These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#261 - 2015-05-12 23:30:45 UTC
Suede wrote:
CCP Logibro wrote:
It's time for some more Structure talk with Team Game of Drones. This time, they're talking about the Citadel class structures, how they will work, and the ways in which it will be able to reach out and say "Hi!" to someone before blowing them up. If this catches your interest, then you should read the blog from the keyboard of CCP Ytterbium.



are you going to let structures be able to warp or fly about slowly,

would be nice for a structures to be able to move in space at very slow speed,
or some kind of structures which can move about in space



what do you want??? you want to go on pvp roam with a fawking STATION now!
Soleil Fournier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#262 - 2015-05-12 23:31:04 UTC
Will these new structures be designed in a way that allows for docking/undocking without a loading screen?
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#263 - 2015-05-12 23:31:44 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:

they still have yet to come up with a thought process of how players would get their stuff out of space!


How about you think of a way yourself? Ever heard the one about putting all your eggs in one basket?
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#264 - 2015-05-12 23:45:23 UTC
Marcus Tedric wrote:
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?


Vulnerability will not necessarily be everyday, we are exploring options here so you are not forced to login a lot more frequently than you normally would.

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

CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#265 - 2015-05-12 23:48:14 UTC
Redbull Spai wrote:
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.


We are going to allow you to fit manufacturing lines to citadels and refining to manufacturing structures etc. The base hull however will have bonuses to certain modules, so for industrialist who want to min / max a big operation then yes this is what they will be best to do.

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

Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#266 - 2015-05-12 23:48:59 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:

I would like to show them on the overview if you have access to them yes. We'll have to see if that is at all possible though.

Otherwise a structure browser would provide that functionality.


and

CCP Nullarbor wrote:
We are considering showing all structures on the on board scanner / sensor overlay allowing you to either warp directly to them or atleast show you that structures are anchored in system so you can probe them down.


and


CCP Nullarbor wrote:
We are leaning towards just showing everything on the system overlay / onboard scanner with the ability to warp to them, or at the very least showing you how many structures of each size exist in system. They will show on the overview if you have access to them.


This makes me curious:

Will it be possible to set them to be available to everyone to show up on the overview? I can foresee some groups setting these up in strategic or otherwise useful systems for public use, perhaps at a cost (for example, setting up a structure in Jarkkolen, with its 50 belts and no stations, along with reprocessing and compression available and a small tax on their use).

Also,

CCP Nullarbor wrote:
No docking puts you inside and safe, but you still see the grid outside the station.


This is bloody awesome. Any chance functionality like that would be made available for stations, as well? Or will those remain as "get a scout" sort of situations?
MukkBarovian
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#267 - 2015-05-12 23:49:15 UTC
Can I buy one of these things, use it for the duration of a deployment, and then package it up and haul it to the next place I want to live?
Selto Black
Apotheosis.
#268 - 2015-05-12 23:56:35 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
Selto Black wrote:
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
just too damn bad you didn't have time to play 23/7 eve online protecting your own time investment.


I am pretty sure CCP don't expect one person to defend assets 23/7, that is why they made Eve a multi-player game.


Playing an MMO means that player interaction is unavoidable, not required. Forgive the rather faulty analogy, but its like having a kid. Interaction with the opposite sex is Unavoidable, dosent mean you cant tell them to **** off right afterwards.



mmo means lots of players play online.. its doesn't mean lots of players are required to play with others online. single player content is always tied to an mmo for a reason

besides.. when P.L comes in and blows up your station and decides to biches slap you once again .. im going to laugh. run along young one.. run along..


If P.L. can drop supers in my wormhole i will give the guy with final blow all my assets in game and transfer all my toons to elise randolf.
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#269 - 2015-05-12 23:58:10 UTC
thebringer wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
When do we get some news on these new structures and how or if they will interact in wormhole space?


We want most of those structures to be available in W-space, but with some special restrictions if need be.


Bringing full docking into wh space will change the place entirely, one of the reasons to live there is to avoid dumb docking games and how intel gathering is important (finding poses, seeing what in them players/ships/structures).

I would rather we stay with the current pos system (at least for wormholes) than this stupid capture the flag rubbish and no loot drops from structures.

But you will do it anyway because who cares about wormholers...

Just please dont break it too badly.


We're considering letting you scan who is docked inside these structures.

Also yes docking games suck, so do force field games. We're accepting input on how we can setup the docking / invuln link to improve this, for all of space not just WH.

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

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#270 - 2015-05-13 00:06:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Suggestion:

1) The Entosis link never destroys anything. It only allows capture.
2) All of these structures have a self destruct button.
3) The self destruct is non-operational if the structure is under the influence of a Entosis link, or reinforced, or vulnerable.

If you want to capture a structure, you can do so.
If you want to destroy a structure, you capture it, then push the button.
If you want to retreat from the enemy, and have a "scorched earth" policy, push the button. Just to so before the enemy shows up.

Question: How big an effort, in terms of building, cost, upkeep, and so on, do you foresee a medium Citadel being as compared to the current POSes? Like a medium? Or a large? Or what?

