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) |
Arline Kley
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
647
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 15:50:19 -
[181] - Quote
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..
"For it was said they had become like those peculiar demons, which dwell in matter but in whom no light may be found." - Father Grigori, Ravens 3:57
|
sokotony
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 16:02:52 -
[182] - Quote
Has there been a discussion about how the timers negatively affect the small corps out there?
The current unanchor timer is 7 days. Like it or not most small corps don't have the people to handle high sec war decs, so we pack up and unanchor everything. Then when the war is over, we anchor it back up. With the new timers, this won't be possible.
It seems that this is taking away a huge set of gameplay from the small group. Are these timers permanent?
Soko |
Somebody TheGreat
Somebody's Corp Care Factor
4
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 16:13:15 -
[183] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Not sure if this is intentional or not, but it does not appear to be possible to activate a Cyno while tethered. The only feedback when attempting to light the cyno is not very informative: "Your ship is realigning its magnetic field, please wait a moment."
Locking a target, in this case a jettisoned can, without any further action, causes the tether to drop allowing me to light the cyno within tethering range but remain untethered. If I remove the can by looting it, the can pops, no timer, and tether re-enages (the cyno is not active).
This makes sense that you cannot light the cyno while tethered. So:
1 - Will it be possible to light a cyno and cause the tethering to break just as you can lock something and cause tethering to break?
2 - Will CCP create something similar to the Cynosural Generator Array for Citadels?
1: Amusingly that was how it worked on SISI a few days ago, with tether dropping when you activate the cyno, so I suspect that we will see that when they get to TQ
2: Not for citadels, AFAIK. Thats most likely going to go on a different structure. |
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort Circle-Of-Two
76
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 16:23:43 -
[184] - Quote
sokotony wrote:Has there been a discussion about how the timers negatively affect the small corps out there?
The current unanchor timer is 7 days. Like it or not most small corps don't have the people to handle high sec war decs, so we pack up and unanchor everything. Then when the war is over, we anchor it back up. With the new timers, this won't be possible.
It seems that this is taking away a huge set of gameplay from the small group. Are these timers permanent?
Soko
I agree with what you said. However, the more I thought about it, the more I began to see how it may not be to bad.
This will require testing to determine exactly how good a citadel is against subcaps (with logi).
Yes, it takes you 7 days to unanchor, but a medium is only vulnerable for what 3 hours (I am thinking 6 for high sec but can't remember).
This gives you options.
Putting the time around downtime may work due to the enemy being logged or having to fight downtime itself.
Putting it so only 1-2 hours every few days it is vulnerable would also help as the enemy would have to coordinate the attack in a smaller window. Again, you could probably defend the citadel from a small-medium gang depending on logi. |
Ace Aideron
Red Falcon Group Intrepid Crossing
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 16:37:44 -
[185] - Quote
1. While controlling an XL, clicking "Launch all fighters" doesn't always launch all tubes (though it *sometimes* does). Same for recall all.
2. Also while controlling, every once in a while the overview stops showing a bunch of things. Sometimes, clicking on another tab and back will refresh things, but sometimes not.
3. The Standup Signal Amplifier I doesn't seem to be working. The max target range before installing is 400 km, and it doesn't change after installing.
4. The Market Hub being disabled after reboot has happened twice more.
5. I'm not seeing any station services in the menu on the right side of the screen (under where the corp name is). I have a Cloning Center installed, and it doesn't seem to be available, either.
6. The description of the Variable Spectrum ECM indicates that it should take scripts -- but it doesn't.
Suggestion: it would be helpful if self-inflicted damage against your own ships or drones was shown differently somehow -- maybe a different color? The issue came up for me while using the Point Defense gun. It's area defense, which is great, except if you have heavy fighters out, in which case the fighters get hit. Blue damage reports make it look like good news, but of course it's not.
Also, with the lovely looking, carefully crafted docking bays, it's a shame that the visual indication of docking is for ships to just cloak. It would be cooler if they were rapidly tractored into a random (but close and appropriately sized) docking bay.
I should add that I think all of the citadels are visually wonderful. I was expecting bigger versions of the current stations -- these are so, so much more. Really great! Congrats to everyone who made them possible. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3792
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 17:04:52 -
[186] - Quote
The testing areas I was interested in were setting up and taking down of the Citadels.
Setting up: There needs to be a way to move them vertically. Maybe hold down some key, and you get vertical movement?
Both setting up and taking down: It was my understanding that Citadels were to be a replacement for the POS, along with POS functionality. But in this area Citadels fail totally. I can set up a small POS is a very short time, and take it down just as fast. They can be used tactically. But Citadels cannot. They take one day to set up, and a WEEK to take down. This limits them to more strategic uses. A basic POS function is lost. Example:
The "POS in a can" Wormhole day trip. Your corp puts a POS and some modules in a industrial, goes into a WH, and sets up for a day or two. At the end, you take it all down and go home. This cannot be done with Citadels as they stand now.
A new use: The mobile market that follows incursions about. Citadels are too slow in their set up and tear down to make this idea viable.
The current times, one day up, 7 down, seem appropriate for the extra large, as it is a strategic asset. I recommend shorter times, maybe much shorter, for the smaller sizes. I think the medium should go up and down as fast as a small POS. The large, a few hours up, a dozen to take it down.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
425
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 17:26:55 -
[187] - 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.
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
243
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 18:43:17 -
[188] - Quote
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. |
Little Bad Wolf
Partial Safety
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 18:48:02 -
[189] - Quote
How does unanchoring work, how long does it take?
Can they be unanchored while in reinforcement? |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3513
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 19:06:29 -
[190] - Quote
I have two citadels deployed last friday, after a few days of anchoring since the timer reset with every node reboot, a dev wrote a script and anchored all of them (and fixing the anchoring bug too). When i logged in back, both citadels where at 24% armor and they are not repping themself.
Means i can not fit or use them. They are at this state since two days now.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
425
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 19:52:29 -
[191] - 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.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3792
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 19:57:57 -
[192] - Quote
Little Bad Wolf wrote:How does unanchoring work, how long does it take?
Can they be unanchored while in reinforcement? Go to "Structure (something)" under business on the Neocom. You citadel should be there. On the line with your citadel, right click and you will see a decommission option.
It takes one week.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
366
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 20:44:11 -
[193] - Quote
CCP Claymore wrote:There will not be an alternative to Cynosural Generator Array on first release.
That sounds hopeful for something in the future.
Running for CSM 11. You should vote for me.
|
Mister Ripley
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
174
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 21:04:30 -
[194] - Quote
Some people may get pretty upset if the adds on an in their citadels will advertise for random stuff and not for the corporation/alliance. |
Minerva Arbosa
Astrocomical Warped Intentions
18
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 21:24:23 -
[195] - Quote
Citadels come out of anchoring with 20% armor and 0% shield. At least mine do. I have no way to repair it, and after going through at least one vulnerability timer the Secure timer is stuck at 0s, and it will not let me rep the Citadel even when vulnerable. |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
426
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 22:06:11 -
[196] - 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! |
helana Tsero
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
428
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 00:02:07 -
[197] - Quote
For me over 50% of citadels have the graphic bug where I can see all the lights but not the actual citadel itself.
they look like ghost citadels... spooky...
"... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á | zoonr-Korsairs |-á QFT !
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1725
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 01:31:00 -
[198] - Quote
sokotony wrote:Has there been a discussion about how the timers negatively affect the small corps out there?
The current unanchor timer is 7 days. Like it or not most small corps don't have the people to handle high sec war decs, so we pack up and unanchor everything. Then when the war is over, we anchor it back up. With the new timers, this won't be possible.
It seems that this is taking away a huge set of gameplay from the small group. Are these timers permanent?
Soko
the entire point is that if you want to use them you have to risk them
Citadel worm hole tax
|
sokotony
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 01:59:30 -
[199] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:sokotony wrote:Has there been a discussion about how the timers negatively affect the small corps out there?
The current unanchor timer is 7 days. Like it or not most small corps don't have the people to handle high sec war decs, so we pack up and unanchor everything. Then when the war is over, we anchor it back up. With the new timers, this won't be possible.
It seems that this is taking away a huge set of gameplay from the small group. Are these timers permanent?
Soko the entire point is that if you want to use them you have to risk them
Please. That makes no sense for high sec. Most high sec wars are large corps who war dec for business. There is no way a small corp could compete with the likes of PIRAT or the equivalent. It is already inconvenient enough that indy types need to cancel all long running jobs and take things down for the week. |
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg
165
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 03:08:30 -
[200] - Quote
sokotony wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:sokotony wrote:Has there been a discussion about how the timers negatively affect the small corps out there?
The current unanchor timer is 7 days. Like it or not most small corps don't have the people to handle high sec war decs, so we pack up and unanchor everything. Then when the war is over, we anchor it back up. With the new timers, this won't be possible.
It seems that this is taking away a huge set of gameplay from the small group. Are these timers permanent?
Soko the entire point is that if you want to use them you have to risk them Please. That makes no sense for high sec. Most high sec wars are large corps who war dec for business. There is no way a small corp could compete with the likes of PIRAT or the equivalent. It is already inconvenient enough that indy types need to cancel all long running jobs and take things down for the week. You could hire a merc corp for defense. Or learn how to use the citadel wapons now. (If they work as intended)
"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen.
Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher.
Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)
"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
|
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
245
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 04:30:41 -
[201] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote: 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.
Eeeeh. That's kinda counter-intuitive - mixing groups and their permissions. Not to mention it gets even more crazy with the default everyone group, because under the mixed group-permission paradigm you can't explicitly set permissions for it. You simply don't have the tools.
Also, what if an entity is a part of two groups, in one it's a member, in the other one it's blocked? How the permission collision is going to be resolved? |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
245
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 07:31:27 -
[202] - Quote
Okay, I got me a character out of corporation and did some permission testing. Well, they don't work. Or are not implemented yet.
That is, I have a citadel in a custom profile that had docking permissions set for my corp and everyone (but control permissions only for corp). I can dock an out-of-corp character, but can not take control of the citadel. So far so good.
I create a new group, add the caracter to it and add docking and controlling permissions to it. The character still has no control over the citadel.
I put the character in the group into the blokced state, but the character still can dock.
The conclusion is, either permissions do not work, or they take time to apply, and it still has not happened.
Also tested the market module.
A character in the corporation (actually the one that set up the citadel) can put and see market orders in the citadel. Their own and those by other characters.
The out-of-corp character (Trade II Marketing I) can put orders, but does not see them, even their own orders. Also this times group permissions do work - the order is affected by the sales tax set up for the group.
Also orders are visible in the wallet orders tab for both characters, but both characters can not interact with their citadel orders via that interface. RMB does nothing. But the orders are working (even those set up by the out-of-corp character) - as in they can be correctly fullfilled. |
jepsjeps
Brotherhood of Polar Equation
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 08:33:19 -
[203] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Okay, I got me a character out of corporation and did some permission testing.
I create a new group, add the caracter to it and add docking and controlling permissions to it. The character still has no control over the citadel.
I put the character in the group into the blokced state, but the character still can dock.
The conclusion is, either permissions do not work, or they take time to apply, and it still has not happened.
From where I can configure these things?
Also, in the OP they say following...
Quote:Known Issues:
- Some rigs and Services Modules do not currently work
Docking restrictions are not implemented yet Loot drops are not implemented yet Interior Hangars not implemented yet Reprocessing and compression modules not implemented yet Clone service not implemented yet The model does not always load, relogging should fix this
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
245
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 08:48:03 -
[204] - Quote
jepsjeps wrote: From where I can configure these things?
IIRC Menu - Business - Structure browser. There you can get the list of all your structures and a list of profiles. You create a new profile and drag&drop your structures of interes into it. This profile will then contain the selected structures and have a tab called "properties" or something like that.
In the properties tab you can manage per-group permissions and taxes. Well, sort of manage permissions, because permissions apparently aren't decoupled from the groups (as far as explicit denial goes), so the resulting permission should apparently be a product of the group being listed under a certain allowed activity or tax and status of the member of interest in the group. Probably. So far the mechanism doesn't look to be well thought out or indeeed working at all.
Properties tab by default has your Corp as the sole added group for all activities. There's also a default group called "Everyone". You can RMB on the table header and add a group or go to the group management window.
In the group management window you can create new groups, add members to them via drag&drop and manage member statuses (admin/member/blocked).
jepsjeps wrote: Also, in the OP they say following...
Well, there's not only docking but also citadel control. |
Cormac Ryan
Ryan Bros. United Tech Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 10:09:49 -
[205] - Quote
My client crashes very often when I open the fitting window, both in citadels and stations. |
Little Bad Wolf
Partial Safety
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 11:24:44 -
[206] - Quote
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 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. |
helana Tsero
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
429
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 11:49:42 -
[207] - Quote
Questions / Problems with citadels.
Corp theft. Currently a corp member with access can empty a corp hanger and put it all into their personal SMA/CHA. Directors have no idea who took what and where it went. Solution - need logging in corp hanger arrays.
This is especially problematic if a corp gives ships/modules for members to use.. With POS you could check a members SMA.. but directors cant access Personal SMA/CHA in citadels.
What happens if a person leaves a corp but leaves ships/modules in his personal SMA/CHA ? What happens to those assets ? If the citadel is destroyed 1 year later is the value of all the ex members assets still in SMA/CHAs going to be calculated in the loss mail ? For the larger alliances that means the citadel loss mail is going to be worth trillions...
"... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á | zoonr-Korsairs |-á QFT !
|
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
709
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 13:38:43 -
[208] - Quote
helana Tsero wrote:Questions / Problems with citadels.
Corp theft. Currently a corp member with access can empty a corp hanger and put it all into their personal SMA/CHA. Directors have no idea who took what and where it went. Solution - need logging in corp hanger arrays. The solution to this is audit log containers, in the same way they're currently used in stations.
helana Tsero wrote:This is especially problematic if a corp gives ships/modules for members to use.. With POS you could check a members SMA.. but directors cant access Personal SMA/CHA in citadels. This is currently possible in stations / outposts with corp hangars; directors can view corp member personal hangars already. This functionality could be carried over to Citadels.
helana Tsero wrote:What happens if a person leaves a corp but leaves ships/modules in his personal SMA/CHA ? What happens to those assets that nobody can access but the ex corp member ? If the citadel is destroyed 1 year later is the value of all the ex members assets still in personal SMA/CHAs going to be calculated in the loss mail ? For the larger alliances that means the citadel loss mail is going to be worth trillions... Providing the structure isn't in a wormhole, a character can use the asset safety mechanics at any time to move their stuff somewhere safe. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3794
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 14:11:48 -
[209] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:sokotony wrote:Has there been a discussion about how the timers negatively affect the small corps out there?
The current unanchor timer is 7 days. Like it or not most small corps don't have the people to handle high sec war decs, so we pack up and unanchor everything. Then when the war is over, we anchor it back up. With the new timers, this won't be possible.
It seems that this is taking away a huge set of gameplay from the small group. Are these timers permanent?
Soko the entire point is that if you want to use them you have to risk them I agree. But there is no risk when there is no war. The risk is only there when there is a war. The entire point of being able to unanchor them fast is "I cannot risk it, so I'll stop using it". Also, the POS has this functionality: You can take them down in case of war. Citadels are supposed to be replacements for the POS, and its functionality. But the ability to withdraw in case of war is being lost.
Plays should have options. If I don't want to fight, I should have the option to lose the benefits of the structure for the duration.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Thalesia
System lords Collective
10
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 15:44:53 -
[210] - Quote
any news on Supercapital production restrictions`? is it possible in lowsec with a L or XL citadel post patch? |
|
|
|
|
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 |