These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Shake my Citadel

First post First post
Author
Fzhal
#201 - 2015-05-12 19:32:14 UTC
Alternative names for the Invulnerability Field:

Asylum Field
noun
1.an institution for the maintenance and care of the mentally ill, orphans, or other persons requiring specialized assistance.
2.an inviolable refuge, as formerly for criminals and debtors; sanctuary:
3.International Law:
a refuge granted an alien by a sovereign state on its own territory.
a temporary refuge granted political offenders, especially in a foreign embassy.
4.any secure retreat.

Sanctum Projection Field: an inviolably private place or retreat. (SPF. "Good luck attacking them. They're using SPF 50!)

Elysian Fields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium
Syna Anima
SYNDAX CORPORATION
#202 - 2015-05-12 19:33:16 UTC
Meh... as a bitter vet I fail to get hyped by what CCP presents in blogs.

All nice, but we know CCP and I'd be surprised if they actually implement half of that in 1-2 years...

This is a big change and will take a long time. Plus they are changing sov and other things that will require a lot of time and optimizing... I wish them the best, but I'd not be excited until I see them in space and actually working as intended.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#203 - 2015-05-12 19:35:39 UTC
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:
Firstly- no one's talking about how the DD is more or less Jamyl Sarum's Terran Superweapon??

Secondly- I love "Haven Link" for the invulnerability link:
Daenna Chrysi wrote:
trying to think of a name or two for the invulnerability link.

Sanctuary extension emitter.

Haven Link



Haven - "a place of safety or refuge". And "Link" sounds much more along-the-purpose of what they're aiming for than "field", "emitter", etc.

"Haven Link"


That does sound pretty good.

Harmonized Aggression, Vandalizaiton and Encroachment Negator

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Marsha Mallow
#204 - 2015-05-12 19:42:18 UTC
Quote:
take a seat by the campfire and grab some marshmallows

Straight

Looks good so far. Love the guns and \o/ for AOE.

I'm not keen on dockable supers personally, but if the structure can be killed with a few in I suppose it'll be entertaining.

Also not keen on that Interbus reference. I didn't watch the presentation so apologies if this is incorrect, but I vaguely remember something mentioned about some sort of NPC teleportation system for goods? Moving goods needs to stay player run ideally.

I'm surprised you haven't added space for a corp/alliance logo or holo like the sov structures. Will there be SKINs for these too?

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#205 - 2015-05-12 19:44:30 UTC
Takeo Yanumano wrote:

Depends. Since wh-ers depend on POS being moon-bound as an important aspect of defense and intel-gathering currently, it would follow that having some way to find the citadel is needed. However, having it directly warpable from the on-board scanner makes that intel basically free, which is contrary to wh principles of skillful utilization of d-scan.


I'm fairly certain that CCP is slowly and systematically working to phase out dscan entirely. They'll never admit to this I'm sure. But they have in the past alluded to the simple technical performance issues it causes (in the way it violates the efficiently segregated grid boundaries). Not to mention that it is, at its heart, a terrible gameplay mechanic (not the hunting aspect, but the defensive mashing it constantly aspect).
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
#206 - 2015-05-12 19:45:59 UTC
I would be more than a little curious to know what the anticipated fuel consumption would be, for a Citadel running at full-steam, compared to a Large POS, in the current system.
TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2015-05-12 19:46:15 UTC
Fzhal wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
No docking puts you inside and safe, but you still see the grid outside the station.
The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions) provides security while you are undocked and mobile around the structure.

Please keep single-player corps in mind when designing capture mechanics for the Medium and maybe Large structures. Please don't expect us to be on every day during our vulnerability time...


These structures aren't meant for solo players, let alone single player corps. The entire idea of a single player corp is an abomination and I hope CCP never ever does anything to encourage them. You're playing an MMO, the hell are you doing in a single man corp...

