These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[New Structures] Condensed thread

First post First post
Author
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#221 - 2016-03-26 17:18:18 UTC
I'm not sure I recall seeing it specifically mentioned.....

But can you engage targets in range from a Citadel outside it's vulnerability window? ie - can a Citadel's weapons be used offensively?

I suspect not - but would suggest that we can - but with a penalty:

- if you use a Citadel aggressively, then an immediate 3 hr vulnerability period commences


It seems rather silly to have a Citadel that looks and feels like an other wise normal ship when you sit in it, but can't then use it/them if a battle is occurring on grid with you. However, it would be wrong to be able to engage with it, if it cannot be shot in return.

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium

Archeras Umangiar
Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere.
We're all going to die.
#222 - 2016-04-05 11:54:59 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5604286#post5604286

"... NPC agent spread ..."

what does this mean? more specificly? Hire Npc agents to be at your *administrative structure*? Will those be low/null-sec only? (wormhole maybe?)
Alexander Otium
Mothhat
#223 - 2016-04-06 09:13:03 UTC
I'd just like to share that I think Citadel E-war should really be AoE to some degree, otherwise it's sort of silly because enemies will be attacking you in large groups, so jamming/painting/whatever single individual targets isn't too useful I feel.
Edwin Zavut
#224 - 2016-04-06 14:53:44 UTC
I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system.
Jaqueline Geoliere
M4gnum P.I.
#225 - 2016-04-14 20:59:55 UTC
I do agree I think Clone bays should actually work in Wormholes
Alexander Otium
Mothhat
#226 - 2016-04-14 22:34:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexander Otium
I've been piddling about with the stats on SiSi and, to be frank, I'm underwhelmed by the capabilities of a Fortizar citadel for defending itself.

These are all with level 4 in all structure skills.

Subcap Missiles

Anti-small: 80.2 dps per launcher.

This actually I don't think is too bad. Frigates aren't much of a major physical threat to the Citadel itself and would usually be serving more of a support role, i.e. E-war. The Citadel shooting at Frigates wouldn't be something that happens particularly often.


Anti-medium: 160.5 dps per launcher.

Now we're getting into something that has some trouble, I feel. With logi repping, 481.5 dps, reduced by the weak application of the Citadel missiles (250m/s explosion velocity), is negligible. A Tech1 battleship gets around twice as much DPS, with T3C's going even higher, that's simply absurd. There's no reason for a structure to be able to put out less damage than a tech 1 battleship that costs an infinitesimal fraction of the cost, and is mobile.


Anti-Large: 535 dps per launcher.

With a total of 1605 dps with 3 launchers, we're now around twice the dps of a single tech1 battleship, while only being able to apply damage effectively to a battleship. There's many battleships that can tank this damage, then you throw in logi support and the Citadel can't even kill anything, even with the highest-damage missiles. T3C's can even dish out more damage than this.

═☼═☼═☼═☼═☼═

Save the anti-small missiles, all of these need a buff across the board. Personally, I'd like to see burst damage remain low, but up the firing rate immensely. Repping the primary but seeing his health gradually tick down anyways would be a much more interesting effect than seeing him bursted into his pod.




Bombs:

Anti-Small: 2000 burst, 100 dps

This is mainly intended for killing frigates, so as with the anti-small missiles earlier, I'm not too concerned about their current stats. The Citadel focusing on killing frigates is something that won't happen particularly often, and when it does it's unlikely to be because those Frigates are a threat to the Citadel itself.


Anti-Medium: 5800 burst, 193.33 dps

This one, though, is underwhelming to me. Currently it doesn't have an explosion velocity, so I'll assume that doesn't factor in to application. It also doesn't have an effective radius listed, so I can't comment on that.

The burst damage against T1 cruisers, which the application points towards being its minimum target size, seems pretty good. A Caracal gets around 25k EHP, so a single bomb can burst about 23% of its HP. This damage is applied to every ship in range, as well, meaning blobs will end up with their logi being forced to spread reps, reducing their survivability.

Against targets other than a T1 cruiser though, the damage, percentage-wise, becomes really low. T3C's, battleships, etc all end up with a small, single-digit percentage of their health being affected by the bomb.

═☼═☼═☼═☼═☼═

Bomb damage output needs a buff as well. It is my opinion that, while missiles serve for gradual DPS, bombs should be for burst damage. Taking on a structure should be a costly endeavor, and with how the stats are now it would be possible to take one on with 0 casualties. Citadels shouldn't be a solo castle of doom that can stand entirely on its own without any ship support, but it should be able to go down swinging even if it has no support.



Side note, Citadel E-war needs to be AoE. That includes warp scrams and webs. Jamming or painting a single target doesn't mean jack when you're defending yourself against a fleet.

I won't be commenting on fighters, because I haven't had an opportunity to experiment with them.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#227 - 2016-04-14 22:47:45 UTC
Edwin Zavut wrote:
I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system.


problem with this is it then becomes very very hard to evict anyone from the WH as they will have superior firepower when it comes to capitals and they can just keep spawning while your guys have to keep getting back in. the clone swapping mechanic is more than enough
Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#228 - 2016-04-15 04:33:32 UTC
Edwin Zavut wrote:
I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system.


Yeah, no. Wormholes weren't supposed to be used as permanent homes, despite how they are used today. There needs to be that disconnect.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#229 - 2016-04-16 19:20:59 UTC
Quesa wrote:
Edwin Zavut wrote:
I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system.


Yeah, no. Wormholes weren't supposed to be used as permanent homes, despite how they are used today. There needs to be that disconnect.


I don't agree with this reasoning if players have found a better way too experience an aspect of the game even if unintended ,then there is nothing wrong with building on that

Balance is the reason it should not be allowed
Lugh Crow-Slave
#230 - 2016-04-16 19:23:54 UTC
Marcus Tedric wrote:
I'm not sure I recall seeing it specifically mentioned.....

But can you engage targets in range from a Citadel outside it's vulnerability window? ie - can a Citadel's weapons be used offensively?

I suspect not - but would suggest that we can - but with a penalty:

- if you use a Citadel aggressively, then an immediate 3 hr vulnerability period commences


It seems rather silly to have a Citadel that looks and feels like an other wise normal ship when you sit in it, but can't then use it/them if a battle is occurring on grid with you. However, it would be wrong to be able to engage with it, if it cannot be shot in return.


You can do everything but warp disrupt and there is no need for a penalty if your not attacking the structure then don't fight on their front lawn citadels are doing a lot to limit station games. (My favorite is you can't dock or tether if pointed
biz Antollare
The Dark Space Initiative
Initiative Mercenaries
#231 - 2016-04-16 20:57:09 UTC
I apologize in advance if this has been talked about already but i couldnt find it.


a Dev post specifically said: "A Medium structure hull may be deployed from an Industrial, Large and X-Large require a freighter. Yes, we do are aware this make things more complicated to deploy a Large or X-Large structure in low class wormhole space. This is intended."

So are the Large Citadels going to be increased in size from 80,000 so they cant be launched from Orcas?

I have level 1 industrial command ships (crappiest orca pilot) and i can fit an orca with the ability to hold 84,799 m3 which is more than enough to launch a large citadel.

Is this an oversight?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#232 - 2016-04-16 21:11:25 UTC
biz Antollare wrote:
I apologize in advance if this has been talked about already but i couldnt find it.


a Dev post specifically said: "A Medium structure hull may be deployed from an Industrial, Large and X-Large require a freighter. Yes, we do are aware this make things more complicated to deploy a Large or X-Large structure in low class wormhole space. This is intended."

So are the Large Citadels going to be increased in size from 80,000 so they cant be launched from Orcas?

I have level 1 industrial command ships (crappiest orca pilot) and i can fit an orca with the ability to hold 84,799 m3 which is more than enough to launch a large citadel.

Is this an oversight?


No they have since alerted it so that lagers can fit into orcas after people pointed out it was a bit ridiculous that they needed freighters and not just when it came to wh
biz Antollare
The Dark Space Initiative
Initiative Mercenaries
#233 - 2016-04-16 21:29:20 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
biz Antollare wrote:
I apologize in advance if this has been talked about already but i couldnt find it.


a Dev post specifically said: "A Medium structure hull may be deployed from an Industrial, Large and X-Large require a freighter. Yes, we do are aware this make things more complicated to deploy a Large or X-Large structure in low class wormhole space. This is intended."

So are the Large Citadels going to be increased in size from 80,000 so they cant be launched from Orcas?

I have level 1 industrial command ships (crappiest orca pilot) and i can fit an orca with the ability to hold 84,799 m3 which is more than enough to launch a large citadel.

Is this an oversight?


No they have since alerted it so that lagers can fit into orcas after people pointed out it was a bit ridiculous that they needed freighters and not just when it came to wh





thats lame.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#234 - 2016-04-16 21:44:19 UTC
biz Antollare wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
biz Antollare wrote:
I apologize in advance if this has been talked about already but i couldnt find it.


a Dev post specifically said: "A Medium structure hull may be deployed from an Industrial, Large and X-Large require a freighter. Yes, we do are aware this make things more complicated to deploy a Large or X-Large structure in low class wormhole space. This is intended."

So are the Large Citadels going to be increased in size from 80,000 so they cant be launched from Orcas?

I have level 1 industrial command ships (crappiest orca pilot) and i can fit an orca with the ability to hold 84,799 m3 which is more than enough to launch a large citadel.

Is this an oversight?


No they have since alerted it so that lagers can fit into orcas after people pointed out it was a bit ridiculous that they needed freighters and not just when it came to wh





thats lame.


Lol why it was just unwieldy to move larges that way you still need freighters for xl
Alex Davies
Nucleotide
#235 - 2016-04-18 15:00:10 UTC
My first ever forum post.so go easy on me

I have noticed that the structure components to build the Citadel hull are 100,000m3
is this "in progress" or will they stay that size
a medium needs AFAIK 11 structure parts
can I assume they will compress significantly when the hull is built?
Alexa Sabezan
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#236 - 2016-04-18 16:50:59 UTC
Been searching around but couldn't find anything so sorry if this is a repeat.

With Citadels coming out with reprocessing services, are the POS reprocessing arrays going to be loosing their bonuses with this release, or is that going to wait till more of the new structures are released later? On SISI at the moment the bunuses are still there but wanted to ask since one of the dev blogs mentioned a plan to remove bonuses from the POS modules when their functions were implemented in the new structures.


Thnanks in advance
Edwin Zavut
#237 - 2016-04-18 19:26:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Edwin Zavut
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Edwin Zavut wrote:
I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system.


problem with this is it then becomes very very hard to evict anyone from the WH as they will have superior firepower when it comes to capitals and they can just keep spawning while your guys have to keep getting back in. the clone swapping mechanic is more than enough


Thats true. So wormhole revival should be limited by time - for example, one day of delay before next one. That is awesome to overcome random death (drifters...), but not a massive advantage of defenders.
Looks like its the only reason for wh citadel, because trade, titan docking and other functions are useless.
Ligraph
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2016-04-18 20:11:17 UTC
Edwin Zavut wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Edwin Zavut wrote:
I think Clone Vat Bay of wormhole system's citadel should allow to revive after death in SAME system.


problem with this is it then becomes very very hard to evict anyone from the WH as they will have superior firepower when it comes to capitals and they can just keep spawning while your guys have to keep getting back in. the clone swapping mechanic is more than enough


Thats true. So wormhole revival should be limited by time - for example, one day of delay before next one. That is awesome to overcome random death (drifters...), but not a massive advantage of defenders.
Looks like its the only reason for wh citadel, because trade, titan docking and other functions are useless.


I like that. Maybe start at 3 days and have rigs/modules to decrease time. Although it would be a niche rig/module.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#239 - 2016-04-18 23:57:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Terrorfrodo
I just wondered whether Citadels (specifically in wormholes) will have the "trash it" functionality. Where you can destroy a huge pile of items forever and completely with one click. Was this addressed somewhere?

On the one hand it's very useful to quickly get rid of worthless junk and clean up the hangar. But in wspace it would make it extremely easy to nuke everything when hopelessly sieged. Currently, loot denial at least requires some work on the part of the defender, blowing up ships one by one. I hope it will not be possible to just burn all of one's own assets with one click when sieged.

Maybe this functionality (and possibly other ways to destroy assets, like self-destruct) could be frozen whenever a Citadel is either being shot at, in repair state or in-between vulnerability phases after a successful assault.

edit: This is a really important point because it will affect every siege in wspace. Currently, a losing defender routinely destroys most of the assets in his POS's to deny loot. But he is often not able to destroy everything because stuff in hangars is locked when reinforced.

This provided attackers with some way to get loot but encouraged a bad behavior: Trying to wait until all defenders go offline before attacking so they dont have a chance to remove valuable items from hangars before they are locked.

Now Citadels will be only vulnerable during hours set by the defender, and thus presumably will always be actively defended, which is good. But if defenders will be able to move all their valuable items in hangars into one ship to be logged off or smuggle out, and can trash everything else with one click, there will be zero loot for attackers, removing the main reason to attack a Citadel in wspace in the first place. That would be disastrous.

Citadels will make evictions harder, which is good. But in return, they should also make it harder for defenders to deny loot if they lose.

Imho a good solution would be to allow moving stuff in hangars during sieges, so defenders can pack their best stuff for example into a DST and try to get that out of the Citadel and log it off in space. But in exchange all the features to destroy assets should be unavailable during sieges: No trashing of items, and initiating self-destruct on a ship tethered to the Citadel should act like a weapons timer and make it vulnerable.

.

Captain Semper
FAYN Industries
Initiative Associates
#240 - 2016-04-19 08:19:39 UTC
Does new citadels have reinforced mechanics like outposts? Or it can be destroy fully by one strike?