These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Citidels For Individual Benefit

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#101 - 2015-12-12 09:45:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
DaReaper wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
Will the average joe be able to own a citadel or will we have to have proof from a mega coalition? Roll Right now you have to have permission from your corporation, alliance, coalition or mega coalition to have a POS or Station.

I ask because CCP needs to stop giving a handful of people opportunity's and fun. I am tired of 1% of the population controlling the game.

This is a great chance for CCP to give power to the playerbase as a whole.


You mean, like owning your own "home" in space?

Well, if CCP were to implement proper player housing, player "houses" would be limited to one per account, would despawn and be stored after a period of inactivity, would be invulnerale and would provide no advantage over NPC stations... also would have nice fully customizable interiors where player avatars could meet each other and yadda yadda yadda..

That's what CCP would do if they were a ordinary company with a ordinary game and/or had any interest to implement player housing.

But CCP being CCP and EVE being EVE, and with CCP head over heels for PvP, Citadels are useless for any player not interested in PvP, and the same can be stated of whatever structures will come next. Read my signature for further detail.



Re your sig.. i'd like your source. because i'm not seeing anywhere where 60% of eve players don;t want what is coming.

oh and you have houses, they are called npc stations.


It's a simple deduction. Since 62% of players don't give money to CCP for the PvP and they'd rather chitchat, run PvE content or play industry/trading than pew pew, the availability of new pew pew chances around new pew pew structures is irrelevant to such players.

And that was coming to CCP's plate since they made the structures poll and forgot to ask "WHY don't you use structures"? By focusing on why people use structures and asking them to grade the structure content even after they answered that they didn't use structures, CCP got a biased poll on the interest about structures. Purely GIGO, ask the wrong question and will get the wrong answer.

CCP may ~force~ indies to own a citadel since they need manufacturing and POSes will be gone, but that's all. NPC stations are better than citadels since they are 100% safe.

I see people fantasizing about alternate trade hubs based in citadels, but that is just ignorance. Losing your stocks is not an option when the competitors don't risk losing them. With transportation risk being equal to everyone (although transportation risk is slightly higher for citadels), the simple fact that a citadel can inflict a loss removes them from the table to the sensible trader. And that's before we account for the other elements in market hubbing (volume and geography).

So what else is left for citadels and next structures? I'll tell you: any space without stations. Like the new space beyond player built gates. That is the core of the Hallelujah Plan (the Rubicon Plan, officially). A small slice (a sizeable majority, officially) of players will move to new space and play with new structures and new whatever, and meanwhile highseccers, soloers and PvErs and the other elephant-in-the-room majority (a expendable minority of fast churning misfits, officially) will keep sucking it and paying the bills.

As Ripard Teg put it:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3872180#post3872180

Quote:
(...) If you buy into the space colonization vision, then I can safely say that you have several HOLY **** moments ahead of you.

On the other hand, if you do not buy into the vision, then with one exception I think you may find the next few expansions to be not your cup of tea. A few scraps will fall from the table onto everyone's plate, but EVE is definitely on a journey for the next three years and you're ither part of it or you're not. (...)


That was 2 years ago. Back then, CCP still was readying the user behavior data farming which now allows us to know how many people are potentially interested to "colonize space" and how many don't. Back then, in my modest scale, I already knew that CCP Seagull's Rubicon Plan was turning a cold shoulder to the woes and needs of a staggering large population. Now I can pin a number to that population: 62%, more or less.

I wonder where will we be in a year, by Christmas 2016. How many of us will be left, and how we will feel about EVE and its future.
Aralieus
Shadowbane Syndicate
#102 - 2015-12-12 10:51:48 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
not if they wont let you.


Why don't you understand this: Absolutely nobody but yourself can effectively keep you from putting up a POS on a free moon.

If you are in a corp that doesn't let you put one up, that's an issue of yourself, who apparently doesn't want to leave, and your corp, who apparently doesn't want you to have a pos. That's not a flaw in the game.



I believe he understands this, he just doesn't agree with it.

And on some level he may even have a point. I'm imagining that the solution would be to allow for individuals in a corp to have 'permission' to own their on POS however only be allowed to have roles with that specific POS said player has anchored unless specified thru the coporation interface. So personal roles or blanket roles effectively.

