Dev blog: Upwell 2.0 - Structures Changes Coming On February 13th!


(Querns) #22

My guess is that, like my question about filtering based on whether you can access the structure, it’ll require additional UI work and won’t be a thing on the initial release.

(Querns) #23

Will the new Standup Warp Scrambler continue to have a 250km maximum range?

(Sage Mo) #24
  1. “Lower Power” seems like an amazing change. Thank you.
  2. New Vulnerability and Reinforcement System - This doesn’t make anything easier and less grindy. We have asset safety, why do we need 3 times for all the structures? Honestly, 3 timers for keepstars, 2 for forts, and 1 for everything else seems fine. Citadels are grindy. No one enjoys it. Make it fun. And forcing PvE scanning in PvP is horrible.
  3. GTFO in TiDi sounds like absolute hell.
  4. Overall, nothing is done to address the grindiness of citadels except for those that are abandoned (and that change is appreciated). Also, citadels are getting buffs in every other way (the opposite of what is needed).

(Corraidhin Farsaidh) #25

Wow, WH groups get shafted on the reinforce times hugely, especially since we have no asset safety. Why exactly should our defence be made even more difficult?

(Jeremiah Saken) #26

Why both analyzers can be used to hack the citadels? Since when they become relics is space now?

(Rosewalker) #27

Is hacking a structure in high sec to get the timer information considered an aggressive act? If so, will the hacker get a suspect flag or CONCORDed? And will the flag occur at the start of the hack, or upon completion of the hack?

(Old Pervert) #28

Purely because I think it would be more “immersive”, I would suggest that a low power structure simply not have shields. The first cycle just chews into armor. “We’re running on low power, our armor is… gone?” doesn’t make a lot of sense. “We’re running on low power, shields are off” makes a lot more sense.

That said, I LOVE this change regardless of how it looks on the outside.

(hawkeye al) #29

While the structure is in the 24 hour vulnerable status, will it be able to scram/point throughout that time? Or only once it is attacked?

(Rainus Max) #30

The targeting range increase is nice but doesn’t really help deal with carriers and supers that are parked up to 5000km away and fighters orbit outside of the point defence range.

Could we get something like an anti-fighter bomb or a directed point defence/flak cannon that can take out some of the fighters. The Horde v Goon fighter ball was stupid.

Could you also increase the minimum anchor distance between structures to over 5000km?

A few other thoughts:

  • It would be nice if I could copy/paste or export the data stored in the structure browser to the clipboard
  • Some filters in the “my structures” browser would be useful (type, location, services etc)
  • Can you open up the citadel fuel/item hangers so I don’t have to take control to access
  • Can we get the moon goos listed against each refinery in the my structures (maybe restrict to directors/CEO)
  • Can we have the ability to see the fitting of a citadel remotely (with sufficient access rights of course)
  • Can we get an alert when a structure is dropped in our sov space like the old POS system?
  • could we have a Citadel item hanger - storage of spare mods, I’d prefer not to have potentially dozens of corp hangers just to store a couple of launchers.
  • Can the 15min anchoring/onlining window be increased if you are dropping the structure in hostile space

(Querns) #31

They actually address this in the devblog. The act of having fighters in space will disallow you from tethering.

(Tribal Trogdor) #32

I think in general its good changes. I think the reac timer needs to apply to the neuts as well, they’re just as oppressive as the web/scram is.

I think there should be bigger windows around the vuln hour for smaller structures.

I think the GTFO needs to GTFO. I dont think the person who thought it was a good idea thought of the fact that citadels rep in real time while you warp back in tidi time.

I think the rep timers need another 15 mins added on if theres no plan to fix the timers in tidi.

These are the things I think!

(Drake III) #33

The shields are being run still to avoid small space junk from hitting the structure and damaging it. The armor is energized and requires a vast amount of power to maintain. The armor is still there the bullets are just goinh right through it

(Rainus Max) #34

True but unless you can out number your attackers you cant really do much damage unless they screw up. It would be nice if I could DD a few of their carriers / supers and make attacking a keepstar dangerous for all not just for those that cant bring overwhelming capital forces.

(Old Pervert) #35

You’re talking abuot different issues.

The issue @rainus_max is talking about is that carriers can engage the citadel from well outside of the citadel’s engagement range, with fighters being too small for targeted weapons to effectively damage and too far out for PD to engage.

Not that carriers can stay tethered while they stage their fighters. Which I agree was a problem, just not his concern that he brought up.

(Orontes Ovasi) #36

True but unless you can out number your attackers you cant really do much damage unless they screw up. It would be nice if I could DD a few of their carriers / supers and make attacking a keepstar dangerous for all not just for those that cant bring overwhelming capital forces.

“let me do damage to someone risking ‘overwhelming capital forces’ to shoot my keepstar, for free”

(Anderson Geten) #37

omg this looks so good !

(Tribal Trogdor) #38

Bring subs to defend your stuff? Park them opposite side of the citadel as the carriers and kill fighters as they orbit. If the carriers want to shoot you, they have to drive their fighters through the structure PDS, or go all the way around.

(Rowells) #39

Structure tackle modules will also be receiving major updates with this release…

I’ve got a few points/questions on this.

  • Is there a limit to number of superweapons or duplicate types on Fitting?

  • Will structures continue to have the same type ratio limitations with fighters as they do now? Any chances we could see that expanded a bit? I really feel like fighters are a good place to focus some defense mechanics on since their counters and limitations are already fairly balanced.

  • In regards to scramblers and webs, and also considering the new superweapons as well, I feel like these modules could still use a bit of toning down. They are one of the major factors that influence viability of different doctrines from being used on grid or engaging the structure. I feel it might be beneficial if the scram was changed to a disruptor, and the deactivation delay of the disruptors and webs was reduced to 30 seconds instead of 60. Depending on the limitations of the superweapons, this could still lead to scenarios where mobility and extraction capability are hampered to a very high degree. I’ll have to double check some numbers on the superweapons, but I think that the combination of the superweapons, disruption/webbing fighters, and the standup scram/web is just a lot to deal with at once.

  • The GTFO module seems like it could be broken in this case. Unless I’ve missed a change, the GTFO does three things at once: it has a massive energy neutralization penalty near the host ship, it takes a 20km diameter sphere of ships and sends them away to parts unknown, and acts like a pseudo-warp bubble by preventing ships from warping for 30 (60?) seconds. Part of my question asks how/if these features will still apply. Assuming it applies as stated in the stats, this combined with the numerous other modules on a structure could make fighting on a Large or Extra-Large grid extremely time consuming if not just a massive headache for any hostiles. Forgive me if I don’t fully understand how the module works (never used it myself), but this module could have overly extreme impacts on citadel fights, and at a fraction of the cost of the Titans they are currently limited to. Perhaps it would be better to use the phenomena generators here instead. It could put a hindrance on enemy fleets, or be utilized to give advantage to friendly ones. They’re also much more straightforward in counterplay than the GTFO.

(Rainus Max) #40

I not saying let me devastate a 500 super fleet with nothing but a keepstar but taking down a handful would of them would be nice, it is a 300 Bill structure after all.

(Ncc 1709) #41

Still no defensive against carrier swarms sitting out at 4000km…