These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: I feel safe in Citadel city

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Black Pedro
Mine.
#101 - 2015-08-13 20:20:54 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:

I think they can scoop while the structure in in normal operation at any time. So they can always scoop before the war starts. But if its rigged, they lose the rigs.

But I thought they had to wait one vulnerability window before scooping? So if the vulnerability window is greater than 24 hours, shouldn't I be able to time the wardec such I can try to reinforce the citadel before it can be scooped?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#102 - 2015-08-13 20:26:44 UTC
Half of the impound fees should be paid to the player that landed the final blow on the citadel. There should be an incentive to go blow up a very very full citadel, and you should get more than a couple of citadel guns for doing so.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#103 - 2015-08-13 20:32:18 UTC
Mercer Nen wrote:
Honestly these magical mechanics are terrible. If you're going to make things destructible then just do it. This halfway nonsense of creating mechanics that make no logical sense (magic delivery) is really poor. There should always be an immersive element to all mechanics.

There are existing mechanics that are not immersive (bumping for example...). I believe sci-fi explanations can be created once the game design is solidified, but the game design should prime above the immersion factor.


Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#104 - 2015-08-13 20:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Lord Okinaba wrote:
Ugh. So personal assets and ships get magically transported to another station or system upon destruction?

Seems pretty soft and not at all what I have come to expect from EVE Online.

Everything should spill out into the system in thousands of pieces and at thousands of ms.

If you don't want to risk losing all your stuff, don't put all your eggs in one basket and always keep hold of liquid isk to start again.



I'm not taking my ~10b in combat assets that I have staged in Curse and putting them in an outpost that can be blown up without any way of recovering them. I'd rather go live in Thera instead under the umbrella of NPC stations.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2015-08-13 20:36:08 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Opner Dresden wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
So not only do the contents of a citadel get magically teleported to a station, but at any point during the whole attack process the owner can just unanchor the thing, pick it up and leave?.


No they cannot unanchor it while reinforced, they would have to successfully defend it first. However they can remove their personal assets if they wish.



Does that mean they can be unanchored and moved while not reinforced? The ROI on these looks horrible if it's a one time deployable that can also be destroyed.


Yes you can unanchor them provided they are not under attack. They will immediately enter a vulnerable state and at the end will eject the personal assets to safety, kickout the docked pilots into space and the unanchor to be scooped.




well, now comes the next level of espionage, infiltrating, then unanchoring hostile citadels to eject all the logged off pilots into the middle of a bubble camp for the monkey barrel exercise. Plus getting a nice juicy packaged citadel for your troubles.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#106 - 2015-08-13 20:37:28 UTC
naed21 wrote:
If I'm reading this correctly, assets are never moved out of a WH when the structure is destroyed. This means you can seed ships in whs and then when you anchor a new structure suddenly have a ton of capital ships out of no where.

It's certainly possible for a group to setup a large structure in every c6 wh, fill them with dreads and carriers, and then blow them up so that in the future they can attack the new residents with this large capital force.

The delay between the citadel going online and assets being recovered is several days. CCP could easily tweak the asset recovery time in wormholes to allow for the citadel to be destroyed inside the asset recovery window.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Marech Bhayanaka
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2015-08-13 21:07:53 UTC
Taru Audeles wrote:
I really don't see how and why anyone will be using the new citadels the way they are designed now.
You still loss 10% of the value if you want your stuff back. They get delivered to a RANDOM NPC station. So if you have stuff in multiple citadels the stuff can and will be delivered to multiple NPC stations.

If you are going to lose so many citadels that a 10% loss is unbearable, maybe you shouldn't be putting them up in the first place?

Marech.
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2015-08-13 21:34:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Draconus Lofwyr
Marech Bhayanaka wrote:
Taru Audeles wrote:
I really don't see how and why anyone will be using the new citadels the way they are designed now.
You still loss 10% of the value if you want your stuff back. They get delivered to a RANDOM NPC station. So if you have stuff in multiple citadels the stuff can and will be delivered to multiple NPC stations.

If you are going to lose so many citadels that a 10% loss is unbearable, maybe you shouldn't be putting them up in the first place?

Marech.



the fine detail that seems to elude you is, the Corp or Alliance puts up the citadel. the individual members have to pay the 10% of their asset value. While the corp or alliance could eat the value, the individuals might or probably cant. the mantra will change from don't fly what you cant afford to lose, to don't own what you cant afford to loose. this will cause a massive depression in asset ownership as people move to low/high sec or sell what they cant afford to loose. which means a reduction in demand. and the entire eve economy will collapse in on itself.
Mercer Nen
Summicron Holdings
#109 - 2015-08-13 21:35:30 UTC
Saisin wrote:
Mercer Nen wrote:
Honestly these magical mechanics are terrible. If you're going to make things destructible then just do it. This halfway nonsense of creating mechanics that make no logical sense (magic delivery) is really poor. There should always be an immersive element to all mechanics.

There are existing mechanics that are not immersive (bumping for example...). I believe sci-fi explanations can be created once the game design is solidified, but the game design should prime above the immersion factor.




I agree, but is this game design, or system design? The magical delivery doesn't add any gameplay as far as I can tell. It's just an unimaginative illogical safety mechanism. If there are technical limitations around a system that force a certain mechanic than that is understandable. Bumping being a good example of this, where proper collision mechanics open up a massive can of worms, such as server load with thousands of players in close proximity.

However this seems to be more a case of creating a new system that is servicing a perceived user need (I don't want to lose all my stuff), without adding any real interaction within the system. In addition to that, this system doesn't seem to have been designed with any relationship or context to the environments it will exist in. It's as abstract and disconnected from New Eden as the capture points in the new sov system.

I've purposely avoided using the "lore" word, because the issue isn't about writing a story to postrationalise a system. The issue is that the "game design" is based on abstract systems that have no legitimate context in the game in which they exist. What exactly am I playing if all I'm doing is triggering arbitrary safety mechanisms?
Garai Nolen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#110 - 2015-08-13 21:39:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Garai Nolen
Ab'del Abu wrote:
So ships and items will no longer drop from structures in wormholes? I think it would be more sensible if only part of one's assets was delivered to some NPC station/other citadel while the other part dropped directly as loot.


I think it would be nifty if "asset safety" were tied to a citadel rig, and if the installation of that rig required sov. In WH space, no sov, no rig, no asset safety, stuff would continue to drop like it does now. In null, you get a choice, dependent on how lucrative the other rig benefits are and whether you are deploying somewhere that you have sov or not.

Since only the rig install would be sov-gated, if you happen to lose sov, any existing citadels that are already "safety rigged" would still have asset safety, but you wouldn't be able to rig new citadels for safety until regaining sov. Would make forward deployment citadels more dangerous too.
Dr Loveless
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#111 - 2015-08-13 21:44:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Loveless
Loot from personal/corporation hangar should drop on 50% rule just like ships.
1. nice loot :)
2. avoid "I don't care about my station my assets are safe."
3. blueprints should drop too

Assets which don't drop will be delivered to NPC station blah, blah, blah...
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#112 - 2015-08-13 21:54:33 UTC
I don't want to feel safe in Citadel city. That is all.
Marech Bhayanaka
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#113 - 2015-08-13 21:59:18 UTC
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:



the fine detail that seems to elude you is, the Corp or Alliance puts up the citadel. the individual members have to pay the 10% of their asset value. While the corp or alliance could eat the value, the individuals might or probably cant.


No, I get that. Let me rephrase for your perspective .... If your corp is losing citadels so often that the 10% fee is becoming a problem, maybe you need to either keep less stuff in dangerous space, or change corps. In a game like Eve, 10% loss as a consequence of something major like losing a citadel is really quite trivial.

Marech.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#114 - 2015-08-13 22:11:16 UTC
I don't like the item teleportation aspect. This is basically NPCs doing courier contracts on behalf of players, and at a lower price than players would agree to do so in comparable circumstances.

There were far better proposals made in the original feedback threads.

There do not seem to be enough incentives to attack citadels here. POSes are lucrative to attack because you can loot hangars.

Finally, was it your design intention to buff tech 2 BPOs with this change? Because this allows you to get the throughput bonus of non-station BPO use without putting the BPO at risk. Crius intentionally removed this functionality from the game for balance reasons.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#115 - 2015-08-13 22:14:10 UTC
That part is simple enough. Citadels have a jump portal for "stuff" with range exceeding the drives on ships.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Chad Wylder
Malevelon Roe Industries
Convocation of Empyreans
#116 - 2015-08-13 22:15:41 UTC
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
the fine detail that seems to elude you is, the Corp or Alliance puts up the citadel. the individual members have to pay the 10% of their asset value. While the corp or alliance could eat the value, the individuals might or probably cant. the mantra will change from don't fly what you cant afford to lose, to don't own what you cant afford to loose. this will cause a massive depression in asset ownership as people move to low/high sec or sell what they cant afford to loose. which means a reduction in demand. and the entire eve economy will collapse in on itself.

The way it sounds to me, the individual is never required to pay anything to initiate the asset safety transfer (I could be wrong, would love clarification on this)

The person only needs to pay on a per-item basis when they go to claim that item from their plastic-wrapped impound stack. If they don't have the isk to claim their items back, the items will sit in impound until they do have the isk.

On that note, what's the item value going to be based on and when is the 10% cost going to be calculated? Could someone theoretically use market manipulation to either lower the 10% retrieval cost on certain items to almost nothing, or ramp it up super high for other people to have to pay to get their stuff back?
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2015-08-13 22:18:24 UTC
We talked it over. Purposely sticking your assets in stasis will be a thing. How exploitable is up to your own definition of desired or not I suppose. I don't' really see an issue with it as it falls within emergent gameplay.

Various reasons to do it. Probably won't see it a lot until regular outposts are gone though. WH maybe, but null will do it after that point.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#118 - 2015-08-13 22:23:52 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Urziel99 wrote:
Looks good overall. I would rather have limited choice for where the assets end up. I.e. If we lose a Citadel in Vale we can choose any lowsec station in the nearest constellation for asset packages containing capitals Pilots without restricted items could select a highsec station in the same or adjacent constellation. If the location where the asset will end up is known then the attackers will be able to hellcamp the station where they know the assets will end up.

This prevents heavy abuse (having assets from Branch, for example get magically sent to Aridia.) but provides enough security to not have defacto lost the assets due to camps.


This is a good point, however we are also very concerned with players abusing this as an asset delivery system especially in high / low sec. So having any amount of choice creates different problems for us.

Having said that we'll have a think about this some more. Thanks.


The abuse is a good point, on both sides. Maybe a better method would simply be to have several nearby, valid NPC stations selected at random as opposed to just the nearest station. This way the assets cannot be camped without insider information and the losing player has a small choice: they can select from a per-determined randomized list generated by the servers.

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

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
AAetius Retlow
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2015-08-13 22:26:42 UTC
I would never want to dock and go to sleep in a citadel knowing that if I don't log on in a week I CAN BE PODDED WHILE DOCKED!
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#120 - 2015-08-13 22:30:01 UTC
You are entirely removing the motivation for the majority of wormhole sieges. GJ

(rest being those where attackers want to move in)

SSC Brokering Service