These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Structure blog and sounding board

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#121 - 2015-08-23 02:45:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Kynric
Chance Ravinne wrote:
O'nira wrote:
No asset safety and short sieges and we might see a small group just purge every wh system they can in a subcap gang with the entosis risking absolutely nothing


i would prefer asset safety at this point



What do you think about half safety (loot fairy safety) option?


Half safety is better than no safety but I think it still misses the mark. Let's apply a Seldon like approach to the citadel design problem in the context of wormholes (Hari Seldon was a character in Asimov's Foundation who believed that while the future actions of an individual are unpreductable the cumlative actions of a group can be predicted, he then set out to create a desired future outcome.) For me the desired outcome is that our space be a vibrant active place with lots of ships moving about. I want to find people in my chains rather than just emptiness. Perhaps others desired end conditions are different but this is the outcome I desire.

To get the active space we need for it to be an acceptable combination of reward and safety when compared to other options. If it does not meet that standard the majority will find some other niche that does. Wormholes are not terrible on the rewards but there are other competituve options, as such they cant be substantially less safe than those other lifestyles. It would be one thing to advocate for a lack of asset safety game wide (and that is something I could get behind) but quite another to encourage it only in one area (unless the goal is to have a lower population in that area.)

We need pilots to feel safe enough to live in the space and trust their possesions to the citadels lest our space be reduced to daytrippers and emptiness. The alternative approaches of living in an npc station and diving wormholes or living light and logging everything of value off will be common if the safety is too little and those are not consistent with the desired outcome of a vibrant active space.
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#122 - 2015-08-24 02:44:31 UTC
The full asset safety with a large portion of the salvage fee going to the bashers seemed like a good suggestion. It provides an immediate cash reward while not elevating the risk substantially above what is encountered in other spaces.
Anize Oramara
WarpTooZero
#123 - 2015-08-24 10:48:47 UTC
Considering that the more industrious WH corps can afford to run and gun with rather expensive ships, having the full safety would be an interesting isk sink (paying to recover the expensive items) and would allow a more fluid gameplay in WHs without punishing the residents themselves too hard. I'd even be up for having the recover cost be 1.5x or even 2x the cost in null. and even have a base (1x) reovery charge when a citadel is rebuilt in the same system. These are wormholes after all.

A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.2.3
GizzyBoy
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#124 - 2015-08-24 13:47:33 UTC
Its kind of tragic people are more worried about how the theoretical loot drops,

something will drop/be destroyed a enemy inconvenienced, how much or little can be changed comparatively easily

I more concerned with if the mechanics of deployment, physical size, build cost and if the fuelling methods will be easier or worse than things are now.

There's some critical issues I've seen that crop up in null that will now become a wh problem too, Id like to know how they can be resolved.

While loot drops are a thing we like to have happen, when you sit down and think logically of other things that could happen loot drops will be the lest of the potential problems that could come up.
unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2015-08-25 05:42:56 UTC  |  Edited by: unimatrix0030
What is the worrie about the physical size they released the sizes already?
Fueling will be only for services, probably with some form of fuel block.
Loot drops and asset destruction are important because with the current 10% only loss(unless you are an industrialist , then you lose all your buildjobs minus bpo) why would anybody even bother to defend?
It will be cheaper just to pay up the 10% and wait it out.
Also the cycle of destruction is broken because the goods magicly reapear.
Basicly the asset safety makes that less items will be needed to be build by industrialists and less fights .
Because it is cheaper to just not defend if one of the big alliances(or a bigger one then you) comes knocking on your door... .
And it is not like we have many points of conflict already in w-space, why do you guys want to remove an other one?
And industialist basicly all need to change over their production to citadels and their rigs and weapons because less ships and modules will get destroyed in pos bashes.
I can understand the need for asset safety in k-space only in the XL citadels, the M and L's also should not have asset safety in k-space.

No local in null sec would fix everything!
Bleedingthrough
#126 - 2015-09-01 01:55:44 UTC
I was very pleased with the round table, a civilized exchange of ideas. However, the citadels will be bad if the fundamental problems with the entosis mechanics are not being solved.

These problems are
1. You have to commit nothing of value to potentially threaten someone’s very existence in w-space. This will lead to lot of frustration for smaller and more casual groups in lower class WHs (and farming alt corps in C5+ class WHs.) I brought this up during the round table: ATM these groups are rather safe behind their automated guns and hitpoint barrier and this is a good thing. The entosis mechanic will totally change the risk vs. reward balance for subcap holes and they will become just as vulnerable as capital holes. Do you acknowledge that there is a problem?

2. If people actually camp a WH for half a week (or how long it will take) they at least want a killmail for their trouble and they want to shoot stuff. Hacking is cool to turn services/hardeners etc. offline but really is not what people want as a method of structure destruction.

3. To generate content there has to be something on the field worth killing, e.g. dreads or a sizeable subcap fleet. With this mechanic I don’t see why a smart attacker should commit/field more than the bare minimum to get the job done. There is no gain to have more on the field. Will we see a few 4km/s scimmies chasing a few 4km/s cruisers with the real fleet hidden somewhere and not at risk?

A partial solution could be
1. Phase: Control the field
In order to lower a Citadels defenses you need to win the entosis war. This will turn off hardeners, shield extenders, services etc..

2. Phase: Expose something worth killing
Only with hardeners/shield extenders turned offline you can grind through the citadels hitpoints and RF or destroy it.
Samsara Nolte
Untethered
#127 - 2015-09-05 07:51:22 UTC
Kynric wrote:
unimatrix0030 wrote:
Bed Bugg wrote:

1.) The full loot drop, "safety off" feature is a huge mistake. There are some pretty serious unintended consequences with that idea.

No matter how you slice it, the full loot drop makes most of the market and industrial mods associated with citadels worthless in WH space. You will only do what industry you must do. Everything else will get shipped back to HS asap.

Within my group of WH peeps we have been discussing the citadel ideas presented.
While we hated the initial idea of the 10% loss or fine idea that was proposed, our group agreed that we would probably still do some industry and have a small internal exchange market in our WH.

With a full loot drop model... neither will happen.


The old pos is a full drop model and yet people still use it... .


The old pos model rarely resulted in fights and without "asset safety" the new one will not likely result in fights either. It is one thing to yolo a ship, quite another to yolo all of your ships. When a pilot has a choice between fighting a fight he will likely lose (the invasion would most likely not have happened if the defender had a strong chance) or logging off with a gold ladden ship (bowhead, carrier, orca, or whatever else stuffed with all the faction bits, my bet is logoff will be selected. So the choice in a way is between getting the bulky low value stuff (wow this pos had some PI goo and an epithal) without a fight or providing some asset safety and getting a fight. How much do we value the fights? The great the risk the more risk averse the behavior will be. This is an opportunity to make something better than what we have now yet our kneejerk is to make it just like what we have now.


Three more thoughts:

If the risk in wspace is much greater than it is anywhere else will it be a vibrant busy place or will it be barren and empty populated only by the same old bored people with little new blood? So while getting rid of asset safety everywhere sounds great, getting rid of it only in one part of the game sounds bad for that section.

The new invasion system takes a lot less comitment than the old one so it will likely happen more. The old system had multiple towers to reinforce with massive butt numbing hit point barriers which in effect required a comitment of dreads or a lot of people for a long time or both. The unanswered entosis sidesteps that. Is more evictions going to make our space a busy vibrant place? Perhaps we need to make sure the system does not make it too attractive as it is generally pretty dull gameplay.

Mostly, the higher the stakes the more risk averse behavior we will see. Non agression pacts, blueing, empty hangers with few ships which are all logged off and a barren empty landscape are the obvious results if people do not feel safe. We need some measure of safety so that we can have ships to shoot at abd people to interact with. The small guys need safety to grow so we can have a future shooting each other. Otherwise we will crush them as infants and then complain that there are only farmers who log on but a few hours a week and leave nothing at risk for the balance of the hours. We really should not bend the entire feature around invasions (which are not all that fun and are also generally only a small part of our time in game) and instead look at it as a chance to make the majority of our hours in game filled with ships in space. Which gets us more ships in space, strong asset safety or a complete lack of it? We dont get to make it a vastly harsher space than the rest of new eden yet is also active and vibrant; the humans at the keyboard wont likely react that way.

I think not having asset safety anywhere is interesting but having it everywhere except one spot is terrible. The desired outcome of "ships in space" requires some safety otherwise our land will be populated only by day trippers and those who bring little and log everything off.


So true -
assets safety everywhere except in w-space spells disaster for the health of it.
CCP has in my opinion two choices eihter destroy w-space for every small entity and therefore in the longrun for everybody or by introducing no asset safety for us or give us similar asset safety measueres as everywhere else hoping that this might at least stop the decline of the number of people living there.
Jezza McWaffle
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#128 - 2015-09-05 12:20:38 UTC
I disagree, if you take a look at the new mechanics with these structures it will still be fairly easy to keep your assets safe.

1. You can have multiple of these structures just like POS's and they can be of varying sizes so it will take multiple entosis ships and potentially fleets to put the structures into the initial reinforcement.

2. The structures have several stages of reinforcement, meaning an attacker has to fully deploy to the system which in the case of higher class holes will also mean their own caps to counter the defending structures.

3. The vulnerability times are player set throughout the week, meaning with multiple structures it will be incredibly easy to have the different structures set to come out during different points (both time zones and days), therefore anyone actually wanting to evict or destroy you will have to fully commit, if you set your structures to be vulnerable at the same time then your too blame for lack of strategic thinking.

4. The defenses of the structure when actively manned or whatever will be a much stronger force multiplier against hostile forces than the existing POS defenses. And since you only need to defend your structure during your set vulnerability times then their defense utility is massively increase.

At the end of the day if someone wants to attempt to reinforce your structure but are not going to commit to the system they will be able to, however if your smart then either they will fail in their attempt or it won't matter anyway, because multiple structures with varied vulnerability times.

And if someone wants to evict you they will require superior force (or planning) and commitment to take multiple structures, with multiple reinforcement times, over multiple days potentially weeks.

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog
Samsara Nolte
Untethered
#129 - 2015-09-06 00:28:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Samsara Nolte
well i strongly disagree with you -
as pointed out before in the POS system you needed a considerable force and time to just reinforce a structure, so you wouldn´t have done that just for the lulz instead you would have done that for an agenda in most cases eviction´s.
In the new system the, bar for reinforcing a structure if you happen to be around when it is vulnerable, is far too low.
Some simple example why this is a bad idea.
You only need to be more at the time – there is nothing that a small corp for example living in a c3 can do against one of the bigger c5 corps who decided to just reinforce a structure of said c3 corp to see what happens.
The c3 corp, given they know what they do, will realize that undocking is suicide considering station games are gonna be a no go.
So they have to watch, even if online, how their structures (or one of their structure depending on their timers) are gonna get reinforced.
The big corp is gonna leave after nothing happened – because they never intended to go through with their pretended eviction leaving the c3 corp with a reinforced structure and what then happens, every one living in w-space is gonna know, Everybody who sees this reinforced timer, as long as it persist, knows that there is gonna happen something. If not, you make it happen.
So with a little bad luck the c3 is gonna have another large c5 corp in their chain they see it and they will go for it – again giving the c3 corp no chance of defending their assets.

Well if you ask me that sounds like a incredible fun mechanic for every small corp in w-space. - Sarcasm

Most have barely enough players to reach an activity niveau which allows them to come by – they certainly won´t have enough to protect their structure in different timezones – especially since most w-space corps live all in the same. - so your argument to choose them for the inconvenience of possible attacker is a great inconvenience to yourself as well

And considering the fact that the citadels are gonna be Force multipliers – you need to be aware that before something can be multiplied you need to have a force. And which c3 corp has a force that even multiplied would stand a chance against a c5 corp ?

I, for my part, don´t know of one.
coupled with the fact that docking/mooring while pointed won´t be a thing since we don´t want station games, there´s gonna be no margin for error in defending - since gonna be podded under siege might mean you are benched for the whole thing.

I can understand that if you are a big pvp corp the changes are gonna be great – you will be able, with minimal effort, if you happen to stumbel upon vulnerable structures to force a fight out of the inhabitants or they have to deal with a reinforced timer which is bad in null the worst in wormholespace. But you should know not everybody especially living in w-space is having a 200 member corp backing him. (most of us are here to be not just another number - and this is pretty much the only place in eve where you can achieve something while still being small and even get your own little part of space - the most appealing feature of w-space if you ask me, a feature that is mostly likely gonna be taken away by those citadels resulting in empty low class holes or forcing coalitions alliances and lots of blueing out of us - and i was always assuming that is something nearly exclusively happening in null ... and something the wormhole community for the most part despises)

So you are right if someone is intending to evict you, you can be a pain in the ass by very strange vulnerabilty times – but i doubt that it is gonna alter the outcome in the slightest.
And when you consider that a lot of us started small and climbed our way up - i certainly fail to see what good that is gonna do for w-space when every small corp setting up their home here is gonna get stomped into oblivion ? and i´quite sure without some asset safety which diminshes the incentive to attack the citadels this is gonna happen - i´ve no doubt about that
unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2015-09-06 17:56:37 UTC
You are quite wrong samsara.
If a big wh corps wants to evict a smaller one, it will happen no mater what , even today.
I have even been in a few posh bashes with only 5 people (small pos, no hardners,... )wich were just for fun(nothing else in chain).
Have you even read the dev blogs? If you undock you are protected untill you do an agressive act or warp away.
You seem to forget that the new structures have defenses , defenses wich should be able to easly kill a force of 2-3 ships.
And have you seen the time on a Medium citadel ? Only 6 hours of vulnarability a week, so 6 days of an hour or 3 days of 2 hours, or 1 day of 6 hours, ... . Wich you even can organise and put in wich times a week it is. And the worst part for an attacker is that he has no control over when the next fase is... . Evictions will take more then a week if you time the vulnarability correct... .
If you are less then 6 hours a week online should you be in a wh with assets?
Big corps/alliances will still be able to stomp smaller ones as is now, why should that change?
The thing is with the asset safety there is no reason to do it.
Every small corp , and even pve-only corps/alliances that get a citadel reinforced will just pay the 10% "Please no pvp for me" tax and there won't be any content.
The attackers get nothing of note, one dude gets a killmail and that is it.
Even c6 evictions it would make it cheaper just to pay the "no pvp" tax and come back after a few weeks.
If a c6 pve-only corp has 100 bil in stuff in their citadel and the big blue blob comes in to evict, it would be cheaper to pay the 10% no pvp tax then to actualy call someone in to defend. They will log off and come back next month... .
What do the attackers get, salvage frome the guns and citadel?
Now does that lead to more content or less?
Also, t is even worse for small wh's safety, how would you know there isn't a complete fitted fleet in asset safety in that wormhole? Imagine to wake up and have 50 dudes coming in by frigate wh's in pods, droping their replacement citadel and go after you with a complete t3 fleet... .

You guys seem to forget that killing a pos is one of the few content things that we have. There is no ihub or stations to take over, no system upgrades to defend, .... .
Why else would people bat phone for if not posh bashes?

I even would say that in k-space in null it should be like most of the wh people want , you lose as much as you lose now in a pos. It should drop stuff the same way the pos does now. So that attackers who put a fleet at risk even have a incentive to get something out of it.
No asset safety at all.
I want to make exceptions for XL citadel because of the impact they have on null replaceing the stations.

No local in null sec would fix everything!
Samsara Nolte
Untethered
#131 - 2015-09-06 18:32:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Samsara Nolte
I read the dev blog and listened to the the soundboard - and in it there was the argument that it is impossible for an attacker to hold hole control for as long as a week, which could have been a possibility as you and those who attended the sounding board noticed - this was even brought up and the dev asked if 48h for reinforment timer would suffice and the attendess agreed -
so if i have not misunderstood this completly, there is a very high chance that something along the lines "the timer aren´t allowed to be more than 48h apart" is gonna be implemented invalidating your statement.

and yes you are moored if you undock - i know that so what is your point, i stated nothing disregarding that fact.
and you are right every big corp will still be able to evict you if they want to - but that was never my point nor is my intention to remove this mechanic i´m aware that this a major content driver for us.

What im getting at - this mechanic is playing out completly different in w-space than everywhere else, those starting a reinforce timer, to force some kind of reaction from the ones living there, will be seldom the ones ending it - what is not so in most cases in k-space.
So what might be okay in k-space, because only your neighbours are gonna be involved in the fight and you choose to live next them, for whatever reason, is gonna be a completly different matter in w-space what i tried to explain in length in my last post.

And this whole thing is also not about the length of time you might have to citasit (babysit) your citadel.
it is about the fact that i longer can choose to not fight someone, when my structure is vulnerable.
If a big group is rolling into some smaller group and they are sick of rolling their hole, they are gonna start to reinforce the Citadel and force the inhabitants to fight - and this is gonna happen a lot -
tell me under the POS system, how often have you started to reinforce, for example the POS of a c3 corp just because they didn´t wanna fight a 200 mann corp. and didn´t wanna get gankend by a blob of 30 T3´s ?
I´m fairly cerain this hasn´t happened at all. especially if it was a large POS.
Now this is going to be the thing ! - then the bar will be lowered for it bot be nearly non existant to threaten someone´s existence in w-space.

And under such pretenses and the fact that everywhere else, my assets are gonna be protected by asset-safety and ,if you ask me, considerably higher risks as i stated above and in my last post - why would anybody choose not already living in w-space wanna live here ? (especially as member of a small corp)
i for one have no idea - so there is gonna be no incentive to be here, as before you could come by as small corp since nobody was gonna reinforce a Large POS in hopes of forcing a fight out of the inahbitants. Most of the time this was done as part of greater agenda even the groups which were able to do it woulnd´t do it because it involved a lot of effort. (what in w-space because of the lack of system indices might not be thing - and even if we get something as they promised the effort is still gonna be far far less)

what this change is also gonna promote next to a lot of people moving out are fusion´s of corps and the big groups getting even bigger because those atm being in a medium to mid sized w-corp not wanting to leave w-space are gonna join them.
Escalating this stated problem even further.
The big groups are gonna get bigger and the small ones cease to exist - resulting in completly empty lower class holes -
and this is what we want ? this seems to me more like a nullsec 2.0 very few big groups and nothing in between and seriously why bother getting this here if nullsec already exist ? i don´t like this homogenisation of the differnt parts of eve space on bit - but in case of asset safety this is one Homogenization w-space is in dire need of !
Sha lia
Gespenster Inc.
Spukhaus
#132 - 2015-09-06 18:44:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Sha lia
unimatrix0030 wrote:
You are quite wrong samsara.
If a big wh corps wants to evict a smaller one, it will happen no mater what , even today.
I have even been in a few posh bashes with only 5 people (small pos, no hardners,... )wich were just for fun(nothing else in chain).
Have you even read the dev blogs? If you undock you are protected untill you do an agressive act or warp away.
You seem to forget that the new structures have defenses , defenses wich should be able to easly kill a force of 2-3 ships.
And have you seen the time on a Medium citadel ? Only 6 hours of vulnarability a week, so 6 days of an hour or 3 days of 2 hours, or 1 day of 6 hours, ... . Wich you even can organise and put in wich times a week it is. And the worst part for an attacker is that he has no control over when the next fase is... . Evictions will take more then a week if you time the vulnarability correct... .
If you are less then 6 hours a week online should you be in a wh with assets?
Big corps/alliances will still be able to stomp smaller ones as is now, why should that change?
The thing is with the asset safety there is no reason to do it.
Every small corp , and even pve-only corps/alliances that get a citadel reinforced will just pay the 10% "Please no pvp for me" tax and there won't be any content.
The attackers get nothing of note, one dude gets a killmail and that is it.
Even c6 evictions it would make it cheaper just to pay the "no pvp" tax and come back after a few weeks.
If a c6 pve-only corp has 100 bil in stuff in their citadel and the big blue blob comes in to evict, it would be cheaper to pay the 10% no pvp tax then to actualy call someone in to defend. They will log off and come back next month... .
What do the attackers get, salvage frome the guns and citadel?
Now does that lead to more content or less?
Also, t is even worse for small wh's safety, how would you know there isn't a complete fitted fleet in asset safety in that wormhole? Imagine to wake up and have 50 dudes coming in by frigate wh's in pods, droping their replacement citadel and go after you with a complete t3 fleet... .

You guys seem to forget that killing a pos is one of the few content things that we have. There is no ihub or stations to take over, no system upgrades to defend, .... .
Why else would people bat phone for if not posh bashes?

I even would say that in k-space in null it should be like most of the wh people want , you lose as much as you lose now in a pos. It should drop stuff the same way the pos does now. So that attackers who put a fleet at risk even have a incentive to get something out of it.
No asset safety at all.
I want to make exceptions for XL citadel because of the impact they have on null replaceing the stations.


So you really think with 0 asset saftey you will have content?
What stops me, from loading all stuff in a carrier, undock, do a safety logoff, in mooring and sit you out?
Like kynric explained, even this is for lowclass wh space an opportunity, that is most likely not coming. Because why should someone risk all, when he just need a const. to scan and daytrip in wh space, which isn`t changing
the live of lowclass whlers so much because they live out of their static.
And yes i dont want the asset safety, which is explained in the devblog because as you said its ridiculous, but what you ignor, is the fact, that for the effort you need to destroy the structure, the salvage and so on (see devblog what drops) is propably a fair amount of loot that you get depending on how much these structures will cost.