These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#101 - 2015-05-12 17:03:36 UTC
Very happy to see a name change from Market Hub here. It never really made much sense due to it's multi purpose nature. I am very much looking forward to the changes and the shake up to the meta these will bring.

Concerning the art direction, will the fitting modules that are placed change the look of the Citadel like the first modular station concepts brought up?

If not, is there room to leave this as an available addition in later releases? I think if these things are going to be a big home base, then having a unique look to each could really resonate with it's residents.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#102 - 2015-05-12 17:05:29 UTC
Scott Ormands wrote:
But how would that work in WH space. If I can recruit Sleepless guardians to defend me I'm going to call it now and predict people farming off of an alt's defended tower.


inb4 Drifters defending alliance reaction farms.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#103 - 2015-05-12 17:06:51 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Papa Django wrote:
Is there a limitation to the distance between 2 structures and the distance between a sov structure and theses new structures ?


There will be deployment restrictions, yes.

Mainly to avoid people to be insta-omg-BBQ-blapped when coming out of warp / stations, to avoid having space where structure defenses overlap or have them hidden inside landmarks or other anomaly sites.

I have to say I was hoping that the concept of linking structures had not been dropped, that creating structure "cities" or "encampments" in space would be possible.

Basically, yes, restrictions on anchoring too close to other structures UNLESS you link them together. Each individual component would have so many hard points (depending on size) which could be used either for weapons OR as the necessary connection points.

So if you want to build a complex structure in a given area then you would need to sacrifice weapons hard points on each section to use as attachment points to the rest of the structure. This would also allow for free form structures to evolve according to need and player taste.

... but this is good too. Smile


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.


This again is very disconcerting for wormhole space both from a defensive and offensive standpoint. Offensively in that unless you make them appear on the overview, the act of covertly scouting a system for structures and occupation will be impossible. You cannot implement free anchoring without 100% having all structures warpable on the overview.

Defensively, allowing invaders to anchor structures at any point in space is, I feel, to strong of an advantage to an invading force, especially give the reliance on timezone windows for disposing of structures. You essentially give anyone wanting to set up shop in your space a free license to do so for multiple days AND they can set their structures to be vulnerable only in your off timezone to prevent an adequate defense. The act of typing structures to celestials is a key component in wormhole selection as well as the practice of moon-locking as a defensive measure. Removing this defensive posture is again hurting wormhole space in ways that will likely be very detrimental.


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.

We aware of the concern of invaders setting up a beach head, and are discussing with the CSM various options for changing anchoring behavior in wormholes to help with this.

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

Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2015-05-12 17:12:51 UTC
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?

.

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#105 - 2015-05-12 17:14:52 UTC
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.

We aware of the concern of invaders setting up a beach head, and are discussing with the CSM various options for changing anchoring behavior in wormholes to help with this.


I hope I'm clear that free-anchored structures require 100% overview, not overview if you have access. If a player cannot jump into a system and find the POS through dscan alone, then you are destroying a huge portion of wormhole space activity (covert operations). Anything other than warpable overview beacons for free anchored structures will require a scout to launch probes to survey the system and that will immediately alert anyone in the system to their presence.

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#106 - 2015-05-12 17:14:58 UTC
not a fan of forcefields.. surely having docking functions removes the need for these, 250km spread of structures you can fly through would be much cooler instead of a forced arbitrary forcefield which also has the annoying side effect of forcing you too use longer range weapons too shoot stuff, (renders frigs useless often)

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

muhadin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#107 - 2015-05-12 17:15:15 UTC
Obil Que wrote:

This again is very disconcerting for wormhole space both from a defensive and offensive standpoint. Offensively in that unless you make them appear on the overview, the act of covertly scouting a system for structures and occupation will be impossible. You cannot implement free anchoring without 100% having all structures warpable on the overview.

Defensively, allowing invaders to anchor structures at any point in space is, I feel, too strong of an advantage to an invading force, especially give the reliance on timezone windows for disposing of structures. You essentially give anyone wanting to set up shop in your space a free license to do so for multiple days AND they can set their structures to be vulnerable only in your off timezone to prevent an adequate defense. The act of tying structures to celestials is a key component in wormhole selection as well as the practice of moon-locking as a defensive measure. Removing this defensive posture is again hurting wormhole space in ways that will likely be very detrimental.


Who cares, w-space needs a metric fuckton of balancing, if anything some change would be great.

"Love the Life you Live, Live the Life you Love"

Makoto Priano
Kirkinen-Arataka Transhuman Zenith Consulting Ltd.
#108 - 2015-05-12 17:16:03 UTC
Manssell; 'small' will exist for other purposes.

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
#109 - 2015-05-12 17:18:40 UTC
muhadin wrote:
Obil Que wrote:

This again is very disconcerting for wormhole space both from a defensive and offensive standpoint. Offensively in that unless you make them appear on the overview, the act of covertly scouting a system for structures and occupation will be impossible. You cannot implement free anchoring without 100% having all structures warpable on the overview.

Defensively, allowing invaders to anchor structures at any point in space is, I feel, too strong of an advantage to an invading force, especially give the reliance on timezone windows for disposing of structures. You essentially give anyone wanting to set up shop in your space a free license to do so for multiple days AND they can set their structures to be vulnerable only in your off timezone to prevent an adequate defense. The act of tying structures to celestials is a key component in wormhole selection as well as the practice of moon-locking as a defensive measure. Removing this defensive posture is again hurting wormhole space in ways that will likely be very detrimental.


Who cares, w-space needs a metric fuckton of balancing, if anything some change would be great.


w-space isn't a null-sec style occupation of dozens of connected systems. It is an entire corporation putting all their assets on the line in a single space and often structure. To make it trivial to destroy said structure or to occupy or otherwise invade that space isn't balance. It would, however, ensure that w-space occupation goes the way of the dodo.
Valid Point
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#110 - 2015-05-12 17:20:59 UTC
Please give us the ability to fit capital tractor beams used on the rorqual to our citadels :D
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#111 - 2015-05-12 17:21:59 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.


You could allow yourselves time with this though. Seeing as you did just implement a new POS forcefield, just use it as a place holder while further development is done to ensure optimal coolness of the new system while getting the rest of the structure(s) out the door.
muhadin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#112 - 2015-05-12 17:22:15 UTC  |  Edited by: muhadin
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.

We aware of the concern of invaders setting up a beach head, and are discussing with the CSM various options for changing anchoring behavior in wormholes to help with this.



I agree that all these new structures should be visible on the overview everywhere for many reasons. Roaming fleets can't catch unprepared people without having to probe these things down. Newer player roam fleets shouldn't need to have probes to find content around these new structures.

Having to probe them in wspace makes others know you're there, which is never a good thing.

On another note i am very interested to see how you guys decide to balance asset relocation in w-space. On one hand, evictions are pretty tedious to execute on a large scale. On the other hand you kill and take tons of assets, and force people to all in their fleet as a last stand. I am still partial to the latter.

"Love the Life you Live, Live the Life you Love"

Hicksimus
Torgue
#113 - 2015-05-12 17:22:20 UTC
I would have just made the outposts launch bombs in random directions but most nullsec groups have members that already do that for them.

Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you? Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#114 - 2015-05-12 17:23:15 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
w-space isn't a null-sec style occupation of dozens of connected systems. It is an entire corporation putting all their assets on the line in a single space and often structure. To make it trivial to destroy said structure or to occupy or otherwise invade that space isn't balance. It would, however, ensure that w-space occupation goes the way of the dodo.


w-space was never meant to be occupied. You should not be living there.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#115 - 2015-05-12 17:24:47 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
w-space isn't a null-sec style occupation of dozens of connected systems. It is an entire corporation putting all their assets on the line in a single space and often structure. To make it trivial to destroy said structure or to occupy or otherwise invade that space isn't balance. It would, however, ensure that w-space occupation goes the way of the dodo.


w-space was never meant to be occupied. You should not be living there.


I'll let you read CCPs thoughts on wormhole occupation yourself

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/into-the-known-unknowns/
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#116 - 2015-05-12 17:24:59 UTC
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.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Scott Ormands
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#117 - 2015-05-12 17:26:58 UTC
Soldarius wrote:

w-space was never meant to be occupied. You should not be living there.



Because we always follow ccp's lead and do everything they want the way they want it right? after so long its now a legitimate way to live and play the game, you can't just discount it and say you shouldnt be there anyways, I dont like Null living but I dont attack that way of living.
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#118 - 2015-05-12 17:28:33 UTC
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.

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

Chirality Tisteloin
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2015-05-12 17:32:01 UTC
Good evening,

Question for clarification: docking in Citadels means the same as using the invulnerability link, right?

very interesting concepts! Thanx for sharing the blog.

See you at my blog: http://spindensity.wordpress.com/

CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#120 - 2015-05-12 17:34:23 UTC
Chirality Tisteloin wrote:
Good evening,

Question for clarification: docking in Citadels means the same as using the invulnerability link, right?

very interesting concepts! Thanx for sharing the blog.


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.

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