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

EVE Information Portal Dev Blogs
,
406

I actually disagree with this change and for good reason - In the old system we had pos’s that shot at targets themselves, albeit randomized but they had the automatic feature. Citadels cost a lot more with a lot more at stake for the defender and we actually have to be present in order to fire any weapons. I think the attackers are getting a ride of all these changes, and yes some changes i absolutely welcome… but some are just killing the game for smaller individuals.

I have been in the larger alliances and i have been in smaller corps in lowsec… These changes are for the bigger alliances, not the small guy. Yes Eve is one of those games where we capitalize on death, but when you make it harder for the attacker, they come up with new and inventive ways to kill you. I don’t think that these changes are creating a balance between attacker and defender… they are creating an imbalance by allowing attackers to attack and get what they want. The current system of poses do the following:

Land on grid… and depending on ship type (cloaked/uncloaked) you will be warp scrammed/attacked and killed.

Citadels: Attackers land on grid - if you’re offline and have nobody who can defend - nothing happens. If you are online - I have a cooldown on keeping somebody on grid? what the actual hell? No…

Here’s why i like the current system of this mechanic - You only get kept there for as long as the structure is vulnerable or until you reinforce it to the next cycle - then you can leave especially if you have a superior force.

Don’t even get me started on the 24hr constant vulnerability… I didn’t invest billions in structures to have you make it easier to kill them… And not only that - it can’t defend it self, for that price tag? and i can put a POS up for half the price and it can handle itself.

For too long we have been listening to the nullsec pvp’er and shafting the lowsec/WH/high-sec community in regards to new changes… I just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading TEST’s response to the changes on the GTFO change… I’m sorry, but if someone is putting down billions of isk they should be able to make it harder for you to take it down. This isn’t EASY-Kills online… work for your damn kills! But i also understand that it shouldn’t be easy for structure owners to just play god with the ships on grid… Penalties to using such a device should be imposed… but i don’t think it should be thrown out. Where i live in Lowsec we are dropped on by people with more outside wallet than sense… and its constant… we adapt and rebuild but we still get dropped on… they hold all the cards to whether our structures live or die… and openly admit it…

I don’t want that kind of gameplay - I want some sort of control, and recruiting and joining up with bigger forces has kept them at bay for now… but these changes work in their favour… as soon as Feb 13th comes… all my structures will be reinforced thanks to these changes. And there reason for doing so is to just get a fight… im sorry but who can drop 10+ BS’s with 4 supers and a cap fleet? I think its time to abandon pvp if your small group… i get more action in SOLO eve than i do with a group… And yes i could join the right group and be all powerful blopser… but why? that is not fun for me…

CCP it’s hard to cater to all audiences, you’re company that needs to make money so you listen to the people paying your Bacon bills… but seriously consider people who are not able to have the same luxury as alliances worth trillions.

Options like 24hr Vulnerability - Fine… allow point defences on M structures/ Athanors/Astrahus’s in Lowsec. And allow it to be automated along with Missles for its own defence… we cant be online all the time - Bigger groups can, smaller ones cant. And for those that say “well you shouldn’t have a structure if you cant defend it!” Sorry… but if i want a structure i will have one… it doesn’t make it fair that you get even more opportunity to kill it anytime you damn well please. I should still have security in the fact that it can defend itself for the investment put into it.

Scram/Web - No cooldown… you’re making it way too easy on attackers. POS mechanics from the old times would allow a gunner to hold a person there for as long as the structure was able to before reinforcement. Have the same on Structures - Simple.

GTFO Device - You mentioned allowing in hi-sec… please also allow in Lowsec. This device should come with restrictions of course like not being able to move Dreads in siege or FAX’s in triage. But anything subcap. also a cooldown of 10 minutes? That way we can still maintain presence on the field to attack a structure but also screw them over with no subcap. A lone dread will be discouraged from reinforcing a structure when you’re offline… and if it does… the automated guns should be able to give him the fight he seeks.

Onlining a Citadel: TEST are crying that they will get a fight out of a structure because we have 5 minutes to online one… stop bitching about your fight TEST… It’s a huge investment in one structure and since you have the manpower already to take one on, stop with your crying. We gave the attackers the ability to shoot before a structure is anchored… they cried they wanted more opportunity to attack… they got the 15 min after the structure was anchored/online… they still cried it wasn’t long enough… Sure let’s just change that to six hours and send it region wide notifications a structure is onlining in this system next to a planet - It will also invite you into a fleet and tell you ship types to use against it and give you the fit… Jesus christ.

PVP alliances are getting a run of it, especially with these new changes. I fully agree with the changes on Low power citadels… there is just so many of them littered everywhere, let’s give people the chance to remove them if they want.

People will say “But you have 100% safety with asset safety” Maybe so… but let’s be clear - The biggest asset is not safe. The biggest asset is being destroyed and i have to pay even more isk to have my assets that i put in the structure back. Moving my ■■■■ back to NPC stations - That was a fun couple months.

Sorry not sorry for long post…

Dispenser of Salt Est. 2005™

S

9 Likes
407

Hisec moons have always been seeded and probable. You just couldn’t mine them.

1 Like
408

Seeing as you can’t put a refinery within range of a belt, this is more inherent on placement than it tracking anything specific.

409

And YET this does not mean there is a correlation. Just because you can’t imagine something else does not mean your idea is the only one.
Just because NOBODY finds another explanation does NOT mean it is a correct explanation.
you are talking so much nonsense …

The only thing you have here is HINTS. ONCE you have a correlation, you can propose a causation ; and THEN you make experimentations with a rigorous protocol to prove that there is a causation. THAT is the only way to show a causation : make X move and show that when you only make X move, then Y moves to along the way.

Until then you only have correlations, which are present or not depending on the way you look at data. So many people do those mistakes.
You have to accept there are things you don’t know, you will never know, you are not able to know, and to accept there are thing that seem obvious to you and are actually false.

410

Pretty sure he’s referring to the belt CREATED by the refinery during moon mining.

411

Of course there is correlation. I think you meant causation.

Yes I know. I’m a scientist by profession, which is why I have tried validating several explanations.

So sure I might be talking nonsense, however I at least understand the terminology. But good forum warrioring though. Buzzwords (even used incorrectly), look so impressive.

412

oooopsy you’re right :smiley:

413

Yes I’m aware. My point is the refinery only cares about what’s in front of its face and counts it when it’s mined. There’s no reason to believe that there is some hidden tag in the database that says who “owns” an asteroid.

414

To clarify: if carrier has fighters out and then warps into citadel without timers will it be tethered?

1 Like
415

I see I am a few days late to the convo. Hopefully not too late.

Lots of great features coming out in the 13FEB2018 update. The vast majority are some very welcome changes. I appreciate all the back and forth I hear has gone into it.

I am having some issue on the tackle. To me, having the structure vulnerable 24/7 makes sense as that was the POS mechanic. An EvE player created / destructible environment seems a great way to go.

Not having full use of structure tackle seems to make no sense. Citadels ultimately will replace fully automated POS’s which have an array of Points,webs,neuts and weapons that attack any neutral or foe 24/7 . Citadels must be manned and ALL modules must be manually activated. That seems a significant balancing in and of it self.

I can see limiting structures to one Point, One Web each. However, 30 second activation and 60 minute cooldown seems harsh and fundamentally de-fangs any structure in corps not enjoying a robust defense fleet on hot standby. Shouldn’t the defending structure have a strong defense.

Sure its OP if you compare any one structure vs any one vessel. With just one point, the structure can only kill one vessel at a time [not factoring attacker logi] while a fleet is attacking the structure.

1 Like
416

Really? Have you actually tried this? Because it doesn’t seem to work now…

417

Yeah, you could certainly scan them. I’ve done it myself. Just assume they’ll change the seed mix of wh and high sec moons when it goes live.

1 Like
418

@CCP_Fozzie

Given CCPs inability to deal with tidi and server load I have a few issues I want to raise in regard to the keepstar fight:

  1. Carrier and Super carriers took forever to replace their fighters if they were able to do so at all.
  2. People who ran out of ammo couldn’t reload their guns.

These basic functions are required to apply DPS and were heavily impacted by time dilation when the repair timer on the structure was not. This meant we had to be able to constantly apply higher dps than usual, and therefore have more people on grid than usual. The server was unable to cope with the number of people in the system off the get go and so this is a problem. Will CCP look at addressing this issue?

  1. Tons of people DCed and were not able to log back in. I spent an hour and others spent several hours after selecting a character getting the error message Delay in getting information from the server for 5, 10, 15, 20, 40, 1h (and so on). After an hour of waiting several people on both sides would get a message, their login and failed and they had to start all over again.

I recall back in the olden days where there were literally queues of people trying to get into Jita on a Saturday morning; If you were logged out, trying to log in would end up failing after a short time where you would get a message saying please chose another system nearby.

Why is this not a thing anymore, tons of people were outright unable to log back into game at all.

  1. Tidi caused UIs to break right up to and including one point where I had no in game windows it was as if I had pressed Ctrl+F9.

Given UI issues and massive non-recoverable disconnection will the Game Masters be reimbursing losses that may have been as a result of these issues?

I have been informed that requests of this nature have been or will be denied. So, I am hoping someone from the GM team could answer this one, if the game cannot handle such a high load and it causes issues leading to pilot’s death in such a way that a pilot is unable to do anything to prevent it why should this not be reimbursable? (especially if CCP doesn’t make changes to prevent these issues)

If the to any of the questions above is no, why not?

Edited to make a little more sense now that I have had a few hours sleep.

2 Likes
419

None of those things are related to Tidi. They are in fact the very things Tidi is about avoiding.
Without Tidi, those errors would happen at 1/10th the size fights.
If you choose to dog pile a system to the sheer limit of it’s capacity to let people jump in, of course it’s going to overload the node and cause errors.

Though yes, I do think the Repair timer should be affected by Tidi. The only fights that it would stretch to 150 minutes on are already fights where large fleets are committed on both sides and both sides are likely to continue to fight for near that time regardless of the timer just due to the requirements of extracting a fleet under tidi.

1 Like
420

That’s kind of my point. I understand that tidi is meant to slow things down so the server can cloak. But in this instance (the large fleet engagements that bring publicity to Eve, in theory something CCP wants) the objective ticks away in real time while the time it takes to reload ammo, something that is needed to be able to keep the timer paused happens at a way slower rate.

421

Do we get fighters loaded in citadel tubes and stored in citadel fighter hangars turned into STandup fighters?

2 Likes
422

+1 , now we see you may attack, but any way in Prime Day you may finish… ,
But that easy fix, CCP dont want i think it :wink: More citadel in overview )

Easy FIX remove Prime day!! Use time for different space to final timer, dint use day, and that will work Fine, like a POS, but stay a chance change Prime time for defense side may dooing that in PRIME TIME owner citadel

“I am having some issue on the tackle. To me, having the structure vulnerable 24/7 makes sense as that was the POS mechanic. An EvE player created / destructible environment seems a great way to go.”

P.S sorry for bad eng…

423

Maybe you could, but now you can’t. Fire a probe, wait for results, comes back with “0”. I got three others to also try, under the likely supposition I was just being stupid, but they all reported the same. Same moon, same approach, same technique on SiSi always yields the expected results.

424

At all times when a ship has fighters launched and connected, they will be unable to tether. Fighters must be returned or abandoned to be able to tether.

No, on release day players will have to replace them with Standup Fighters. Standup Fighters will require a normal version plus some extra material to manufacture.

3 Likes
425

Can you guys now (after the 9-4 joke of a battle) acknowledge that citadels are way too strong (and inexpensive by the way)?

I mean if something has been proven last night is that the big coalitions can sleep on both ears now because their Keepstars are safe and won’t be destroyed in the current state of things.

The only thing citadels enable is cheesy gameplay because of unbalanced and terribly designed mechanics like the tether and the auto repair timer.

Please, for the sake of this game, you need to really rethink entirely what you’re doing with them. They need a complete overhaul, not an half-assed patch like this which most likely won’t change anything significantly.

2 Likes