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Oma Lorche
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#208 - 2015-05-12 19:48:54 UTC
I still dont understand. Are those all thingies modular? Can I attach Assembly thingy to Research thingy and have on side of Citadel and Market thingy? Or I will have to anchor each of them 50km apart. And spend day hauling BPC's from Research thingy to Assembly thingy and components from Market thingy to Assembly thingy and then ready product from Assembly thingy back to Market thingy?

I understand where you come from. But for simple guy like me, I rather have my POS where I keep everything together and can manage it remotely to provide me income while I blow stuff up.
I think that by trying to provide us with all those modules you force on us having to choose between accessibility and efficiency in what we want to achieve and it doesn't align with current small scale industrialists. I'm afraid that instead of easing out all process you will put many of us out of business, because having full production chain will require fuelling multiple structures at the same time and adds hours of senseless hauling. Unless I am wrong somewhere please clarify.

Daenna Chrysi
Omega Foundry Unit
Southern Legion Alliance
#209 - 2015-05-12 19:49:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Daenna Chrysi
TigerXtrm wrote:
These structures aren't meant for solo players, let alone single player corps. The entire idea of a single player corp is an abomination and I hope CCP never ever does anything to encourage them. You're playing an MMO, the hell are you doing in a single man corp...


Alt Corp? and just because it is a one man corp, it could still be in an alliance.
NovaCat13
Seymourus and Co.
#210 - 2015-05-12 19:49:45 UTC  |  Edited by: NovaCat13
Now I'm genuinely interested in structures. And structures with drones? You made my Gallente parts tingle.

TigerXtrm wrote:
Fzhal wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
No docking puts you inside and safe, but you still see the grid outside the station.
The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions) provides security while you are undocked and mobile around the structure.

Please keep single-player corps in mind when designing capture mechanics for the Medium and maybe Large structures. Please don't expect us to be on every day during our vulnerability time...


These structures aren't meant for solo players, let alone single player corps. The entire idea of a single player corp is an abomination and I hope CCP never ever does anything to encourage them. You're playing an MMO, the hell are you doing in a single man corp...


Um...

Quote:
Medium sized Citadel structures will be around 5-25km in diameter and are tailored for individual or small groups of players. They will be able to fit some appropriate defenses to offer resistance against most kind of assaults including capital ships. Moreover, players can dock inside them with sub-capital ships.

Just say NO to Dailies

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#211 - 2015-05-12 19:53:19 UTC
Call it the Curtain Wall or the Bailey, in keeping with the old scholl naming. Call the tower itself the Keep.
Selto Black
Apotheosis.
#212 - 2015-05-12 19:53:52 UTC
I would like to see the drone function of the citadels used as the passive defense mechanism. With one caveat, new drones can only be deployed by players.

So for example, you have a M citadel with a drone mod installed. This allows it to have ~15 un-bonused light or medium drones to defend your structure while you're offline. However, if an attacker manages to kill off the drones he is then free to entosis your struct and reinforce it. I would also recommend that while not in combat damaged drones return to close orbit and receive slow repairs inside the H.A.L.O. ( Hadron Amplified Leidenfrost Overlay) aka pos shield.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
Chao3 Alliance
#213 - 2015-05-12 19:56:27 UTC
I like what I am reading about this update.

I do hope that capitals and super capitals can be moored/docked even by small groups (so I do hope to see mooring in L-size citadels), so that the game does not require a toon to be exclusively allocated to such ship. This will open up this end-game play to smaller entities that can't afford the luxuries of these specialized cap toons.

I hope that the new mechanics for structures will allow small groups to be able to attack smaller class WH settlements, while limiting the size of what can be built into this space according to the mass size of the WH leading into or out of it.
Will there be size limits on deploying citadels based on a WH's class?

Is there is anything planned regarding capitals being build in low class wormholes, while none can be brought in due to mass limitations? This situation, if allowed to continue unhindered, will transform some of the low-class WHs into fortresses that simply can't be conquered anymore, which is contrary to what Eve stands for.

