Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Ransu Asanari
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
461
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 21:21:08 -
[121] - Quote
I'm glad we're finally talking about build components for Citadels. I have to say, it's pretty much what I expected, and that disappoints me somewhat.
I'm glad the PI requirements are staying equivalent so there is still demand for products in the PI chain.
The plan to use T1 and T2 Salvage will greatly increase the value of salvage from Relic Sites, as well as salvaging wrecks from sites. So the planned change will be a net boost to the value of Relic Sites - but I don't see anything in the devblog on helping fix value for Data Sites.
The current Faction POS Tower and Module BPCs are only found in Data Sites via Exploration. Since these will be made obsolete when Citadels come along, I was hoping there would be some mention of how they would be replaced. Since the Citadels are not Faction specific anymore, that precludes the base structure having faction versions.
In the devblog it was stated "If and when we release Tech II or faction modules the material build-up will be properly modified to match." So that means there aren't plans to release Faction Citadel Modules to replace Faction POS Modules at this launch?
The "High-Tech" items, as well as the Faction Materials (Positron Cords, Electric Conduits) that used to be for building Interfaces for invention before they were removed from the game still have no real use in manufacturing. I was hoping maybe they would find some use in the Sovereignty or Citadel Structure build chain to give them some value.
CCP RedDawn stated in the current Exploration Site feedback that there is a plan to replace the POS based drops once Citadels come out, but I don't see anything in this Devblog on how. Could you elaborate, or is this still in the works?
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
4077
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 21:29:34 -
[122] - Quote
Can you imagine someone joining EVE just to owe one of this new structures...?
Neither I...
CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now".
62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?"
CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
|
Sir SmashAlot
The League of Extraordinary Opportunists Intergalactic Conservation Movement
186
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 21:41:14 -
[123] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Can you imagine someone joining EVE just to owe one of this new structures...? Neither I...
When the story breaks out about the fight that resulted in the destruction of the first XL citadel with x number of supers docked. I would say Hells Yah! Or the number of supers/capitals/sub caps expended in its destruction.
Or a coalitions attempt to dead zone an asset holding system to force users to pay for relocation fees effectively shotguning the losing groups assets all over new eden. I would say Hells Yah! |
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
25
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 21:44:41 -
[124] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:Can you please consider adding a defensive module (or rig) for something like "Overview Inhibitor"? The idea being that the citadel (or structure) will NOT show up on the overview but instead will need to be found by dscan and then probing it down (non-trivial to probe down, maybe even requiring sister's+virtues)? The idea being to give the little guy a chance to hide a medium citadel in unused space. The system "owner" will require real work (probing down each system) to find any unwelcome guests rather than just flying a fast interceptor through space and looking at the overview.
My main concern (in lowsec) is that the more powerful groups will just go after citadels for giggles because they can. If they want to actively hunt me and look for targets, then so be it. However, they should at least put in some effort to find me. Yes, they can still dscan/probe them down, but that takes time and they probably cannot keep looking in EVERY system but rather systems they want to control or systems they suspect people they don't like live.
I agree with this to a point.
I think the Citadels should only appear on the overview if you set it to public. That way you can be found if you start selling items or they have to hunt you.
Plus with everyone that is going to build a Citadel will completely flood the overview with 100 Citadels in the list. It will be crazy. |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2080
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 21:56:57 -
[125] - Quote
Destiny Dain2 wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:Can you please consider adding a defensive module (or rig) for something like "Overview Inhibitor"? The idea being that the citadel (or structure) will NOT show up on the overview but instead will need to be found by dscan and then probing it down (non-trivial to probe down, maybe even requiring sister's+virtues)? The idea being to give the little guy a chance to hide a medium citadel in unused space. The system "owner" will require real work (probing down each system) to find any unwelcome guests rather than just flying a fast interceptor through space and looking at the overview.
My main concern (in lowsec) is that the more powerful groups will just go after citadels for giggles because they can. If they want to actively hunt me and look for targets, then so be it. However, they should at least put in some effort to find me. Yes, they can still dscan/probe them down, but that takes time and they probably cannot keep looking in EVERY system but rather systems they want to control or systems they suspect people they don't like live. I agree with this to a point. I think the Citadels should only appear on the overview if you set it to public. That way you can be found if you start selling items or they have to hunt you. Plus with everyone that is going to build a Citadel will completely flood the overview with 100 Citadels in the list. It will be crazy.
I agree to.
For wormhole space, being able to just warp to the citadel beacon takes away from the scout role. We should be able to have them not show up on overview and even D-scan if we are willing to sacrifice slots/rigs.
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
destinationunreachable
Hello Kitty Fanclub
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 22:02:52 -
[126] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:
For wormhole space, being able to just warp to the citadel beacon takes away from the scout role. We should be able to have them not show up on overview and even D-scan if we are willing to sacrifice slots/rigs.
make them invisible even for a d-scan ? - no, but as a compromise: make only XL (and maybe L?) show up in the overview and leave the M like the control towers behave now.
edit: speling |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2799
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 22:08:57 -
[127] - Quote
I'm assuming you can build a citadel, in a citadel? as opposed to not building POSes in a POS? (unless I missed something) |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2080
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 22:13:20 -
[128] - Quote
destinationunreachable wrote:Rek Seven wrote:
For wormhole space, being able to just warp to the citadel beacon takes away from the scout role. We should be able to have them not show up on overview and even D-scan if we are willing to sacrifice slots/rigs.
make them invisible even for a d-scan ? - no, but as a compromise: make only XL (and maybe L?) show up in the overview and leave the M like the control towers behave now. edit: speling
I think it would be a really cool feature if you make it invisible from D-scan... Any ships around the citadel would still be visible on D-scan, and both and the citadel would still be scalable using combat probes.
What's wrong with that?
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
destinationunreachable
Hello Kitty Fanclub
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 22:28:43 -
[129] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: What's wrong with that?
Balance.
An invisible station is nearly un-scannable if in this system there are already 10+ other ones. You can only find it if you know what you are looking for, with invisibility going on when logged out etc - no, it's not balanced.
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2080
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 22:43:49 -
[130] - Quote
destinationunreachable wrote:Rek Seven wrote: What's wrong with that?
Balance. An invisible station is nearly un-scannable if in this system there are already 10+ other ones. You can only find it if you know what you are looking for, with invisibility going on when logged out etc - no, it's not balanced.
It is 100% scalable! Why wouldn't you know what you're looking for? If a scout wants to know if there is a hidden citadel, he/she simply has to launch probes. This deepens the gamplay for scanners and the potential of structures.
Is feature alone has nothing to do with balance. Balance comes in by ccp increasing fitting requirements/penalties for fitting strong modules.
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2637
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:01:53 -
[131] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:It is 100% scalable! Why wouldn't you know what you're looking for? If a scout wants to know if there is a hidden citadel, he/she simply has to launch probes. This deepens the gamplay for scanners and the potential of structures. This feature alone has nothing to do with balance. Balance comes in by ccp increasing fitting requirements/penalties for fitting strong modules. For me this comes under the "free intel" issue. If you want to gather basic intel then you can send a interceptor ahead of your fleet to check for systems with citadels but if you want more detailed intel, that would indicate the presence of a hidden citadel, you need to send a combat probe capable ships. That is balance and that is fun gameplay! Currently, POS'es are all at moons. Having a structure that can be located anywhere require probes to warp to it massively changes access to the Citadel, hence why you can warp to them direct. And honestly, they won't be spammed like you keep claiming, because they are worth attacking for profit from the loot drops, and don't take that much to hit. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
609
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:25:56 -
[132] - Quote
Hmm... I find it interesting that, with one exception, CCP Ytterbium has only been responding to posts by Goons. (The one exception is a TEST post.)
Is everyone else's post simply being ignored? Where are the conspiracy trolls when you need them? lol.... |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2211
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:28:26 -
[133] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Hmm... I find it interesting that, with one exception, CCP Ytterbium has only been responding to posts by Goons. (The one exception is a TEST post.)
Is everyone else's post simply being ignored? Where are the conspiracy trolls when you need them? lol.... It's because we actually have relevant questions about small details that are easy and possible to answer. Most of the rest of the posting is complaining.
If it makes you feel any better, they didn't answer a few of mine.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2637
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:29:49 -
[134] - Quote
Querns wrote: It's because we actually have relevant questions about small details that are easy and possible to answer. Most of the rest of the posting is complaining.
If it makes you feel any better, they didn't answer a few of mine.
Other people also have had relevant questions and do get nowhere near the Dev response time that goons have in this thread. So.... it's a fair complaint, even if your questions have all been pertinent. |
Maraner
The Executioners Shadow Cartel
332
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:36:50 -
[135] - Quote
SUPER excited for all of this. Just saying but I want my own death star..
Some details on where they can be anchored would be nice (bit off topic sorry).
Citadel looks like the best expansion since they added wormholes and T3's
Can I anchor one of these on a gate and blap stuff as it jumps in?? Can they be anchored in range of each other stations and shoot each other? etc etc |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
7827
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:41:12 -
[136] - Quote
Chavez Domingo wrote:wasnt a large citadel at 80.000m-¦ that can fit into a orca... no need for a freighter than...
Is this actually going to be the case CCP, or is it an oversight? I want to know whether I need to start building an in-system freighter or not. Dev blog says freighters needed to deploy a large, but by the volume an orca will be able to do it with currently listed value. I don't want to have to build a freighter in my wormhole but I will if I need to.
Just yes or no on that. Do I need a freighter to deploy a large, or can I do it with an orca?
Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
|
Unholythrash Davaham
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
27
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:42:50 -
[137] - Quote
Maraner wrote:SUPER excited for all of this. Just saying but I want my own death star..
Some details on where they can be anchored would be nice (bit off topic sorry).
Citadel looks like the best expansion since they added wormholes and T3's
Can I anchor one of these on a gate and blap stuff as it jumps in?? Can they be anchored in range of each other stations and shoot each other? etc etc
I'm fairly certain they said somewhere that they can not share a grid with other structures and that seems to be the only requirement so far |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2212
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:44:06 -
[138] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Querns wrote: It's because we actually have relevant questions about small details that are easy and possible to answer. Most of the rest of the posting is complaining.
If it makes you feel any better, they didn't answer a few of mine.
Other people also have had relevant questions and do get nowhere near the Dev response time that goons have in this thread. So.... it's a fair complaint, even if your questions have all been pertinent. Timing is also important. Note that we were the first responders in the thread.
You also might look slightly past the "lol goonie" label and take a closer look at the individuals being responded to. Notice any patterns?
It's almost like the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal has some experience in the realms of "interacting sanely with other human beings," "analyzing game features and finding the weak areas," and "having the reputation necessary to lend weight to our words."
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2080
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:51:55 -
[139] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Rek Seven wrote:It is 100% scalable! Why wouldn't you know what you're looking for? If a scout wants to know if there is a hidden citadel, he/she simply has to launch probes. This deepens the gamplay for scanners and the potential of structures. This feature alone has nothing to do with balance. Balance comes in by ccp increasing fitting requirements/penalties for fitting strong modules. For me this comes under the "free intel" issue. If you want to gather basic intel then you can send a interceptor ahead of your fleet to check for systems with citadels but if you want more detailed intel, that would indicate the presence of a hidden citadel, you need to send a combat probe capable ships. That is balance and that is fun gameplay! Currently, POS'es are all at moons. Having a structure that can be located anywhere require probes to warp to it massively changes access to the Citadel, hence why you can warp to them direct. And honestly, they won't be spammed like you keep claiming, because they are worth attacking for profit from the loot drops, and don't take that much to hit.
Who keeps claiming what now?
I simply said that I think the ability to remove them from the overlay and d-scan would be fun an interesting gameplay.
If you had to sacrifice something for the ability to do the above, what's wrong with the proposal?
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2637
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:54:53 -
[140] - Quote
Querns wrote: Timing is also important. Note that we were the first responders in the thread.
You also might look slightly past the "lol goonie" label and take a closer look at the individuals being responded to. Notice any patterns?
It's almost like the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal has some experience in the realms of "interacting sanely with other human beings," "analyzing game features and finding the weak areas," and "having the reputation necessary to lend weight to our words."
Indeed, as individuals nearly every goon is actually a nice person. A few are outright trolls but that is true of every group. My problem with the goons is what happens as a collective once you are all together with regards to manipulating things.
Anyway, to get back on topic. Other pertinent questions that have been asked and apparently ignored. Tethering, we need more details, especially for the WH folk. L Citadel and Orca's, does it work and the Dev blog misspoke, or is there a missing detail. New question. Repulsor & Tractor. Available in high sec since they are just bumping thus legal? Or not for some reason. |
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1880
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 00:03:59 -
[141] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Querns wrote: It's because we actually have relevant questions about small details that are easy and possible to answer. Most of the rest of the posting is complaining.
If it makes you feel any better, they didn't answer a few of mine.
Other people also have had relevant questions and do get nowhere near the Dev response time that goons have in this thread. So.... it's a fair complaint, even if your questions have all been pertinent.
It is likely many things. The ones Querns identified above. The fact that we have a longer history of exploiting or taking advantage of new mechanics than really anyone in the game. We give early, informed , and accurate feedback when we are presented with the option to do so. I also cannot think of a time any of the serious business characters have lied or even mislead in feedback.
Plus, we do run the largest coalition and alliance in the game. That probably helps too.
Nah, it is just because we are pro posters.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Maraner
The Executioners Shadow Cartel
332
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 00:05:55 -
[142] - Quote
Also 700b for the BPO is that right?
If it is so then it will generate the single most expensive killmail in the history of the game when derpy undocks in his rifter with one.
I would drop the cost of the BPO and up the materials and cost of the stations. I noted that the XL size cost around 70b plus another 20-30 in rigs and fittings. Less than a Titan, I'd add 20-30% to that at least. Fuel the minerals market etc as well.
Boy....good time to be a miner. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2213
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 00:15:38 -
[143] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Querns wrote: Timing is also important. Note that we were the first responders in the thread.
You also might look slightly past the "lol goonie" label and take a closer look at the individuals being responded to. Notice any patterns?
It's almost like the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal has some experience in the realms of "interacting sanely with other human beings," "analyzing game features and finding the weak areas," and "having the reputation necessary to lend weight to our words."
Indeed, as individuals nearly every goon is actually a nice person. A few are outright trolls but that is true of every group. My problem with the goons is what happens as a collective once you are all together with regards to manipulating things. I don't see a problem with people with similar interests and goals banding together for common good.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Rena'Thras
Strategic Insanity FUBAR.
27
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 00:23:25 -
[144] - Quote
Aryth wrote:These seem awfully cheap at the medium level given their really small vulnerability window. Is there a concern we end up with a very spammable and essentially throwaway level of citadels?
Well, something to consider is that the Mediums are basically POSes. They're meant to replace the POS and what people use POSes for. The blog did say they're trying to make it cost about as much as a fully fitted POS...I think...? My guess is that's why.
The Larges are kinda more equivalent to Outposts now, and the XLs super-Outposts. So that's why their costs are more on par with Outposts as we know them today. The Mediums are for wealthy individuals, large Corps, or small Alliances - like POSes today. Larges are for super wealthy individuals, very big Corps, or moderately large Alliances.
.
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:I like these new Citadels, but one thing kinda bothers me. Why do you have three different sizes? What you are part of a small group and you build a Medium Citadel, but as time goes on your group grows. Now you need a bigger Citadel. OK, but that means either building it someplace new, or having to tear down the Medium to make room. That is kinda lame.
Why can't there just be one Citadel that you can just keep upgrading over? Sure keep the cost investment the same, but there would no longer be the annoyance to move all assets out of the structure just to turn around and replace it with the next level up. Maybe that is part of the plan and I missed it in the blog?
Unless I'm mistaken, in the Eve Vegas Keynote, they said you can have as many of these new Structures in a system as you want.
As with the first guy I quoted - they're changing the paradigm.
Don't think of these as "Outposts". Think of them as "POSes/POCOs/Outposts/Etc." You will want the POCO ones (released later?) on every planet, so at the least you'll have several of those in your systems.
.
Centurax wrote:Nice work on the Citadels, really cant wait.
I have 2 comments on the information so far:
1. Price for the BPO's as stated are 10 times market value, don't you think this will price out so many people even for the Medium Citadels. How about the following prices: * 1bil for the Medium * 10bil for the Large * 100bil for the XL
2. Also how about making a freighter (repackaged) able to fit in a DST for those who might want to deploy a Large Citadel in a WH? Cant see a good reason as to why we have to build a expensive and practically useless ship in a C1-C4 wormhole to be able to deploy a Large. You would still have to deploy a Medium with a factory (when they are available) or a POS to build the Large tower before transferring it to a ship big enough to launch it, just seems like a pointless step to build a Freighter first, so I offer the suggestion of having the repackaged volume of a freighter small enough to fit in a DST so it can be moved in and out but not give the advantage of being able to haul large amounts of materials in or out.
What if the Large would SQUEEZE into an Orca? Would that help? (If nothing else, Orcas are never entirely useless...)
.
Obil Que wrote:The structure blog link regarding the hull composition has the Large Citadel structure size at 80km3 http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68671/1/Structurecompositioncomponent.png Unless my EFT is wrong, a max cargo Orca tops out over 100km3 of cargo. That would mean, unless there is a launching restriction to the freighter class, that a Large Citadel could be transported in an Orca which does fit inside lower class wormhole systems. Is there a launching restriction on L and XL Citadels limited them to Freighters or is it purely a cargo limitation, in which case, the Freighter comment in the devblog was incorrect?
Guess I wasn't the only one wondering this. :)
.
Andre Vauban wrote:Can you please consider adding a defensive module (or rig) for something like "Overview Inhibitor"? The idea being that the citadel (or structure) will NOT show up on the overview but instead will need to be found by dscan and then probing it down (non-trivial to probe down, maybe even requiring sister's+virtues)? The idea being to give the little guy a chance to hide a medium citadel in unused space. The system "owner" will require real work (probing down each system) to find any unwelcome guests rather than just flying a fast interceptor through space and looking at the overview.
My main concern (in lowsec) is that the more powerful groups will just go after citadels for giggles because they can. If they want to actively hunt me and look for targets, then so be it. However, they should at least put in some effort to find me. Yes, they can still dscan/probe them down, but that takes time and they probably cannot keep looking in EVERY system but rather systems they want to control or systems they suspect people they don't like live.
I'm also kinda wondering about this.
For the Large and XL, I guess it makes sense (considering they're basically the replacement for Outposts, which show up in the Overview), but unless I'm terribly mistaken, POSes don't show up in Overviews until you fly to the moon/grid they're on. So why should the Mediums show up from the time someone jumps into system? |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2639
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 00:33:47 -
[145] - Quote
Rena'Thras wrote: For the Large and XL, I guess it makes sense (considering they're basically the replacement for Outposts, which show up in the Overview), but unless I'm terribly mistaken, POSes don't show up in Overviews until you fly to the moon/grid they're on. So why should the Mediums show up from the time someone jumps into system?
Because Moons show up on your overview and can be warped to directly. So they are keeping that part of your gameplay intact, you can't hide a POS currently, it has to be at a moon. So you can't hide a Citadel. It's not 'perfect' mirroring of mechanics, but the alternatives are far worse for gameplay. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
306
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 01:24:25 -
[146] - Quote
There seems to be some confusion about overview and warping etc
If you have docking rights, the citadel shows up on overview
If you don't
Open scanner window and it should up green, like an anomoly now and you can warp to it, no dscan or probes needed, but you get ZERO intel until you arrive at the citadel, at which point you can scan it, see who is docked, scan its fitting etc, it can also lock and shoot you.
Obviously for high sec any aggression requires a wardec, citadels will have a permanent green gun safety |
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
804
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 01:39:16 -
[147] - Quote
Exia Lennelluc wrote:For fuel block production why not add a ice upgrade for null like the ore upgrade that span all 4 racial ice
What about NPC null dwellers? Lowsec dwellers? Even the unwashed hoards of highsec dwellers?
I'm guessing that it would be a coding nightmare to have one blueprint with 5 inputs (1 input with 4 racial isotopes and 4 input with one racial isotope), so having five blueprints to make the fuel blocks that allow for a single isotope is likely the best answer here, if isotope differentiation is kept around because of capital fuels.
I'm glad CCP realizes requiring players to haul in three isotopes just isn't feasable, especially given the emphasis on localization.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
25
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 01:40:30 -
[148] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:There seems to be some confusion about overview and warping etc
If you have docking rights, the citadel shows up on overview
If you don't
Open scanner window and it should up green, like an anomoly now and you can warp to it, no dscan or probes needed, but you get ZERO intel until you arrive at the citadel, at which point you can scan it, see who is docked, scan its fitting etc, it can also lock and shoot you.
Obviously for high sec any aggression requires a wardec, citadels will have a permanent green gun safety
Thanks for clearing that up.
I like that idea actually. |
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
25
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 01:50:33 -
[149] - Quote
Can a Citadel change their fit on the fly with weapons and ammo?
I picture a sub-capital fleet come in and the persons Citadel is fitted for them and then when the timer starts, in come the Capitals with no way to defend. |
Siobhan MacLeary
Hole Violence Whole Squid
218
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 02:00:32 -
[150] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:Quote: A Medium structure hull may be deployed from an Industrial, Large and X-Large require a freighter. Yes, we do are aware this make things more complicated to deploy a Large or X-Large structure in low class wormhole space. This is intended. CCPlease. Give us low-class wormholers so sort of break here. You're essentially saying that we'll need to build an otherwise completely useless freighter which will be trapped in our wormhole solely for the purpose of deploying large citadels. And make no mistake we need large citadels many of us have large numbers of capitals and we'll need places to put them. I get not wanting us to easily put up XLs, (not that it'd be easy anyway with the ISK cost involved), but come on. None of us are going to leave our capital fleets floating in space outside mediums, we just won't use these structures and we'll keep using towers. You have to give us some realistic option to store our capitals and telling us to build a two billion isk ship that we can't use for anything else is not realistic. Either make them fit into something other then a freighter, or give us a way to shove freighters through our wormholes. This feels like a slap across the face to low class space.
As long as Larges have a volume equal to or less than 100k m3, it will be possible to deploy them from a max-cargo Orca.
Unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to wait for CCP to tell us exactly how much volume a Large Citadel will take up.
GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ - CCP Soundwave
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |