These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[118.7] Warp Bubble Dragging Change

First post First post
Author
Cade Windstalker
#261 - 2016-08-06 02:14:26 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Stating an opinion - A majority of those using these forums are narrow minded (me included, as my opinion is focused on my agenda) is not an insult to anyone, unless of course you think for some reason your special and a broad based comment was directed at you personally ( I assure you - It wasn't). I would be far more insulted if someone were to say I flip flop on my stance, therefore can have no valid opinion.

1; a.Where to put them? Anywhere that is not on a gate grid.

b.Reimburse them? For what exactly?
c.Restrictions on placement?

2; What does Computer security have to do with Devs not considering how players may use mechanics?

3; The carrier is all but invulnerable if it is engaging 500K from a bubble while sitting on a Citadel undock.. One minute is all it takes to get complete safety.

-- - -- - -- - --
4. Bottom line of course is, the changes to bubble mechanics only affects a minority of the overall player base. So doesn't really deserve this much attention. Where as the same broken way in which Citadels can be used in lowsec has far wider implications for many more players, that Devs aren't interested in. You don't need bubbles to use Citadels to kill while remaining invulnerable to attack.

Citadel mechanics need an overhaul, not just a bandaid fix for nulsec - If it makes an offensive attack, it should become vulnerable to attack.


Given the context of your comment, which was directed at me, I don't think my interpretation here was unreasonable. Your comment was insulting whether you intended it as such or not. Something my parents used to say that's stuck with me "It's not just what you say, it's how others take it." Useful advice IMO. Anyways I accept that you weren't trying to be insulting, so setting that aside...

1a. Yes, but there are a lot of ways to determine this, all of them would make someone unhappy (which may require CCP to spend a lot of time manually moving Citadels) or would cause some sort of bug or issue with placement.

1b. "Or reimburse them". I was trying to indicate that another option would be to simply take them all down and give them back to the players or give them equivalent value, hence the idea of reimbursing. This causes its own issues though.

1c. You can't place a Citadel within 1000km of a gate, another Citadel, or certain other objects. Any method that moves a Citadel would have to avoid violating these rules, making it more complicated than simply pushing them off grid or moving them randomly. Also see above about petitions and similar issues.

2. There's an idea in Computer Security that any determined attacker will eventually break through any defense because there are simply more attackers with more combined resources than there are defenders at any organization. Similarly there are a relatively small number of devs with finite time. The time required to test everything so that there are never any issues with any of it is far to long to be practical. Generally the response to this is "well then just test it more so most issues get caught" to which I respond "They do, that's what we have now."

Humans are fallible, there will always be things that get through into the game. This is true for any game or piece of software. Testing mitigates, it doesn't eliminate.

Also often the idea that "the devs don't play the game!" comes more from someone feeling like their portion of the game (their playstyle, ect) is being neglected, not from the devs not actually understanding the game. Sure some things that feel obvious to one player get through, but Eve is huge and no one player or Dev can understand literally all of it. Anyone claiming otherwise is either an idiot or lying.

3. I've heard more or less the same thing said about ratting Carriers, and yet those die all the time. There's still a significant difference between something that is literally invulnerable and unkillable and a Carrier that is only very difficult to trap and kill. Besides as we hashed to death in the other thread, the threat posed by a Carrier's fighters is significantly smaller these days, and it's very possible a well equipped solo player or small gang could escape or fight his fighters off. That's very different from a Citadel where that same gang either dies or runs. Probably dies.

4. Not really seeing the issue with Citadels in Low. They can't camp gates, they can only be used defensively, so where's the issue? As for the idea that they should become vulnerable if they attack, that got covered back in the first few pages of the thread. Short answer though? It would make them basically worthless 95% of the time and you would have to lock down who could gun one so hard it's not funny, further reducing their usefulness and ability to actually protect people.

The issue here is that an invulnerable structure is being used offensively, not that someone can run back to one when on home terf. People have been able to do that with POSes since they were introduced.
Odette en Aube
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#262 - 2016-08-06 11:01:49 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates?
A) Their invulnerability. Citadel bubble camping is risk free.


Hi CCP Larrikin,

Speaking of general principles, whenever your making a change to any game mechanism, you should try to make the change:
1) as small as possible;
2) as precise as possible.

That is, you should try and change only things at are at the root of the problem, and not elsewhere. Is the problem with bubbles in general? I don't think so. Out of say 100 different ways to use bubbles, only this one is affected. So please don't change bubbles.

Is the problem with citadels in general? Again, no.

In this case, the root of the problem is "risk free" part. Well, let me elaborate a bit more. There is of course a risk in deploying a citadel. They can be destroyed. So the true problem here is that there is no significant bigger risk in placing a citadel in grid with a gate than there is in placing it elsewhere in the system.

So why don't you just address that... and only that: make the vulnerability window 5x (or 10x) bigger for citadels placed for gate camping.

This way, you've changed only the root of the problem. Bubbles are the same, no other uses of them are affected. Citadels are the same, no need to move them or refund them. Gate camping citadels even work the same way they do now, just as effective and punishing to unscouted fleets, and just as easy to avoid for scouted one.

The only thing is, when deploying a citadel in null, someone has to make a decision: either a safer position out of gate range, or a more useful but slightly riskier option of using it for gate camping. You've just added a risk-reward choice (and changed nothing else), and everyone is happy.

Just my 2c.
Obearoth HuanTao
Perkone
Caldari State
#263 - 2016-08-06 22:00:30 UTC
You could've made a change to affect bubbels position/effect relative to citadels, which was the issue you sought to resolve. Instead you just went and did yet another "Shoot fish in a barrel with a shotgun" move.
This change will have implications you seem to not be aware of, me neither, but this does not feel like a considred move ccp.

/me still remembers a fun night where we put up a fishnet in the middle of a system, far far away from anything celestial or "manmade" This will now forever remain a distant memory...
Kebabski
Vae Nexon
#264 - 2016-08-07 11:26:33 UTC
Citadels+drag bubbles on gates are risk averse to the max, thank god that is getting nerfed. Problem is the citadel though and not as much the bubble itself. Then again, citadels are still broken aswell.

Keb
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#265 - 2016-08-07 12:27:51 UTC
elitatwo wrote:

Not my fault you didn't understand most of it, it is fine.


EVE physics is totally different than real world physics. Drag in vacuum, warp fields based on friction, and violation of the quantum no-communication theorem. Not to mention the inconsistent and bizarre ages and masses when you show info on celestials. And there's a lot more wrong than that. But it's just a game.

However, you made some comments about the real world.

Lets look at these one by one.

First, in an earlier post you're incorrect about the time warp effect. Warp field equations in general relativity allow backwards time travel, so they may not even be physically meaningful once quantum mechanics (which implies backwards time travel is impossible) is combined with general relativity.

Secondly, assuming you could create such a warp field it would be trivial to make the locally flat internal region large enough to avoid any harm to the ship. The space inside the field follows a free fall geodesic, so you wouldn't experience any g forces from the acceleration of the warp bubble itself. The edges of the field are obviously extremely dangerous due to tidal forces but I've already addressed that.

Finally, under realistic initial conditions you wouldn't be able to just turn on your warp drive and go anywhere. You'd have to send someone ahead of you the slow way (sub-light speeds) to prepare the space the warp field will pass through in advance. Once this is done, you can initiate your warp drive and travel arbitrarily fast towards your destination. This preserves causality since someone had to get there the hard way and set things up for you, so your warp field never gets out of their light cone.

Actually, EVE was brilliant here. There is a chronicle about how the Old Man's Star gate was built that involves someone getting there the slow, hard way to build the stargate at that end. That's probably very realistic. So think of a warp field more as a train track than a Star Trek warp drive. Once the track is made any ship that has a warp drive can ride the track to the destination.

And that brings us to your point about how a bubble couldn't "catch" a warping vessel. This is incorrect, under realistic conditions a warping vessel probably needs an external influence to disengage the warp field when it reaches the end of the "track".

Although there are solutions that don't require a track they have other problems such as requiring tachyonic negative mass (wow!) or permitting backwards time travel.

So if anything, under realistic conditions you'd probably have a bubble at the start and end of every warp corridor to mark the end points of the FTL train track Big smile

elitatwo wrote:

You asked for mental gymnastics and I gave it.


Yep.

elitatwo wrote:

I try to explain to my buddies how very exciting subatomic particles are or how to make quantum entanglement work for "long distance calls".


This won't work. Although quantum mechanics is non-local, no information can be transmitted this way. It's called the no-communication theorem. Essentially, it's impossible to know whether the state you're reading is the result of the other party influencing the entangled system, or just an artifact of the uncertainty of the measurement. Causality (information carrying events) propagates at the speed of light, and it isn't possible for 2 space-like separated events to influence each other.

EVE avoids the no-communication theorem via technobabbleCool

The reality is that space-like separated events can't transmit information between them. Remember space-like means there is no future directed curve that joins the events in 4-space. For all practical purposes they are in separate universes until enough time passes that they become light-like and eventually time-like separated (assuming space isn't expanding fast enough between them that they are always space-like separated - there are events in our universe we will never receive due to this).

The only way to do FTL communication is to make a shortcut in 4-space between the events. That's how the "track" style warp drive explained earlier works. You're taking two points and creating a shorter path between them, but this requires preparing the length of that path at less than the speed of light the first time you use it. Once you've gotten there the hard way and laid the warp field train track you can send future information along this conduit.

That way you aren't violating causality; you've just spent the proper time (and energy) to change the shape of the universe. It isn't really FTLCool

elitatwo wrote:

I bet the JPL would be very interested but since I don't have a physics degree, they wouldn't even listen in the first place..


This stuff has been thought of. It won't work for reasons. The future of Star Trek-esque FTL looks bleak.

Besides, why not focus on what we know we can do? For example, getting a probe to 5-10% the speed of light is within our technology, although currently prohibitively expensive as a mission. And assuming you can get 1G of constant acceleration (which would be no small feat, such a thing is well beyond our technology!) you could reach practically anywhere in the universe within your lifespan thanks to a combination of length contraction and time dilation. The downside is everyone you know will be long, long, dead by the time you get there making it the ultimate one way ticket.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

masternerdguy
Doomheim
#266 - 2016-08-07 12:32:01 UTC
And as for the topic at hand, I believe that this change will hurt the sandbox. Anything that makes the game easier for people who won't take reasonable precautions (such as scouts, specialized ships, or pre-existing ping spots) is a bad idea.

If you want to travel through or PVP in someone else's space, you should do your due diligence and take reasonable precautions.

If you really want to operate freely in someone's space, join their alliance. It's much easier in the long runBig smile

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#267 - 2016-08-07 12:36:40 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Quantum babble


Jesus H Christ. I don't know what career you're currently in, but if you're not the Chief of Technobabble (Chief Engineer) for the next Star Trek series, then it's a cardinal sin.
Cade Windstalker
#268 - 2016-08-07 22:52:51 UTC
Patch notes drop and suddenly people want to rush to comment in a thread that's been going for weeks now... Lol

Odette en Aube wrote:
Hi CCP Larrikin,

Speaking of general principles, whenever your making a change to any game mechanism, you should try to make the change:
1) as small as possible;
2) as precise as possible.

That is, you should try and change only things at are at the root of the problem, and not elsewhere. Is the problem with bubbles in general? I don't think so. Out of say 100 different ways to use bubbles, only this one is affected. So please don't change bubbles.

Is the problem with citadels in general? Again, no.

In this case, the root of the problem is "risk free" part. Well, let me elaborate a bit more. There is of course a risk in deploying a citadel. They can be destroyed. So the true problem here is that there is no significant bigger risk in placing a citadel in grid with a gate than there is in placing it elsewhere in the system.

So why don't you just address that... and only that: make the vulnerability window 5x (or 10x) bigger for citadels placed for gate camping.

This way, you've changed only the root of the problem. Bubbles are the same, no other uses of them are affected. Citadels are the same, no need to move them or refund them. Gate camping citadels even work the same way they do now, just as effective and punishing to unscouted fleets, and just as easy to avoid for scouted one.

The only thing is, when deploying a citadel in null, someone has to make a decision: either a safer position out of gate range, or a more useful but slightly riskier option of using it for gate camping. You've just added a risk-reward choice (and changed nothing else), and everyone is happy.

Just my 2c.


Lol at someone condecending to a Dev on how to dev... and proposing an in general worse and more disruptive solution.

So, small problem with your proposition here.

First, the Citadel is still invulnerable for the vast majority of the time.

Second, if you change it to make Citadels even more vulnerable (on gates or otherwise) you've caused a bigger problem by making them indefensible.

Third, this actually standardizes bubble mechanics, making them generally just a little bit easier for newbies to understand and deal with.

There is legitimate reason to have a Citadel on-grid with a gate. Punishing that is bad for Citadels and causes a lot of problems with Citadels that people now want to move due to a drastic change in mechanics. Your solution is hardly the smallest reasonable change.

Changing bubbles like this impacts almost nothing. At worst some people need to unanchor a bunch of bubbles and move them closer to stuff, but that's at least easy to do and doesn't impact much overall.

Obearoth HuanTao wrote:
You could've made a change to affect bubbels position/effect relative to citadels, which was the issue you sought to resolve. Instead you just went and did yet another "Shoot fish in a barrel with a shotgun" move.
This change will have implications you seem to not be aware of, me neither, but this does not feel like a considred move ccp.

/me still remembers a fun night where we put up a fishnet in the middle of a system, far far away from anything celestial or "manmade" This will now forever remain a distant memory...


If you can't think of anything then why assume that there is something? If you do have something threads like this are literally *the* place to post stuff like that. That's why CCP makes these threads, so the community can point out stuff they may have missed...
Calael Nar
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#269 - 2016-08-08 15:05:27 UTC
Good Idea CCP.
Odette en Aube
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#270 - 2016-08-15 12:29:30 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Patch notes drop and suddenly people want to rush to comment in a thread that's been going for weeks now... Lol


Lol at someone condecending to a Dev on how to dev... and proposing an in general worse and more disruptive solution.


Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. I wasn't being condescending, I just offered advice.

As for me not being a Dev, do you know there are programmers out there who don't work for CCP? And that software development exists outside Eve Online? and even *gasp* predates it? That someone else developed the tools (OS, python, and much more) the Devs use to make Eve? How do you know it wasn't me? Maybe I know very well 'how to dev'...

Now, that is being condescending. See the difference? Smile

Anyway, back on the real topic:

Quote:


So, small problem with your proposition here.

First, the Citadel is still invulnerable for the vast majority of the time.

Second, if you change it to make Citadels even more vulnerable (on gates or otherwise) you've caused a bigger problem by making them indefensible.

Third, this actually standardizes bubble mechanics, making them generally just a little bit easier for newbies to understand and deal with.


First. So what? The problem is risk/reward. Citadels are invulnerable for most of the time by design. The idea is just to increase the risk.

Second. I'm not sure what to you mean by 'make Citadels even more vulnerable'. Yes I proposed to enlarge the vulnerability window, if that's what you mean. Yes it does make them harder to defend, but I fail to see you logic jump from 'ok' to 'indefensible'. Again it's all about increasing risk, and it's far from making it unmanageable.

Third. Well, I won't dispute this argument. I don't think 'making it easier for the newbies' is necessarily a good reason to change things in Eve (since the steep learning curve is part of what makes Eve different from other games), but in this case it isn't bad either.


Quote:
There is legitimate reason to have a Citadel on-grid with a gate. Punishing that is bad for Citadels and causes a lot of problems with Citadels that people now want to move due to a drastic change in mechanics. Your solution is hardly the smallest reasonable change.
I never said it's illegitimate to have a Citadel on-grid with a gate. I said it's advantageous. And this advantage comes at no price (right now).

Quote:
Changing bubbles like this impacts almost nothing. At worst some people need to unanchor a bunch of bubbles and move them closer to stuff, but that's at least easy to do and doesn't impact much overall.
I'm sorry but given the number of people going so vocal against this change on this thread, I'm going to accept this as your opinion, not as a fact.

Fly safe.
Cade Windstalker
#271 - 2016-08-15 19:23:45 UTC
Odette en Aube wrote:
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. I wasn't being condescending, I just offered advice.

As for me not being a Dev, do you know there are programmers out there who don't work for CCP? And that software development exists outside Eve Online? and even *gasp* predates it? That someone else developed the tools (OS, python, and much more) the Devs use to make Eve? How do you know it wasn't me? Maybe I know very well 'how to dev'...

Now, that is being condescending. See the difference? Smile


Your overall tone in your original post was incredibly condescending, starting with the bit where you tried to explain basic design philosophy to a professional game dev in a way that suggests that you think they aren't aware of it.

Also your example here is sarcasm, not particularly condescending. I also never suggested you weren't a dev, there's certainly a lot of them around the community, I just said you were being condescending and explaining to someone how to do their job (something that is generally considered condescending as an act, almost regardless of phrasing).

Last note on this bit, there's a big difference between software development and game development, and the skills sets are no where near completely interchangeable.

Odette en Aube wrote:
First. So what? The problem is risk/reward. Citadels are invulnerable for most of the time by design. The idea is just to increase the risk.

Second. I'm not sure what to you mean by 'make Citadels even more vulnerable'. Yes I proposed to enlarge the vulnerability window, if that's what you mean. Yes it does make them harder to defend, but I fail to see you logic jump from 'ok' to 'indefensible'. Again it's all about increasing risk, and it's far from making it unmanageable.

Third. Well, I won't dispute this argument. I don't think 'making it easier for the newbies' is necessarily a good reason to change things in Eve (since the steep learning curve is part of what makes Eve different from other games), but in this case it isn't bad either.


The problem here is that someone can camp for zero risk the vast majority of the time. Your suggestion doesn't actually fix that.

Your proposed solution is to widen the vulnerability window on structures that already have pretty wide windows. If you were to even multiply a Fortizar's window by 2x you have 12 hours of vulnerability. If you take your suggestions and multiply it by 5-10x you've got more than a day at least, which negates the point of vulnerability windows, which is to allow the defenders some control over when they can be attacked without having to essentially run on-call for their members.

As far as learning curve goes, complexity can be good, complexity for the sake of complexity and nothing else is not. Similarly preserving complexity or "the learning cliff" isn't necessarily a good thing for its own sake. I've spent enough time in this game helping out newbies to know that first hand.

Odette en Aube wrote:
I never said it's illegitimate to have a Citadel on-grid with a gate. I said it's advantageous. And this advantage comes at no price (right now).


No, it comes at the same price and risk as having a Citadel anywhere else. The problem is the out sized reward it provides, which this change remedies.
Odette en Aube wrote:
I'm sorry but given the number of people going so vocal against this change on this thread, I'm going to accept this as your opinion, not as a fact.


Read through the rest of the thread and find one single instance of something this impacts outside of citadel camping. I've thread the entire thing and there isn't one. The people objecting to this change either have vague and nebulous objections, like yours, with no specific backing beyond "why are you changing bubbles if Citadels are the problem!?!?" or they think Citadel camping is fine and want it preserved in some fashion.

The closest anyone's come to a real objection is the hypothetical of a Carrier parked on a Citadel on a gate, but that's still got more risk to it than just the Citadel camp.

Personally I'm ambivalent about Citadel camping staying or going, but I can't really fault CCP's logic or their decision on how to address it. It's the most minimally disruptive of the available options, and costs players the least in time, materials, and adjustment in play.
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#272 - 2016-08-17 18:45:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Syri Taneka
Zacktar wrote:
I think dragging or stopping a warp should be completely removed. It is very risk averse for bubble campers to partake of this cowardly act. Anything landing that may be a threat to them allows them to simply not engage or overwhelm. Fish in a barrel thing.

My opinion is to not allow bubbles to affect already in warp ships at all.


Two words: Hot Drop

Querns wrote:
gr33nCO wrote:
you could also make anchored bubbles in space time out after downtime. That would resolve a lot of the issues.


I'd probably say "after a time period" rather than "after downtime;" otherwise, if you anchor a bunch of bubbles in USTZ or before downtime, you get shafted out of many hours of potential life. But yeah, expiration on bubbles is something that would be good.


I'd rather see a refresh mechanic combining elements of classic POS and anchorable cans/fitting stations. System only has enough "charge" to run for so long, then goes down, but stays anchored. Player who anchored it (or someone from their corp/alliance, perhaps) then visits the bubble and "recharges" it, making it active again until the charge wears down. This could either be done as an artificial process through a timer, or with everyone's favorite inexpensive "munitions", cap booster charges.

Actually, giving cap booster charges something else to be useful for would be a good thing for that item class.

ETA:
Thought on the subject some more. The most meaningful gameplay is achieved through interaction, and options. So let's pull the ASB into this cross-comparison for more flavor.

Player anchors a bubble. The bubble needs a power supply to run, and can get it one of two ways. Either a player can online the bubble for a single cycle (ie 1 hour) using their ship's capacitor, or they can supply it with cap booster charges which it will eat until it runs out. Similar to the ASB, the appropriate size of the cap booster (and, consequently, the amount pulled from a ship) depends on bubble size (no differentiation between tech level, ergo t2 gets more for the same).

Using such a system, a tended bubble is relatively inexpensive to maintain, since cap is constantly regenerating on a ship, but an untended bubble will have a finite operation time, regardless of power supply. For a little extra flavor (but harder back-end design), online bubbles could be cap drained instead of destroyed outright to shut them down.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#273 - 2016-08-18 06:01:00 UTC
Odette en Aube wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates?
A) Their invulnerability. Citadel bubble camping is risk free.


Hi CCP Larrikin,

Speaking of general principles, whenever your making a change to any game mechanism, you should try to make the change:
1) as small as possible;
2) as precise as possible.

That is, you should try and change only things at are at the root of the problem, and not elsewhere. Is the problem with bubbles in general? I don't think so. Out of say 100 different ways to use bubbles, only this one is affected. So please don't change bubbles.

Is the problem with citadels in general? Again, no.

In this case, the root of the problem is "risk free" part. Well, let me elaborate a bit more. There is of course a risk in deploying a citadel. They can be destroyed. So the true problem here is that there is no significant bigger risk in placing a citadel in grid with a gate than there is in placing it elsewhere in the system.

So why don't you just address that... and only that: make the vulnerability window 5x (or 10x) bigger for citadels placed for gate camping.

This way, you've changed only the root of the problem. Bubbles are the same, no other uses of them are affected. Citadels are the same, no need to move them or refund them. Gate camping citadels even work the same way they do now, just as effective and punishing to unscouted fleets, and just as easy to avoid for scouted one.

The only thing is, when deploying a citadel in null, someone has to make a decision: either a safer position out of gate range, or a more useful but slightly riskier option of using it for gate camping. You've just added a risk-reward choice (and changed nothing else), and everyone is happy.

Just my 2c.

They can be destroyed however they are so cheap they're pointless to destroy. They'll pop another astro as soon as the one you put all the work in to destroy is gone.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#274 - 2016-08-18 14:00:36 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
They can be destroyed however they are so cheap they're pointless to destroy. They'll pop another astro as soon as the one you put all the work in to destroy is gone.


I want your wallet.
Elliniel Anat'al'Ardon
Hallowed Antiquity
#275 - 2016-08-22 07:44:21 UTC
Personally, I think we are ready to go back to the original design of the bubbles, that dropped you from warp if your warp path intersected the bubble in any way, including warping from Point A to Point B having a stop bubble 3/4 of a way in between.

That would make the entirety of bubbles fun again.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#276 - 2016-08-22 10:43:03 UTC
Syri Taneka wrote:


I want your wallet.

The man hours to destroy a citadel are greater than the man hours to farm enough isk for a new one using the new super carier ratting faucet (Bounties jumped 10 Trillion a month after the capital rebalance, go figure)
Cade Windstalker
#277 - 2016-08-23 15:12:23 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Syri Taneka wrote:


I want your wallet.

The man hours to destroy a citadel are greater than the man hours to farm enough isk for a new one using the new super carier ratting faucet (Bounties jumped 10 Trillion a month after the capital rebalance, go figure)


This seems more like "Mythical Man Month" than an actually useful fact. Even if you assume a completely unfitted Astrahaus you can kill one with a couple of dreads and reinforce it fairly quickly. Even taking a fairly generous ISK rate of 200m an hour per person that's still around 10 "man hours" to break even and with fittings it's around 50. It does not take 50 people to kill an Astrehaus, nor does it take 50 man hours unless the enemy defends it reasonably well.
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#278 - 2016-09-11 02:28:04 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Syri Taneka wrote:


I want your wallet.

The man hours to destroy a citadel are greater than the man hours to farm enough isk for a new one using the new super carier ratting faucet (Bounties jumped 10 Trillion a month after the capital rebalance, go figure)


This seems more like "Mythical Man Month" than an actually useful fact. Even if you assume a completely unfitted Astrahaus you can kill one with a couple of dreads and reinforce it fairly quickly. Even taking a fairly generous ISK rate of 200m an hour per person that's still around 10 "man hours" to break even and with fittings it's around 50. It does not take 50 people to kill an Astrehaus, nor does it take 50 man hours unless the enemy defends it reasonably well.


The actual amount of time it takes to destroy an Astra (any Citi, really) under nominal dps conditions, is 72 minutes. The actual amount of man hours it takes depends on multiple factors, including what level of Citadel (House, Fort, or Keep), where it's located (highsec/non-capital WH or everywhere else), how many people you can field, and how many people the defender can field.

In an un/minimally contested scenario where caps have access, a lone player with a Dreadnought or Supercarrier can RF an Astra in the minimum amount of time (or close to it depending on siege cycle duration). In less ideal situations, anywhere from 5 to many tens of players may be needed to provide dps. So you've got a range of 72 - 360+ man-minutes to reasonably destroy an Astra.

The best ratting rate I ever managed "quasi-solo" (two accounts, fighter-assisted ratting with salvage and looting by the field ship) was 100M/hr, and I'm told Incursion fleets can top this by a fair margin, but not by enough to make the current ~1.6B cost of a bare Astra in 6 hours or less. Of course, as the fleet size needed to a) hold the field and b) provide sufficient dps against the Citadel increases, the man-hours spent goes up proportionally, and thus the amount of time available to spend making this statement true.

Either way, my initial point was simply that if you consider 1.6B "cheap", I want your source of funds, as I certainly don't = P
Codie Rin
Comply Or Die
#279 - 2016-09-12 16:21:59 UTC
Im sorry but drag bubbles are the most ridiculous mechanic in the game. They should be removed.
Violet Hurst
Fedaya Recon
#280 - 2016-10-14 05:28:05 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Q) Whats wrong with Citadels camping gates?
A) Their invulnerability. Citadel bubble camping is risk free.


Noob question here: Citadels camping the ingate are not a problem?