These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-09-15 15:44
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-10-07 20:02
  • Number of Posts: 22
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 41

Morn Hylund

Security Status 0.1
  • Center for Advanced Studies Member since
  • Gallente Federation Faction

Last 20 Posts

  • [September] Mining Barge and Exhumer tweaks in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I don't get it.

    It looks like you're taking away one of the Mining lasers with the Hulk (so more active switching by a miner to go do what is already an extremely tedious activity in Eve and reducing mining yield by a 1/3rd) - while boosting it by 25% (1/4) in other areas with perhaps more boosting in the low slots? Which comes out to about even except again - anyone mining with a Hulk has to be switching Asteroids more often??

    How is this not just make mining even more a boring less lucrative activity (especially with the planned mineral price nerf changes)?


    I mean come on ...
    First you have Citadels that are absolutely useless to defend unless you happen to have a fleet on your beck and call (so much for POS equivalency, especially for wormhole manufacturing), now you screw over mining with more ludicrous hand waving - and silly do nothing upgrades ...

    No wonder Eve subscriptions are dropping - and people are jumping ship for more entertaining games like Star Citizen, No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous etc.

    Wake the F*** Up.

  • The Citadel Experience in EVE Communication Center

    Browsing through recent killboards, it appears the Astrahus (those that have been fitted, and usually in C2 Wormhole space) is an easy 2+ billion Isk kill for small gangs (1.3b for the Astrahus, another 1b+ for modules).

    Perhaps the most surprising data is that none of the gangs attacking an Astrahus seem to take any ship losses whatsoever. At least from the killboard reports I've seen.

    Unless you have a fleet standing by at every 3 hour vulnerability period for your Astrahus, which admittedly, most small corps or wormhole dwellers probably do not - it's pretty much kiss your 2+ billion investment goodbye - if some small party wants to have some gang bang fun.

    I'm not sure how this fosters or incentivizes more exploration of Wormhole space or how this helps the game in general.

  • Every year, there are less users playing, why?? in EVE Communication Center

    Numbers are declining.

    I think if they want to keep Eve alive they need to be aware of their ongoing space genre competition and what is being offered ... such as NoMansSky, Star Citizen, Elite Dangerous, etc. Beg, borrow, or steal some of the ideas and new game play being implemented/introduced in these other space games. That ... or become eventually extinct.

    I also think we are on the verge of seeing VR technology explode in the game market, and become a common feature for all new game releases - in the coming years. Eve will need to become VR capable.


  • Medium Citadel Price? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Jessie McPewpew wrote:

    CCP was actually right, if you take into account the then current prices of those materials on the day the BOMs of all three citadels were announced. Personally, I have been able to acquire an asthraus worth of materials for around 550mil but I had to do the heavy lifting of converting P2 stuff to P4.

    The current sell prices of those structure parts is almost 200% of build cost.


    Ok. But you built all your own parts using your own planetary resources right? 700m still seems low to me. Where's the profit for the seller?

    And the prices have skyrocketed since BOM - so 700m won't be realistic for some time. Right now it looks like you'll have to plop down a few billion just for a M citadel.

    I suppose prices will come down over time ... but how quickly ??

  • medium citadel in EVE Gameplay Center

    Marcus Tedric wrote:


    TBH - not 100% sure...yet

    Firstly; during the Structures presentation on Saturday CCP (dear old Fozzie in this case) stated that the, previously separate, Assembly Arrays and Research Stations would be combined as Industry Arrays (Fall 16 iirc).

    So - given that the 'Medium' version of this would be able to build anything Sub-cap; then I would be surprised if a Research Module couldn't be fitted.

    That said - it still could be that, like the Market Module, then a Research Module could also be restricted to Large & XL.

    TBF - given your comment, I would be surprised if BPOs were taken into WHs given their potential for loss - copies made in HS where the BPOs will be even safer now due to the 'recovery mechanic' is much more likely.


    FYI, just watched Eve Fanfest presentation on Structures, CCP Fozzie presenting. Interesting enough the new Industrial Arrays targeted for Fall? release will include Research - not just Manufacturing. And on the slide it states will be deployable on M Citadels.