For the WH citadel defense discussion, I'd prefer if guns were to fire automatically like pos guns do now, but energy drain, E-war, stasis, scramble modules should not be automated, and have to be manned to be useful.

I do hope that citadels will all become beacons. I do not care too much about the d-scanning skills, that will still be necessary to locate ships, but it is important to maintain the covert recon aspect without needing probes to find any of the citadels in a system, regardless of ownership.


Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#214 - 2015-05-12 19:59:10 UTC
In terms of gameplay I like the concept, I like being able to 'pilot' the station as a battleship but I'm really not keen on the entosis link idea. Fine for capturing sov points but for destroying a massive station? Just seems very low effort to take out such a large investment.

With regards to BPO's etc, what will happen to the old POS structure ones? And any structures you currently have? Will the new structures still be built with PI goods? What about the rigs and modules?

I would be against the idea of being able to capture these stations, destruction drives the market so they have to go boom!
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
Chao3 Alliance
#215 - 2015-05-12 19:59:41 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:

These structures aren't meant for solo players, let alone single player corps. The entire idea of a single player corp is an abomination and I hope CCP never ever does anything to encourage them. You're playing an MMO, the hell are you doing in a single man corp...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but CCP Seagul always take care of mentioning solo players in her appearances (see my sig below). Solo play is very valid, and way more common that you'd like I am sure.
That does not mean they do not contribute to the MMO aspect of the game....

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

Oma Lorche
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#216 - 2015-05-12 20:03:57 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Fzhal wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
No docking puts you inside and safe, but you still see the grid outside the station.
The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions) provides security while you are undocked and mobile around the structure.

Please keep single-player corps in mind when designing capture mechanics for the Medium and maybe Large structures. Please don't expect us to be on every day during our vulnerability time...


These structures aren't meant for solo players, let alone single player corps. The entire idea of a single player corp is an abomination and I hope CCP never ever does anything to encourage them. You're playing an MMO, the hell are you doing in a single man corp...


Who are you to tell anyone what should be allowed and what not? I think you would be surprised how many play this game solo. As long as they pay their bit, they deserve to be looked after not less then null-bears deserve perfect sov system. No matter if someone plays 3 months, year, 12 years. As long as they pay - me, you and everyone else needs them. Unless CCP comes up with subscription numbers and proves that that part of Eve population is 0.01% your opinion about something being abomination doesn't hold
Archea Bastanold
Doomheim
#217 - 2015-05-12 20:11:31 UTC
In regard to the replacement of the current starbase structures with the new ones to come, what is happening to the current starbase structures; are we just getting the base isk value back? Is it the same for current faction structures?
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
#218 - 2015-05-12 20:17:03 UTC
When the racial-split was made to the Battlecruiser skill, players who'd trained it up were given equivalent skill-levels in the new racial versions of the skill - if the Starbase Defense Management skill is going to be binned, would it be possible to do something similar for the new 'XXXXXL' weapons?
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#219 - 2015-05-12 20:18:53 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Quote:
Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn.


This is a bit of a slippery slope eh? I know you want individuals to feel that they can use the medium structures, but relying on NPC pirates to provide defense is... questionable on a number of levels.

No offense intended.


You would not rely in NPC defense at all, it would be a mild deterrent against a lone ship at best, the point is to show up for your timers and defend.

As I mentioned the balance will be how frequently this happens so that it's not a chore, but still provides opportunities for an interesting engagement.


So, you now require anyone who wishes to be involved with structures to so arrange their lives such that they can be playing EVE every single day; 365 days per year?

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium

Redbull Spai
Twenty Questions
#220 - 2015-05-12 20:19:28 UTC
Is there any benefit whatsoever from forcing to players to base their ships in one point, transport their mined ore to another to refine, then transport it to a third to build? Just looks like a way to punish industrialists that don't have a jump freighter.