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) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2262
|
Posted - 2016.04.21 06:48:47 -
[541] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:These things are more expensive and in many ways more limited to a pos their only real advantage is they are going to be hard to kill and that's the point Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I have some comments about "more limited" but I need to finish testing, I still think I've barely scratched the surface of how many ways you can break eve with citadels.
well in there currant state they are...
no industry no mining no reactions no research just storage and docking
i din't say they were more limited than citadels said in many ways they are more limited
but my point stands they are supposed to be hard to kill
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Sekeris
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
16
|
Posted - 2016.04.21 15:37:51 -
[542] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:what?
you only need 3 hrs a weak
that lighter colored box that comes up shows you when it will come out of RF if it enters it during that vuln timer.
Aye, i figured that out. Its not very clear though at the moment. Will try to shoot one and see what happens so i can better figure out how to plan my refo. Thinking on it more i guess its much better then the current system, automatic guns dont realy do much atm, and at least this will be invulnerable most the time. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort Circle-Of-Two
114
|
Posted - 2016.04.21 21:08:37 -
[543] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote: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.
Yea I know that, but being required to fit and undock to repair modules seems pretty meh |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
385
|
Posted - 2016.04.21 21:08:40 -
[544] - Quote
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?
Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2454
|
Posted - 2016.04.21 21:34:11 -
[545] - Quote
Not sure if this has been said already and I quite frankly do not feel like searching:
When you want to add someone/something to one of the many access lists for citadels and you search for them with the "+ Add Member" function, you get a completely chaotic list with chars, corps and alliances mixed together like crazy. Unlike in other search result boxes (like the one in Peoples & Places), the search results are not sorted in collapsible/expandable categories. Instead, they are presented in a ridiculously long list for some search terms without any sorting at all. This must change before you deploy these structures.
And no, using exact terms or exclusive terms as limiter for search results is by no means and not at all a solution to this ludicrous handling of search results when you have the polar opposite of this with the mentioned Peoples & Places search result handling.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
466
|
Posted - 2016.04.21 21:54:29 -
[546] - 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. |
Erin Aldent
Eagle Wing Industries Prodigal Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.21 22:37:46 -
[547] - Quote
There is a problem w/ how taxes apply when you are in more than one group. Take the med bay, I had 3 groups, Public at 1M, alliance at 200K and a group w/ my alts at 0. What is happening is that my alts in corp are being charged 1M, while my out of corp alts are free. Refining is working the same way, and I assume the market too but i did not test that.
There is also a bug w/ the refining rigs, unless you take control of the citadel the rig bonus is not applying. It defaults to 50% until you take control of the citadel, and then after that the rig bonus applies until the next down time. |
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort Circle-Of-Two
52
|
Posted - 2016.04.22 02:55:49 -
[548] - Quote
after playing with the citadels for the last few days here are my thoughts:
Player to player in station trading needs to be implemented Internal Repair Facilities need to be implemented.
I feel like the point defense is in a good place right now and i feel that anti-drone/anti frig weapons are in a very good place.
other then that we have some problems.
a legion set up with a fleet standard tank only takes 350 damage while webbed and duel target painted from 3 launchers with anti-cruiser missiles... it does even less to a tanked guardian.
This damage needs to be up a good bit.. at least 300% (this would put damage around 1k from a volley of 3 launchers) i understand why you don't want these things to be able to scramble while invulnerable but if thats the case you need to give these things enough damage where you can force t2/t3 cruisers off of it or be required to bring a good size fleet.
I would also think about upping bomb speed and damage a bit as well... i would say at least 50% on the speed because right now they are painfully slow. i would also like to see the ability to fit more then 1 bomb launcher per citadel.
I have watched a Golem tank 3 anti-battleship launchers and a bomb launcher and neuts from a large... he tanked it until he ran out of cap chargers for his boosters. More damage is required here, i would also consider doubling the neut power of the standup large neuts from 1500 to 3k.
