Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
53
|
Posted - 2016.04.09 00:39:32 -
[391] - Quote
I tested the reprocessing rigs in every level of security and it does not matter what Citadel I'm in or what T2 rig I am using in any space, it is always 68.3% for me.
High sec rig should get more fore their yield and null sec rigs should get more for theirs. They should not equal everywhere.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1800
|
Posted - 2016.04.09 00:46:25 -
[392] - Quote
Destiny Dain2 wrote:I tested the reprocessing rigs in every level of security and it does not matter what Citadel I'm in or what T2 rig I am using in any space, it is always 68.3% for me.
High sec rig should get more fore their yield and null sec rigs should get more for theirs. They should not equal everywhere.
original idea was to have it so the lower the sec the more benefit rigs gave for this idk if they still plan to do that
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
53
|
Posted - 2016.04.09 00:56:14 -
[393] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Destiny Dain2 wrote:I tested the reprocessing rigs in every level of security and it does not matter what Citadel I'm in or what T2 rig I am using in any space, it is always 68.3% for me.
High sec rig should get more fore their yield and null sec rigs should get more for theirs. They should not equal everywhere.
original idea was to have it so the lower the sec the more benefit rigs gave for this idk if they still plan to do that
Yah I made an edit as you might have seen. I'm sure they are just placeholder numbers, but had to bring it up just in case. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
317
|
Posted - 2016.04.09 08:05:45 -
[394] - Quote
Porus Kurvora wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote: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... I would still like to understand the design intent behind this. I don't really understand why you would be owning a super capital class ship if you are not a part of a competent alliance. A competent/sizeable alliance will either have the ISK to purchase an XL citadel from a third-party OR the industrial infrastructure to manufacture one themselves. POS's will still be around for a while so you're alliance has plenty of time to work towards owning an XL. Once you have an XL and need to swap pilots, just dock up and do a trade. CCP Changed the term "mooring" to "tethering" because of the impression given in the past. Ships will not be docked and in space, they will only be invulnerable while being within tethering distance. Thank you, but that doesn't answer the question on design intent - I'll await a response from Claymore.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
317
|
Posted - 2016.04.09 08:20:58 -
[395] - Quote
Simple analogy:
A boat comes in alongside, and is securely tethered.
Skipper decides, he really needs to sort out some paperwork shore-side, so he leaves the crew in charge and gets into an inflatable dingy.
...dingy stays put, but the boat now drifts off for no apparent reason, smashes into some rocks and everyone dies (except for the skipper, still sat in his dingy).
^ That is how tethering has been implemented so far
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1836
|
Posted - 2016.04.09 11:15:14 -
[396] - Quote
Porus Kurvora wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote: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... I would still like to understand the design intent behind this. I don't really understand why you would be owning a super capital class ship if you are not a part of a competent alliance. A competent/sizeable alliance will either have the ISK to purchase an XL citadel from a third-party OR the industrial infrastructure to manufacture one themselves. POS's will still be around for a while so you're alliance has plenty of time to work towards owning an XL. Once you have an XL and need to swap pilots, just dock up and do a trade. CCP Changed the term "mooring" to "tethering" because of the impression given in the past. Ships will not be docked and in space, they will only be invulnerable while being within tethering distance.
there are plenty of roaming LS groups that own a nyx or two where a XL cit would just be obnoxious to use
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Tra'con Han
The reality disfunction
14
|
Posted - 2016.04.09 18:31:26 -
[397] - Quote
My citadel is stuck at 0 while anchoring, and has been for an hour. Is there a work-around / fix? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1836
|
Posted - 2016.04.09 18:53:48 -
[398] - Quote
Tra'con Han wrote:My citadel is stuck at 0 while anchoring, and has been for an hour. Is there a work-around / fix?
Wait till dt
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
447
|
Posted - 2016.04.09 23:28:01 -
[399] - 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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1836
|
Posted - 2016.04.09 23:29:42 -
[400] - Quote
You missed the butterfly that the XL make :p
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
John Hand
15
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 03:38:14 -
[401] - Quote
Issues I am having with Cits right now, is the stupid 24hr anchor time.
I know in a blog or vid it was mentioned they would be around 1/2/4 hours for the M/L/XL's, now I know things change, but damn thats just too ******* long of an anchor time.
So I suggest that the times be 1/2/4 for nullsec, be 2/4/8 for low sec and 3/'6/12 for high sec, this keeps the times REASONABLE and goes along with the "lower sec gets better buffs" idea that these things are being based on.
Loving these things otherwise. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3148
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 04:29:12 -
[402] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: original idea was to have it so the lower the sec the more benefit rigs gave for this idk if they still plan to do that
Hopefully not. Because High Sec corps are placing equal levels of assets at risk, and the defences of Citadels in Highsec are also far weaker than the defences in Low can be due to the lack of AOE weaponry in highsec, and they can't avoid war decs. So all the arguments for giving better stuff to Null are voided by those costs & vulnerabilities. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3148
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 04:31:05 -
[403] - Quote
John Hand wrote:Issues I am having with Cits right now, is the stupid 24hr anchor time.
I know in a blog or vid it was mentioned they would be around 1/2/4 hours for the M/L/XL's, now I know things change, but damn thats just too ******* long of an anchor time.
So I suggest that the times be 1/2/4 for nullsec, be 2/4/8 for low sec and 3/'6/12 for high sec, this keeps the times REASONABLE and goes along with the "lower sec gets better buffs" idea that these things are being based on.
Loving these things otherwise. 24 hours is deliberate, to allow people time to respond without having to be online every minute of the day. If you could put one up in 1 hour, it would be trivial to create them through enemy space and make them then spend several days to kill each one along with losing ships to defences, and the risk that every single one is a trap. |
John Hand
15
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 05:11:27 -
[404] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:John Hand wrote:Issues I am having with Cits right now, is the stupid 24hr anchor time.
I know in a blog or vid it was mentioned they would be around 1/2/4 hours for the M/L/XL's, now I know things change, but damn thats just too ******* long of an anchor time.
So I suggest that the times be 1/2/4 for nullsec, be 2/4/8 for low sec and 3/'6/12 for high sec, this keeps the times REASONABLE and goes along with the "lower sec gets better buffs" idea that these things are being based on.
Loving these things otherwise. 24 hours is deliberate, to allow people time to respond without having to be online every minute of the day. If you could put one up in 1 hour, it would be trivial to create them through enemy space and make them then spend several days to kill each one along with losing ships to deference, and the risk that every single one is a trap.
What? That statement doesn't even make sense, not to mention that people ALREADY do that with normal POS's in enemy space, whats the difference with a Medium Cit? Nothing. In fact you will KNOW the enemy put one in there because it will pop up, rather then some discreet notification that only the SOV holder gets right now when a POS gets planted.
It should be short so people can move them around, NOT a whole effing DAY to anchor them.
Should be 1 hour for the medium, maybe 4 for the large and 8 hours for the XL AT MOST, gives you PLENTY of time to figure out if an enemy is putting one down, while still being mobile for smaller corps/alliances.
Medium Cits are a non threat to most alliances, the defenses are weak vs caps and can be knocked over fairly easily with a handful of dreads. Larges are more of an issue, and 4 hours would give you lots of time to figure it out, if you live in your space YOU WILL KNOW! Its only an issue if you own too much space and don't actively live in it.
You need to think about the smaller groups wanting to put down something bigger then a med, 1 day is just too effing long for ANY size cit. |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
447
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 18:03:24 -
[405] - 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. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1855
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 19:39:20 -
[406] - Quote
John Hand wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:John Hand wrote:Issues I am having with Cits right now, is the stupid 24hr anchor time.
I know in a blog or vid it was mentioned they would be around 1/2/4 hours for the M/L/XL's, now I know things change, but damn thats just too ******* long of an anchor time.
So I suggest that the times be 1/2/4 for nullsec, be 2/4/8 for low sec and 3/'6/12 for high sec, this keeps the times REASONABLE and goes along with the "lower sec gets better buffs" idea that these things are being based on.
Loving these things otherwise. 24 hours is deliberate, to allow people time to respond without having to be online every minute of the day. If you could put one up in 1 hour, it would be trivial to create them through enemy space and make them then spend several days to kill each one along with losing ships to deference, and the risk that every single one is a trap. What? That statement doesn't even make sense, not to mention that people ALREADY do that with normal POS's in enemy space, whats the difference with a Medium Cit? Nothing. In fact you will KNOW the enemy put one in there because it will pop up, rather then some discreet notification that only the SOV holder gets right now when a POS gets planted. It should be short so people can move them around, NOT a whole effing DAY to anchor them. Should be 1 hour for the medium, maybe 4 for the large and 8 hours for the XL AT MOST, gives you PLENTY of time to figure out if an enemy is putting one down, while still being mobile for smaller corps/alliances. Medium Cits are a non threat to most alliances, the defenses are weak vs caps and can be knocked over fairly easily with a handful of dreads. Larges are more of an issue, and 4 hours would give you lots of time to figure it out, if you live in your space YOU WILL KNOW! Its only an issue if you own too much space and don't actively live in it. You need to think about the smaller groups wanting to put down something bigger then a med, 1 day is just too effing long for ANY size cit.
Except when s pos goes up you can take it down in two days. It can take over a week to take down a citadel
Apples and oranges
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1855
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 19:40:55 -
[407] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote: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.
Edit - this bug extends to rigs. "18:38:56HintYou're unable to fit Standup L-Set Point Defense Battery Control II to Fortizar. You can only fit 1.00 of type Structure Rig Combat but already have 1." This happens because I already have a Standup L-Set Bomb Aimer II fitted. So only a single combat rig is currently allowed, regardless of type. Again, I assume this is not deliberate, but something in the "only one" checking code.
And am I not looking in the right place, or are the tractor and repulsor modules gone? Not just unseeded, but totally gone from SISI?
The low slot fighter mods are gone as well
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
447
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 20:51:28 -
[408] - 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." |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1856
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 21:19:39 -
[409] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote: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."
The mjd and mwd thing is a new bug I had tested that a week ago and it was working
Do you know if it's just scrams or all e-war?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
447
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 21:42:48 -
[410] - 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.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1856
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 21:45:39 -
[411] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote: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.
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)
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
448
|
Posted - 2016.04.10 23:27:39 -
[412] - 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.
|
John Hand
15
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 00:00:58 -
[413] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:John Hand wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:John Hand wrote:Issues I am having with Cits right now, is the stupid 24hr anchor time.
I know in a blog or vid it was mentioned they would be around 1/2/4 hours for the M/L/XL's, now I know things change, but damn thats just too ******* long of an anchor time.
So I suggest that the times be 1/2/4 for nullsec, be 2/4/8 for low sec and 3/'6/12 for high sec, this keeps the times REASONABLE and goes along with the "lower sec gets better buffs" idea that these things are being based on.
Loving these things otherwise. 24 hours is deliberate, to allow people time to respond without having to be online every minute of the day. If you could put one up in 1 hour, it would be trivial to create them through enemy space and make them then spend several days to kill each one along with losing ships to deference, and the risk that every single one is a trap. What? That statement doesn't even make sense, not to mention that people ALREADY do that with normal POS's in enemy space, whats the difference with a Medium Cit? Nothing. In fact you will KNOW the enemy put one in there because it will pop up, rather then some discreet notification that only the SOV holder gets right now when a POS gets planted. It should be short so people can move them around, NOT a whole effing DAY to anchor them. Should be 1 hour for the medium, maybe 4 for the large and 8 hours for the XL AT MOST, gives you PLENTY of time to figure out if an enemy is putting one down, while still being mobile for smaller corps/alliances. Medium Cits are a non threat to most alliances, the defenses are weak vs caps and can be knocked over fairly easily with a handful of dreads. Larges are more of an issue, and 4 hours would give you lots of time to figure it out, if you live in your space YOU WILL KNOW! Its only an issue if you own too much space and don't actively live in it. You need to think about the smaller groups wanting to put down something bigger then a med, 1 day is just too effing long for ANY size cit. Except when s pos goes up you can take it down in two days. It can take over a week to take down a citadel Apples and oranges
Wrong.
Medium Cit only has ONE RF timer (current POS mechanics) Large has 2 RF XL has all 3
I highly doubt someone will drop an XL in your space without you noticing it, and if they do, ITS YOU OWN DAMN FAULT. LOL. Having a decent anchor time of 1/4/8 would be sufficient enough for someone to notice something getting planted. Not to mention a medium isn't much of a problem to deal with, since even just ONE dread can reach its max DPS.
Also the Min Anchor Distance needs to be changed.
Should be at least 1 AU from any GATE Also there needs to be a limit to how many can be placed per a gird, because I know certain groups will exploit the **** out of this by putting down hundreds of cits in one area to lag out there enemies. 1000km is no where near far enough of a min distance from each other. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1859
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 00:42:10 -
[414] - Quote
John Hand wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:John Hand wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:John Hand wrote:Issues I am having with Cits right now, is the stupid 24hr anchor time.
I know in a blog or vid it was mentioned they would be around 1/2/4 hours for the M/L/XL's, now I know things change, but damn thats just too ******* long of an anchor time.
So I suggest that the times be 1/2/4 for nullsec, be 2/4/8 for low sec and 3/'6/12 for high sec, this keeps the times REASONABLE and goes along with the "lower sec gets better buffs" idea that these things are being based on.
Loving these things otherwise. 24 hours is deliberate, to allow people time to respond without having to be online every minute of the day. If you could put one up in 1 hour, it would be trivial to create them through enemy space and make them then spend several days to kill each one along with losing ships to deference, and the risk that every single one is a trap. What? That statement doesn't even make sense, not to mention that people ALREADY do that with normal POS's in enemy space, whats the difference with a Medium Cit? Nothing. In fact you will KNOW the enemy put one in there because it will pop up, rather then some discreet notification that only the SOV holder gets right now when a POS gets planted. It should be short so people can move them around, NOT a whole effing DAY to anchor them. Should be 1 hour for the medium, maybe 4 for the large and 8 hours for the XL AT MOST, gives you PLENTY of time to figure out if an enemy is putting one down, while still being mobile for smaller corps/alliances. Medium Cits are a non threat to most alliances, the defenses are weak vs caps and can be knocked over fairly easily with a handful of dreads. Larges are more of an issue, and 4 hours would give you lots of time to figure it out, if you live in your space YOU WILL KNOW! Its only an issue if you own too much space and don't actively live in it. You need to think about the smaller groups wanting to put down something bigger then a med, 1 day is just too effing long for ANY size cit. Except when s pos goes up you can take it down in two days. It can take over a week to take down a citadel Apples and oranges Wrong. Medium Cit only has ONE RF timer (current POS mechanics) Large has 2 RF XL has all 3 I highly doubt someone will drop an XL in your space without you noticing it, and if they do, ITS YOU OWN DAMN FAULT. LOL. Having a decent anchor time of 1/4/8 would be sufficient enough for someone to notice something getting planted. Not to mention a medium isn't much of a problem to deal with, since even just ONE dread can reach its max DPS. Also the Min Anchor Distance needs to be changed. Should be at least 1 AU from any GATE Also there needs to be a limit to how many can be placed per a gird, because I know certain groups will exploit the **** out of this by putting down hundreds of cits in one area to lag out there enemies. 1000km is no where near far enough of a min distance from each other.
Wait when did they change the RF timers O.o
also i was not talking about the RF timers i was talking about the invulnerably timer. I could have to wait a week for that to come out of invuln
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Rilly Dagons
Galactic Pilot's Union
3
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 01:24:13 -
[415] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: also i was not talking about the RF timers i was talking about the invulnerably timer. I could have to wait a week for that to come out of invuln
Once the citadel finishes it's anchor cycle it is automatically vulnerable with only hull present which means it can be destroyed immediately if hit before the repair timer reaches zero
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1868
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 01:27:06 -
[416] - Quote
Rilly Dagons wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: also i was not talking about the RF timers i was talking about the invulnerably timer. I could have to wait a week for that to come out of invuln
Once the citadel finishes it's anchor cycle it is automatically vulnerable with only hull present which means it can be destroyed immediately if hit before the repair timer reaches zero
yes which is why the 24hr timer is needed its going to be hard to react if someone puts them up in your off hours with only 2-8hrs of warning but really where is the post where they changed how the RF timers worked
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1868
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 01:28:08 -
[417] - Quote
double
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1870
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 04:02:43 -
[418] - Quote
so i noticed the section in the refine window that normaly shows your profit now shows the tax instead this is a very bad place to put this please don't
and since i'm hear i really want to stress that compression needs to be taxed unless some one (ccp or otherwise) can give me a good reason as to why a service i pay to run not only cant be taxed but takes away my ability to tax other things in the citadel as well
Citadel worm hole tax
|
John Hand
15
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 09:50:53 -
[419] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Rilly Dagons wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: also i was not talking about the RF timers i was talking about the invulnerably timer. I could have to wait a week for that to come out of invuln
Once the citadel finishes it's anchor cycle it is automatically vulnerable with only hull present which means it can be destroyed immediately if hit before the repair timer reaches zero yes which is why the 24hr timer is needed its going to be hard to react if someone puts them up in your off hours with only 2-8hrs of warning but really where is the post where they changed how the RF timers worked
Was from an old dev blog, dunno if they kept it that way, if they didn't, then there stupid, because it made the most sense (1 RF for med/ 2 for
Off hours only matter if your a small alliance, and even then, only a med would be able to be sneaked into your system, which again, is only something very easy to hit with a few dreads, even when fully decked out vs caps. This is NO DIFFERENT then current game mechanics with a large tower, which already happens A LOT because of hidden exec corps not noticing the notification of when a POS was dropped in there SoV.
Possible suggestions would be to make the notification of a hostile cit being deployed be alliance wide, then you would have no excuse for someone plopping one in your space. Again, IF YOU LIVE IN YOUR OWN SPACE YOU WILL KNOW! |
|
CCP Claymore
C C P C C P Alliance
333
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 11:25:30 -
[420] - Quote
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.
Quality Assurance Analyst
Team Game of Drones
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |