EVE Search - Citadels are now on Singularity

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Citadels are now on Singularity

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 261	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:01:07 - [1] - Quote Greetings to all you budding space property tycoons, Team Game of Drones here with some good news, Citadels are now available on Singularity. As with any feature on Singularity this is still work in progress and therefore stuff will be broken, some stuff is not implemented yet and numbers are still open to change. So please go forth and build but keep all this in mind. This will be the official feedback thread for Citadels and their related mechanics and features. Anything relating to Capital Ships, fighters, capital doomsdays should be given here link, but if you are REALLY not sure just post it in one of the two threads and it will find its way to the correct dev. Please give constructive feedback, if you do not like something please try and tell us why with maybe some alternative ideas. If you do discover any issues here on Singularity please report them through the F12 menu before restarting your client as there is loads of important information like logs that is lost upon a client restart. So, with all this in mind, here is a list of what is implemented at the moment: Deploying Citadels Docking and Undocking Taking Control of the Citadel Fitting and Unfitting modules Using high, medium, low slots and rigs, including numerous structure modules Reloading weapons, yes that means you can also fire them Manufacturing Citadels, modules, rigs, service modules. User lists, which give structure owners capability to filter who can access structure services. Those can be set up to allow corporation, alliance, all public or specific individuals to be added Structure browser, allowing players to filter which structures they can dock at, along with which services they provide. Citadel Inventories Corp Offices in Citadels Tethering, allowing ships which are allowed to dock inside a structure by the owner to be invulnerable to direct attack as long as no offensive action is set. Asset Safety All Citadel related blueprints and assets should be seeded as per usual Singularity rules. 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 Reprocessing and compression modules Clone service The model does not always load, relogging should fix this There are and will be more known issues, I will try and keep them up to date, but keep me honest on this one We have created a chat channel on Singularity called "Citadels". Join this channel if you have questions. Keeping in mind it will probably only have someone in it from around 9-5 EVE time. We will be monitoring this thread regularly, even if we are not replying, we will be reading the posts so please give us all the feedback you have. Go forth and build, Game of Drones. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Era'kanath LankTech 29	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:21:33 - [2] - Quote The Citadels have replaced most if not all Outposts right? (Or is that what they intend to do on the main server upon release? but not on the test server at the moment?) If they have replaced all outposts, will the ones that were seeded- still be seeded? Not just for super production but also setting up bases and Citadels of our own, since they require a pool of resources to construct. And last but not least- when is SISI coming online? =P Can't wait to mess around with them "The more we sweat in peacetime, the less we bleed in war."
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion 33	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:23:15 - [3] - Quote ITS HEREEEEEE! YAAAAAAAASSSSSS!

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 262	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:33:31 - [4] - Quote Era'kanath wrote: The Citadels have replaced most if not all Outposts right? (Or is that what they intend to do on the main server upon release? but not on the test server at the moment?) If they have replaced all outposts, will the ones that were seeded- still be seeded? Not just for super production but also setting up bases and Citadels of our own, since they require a pool of resources to construct. And last but not least- when is SISI coming online? =P Can't wait to mess around with them Sisi is online now! :) Outposts are not going anywhere soon, they will live together for a while. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Grookshank Jump Drive Appreciation Society 72	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:34:43 - [5] - Quote What roles / skills do I need to build a citadel?
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 43	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:35:10 - [6] - Quote Thanks CCP for the redeemable items to test the Titans. Finally I do not have to try and build one. Which never works out.
Rhivre TarNec Invisible Exchequer 870	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:39:53 - [7] - Quote Era'kanath wrote: The Citadels have replaced most if not all Outposts right? (Or is that what they intend to do on the main server upon release? but not on the test server at the moment?) If they have replaced all outposts, will the ones that were seeded- still be seeded? Not just for super production but also setting up bases and Citadels of our own, since they require a pool of resources to construct. And last but not least- when is SISI coming online? =P Can't wait to mess around with them They wont replace outposts just yet. Fluffy Bunny Pic!
Era'kanath LankTech 29	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:40:50 - [8] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Era'kanath wrote: The Citadels have replaced most if not all Outposts right? (Or is that what they intend to do on the main server upon release? but not on the test server at the moment?) If they have replaced all outposts, will the ones that were seeded- still be seeded? Not just for super production but also setting up bases and Citadels of our own, since they require a pool of resources to construct. And last but not least- when is SISI coming online? =P Can't wait to mess around with them Sisi is online now! :) Outposts are not going anywhere soon, they will live together for a while. http://imgur.com/lors2jg Hmm... Looks like I missed out on the Jita rush because of this =.= "The more we sweat in peacetime, the less we bleed in war."
Masterdant Masterderizando 0	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:42:14 - [9] - Quote I dont know if something is wrong with my Launcher, but for me SISI still down. Is in Unknow state
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 2400	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:43:33 - [10] - Quote Yeah -- they did an emergency shutdown, most likely to fix the market. It was unavailable for me, and others in my alliance were reporting that it was "slow." This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Masterdant Masterderizando 0	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:44:56 - [11] - Quote Querns wrote: Yeah -- they did an emergency shutdown, most likely to fix the market. It was unavailable for me, and others in my alliance were reporting that it was "slow." Old market bug