Will there be any place for small POS like structures in the future?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#271 - 2015-05-13 00:07:59 UTC
@CCP;

You have basically got the general gist of what a POS 2.0 structure should be.

I am glad you've made them self-defending.

Given the preliminary nature of this work, my only comments are;

IF, hypothetically, one cannot get an XL Citadel into a wormhole, then you have answered whether or not a L sized citadel can dock capitals. It's simple logic.

You say that the POS will need supporting EWAR to be effective at defending itself. Immediately I remind you, gently, of

a) the current stae of POS missile batteries vs interceptors, or anything really

b) medium and large POS guns vs Interceptors, therefore consider the possibility that

c) linked up Entosis carrying ships vs the proposed Citadels insofar as you need to ensure that a Citadel cannot therefore be trolled by something aside from a trollceptor.

d) compound a) and c) - Caldari Citadels with missile defences may be particularly vulnerable to trollceptors or atack simply because if POS guns use Dreadnought-sized weapons which "require webs and TP's supplied by a fleet to be effective' then I am sure us crafty buggers will metagame it so tha we can effectively troll the Citadel

Also, on that note, you have to consider whether POS guns and modules are affected by wormhole system effects, as they should be. You may find that tracking-nerfed Magnetar guns would be particularly terrible, and Red Giant smartbomb POS zomg. Etcetera.

Also, you may want to think about what an effective AOE EWAR effect would do. I invite you o snoop the P7 M2 POS in J130253 and consider attacking it with subcaps, and mentally wargame why I have chosen to go this route, which basically creates a grid-sized Dampener effect that will affect every hostile on field. AOE EWAR is going to be a challenge.

Finally, AOE weapons vs drones might be the only good thing to counter drone meta vs structures. Suck it ishtards.
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
#272 - 2015-05-13 00:29:12 UTC
1) With the idea that the structure won't defend itself, for small groups, what you are saying is that they are REQUIRED to have someone POS sitting 23/7 if they don't want their structure reinforced by some tiny roaming gang with an Entosis Link. I can see people doing this even if only for trolling. Yes I understand they will have an opportunity to show up to defend during the window when it comes out of reinforce, but they won't have the ability to prevent that reinforce from happening UNLESS someone POS sits 23/7. The current system allows for small groups/solo players to set up their POS in such a way that it can't be reinforced by a couple random stray passer-bys, this system actually encourages reinforcement trolling.

2) Being listed in the scan window. BAD IDEA. Part of the current system of hiding/protecting a POS is to put it up in a system with a metric ton of moons. Yeah you can warp to all the moons, but until you get there you don't know which ones for sure have POS's at them without running d-scans on each one (presuming their are in d-scan range). This just sounds like it is just helping the random trolls and hunters by making everything clearly listed without having to hunt through the moons. Please please if you do decide that you need to make it easier for people to find stuff (like all those anoms/sites that became insta warpable), at least make it to where you can't see the owner or anything about it simply by warping into the system/WH.

3) Seems with all these proposed mechanics you don't want/expect any solo players or even small groups to set up a structure, ever. With the current system a POS can be setup to deter all but very serious attempts to reinforce it, but with this, a single troll can take down any structure he wants. Yeah I understand you can let it ride for a couple of reinforcement cycles before you catch it to actually mount a defense, but we really need/want the ability to not have to get to that point to begin with. If the reinforcement cycles make the structure worse off than the one before, how is that a good idea at all? Thats like saying that current POS owners should have a preferred defense mechanism of letting their tower get reinforced, and then hit again and into structure before being able to consider defending it or warding off even lone attackers.

I'm sure I had more but this is just too ridiculous, I like the ideas, but the implementation is terrible... esp no loot, I earn part of my living off planning profitable POS hits, and this is going to take a good portion of that away. I can no longer steal dozens of billions from a poor guy who had too much ISK and didn't know how to properly use a POS.

Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
#273 - 2015-05-13 00:38:54 UTC
4) A current large POS in full dickstar mode with neuts/guns to handle marauders can take on a large fleet of targets... without anyone there to tell it what to do before it gets reinforced. What will the new structures be capable of?
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#274 - 2015-05-13 00:43:59 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:


We are thinking at least 250km away from everything else in the game (warp in points, belts, gates, other structures etc), but otherwise you can anchor anywhere.



Initial thought was 1000km would be much more appropriate. That would ensure you need to warp to them if you are on grid with any other location of note, and that you can't set one up 251km above a belt with long range weapons, and another 251km below the belt, and shoot anyone that mines there.

Yes, if given the opportunity, my alliance WILL do this, in highsec, and WILL wardec people to make it happen. It will be hilarious for us, but (IMO) a broken mechanic.

On further thought, I thought the distance should actually be higher than that - perhaps 10^5 km - to ensure that they cannot be placed in areas hidden behind permanent acceleration gates. Consider someone that replicates that with a research POS located 9950km from the beacon in a COSMOS complex with a 10000km radius deadspace around the beacon. An attacker cannot warp to a probe hit on that structure, and probably cannot find its exact location via any other means. But the owner can warp to a bookmark located 10001 km from the beacon whenever they need to bring fuel or change blueprints at the POS (or, if it's a production POS not a research one, bring a freighter in).

You could declare that an exploit after the fact, but IMO it's a better option to address the problem now with a 10^5 km anchoring limitation.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Nikolai Agnon
Khanid Propulsion Systems
Local Is Primary
#275 - 2015-05-13 00:44:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikolai Agnon
Structures and Factional Warfare.

Can we expect FW infrastructure bonuses to Citadels and/or other deployables? Since FW is pretty similar to what lowsec sovereignty would be, can we look forward to seeing indices based on ihub upgrades, and/or lower fuel demands?

I've been waiting for a long time for mobile depot-like ship storing, that way I can personally 'deploy' to a system for a few days to a week at a time. It'll be hella cool to use these new Citadels as forward staging bases, on both personal and corporate scales. That said, FW has been in need of some upgrades for quite some time, and giving FW some structure-oriented love and care can help go a long way. I understand the primary focus here is on the structure mechanics, but similar to how WH space may need special cases and how there are plans for sov bonuses to structures, so too does FW need some implementation attention.

A few specific suggestions on how Citadels and/or other structures could be affected by FW ihub upgrades:
+ Lower fuel consumption rates for setting up in friendly-militia-controlled systems (rewards 'stronghold' systems at corporate/coalition/militia levels)
+ Fuel penalties for deploying in enemy-militia-controlled systems
+ Additional timers for friendly systems (for example, +1 timer for IHUB levels 1, 3, and 5; total count decided upon the first successful attack)
+ Similar to "paid pirates for protection", Minor defensive support from Empire navy (I'm not personally keen on this idea, but it'd be a minor level of defense that prevent contestion unless actual (minor) effort is applied, similar to plex rats) (probably unnecessary, given the defensive modules that will be available)

Rewards and penalties could then be scaled according to the system's ihub upgrade level. With fuel for instance, 5-10% reduction in fuel demands per ihub level: instead of going away entirely, the cost would be absorbed into investing LP into the ihubs and maintaining them by shooing away enemy plexers (the FW equivalent to defending systems in Sov).

Lowsec/FW will be affected by these new structures just as much as anywhere else in the game. It'd be cool to see some implementation consideration :)

Nikolai Agnon for CSM XI!

FacWar | Lowsec | PVE | API

LCdr Shepard
Doomheim
#276 - 2015-05-13 01:01:53 UTC
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite blog on the citadel.
Scott Ormands
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#277 - 2015-05-13 01:05:03 UTC
LCdr Shepard wrote:
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite blog on the citadel.



Stolen from reddit
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#278 - 2015-05-13 01:06:07 UTC
Current Large POS's, can easily defend against large groups because they can have enough offensive modules to spread across the attacking fleet. This is especially handy in HS warfare. How many different things will will the new system be able to 'handle'. It seems like maybe a dozen at max, this needs to be up'ed.

So far there seems to be a big desparity between the defensive and 'offensive' capabilities of the new system and old system at the same comparable 'size'.

The new system BETTER be able to handle small groups on its own, like the size that will troll the crap out of the new system.

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...

TurAmarth ElRandir
Hiigaran Bounty Hunters Inc.
#279 - 2015-05-13 01:07:42 UTC
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
When do we get some news on these new structures and how or if they will interact in wormhole space?


Quote:
All structures will show on D-scan, can be probed, and will be scannable to see their fittings and contents. We are also thinking of having them visible and directly warpable from the on-board scanner to preserve Wormhole space gameplay.

again... ...to preserve Wormhole space gameplay.

Could, would CCP Somethehellbody PLEASE explain how this is seen as affecting much less 'preserving' Wormhole space gameplay??? Sov style structure gameplay in holes preserves nothing.

I ask again, with all due respect... we all know Nullsec is "The End Game of EVE" (personal opinion withheld) and for the foreseeable future CCP is onna All-Nullsec-All-The-Live-Long-Day binge (personal opinion withheld)... but damnit man... please tell those of us who have forsworn taking knee to the Lords of Nullsuc (personal opinion allowed to slip out a little), those of your paying playerbase who have actually made our homes in Anoikis... tell us how you see these new structures panning out in W-Space...

Please.

TurAmarth ElRandir Anoikis Merc, Salvager, Logibro and Unrepentant Blogger Fly Wreckless and see you in the Sky =/|)= http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#280 - 2015-05-13 01:20:00 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Redbull Spai wrote:
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.


We are going to allow you to fit manufacturing lines to citadels and refining to manufacturing structures etc. The base hull however will have bonuses to certain modules, so for industrialist who want to min / max a big operation then yes this is what they will be best to do.

Just make sure that you do it in a way that everyone can make money. If ONLY the min/maxers can make money, then most players will get shut out of industry. Its sort of like the old production efficiency skill. You had to have it at 5 to be competitive, so there was no interesting game play surrounding it. Don't do the same thing with structure bonuses.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction