These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alexander Otium
Mothhat
#281 - 2016-04-25 20:33:41 UTC
aldhura wrote:
Anyone know if orca mining boosts will work while tethered ? I can't seem to find any info on this.


Boosts are becoming AoE anyways, so even if they do the people out in the belt won't be recieving them. Your orca needs to be out in the belt with the miners.
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#282 - 2016-04-25 20:37:35 UTC
aldhura wrote:
Anyone know if orca mining boosts will work while tethered ? I can't seem to find any info on this.


As CCP announced on FANFEST, before links will be changed to AoE ongrid buffs, it will be possible to give bonuses on rorq and orca while tethered, but possible this summer you will need to be in grid to give bonuses
Jon Dekker
Dekker Corporation
#283 - 2016-04-25 23:57:28 UTC
The new structures are turning out quite nice. One nitpick that I have is the animated lights that are supposed to represent traffic. Would it be possible to add a distance falloff map so that traffic lights in the distance are much more feint and small? At the moment it tends to clutter the scene.

Another request is to randomize the colors used, and vary the intensities to differentiate between different sizes and kinds of traffic. All in all I really like the direction of giving more life to New Eden, like it's actually populated by people other than Capsuleers.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#284 - 2016-04-26 09:58:54 UTC
Not loooked at it myself yet, but sounds like it will look weird in wormholes. Who are those people traveling around my lone Citadel deep in wormhole space with no open connections?

.

Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#285 - 2016-04-26 10:06:44 UTC
Alexander Otium wrote:

if we're talking military and combat strength, why have a Citadel when a couple of battleships is more effective for a fraction of the cost?


Even if a Citadel was not better than 4 t1 battleships, that is still huge. Because you have the firepower of 4 battleships, but you have that while being un-killable, un-neutable, un-jammable. You just have a small but powerful extra fleet that you can add to whatever else you can put on the field and that your enemy cannot take out during the fight.

And of course those special weapons that no ship has... some of them appear to be quite powerful.

.

Alexander Otium
Mothhat
#286 - 2016-04-27 04:04:05 UTC
Terrorfrodo wrote:
Alexander Otium wrote:

if we're talking military and combat strength, why have a Citadel when a couple of battleships is more effective for a fraction of the cost?


Even if a Citadel was not better than 4 t1 battleships, that is still huge. Because you have the firepower of 4 battleships, but you have that while being un-killable, un-neutable, un-jammable. You just have a small but powerful extra fleet that you can add to whatever else you can put on the field and that your enemy cannot take out during the fight.

And of course those special weapons that no ship has... some of them appear to be quite powerful.



You have less power than 4 battleships, for the cost of 90 battleships.

A fortizar can be killed by a gang of 4 battleships and 2 logi, repping faster than the Citadel can hurt (by a huge amount), and generating cap far faster than the Citadel can neut, not factoring in jamming. Even factoring in jamming, if you use all 5 mid slots for jams, that just means that you can't fight off a gang of 7 logi and 9 battleships. A huge-ass battlestation, literally called a Fortizar Citadel, that costs 25-30bil ISK, can't defend itself from 6-16 ships?

The only unique weapon that the Fortizar has is the bomb launcher, and the damage bombs and neut bombs are so weak that they may as well not be used. 4k damage with the anti-cruiser bomb? That does nothing significant to even a tech 1 cruiser, never mind tech 2 ships and battleships.
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#287 - 2016-04-27 05:22:57 UTC
Sisi Collins wrote:
aldhura wrote:
Anyone know if orca mining boosts will work while tethered ? I can't seem to find any info on this.


As CCP announced on FANFEST, before links will be changed to AoE ongrid buffs, it will be possible to give bonuses on rorq and orca while tethered, but possible this summer you will need to be in grid to give bonuses


What if you are tethered and an astroid belt is on grid?

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

Lugh Crow-Slave
#288 - 2016-04-27 05:33:56 UTC
The boosts will not be grid wide
Pryce Caesar
Cloak and Daggers
The Initiative.
#289 - 2016-04-27 06:36:05 UTC
Alexander Otium wrote:
Terrorfrodo wrote:
Alexander Otium wrote:

if we're talking military and combat strength, why have a Citadel when a couple of battleships is more effective for a fraction of the cost?


Even if a Citadel was not better than 4 t1 battleships, that is still huge. Because you have the firepower of 4 battleships, but you have that while being un-killable, un-neutable, un-jammable. You just have a small but powerful extra fleet that you can add to whatever else you can put on the field and that your enemy cannot take out during the fight.

And of course those special weapons that no ship has... some of them appear to be quite powerful.



You have less power than 4 battleships, for the cost of 90 battleships.

A fortizar can be killed by a gang of 4 battleships and 2 logi, repping faster than the Citadel can hurt (by a huge amount), and generating cap far faster than the Citadel can neut, not factoring in jamming. Even factoring in jamming, if you use all 5 mid slots for jams, that just means that you can't fight off a gang of 7 logi and 9 battleships. A huge-ass battlestation, literally called a Fortizar Citadel, that costs 25-30bil ISK, can't defend itself from 6-16 ships?

The only unique weapon that the Fortizar has is the bomb launcher, and the damage bombs and neut bombs are so weak that they may as well not be used. 4k damage with the anti-cruiser bomb? That does nothing significant to even a tech 1 cruiser, never mind tech 2 ships and battleships.


That's because Citadels serve as a whole lot more than normal battleships - they are the places where Corporations and Alliance store their goods, and serve a majority of the same functions as outposts. Not to mention that they are packing an exponentially greater amount of EHP overall (on top of the damage mitigation once you hit a certain point).

And I believe I've re-iterated it before: target the Logistics first if you are that scared-to-the-bone of them. Once the Logi are gone, it should not be that much of an issue to take out the Battleships next with concentrated fire.

But at the end of the day, you appear to be all about "a Citadel should be able to wipe out entire fleets on their own", when a Citadel's best performance is alongside a supporting fleet. After all, the Corps/Alliances that control the Citadel have a stake in protecting them in the first place. They're meant to be powerful, but not overpowered.

What were you wanting? For the Fortizar to have the fire-power of four Titans?



Alexander Otium
Mothhat
#290 - 2016-04-27 19:28:41 UTC
What part of "A Fortizar Citadel can';t even kill a gang of 4 battleships" do you not understand?
aldhura
Blackjack and Exotic Dancers
Top Tier
#291 - 2016-04-27 20:23:00 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
The boosts will not be grid wide



If they do it any other way it will just complicate their code execution, ie setting a distance from booster will invoke a ton of code running. Imagine 4000 people in a system and every second each player is checked distance from booster.
Alexander Otium
Mothhat
#292 - 2016-05-02 04:52:21 UTC
Would a Citadel in a Pulsar wormhole receive the neut bonus? Further, what about wormhole effects in general?
Cyan Moonwinder
Cyta Corp
#293 - 2016-05-03 00:01:01 UTC
I feel there is a needless complexity with the service rigs. Two for Ice? One for HS Minerals? One for Lowsec/Null Minerals? We used to just slap a refinery up, and that was it. This makes me wonder if the bonuses for manufacturing are going to be needlessly complex as well. Am I going to have to build multiple citadels to get bonuses for manufacturing fuel/ammo/capship parts and so on? I can understand different high/low/null rigs, but these are nothing in comparison to the versatility and simplicity of a starbase.

I can understand the 3-rig system for the current citadels as they are designed for combat. But for the upcoming manufacturing arrays, I really hope they include more than 3. Or perhaps dedicated service module rig slots, and keep the traditional 3 for combat.
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#294 - 2016-05-03 15:36:44 UTC
Cyan Moonwinder wrote:
I feel there is a needless complexity with the service rigs. Two for Ice? One for HS Minerals? One for Lowsec/Null Minerals? We used to just slap a refinery up, and that was it. This makes me wonder if the bonuses for manufacturing are going to be needlessly complex as well. Am I going to have to build multiple citadels to get bonuses for manufacturing fuel/ammo/capship parts and so on? I can understand different high/low/null rigs, but these are nothing in comparison to the versatility and simplicity of a starbase.

I can understand the 3-rig system for the current citadels as they are designed for combat. But for the upcoming manufacturing arrays, I really hope they include more than 3. Or perhaps dedicated service module rig slots, and keep the traditional 3 for combat.

That's only for mediums
larges only have one each for ice and ore while XL have one for all reprocessing.

They already stated this would be the case, larger structures can be more generalized both by being able to fit more services and that the rigs will be more generalized at larger sizes and more specific at smaller sizes.
Pryce Caesar
Cloak and Daggers
The Initiative.
#295 - 2016-05-03 16:44:43 UTC
Alexander Otium wrote:
What part of "A Fortizar Citadel can';t even kill a gang of 4 battleships" do you not understand?


