|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
423
|
Posted - 2016.03.19 13:56:02 -
[1] - Quote
Two issues I've seen (apologies if these have already been reported.)
- When warping to an XL I deployed, I end up 5000 km away. (Yes, 5,000,000 meters.) When I warp to that XL outside of a fleet, I get a message along the lines of "You cannot do that when not in a fleet" but I still warp and land at 5000 km.
- Often when undocking from the Citadel, the tactical overlay does not show up. Toggling the overlay doesn't work - I have to switch camera modes to get it back.
One question: After deploying a Citadel, how do I change its name and change its vulnerability window?
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
424
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 02:15:05 -
[2] - Quote
A few things I've noticed with the March 22 update.
- When I take control of my Keepstar, I cannot activate damage modules like Standup AXL Missile Launcher. The message I get is "01:47:53NotifyYour ship is realigning its magnetic field, please wait a moment." even after many minutes. Isn't that the typical message for the undocking invulnerability? I can activate ewar and neuts and web without issue. Scram gives me "02:07:29NotifyYou cannot activate Standup Warp Scrambler I whilst invulnerable."
- Fighters deployed by a character controlling a Citadel do not show up as purple for fleet members, including for the deploying character itself..
- Could be user error, but I cannot get bombs to launch from Heavy Fighters. I go through the targeting UI, but the bombs don't launch. The bomb button is then blinking, and if I try again I get this message "01:53:38NotifyCannot activate the Ametat II Launch bomb ability again as it is already active."
- I'm unable to zoom the view of the Ship Hangar when in capital ships, so they appear overstuffed.
- When the station services is set skinny enough, the "View Outside Structure" label word-wraps on top of the "Station Services" label.
- When I select launched fighters via the fighter UI, there's no indication in space which fighter I have selected. When I click on a fighter in space, or from the overview, there's no selection of it in the fighter UI.
- Targeting range of Citadels is, graphically, represented as the distance from the center point of the Citadel. However, the overview range and the range checked for module activation seem to be from the tether ring of the Citadel.
And I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE how the line drawn for overview items to the plane of one's ship is now curved such that it shows actual distance to that item. Don't ever ever ever change that please. The Homeworld-style targeting UI does not follow this paradigm, however. It's set-straight-out from center of ship, the set-straight-up/down from that distance. It should follow the curve of the sphere - as in, first set distance out, then set where on the sphere at that distance. It also would be nice to somehow be able to rotate the camera view with the targeting UI active - it's difficult to tell just what I'm pointing at otherwise.
I'm also a big fan of the red indication of optimal and falloff ranges for weapons.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
425
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 14:56:47 -
[3] - Quote
Would it be possible to allow on SISI (or even TQ) to set the vulnerability window to be larger than the minimum time? To test shooting Citadels, we have only a small time period to do so. I'd like to set the vulnerability windows to be 24x7 so we can shoot our Citadels whenever we want.
Also - anybody got a primer on control permissions? I can take control of my Citadels with the director character I used to deploy them, but not with other characters. I've double-checked corp roles, groups, profiles and skills - far as I can tell I should be able to take control of Citadels, but the button does nothing. I can't tell if I'm doing something wrong or if this is a bug.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
425
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 17:26:55 -
[4] - Quote
Arline Kley wrote:Eli StanAlso wrote:Anybody got a primer on control permissions? I can take control of my Citadels with the director character I used to deploy them, but not with other characters. I've double-checked corp roles, groups, profiles and skills - far as I can tell I should be able to take control of Citadels, but the button does nothing. I can't tell if I'm doing something wrong or if this is a bug.
Currently only CEO's/Directors can take control of a citadel. In my opinion, that is more dangerous than it sounds; I'd rather have role management allow individuals the privilege of maintaining the thing rather than someone with more authority than required. For example: A role "Citadel Management" (or even Station Management) that gives control/fitting/refueling rights with lesser ones for refueling. *edits* God i'm failing on foruming today..
That will be implemented via the Groups and Structure Browser windows, looks like. Create a group first, then put some characters into it. Then go to Structure Browser, create profile, add Citadels to it, then add group(s) to Docking and/or Defense rights.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
425
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 19:52:29 -
[5] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Actually I have a question regarding group permissions. How to explicitly DENY group an action?
Because in profile management you are adding groups, not setting up permissions which kinda implies explicitly allowing a group an action.
IMHO it should be done POSIX/NTFS ACL style.
I'm guessing it'll be through the "Blocked" role in the Groups UI. So if you have a "Citadel Users" group that contains your corp, alliance and blues that you use to allow docking rights, you'll be able to block individuals (or corps) who are members of those corps/alliances from being a member of that group. They would then, one hopes, be unable to dock.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
426
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 22:06:11 -
[6] - Quote
Two more things:
- I have every Advanced Audio Settings slider set to zero, and I still hear the spooky atmospheric sounds of the Citadel's ship hangar. I assume there will a new "Structure Interior" slider to go along with the "Station Interior" setting"
- For testing purposes, would it be possible to change online and decommission times to just 10 minutes each? 1 day online and 7 day offline mean there are very few opportunities to test those functions between now and April 27. Along those lines, allow us to change vulnerability timer at any time, instead of just for the next week? I want to shoot my Citadels, but they don't become vulnerable until Saturday...
Thanks! |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
428
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 18:20:53 -
[7] - Quote
Little Bad Wolf wrote:Mark O'Helm wrote:You could hire a merc corp for defense. Or learn how to use the citadel wapons now. (If they work as intended) I don't think learning how to use a citadels defences, which should be easy for anyone, is the problem. The problem is, like anything else in EVE, the capabilities of a citadels defences will be worked out very quickly, and the large wardeccer corps will have absolutely no trouble bringing an appropriate force to knock one down. You could say that's intended, but unfortunately that then simply means absolutely any citadel belonging to a small and/or industrial entity can be blown over at any time by a wardeccer corp/alliance, for the basically non-existent price of 50 mil. The idea of small mixed/indy corps wardeccing each other through personal rivalries and having evenly matched fun space battles in highsec is nothing but a nice idea today. The vast majority of wardeccing is done by large highly experienced factions that no indy corp stands any remote chance of defending against. With a pos, if the defender reacts accordingly to a wardec, they can take the pos down, If they don't react accordingly then they lose their pos. Now however it seems that there is basically nothing they can do, and I don't see how industrial citadels belonging to independent indy corps are meant to exist in highsec if it takes an entire week to dismantle one. A medium citadel is going to be about a billion isk, a wardec is 50 million, every helpless indy corp will be decced for no other reason than just to have their citadel destroyed, there needs not be any other reason. The defender will just be there to watch, with a medium citadels defences doing nothing against aggressors with appropriate logistics. There's no difference in the safety of a citadel in high compared to low if the ability to dismantle before a war is removed. Even if the forces needed to bring down a medium were substantial, that force wouldn't be forming to take down one citadel, but to attack dozens of them at a time on the pattern of vulnerability windows, from wardecs done en-masse, as they are currently. Even if it took 40 battleships and logistics to deal with a medium, that would present little obstacle, they would just be immobile billion isk killmails waiting to be farmed.
My hope is that Citadel weaponry will be strong enough to take out enough attackers such that the attackers lose more ISK than the defenders. That's the sort of trade I'd be happy to make. The damage mitigation system means that 1 billion ISK medium citadels are capped at 4000 DPS incoming. That's eight 500 DPS battleships at about 250 million ISK each, four of which would need to be killed to come out ISK-positive. With 200k EHP each, the medium citadel would need to apply 800k damage over 30 minutes - that's 444 average DPS, which is easily doable with the Standup anti-subcap launcchers from what I've seen.
Now, the problem comes in, as you eluded to, when the attackers bring 40 logi ships to support those 8 battleships. There's not anything a medium citadel can do about that, as far as I know, and it's quite risk-free for the attackers assuming the target only has the citadel for offensive capability.
This illustrates a problem, not with citadels, but instead in my opinion with logistics in general. They shouldn't be so powerful that the possibility of a ship being unkillable even exists. I would love to see CCP apply stacking penalties to the effectiveness of incoming reps somehow. Per remote rep module, perhaps. Perhaps change the falloff formula to use 9.67 instead of 2.67 in the formula, so that no matter how many remote rep modules are activated on a ship, the effective reps max out at the equivalent of 9 modules. Or 6.33, which maxes the incoming reps to the equivalent of 6 modules. |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
428
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 21:15:57 -
[8] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:CCP Claymore wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:Can't log in to Sisi to test at the moment, but does the tether stay attached to the ship if you eject? If not, that is a major oversight which was raised as a concern months ago. The tether only works on piloted ships. What are your concerns regarding this? I still don't understand why you guys don't seem to 'get it'.... In current TQ, you have the POS forcefield mechanics to provide a good degree of security while in a valuable ship that cannot dock for whatever reason. You can swap out pilots, you can step out for short periods of time, all behind a PW protected barrier that has, at worst case, 41 hours of life to it should it all go pear shaped.... The way you have implemented tethering has completely removed that security - you can no longer securely swap out pilots unless you've invested in the gold plated XL citadel solution. Given that the intention is to remove POS completely, in time, if you can't afford an XL Citadel, you are stuffed. Why can you not implement the tether to stay attached to the ships? Conceptually it makes so much more sense that the tether stays on the ship, rather than switching to the tiny piece of metal that just detached from it [Capsule]. I suspect if you implemented it this way, you could implement Titan bridging much more easily too.... So again; why have you implemented tethering this way? Ps. The early concept stuff showed large ships securely 'moored' to the structure giving the impression what I described above was the intention all along - obvious disadvantage being everyone can see all the high value junk you've moored to it...
Are you talking about swapping supers and titans, which can only dock in XLs? In which case I suspect it's quite deliberate on CCPs part. If you want to swap pilots in your 30 billion to 100 billion ship, you'll simply need to get a 170 billion Citadel. In which you can dock as many titans as you want! I doubt CCP has any interest whatsoever in implementing the equivalent of allowing safe swapping of supers/titans via a cheap small control tower.
To me, by the way. conceptually it makes much more sense for a Citadel to protect whatever ship a pilot is in, whether it's a 10k ISK pod or a 100 billion ISK titan.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
428
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 21:19:28 -
[9] - Quote
Smuff Gallente wrote:is not being able to put mods my citadel when it's damaged a bug or intentionally because my citadel anchored damaged and now i cant do anything with it
Intentional, so that a defender cannot refit their citadel during the middle of a battle. Damage being present after deployment however is, I think, a bug. Also, any damaged citadel should fully rep itself after a period of time (15 or 30 minutes or some such) of not receiving any new damage.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
429
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 15:11:25 -
[10] - Quote
As an alternative to implementing stacking penalties to incoming logi, I propose a new anti-logi module usable only by Citadels, the Standup Triage Forensic Unit. Only one can be fit per Citadel. It reduces incoming reps to only 10% strength. Doesn't reduce the attacker's DPS, doesn't reduce local tank, just makes it more likely that the attackers will have to sacrifice some ships in order to take down a Citadel, and can't easily blob with logi to do it risk-free.
|
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
430
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 18:11:40 -
[11] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote: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?
Far as I know, Citadels will be like ships, dealing their full damage until destroyed.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
433
|
Posted - 2016.03.31 14:46:57 -
[12] - Quote
Knitram Relik wrote:I've got a question about setting the missiles to fire automatically. With a POS I can set the guns to shoot anyone that isn't in my corp, blue, etc (very nice for lo-sec). Is there going to be a similar setting for citadels to do this or does someone have to man the guns so to speak. Not every Citadel should have a welcome mat in front of it IMHO.
I suspect there will be no auto-aggression. Citadels work just like ships in many ways. Giant ships that can't move and have some unique features around repairing and vulnerability, but otherwise similar to ships which also don't auto-aggress with nobody in them. Which I'm fine with. It actually doesn't take much time to train a toon to level 4 for all citadel and fighter skills - about 60 days. It's getting things to level 5 that'll be the big PITA. It's cool to have a young character controlling 30 to 40 thousand DPS and millions of HP. |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
435
|
Posted - 2016.04.06 17:40:28 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Claymore wrote:Cordella Rex wrote:Is this what was causing me to be unable to fire the citadels weaponry? Nope, that is a setting on the weapons that should not be there. We need to fix that defect
Looking forward to that. We have some Citadels hopefully becoming vulnerable this weekend that we'd love to playtest the combat mechanics of! (Last weekend they never went vulnerable, they just sat there safe with 0s remaining.)
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
443
|
Posted - 2016.04.08 22:04:46 -
[14] - Quote
Missile launchers are working again, thanks. Still cannot activate Standum Scrams while invulnerable, however. I assume that's deliberate? |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
447
|
Posted - 2016.04.09 23:28:01 -
[15] - Quote
Some Citadel pron:
Angel Wings http://i.imgur.com/si0Pa5a.png
Golden Heart http://i.imgur.com/awqQ42D.png
Approaching Mystery http://i.imgur.com/qjK7sXa.png
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
447
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 18:03:24 -
[16] - Quote
Today I noticed what appears to be a bug. When missile launchers are fitted to a Citadel, and I attempt to fit a guided bomb launcher, it tells me I can only fit one of such module. When I remove the missile launchers and put the bomb launcher on, I can then put the missile launchers back on. I assume its "can only fit one of these" check mistakenly counts the missile launchers. |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
447
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 20:51:28 -
[17] - Quote
Good catch, Lugh.
Scrammed fighters can still activate their MWD and MJD.
Cannot warp to a Citadel that somebody is controlling. "20:48:49NotifyYou are unable to align or warp to the selected object because your warp drive is unable to lock onto it." |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
447
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 21:42:48 -
[18] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Do you know if it's just scrams or all e-war?
Standup Stasis Webs slow them down, and TPs increase the missile damage they take. Haven't tested tracking disruptors or ECM or sensor damps.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
448
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 23:27:39 -
[19] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ECM is easy to test at least you can get guaranteed jams with less than 10 power (I think 8 is the highest of any fighter)
Yep, confirmed ECMing fighters with a Citadel works just fine. 23:24:18NotifyYou are already managing 0 targets, as many as your ship's electronics are capable of.
So it's probably just the scram that doesn't do anything against fighters, it seems.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
448
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 14:39:48 -
[20] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:Cannot warp to a Citadel that somebody is controlling. "20:48:49NotifyYou are unable to align or warp to the selected object because your warp drive is unable to lock onto it."
I've figured out this one - non-fleet members cannot warp to a controlled Citadel just like non-fleet members cannot warp to a piloted ship in space. Fleet members, however, can warp to a control Citadel just fine. I don't know if that's deliberate, or just an interesting result of Citadels being based on ships, but I kinda like it. Hostiles can still get close to a Citadel via probes of course. |
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
448
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 21:10:28 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Claymore wrote:Eli Stan wrote:Missile launchers are working again, thanks. Still cannot activate Standum Scrams while invulnerable, however. I assume that's deliberate? Yes, this is deliberate. It should be the ONLY module though that requires the Citadel to be vulnerable to use.
Nice, I like it. Since ships won't be able to damage the Citadel, those ships should have the option to GTFO at any time. (Unless being tackled by some other ship which can be destroyed, of course. :) )
Regarding the lights discussion - put me down as liking all der blinkenlichten.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
452
|
Posted - 2016.04.13 04:41:58 -
[22] - Quote
Thalezia wrote:Hello, 2k dps on a fortizar with subcapital launchers (fully skilled up and with 4 ballistics) seems wayyyyyyy too low when you consider that it has 47k dps with capital launchers WITHOUT bombers.-¿
are these final numbers or just working numbers until you can fix it?
I would suggest something between 10-15k dps on subcapital launchers
The impression I've gotten from some playtesting is that against frigs, the anti-cap and anti-subcap missiles do about equal damage, but the anti-subcap missile launcher cycle much faster for much higher applied DPS.
Against cruisers and battleships, it appears to be about a wash. Anti-cap has higher alpha, but lower launch rate, and overall equal DPS between the two.
Point being - it's worth keeping in mind that the anti-cap missile damage is scaled to go against capitals, but so is its explosion radius and velocity. You can't look at 47k anti-cap DPS and use that to determine what you think the anti-subcap DPS should be. 10k DPS against subcaps would be WAY overpowered, IMO |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
452
|
Posted - 2016.04.13 15:11:03 -
[23] - Quote
I noticed an issue last night that I forgot to bugreport. When un-fitting a missile launcher via the little "remove" button thingy in the fitting window, the launcher stays fitted and I get an error message that's exactly the same as if I try to drag the launcher to the ammo bay. Dragging the launcher to a hangar works fine. |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
453
|
Posted - 2016.04.13 22:02:40 -
[24] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote: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.] "Share this post on Facebook and get 1000 SP!" |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
459
|
Posted - 2016.04.15 23:30:00 -
[25] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:I think the speeds may be OK,
not ok at all if it takes a solid minute for damage to apply by that time the ship will have already died if there is a defending fleet and the citadel alone does not do enough damage to kill a subcap by itself other then shooting battleships with capital missiles which do full damage with webs and painters =/ also fighters will get shot down before they get in range 100% of the time they are just too slow Scram/web the target and the bomb will get there eventually. Coordinate with the defensive fleet so they're taking out some thing else near the target. |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
461
|
Posted - 2016.04.18 20:02:57 -
[26] - Quote
Cebraio wrote:Testing feedback - Bugs
1. I logged out in our XL citadel. Tried to log back in, but the station interior did not load. (UI, local chat, station service panel did load). When I tried to undock, space did not load either. With the overview I managed to fly over to the local station and attempted to dock there, but even though it confirmed my docking request, it never got me inside. Then I was podded by some random asshat that didn't follow the rules. It solved my problems though. Clone loaded in station.
I've had a similar issue - upon logging in, it looked like I was halfway between the character loading screen and the citadel interior screen. Change back and forth between hangar view and outside view got the UI to load completely. Upon undocking from the citadel however, I've often seen my overview never update. I can warp to celestials and stations and other citadels, but never dock because I'm still shown as 1000km or more away from that object. I cant take a gate for the same reason. And I can't warp back to my originating Citadel, since it shows I'm 0m away from it. My only option is to log off in space, and everything works fine once I'm back in. (And I did submit a bug report for this, CCP Claymore.)
I did encounter another issue yesterday that I have not reported yet. When I change ships while in a citadel, the session change timer starts - but I can immediately undock, unlike with a station which delays my undocking until the session change completes. Sometimes (but not always) when I undock after changing ships, none of my implants (and perhaps none of my skills as well) get applied, so on tight fits that need a PG or CPU implant, I undock into a ship with no modules online. It's like the BIAB process isn't allowed to complete.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
465
|
Posted - 2016.04.21 01:00:13 -
[27] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:was playing around today and noticed this. There is no repair option in citadels? If it exists i cant find it, seems like this is a relatively significant oversight as you have no way to repair modules or ships while docked. You could make it a service module id be okay with that, but this should absolutely be something included at launch if you want them to be used as repairing is a big piece of core functionality.
Edit: Also +1 to trespassers idea of having a citadel anchoring in hostile sov space come out of anchoring during the ihubs vulnerability window rather that a multiple of 24 from when it was anchored. If you did this I think it would create a nice balance.
Just undock and the tether will repair any heat or shield/armor/hull damage you have, for free. It doesn't repair damage to drones though, and I dint know what CCP plans for that.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
466
|
Posted - 2016.04.21 21:54:29 -
[28] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Oh, something perhaps more QoL: Is there a reason Festival Launchers cannot be fitted to Citadels? Could Festival Launchers be tagged to allow fitting to Citadels?
Upwell has created vendor lock-in by only allowing Upwell modules to be fitted to their citadels, and Upwell doesn't currently produce any festival launchers. My sources tell me Salvador Sarpati has protested to the SCC which got him nowhere, and now really wants to bring an anti-trust lawsuit to bear but has been unable to convince any court they have jurisdiction over the SCC. Sarpati's Serpentis Corporation no longer has the military capability to acquire a Citadel by force in order to reverse-engineer its encrypted validation of modules. With their monopoly on Citadel items, we can only hope that Upwell increases their line of offerings in the future as they have time, but that they don't abuse their market exclusivity and charge us capsuleers up the nose for them. |
|
|
|