    Also Fozzie stated there will likely by separate Arrays for Research to specialize even further, in the future (probably not until next year).

    Drilling platforms scheduled for Winter - although no mention of whether would be available for M Citadels.

    So ... there you go.

  • Medium Citadel Price? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Jessie McPewpew wrote:

    Final cost is going to highly depend on cost of blueprint copies as well. Not that many people have 7bil to throw down on a entry level citadel BPO.


    I was thinking the same thing. The Medium Citadel BPO is 6bil. Then you'll have to wait until the buyer makes blueprint copies or goes further and builds citadels - and transports them to market hubs for sale.

    The build cost for a M Citadel (assuming no ME research to get out units quickly) looks pretty steep, since the build requires quite a number of advanced planetary components (breaking down the parts) of which prices have risen markedly and will probably rise even more.

    Looking JUST as the Structure Parts to build the Astrahus, the Structure Market Network alone is going at 318m at Jita, and you need 4x of them i.e. 1.272b. Adding in all the other Parts at Jita prices (assuming you don't build the Parts yourself) - you get ~965m ... or a total build cost of ~ 2.237bil just for the M Citadel !! And that's just "at cost". For sale expect a good mark up by the seller for the preliminary market.

    Maybe my numbers are wrong? So the CCP estimated 700m figure seems way way off at current prices. Note: even researching the BPO would only reduce the Structure Market Network reqs from 4x to maybe 2x - which would shave off 600m. But researching the ME would cost probably quite a bit (I'm too lazy too look it up right now).

    Note also: the price differences between T1 to T2 structure rigs is enormous. For 2% more efficiency you almost have to spend a ~1/2 bil more for a M T2 Rig.

    So ... I'll be surprised if you'll be seeing many builds on the market any time soon. Maybe some BPCs available. I haven't even looked at the L or XL. Heh.

  • medium citadel in EVE Gameplay Center

    erg cz wrote:


    POS will be replaced by citadels.

    Here you can see, that there is no possibility to have research lab in medium citadel. So small manufactors will be out of the game. You need to invest 8-10 bilion ISK to be able to produce T3 in large citadel.


    Is this misinformation or actually true? So when the new service modules for labs come out, they will only be available for large+ citadels?

    Seems like it would curtail a lot of activity in wormhole space for small corporations or independent players ...

  • Dev blog: I feel safe in Citadel city in EVE Information Center

    -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

  • Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel in EVE Information Center

    xttz wrote:
    "DevBlog" wrote:
    Medium, Large and X-Large structures will use a version of the Sovereignty capture mechanic, which means they will only be attacked through the use of the Entosis module.


    I think this decision is both a mistake and a missed opportunity; a kneejerk reaction to the bogeyman of structure grinding.

    While the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less central role.
    Dreadnoughts have always been really well balanced in this regard, with siege mode forcing them commit to an attack for a minimum period of time. Triage carriers patching up starbases have a similarly mirrored role, frantically trying to restore these assets while making themselves vulnerable.
    This is a fantastic avenue for content, with opponents setting traps or scrambling to catch unexpected sieges. It would be a real shame to lose this aspect of EVE.

    By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. The simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling effect on structures, but actual damage should need to be inflicted in order to destroy them for good, while an investment in repair ability should be required to restore them again.


    I like your idea the Entosis Links would serve as a disabling effect on structures, and some kind of repair time would be required for restoration. I also think it might be the first step to some kind of capture mechanic for structures. Although capture of a structure should come at a cost ... i.e. the economic Production/ISK Sink would not serve EVE well if there was less and less demand for structures being built if everyone opted to just capture them instead. However, if there was an established ISK sink cost for capturing a structure - say when a structure is captured, parts of it would need to be rebuilt and repaired etc.

    Agree that structure shooting, even though it is distasteful to some it still has a place in the game. One, it does not seem realistic structures would self-implode based on a magical Entosis links. Second, it seems the entire Capital Ship dynamics in Eve - especially Dreadnoughts is based on the role of structure busting right now, and it seems that the Eve devs are creating a lot of unnecessary work for themselves just to get rid of a mechanic that is realistic. I mean, if you're going to destroy something in space - a ship, a container, or a structure - you have to shoot at it right?