Oderint Dum Metuant
Brigadine Ferathine
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2015-12-12 10:54:43 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
DaReaper wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
Will the average joe be able to own a citadel or will we have to have proof from a mega coalition? Roll Right now you have to have permission from your corporation, alliance, coalition or mega coalition to have a POS or Station.

I ask because CCP needs to stop giving a handful of people opportunity's and fun. I am tired of 1% of the population controlling the game.

This is a great chance for CCP to give power to the playerbase as a whole.


You mean, like owning your own "home" in space?

Well, if CCP were to implement proper player housing, player "houses" would be limited to one per account, would despawn and be stored after a period of inactivity, would be invulnerale and would provide no advantage over NPC stations... also would have nice fully customizable interiors where player avatars could meet each other and yadda yadda yadda..

That's what CCP would do if they were a ordinary company with a ordinary game and/or had any interest to implement player housing.

But CCP being CCP and EVE being EVE, and with CCP head over heels for PvP, Citadels are useless for any player not interested in PvP, and the same can be stated of whatever structures will come next. Read my signature for further detail.



Re your sig.. i'd like your source. because i'm not seeing anywhere where 60% of eve players don;t want what is coming.

oh and you have houses, they are called npc stations.


It's a simple deduction. Since 62% of players don't give money to CCP for the PvP and they'd rather chitchat, run PvE content or play industry/trading than pew pew, the availability of new pew pew chances around new pew pew structures is irrelevant to such players.

And that was coming to CCP's plate since they made the structures poll and forgot to ask "WHY don't you use structures"? By focusing on why people use structures and asking them to grade the structure content even after they answered that they didn't use structures, CCP got a biased poll on the interest about structures. Purely GIGO, ask the wrong question and will get the wrong answer.

CCP may ~force~ indies to own a citadel since they need manufacturing and POSes will be gone, but that's all. NPC stations are better than citadels since they are 100% safe.

I see people fantasizing about alternate trade hubs based in citadels, but that is just ignorance. Losing your stocks is not an option when the competitors don't risk losing them. With transportation risk being equal to everyone (although transportation risk is slightly higher for citadels), the simple fact that a citadel can inflict a loss removes them from the table to the sensible trader. And that's before we account for the other elements in market hubbing (volume and geography).

So what else is left for citadels and next strutures? I'll tell you: any space without stations. Like the new space beyond player built gates. That is the core of the Hallelujah Plan (the Rubicon Plan, officially). A small slice (a sizeable majority, officially) of players will move to new space and play with new structures and new whatever, and meanwhile highseccers, soloers and PvErs and the other elephant-in-the-room majority (a expendable minority of fast churning misfits, officially) will keep sucking it and paying the bills.

As Ripard Teg put it:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3872180#post3872180

Quote:
(...) If you buy into the space colonization vision, then I can safely say that you have several HOLY **** moments ahead of you.

On the other hand, if you do not buy into the vision, then with one exception I think you may find the next few expansions to be not your cup of tea. A few scraps will fall from the table onto everyone's plate, but EVE is definitely on a journey for the next three years and you're ither part of it or you're not. (...)


That was 2 years ago. Back then, CCP still was readying the user behavior data farming which now allows us to know how many people are potentially interested to "colonize space" and how many don't. Back then, in my modest scale, I already knew that CCP Seagull's Rubicon Plan was turning a cold shoulder to the woes and needs of a staggering large population. Now I can pin a number to that population: 62%, give or take.

I wonder where will we be in a year, by Christmas 2016. How many of us will be left, and how we will feel about EVE and its future.

It's winter. The time of year when player counts are highest. Given how bad the playerbase is right now if radical change is not made EVE is in for a VERY VERY bad summer.
Brigadine Ferathine
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2015-12-12 10:59:04 UTC
Aralieus wrote:
Neuntausend wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
not if they wont let you.


Why don't you understand this: Absolutely nobody but yourself can effectively keep you from putting up a POS on a free moon.

If you are in a corp that doesn't let you put one up, that's an issue of yourself, who apparently doesn't want to leave, and your corp, who apparently doesn't want you to have a pos. That's not a flaw in the game.



I believe he understands this, he just doesn't agree with it.

And on some level he may even have a point. I'm imagining that the solution would be to allow for individuals in a corp to have 'permission' to own their on POS however only be allowed to have roles with that specific POS said player has anchored unless specified thru the coporation interface. So personal roles or blanket roles effectively.

You are mostly right. I just feel that corporations should not have the keys to what should be individual content.
Trajan Unknown
State War Academy
Caldari State
#105 - 2015-12-12 13:26:53 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Trajan Unknown wrote:
There are not enough negative consequences to be in a NPC corp at the moment so giving players who are part of a NPC corp the ability to deploy citadels would be the complete wrong choice. It´s stupid enough to have all the "alts" in NPC corps so you can´t do anything vs them outside of low-sec / zero-zero.


If you cannot kill someone in high sec that is in an NPC corp, you are doing it wrong.

Besides, I have met plenty of gankers in NPC corps.

It's not like you can create throw away 1 man corps that disbands every time it's war decced.



Might be true, I have just theoretical knowledge of how to kill people in high-sec but the general statement stands.
Daemeon Fyral
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#106 - 2015-12-12 16:59:46 UTC
Quote:

It's a simple deduction. Since 62% of players don't give money to CCP for the PvP and they'd rather chitchat, run PvE content or play industry/trading than pew pew, the availability of new pew pew chances around new pew pew structures is irrelevant to such players.

And that was coming to CCP's plate since they made the structures poll and forgot to ask "WHY don't you use structures"? By focusing on why people use structures and asking them to grade the structure content even after they answered that they didn't use structures, CCP got a biased poll on the interest about structures. Purely GIGO, ask the wrong question and will get the wrong answer.

CCP may ~force~ indies to own a citadel since they need manufacturing and POSes will be gone, but that's all. NPC stations are better than citadels since they are 100% safe.


Clearly your simple deduction is wrong.
I am part of this 62% who doesn't play for the pvp. I'm primarily an industrialist and talk to some people. And I have to completely disagree that this content only benifits the pvpers. Pretty well anything you can do in a pos you will eventually be able to do in these structures. Only infinitely easier to set up, and much safer asset wise.
Do you really think that every single pos in the game is 100% dedicated to pvp? Then why would these new structures be exclusively for it? Hell with the exception of sov and some wormhole pvp corps. I'd say that pos's are almost exclusively used for Pve content.

As for WHY most people don't use structures currently. Well I'm sure the reasons vary. But for most its likely either they
A) aren't interested in that kind of game play. In which case nothing changes for them
B) they are interested. But they don't require the services of a POS often enough to be worthwhile. For these people either nothing will change. Or the expanded utility might encourage them to start using it.
C) setting up a pos is a royal pain in the ass and clunky as hell to deal with. These changes may encourage this group to get involved in it.
D) it's riskier than just using a station. This is true. But there are hundreds of not thousands of players who already think it's worth the risk. And the new structures seem to be even safer. (Citadel gets destroyed, it's contents get moved elsewhere or are otherwise only accessible by their owner. Vs the current ship pinata) which again could encourage more people to use Em.

No one is FORCING you to use a POS. And no one is FORCING you to use a citadel. They are simply going back and finally fixing a system that has been broken for years and years now. That affects a large portion of the player base both for pvp and Pve. It is a move for the better not just for people using the current system but also for those who might choose to get involved in structures with these changes.

Just because it doesn't suit YOUR playstyle does not mean you should presume to speak on behalf of others. Especially not such a large percentage of our game filled with 12 different play styles for every 10 players.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#107 - 2015-12-12 22:53:22 UTC
I want my own personal home.

between sovereignty and alliances, there's no room for a single player and his single holding.

It would be OK if there was a RV-esque ship we could use and deploy as our own personal mobile star bases, but nope.

No Personally Owned citadels outside alliance/sov jurisdiction = sux
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#108 - 2015-12-12 23:56:12 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It'll happen and nobody will shoot them because they'll have their whole 20 minutes a week of vulnerability set in short intervals imidiately following downtime so 99% of the game's playerbase wont plausibly be able to attack them.

Pretty sure minimum window is one hour at a time. And as soon as you start shooting it, it stays vulnerable even if the 'timer' goes over the window, as long as you stop the repair timer from happening. At least try to understand the mechanics surrounding their vulnerability before you complain about it, and don't put outright lies in your posts either.

