These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#121 - 2015-05-12 17:34:43 UTC
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.


In wormhole space, where an entire corporation's assets are potentially wrapped up in that single structure. I guarantee you that this will happen all the time. And while you can say that corporation should show up to defend, lowering the bar to attack to a single ship means that the deterrent that today's POSes present to casual attack will be so low in the new system that there will be no barrier for someone entering a system to attack. Combine this with how easy it is to become locked out of your system means that a corporation without extensive numbers would be insane to leave their structures during their vulnerability window for fear of being podded from their wormhole during other activities. I don't believe this is an acceptable level of balance for w-space structures.


CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
#122 - 2015-05-12 17:35:03 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
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/
I was going to post this myself!

Heres the important part:
Quote:
We are absolutely happy with how players have taken the wormhole feature and run with it over the last five years and we look forward to many more years of watching the adventures of the wormhole community with joy and awe. Anyone telling you otherwise is woefully mistaken.
Personally I love wormhole space, and try to make sure all those crazy bob worshippers are always considered :)

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#123 - 2015-05-12 17:35:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
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.

I think 250km is perfectly reasonable, just disappointed at not being able to form complexes and cities out of structures as was mentioned as a possibility a while back.

I know, idea's are great until they meet the cold, hard reality of the drawing board.

So yes, you certainly have my support and most everyone else's as well. We appreciate very much all of your hard work on the design, mechanics, and graphics involved.

Just please keep in the back of your mind that ultimately, we don't really want various sized structures that sit isolated... with strictly limited capabilities that make for easy balance.

I mean this is certainly great for now, but eventually we want to take the extremely logical step of connecting our structures in space, forming sometimes vast structures, creating designs that make defense easier (see your link in the blog to the star citadels) just by how they are laid out, or facilitate a huge industrial or trade base in one wing, and research in another.

We want to build according to our own designs, with you designing the shape/size/capabilities of the building blocks available to us.

I would not suggest that what you are proposing is unacceptable in any way, it's great actually. Just please keep in the back of your mind when designing these mechanics and in game assets that eventually we'll want to connect the dots... and perhaps even walk around inside them as well. Blink

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

Makoto Priano
Kirkinen-Arataka Transhuman Zenith Consulting Ltd.
#124 - 2015-05-12 17:37:01 UTC
As an aside, I absolutely love the old Homeworld 2 station concept art, and would never complain in the slightest if design elements were used wholesale as inspiration. >.>

Things like this, or this, or this.

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

The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#125 - 2015-05-12 17:37:18 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.


Wait what! You can still see the grid while docked!? Did I miss that part? That's awesome!
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#126 - 2015-05-12 17:38:04 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions)


Shield Projector
Citadel Parasite Protection System (CCPs)
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#127 - 2015-05-12 17:39:09 UTC
Suddenly the landscapes...

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#128 - 2015-05-12 17:40:33 UTC
I'm not sure I buy that wormholes should be a special case and more secure if you have someone taking up all the parking spaces. It's a bit of a quirky side effect of POSs only being anchorable at moons - which happens to be going away for everyone, not just wormholers.


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.

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#129 - 2015-05-12 17:41:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Dafuq.

I didn't read the blog, but I approve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKdTJjDnYzE#t=1m30s

DEATH TO ALL CAPITALS
Morn Hylund
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2015-05-12 17:41:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Morn Hylund
CCP Nullarbor wrote:


The invulnerability link (we need a new name for this, taking suggestions) provides security while you are undocked and mobile around the structure.

Universal Stationing Quantum Tunneling Photon Emulator Link

USQ-TPEL
Elizabeth Norn
Nornir Research
Nornir Empire
#131 - 2015-05-12 17:44:39 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.


Therapeia link :p.
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#132 - 2015-05-12 17:45:11 UTC
Obil Que 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.


In wormhole space, where an entire corporation's assets are potentially wrapped up in that single structure. I guarantee you that this will happen all the time. And while you can say that corporation should show up to defend, lowering the bar to attack to a single ship means that the deterrent that today's POSes present to casual attack will be so low in the new system that there will be no barrier for someone entering a system to attack. Combine this with how easy it is to become locked out of your system means that a corporation without extensive numbers would be insane to leave their structures during their vulnerability window for fear of being podded from their wormhole during other activities. I don't believe this is an acceptable level of balance for w-space structures.




With several vulnerability timers to go through, I don't really see this as a problem.

I'm honestly on the side of the fence that believes wormhole space is pretty good right now, but could always be made a bit harder to survive there. Often times locking down a hole and tearing through those juicy escalations is just too safe. I'd like living and surviving there with the people you trust should be a badge of honour. Heck even docking seems too safe to me. I do think a lone roaming ship shouldn't rip a whole structure to shreds in one sitting, but to harass it is fine.
Fzhal
#133 - 2015-05-12 17:45:59 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
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.

So would this go down during the Vulnerability Time? Or would attackers take this down during the Vulnerability Time?

Please keep single-player corps in mind when designing capture mechanics for the Medium and maybe Large structures. Please don't expect us to be on every day during our vulnerability time...

Will basic compressing and Refining modules be available to fit on Citadel structures (even medium ones)?

<3 When docked you will see surrounding space. <3

The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#134 - 2015-05-12 17:47:16 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
I'm not sure I buy that wormholes should be a special case and more secure if you have someone taking up all the parking spaces. It's a bit of a quirky side effect of POSs only being anchorable at moons - which happens to be going away for everyone, not just wormholers.




Agreed!

Although chucking up a new station in an occupied system should provide some of it's own difficulties.
Sven Viko VIkolander
Allemannsrett
#135 - 2015-05-12 17:48:00 UTC
Overall, this looks awesome. A lot of my initial worries have been allayed for the time being.

1) However, will destroying these new M-XL class structures generate killmails?

2) When it comes to finding them in space, I agree with other posters that they should not necessarily need probes to scan down. However, maybe make this dependent on a fitted module or rig, where by default you can find the structure via dscan and directly warping to it, but players can customize them to require probes to find--for a cost. Say, a "dscan inhibitor rig" which has relevant drawbacks (e.g., maybe weakens the defenses or reduces the benefits the citadel gives) but then adds the requirement of combat probes to find the structure?

3) When it comes to giving player citadels benefits for trading above NPC stations, I would suggest (as a trader myself) raising the default NPC tax rate on stations. I think something this harsh is needed because it would be the only thing that would--personally--get a player like myself to trade in a player-run market, or start my own. However, how will it work in the market itself? Will public citadels in the region with sell orders--say, seeing nanite paste--appear on the market search, where I can then set destination to this public citadel?

4) Would it be possible to anchor two citadels close enough to one another so that they can fight each other? Citadel versus Citadel pvp??! That would be pretty fun and would open up a lot of gameplay options, especially in WH evictions.

5) Any thoughts yet about how the market will be seeded with the relevant structures and modules? Regular blueprint sales in NPC stations, for instance, or will there also be any BPCs that drop, say, for a Serpentis L Citadel which, like faction towers currently, give certain bonuses above the regular towers etc.?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#136 - 2015-05-12 17:48:53 UTC
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.

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.

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

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#137 - 2015-05-12 17:49:04 UTC
The Hamilton wrote:
Obil Que 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.


In wormhole space, where an entire corporation's assets are potentially wrapped up in that single structure. I guarantee you that this will happen all the time. And while you can say that corporation should show up to defend, lowering the bar to attack to a single ship means that the deterrent that today's POSes present to casual attack will be so low in the new system that there will be no barrier for someone entering a system to attack. Combine this with how easy it is to become locked out of your system means that a corporation without extensive numbers would be insane to leave their structures during their vulnerability window for fear of being podded from their wormhole during other activities. I don't believe this is an acceptable level of balance for w-space structures.




With several vulnerability timers to go through, I don't really see this as a problem.

I'm honestly on the side of the fence that believes wormhole space is pretty good right now, but could always be made a bit harder to survive there. Often times locking down a hole and tearing through those juicy escalations is just too safe. I'd like living and surviving there with the people you trust should be a badge of honour. Heck even docking seems too safe to me. I do think a lone roaming ship shouldn't rip a whole structure to shreds in one sitting, but to harass it is fine.


At first glance, I would think so also but this is not a mobile depot reinforcement timer here where it might be funny to reinforce it and then 2 days later see if someone else came along and finished the job.

I guarantee you that if you enter a wormhole where someone had reinforced it the day before and all you need is a single ship to reinforce it for the second round, you'll go for it. It is that excessively low bar to attack that is going to be very difficult for wormhole occupants as every passerby decides to take pot shots at your structures that refuse to defend themselves without dedicating a pilot to each structure everyday during the window.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#138 - 2015-05-12 17:51:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Centurax wrote:
Nice work really excited about the new structures and the weapons :)

Will the structure be conquerable or is it kill only, was not too clear on that?

Also what kind of personalization will these structures have, so can you put Corp/Alliance logo holograms on them in the first version or that planned later also will there be skins similar to the ships planned for them?


Ideally we want the structures to have the same SKIN system than ships.


Shocked

Take moni - all the moni. ☜༼ຈل͜ຈ☜༽

Propaganda centres better have more functionality and scope than the current billboards. Twisted
CCP Nullarbor
C C P
C C P Alliance
#139 - 2015-05-12 17:51:24 UTC
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
Overall, this looks awesome. A lot of my initial worries have been allayed for the time being.

1) However, will destroying these new M-XL class structures generate killmails?

2) When it comes to finding them in space, I agree with other posters that they should not necessarily need probes to scan down. However, maybe make this dependent on a fitted module or rig, where by default you can find the structure via dscan and directly warping to it, but players can customize them to require probes to find--for a cost. Say, a "dscan inhibitor rig" which has relevant drawbacks (e.g., maybe weakens the defenses or reduces the benefits the citadel gives) but then adds the requirement of combat probes to find the structure?

3) When it comes to giving player citadels benefits for trading above NPC stations, I would suggest (as a trader myself) raising the default NPC tax rate on stations. I think something this harsh is needed because it would be the only thing that would--personally--get a player like myself to trade in a player-run market, or start my own. However, how will it work in the market itself? Will public citadels in the region with sell orders--say, seeing nanite paste--appear on the market search, where I can then set destination to this public citadel?

4) Would it be possible to anchor two citadels close enough to one another so that they can fight each other? Citadel versus Citadel pvp??! That would be pretty fun and would open up a lot of gameplay options, especially in WH evictions.

5) Any thoughts yet about how the market will be seeded with the relevant structures and modules? Regular blueprint sales in NPC stations, for instance, or will there also be any BPCs that drop, say, for a Serpentis L Citadel which, like faction towers currently, give certain bonuses above the regular towers etc.?


1. Yes

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

3. Market will come a bit later and we'll have a detailed blog about how that will work but yes we reduced market tax will be a good incentive to use a player built market over the NPC ones.

4. No, because of so many reasons Bear

5. That's a bit early to say, we have a lot of options for new industry here building the structures and all the modules.

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

Chirality Tisteloin
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#140 - 2015-05-12 17:54:30 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:


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.


If these are two different forms of protection, does that mean that the INductive Victimization Upshot Liquidator (aka invulnerability link) will work on captial ships even for citadels where they are not allowed to dock up?

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