These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#441 - 2015-05-13 21:08:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
Dentia Caecus wrote:

Mr. Wolf's misses or ignores much of the thrust of my argument and further misses one of the extraordinarily obvious, salient issues I present: removal of stations is a once in a game opportunity to bring newly formed entities into nullsec or bring people back into null who have been missing for a long time.

In a very aloof and condescending manner, you are basically saying "give me isk, not the people who put in the effort to beat me". You lost your station, if you could not be bothered to put in the effort to defend it, you don't deserve the winners spoils of war. You deserve exactly what you have now, nothing.

EDIT - And lets not forget, you are suggesting something that could massively effect existing alliances (whilst claiming your selfish motive is "for the good of the children"). Just look at Pheobe Freeport Alliance, Brave, and many other new spaceholders. These people live in space they have taken that was already developed. You are suggesting these stations are taken down, and the means to replace them being given to inactive holder corps of years-dead alliances. How are these new groups supposed to survive if you take away what they have, and do not give them the means to, at the very least, replace what has been lost like-for-like. Its foolish.
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#442 - 2015-05-13 21:10:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Fredric Wolf
Dentia Caecus wrote:


I understand that I will never change your opinion, Mr. Wolf, however flawed it may be, and I will not try. Instead, I will address the points he raises in the hope that I might find the ears of less close minded individuals.

In response to Mr. Wolf points:

It is the considered opinion of this author, a multi-year veteran of nullsec life, that Mr. Wolf is correct when he states there are inherent risks in nullsec, including risk of major or catastrophic loss. However, his repetition of this truism is utterly irrelevant, as is his tiresome reliance on the risk/reward analogy. Furthermore, his argument typifies the thinking that resulted in both the big blue doughnut and stagnation in nullsec that CCP has taken great pains to eliminate.

Mr. Wolf's misses or ignores much of the thrust of my argument and further misses one of the extraordinarily obvious, salient issues I present: removal of stations is a once in a game opportunity to bring newly formed entities into nullsec or bring people back into null who have been missing for a long time. Either result brings more entities into nullsec, further diversifying it and creating more opportunities for both economic pvp and traditional pvp content.

Returning to the point at hand, to both enrich and entrench current residents simply because they are there is a small point compared to the potential advantages of implementation of my proposal. In a majority of cases, at the time of removal and reimbursement for stations, the builders and entities who upgraded stations will be the current owners, rendering Mr. Wolf's points moot. However, sometimes they will not be the owners. To overlook the huge opportunity to bring more people into nullsec would be a tragic waste of a unique point in time in Eve.


Answer me one question. Why should someone be rewarded for something they no longer own?

Edit: Also if you are going to talk about your multi-year vet of nullsec life post with someone that has been out there. I have a feeling that if you did you would be part of a group that had everything taken away and are using this a a cleaver shield to get some of your lost investment back.
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#443 - 2015-05-13 21:27:20 UTC
Fredric Wolf wrote:
Dentia Caecus wrote:


I understand that I will never change your opinion, Mr. Wolf, however flawed it may be, and I will not try. Instead, I will address the points he raises in the hope that I might find the ears of less close minded individuals.

In response to Mr. Wolf points:

It is the considered opinion of this author, a multi-year veteran of nullsec life, that Mr. Wolf is correct when he states there are inherent risks in nullsec, including risk of major or catastrophic loss. However, his repetition of this truism is utterly irrelevant, as is his tiresome reliance on the risk/reward analogy. Furthermore, his argument typifies the thinking that resulted in both the big blue doughnut and stagnation in nullsec that CCP has taken great pains to eliminate.

Mr. Wolf's misses or ignores much of the thrust of my argument and further misses one of the extraordinarily obvious, salient issues I present: removal of stations is a once in a game opportunity to bring newly formed entities into nullsec or bring people back into null who have been missing for a long time. Either result brings more entities into nullsec, further diversifying it and creating more opportunities for both economic pvp and traditional pvp content.

Returning to the point at hand, to both enrich and entrench current residents simply because they are there is a small point compared to the potential advantages of implementation of my proposal. In a majority of cases, at the time of removal and reimbursement for stations, the builders and entities who upgraded stations will be the current owners, rendering Mr. Wolf's points moot. However, sometimes they will not be the owners. To overlook the huge opportunity to bring more people into nullsec would be a tragic waste of a unique point in time in Eve.


Answer me one question. Why should someone be rewarded for something they no longer own?

Edit: Also if you are going to talk about your multi-year vet of nullsec life post with someone that has been out there. I have a feeling that if you did you would be part of a group that had everything taken away and are using this a a cleaver shield to get some of your lost investment back.



I did, twice. You just do not like the answer, Sir.
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#444 - 2015-05-13 21:30:36 UTC
Dentia Caecus wrote:



I did, twice. You just do not like the answer, Sir.


No you never answered the question you just used the same old terms blue doughnut and other memes. You never flat out said why any group or person should be given something for which they no longer own.
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
#445 - 2015-05-13 21:50:47 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:



  • 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.


From the Dev blog we have this:
Quote:
We have established Citadels need to be able to take care of themselves in a fight.

As such they should:

Repel trolling attempts from a single player trying to capture them with an Entosis module


How can the Citadel be able to take care of itself in a fight and repel trolling attempts from a single player IF it requires someone to man the guns? The Dev blog implies that the guns are automated like a POS when not manned.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Templis CALSF
#446 - 2015-05-13 21:52:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Some items and ships need to drop from citadels or why would we bother attacking them? Or why would anyone bother defending them if all they stand to lose is the value of only the citadel itself.

Wormholers currently have 100s of bilions worth of ships in their POSes and its one of the things that drive the massive fights we can witness every now and then - attackers want to destroy/loot them, defendes want to keep them. Compared to that, cost of the citadel itself will be peanuts and noone will bother fighting over it.

Please consider some drop mechanic, or maybe salvaging of the loot over time. IE the citadel wrecks slowly decay over time and shed loot (ships, modules, whatever) as salvage for anyone who shows up to get it. This could even spark some activity around old wrecks of mighty and rich citadels, as scavengers would come in search of riches.

Really like this idea.

Two Q's:

1. With these new structures and the entosis link removing the primary utility of dreads (POS, SBU, Outposts), should we expect a rebalance of that ship class to orient it more to anti-ship combat rather than anti structure?

2. These new Citidels seem much more compelling than outposts. If you're not entirely replacing outposts with these citadels, what will be the differentiation?

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#447 - 2015-05-13 21:54:55 UTC
Limit the Citadel Structures to one per region, or bare minimum, one XL per region to regulate its use. It should, at most, be regulated to one tower per region, period, regardless of size. It should be treated as a capital POS, and not be used as common equipment. Since it is limited to low and null only, its only fair, it should be limited in scope of its deployment as well.

Allowing it to be used unregulated and unchecked would subsequently cause unpredictable blowback and possibly cause large regions of space to stagnate, the mega alliances that now exist already have far too much opportunity and power to solidify their monopolies and strangleholds over their space.

Providing these structures in an unlimited capacity is far from being a good idea, especially when its OP weaponry, and multi-stacking invulnerability for both structures and ships is examined.

This is closer to GM equipment then it is sandbox.
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#448 - 2015-05-13 22:00:03 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Dentia Caecus wrote:

Mr. Wolf's misses or ignores much of the thrust of my argument and further misses one of the extraordinarily obvious, salient issues I present: removal of stations is a once in a game opportunity to bring newly formed entities into nullsec or bring people back into null who have been missing for a long time.

In a very aloof and condescending manner, you are basically saying "give me isk, not the people who put in the effort to beat me". You lost your station, if you could not be bothered to put in the effort to defend it, you don't deserve the winners spoils of war. You deserve exactly what you have now, nothing.

EDIT - And lets not forget, you are suggesting something that could massively effect existing alliances (whilst claiming your selfish motive is "for the good of the children"). Just look at Pheobe Freeport Alliance, Brave, and many other new spaceholders. These people live in space they have taken that was already developed. You are suggesting these stations are taken down, and the means to replace them being given to inactive holder corps of years-dead alliances. How are these new groups supposed to survive if you take away what they have, and do not give them the means to, at the very least, replace what has been lost like-for-like. Its foolish.


Mr. Cormallen,

As an aside, and before I begin to address your argument, please understand that I am trying to maintain an objective, wide and far reaching viewpoint the face of name calling and knee-jerk reactionary thinking. In that same vein, please stay on the original substance of my argument instead of arguing against a distortion of my points or an outright red herring.


While I must admit that I find it both utterly and sidesplittingly hilarious that you attempt to justify your argument on the basis of preservation of the above referenced alliances, I should say thank you. By crafting your argument in such a way, you, too, drive home one of the important points of my argument: that creation of newer alliances such as Brave, PFR, et.al have been wonderful for the game that we all clearly love. Potential creation of additional new alliances is also a good thing for the game.

Yes, if stations are removed by CCP, then yes, original builders and upgraders should be reimbursed. No, that will not kill the Imperium or anyone else. On reimbursement day, could someone steal billions from a corp from a wallet which isn't properly locked down, leave and start a new entity, thus massively effecting existing alliances? Yes. Is it likely to be widespread if CCP tells us they are doing this? No. Every major change finds people ripping out their collective hair while predicting the end of times, meanwhile some become rich, some become poor and some make changes to the face of the game that help to improve quality of life for nullsec. I hope to bring more people into nullsec. It seems you are more interested in creating additional spoils for work you have already accomplished.


EnternalSoul
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#449 - 2015-05-13 22:02:11 UTC  |  Edited by: EnternalSoul
Deep Nine wrote:
Limit the Citadel Structures to one per region, or bare minimum, one XL per region to regulate its use. It should, at most, be regulated to one tower per region, period, regardless of size. It should be treated as a capital POS, and not be used as common equipment. Since it is limited to low and null only, its only fair, it should be limited in scope of its deployment as well.

Allowing it to be used unregulated and unchecked would subsequently cause unpredictable blowback and possibly cause large regions of space to stagnate, the mega alliances that now exist already have far too much opportunity and power to solidify their monopolies and strangleholds over their space.

Providing these structures in an unlimited capacity is far from being a good idea, especially when its OP weaponry, and multi-stacking invulnerability for both structures and ships is examined.

This is closer to GM equipment then it is sandbox.



XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them.

see post #22 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5739567#post5739567
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#450 - 2015-05-13 22:03:33 UTC
Fredric Wolf wrote:
Dentia Caecus wrote:



I did, twice. You just do not like the answer, Sir.


No you never answered the question you just used the same old terms blue doughnut and other memes. You never flat out said why any group or person should be given something for which they no longer own.



Mr. Wolf,

Please see my response to Mr. Cormallen.
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#451 - 2015-05-13 22:14:46 UTC
EnternalSoul wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
Limit the Citadel Structures to one per region, or bare minimum, one XL per region to regulate its use. It should, at most, be regulated to one tower per region, period, regardless of size. It should be treated as a capital POS, and not be used as common equipment. Since it is limited to low and null only, its only fair, it should be limited in scope of its deployment as well.

Allowing it to be used unregulated and unchecked would subsequently cause unpredictable blowback and possibly cause large regions of space to stagnate, the mega alliances that now exist already have far too much opportunity and power to solidify their monopolies and strangleholds over their space.

Providing these structures in an unlimited capacity is far from being a good idea, especially when its OP weaponry, and multi-stacking invulnerability for both structures and ships is examined.

This is closer to GM equipment then it is sandbox.



XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them.

see post #22 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5739567#post5739567


LOL. Someone said the same thing about Titans once, I bet.

That said, there's no reason to artificially cap them since they can be destroyed.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Justin Cody
War Firm
#452 - 2015-05-13 22:18:29 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Lord LazyGhost wrote:
So if iam reading this right all my items i have in it if its destoryed are safe?

Then what is the point in attacking one risking ships for no loot other then a KM ?

sorry i just cant see the advantage atm.

Also not having guns automatic erm wtf..... for the guys that can only play for a few hours a day .

Log on o my pos is vunerable today for 2 hrs i need to go sit in my tower for the only 2 hrs i get to play incase some little troll in a ceptor desides today hes picking on my POS sounds like thrilling game play. even if its ever 3-4 days or so its still one days worth og game time doing nothing.

I for one will make my own little alt army of troll ceptor pilots for this thing. find small corps with muli Poses and hit them all at the same time with alts their small corp cant be everywhere at one time so yer.... sounds fun for them.

Hope you guys are going to create a new modual XXXXXL tear collector array becasue you are going to need it.


You won't be required to defend these everyday like sov, and the structure will drop fittings, fuel maybe in progress industry jobs etc.


Marry me?
Justin Cody
War Firm
#453 - 2015-05-13 22:19:20 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
Limit the Citadel Structures to one per region, or bare minimum, one XL per region to regulate its use. It should, at most, be regulated to one tower per region, period, regardless of size. It should be treated as a capital POS, and not be used as common equipment. Since it is limited to low and null only, its only fair, it should be limited in scope of its deployment as well.

Allowing it to be used unregulated and unchecked would subsequently cause unpredictable blowback and possibly cause large regions of space to stagnate, the mega alliances that now exist already have far too much opportunity and power to solidify their monopolies and strangleholds over their space.

Providing these structures in an unlimited capacity is far from being a good idea, especially when its OP weaponry, and multi-stacking invulnerability for both structures and ships is examined.

This is closer to GM equipment then it is sandbox.


get out.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#454 - 2015-05-13 22:20:42 UTC
Petrified wrote:
How can the Citadel be able to take care of itself in a fight and repel trolling attempts from a single player IF it requires someone to man the guns? The Dev blog implies that the guns are automated like a POS when not manned.


The dev blog implies that if you own a citadel and are alive to use it, you can repel a solo troll 100% of the time. You don't need to be a good pilot, or have expensive ships, or be a PvP wizard... you just need to get into your citadel and push the "fire big guns make bad people go away" button.

It in no way implies that we go back to the days of absentee landlordism where you can drop down a dozen structures that defend themselves. If you are there using the structure it will be trivial to repel anything that is not an actual attempt to take the structure. If you are not there using the structure than it will (intentionally) be vulnerable to a solo troll in a newb-ship.

Again, occupancy-based concepts here. Provide powerful tools to people actually using an area through structures while simultaneously making it trivial to clear out crap left behind by people no longer present without requiring a giant structure HP grind.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#455 - 2015-05-13 23:07:31 UTC
It needs to have a set number that can be placed either by system or by region. Allowing the unlimited placement of these structures would all but eliminate conquest.

Its overpowered doomsday weapons systems alone are enough to destroy a squad of sub-caps or a fleet of ships sent to destroy one, just one, nevermind an entire system wracked with them.

These would cause the null to stagnate, once implemented, by causing conquest to stagnate, it is obvious how, in that it would provide much needed, and timely, damage control, specifically for wounded empires, that are beginning to fail and lose space, allowing them to harden up remaining systems against attack, draw back, hunker down, and defend their space with indestructibly guarded and armed POS systems. It murders strategic conquest. How it is currently presented is far overpowered, that much is obvious to an experienced player without an agenda.

It needs regulation.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#456 - 2015-05-13 23:10:23 UTC
EnternalSoul wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
Limit the Citadel Structures to one per region, or bare minimum, one XL per region to regulate its use. It should, at most, be regulated to one tower per region, period, regardless of size. It should be treated as a capital POS, and not be used as common equipment. Since it is limited to low and null only, its only fair, it should be limited in scope of its deployment as well.

Allowing it to be used unregulated and unchecked would subsequently cause unpredictable blowback and possibly cause large regions of space to stagnate, the mega alliances that now exist already have far too much opportunity and power to solidify their monopolies and strangleholds over their space.

Providing these structures in an unlimited capacity is far from being a good idea, especially when its OP weaponry, and multi-stacking invulnerability for both structures and ships is examined.

This is closer to GM equipment then it is sandbox.



XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them.

see post #22 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5739567#post5739567


It would only limit them to empires and mega-alliances. Everyone else is out, meaning this is bias and specifically meant for entrench and enchanc the power of standing empires, keeping the status quo and allowing no further opportunity for any other foreign corp advancement.

Broken idea is broke. Needs overhaul on tweaking and devastating nerfing if it is to survive.
Ripblade Falconpunch
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#457 - 2015-05-13 23:48:47 UTC
Dentia Caecus wrote:
Fredric Wolf wrote:
Dentia Caecus wrote:



I did, twice. You just do not like the answer, Sir.


No you never answered the question you just used the same old terms blue doughnut and other memes. You never flat out said why any group or person should be given something for which they no longer own.



Mr. Wolf,

Please see my response to Mr. Cormallen.


I've read all of your posts so far, and they are all dumb. You lost your **** because you couldn't defend it, get over it. All the attempts at formal speech and snarky attempts at being respectful and pretending to take the high road aren't making your real intentions any less transparent.

I would bet that many existing stations were originally built by alliances that literally dont even exist anymore, or have been inactive for years. So who exactly would get compensation? A non-existent alliance wallet? A holding alliance wallet held by a single account that hasn't been subscribed or logged in for 5 years? This is why your idea is dumb. So dumb you should go post it in the "Bad Advice" thread in GD.
Romel Erata
blackstar expeditionary force
#458 - 2015-05-14 00:25:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Romel Erata
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:

2. I think we will show them on the onboard scanner to warp to.


I haven't read the blog in its entirely yet, but how are these structures going to be deployed anywhere, if the only available points are the warpable solar system objects like the sun, moons, planets and all intersecting lines between them, i.e. someone will ALWAYS pass your structure in warp as it lies on the warp path between two objects, unless you deploy something like 2000 km off a planet's warp in point.

In other words, you can't have positioning above the solar system's plane, unless you have old Deep safe spot bookmarks from many moons ago. Sad


You can get to all sorts of interesting positions with careful bookmark-warp-bookmarking.


Not sure if anyone has brought this up yet but does this mean I can set essentially a stationary pipe-bomb with an XL Citadel and a bubble?
Flamespar
WarRavens
#459 - 2015-05-14 00:29:49 UTC
Since there will be no racial variations for these structures, perhaps there should be racial skins that also apply small geometry changes to the structure.

For example

Minmatar skin = Rust paint and smoke stacks
Amarr = Gold and statue of religious figure
Caldari = Gunmetal grey and military livery
Gallente = Green and something with boobs.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#460 - 2015-05-14 01:03:32 UTC
Quote:
XL are going to be as hard to build as a player owned station. I think that fact alone will limit them.


Yes, it would Limit them specifically to huge alliances and powerful corperations, which money and resources are no object for.

They would be mass manufactured and inevitably it would be abused by organizations to augment and solidify their already staggering power, forever sealing null against any type of incursion from almost any type of outside force, not grand fathered in.