|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
Circumstantial Evidence
265
   |
Posted - 2016.03.22 16:13:13 -
[1] - Quote
"CCP is terrible, they never listen to us and release these features untested."
Thank you CCP Claymore for this post flood, and all of QA - for digging into the problem solving trenches every day! |
Circumstantial Evidence
265
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 16:58:22 -
[2] - Quote
One feature of existing POS is that its individual weapons can be targeted and incapacitated. Will this not be or become possible vs Citadels, requiring an attacker to take all Citadel damage, up until it's reinforced? |
Circumstantial Evidence
286
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 18:45:17 -
[3] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:I think the number of the moving lights on the citadels could be reduced.
I find they make it a bit fuzzy looking when all lit up. Don't get me wrong I think they add a feeling of life to the structure, but it may be a bit of overkill ...im just looking at the keepstar right now, I have put up the other ones and would say the same on those.
~R~ Agree with this, its a bit too much. Also too many holographic "traffic signs" - the repetition of these floating decal textures becomes very obvious, they could be reduced by half in number, and the result would still be visually engaging. |
Circumstantial Evidence
299
|
Posted - 2016.04.13 20:21:48 -
[4] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Ograst Faluum wrote:Will there be citadels and modules seeded in the market with the release or will only blueprints find their way to Tranquility? I word of said that's a dumb question and ccp prides itself on everything built by players. Dailies make this a valid question now  "Double SP weekend! Top 5 ActivityPoints earners win free Astrahus! Top 10 win _____!!! Tell a friend and log in today!" [EVE Dailies: please no.]
|
Circumstantial Evidence
300
|
Posted - 2016.04.15 02:07:56 -
[5] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:did some weapon testing today with a fully rigged keepstar and the main thing I noticed is that everything it sends out be it missiles boms or fighters are incredibly slow, too slow, they absolutely need more missile bomb and fighter velocity 300% seems like a good start, it takes for ever till bomb reaches a target 250km away from a keepstar by that time I can fire 8 bombs total like what the hell
other then that I noticed that the signature radius of large missiles is messed up I think the speeds may be OK, I think some of the perception of slowness comes from 100-200km flight distances. Structure bombs have the same velocity as stealth bomber-bombs, with the added advantage that they follow targets.
I agree signature balance still needs a look: Explo Radius on Standup AM guided bomb is 150, should be pushed up closer to 400 like stealth bomber-bombs. As it is, one shot nearly crushes an interceptor with MWD off (if it doesn't simply try to outrun the bomb,) removing any desire to use the AS guided bomb.
Citadel Fighters: Would like a "reconnect to lost fighters" option, same as we have for ships. If control is released while fighters are in space, they are currently abandoned / lost.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
304
|
Posted - 2016.04.20 01:15:43 -
[6] - Quote
Structure Guided Bomb ammo explosion radius stats have been tuned, AoE radius for damage versions is not stated (can we assume 40km based on void AoE radius?)
Material requirements for building structure ammo still appear to be placeholder values; anti-capital missile req's same as sub-capital. (expectation: anti-cap missiles should cost more than sub-cap versions) |
Circumstantial Evidence
304
|
Posted - 2016.04.21 02:06:14 -
[7] - Quote
Commissar Kate wrote:Am I missing something or is there no direct trading available in citadels? By intent or just a bug? Per CCP Claymore in previous posts, No direct trading available on release, but you can right-click / Deliver items to another named player's Deliveries hanger.
I'm having trouble granting admin or manager or even a new docking right, with the Access List today. A previously set access list is working all too well, allowing a member to take control of the citadel.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
304
|
Posted - 2016.04.26 08:02:32 -
[8] - Quote
They can tweak data values up to the last second, but if a feature requires a UI element (text or number entry box, button) and it's not on the test server now, I doubt it will appear on patch day. |
Circumstantial Evidence
304
|
Posted - 2016.04.27 12:46:08 -
[9] - Quote
wow. I read that entire post. Good stuff :)Masao Kurata wrote:so if using a highsec wardec your only possible target is one citadel if the owner knows anything about the mechanics So... I wardec a citadel that is in a corp of 1. I don't think the "real owner" group can bring a fleet to help defend it, they are risk-averse after all, so all I have to do is figure out if I can tank what the citadel puts out or keep losses manageable. Wouldn't this result in a good number of (fairly boring fights) Citadel KM's? I'm thinking Astrahus, mainly.
(That's assuming the attacker doesn't run into the timer setup situation that you note. I think CCP will be quick to make adjustments & save/restore states across DT, if they discover some citadels can be made invulnerable by a choice of vulnerability time.)
It is possible in the grand scheme that Citadels are not the thing we are supposed to want to attack... so much. They are a stepping stone on a path which includes industrial arrays, which will add more value to the game for owning corps. Owners of those may have to face hard choices of weakening their defenses, in exchange for maximizing their industrial bonuses. |
|
|
| |
|