These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#41 - 2015-05-12 16:01:56 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
I can anchor them just for me personally (not corp, alliance), correct?

Why you want to scrap the force fields? It's a cool SciFi element, at least keep the visuals.


Yes we plan on allowing personal anchoring but you must be a player corporation, not NPC (so you can be wardecced).

We are creating a replacement for force fields which works better (tm) and looks cooler. You will have a lot of the same benefits that the force field provides.

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

Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2015-05-12 16:02:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Morn Hylund
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.
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#43 - 2015-05-12 16:02:38 UTC
Jessica Danikov wrote:
Can someone explain to me why Citadels start at 'Medium'? What happened to small Citadels?


The small size is for the deployables / anchorables. So these new structures start at M and upwards.

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

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#44 - 2015-05-12 16:03:13 UTC
I like it so far...

Citadel - good name, and a good starting place for which type to choose.
AOE - weapons, yes please!
Doomsday on XL - Niiice.

Questions:
1) You mentioned these would act as force multipliers... in what way? The closest thing I saw was the inclusion of ECM, but I was mentally picturing some sort of fleet bonuses, or potentially logistical repair within X kilometers.

2) Will some of these defenses be self-activating if nobody is around to defend the POS during vulnerability?

3) Can these structures be captured or only destroyed? The mechanic description seemed a bit vague to me - it could be that I'm reading from work though and not 100% focused.

4) Does the destruction come automatically after 2-3 successful entosisizing sessions, or do you then get/have-to shoot them too?

5) Can we have space chapeaus to wear in our space ch√Ęteau? :)

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.

Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#45 - 2015-05-12 16:03:58 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Regarding standings, this would in essence be the same situatin than launching a bomb into a pack of friendlies Twisted. Those are AoE weapons, be careful where you shoot them.


Sad

You know that means FW Alliances/Corps will basically be restricted to not fitting the AoE weapon then and/or risk getting kicked out of FW? Just like we can't use Smartbombs except with Alts to firewall/clear drones without massive risk.

Oh well, still a long ways off and still very excited! Lol
Isengrimus
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#46 - 2015-05-12 16:04:46 UTC
Isengrimus wrote:
Two questions:

- How will "vulnerability" and "destructibility" interact? How would you protect a structure that you want to capture, rather than to destroy? Will you be able to do it at all? How will you avoid accidental killings?

- How will these changes affect NPC Stations in hisec, lowsec and nullsec?



Umm... bump? Sorry to quote myself, but Dear CCP, I believe these are kinda valid questions. ;)
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#47 - 2015-05-12 16:05:52 UTC
Jessica Danikov wrote:
Can someone explain to me why Citadels start at 'Medium'? What happened to small Citadels?


Small structures are going to be the old deployables (like containers, mobile tractor unit, bubbles etc...). But they won't be able to be fitted and won't have most of the advanced mechanics tied with M, L, X-L. They're deployables after all and are supposed to be very entry level to use.

So, technically, your "small citadel" would be a mobile depot, even if it doesn't really earn that title to be honest P.
Demeisen Atreides
Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society
United Federation of Conifers
#48 - 2015-05-12 16:05:53 UTC
I don't know if I like that these new structures also use the entosis link to enter reinforcement. I feel like if a structure can shoot me and do damage to me I should be able to shoot it back. Also once these replace POSes what is the point of dreads going to be? Are they going to get some kind of an upcoming buff so they aren't useless in today's cruiser meta?
stoicfaux
#49 - 2015-05-12 16:07:51 UTC
Any chance we'll see any improvement in docking/undocking times with citadels?

The question is a bit odd, but if you all are overhauling core mechanics, I figured I'd ask. For noooooooooo particular reason.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

bigbillthaboss3
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#50 - 2015-05-12 16:08:12 UTC
Saede Riordan 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.



Please let me build all the structures. I have spent 2 years developing Origin and really want to be able to build it up into an awesome space civilisation. Do not kneecap wormhole space just for the sake of making it different, I beg of you.



Time to change that backstory.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#51 - 2015-05-12 16:09:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Thanatos Marathon
Demeisen Atreides wrote:
Also once these replace POSes what is the point of dreads going to be?


Helping you to control the grid? Shooting ships with a dread is way more fun than shooting structure with it imo.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#52 - 2015-05-12 16:11:44 UTC
A couple of questions:

1) Will the same loot mechanics apply to w-space as k-space versions?
2) It sounds like there is no unanchor timer, right? So once I wait out the vulnerability timer, I can scoop the structure, right?
3) What happens to the stuff inside when I do this?
4) Will there be tools to enable structure owners to monitor/remove stuff kept in the structure for when they want to take it down?
5) Any provision to enable players to check activity levels from the outside, especially in w-space?
6) Any chance of more details on the "invulnerability link"? What sorts of radius are you thinking? I assume invulnerable ships will be unable to target anything, just like current FF mechanics?

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Tyr Dolorem
Capital Fusion.
Pandemic Horde
#53 - 2015-05-12 16:11:49 UTC
Lowsec availability of these structures, and of their area of effect and doomsday weapons?
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#54 - 2015-05-12 16:12:26 UTC
Isengrimus wrote:
Isengrimus wrote:
Two questions:

- How will "vulnerability" and "destructibility" interact? How would you protect a structure that you want to capture, rather than to destroy? Will you be able to do it at all? How will you avoid accidental killings?

- How will these changes affect NPC Stations in hisec, lowsec and nullsec?



Umm... bump? Sorry to quote myself, but Dear CCP, I believe these are kinda valid questions. ;)


You would protect a structure by using the Entosis module to prevent the opposing party to attack it during its vulnerability window. Or you would use the defenses fitted to kill them all while laughing like a maniac.

Accidental killings are a tricky business. We may either want to forbid you from locking and shooting neutrals in high-sec (permanent safety mechanic), or, if we can do it, allow you to do so but have CONCORD show up and destroy your structure if you commit an act of aggression. Depends on technical and design difficulties, too early to say so far. In all cases AoE weapons will not be allowed in high-sec for obvious reasons.

It's too early to say how NPC stations will be affected. We want those structures to be more efficient than NPC stations though, which either means boosting them or nerfing NPC stations.
Makoto Priano
Kirkinen-Arataka Transhuman Zenith Consulting Ltd.
#55 - 2015-05-12 16:16:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Makoto Priano
Ytterbium; silly question, but seeing as these structures don't appear to have racial/factional leanings, will we be able to skin them? ;) This would, of course, be very useful once an alliance can have its own skins...

Additionally, seconding questions on HS and WH deployment issues. There are concerns about docking games in WH space, for instance, or about how heavy these things can get in HS. :x

Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#56 - 2015-05-12 16:17:35 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
First, I have to say I am super excited about the path structures are taking!

The impression I get is that the defenses will have the option to be managed by a player to operate? Is that correct? If a player does interact with the defenses will they take standings loss for shooting something like they would if they were in a normal ship?

Example: AoE weapon is activated by myself with a mix of enemy and friendly ships/drones nearby (friendlies forgot to ball up, undocked, etc). Will my standings be absolutely torched?


Unlike existing Starbases, you won't need multiple guys to operate the weapons. Those structures will be like ships, so you will only need one guy to control them all. The Starbase Defense Management skill will be reworked into something else or refunded when Starbases are removed.

Regarding standings, this would in essence be the same situatin than launching a bomb into a pack of friendlies Twisted. Those are AoE weapons, be careful where you shoot them.


The lack of automated defenses is disconcerting specifically as it relates to wormhole space and smaller corporations trying to build up or start out in low-class wormhole space. Wormhole space has unique challenges related to system access that are not present in k-space. There is no option to med clone to your home system, cyno behind an enemy gate camp, or otherwise return to your structure if you are podded out from your wormhole. A small number of aggressors can effectively block out an equally small corporation from being able to effectively access their system after a minor skirmish of opportunity. And given that the aggressor need only bring small ships to reinforce structures, the lack of any kind of automated defense to discourage such griefing behavior is very concerning. These possibilities could essential force smaller entities to "bunker down" during their vulnerability window daily to avoid being locked out and to defend against a minuscule attacking force.

I strongly believe that these structures need to have some level of automatic, even if marginally ineffective to deter casual reinforcement in wormhole space where defenders are at a distinct geographical disadvantage due to how wormhole space operates.
Sho Menao
Wildcard.
Boundary Experts
#57 - 2015-05-12 16:18:15 UTC
How much HP are the AOE missiles going to have. Coming from a static structure they'd be trivial to firewall for a fleet if they don't have sufficient strength.
Vacant Glare
Nefariam Cementarii
#58 - 2015-05-12 16:22:37 UTC
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
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#59 - 2015-05-12 16:23:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Manssell
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!
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2015-05-12 16:27:52 UTC
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.