Your obsession with the fact is what I don't understand. You say all of this, but I doubt you ever even tested it in an actual battle. Citadels are supposed to be more than floating fortresses, and CCP certainly didn't mean for them to be treated as such.

Besides, a Citadel deserves to be blown up if the alliance/Corporation that controls it cannot be bothered to mobilize to protect it, which is part of the reason why they are built as such. They are designed to promote alliance based PVP, and they are meant to be the eventual replacements of the Outposts and other Player-owned Stations.

Cyan Moonwinder
Cyta Corp
#296 - 2016-05-03 22:53:28 UTC
Xindi Kraid wrote:
That's only for mediums
larges only have one each for ice and ore while XL have one for all reprocessing.

They already stated this would be the case, larger structures can be more generalized both by being able to fit more services and that the rigs will be more generalized at larger sizes and more specific at smaller sizes.


They're losing a lot of bonuses compared to starbases. A starbase can be a refinery, research lab, factory, with bonuses, all at the same time. Mediums were also supposed to be the starbase equivalent, as they said, and if they are not, they are failing on their word. Med/Large Citadel DPS is already sounding lackluster to even what a medium POS could deal, so why rip down a literal pillar of the foundations of EVE for a downgrade?
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#297 - 2016-05-03 23:22:18 UTC
Cyan Moonwinder wrote:
Xindi Kraid wrote:
That's only for mediums
larges only have one each for ice and ore while XL have one for all reprocessing.

They already stated this would be the case, larger structures can be more generalized both by being able to fit more services and that the rigs will be more generalized at larger sizes and more specific at smaller sizes.


They're losing a lot of bonuses compared to starbases. A starbase can be a refinery, research lab, factory, with bonuses, all at the same time. Mediums were also supposed to be the starbase equivalent, as they said, and if they are not, they are failing on their word. Med/Large Citadel DPS is already sounding lackluster to even what a medium POS could deal, so why rip down a literal pillar of the foundations of EVE for a downgrade?

The said the new structures would replace these things *eventually*. But they also said there would be more specialized structures with bonus based around there intended use. Although you can use a citadel for refining. It is not its intended use, there will be structures in upcoming releases that give bonus to that sort of thing.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.

Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#298 - 2016-05-04 19:55:04 UTC
Would like to say that the citadel (medium) seems underwhelming. 'The power of 4 battleships' is pretty weak sauce compared to how a large pos can be fit: dickstar, dullstar, straight damps, or whatever... I've had mediums make a. 6-8 person fleet work even un manned. Being able to roll these with 2-3 logi (dommi ball?) Seems like a shame.

I think we need to agree on what kind of force ahould be required to take out one of these. If the intent is that a casual attack can jack them up the price is way off. There needs to be a reason in wh space to pick one of these over a pos... right now I don't see it.
Alexander Otium
Mothhat
#299 - 2016-05-04 20:21:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexander Otium
I have been saying this stuff for weeks now and everyone kept brushing it off. Citadels are not cost effective as a defensive asset and require a boost to their damage, particularly the bombs (including the neutbomb, its application is too weak).


It should be at least as expensive to destroy a defensive asset in a pitched battle as it is to construct the defensive asset. That's my opinion on how expensive or difficult it should be to destroy a Citadel.
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#300 - 2016-05-04 21:23:39 UTC
Alexander Otium wrote:
I have been saying this stuff for weeks now and everyone kept brushing it off. Citadels are not cost effective as a defensive asset and require a boost to their damage, particularly the bombs (including the neutbomb, its application is too weak).


It should be at least as expensive to destroy a defensive asset in a pitched battle as it is to construct the defensive asset. That's my opinion on how expensive or difficult it should be to destroy a Citadel.


Perhaps the long recognised general rules of war should be applied.... Big smile

That a minor fortification needs a 3:1 ratio of attacker to defender to guarantee success and a major fortification 5:1 - with the attacker expecting to take not dissimilar losses.

Ergo - a properly managed and setup Medium Citadel (worth 1b for example) would be expected to kill 3b in ships - a 180b XL then would normally kill some ~900b of ships.

Citadels, the structure(s) designed for defence, would be completely killable - but would require the attacking fleet to commit and take losses.

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