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 262	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:45:17 - [12] - Quote We have had to take sisi down shortly for an issue we discovered, it should be back soon. Sorry to stick Citadels on and then tear them back from you Hopefully won't be long. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Lich Reaper Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies. 14	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:55:42 - [13] - Quote Are you really gonna make us wait 30 days for a keepstar to build before we can actually test it? Or are they seeded in the market?
Azami Nevinyrall New Eden Spooks Ghost Riderz In The Sky 2265	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:57:35 - [14] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Era'kanath wrote: The Citadels have replaced most if not all Outposts right? (Or is that what they intend to do on the main server upon release? but not on the test server at the moment?) If they have replaced all outposts, will the ones that were seeded- still be seeded? Not just for super production but also setting up bases and Citadels of our own, since they require a pool of resources to construct. And last but not least- when is SISI coming online? =P Can't wait to mess around with them Sisi is online now! :) Outposts are not going anywhere soon, they will live together for a while. I'd love to see a world where they coexist forever...I really dislike the removal of things from games! Ninja edit, for those with towers, mainly faction ones. What happens to those in the future when they're removed/replaced, faction Citadels? Contract me your dead!

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 262	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:57:39 - [15] - Quote Lich Reaper wrote: Are you really gonna make us wait 30 days for a keepstar to build before we can actually test it? Or are they seeded in the market? They will be seeded on the market. There will be a 24 hour wait for anchoring as will be required for actual Citadels. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

RainReaper RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion 34	Posted - 2016.03.18 15:58:41 - [16] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: We have had to take sisi down shortly for an issue we discovered, it should be back soon. Sorry to stick Citadels on and then tear them back from you Hopefully won't be long. you heartless criminal! how dare you do this to us!?... jk hope its fixed soon im so exited!
Zelot Blueice The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 8	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:12:05 - [17] - Quote I r much excite.
MRxX7XxMONKEY Sleepless Enterprises 11	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:14:09 - [18] - Quote Can we please get an update on current/planned rules/limitations on terms of where these bad boys can and cannot be anchored? There hasn't been much clarification about this
John Sparten1117 1	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:18:50 - [19] - Quote MRxX7XxMONKEY wrote: Can we please get an update on current/planned rules/limitations on terms of where these bad boys can and cannot be anchored? There hasn't been much clarification about this You can anchor it every where but not in that new Drifter wh's

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:20:55 - [20] - Quote MRxX7XxMONKEY wrote: Can we please get an update on current/planned rules/limitations on terms of where these bad boys can and cannot be anchored? There hasn't been much clarification about this Anywhere, there will be restrictions on certain systems that might not be implemented yet. There is a limit of 1000km from any other object. Other than that these can anywhere. No moon or planet restrictions. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


MRxX7XxMONKEY Sleepless Enterprises 11	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:27:22 - [21] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: MRxX7XxMONKEY wrote: Can we please get an update on current/planned rules/limitations on terms of where these bad boys can and cannot be anchored? There hasn't been much clarification about this There is a limit of 1000km from any other object. Thank you for the response, but I still don't get this part: so does this mean it has to be WITHIN the 1000km or FURTHER THAN 1000km from another object
Era'kanath LankTech 29	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:27:26 - [22] - Quote Do we need to update the launcher manually? Or do we just need to wait for the new info to get through? "The more we sweat in peacetime, the less we bleed in war."

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:29:34 - [23] - Quote MRxX7XxMONKEY wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: MRxX7XxMONKEY wrote: Can we please get an update on current/planned rules/limitations on terms of where these bad boys can and cannot be anchored? There hasn't been much clarification about this There is a limit of 1000km from any other object. Thank you for the response, but I still don't get this part: so does this mean it has to be WITHIN the 1000km or FURTHER THAN 1000km from another object Has to be 1000km AWAY from any other object Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:30:01 - [24] - Quote Era'kanath wrote: Do we need to update the launcher manually? Or do we just need to wait for the new info to get through? Hold tight, back very soon! Should not have to download anything. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:33:23 - [25] - Quote Should be back online. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Aaron Honk Distributed Denial of Service 31	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:37:20 - [26] - Quote I'm going to have my own keepstar... ... On the test server
John Sparten1117 1	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:38:03 - [27] - Quote It's up :D

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:52:00 - [28] - Quote John Sparten1117 wrote: It's up :D Edit: I cann log in but can't use my char. It say's there are some problems with my system... Things are a little slow at the moment, we are looking into it. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Era'kanath LankTech 29	Posted - 2016.03.18 16:59:18 - [29] - Quote Up and kicking but- very, very slow; and the market isn't responding yet ;_; "The more we sweat in peacetime, the less we bleed in war."
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion 34	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:00:27 - [30] - Quote the system of eygfe is currently stuck and i cant log in...zzz