Most capital weapons seem to be strong, the biggest gripe here is how slow these missiles are.. and because the citadels are so large even frigate class missiles tank a long time to hit the target
I will updated more as i go along.
|
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
391
|
Posted - 2016.04.22 09:14:11 -
[549] - Quote
Trying to figure out the new broker fee calculation
So I put an item for sale in a citadel where I set the tax rate to o.o% - it charged me 100 isk for a 100,000 isk sale of one item
I then put the tax rate to 10.0% - it charged me 800 isk for the same 100,000 isk item. a rate of o.8%
When i flipped it from three months to one day sale it changed the broker fee to 8000 isk for the 100,000 isk sale a rate of 8.0%
im a bit confuzled.....should it not have just charged 10%?
When i put an item for sale in an NPC station i got charged o.77% (766.41 isk) for the same 100,000 isk sale.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2405
|
Posted - 2016.04.23 07:41:19 -
[550] - Quote
Lauched my test Citadel yesterday ... so wait and see. But I was shocked after /moveme to the test system, the performance was horrible with all the Citadels in system, below 15 FPS, where I usually have solid 60 with medium settings. Switching of the structure marks in space helped improving to 25-30 FPS. You seriously need to work on performance.
Couldn't figure out this market tax (shouldn't it be broker fee?) setting either, we need an update here. Especially as your previously announced plans will certainly crush New Eden's market segment.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
|
Erin Aldent
Eagle Wing Industries Prodigal Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.04.23 08:42:56 -
[551] - Quote
You can't start invention on the citadel rig BPCs in a Design Laboratory, I tested this w/ the Standup M-Set HS Materials Reclamation I Blueprint copy. |
Fire Bringer Brisinger
Ballz Deep...
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.24 01:58:38 -
[552] - Quote
please wipe the system i cant even dock or undock and move around the system keeps crashing |
Zerling Rush
31
|
Posted - 2016.04.24 03:25:35 -
[553] - Quote
hi!
DD may not cause damage to the Citadel? Why balance done crutches?
Why not come up with a module that generates a field locking DD in the grid of the Citadel? with the module turns on and off instantly
the defenders decide whether they cut subcap using DD, but there is a risk of impact DD on the Citadel either collect more allies on s-¦b-üap to protect under the field blocking any dd in grid
I think that would be interesting
ps It is also possible to envisage the possibility of forced off the field (entosis?) to create a small window of vulnerability
ps ps Sorry for my terrible English |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2280
|
Posted - 2016.04.24 07:21:47 -
[554] - Quote
Zerling Rush wrote:hi!
DD may not cause damage to the Citadel? Why balance done crutches?
Why not come up with a module that generates a field locking DD in the grid of the Citadel? with the module turns on and off instantly
the defenders decide whether they cut subcap using DD, but there is a risk of impact DD on the Citadel either collect more allies on s-¦b-üap to protect under the field blocking any dd in grid
I think that would be interesting
ps It is also possible to envisage the possibility of forced off the field (entosis?) to create a small window of vulnerability
ps ps Sorry for my terrible English
O.o wut
the only one i could sort of understand is you want entosis to make the citadels vulnerable. this is a bad idea and makes the timers pointless
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Coelomate Mines
Gilliomate Corp
1
|
Posted - 2016.04.24 19:40:36 -
[555] - Quote
It appears I can't activate a warp scrambler fit to an Astrahus outside of the vulnerability window - it says "You cannot activate Standup Warp Scrambler I whilst invulnerable." All other modules work.
Is that intentional?
I buy characters - fair/prompt/no scams. Many deals in my history. Feel free to contact me via eve mail.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2282
|
Posted - 2016.04.24 20:53:09 -
[556] - Quote
Coelomate Mines wrote:It appears I can't activate a warp scrambler fit to an Astrahus outside of the vulnerability window - it says "You cannot activate Standup Warp Scrambler I whilst invulnerable." All other modules work.
Is that intentional?
Yes
Citadel worm hole tax
|
The fed
ANGELGARD. Red Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 15:04:13 -
[557] - Quote
When i'm trying to activate jump clone on other station being in citadel and in ship get weird message. "Message: '' Args: {'structureName': u'Orantas House of curtisans and preferans'}"
Screenshot http://imgur.com/tD0Wr4Z |
|
CCP Claymore
C C P C C P Alliance
345
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 16:12:44 -
[558] - Quote
Erin Aldent wrote:You can't start invention on the citadel rig BPCs in a Design Laboratory, I tested this w/ the Standup M-Set HS Materials Reclamation I Blueprint copy.
Taking a look.
Quality Assurance Analyst
Team Game of Drones
|
|
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
392
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 19:40:45 -
[559] - Quote
noted a new patch on sisi
so....before i said it was showing broker fee on the My Orders tab at 20.80% ....
Now it shows "BASE BROKER FEE: 48.00%"
when i put things for sale in the Citadel - and I set the tax rate at 10%
I put something up 1 item for 100.000 isk and it charges 1.0% 1,000 isk However when i flip the time frame around the tax rate jumps to 10.0% (which is the correct rate as set)
So this is still not working - and still rather confusing since the base fees and taxes show up as such incorrect figures.
And yes I have reported these as bugs though i checked the bug reports show closed. |
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
392
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 19:52:00 -
[560] - Quote
I also noted that when trying to set a Citadel as a destination the citadel does not form part of the route that is plotted. Unlike what I can do with an existing station.
Right now you can right click - 'set destination' and the route plotted includes the end point (the station). |
|
Regan Rotineque
The Scope Gallente Federation
392
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 19:56:11 -
[561] - Quote
When using the structure browser to look for "Services" there does not appear to be a way to tell if you have access to the service or not.
For example im in Devoid....there are a couple of other citadels showing up in the structure browser - I can see the services being offered, however how do I know if I have access to these services? I cannot seem to right click on them in the list to set destination so my assumption is I cannot access them. If that is the case then why have them show up ? There should be an easy way to sort through the list of stations to show those that you can and cannot access. Especially if you are looking for a specific service. In addition to just having a bunch of citadels on the screen that are of no use to you if you cannot access them.
I can see why someone who wants to go blow up citadels would want a full list regardless of access rights.....but for those of us shopping, selling, reprocessing, compressing, knowing what is open and what is closed is much more valuable.
|
Jerppu3
Solar Vista. The Anubis Accord
7
|
Posted - 2016.04.26 02:23:23 -
[562] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Just one more time to hope you see why compression needs to be treated separate in roles and taxable
You guys want to push trading into player citadels well if any of these do manage to spring up odds are they will have very low if not 0 refining tax in order to incentives people who sell large quantities of minerals to use their market.
What this means is if you set up a refinery structure you won't be able to tax it anywhere that uses that market citadel particularly in hs.
There is very little reason for anyone to refine in your citadel even if it's free do to the convenience they gain from compressing in order to move their ore to sell. Same goes off they are building they will want to compress the ore in order to build closer to a market.
So unless there is a good reason why this service should not be taxable please make it so.
Also this change is gong to make it where there is little to no uncompressed ore sold in eve is this intended?
CCP, can we get an update for this please?! This is really important feature to have and Lugh have made really good explanation above. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2294
|
Posted - 2016.04.26 02:50:55 -
[563] - Quote
please we haven't heard from a dev since before fan fest
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Circumstantial Evidence
304
|
Posted - 2016.04.26 08:02:32 -
[564] - 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. |
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Violence of Action.
501
|
Posted - 2016.04.26 13:43:48 -
[565] - Quote
The system name isn't automatically prefixed to the citadel name in places like the personal assets window. Is this intended behaviour? |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
484
|
Posted - 2016.04.27 05:53:47 -
[566] - Quote
Okay I was going to do some rare good posting but I'm enjoying Dark Souls III way too much for that so this is just going to be a disorganised brain dump:
- Tethering is a horrible game breaking thing, even worse than pos force fields without any of the necessity of pos force fields (since pos facilities had to be accessed while undocked while citadel facilities are accessed while docked). It's essentially a huge sphere where you aren't allowed to play EVE. No fighting, invincible links (off grid links are still a thing for now and even if they were this would be invincible links for citadel defense, which is way too heavily weighted towards the defender already), risk free cynos (you have to break the tether to cyno but I don't think anyone cares about that)... actually this needs another bullet point! I did say I wasn't going to be doing good posting.
- Warping off including alignment is risk free. Yes, pos force fields have this too (and instas exist but they are not guaranteed safety) but it's not really a good thing, eventually these will be used instead of stations rather than as well as them and it removes a location that pvp can happen, hell you can't even scan someone. If that's not broken enough for you, this next thing deserves a bullet point of its own...
- Guess what you can do while defending? Align a tethered fleet to another astrahus (that's a medium if you haven't been paying attention, the citadel initials are AFK in order of size, which reflects how you can play while defending them, more on that later), preactivate weapons and run sebos, alpha a guy and immediately warp to the astrahus. You only become lockable when you start to lock and with high scan res and fast input the tick advantage means you're in warp before you can be pointed, but this is worse than you think. During warp, your weapons timer is running down. If it reaches 10 seconds or less by the time you land, you will be tethered to the citadel before you're vulnerable, so to recap you start invulnerable, alpha a guy, become invulnerable again without anyone having a chance to lock you. Yeaaaaaah.
- The commitment for an attacker is crazy, particularly in k-space and especially in highsec. Apart from obscene EHP when you can't use dreads (apart from not being in this patch, allowing neutral dreads in highsec would be game breaking except maybe if they're forced to be permanently suspect or a new flag which works a bit differently from suspect but allows engagement), the requirement to attack at whatever off hours the owner chooses (which you can't even see, you can only see how long until the next vuln - you really should be able to view the complete timetable and the next week's if different), the lack of any reason not to have each citadel in its own shell corp because... I'll get back to this point, first a thing about shell corps.
- The access list system means that there is little to no reason to have citadels in corp, you can assign every right to the individual level, so anyone gaming the system which nobody ever does in EVE as you know will create a shell corp for each highsec citadel to protect corporation members from attack by hiding in NPC corporations, not that this is the first broken thing about them but congrats you just made wardecs even more pointless. Look, I like the rights administration interface but decoupling everything from corporations is just giving people less reasons to be in them, and there aren't enough reasons already.
- So yeah, apart from EHP, vuln hours, shell corps so if using a highsec wardec your only possible target is one citadel if the owner knows anything about the mechanics, which might be uncommon initially but this will be become standard practice in time, there's this little issue. No, I don't mean the offenses, plenty has been posted about them already since they're obvious, I mean that by setting vuln to 10:00-11:00 on three or six days for an astrahus or fortizar respectively, your citadel is completely unkillable. If only someone had wondered what happens when a repair timer crosses downtime back in September. Contrary to the blog post, reinforcement is not relative to the start of the repair timer (i.e. when you attack), but to when HP reaches 0, which means that the second bash takes place at least half an hour later than the first and the third bash at least an hour later. Whoops, this means that if vuln is an hour before downtime, a repair timer has to cross downtime and as it turns out, this resets the citadel to invulnerable. I would have submitted EBR-77305 and EBR-77399 earlier, but vulnerability timers were straight up not working for a long time on sisi, so testing was not possible.
- Oh and even when working correctly a siege in k-sapce takes an absolute minimum of 7 days, 1 hour and 30 minutes because the 24 hour and 144 hour reinforcement timers and dps caps. Apart from being stupidly long, that's longer than a standard wardec. Seriously what possible call is there for this when you're coddling players with asset safety anyway?
- There's more stuff that's broken by design and probably quite a few things I didn't even find in my tests, but I have a sun to praise.
Apart from obviously broken things, it's just a cheap structure someone plopped down, it doesn't need to be so powerful and invulnerable. The only content even allowed around citadels is structure bashing (and free shooting galleries for owners when someone tries) and you're seriously overestimating people's appetite for structure bashing at weird hours. |
Circumstantial Evidence
304
|
Posted - 2016.04.27 12:46:08 -
[567] - 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. |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
485
|
Posted - 2016.04.27 16:13:59 -
[568] - Quote
Ah I forgot to mention something about shell corps: in the event that the owner actually decides he needs to field a defense fleet, he can simply ally his corp to the shell corp for free.
Tethering is the main reason I'm so bothered by citadels being so unassailable, citadels offer more safety than poses or stations. I also intentionally omitted some REALLY broken things you can do with tethering (yes it gets worse than untouchable machariel fleets and a return of links inside force fields) because I don't want to even give people those ideas.
Also, people will set vuln to 10:00 without any knowledge of nor intention of exploiting the immortal citadel conditions simply because it's a time which greatly inconveniences attackers. |
|
|
|
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 |