    Perhaps other ways of dealing with structures could be considered. Again, the Entosis mechanic being developed could be useful for "capture" mechanics. The sense of "long grinding" with structures might be mitigated by some of the new ideas being introduced/developed to allow structures to put in place more customizable attack and defense components, thus providing more varied challenge to either their capture or destruction. Thus perhaps making their capture less of a grind.

  • Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel in EVE Information Center

    Ocean Ormand wrote:



    CCP frequently throws a lot of time/money at an issue and comes up with something that is not what the players want and is just unfun. CQ, minigame/spew, and industry teams are recent examples. The industry teams were so bad that it was pulled back while CQ and the minigame appear to have been abandoned with no further development for them being made. Accordingly,it is never to late to rally against a bad idea. The entosis link as all the earmarks for being a bad idea. So even though CCP seems hell bent on implementing it, it is not too late to rally against it being spread beyond sov structures to the new-pos.


    I think overall the new structure ideas are great. I do think though the idea a citadel will not automatically defend itself - i.e someone has to literally be present now for defense is a poor design concept. Not everyone plays Eve 24/7 or should be required to. Who is going to spend the time and investment to maintain a citadel if some solo player can d**k with it so easily? Especially in WH space?

  • Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel in EVE Information Center

    Obil Que wrote:
    All of this combined with a near-zero reward structure for your efforts does not make the entire system very appealing as a conflict mechanism.


    I don't get this "near-zero reward" meme. There is a big reward by occupying and controlling space, and you do it by destroying your opponent's structures and citadels. The reward isn't as immediate as a loot drop, but it ain't a near-zero reward either.

  • Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel in EVE Information Center

    Rain6637 wrote:
    That's a valid sentiment but I'm guessing you're not an industrialist.

    Industry involves a practically unmanageable volume of materials, and it's nearly impossible to evacuate everything in a matter of two timers. A month, even. Caches of ships and materials that you really have no place else to put them, other than NPC stations. If you don't make considerations for assets, it would be a profound nerf to player owned structures.

    Materials accumulate quickly, by way of buy orders and several players filling them. Not just ore or minerals.

    There are a lot of situations where it requires tens or hundreds of freighter loads to build just one thing. If you have a freighter pilot, you can get a sense of this on Sisi by joining up with Wedge Rancer. He builds supers for players. I had ten freighter pilots ferrying materials from station to POS for hours, and there's no end to that. I did it just for the perspective, and I think you should too.

    Structures can, will, and do accumulate more stuff than can be moved by a corporation or alliance... coalition even, in a short period of time. Good luck organizing a coalition-wide materials evacuation op. That's about the least sexy gameplay I can imagine.

    If you ask me, players are already going to be up a creek in the new destructible structure system even with the considerations their assets are being given.

    I think a better solution would be an emergency Interbus moving service that is invulnerable to player attack, but costs ISK and time. More than the ISK or time cost, though, displacing assets would be the real consequence for losing a structure, and I think that's enough. Otherwise, Industry and market become a casualty of structure / system / Sov ownership, and I don't think you want that. Personal assets, too. They need to be removed from at-risk-in-space-combat gameplay. The fantasy hardcore EVE you are asking for is one that would destroy itself.

    The PVP playstyle would destroy all others, and that's a bit OP.

    About the Interbus moving service thing... if assets are moved to the next-closest owned structure or nearest NPC station (for free?)... chasing out a group's war and industry materials in this way isn't a wasted effort.

    It's not destruction, but it's still a denial of access. Compared to destruction (which is absolute), you can balance that denial if it has variables of distance, time, and ISK cost (in the Interbus method I suggested).

    It adds an interesting gambling scenario, too, where you might order your assets moved then save the structure.

    Great post. I really don't get all this whining about - Waaaaaaaaa we don't get to have all their stuff when we blow up their Citadel.

    1. You blew up their Citadel and that is usually the first step to taking over someone's space.
    2. You blew up their Citadel, and Citadel stuff will drop as loot. Just not the personal containers.
    3. You blew up their Citadel, so all that ISK and time they spent building it is gone.
    4. You blew up their Citadel, and all their personal stuff is going to have to be transported somewhere else.
    5. You blew up their Citadel.

  • Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel in EVE Information Center

    I hope the Eve sandbox allows for all kinds of gameplay. So that those who do want to play Eve like a "carebear" in hi-sec are allowed to do so. And those who want a no rules kind of game can play in nul-sec.

    I think you limit your options if you make all areas of space a "no rules" kind of setting like nul-sec. And in the end, you will just get a bunch of humungous alliances and game playing dictators making the rules for all the rest of the players. I don't think that will be conducive to a real sand box.

    Space is a big place - there's room for everyone and all kinds of gameplay.

  • Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel in EVE Information Center

    CCP Nullarbor wrote:


    The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions) provides security while you are undocked and mobile around the structure.

    Universal Stationing Quantum Tunneling Photon Emulator Link

    USQ-TPEL

  • Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel in EVE Information Center

    Thanatos Marathon wrote:
    Will they require fuel?

    For the X-Large structures I heard Amarr citadels will require capsuleer corpses.

  • Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel in EVE Information Center

    Vacant Glare wrote:
    CCP Nullarbor wrote:
    EvilweaselSA wrote:
    Are these things intended to have offices and markets? I'm sort of puzzled by what looks like a deathstar pos replacement being in the 'old' office/market category and trying to wrap my head around what exactly this is going to do.
    This will be the most easily defended structure, and have bonuses to office capacity and market functionality.

    The intention is this is the best place to put all your stuff, hence it has the most fortress like appearance.
    How can it be the best place to put your market trade stuff if it can be destroyed. No marketeer is going to have 10's of billions in assets in a structure that can blow up while there on vacation

    I think I recall either in the last fanfest or in a blog that your stuff will not be destroyed if the structure is destroyed. Your personal containers will be jettisoned out into space and only you or I suppose authorized players will be able to pick it up.

  • Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel in EVE Information Center

    Manssell wrote:
    So I'll be the guy.

    When we have three sizes of something can we just bloody call them "small", "medium", and "large" please. This whole "medium", "large", "X-large" just ads to any confusion and feels like your really trying to either upsize me into buying the bigger soft drink or trying to make me feel better about needing small cloths by lying to me about their size.

    I mean unless you have plans for even smaller structures then if the "medium" is in fact the smallest one to be offered then it is really the "small" size by definition right.

    And yes, I am that guy who has this argument in fast food lines and convenience stores with employees who really just want me to buy stuff and leave.


    Oh and the rest of this looks fraking amazing!


    I agree. I think the naming will tend to confuse people more. Make it small, medium & large please. And leave room for "ridiculously large" (RIDL) for later expansions.

  • Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel in EVE Information Center

    Exciting changes for Eve. Would be nice to see planets become more parts of the game too once this phase is done. I know, I dream.

    Question: Has cloaking possibilities ever been discussed for say small "piratey" structures? Say someone or a small corp might want to operate a pirate base in deep space or wormholes. I would imagine, uncloaking and cloaking would take a considerable amount of time and fuel, leaving the structure vulnerable to detection during the cloaking/uncloaking time. But it seems like this might open up some interesting gameplay possibilities.

  • [Dev Blog] Phoebe Travel Change Update in EVE Information Center

    If the usual gaggle of whiners can only come up with complaining about Rorqual drones, I would like to say the long needed projection nerf is a smashing success.

  • Retribution's New Bounty System in EVE Communication Center

    Lieam Thellere wrote:
    Morn Hylund wrote:
    What a complete fookover of high-sec industry and weighted toward all the alliances with buttloads of money. You can now target anyone you like and screw up their game permanently.

    Way to go CCP. I'll be signing off from this latest stupidity with my multiple accounts as soon as you guys put this piece of sh**T through.



    Can I have your stuff? Cool


    Nope. Lot of other good games out there right now - to be putting up with this kind of sh****t.