Skip to main content

Eve Vegas 2015: Structure Round Table

The structure round table was good. I missed a good bit needing to discuss other things. Such as Faction Warfare.

The first question was about granularity of access for players and corporations in a Citadel.
You can set up different accesses for individuals. You will get a corporate office with the Citadel. There are modules (or rigs? I forget which) that will add more corporate offices.

Q: Group Storage - Meaning can different corporations share storage access. Example: I have five alt corporations that use one structure. Can they take and put into the same hangars.
A: No. This has been looked into and there are technical limitations that prevent this. However, we are looking at a way to drop items on another person. Something like a contract that they do not have to accept.

Q: The amount of damage to hit the damage cap
A: That number may change as the capitals change. We are working with the capital team

Q: Can you change corporations in a Citadel?
A: Yes

Q: Can I kick people out of the guns if I have better skills?
A: Depending on roles and permissions you will be able to take over the guns from someone else.

Q: What happens to all of the POS stuff?
A: There is going to be some type of refund

Q: What about the research time that we have put into the items?
A: We can and have calculated that cost in the past such as when the compression blueprints where removed. We will do so again.

Q: Insurance?
A: We are trying to figure out how to do it.

Q: Supers?
A: They will be built in the assembly arrays. We are keeping the sovereignty requirements.

Q: How many offices are going to be available?
A: Base number with each size and then rigs to have more. See the dev blog.

Q: High sec aggression mechanics?
A: Citadels cannot do criminal acts
(Or as someone said later, Citadel always have a 'green' safety)

Q: Citadels in Thera?
A: No

Q: Citadel in shattered wormholes?
A: No

Q: Observatory array? Can we have more information as tot he capabilities?
A: No. We are not there yet

Q: How many can I put in a system?
A: As many as you want... actually we will be putting in some artificial number cap.

Q: Faction Warfare and Citadels, Stating issues?
A: We are currently discussing this. Sugar Kyle has brought this topic up
(Note: Cuz I haz)

Q: Comment about people trashing everything and not getting drops in wormhole space
A: We can disable various abilities when it is in reinforcement. We can disable thrashing once it is under attack for instance.

Q: Will there be a difference in anchoring times in Sov?
A: Yes. We are looking at anchoring delays for non-holders. We are looking at shorter timers for holders.

Q: Only large Citadel dock capitals. We will need to launch larges in wormhole space but we cannot get a freighter in.
A: This came up in main room. We need to look at it being easier to get a large Citadel into a wormhole

Q: What is happening to NPC stations?
A: NPC Stations will always have a place. They will always exist. We want to make Citadel more competitive. Such as markets. The structure owner keeps most of the taxes. There will always be a NPC sink attached but we'd like it to be that a structure owner could make it appealing to market from their Citadel instead of the NPC station.

There where some more questions but I was distracted with a few conversations and had to creep out to do something. That evening I listened to some very upset wormhole residents about the large in Citadel thing. Corbexx has already been reaching out to people and getting Nullarbor out to talk to groups. In general, he and I have pounced on that topic.

The next issue on my list is Structure's in Faction Warfare space.

Faction Warfare and Citadels: Anchoring Discussion 

Faction Warfare and Citadels: Bonuses

And after the round tables, I will start working on the FAQ update.


  1. does anyone have full recording (soundcloud or something) of this roundtable?

  2. Just 2รง on Citadels as market hubs...

    Market hubs thrive on being commercially competitive and safe. I see they want to use taxes for the competition thing (supply and pricing are different beast, out of CCP's hands)

    As for safety, by design, Citadels are not safe. Feed a Citadel market hub, go on vacation and two months later all your stores are gone into a random lowsec system or to another Citadel in a unknown locatiton (but within same system), and anyway you gotta pay a tax for them.

    Or, you can stick to NPC stations with no storage risk.

    Not seeing Citadels as market hubs, frankly. vov

    1. Rest assured goons will have a Citadel up in Jita or one jump away, and will strive to monetize every transaction that occurs in Jita, as they will shut down 4-4 by force if necessary, or more likely by undercutting the tax rates.

    2. Think player market citadels will serve the purpose: a relief valve for underserved areas. More likely in the "M" and "L" size, as "XL" will be stupendously expensive PvP targets.

      Major alliances can't be everywhere. Complaints are emerging that the vulnerability windows for the "M" size are so narrow, and the cost so low, that their proliferation will be difficult and/or tedious to "control."

      Nonetheless, the risk of having your assets involuntarily relocated and their recovery taxed, is well taken.

      I believe the inertia and inventory that Jita 4-4 has built up over the years will see it continue to stand as a major focus, even with an Imperium-administered alternative nearby.

      Everyone with standings will be happy to shop there, everyone else will have to check that what they need to buy is stocked there, and that the tax discount is worth the detour. I don't think CCP will permit player structures in Jita... but the reason is a technical one of server load... perhaps Brain-in-Box and new TQ hardware will permit looking at that again.

      Sellers have to decide if Jita alternatives will draw enough traffic for their wares, considering Jita 4-4 stocks every item available and will be the first go-to in most player's minds, for a considerable time.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe one day!

 [15:32:10] Trig Vaulter > Sugar Kyle Nice bio - so carebear sweet - oh you have a 50m ISK bounty - so someday more grizzly  [15:32:38 ] Sugar Kyle > /emote raises an eyebrow to Trig  [15:32:40 ] Sugar Kyle > okay :)  [15:32:52 ] Sugar Kyle > maybe one day I will try PvP out When I logged in one of the first things I did was answer a question in Eve Uni Public Help. It was a random question that I knew the answer of. I have 'Sugar' as a keyword so it highlights green and catches my attention. This made me chuckle. Maybe I'll have to go and see what it is like to shoot a ship one day? I could not help but smile. Basi suggested that I put my Titan killmail in my bio and assert my badassery. I figure, naw. It was a roll of the dice that landed me that kill mail. It doesn't define me as a person. Bios are interesting. The idea of a biography is a way to personalize your account. You can learn a lot about a person by what they choose to put in their bio

Taboo Questions

Let us talk contentious things. What about high sec? When will CCP pay attention to high sec and those that cannot spend their time in dangerous space?  This is somewhat how the day started, sparked by a question from an anonymous poster. Speaking about high sec, in general, is one of the hardest things to do. The amount of emotion wrapped around the topic is staggering. There are people who want to stay in high sec and nothing will make them leave. There are people who want no one to stay in high sec and wish to cripple everything about it. There are people in between, but the two extremes are large and emotional in discussion. My belief is simple. If a player wishes to live in high sec, I do not believe that anything will make them leave that is not their own curiosity. I do not believe that we can beat people out of high sec or destroy it until they go to other areas of space. Sometimes, I think we forget that every player has the option to not log back in. We want them to log


Halycon said it quite well in a comment he left about the skill point trading proposal for skill point changes. He is conflicted in many different ways. So am I. Somedays, I don't want to be open minded. I do not want to see other points of view. I want to not like things and not feel good about them and it be okay. That is something that is denied me for now. I've stated my opinion about the first round of proposals to trade skills. I don't like them. That isn't good enough. I have to answer why. Others do not like it as well. I cannot escape over to their side and be unhappy with them. I am dragged away and challenged about my distaste.  Some of the people I like most think the change is good. Other's think it has little meaning. They want to know why I don't like it. When this was proposed at the CSM summit, I swiveled my chair and asked if they realized that they were undoing the basic structure that characters and game progression worked under. They said th