Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Raz Xym
Speaker for the Dead Get Off My Lawn
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:08:27 -
[61] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote: ...
Was the idea of having the asset security for Citadels in Low Class wormholes, but not High Class ever discussed? My thought was to have Asset Safety in C1-C4, but not C5-C6.
...
Or perhaps having a mechanic tied any known space statics? If you have a hi-sec static, then it perhaps gets hi-sec options? Low-sec, only low sec options. I guess if it null-sec they would need to ensure NPC null is always an option?
Just an idea to add exaggerate variance and different desirability to wormholes of the same class.
I think most WH dwellers will want no asset security, but I figured this option might be interesting if they did implement some version of asset security. |
Bed Bugg
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:10:03 -
[62] - Quote
RL mostly. Work, kids summer. But I have been around. I have voiced my concerns.
There is a definite group of folks who push this meta for sure.
Just think folks should know who is responsible when the unintended consequences of this turns WH space into a wasteland.
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
4885
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:11:53 -
[63] - Quote
I like the wormhole changes, but I do think people should have somewhat safer options, perhaps tied to the class of space and also to size of citadel. Maybe let medium citadels in C1-3 have some partial loot safety (perhaps only the build a new citadel to have the items delivered option), so people can still be hit, and they would have to stick around to get their stuff back.
Also, as suggested above, a minimum average DPS to reset the repair timer seems totally reasonable to me.
CSM 7 Secretary
CSM 6 Alternate Delegate
@two_step_eve on Twitter
My Blog
|
Ransu Asanari
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
356
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:13:13 -
[64] - Quote
Raz Xym - I can't see that working - and we still want structures to behave consistently in W-Space... I think that would add to much confusion, especially since the static connections aren't immediately obvious when you enter the system; unlike the system-wide effects. |
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
147
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:15:06 -
[65] - Quote
Still digesting the changes, but wanted to say, massive respect for the thoughtfulness with which you have reconsidered everything. |
Tritis Mentari
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:15:06 -
[66] - Quote
Is it a design choice that as long as no one notices your anchoring structure in highsec for the first 15 minutes, they won't be able to wardec you in time to prevent its successful deployment? |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3203
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:15:40 -
[67] - Quote
The vulnerability windows are still ridiculously short. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1439
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:19:33 -
[68] - Quote
Tritis Mentari wrote:Is it a design choice that as long as no one notices your anchoring structure in highsec during the first 15 minutes, they won't be able to wardec you in time to prevent its successful deployment?
Yes.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Jon Hellguard
X-COM
40
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:21:33 -
[69] - Quote
I'm glad to see HP based combat will remain. I like the migi... whatever that word that brings attack times in line. A few more notes on timers and asset safety i'd like to point out:
> Destroying a structure, like the medium one in the example, needs to be do-able within a reasonable amount of time. Keep those timers reasonable. You already transfer the time-window advantage from the agressor to the defender - this should be enough "safety" and advantage any owner can wish for. Best you can do to motivate agressors is to keep the timers between attack phases within a reasonable time.
> I still strongly disagree on asset safety. The owners advantage mentioned above is already a good safety mechanic. There needs to be no 100% safety by NPC ninja's that get your stuff out. I'd love to see at least wormhole structures drop according to the ship loot mechanics.
> Wormhole gameplay matters a lot based on being able to see what the locals do inside their forcefields. What ships they have ready or switch to and also if they are even online. Is there any plan to keep that alive? I'd love to have a way to know wether players are around or not. Today, a lot of fights start out from the fact, that one party knows the other is around and stays around waiting for the time to act or bait or whatever.... |
Bed Bugg
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:29:32 -
[70] - Quote
Jon Hellguard wrote:I'm glad to see HP based combat will remain. I like the migi... whatever that word that brings attack times in line. A few more notes on timers and asset safety i'd like to point out:
> Destroying a structure, like the medium one in the example, needs to be do-able within a reasonable amount of time. Keep those timers reasonable. You already transfer the time-window advantage from the agressor to the defender - this should be enough "safety" and advantage any owner can wish for. Best you can do to motivate agressors is to keep the timers between attack phases within a reasonable time.
> I still strongly disagree on asset safety. The owners advantage mentioned above is already a good safety mechanic. There needs to be no 100% safety by NPC ninja's that get your stuff out. I'd love to see at least wormhole structures drop according to the ship loot mechanics.
> Wormhole gameplay matters a lot based on being able to see what the locals do inside their forcefields. What ships they have ready or switch to and also if they are even online. Is there any plan to keep that alive? I'd love to have a way to know wether players are around or not. Today, a lot of fights start out from the fact, that one party knows the other is around and stays around waiting for the time to act or bait or whatever....
So basically 100% of the benefits to the aggressors? Well thought out. |
|
Keaden Aemar
4 Marketeers Rura-Penthe
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:38:05 -
[71] - Quote
Barubary Evans wrote:Bed Bugg wrote:Wow GÇô all great except the unbelievably sh*ty wormhole idiocy.
...
Way to go! You have now made 90% of the features for citadels worthless in WH space.
You realize that Wormholers basically asked for the Wormhole exceptions, leaving WSpace a risky venture? There have been meetings and gatherings and townhalls and a fair amount of chat in no small number of boards, forums, and threads, and the overwhelming response has been pushing for such WH exceptions. If you don't like them, where were you when they were being talked about?
Seems like the only people attending those townhalls were the ones who almost exclusively pvp'd in wormholes. As a C2 dweller, I'm not a fan of the exceptions planned for wormhole space. I feel like there shouldn't be any more or less security than null sec. |
Nou Mene
Out of Focus Odin's Call
11
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:45:25 -
[72] - Quote
Great work, keep it up!!
What would you think about making it possible to use Entosis in some way? Suggesting different options:
a) Entosis disables shields (so first reinforcement); b) Entosis increases dps mitigation barrier c) Entosis changes resist profiles
and also, if damage (and skin) is back in the game, couldnt vulnerability windows get a little bit bigger?
Greetings
|
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
449
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:54:21 -
[73] - Quote
Keaden Aemar wrote: Seems like the only people attending those townhalls were the ones who almost exclusively pvp'd in wormholes. As a C2 dweller, I'm not a fan of the exceptions planned for wormhole space. I feel like there shouldn't be any more or less security than null sec.
W-space is not an extension of nullsec, as much as it may seem that way sometimes. |
Current Habit
Rusty Pricks
55
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:54:25 -
[74] - Quote
I would be fine with those changes if I didn't knew (and hadn't used) Slippery petes, sniping tornados and similar long range, hard to probe ships that don't commit whatsoever while dealing enough damage to overpower any threshold.
This leaves the defenders with no way to force a fight while the attacker slowly grinds the structure HP. |
SpaceSaft
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club
160
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 17:59:56 -
[75] - Quote
I like that I don't have to waste isk on expensive modules now.
The concern I have is that I don't see how this is supposed to produce any content.
Time windows are very small.
Sitting around the same thing for 30 minutes is not something people will want to do either. Even though they're shooting, even though they will have friends with them.
It does not touch the n+1 issue, it does not offer any new tactical toys or chocies as far as I can see.
If you think ANYONE is going to bring anything but a dread to shoot even the smallest stuff, you're lying to yourself.
Can't you give the structures some kind of assault number parity? You need to have at least 15 people shooting at it, no matter the ship size for it to work? Something where 15 frigs = 15 dreads?
Attackers wouldn't have to invest as much, defenders could engage easier targets and if the attacker wants to roflstomp something with 500ppl fleets they still can? |
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Spaceship Bebop
422
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:01:29 -
[76] - Quote
I like the DPS mitigation idea (I actually suggested something similar years ago), but I'm worried about the gameplay that will involve around this. Nobody "small" will drop dreads on a structure, it is just to dangerous as 30 minutes is long enough for somebody bigger to come by and hot drop O'Clock.
The most effective force for grinding a structure will be stealth bombers. At 500-600dps each, we are talking about a really low number, 8 for small and 24 for large, to reach the max dps. If the defender shows up, they just cloak and warp off. They have 15, 30, or 60 minutes to reship and come back and fight it they want to. That is plenty of time. The attacker really gets to dictate the fight and there is no chance for the defender to get the drop on the initial reinforcement.
Ninja dreads were an interesting form of game play where the attacker risked a lot on the initial reinforcement (ie drop dreads), as there was a high probability they could be gone before anybody noticed. If they were noticed during the 5 minutes, it was a fun fight for both sides (ie attack/defend in under 5 minutes before the big targets in space jumped out). WIth the new system, nobody is going to put up a bullseye like that by dropping dreads as it's near 100% chance you will be noticed in 30 minutes. The only people that will drop dreads are those that drop small dreads and a cyno on multiple targets and then have 500 people and 100 supers ready to bridge in wherever needed.
This isn't all bad, but I will miss the risk/reward factor with reinforcing a structure. There is now nothing to gain by risking more valuable targets on the field.
Also, POCO's should also be changed in the same manner as Citadel's, it will get to confusing if they are not.
.
|
Oskolda Eriker
Maple Leafs Nation Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:03:12 -
[77] - Quote
You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
553
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:09:27 -
[78] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Tritis Mentari wrote:Is it a design choice that as long as no one notices your anchoring structure in highsec during the first 15 minutes, they won't be able to wardec you in time to prevent its successful deployment? Yes.
At which point a citadel will appear at the list of warpable objects in system? When anchored or when fully deployed?
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
Ben Ishikela
60
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:13:20 -
[79] - Quote
Sooooo goood! +1+1+1+1
BUT issues: - Unanchoring a highsec structure when in the 24h waiting time to being wardecced. evasion still possible? or is the unanchortime with a 24h wait before removed from space?
- What about removing the Shield of Stations inside of Wormhole space? -- because of natural phenomena *hrhr* -- - - - Thera and shattered could also remove armor as well. Then its very risky but still possible to stage there. Because it would be awesome.
^^this is on my principle that its better to desincentivice than to forbid.
Remove JumpFreighters/CloakHauler/CloakTrick and make a new T2Freighter(mjd+fleethangar+dock+T2resists-JumpDrive). Because we need more opportunities for piracy, escorts and decentralised economy!
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1971
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:13:28 -
[80] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Oskolda Eriker
Maple Leafs Nation Dark Pride Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:15:20 -
[81] - Quote
Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee. W-Space. Wormholes. WH says something? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1444
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:16:43 -
[82] - Quote
Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee.
And its free if being recovered in the same system.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Eris Tsasa
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:16:49 -
[83] - Quote
Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee.
I thought it was said somewhere that if you're in a ship, and logged off, when the structure is destroyed, the ship goes pop along with your pod. I assume that's what that person was referring to.
On a related note, to Oskolda, Just defend your stuff and you won't have to worry. |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1444
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:17:59 -
[84] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:You cant lose you ship. when you logoffed in SPACE. but you can when you logoffed on STATION. Great innovation CCP in W-space Wonders are all around!
Asset safety doesn't mean losing your ship. You can get it back, albeit after paying a fee. W-Space. Wormholes. WH says something?
I missed this too, and good point about logging off in wspace. We might let you keep your active ship if it explodes, to maintain consistency with logging off in a POS.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
Dreiden Kisada
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:18:17 -
[85] - Quote
The reinforcement system on POSes ensures that both the Attacker and the Defender get to pick a time for their fight.
The current system is entirely for the defender.
If you made it so that the Citadel is always vulnerable on shield, but the other two are only vulnerable when the defender chooses, that would go a long way to evening things out.
Also, I don't think the entire structure should rep. If the attacker gets it down to structure but fails to finish the job, them have it rep up structure. If it survives next vulnerability window, then it reps armor. Then again for shields. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
434
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:22:56 -
[86] - Quote
I am happy mostly with these changes. However i still don't like a massive big arse battle station that will just sit there with its finger up its arse while its getting shot.
As a small wormhole corp i will struggle to be on every timer since i have a job and a life. Where a drive by can just reinforce it in 30mins is crazy when it won't shoot back. You say it gives a false sense of security? Well then what is wrong with letting us have that? And its not. A single dread can't take on a death star (large) solo right now. But if structures don't shoot back they could.
As for asset safety and logging off in space. The problem isn't that assets aren't safe in a citadel (in WH space), it is that log off in space mechanics is overpowered. Nurf log off mechanics.
Personally i still think there should be more asset attrition in all parts of space if your station blows up. Your space station getting blown up should hurt. But it also should shoot back.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
5367
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:24:18 -
[87] - Quote
Quote:By Team Game of Drones Soft Croissant IncorporatedGäó Croque-Monsieur ConglomerateGäó (CMC)
Oh c'mon, we know who really wrote it! |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
274
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:29:42 -
[88] - Quote
I'm still processing this, but my gut reaction is that FOR HIGHSEC, the attacker investment is unreasonable and doubly so given the returns.
- You need either a spy with roles, quite likely director level (in which case you might as well steal their assets), or absolute no life scouts who can watch a structure 24 hours a day for a whole week to determine vulnerability timers.
- You need a wardec, incurring immediate costs and giving the defenders notice and a chance to simply empty and take down the structure and not give a damn. During every week of this wardec you will only have the vulnerability windows available. (QUESTION: What are the conditions and delays involved in changing vulnerability windows? I feel like this was already answered in one of the blogs but I can't find it.)
- Wardecced corps still get free allies.
- You need to turn up at whatever ridiculous time the vulnerability is set to, which could be right before downtime. (QUESTION: what happens if a repair timer is running at downtime? What happens if a structure would go back into the repair state after reinforcement during downtime?)
- You need by your own figures a hundred strong battleship fleet to reach the DPS cap for XL structures which you seem to be planning to allow in highsec. Personally I would actually say that people will in the absence of pos shields use things like blaster megathrons so the figure is a bit lower but this is still a lot of dps to deal with a structure that may be deployed by one guy and his five alts.
- In the absence of information on the reinforcement timers I'm left unsure whether the fleet has to either stay up all night starting at some dumb time the owner corp has set the vulnerability timer to or turn up at said dumb time three days in a row or whether any citadel kill will require a campaign over a multiple weekend wardec AND turning up in the middle of the night local time repeatedly.
- Defenders who can't field a proper fleet get strong defense options from the citadel fitting with no disadvantage to using them because they are not fielding anything that wasn't already at risk.
- You get nothing delicious like BPOs anyway if you reach this point because you decided to make nearly nothing drop.
Final question: given all the above, why would anyone but the absolute largest wardeccers and possibly not even them want to go through all this to kill a citadel? |
Raz Xym
Speaker for the Dead Get Off My Lawn
5
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:35:25 -
[89] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:Raz Xym - I can't see that working - and we still want structures to behave consistently in W-Space... I think that would add to much confusion, especially since the static connections aren't immediately obvious when you enter the system; unlike the system-wide effects.
Well you want them to operate differently depending on class. And if you are putting up a citadel in a wh without knowing your statics, I am scared.
But I can see your point, it is slightly more complex than some other options. |
Current Habit
Rusty Pricks
55
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 18:35:54 -
[90] - Quote
Quick question regarding the icon showing how long until the next vulnerability timer:
In this devblog image the icon shows that the time until the next vulnerability window is almost 2/3 done and the time remaining says it's roughly 15h until this window. This would mean the time between the last vulnerability window and the next is roughly 45h, giving us hints how the vulnerability schedule might look like.
Is it safe to do this kind of math ? Currently, the bar showing how long a POS is still reinforced resets every time the viewing person leaves and comes back to grid, rendering such guesstimating moot). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |