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Alexander Tekitsu wrote:
Ben Ishikela wrote:
Any way, If the citadel is beyond its vulnerable timer but the repair timer is still on, then ...
.. someone could sacrifice a stealthbomber every 30minutes to keep the timer running indefinitely.

"As mentioned above, the repair damage stops whenever damage is applied. It will resume counting down 10-30 seconds after the structure stopped receiving incoming damage. When the repair timer hits 0, the structure fully repairs its shields, armor and hull"

From the blog, you would have to sacrifice one every 10-30 seconds for indefinite. /me is learning to read \o/

"Be aware that we are actively seeking to prevent types of hit and run tactics that would allow the attacker to apply damage without committing to the battlefield (we are looking at you, Stealth Bombers). If you want to attack someone’s assets, be ready to commit your fleet to it."

Also from the blog, gotta say, made me smile a bit with the last line.


The issue is the fleet is irrelevant. It took maybe one hour for us to figure out a meta that renders defending pretty much irrelevant. Oh sure, fleets will die but not fleets that cost anywhere near what the XL does.

That is EVE. I have no doubt that a fleet of rookie ships would also be able to do it with enough numbers ( provided they don't group up and get smoked by 1 AoE Torp ). But at least it isn't 1 cepter with a laser which was more the reason for my comment.


What if there was not only a damage cap before the damage is reduced, but also a DPS minimum, like set an XL tower to 1500 DPS before repair is paused with that 10-30 second timer where if it is below 1500 dps it begins repairing again?

This will require a constant minimum number of people to shoot it. It would be like this:
0-1,500 DPS for a minimum of 10-30 seconds, Repairing
1,500-60,000 DPS, Repairing paused
60,001+ DPS, Repair paused, damage reduced.

This would prevent troll-ceptors or people attempting to not engage/commit.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#211 - 2015-09-18 18:58:54 UTC
I really like the 'built-in Target Spectrum Breaker' idea of Skia Aumer, soft cap as opposed to hard cap, and can be implemented using something already in game (though would need some tweaking I think).

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#212 - 2015-09-18 19:37:26 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
I really like the 'built-in Target Spectrum Breaker' idea of Skia Aumer, soft cap as opposed to hard cap, and can be implemented using something already in game (though would need some tweaking I think).


It would be nice to use all those BPC's for something!

Maybe trade them in at 10 old BPC's for a new Citadel Module BPC :)
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#213 - 2015-09-18 19:58:24 UTC
xttz wrote:
afkalt wrote:

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.


In order to lose a freighter you *have* to be logged in and playing the game. You're actively in a position to mitigate any risk via in-game action.

Structures are persistent items that have to balance risk with the concept that players cannot be around 24/7 to mitigate it. EVE is (in theory at least) a video game and not a job. That means accommodating real life events such as players getting sick, going on holiday, looking after family, and any other scenario that could result in them being away from their hobby for a few days or more. By not providing scope for players to step away for a time, CCP would actively alienate a majority of players from using their brand new feature that's receiving so much development time. At best the feature would be under-utilised, at worst players would simply not play anymore.

It's hardly 'special snowflake treatment' to draw a line between a player actively logged in the game and able to take action, and a player who could lose months or years worth of assets to a real life calamity.

Edit: There's also a tangible benefit from players feeling safer; it provides more targets for others to shoot at. I don't know about you, but I'd rather kill 100 structures that drop limited loot, than a loot pinata that rarely ever occurs because no one takes the risk.


I agree that there is a benefit to making players "feel safer." It encourages them to take bigger risks. Still, viscerally, I do not like the implementation of the safety mechanic. I don't want to see items magically transported to safety - even for a hefty fee. I would prefer that the player has to move or recover their own stuff. That they have to eventually get out there in space and become a potential target.

I also agree that people need to be able to not play Eve for a day or two, but really, that is something with which your friends can and should assist. Many years ago, my small corporation seized a lucrative moon in Low Security space. We held it for a while, then most of our members drifted away from Eve. I tried to maintain the moon myself. I thought, "My POS is well-defended. I have three POS gunner alts. I can hold this on my own." Then, I had to make a day trip for work and of course the one day I was out of town is the day a hostile fleet decided to reinforce my moon. I got back to find it would come out of reinforcement in two hours. If I had some friends, we could have held the moon. As it was, I did my best to fight for it, but in the end, I lost a very nice faction tower and a lucrative moon. CCP should not change game mechanics so that there is a different outcome there. I built a nice little sandcastle and someone bigger kicked it over. Welcome to Eve. HTFU.

Players can learn to manage how much stuff they cram into one station - same as people in WH's do now. Don't put all your eggs in one basket seems like a sound old rule. They can also learn to move their stuff to a more secure area before taking an extended break from the game.

With that said, if everyone ends up living in NPC stations and Low Security space (except Goons), then that is also not good for Eve. Eve is all about being able to build sand castles and kick over sand castles. It is also all about one-sided battles. There are very rarely tough fights with heavy losses on both sides in Eve. Most of the time, fights are one-sided massacres. There needs to be a balance between being able to evacuate to the safety of an NPC station and the reward of owning your own destructible fortress. I have yet to really see anything from CCP on what the rewards will be for living in these stations. I'd be inclined to have the NPC stations start to charge hefty fees for docking rights and storage space. Still, something more than that is needed...

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

Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#214 - 2015-09-18 19:59:03 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tobias Frank wrote:
Looks promising!

Also, will we get docking scenes in the new citadels as we have now in stations/outposts when we are docked? Ship spinning is an important feature!


No docking scene. When you dock, the camera will be centered around the structure instead, so you can now play structure spinning.


You've got to be kidding?

Do not run. We are your friends.

Thron Legacy
White Zulu
Scorpion Federation
#215 - 2015-09-18 20:20:49 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
I really like the 'built-in Target Spectrum Breaker' idea of Skia Aumer, soft cap as opposed to hard cap, and can be implemented using something already in game (though would need some tweaking I think).

so you feel safe in your m-class citadel cause it got ecm
suddenly marauders
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#216 - 2015-09-18 20:32:27 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
Alexander Tekitsu wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Alexander Tekitsu wrote:
Ben Ishikela wrote:
Any way, If the citadel is beyond its vulnerable timer but the repair timer is still on, then ...
.. someone could sacrifice a stealthbomber every 30minutes to keep the timer running indefinitely.

"As mentioned above, the repair damage stops whenever damage is applied. It will resume counting down 10-30 seconds after the structure stopped receiving incoming damage. When the repair timer hits 0, the structure fully repairs its shields, armor and hull"

From the blog, you would have to sacrifice one every 10-30 seconds for indefinite. /me is learning to read \o/

"Be aware that we are actively seeking to prevent types of hit and run tactics that would allow the attacker to apply damage without committing to the battlefield (we are looking at you, Stealth Bombers). If you want to attack someone’s assets, be ready to commit your fleet to it."

Also from the blog, gotta say, made me smile a bit with the last line.


The issue is the fleet is irrelevant. It took maybe one hour for us to figure out a meta that renders defending pretty much irrelevant. Oh sure, fleets will die but not fleets that cost anywhere near what the XL does.

That is EVE. I have no doubt that a fleet of rookie ships would also be able to do it with enough numbers ( provided they don't group up and get smoked by 1 AoE Torp ). But at least it isn't 1 cepter with a laser which was more the reason for my comment.


What if there was not only a damage cap before the damage is reduced, but also a DPS minimum, like set an XL tower to 1500 DPS before repair is paused with that 10-30 second timer where if it is below 1500 dps it begins repairing again?

This will require a constant minimum number of people to shoot it. It would be like this:
0-1,500 DPS for a minimum of 10-30 seconds, Repairing
1,500-60,000 DPS, Repairing paused
60,001+ DPS, Repair paused, damage reduced.

This would prevent troll-ceptors or people attempting to not engage/commit.



Fairly interesting. I sorta like it as it would mean you need to have enough left alive near the end to be viable. All the system needs is tweaking to where suicide BLAZE OF GLORY doctrine (There I named it) is cost prohibitive. Right now the ISK cost is so unbalanced CCP would need to be providing Citadels with 50% across the board resists and huge damage/dps/blap. I seriously doubt they are planning stats that come anywhere near solving the ISK ratio. At least not and be consistent with previous statements about Citadels not being able to fend off a fleet solo.

I also like the idea of capitals giving the citadel resistances.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Atan Auden
Hemus
Brave Collective
#217 - 2015-09-18 21:04:29 UTC
Adding the citadel defences would make the citadel look more realistic.
Im sure you could design them as a useful module.
for example shooting war targets, corp negative standing targets and any targets which are agressing the citadel.
Dont skip that feature....

Leatien Cesaille
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#218 - 2015-09-18 21:19:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Leatien Cesaille
CCP Nullarbor wrote:

The repair will start automatically as soon as it comes out of reinforce. There is no "shoot your own structure to trigger a repair faster".

The conditions for repair are pretty simple: if the structure is vulnerable to attack and has any damage it will automatically try to repair itself


Thanks for clearing that up, seems as if I misread the blog post. My brain simply did not consider the damage done in the previous vulnerable cycle and assumed that the structure would exit in a vulnerable state (because that's what usually happens in triangle graphs). Should have looked closer at the graph...

I still stand by my second issue.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#219 - 2015-09-18 21:26:17 UTC
snipped for quote limit

Aryth wrote:


Fairly interesting. I sorta like it as it would mean you need to have enough left alive near the end to be viable. All the system needs is tweaking to where suicide BLAZE OF GLORY doctrine (There I named it) is cost prohibitive. Right now the ISK cost is so unbalanced CCP would need to be providing Citadels with 50% across the board resists and huge damage/dps/blap. I seriously doubt they are planning stats that come anywhere near solving the ISK ratio. At least not and be consistent with previous statements about Citadels not being able to fend off a fleet solo.

I also like the idea of capitals giving the citadel resistances.


The AoE weapons may provide an answer to the (valid) concern.

The alternate is to have the things ignore hits under a certain value, but that really craps up WH in a fairly big way. So...what about if capitals apply defensive entosis links, hits under XXX damage per hit are ignored?
Horus V
The Destined
#220 - 2015-09-18 23:22:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Horus V
"The current plan is for those structures not to have auto-defenses. This is still left to be debated, but 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, like having a completely out-of-date firewall and anti-virus on your computer."

I disagree because everyone knows that when you have small fleet roaming whs and looking for easy POS to kill, they always think twice when they see a POS with more ressistances and lots of ecm. It just takes ages to kill such POS without dreads.

Also why cannot we just improve the defences so its actually a challenge instead of HP grind? The situation when defenders are offline makes the game boring. Lets make the bases intelligent and add some game play!

V