& Vincent.
Tough luck, but yes that is how Citadels will work. Assuming you can't make either of the reinforcement timers either then yes, you can lose your citadel if you are war decced and offline for 3 days due to RL.
At which point you are out about 700 million for the citadel. Since..... RL issues that go that long would also have resulted in the loss of your POS, which also would have cost the same, I really don't see the problem with this.
And you then rebuild your citadel, recover your goods, and continue on your way.


No, it would not necessarily result in the loss of the POS because the POS can shoot back all on its own. Now, a dedicated attack will take the POS, but not a small scale attack force. But, with the Citadels, if you cannot get on-line, even a small force can take it out.

For the solo player, or a small corp, Citadels are far, far more vulnerable due to the need to absolutely, without any question, not have the kids get sick, or the pets get sick, or the internet go out, or have bad weather force emergency actions, or... etc.

At present I know of no way to absolutely guarantee none of those things will happen.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#109 - 2015-12-13 00:14:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Vincent Athena wrote:
No, it would not necessarily result in the loss of the POS because the POS can shoot back all on its own. Now, a dedicated attack will take the POS, but not a small scale attack force. But, with the Citadels, if you cannot get on-line, even a small force can take it out.

For the solo player, or a small corp, Citadels are far, far more vulnerable due to the need to absolutely, without any question, not have the kids get sick, or the pets get sick, or the internet go out, or have bad weather force emergency actions, or... etc.

A medium citadel will be vulnerable for 3 hours per week, split into 3 x 1 hour sessions in order to be reinforced.

Even if something prevents you from logging in during those 3 hours each week, where the vulnerability window is set by the owner; then there is still time to organise a defence.

Mediums will be ideal for individuals and really not very vulnerable at all. Certainly not as vulnerable as a POS.

In addition, if your POS is destroyed, so are all your things (or lost in loot). Similarly if your POS goes offline because you couldn't login to refuel it (for the same reasons you suggest not being able to defend a Citadel), then it's very easy to attack the anchored structures and take all your stuff.

None of that will occur with a Citadel - no destruction/loss of your things (except in J-Space) and no force field to maintain.

Having killed quite a few POSs solo lately (being stupid and dropping a dread with no support.....*now on every watchlist*), a POS is easy to kill if you approach it appropriately and guns aren't much to be worried about. The protection on Citadels seems far superior to the protection for POSs (eg. AOE defences as well as the current targeted defences), even though it requires manning to use during the vulnerable periods.

A Medium Citadel is vulnerable <2% of the time. A POS is vulnerable 100% of the time.
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#110 - 2015-12-13 01:04:48 UTC
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:


In all honesty I am kind of surprised CCP hasn't gotten sued over not allowing everyone to access what they pay for.


if we're going to be honest then lets start with that's one really stupid statement right there.
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#111 - 2015-12-13 01:08:27 UTC
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:

I just feel that corporations should not have the keys to what should be individual content.


create a corp and there ya go, all the rights are yours to do what you want with them, you can anchor a pos/citadel and then you'll be on here whining about being war deced and it being attacked.
Brigadine Ferathine
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2015-12-13 02:59:59 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
It'll happen and nobody will shoot them because they'll have their whole 20 minutes a week of vulnerability set in short intervals imidiately following downtime so 99% of the game's playerbase wont plausibly be able to attack them.

Pretty sure minimum window is one hour at a time. And as soon as you start shooting it, it stays vulnerable even if the 'timer' goes over the window, as long as you stop the repair timer from happening. At least try to understand the mechanics surrounding their vulnerability before you complain about it, and don't put outright lies in your posts either.

& Vincent.
Tough luck, but yes that is how Citadels will work. Assuming you can't make either of the reinforcement timers either then yes, you can lose your citadel if you are war decced and offline for 3 days due to RL.
At which point you are out about 700 million for the citadel. Since..... RL issues that go that long would also have resulted in the loss of your POS, which also would have cost the same, I really don't see the problem with this.
And you then rebuild your citadel, recover your goods, and continue on your way.


No, it would not necessarily result in the loss of the POS because the POS can shoot back all on its own. Now, a dedicated attack will take the POS, but not a small scale attack force. But, with the Citadels, if you cannot get on-line, even a small force can take it out.

For the solo player, or a small corp, Citadels are far, far more vulnerable due to the need to absolutely, without any question, not have the kids get sick, or the pets get sick, or the internet go out, or have bad weather force emergency actions, or... etc.

At present I know of no way to absolutely guarantee none of those things will happen.

I thought they had automated guns for citidels planned?
Brigadine Ferathine
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2015-12-13 03:17:31 UTC
So I just read the CSM blog about this.
1. Corperations will have absolute role control
2. No automated weapons. Lame

CCP, don't repeat the pre launch mistakes of the recent SoV changes. It is not too late to change course and save the game. It this doesn't change my subscription is going bye bye.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#114 - 2015-12-13 03:59:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
I thought they had automated guns for citidels planned?

No, but a Medium Citadel (individual, small group use) is vulnerable for only 1.8% of the week.

The rest of the time it is totally immune from attack.
Brigadine Ferathine
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2015-12-13 04:06:34 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
I thought they had automated guns for citidels planned?

No, but a Medium Citadel (individual, small group use) is vulnerable for only 1.8% of the week.

The rest of the time it is totally immune from attack.

I saw that too.
It wont matter because corporations/ mega coalitions hold all the cards.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#116 - 2015-12-13 04:12:18 UTC
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:

It wont matter because corporations/ mega coalitions hold all the cards.

Seems like you have issues with players being groups.

Whatever experience you've had that gives you that impression, there are other realities out there too. If you are part of a player Corp (even a 1-man corp of your own or an alts), you'll be fine.

There's no reason for anyone to target a Citadel you might put up anymore than a POS is targeted now.
Brigadine Ferathine
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2015-12-13 04:48:19 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:

It wont matter because corporations/ mega coalitions hold all the cards.

Seems like you have issues with players being groups.

Whatever experience you've had that gives you that impression, there are other realities out there too. If you are part of a player Corp (even a 1-man corp of your own or an alts), you'll be fine.

There's no reason for anyone to target a Citadel you might put up anymore than a POS is targeted now.

I don't want to be part of a one man corp... Nor should I have to.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#118 - 2015-12-13 04:51:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
I don't want to be part of a one man corp... Nor should I have to.

You don't have to, so you're all good then.

It's just an option as there is always a way to manage everything you need.
Solecist Project
#119 - 2015-12-13 13:49:58 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
I don't want to be part of a one man corp... Nor should I have to.

You don't have to, so you're all good then.

It's just an option as there is always a way to manage everything you need.

Tbh it is of no matter who surrounds him ...
... he's going to get roasted. :D

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Solecist Project
#120 - 2015-12-13 13:52:18 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
No, it would not necessarily result in the loss of the POS because the POS can shoot back all on its own. Now, a dedicated attack will take the POS, but not a small scale attack force. But, with the Citadels, if you cannot get on-line, even a small force can take it out.

For the solo player, or a small corp, Citadels are far, far more vulnerable due to the need to absolutely, without any question, not have the kids get sick, or the pets get sick, or the internet go out, or have bad weather force emergency actions, or... etc.

A medium citadel will be vulnerable for 3 hours per week, split into 3 x 1 hour sessions in order to be reinforced.

Even if something prevents you from logging in during those 3 hours each week, where the vulnerability window is set by the owner; then there is still time to organise a defence.

Mediums will be ideal for individuals and really not very vulnerable at all. Certainly not as vulnerable as a POS.

In addition, if your POS is destroyed, so are all your things (or lost in loot). Similarly if your POS goes offline because you couldn't login to refuel it (for the same reasons you suggest not being able to defend a Citadel), then it's very easy to attack the anchored structures and take all your stuff.

None of that will occur with a Citadel - no destruction/loss of your things (except in J-Space) and no force field to maintain.

Having killed quite a few POSs solo lately (being stupid and dropping a dread with no support.....*now on every watchlist*), a POS is easy to kill if you approach it appropriately and guns aren't much to be worried about. The protection on Citadels seems far superior to the protection for POSs (eg. AOE defences as well as the current targeted defences), even though it requires manning to use during the vulnerable periods.

A Medium Citadel is vulnerable <2% of the time. A POS is vulnerable 100% of the time.

You know, this is actually really crappy.

More and more do I see highsec being full of citadels everywhere built by scrubs who contribute nothing ...

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia