|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 53 post(s) |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5251
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:55:34 -
[1] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:CCP Nullarbor wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Structures won't be able to shoot without someone manning the guns. As CCP Nullarbor mentioned, we have options under our sleeves to mitigate the risk from this change. Like having a reduced vulnerability window in specific areas, and / or be able to have NPCs spawn. This is a bit of a slippery slope eh? I know you want individuals to feel that they can use the medium structures, but relying on NPC pirates to provide defense is... questionable on a number of levels. No offense intended. You would not rely in NPC defense at all, it would be a mild deterrent against a lone ship at best, the point is to show up for your timers and defend. As I mentioned the balance will be how frequently this happens so that it's not a chore, but still provides opportunities for an interesting engagement. So, you now require anyone who wishes to be involved with structures to so arrange their lives such that they can be playing EVE every single day; 365 days per year?
Good news
No need to.
A: The vulnerability window isn't necessarily going to be every day. B: you can let it slide one day, let it get reinforced, then save it phase 2. Or even 3.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5254
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:56:37 -
[2] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:] Redbull Spai wrote:Is there any benefit whatsoever from forcing to players to base their ships in one point, transport their mined ore to another to refine, then transport it to a third to build? Just looks like a way to punish industrialists that don't have a jump freighter. Whats keeping you from putting up all three structures in the same system?
Or even fitting your citadel as an industrial center?
Sure, you won't get the bonuses you would with the industry specific structures, but there's been no specific limit on which you'll be able to put in.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5256
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 16:20:30 -
[3] - Quote
Lord LazyGhost wrote: Log on o my pos is vunerable today for 2 hrs i need to go sit in my tower for the only 2 hrs i get to play incase some little troll in a ceptor desides today hes picking on my POS sounds like thrilling game play. even if its ever 3-4 days or so its still one days worth og game time doing nothing.
Or you could let the first timer go passed without defence, and be there for the second. Or third.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5291
|
Posted - 2015.05.24 00:11:59 -
[4] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:So what of HS Citadels? How do they work.... Does a HS Citadel become all RISK and must be guarded by active players 23/7? Too many grey area right now IMHO. We need to know the mechanics in all security (High/Low/NULL/WH) not just what it does for SOV. Honestly I could give two f'lying f's who it effects CFC or Imperium what ever they wish to be call this week!
No details have, yet, been released about the vulnerability mechanics for non-sov structures.
That's still up for discussion (and it is being discussed)
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5465
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 22:36:19 -
[5] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Two questions: Placing bubbles around citadels will be allowed, yes?
Placing bubbles around citadels, which can be anchored almost anywhere and can be heavily armed, will be allowed, yes?
There's certainly been no discussion of not allowing it. (because, I feel, that would be pants on head stupid)
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
|
|
|