These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#301 - 2015-05-13 06:51:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
Terranid Meester wrote:
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?



I have.. and ive checked and there is none

bowhead - nada cant fit 100's of ships in a customer's hanger.. plus it cant jump
freighters - yeah tons of m3 cargo hold space.. cant haul fitted battleships or caps or much in reference to the enormous container that would be spat out into space.. slow as rocks and don't give me that webbing mess..due to not only having to retrieve my own stuff.. I would have to retrieve perhaps 100's of individuals items..

blockade runner --.. hahaha not enough room

itheron or other haulers - negative on cargo space and no way even feasible to use in an op like that during a hot-zone of aggressors laughing their behinds off camping a system where they just blew up a freaking station and drooling at the mouths attempting to hunt down those that are trying to get their things.

we need a "place all eggs in the basket" supreme capital hauler that can perform and out perform anything we have in the game.

unless they decide to compress all items and ships into some cube so the little guy can get stuff out for the big guys.. while the big guys are crying, raging, and kicking puppies.

we need an evac hauler!


Now take a deep breath (not a popular sport in EVE, though).

You could not defend your station albeit it had X defense trinkets.

So, what makes you think you could defend your evacuation??

CCP have pretty much placed themselves between a rock and a hard place with that thing. The sensible answer is obvious (spawn assets in the nearest neutral NPC station) but CCP will never agree to it, so they will come up with some convolute and ultimately useless system which will fail to perform its task of avoiding total loss of assets in the event that a player fails to defend the station.

Now, take a second look at where this is going. CCP plans to add new space to the game, and obviously the structures are a part of that plot. And we know that 62% of EVE players will not go there because that would mean PvP. And yet CCP (CCP Seagull) haves no "plan B" for players who don't give a rat's ass of "space colonization". Which are, remember, 62% of the playerbase.

Good job, CCP Seagull. Effin' good job you're doing here. *slow clap*

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#302 - 2015-05-13 07:05:18 UTC
Thanks for putting devblogs about this important issue out long before making final designdecisions.
Some questions I came up with:

1.Will the structures have a predefined undock? Will you be able to bump ships within the invullinked area? What ranges are you plaining for the linked areas? 2,5 like docking or 20 like a FF? Will it work like the invultimer upon undocking so the player can decide when to break it or will you be autolinked if within range like a FF now?

2.Unless you are able to bring capitals (c1-4 or highsec, where most of the small corps live) or completely stupid numbers the timeinvestement to RF a well defended (resi-,****- or deathstar) is 2-5 hours. This is more to stop people from even thinking about it than actual defense.
Will the entosistime be along the same numbers, the nullnumbers so far suggest no.
The current POSdefenses and mechanics are hugely imbalanced towrds the defender in smaller conflics. But this is also the reason why smaller groups, especially in lowend WHs, can survive and have fun without getting facerolled just because they are there (like in sov-nullsec).

3.T2 entosis has 250 km range so structureweapons and ewar have to have a range higher than that to be of any use. That just sounds wrong. I could also entosis from the undock of next structure over.

4.Placing them everywhere would include inside of static DED pockets.

5.What will be the cynorestrictions near structures? None like stations or far away like a POS?

6.If you don´t limit them to number of moons how do you plan on keeping them on a handable level? I can see 200+ of those strucs in jita just because we can. And there is no UI that works well on those numbers. Most Whs of larger corps have already 50+ towers in system.

7.Scanning the structures equals uncloaking, getting spotted and being blabbed by structureguns. Are scanners that work while cloaked a possibility?

8.Drones as weapons, I do not like. Not just because I hate the current drones everywhere meta but because I think a station should not launch some small throwaway drones to defend but starships.

9.Will the citadels have captain´s quarters?
Soleil Fournier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#303 - 2015-05-13 07:05:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Soleil Fournier
A few feedback points:

Market Hubs should look like they are the homes of corporate offices and financial districts right? We're talking big money here, and big money would find a way to integrate their sizable defenses into a sleek, luxurious design. They wouldn't make their offices look like a reclaimed military base.

After winning a structure fight, I should have the option to 'capture' or 'destroy' the structure. Sometimes we will want the asset. Other times we'll just want to blow it up. But it's imperative that we be given the option, rather than all structure fights ending in destruction.

3 vulnerabilities sure feels like a major structure grind.

I think the structures defenses should work regardless of whether the structure is 'piloted' or not. Just have penalties applied to the weapons when structure is un-piloted. Much better solution than hiring NPCs which are terrible at killing players.

Structures having their own drones/fighters. Love it.

What are the restrictions going to be? 1 Market hub/System? 10? one of each size? Unlimited?


Exciting stuff guys, keep up the good work.
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#304 - 2015-05-13 07:15:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagrat Skalski
Soleil Fournier wrote:
3 vulnerabilities sure feels like a major structure grind.


Looks like they exchanged structure grind to entosis hit and run trolling.

Le wormhole, le Entosis, le space chateaux, le rage.
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#305 - 2015-05-13 07:20:21 UTC
One suggestion for the corphangars in those citadels. Add a inventory-tab called donations to it where everybody can put in but it saves the ownership of the items. If someone takes somethig out he gets a "donate" popup where he can decide how much the things he took are worth. That money then goes to the previous owner. Would allow groups to share a big range of items up to ships and deadspacemodules without the hassle of working, maintaining and searching a million marketorders or contracts. Right now we only have the extremes of above mentioned hassle or giving it away for free ( which you still can do, but most people are willing to pay for their stuff).
Gunz blazing Ronuken
Insane's Asylum
#306 - 2015-05-13 07:39:52 UTC
Please allow for defences to be automatically activated when players are not at their citadel!
Its a vital function to have some small defence against attacks for smaller teams that don't have 300 players and 24/7 coverage.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#307 - 2015-05-13 07:49:30 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Now take a deep breath (not a popular sport in EVE, though).

You could not defend your station albeit it had X defense trinkets.

So, what makes you think you could defend your evacuation??

CCP have pretty much placed themselves between a rock and a hard place with that thing. The sensible answer is obvious (spawn assets in the nearest neutral NPC station) but CCP will never agree to it, so they will come up with some convolute and ultimately useless system which will fail to perform its task of avoiding total loss of assets in the event that a player fails to defend the station.

Now, take a second look at where this is going. CCP plans to add new space to the game, and obviously the structures are a part of that plot. And we know that 62% of EVE players will not go there because that would mean PvP. And yet CCP (CCP Seagull) haves no "plan B" for players who don't give a rat's ass of "space colonization". Which are, remember, 62% of the playerbase.

Good job, CCP Seagull. Effin' good job you're doing here. *slow clap*


To be blunt I am with you in terms of just putting the assets in NPC stations, when They reduced the jump range I had 35bn worth of assets in deep Stain and no way to get them back apart from WH's. I will never make that mistake again...

Lots of us want our own space Empire, we just do not want to get rolled over easily, I would like to know what their plan B is for those players that want a space Empire but do not want to be the football for those that like kicking things just because they can, CCP have a chance to get out of their death spiral with Eve, will they take it? Looking at these things being on overview etc., the answer is likely to be NO...

Sorry guys I like the premise and scale what you are doing, but the reality is that you have to look at the player base in Eve and how that sits, you have a very deep game that is ruined by people blowing stuff up because they can and for no other reason than that. While that ethos runs the game you have an issue, we see it with the API / CREST detailing all Sov details, we have it with the overview showing all of these new structures.

Why would I even try when there will be a queue of people ready able and willing to kill these things just because they can and you make it easy to find them, its boring as hell to play a game full of people who want to make the world burn because they can, I wanted something deeper but all I can see if this type of attitude: "Your Grief = Our Happiness" as one US TZ war dec alliance has on their alliance details, how do you make it so that people can put these up and hope to defend them against people who want to make the world burn, why would I even bother?

Now that is where you guys can make a major change to the game if you are brave, will you do it?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Atum' Ra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#308 - 2015-05-13 08:02:16 UTC
Gunz blazing Ronuken wrote:
Please allow for defences to be automatically activated when players are not at their citadel!
Its a vital function to have some small defence against attacks for smaller teams that don't have 300 players and 24/7 coverage.

You can rent NPC fleet to defend your citadel & space.
That will be enough for all)

I'm dreaming about NPC supercarriers at the orbit of my citadel Roll
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#309 - 2015-05-13 08:08:06 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
(shooting neutrals) We may [...] allow you to do so but have CONCORD show up and destroy your structure if you commit an act of aggression.


Wow, that's a huge trolling magnet you're considering there :)
JanSVK
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#310 - 2015-05-13 08:29:35 UTC
Shake my Citadel wrote:

All structures will show on D-scan, can be probed, and will be scannable to see their fittings and contents.


Don't like the see their contents part.

Do I understand correctly that by scanning you will be able to see all the assets in the structure? This is not possible with the current mechanic.


Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#311 - 2015-05-13 08:30:36 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.

Can i scan while cloaked?
Niden
Duty.
SE7EN-SINS
#312 - 2015-05-13 08:36:35 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • When docked you will see surrounding space.


  • Wait whaaat? Explain this to me please!

    /N
    Orm Magnustat
    Red Serpent Industries
    Red Serpent Alliance
    #313 - 2015-05-13 08:53:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Orm Magnustat
    Ranger 1 wrote:

    I realize that is the ultimate goal, encouraging engagement.... and that at best a Citadel is supposed to only act as a force multiplier.

    When you are a solo player though, there isn't much force there to multiply. Smile It gets a lot easier to defend a structure when you have a number of people in a corp or alliance able to do so... but for the primary user of the medium structure (that being the solo player) there is actually less reason for them to use this than in the current terrible POS system.

    I'm not trying to be overly critical, just trying to point out something that may have not been a focus during design.

    Why would a solo player that has a small POS now wish to give up the current system in favor of this system? If he cannot be available during the vulnerability timer one night this new structure is virtually defenseless compared to what he has now.

    I"m personally not affected by it, but once this truth settles in there will be a lot of "you hate solo players or even small groups" fallout that will be directed towards you... and accusation you are catering to large groups that will have the manpower to defend these STRUCTURES THAT CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES.

    I'm trying to offer extremely constructive criticism here, and warn you of potential (no, actually inevitable) fallout... so if I sounded like a jerk, please forgive. Was not the intention in the slightest.


    I´ll start off with the above post, just to avoid to come over a lot more "jerky" myself ... XD

    Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:


    Now take a deep breath (not a popular sport in EVE, though).

    You could not defend your station albeit it had X defense trinkets.

    So, what makes you think you could defend your evacuation??

    CCP have pretty much placed themselves between a rock and a hard place with that thing. The sensible answer is obvious (spawn assets in the nearest neutral NPC station) but CCP will never agree to it, so they will come up with some convolute and ultimately useless system which will fail to perform its task of avoiding total loss of assets in the event that a player fails to defend the station.

    Now, take a second look at where this is going. CCP plans to add new space to the game, and obviously the structures are a part of that plot. And we know that 62% of EVE players will not go there because that would mean PvP. And yet CCP (CCP Seagull) haves no "plan B" for players who don't give a rat's ass of "space colonization". Which are, remember, 62% of the playerbase.

    Good job, CCP Seagull. Effin' good job you're doing here. *slow clap*



    The above OPs hits some very valid points, but from the answers so far the devs dont seem to be able or wanting to pick it up!
    No matter what nice eyecandy and fluffy words about these new structures you spread in the end its clear that funtionality and flexibility (of setups) for these "Citadels" will be inferior to the current POS in a way that obstructs several uses and playing styles a considerable portion of your player base uses it for atm.
    Quite a number of soloplayer corporations or even small corporations with real players will find themselves gobsmacked by this new system. As these often very little "interact" with others ingame I feel they are also rarely represented in the fanboy chorus of the forums. Even if many here seem to have a notion of looking down on these players, cause they dont "really" play the game - in the end they are all part of eves (industrial) foundation and in their own way bring content to this universe (even if its only as a vendor or target^^). Not to speak about paying CCPs wages ...

    CCP by thoughtlessly cutting down on historically grown funtionalities and playstyles will definitly loose a (small?) portion of their playerbase.

    Putting my rant into perspective I´m running with a small corp that colonized a wh system and really put some effort in there ... dont expect me to be happy when the work of a long time gets questioned by discontinuing fundamental concepts like POS. -.-
    Black Pedro
    Mine.
    #314 - 2015-05-13 09:23:08 UTC
    Just to clear up somethings regarding highsec structures and CONCORD. I assume the entosis module cannot be used without CONCORD getting involved. If so, will a corporation be able to pull down their structures before a war goes live like current POSes, or will the structures be stuck in space like POCOs currently are? Will offlining a structure put it into vulnerability in highsec that is independent of CONCORD or will the structure still be protected?
    Sequester Risalo
    German Corps of Engineers 17
    Federation of Respect Honor Passion Alliance.
    #315 - 2015-05-13 09:36:07 UTC
    I'm sorry I only made it through the first 14 pages before posting and everything I wanted to offer has already been said. However I still want to point out that the taking away of self defense mechanism is breaking the new structures for me.

    Let me remind you of your aims:

    "Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack." (Back into the structure)

    "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." (shake my citadel)


    In my opinion there is no way individual players with a functioning brain will use structures in low class wormholes. Individuals should not be forced to have an appointment with Eve every day, or every week or whatever timeframe you consider aedequate. I would like to still be able to go on vacation. I would like to keep my job which requires me to travel several times a year. This means that a lot of my stuff would be sitting vulnerable in space while I am not able to do anything to defend it.

    The instant the change hits I will be moving out. As low class wormholes do not support a force strong enough to guarantee sufficient attendance at all times I'm sure plenty others will do the same.

    So with the implementation you will turn low class wormholes into a barren wasteland only interesting for day trippers. So you will not make structures as widely used as possible while making a portion of space uninhabited in the process.

    You might wish to reconsider the change. An option would be to require a char with sufficient starbase defense skills be docked at the station in order to activate self defense.
    Anthar Thebess
    #316 - 2015-05-13 09:43:28 UTC
    I wonder how big prices for this structures will be , will they use fuel etc.
    CCP please small version for small groups of players something that will cost around 1-3b.

    Currently Outposts cost around 20bil - they are indestructible , their role will be taken by new structures that should be cheaper as they can be easily destroyed.
    So let say :
    8-12b for XL
    6-8b for L
    3-5b for M
    1-3b for S

    Can we have the possibility to make covert versions of those facilities , so fighting deep behind enemy lines will be possible?

    Can we get one having jump drive? ( it is unable to jump using gates ) but let say 3LY drive open new possibilities for true nomadic groups.

    StuRyan
    Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time
    Solyaris Chtonium
    #317 - 2015-05-13 09:43:42 UTC
    All these changes are overwhelming me.

    I can't keep up and it feels that you could be changing an awful lot all at the same time.
    CCP Ytterbium
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #318 - 2015-05-13 10:01:31 UTC
    Dr Cedric wrote:
    Any word on how the transition will happen. If an alliance/corp already owns an outpost will it be auto-converted to the new citadel structure or will they need to build a new one? If the former, and the outpost has upgrades, will those modules be auto-fitted and prefueled? If the latter, what is the deploy time frame and where will assets already in the outpost go?


    As mentioned in the previous blog and Fanfest presentation, we will most likely not replace outposts with those new structures. We will most likely reimburse outpost improvements and upgrades though.
    CCP Ytterbium
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #319 - 2015-05-13 10:07:54 UTC
    Andre Vauban wrote:
    How will the anchoring restrictions work with FW? Will we be able to anchor M or L structures in lowsec systems occupied by the opposing militia?


    Clever girl, hadn't thought of that. Either we allow everyone to anchor structures or just the militia owning space. Whatever makes the most sense. We also have to consider what would happen if we allowed players in the FW militias to anchor structures - since there is no central authority to control who can do what it may result in a terrible mess. Thus we may only allow structure deployment for enlisted player corporations, not for FW corporation militias (like the Federal Defense Union, Tribal Liberation Force etc...).

    Again, a bit early for details but that's a good point you're making.
    Sturmwolke
    #320 - 2015-05-13 10:38:50 UTC
    Please think about multiple dock/undock points, ideally separated enough that bubbles or camping undocks have a limited effect.
    It's about time this mechanic is introduced and perhaps retroactively added to all the other NPC stations.