Raphendyr Nardieu Unpublished Chapter Suddenly Content 77	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:21:03 - [31] - Quote Azami Nevinyrall wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: ... I'd love to see a world where they coexist forever...I really dislike the removal of things from games! Ninja edit, for those with towers, mainly faction ones. What happens to those in the future when they're removed/replaced, faction Citadels? Outposts are to safe... Any case. We (the players) still have no good info what happens to outposts and posses when they are phased out. For Posses we presume there is some kind of buy back or you just need to reprocess them. Interesting gamble is that is the isk returned from faction towers more or less than their current prices. Outposts might get mehcanic that they can be shot. Any case. Neither of these are happening any time soon. Remember that there is still ~8 classes of structures to be implemented!
Azami Nevinyrall New Eden Spooks Ghost Riderz In The Sky 2265	Posted - 2016.03.18 17:26:03 - [32] - Quote Raphendyr Nardieu wrote: Azami Nevinyrall wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: ... I'd love to see a world where they coexist forever...I really dislike the removal of things from games! Ninja edit, for those with towers, mainly faction ones. What happens to those in the future when they're removed/replaced, faction Citadels? Outposts are to safe... Any case. We (the players) still have no good info what happens to outposts and posses when they are phased out. For Posses we presume there is some kind of buy back or you just need to reprocess them. Interesting gamble is that is the isk returned from faction towers more or less than their current prices. Outposts might get mehcanic that they can be shot. Any case. Neither of these are happening any time soon. Remember that there is still ~8 classes of structures to be implemented! Yes, they are too safe. I'll stay with the "leave them ingame and Nerf the living **** out of them!" Like reduce the EHP by a factor of 4, and remove the reinforcement timers. Contract me your dead!
Amak Boma Dragon Factory 176	Posted - 2016.03.18 18:15:01 - [33] - Quote are citadels banned from shattered wormholes?

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.18 18:21:06 - [34] - Quote Amak Boma wrote: are citadels banned from shattered wormholes? They should be, if not, they will be. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 229	Posted - 2016.03.18 19:14:59 - [35] - Quote Is anyone else having issues setting up groups. I try to add people to a group, but nothing happens. well besides a pop up doing ERROR. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Grookshank Jump Drive Appreciation Society 72	Posted - 2016.03.18 19:15:01 - [36] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Amak Boma wrote: are citadels banned from shattered wormholes? They should be, if not, they will be. Just to make sure: this includes Thera?
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 363	Posted - 2016.03.18 19:35:51 - [37] - Quote Really looking forward to testing this out when SiSi comes back up. edit: ok... maybe it is not down, status was showing unknown in the beta launcher and now I am in queue to play. Running for CSM 11. You should vote for me.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 363	Posted - 2016.03.18 20:31:26 - [38] - Quote I was able to anchor an Astrahaus, however, after it showed the timer for the anchoring, the client crashed. Also: I was under the impression we could 'fit' citadels prior to anchoring, is this still in the works, have I missed something in the UI, or was that idea scrapped? Running for CSM 11. You should vote for me.
Ethan Linvares Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1	Posted - 2016.03.18 20:51:19 - [39] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: So, with all this in mind, here is a list of what is implemented at the moment: Taking Control of the Citadel Reloading weapons, yes that means you can also fire them Someone needs to set up a high sec citadel and try firing at an unflagged ship. For science.
Mizhir TURN LEFT 74714	Posted - 2016.03.18 20:53:07 - [40] - Quote Just a smaller suggestion: Would it be possible to add some markers for which way the undock bays are facing when placing a Citadel? It will make it much easier to align them in the direction you want. One Man Crew - Collective Solo PVP - Video is out!

Blue Harrier 217	Posted - 2016.03.18 21:00:07 - [41] - Quote So in-between the restarts this is my first impressions (please remember I have just passed my 70th birthday so tend to write in a verbose manner, sorry). First I purchased an Astrahus medium Citadel, you need a ship that can carry 8,000m3 to transport it so not a big problem for most small corps. My first try at deploying it went haywire, one because we had a sudden 1 min shutdown warning, the second because I couldnGÇÖt understand what to do. Launching the GÇÿeggGÇÖ, GÇÿdeploy moduleGÇÖ call it what you will brings up a small popup with some very brief instructions (with a disable tick box), clicking the [OK] box takes you on to the next very brief menu bar (which hid itself under the chat window and caused me a minor problem). Note: the title bar of the popup window has a placeholder (yes WIP, I know). Note 2: clicking [Cancel] at any point did not as I expected drop me back one level but cancelled the whole operation and put the GÇÿeggGÇÖ back into my cargo hold, so I had to start over. The main screen also dimmed and nothing seemed to happen, it wasnGÇÖt until I rotated up I noticed the GÇÿringsGÇÖ and GÇÿnumbersGÇÖ of the tactical display and the Citadel Model did I realise I needed to be zoomed out really far to get an overall view. Note: some kind of auto-zoom might be useful at this point (easy when you know how but confusing otherwise). Moving the Citadel model into position was pretty easy but being colour blind I had to ask which was correct for the deployment position. Most of you will work it out just fine LOL. Setting the times on the next page was a bit hit and miss but you canGÇÖt activate the Citadel until you get it right. At this point my Citadel was deployed and normally you would have to wait 24 hours for it to GÇÿhatchGÇÖ but a very kind Dev popped in and onlined it for me. It looks amazing, pretty lights everywhere, docking ports all lit up and marker lights all over the place. Dropping down at full warp in my Helios from above was a real wow moment (I wish I could have videoed it for you). One annoying thing was the GÇÿTetherGÇÖ sound, the tether itself is ok (ish, donGÇÖt know how it will work with many ships), but the sound is way too loud and does not fade with distance (wip?). Before I closed for the evening I deployed an XL Citadel (800,000 m3), IGÇÖm leaving this to deploy normally to see if it works OK. All this is in a 0.7 system in case anyone asks. "You wait - time passes, Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold." from The Hobbit on ZX Spectrum 1982.
Somebody TheGreat Somebody's Corp Care Factor 3	Posted - 2016.03.18 21:21:40 - [42] - Quote So much awesome! 3 Concerns though: 1: Being tethered does NOT prevent being bumped out of tether range. 2: Activating a titan's jump portal array, or a Rorqual's industrial core cause tether to drop. 3: You can not safe log while tethered, and if you close game / disconnect, you warp off. (And can be probed etc.)
Dern Morrow Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 9	Posted - 2016.03.18 21:42:43 - [43] - Quote I haven't seen this in the notes, so I wanted to mention: As a wormhole dweller, it would be very useful to be able to use the POS component construction array to construct structure components. Presently you can't, it won't let you build structure components in a POS. Thanks in advance! Super excited for Citadels.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 3000	Posted - 2016.03.18 22:32:47 - [44] - Quote Do citadels follow the same Corp roles mechanic that POSes use?
Lugh Crow-Slave 1713	Posted - 2016.03.19 00:05:47 - [45] - Quote are teh manual fighter controls not added yet? also anti sub cap missiles are not seeded Citadel worm hole tax
Erin Aldent Eagle Wing Industries Prodigal Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.03.19 00:09:47 - [46] - Quote Groups seem rather broke right now, can't seem to add members to said groups, i will try toying w/ them later.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 363	Posted - 2016.03.19 00:38:13 - [47] - Quote Rigs seem to be ignoring size restrictions. I was able to install L and XL rigs an on Astahus. No warnings or errors. Bug reported it. There is another issue I am trying to work out that relates to the cloaking timer being stuck "on" - though I am not cloaked, whether i am in station, in space, or docked at a citadel. Does not change when changing ships or jumping systems. Only solution is to log off which removes it. I did not bug report it as when I logged back in, it was cleared, however, it came back after I had some latency causing me to emergency warp after jumping - the emergency warp took me to a random location, but did not warp me back to the gate. The cloak timer icon is resistant once again. Just getting screen shots to submit a bug report for that. Running for CSM 11. You should vote for me.
Shade Millith Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. I N F A M O U S 179	Posted - 2016.03.19 02:22:35 - [48] - Quote 3 hours of vulnerability per week for the medium citadel is complete insanity, and will massively hamper smaller groups from being able to attack them, only helping large alliances with multiple TZ presences. I'd have expected at least 1-3 hours daily. At least then you can alarmclock it on the weekend. As it is right now a Medium Citadel can be setup so that only one TZ is able to do anything about it.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1713	Posted - 2016.03.19 03:13:31 - [49] - Quote so uuuh light fighters shooting fighter bombers crash the game Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1713	Posted - 2016.03.19 03:21:48 - [50] - Quote Shade Millith wrote: If these things are intended to replace POSes, a 3 hours of vulnerability per week for the medium citadel is complete insanity, and will massively hamper smaller groups from being able to attack them, only helping large alliances with multiple TZ presences. I'd have expected at least 1-3 hours daily. At least then you can alarmclock it on the weekend. As it is right now a Medium Citadel can be setup so that only one TZ will ever be able to anything about it. The large and XL aren't any better. You need to change the vulnerability timer to a daily thing, like the Entosis vulnerability time for stations/TCU/IHUB, or this is going to destroy small groups ability to attack them. no they are not meant to replace outposts all new structures together are meant to together and the med size are just to replace outposts the other structures will have a much bigger vulnerability window the citadels job is simply meant to protect assets that is it. and unlike outposts you can place as many as you want so they will not give such an advantage Citadel worm hole tax

Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 229	Posted - 2016.03.19 03:54:14 - [51] - Quote Erin Aldent wrote: Groups seem rather broke right now, can't seem to add members to said groups, i will try toying w/ them later. I noticed the same thing. I love the drag and drop but CCP please add a pop out window in the groups that list every alliance in game, with check boxes that allow/disallow docking. From what I can tell, there is no standings control, so there is no generic don't let -5/-10 from docking. And having to drag and drop everyone is going to be massive time sink. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Shade Millith Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. I N F A M O U S 179	Posted - 2016.03.19 04:11:35 - [52] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: no they are not meant to replace outposts all new structures together are meant to together and the med size are just to replace outposts the other structures will have a much bigger vulnerability window the citadels job is simply meant to protect assets that is it. and unlike outposts you can place as many as you want so they will not give such an advantage The more I think about it though, the more I see issues. Can we jumpclone to them? Do you require sov to place them down? If the answer is yes and no respectively, this is going to be exploitable as hell. A bigger group can stick one of the mediums, with the vulnerability timer completely outside the TZ of hostiles, inside their main systems. Put jumpclones there, and a couple of ships, and you have instant ability to suddenly flood the system with your ships. Start a fight on their undock with a few frigates, and if anything interesting aggresses, you suddenly jump clone 20 people into system with Gilas. There needs to be more timers for them to be hit, or much heavier restriction on where they can be placed. Otherwise these things are going to be exploited the hell out of, and smaller groups are going to suffer massively. This is a wet dream for harassing smaller alliances.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 363	Posted - 2016.03.19 04:53:41 - [53] - Quote Shade Millith wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: no they are not meant to replace outposts all new structures together are meant to together and the med size are just to replace outposts the other structures will have a much bigger vulnerability window the citadels job is simply meant to protect assets that is it. and unlike outposts you can place as many as you want so they will not give such an advantage The more I think about it though, the more I see issues. Can we jumpclone to them? Do you require sov to place them down (Right now on SiSi you don't need it)? If the answer is yes and no respectively, this is going to be exploitable as hell. A bigger group can stick one of the mediums, for basically no cost (1-2 bil is nothing), with the vulnerability timer completely outside the TZ of hostiles, inside their main systems. Put jumpclones there, and a couple of ships, and you have instant ability to suddenly flood the system with your ships. Start a fight on their undock with a few frigates, and if anything interesting aggresses, you suddenly jump clone 20 people into system with Gilas. There needs to be more timers for them to be hit, or much heavier restriction on where they can be placed. Otherwise these things are going to be exploited the hell out of, and smaller groups are going to suffer massively. It creates tactical versatility. Also, please remember something crucial about Citadels: unlike POSes they cannot defend themselves on their own. Running for CSM 11. You should vote for me.
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 229	Posted - 2016.03.19 05:03:26 - [54] - Quote Petrified wrote: Shade Millith wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: no they are not meant to replace outposts all new structures together are meant to together and the med size are just to replace outposts the other structures will have a much bigger vulnerability window the citadels job is simply meant to protect assets that is it. and unlike outposts you can place as many as you want so they will not give such an advantage The more I think about it though, the more I see issues. Can we jumpclone to them? Do you require sov to place them down (Right now on SiSi you don't need it)? If the answer is yes and no respectively, this is going to be exploitable as hell. A bigger group can stick one of the mediums, for basically no cost (1-2 bil is nothing), with the vulnerability timer completely outside the TZ of hostiles, inside their main systems. Put jumpclones there, and a couple of ships, and you have instant ability to suddenly flood the system with your ships. Start a fight on their undock with a few frigates, and if anything interesting aggresses, you suddenly jump clone 20 people into system with Gilas. There needs to be more timers for them to be hit, or much heavier restriction on where they can be placed. Otherwise these things are going to be exploited the hell out of, and smaller groups are going to suffer massively. It creates tactical versatility. Also, please remember something crucial about Citadels: unlike POSes they cannot defend themselves on their own. First and foremost - most of your questions where covered in dev blogs months ago. Yes - a hostile force could come in and set a medium up for staging They would have to defend it during set up, because if someone can keep effectively aggressive it, the time extends. You have to maintain fuel runs to the citadel to keep the clone system online and working. This means both parties will have to adopt and grow. If they don't, they will burn in what ever hell New Eden has. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Shade Millith Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. I N F A M O U S 179	Posted - 2016.03.19 05:04:35 - [55] - Quote Petrified wrote: It creates tactical versatility. Placing an unattackable base of operations, where you can teleport to at will, with stored ships and equipment, within your enemies home and ratting systems, because they do not have the correct TZ to attack it, is 'tactical versatility'? This isn't 'Tactical versatility'. It's a death knell for smaller groups that can't muster the fleet to attack the thing for over an hour during their lowest TZ while being unable to defang it. Petrified wrote: unlike POSes they cannot defend themselves on their own. And a unmanned POS is dead in the water to any half arse group. To defend itself with any kind of effectiveness it needs to have 6-7 people manning it, and those people be prepared to defend it at any time. A Citadel needs just one single person, for *3 pre-chosen hours per week*. A single alt can cover it with complete ease.
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 229	Posted - 2016.03.19 05:15:02 - [56] - Quote Shade Millith wrote: Petrified wrote: It creates tactical versatility. Placing an unattackable base of operations, where you can teleport to at will, with stored ships and equipment, within your enemies home and ratting systems, because they do not have the correct TZ to attack it, is 'tactical versatility'? This isn't 'Tactical versatility'. It's a death knell for smaller groups that can't muster the fleet to attack the thing for over an hour during their lowest TZ while being unable to defang it. Petrified wrote: unlike POSes they cannot defend themselves on their own. And a unmanned POS is dead in the water to any half arse group. To defend itself with any kind of effectiveness it needs to have 6-7 people manning it, and those people be prepared to defend it at any time. A Citadel needs just one single person, for *3 pre-chosen hours per week. A single alt can cover it with complete ease. Not sure why an Infamous guy is worried about this? Do you guys even own SOV? Or is more along the line, that your hunting ground will have structures you all can't attack because it isn't your TZ? Everyone in this game already knows that once this stuff goes live, ever Tom, *** and Herry will cruise down to Prvoi to cause all manner of mischief and test these out in much larger fleet fights than the test server will ever see. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Shade Millith Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. I N F A M O U S 179	Posted - 2016.03.19 05:46:20 - [57] - Quote Amarisen Gream wrote: Not sure why an Infamous guy is worried about this? Do you guys even own SOV? Or is more along the line, that your hunting ground will have structures you all can't attack because it isn't your TZ? Everyone in this game already knows that once this stuff goes live, ever Tom, **** and Herry will cruise down to Prvoi to cause all manner of mischief and test these out in much larger fleet fights than the test server will ever see. Funny. Ad-hominem attacks. Check Dotlan. INFAMOUS has more sov and outposts than we know what to do with. We also have enough people to deal with multiple TZs Shockingly enough, some people actually care about the rest of the players of this game. Including the people that won't be capable of deal with this kind of thing. A Medium Citadel on SiSi is as easy as BLOPsing in a BR, Citadel guns/mods shipped in by JF in perfect safety when it's finished, harder to find out about before it goes online than a POS, is capable of holding jumpclones and as many ships as you can put in it, and is insanely easier to defend than a POS. And costs almost nothing. To me that is a massive buff to the power projection of larger alliances that only works against smaller groups. There needs to be a time each day that you can attack them. At least then small groups can have the weekend to do something about it.
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 229	Posted - 2016.03.19 06:24:19 - [58] - Quote Shade Millith wrote: Amarisen Gream wrote: Not sure why an Infamous guy is worried about this? Do you guys even own SOV? Or is more along the line, that your hunting ground will have structures you all can't attack because it isn't your TZ? Everyone in this game already knows that once this stuff goes live, ever Tom, **** and Herry will cruise down to Prvoi to cause all manner of mischief and test these out in much larger fleet fights than the test server will ever see. Funny. Ad-hominem attacks. Check Dotlan. INFAMOUS has more sov and outposts than we know what to do with. We also have enough people to deal with multiple TZs Shockingly enough, some people actually care about the rest of the players of this game. Including the people that won't be capable of deal with this kind of thing. A Medium Citadel on SiSi is as easy as BLOPsing in a BR, Citadel guns/mods shipped in by JF in perfect safety when it's finished, harder to find out about before it goes online than a POS, is capable of holding jumpclones and as many ships as you can put in it, and is insanely easier to defend than a POS. And costs almost nothing. To me that is a massive buff to the power projection of larger alliances that only works against smaller groups. There needs to be a time each day that you can attack them. At least then small groups can have the weekend to do something about it. Perhaps I should reword my point - CCP has known this for a while. I know I have seen or talked about in the other threads many times. As it stands right now, CCP won't make any changes tell after the fact. This is the same thing that happened with Fozzie SOV, it wasn't tell after Goonswarm trollceptor Provi, CCP realized their folly. I put the Citadels in the same boat as the SOV changes - the next three patches after will get them into the proper(ish) setting. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Lugh Crow-Slave 1713	Posted - 2016.03.19 07:49:43 - [59] - Quote Amarisen Gream wrote: Player Owned Null-sec should be limited to the SOV holder Alliance's corps. But allow anchoring by others (nuets/blues/reds) but it would have penalties, like longer online time, increased vulnerability timers etc that make it a little easier defend against. you mean exactly what is happening? cits put up in sov null with out controll and index will have a longer recharge timer and i'm sure ccp will expand on this after some tq testing Citadel worm hole tax
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 229	Posted - 2016.03.19 08:02:02 - [60] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Amarisen Gream wrote: Player Owned Null-sec should be limited to the SOV holder Alliance's corps. But allow anchoring by others (nuets/blues/reds) but it would have penalties, like longer online time, increased vulnerability timers etc that make it a little easier defend against. you mean exactly what is happening? cits put up in sov null with out controll and index will have a longer recharge timer and i'm sure ccp will expand on this after some tq testing As of the last things I saw - there is no difference between SOV holder and other corps putting up Citadals in Null. Mediums for all groups is 3 hrs a week. No fuel reduction cost differences No onlining differences Most of the stuff that was to balance all the placement was scrapped months ago. I will go back an read the dev blogs again, as something might have changed or I misunderstood it. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members

Erin Aldent Eagle Wing Industries Prodigal Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.03.19 09:42:08 - [61] - Quote Amarisen Gream wrote: They have to allow at least one size to be anchored by any one outside their Alliance. Everyone would just prevent the two smaller ones and no one but Goons has that much spare isk to use an XL as a foothold. Though I guess that it sort of your point. On an unrelated note, the anchor time for the citadels seems to reset if no one is in local, I had hoped to get a few screen shots of them in mid construction, however the timers were all back to 24.

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.19 12:11:50 - [62] - Quote Petrified wrote: I was able to anchor an Astrahaus, however, after it showed the timer for the anchoring, the client crashed. Also: I was under the impression we could 'fit' citadels prior to anchoring, is this still in the works, have I missed something in the UI, or was that idea scrapped? This will not be the case, code says no :( Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.19 12:12:41 - [63] - Quote Mizhir wrote: Just a smaller suggestion: Would it be possible to add some markers for which way the undock bays are facing when placing a Citadel? It will make it much easier to align them in the direction you want. Possibly, I will raise this with the team. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.19 12:17:08 - [64] - Quote Somebody TheGreat wrote: So much awesome! 3 Concerns though: 1: Being tethered does NOT prevent being bumped out of tether range. 2: Activating a titan's jump portal array, or a Rorqual's industrial core cause tether to drop. 3: You can not safe log while tethered, and if you close game / disconnect, you warp off. (And can be probed etc.) 1. We are already looking into this and have some ideas in the pipeline 2. Known issue just not fixed yet 3. I am not 100% sure what the answer is here. Could you enter a bug report through the F12 menu, with my name, and pictures etc and I will investigate. Thank you Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.19 12:24:19 - [65] - Quote Dern Morrow wrote: I haven't seen this in the notes, so I wanted to mention: As a wormhole dweller, it would be very useful to be able to use the POS component construction array to construct structure components. Presently you can't, it won't let you build structure components in a POS. Thanks in advance! Super excited for Citadels. Have you tried the "Equipment Assembly Array" ? Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.19 12:25:43 - [66] - Quote Rowells wrote: Do citadels follow the same Corp roles mechanic that POSes use? The only corp role you need is "Station Manager" to anchor and fit the Citadel. All the rest should be handled using, Groups and Structure Profiles, at least that is the name they are currently under. Not many of these settings are hooked up yet, just the corp office rental. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.19 12:26:27 - [67] - Quote Erin Aldent wrote: Groups seem rather broke right now, can't seem to add members to said groups, i will try toying w/ them later. Can you enter a bug report through the F12 menu if you have not already. I will investigate. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 263	Posted - 2016.03.19 12:27:56 - [68] - Quote Petrified wrote: Rigs seem to be ignoring size restrictions. I was able to install L and XL rigs an on Astahus. No warnings or errors. Bug reported it. Also, can't seem to remove the rigs once placed. There is another issue I am trying to work out that relates to the cloaking timer being stuck "on" - though I am not cloaked, whether i am in station, in space, or docked at a citadel. Does not change when changing ships or jumping systems. Only solution is to log off which removes it. I did not bug report it as when I logged back in, it was cleared, however, it came back after I had some latency causing me to emergency warp after jumping - the emergency warp took me to a random location, but did not warp me back to the gate. The cloak timer icon is resistant once again. Just getting screen shots to submit a bug report for that. Rigs are not fully implemented yet, so I will add to known issues if not already. It is known however that the rig sizes are being ignored and they can't be removed, we are looking into it. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Selak Zorander Mord-Sith 2	Posted - 2016.03.19 12:55:38 - [69] - Quote Erin Aldent wrote: On an unrelated note, the anchor time for the citadels seems to reset if no one is in local, I had hoped to get a few screen shots of them in mid construction, however the timers were all back to 24. I am experiencing the same thing. Anchored a citadel 12 hours ago, logged in now to see if it was something other than the blue outline, and the time was at 23 hours 59 minutes and 55 seconds or there about as soon as I got in view of the citadel.
Shade Millith Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. I N F A M O U S 179	Posted - 2016.03.19 13:31:50 - [70] - Quote Amarisen Gream wrote: Perhaps I should reword my point - CCP has known this for a while. I know I have seen or talked about in the other threads many times. As it stands right now, CCP won't make any changes tell after the fact. This is the same thing that happened with Fozzie SOV, it wasn't tell after Goonswarm trollceptor Provi, CCP realized their folly. I put the Citadels in the same boat as the SOV changes - the next three patches after will get them into the proper(ish) setting. Edit: What would be best IMO High-sec, low-sec, NPC Null-sec they can be anchored as they are now. Player Owned Null-sec should be limited to the SOV holder Alliance's corps. But allow anchoring by others (nuets/blues/reds) but it would have penalties, like longer online time, increased vulnerability timers etc that make it a little easier defend against. Sorry, my mistake. I did misread what you wrote. And I do like that idea. Putting a citadel in hostile sov increasing the hours of vulnerability. Though I still think being able to stack all your hours into one TZ, and not put any hours into the weekend so that people can alarm clock, is a straight up bad game mechanic.

Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 423	Posted - 2016.03.19 13:56:02 - [71] - 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?
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 230	Posted - 2016.03.19 14:20:46 - [72] - Quote Shade Millith wrote: Amarisen Gream wrote: Perhaps I should reword my point - CCP has known this for a while. I know I have seen or talked about in the other threads many times. As it stands right now, CCP won't make any changes tell after the fact. This is the same thing that happened with Fozzie SOV, it wasn't tell after Goonswarm trollceptor Provi, CCP realized their folly. I put the Citadels in the same boat as the SOV changes - the next three patches after will get them into the proper(ish) setting. Edit: What would be best IMO High-sec, low-sec, NPC Null-sec they can be anchored as they are now. Player Owned Null-sec should be limited to the SOV holder Alliance's corps. But allow anchoring by others (nuets/blues/reds) but it would have penalties, like longer online time, increased vulnerability timers etc that make it a little easier defend against. Sorry, my mistake. I did misread what you wrote. And I do like that idea. Putting a citadel in hostile sov increasing the hours of vulnerability. Though I still think being able to stack all your hours into one TZ, and not put any hours into the weekend so that people can alarm clock, is a straight up bad game mechanic. No worries. We both want what is best for EVE and the players. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 230	Posted - 2016.03.19 14:56:07 - [73] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Erin Aldent wrote: Groups seem rather broke right now, can't seem to add members to said groups, i will try toying w/ them later. Can you enter a bug report through the F12 menu if you have not already. I will investigate. I believe this was from all the crap that happened with SISI yesterday. the 18th. As of the 19th. I am having some fun playing around it it. and they work. EDIT: never mind. Made one group it worked. Deleted said group to test making some better ones. Now it only allows me to create, but can't add people. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Servjen Giant Industrials Center for Digital Chemistry 54	Posted - 2016.03.19 15:40:54 - [74] - Quote What skills do you need to build a citadel? The Citadel itself I mean. This is where I put my signature, right?
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 230	Posted - 2016.03.19 15:43:43 - [75] - Quote Erin Aldent wrote: Amarisen Gream wrote: They have to allow at least one size to be anchored by any one outside their Alliance. Everyone would just prevent the two smaller ones and no one but Goons has that much spare isk to use an XL as a foothold. Though I guess that it sort of your point. On an unrelated note, the anchor time for the citadels seems to reset if no one is in local, I had hoped to get a few screen shots of them in mid construction, however the timers were all back to 24. Thanks for the reply. When I was thinking this - I was like, man most groups would allow XL... After looking at the cost, and such involved in it. The last two citadels i want in my space would be mediums and XL. Mediums due to the lack of time i have to kill it. XLs for the fact they my enemy could stock supers, DDs etc on those things, and would take one hell of a force to root a Goonsswarm army from one. The large allow Capitals, but not supers. And would take a less time to kill than an XL. Just depends on who you are and what the leadership thinks. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 264	Posted - 2016.03.19 16:04:07 - [76] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: 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. Two questions: - After deploying a Citadel, how do I change its name and change its vulnerability window? - Is it possible to scoop a deployed Citadel back into a freighter? 1. This is fixed internally. 2. Will look into this. 1. You should just be able to right-click set name 2. Once you unanchor, it should be possible, this might not be implemented, let me take a look. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 264	Posted - 2016.03.19 16:05:19 - [77] - Quote Servjen wrote: What skills do you need to build a citadel? The Citadel itself I mean. Outpost Construction. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Nazzarus Grey-Wolf Inc. Limited Expectations 0	Posted - 2016.03.19 16:39:15 - [78] - Quote Anchored 3 citadels yesterday, 24 hour anchor time. Logged in this morning to check on them, time reset to 24 hours as soon as i undocked. Edit: others are posting that when no one is in local the timer resets. I teleported off and then flew back manually, the timer did not reset.
Erin Aldent Eagle Wing Industries Prodigal Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.03.19 17:27:52 - [79] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Erin Aldent wrote: Groups seem rather broke right now, can't seem to add members to said groups, i will try toying w/ them later. Can you enter a bug report through the F12 menu if you have not already. I will investigate. I can't even do that it seems, I filled it out but when I go to press send it says please select a category, but, under category it says no choices.
Cadaverous Emperess Aim High SWAG Co 0	Posted - 2016.03.19 17:37:30 - [80] - Quote Nazzarus wrote: Anchored 3 citadels yesterday, 24 hour anchor time. Logged in this morning to check on them, time reset to 24 hours as soon as i undocked. Edit: others are posting that when no one is in local the timer resets. I teleported off and then flew back manually, the timer did not reset. I'm having the same issue - 3 anchored, all more than 1,000km from each other. The timer has reset twice now, first time it got down to 22 hours remaining, I logged off, logged back in a few hours later, and they were back to 23 hours 59 minutes. Logged off for the night, logged back in today, and again they were all back to 23 hours 59 minutes. It seems to happen when you login a new session, based on the timer being at 24 hours the second you login. In the 'Citadels' channel on Sisi there were a few others experiencing the same issue as well. I also submitted a ticket on Sisi under the Outposts/Starbases category (could not find a category for Citadels/anchorables).

Somebody TheGreat Somebody's Corp Care Factor 3	Posted - 2016.03.19 17:47:04 - [81] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Somebody TheGreat wrote: So much awesome! 3 Concerns though: 1: Being tethered does NOT prevent being bumped out of tether range. 2: Activating a titan's jump portal array, or a Rorqual's industrial core cause tether to drop. 3: You can not safe log while tethered, and if you close game / disconnect, you warp off. (And can be probed etc.) 1. We are already looking into this and have some ideas in the pipeline 2. Known issue just not fixed yet 3. I am not 100% sure what the answer is here. Could you enter a bug report through the F12 menu, with my name, and pictures etc and I will investigate. Thank you I can't send in a bug report because it won't let me pick a category, so I'm posting it here. While making it and testing it further, I have determined that if you warp away then back to the citadel, you can safe log while tethered. Having said that, if you dock/undock at the citadel again, then you will again be unable to safe log until you warp away/back. Here are the steps for testing it: 1: Undock from a citadel 2: Try to safe log. It will fail. 3: Warp away and back 4: Try to safe log again. It will work this time 5: Dock/undock from a citadel 6: Try to safe log again. It will fail again.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1159	Posted - 2016.03.19 18:50:45 - [82] - Quote Are non-targeted attacks supposed to hurt you while tethered? I lost my Chimera to a doomsday while tethered to a Keepstar.
Erika Tsurpalen Astarte Trading Corporation 18	Posted - 2016.03.19 23:36:21 - [83] - Quote So all 3 citadels currently take 24 hours to anchor, this is differnt to what was announced before, (2/3/4 hours for M/L/XL) What is the current stance on that, are they remaining 24 hours each when they move onto TQ, with the 15 minute "Activation" after they finish where they are vulnerable, or are they having a proper 2/3/4 hour vulnerability timer and then become instantly available?
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion 35	Posted - 2016.03.20 00:25:53 - [84] - Quote So I just have to ask. What is the structure module bpo pricess gonna be? i know that the citadels will be 7b 70b and 700b for astrahus, fortizar and keepstar respectively. but what about the modules and the flak missiles? also will fighter build cost and bpo price change as well because of the new fighter gamestyle?
Somebody TheGreat Somebody's Corp Care Factor 3	Posted - 2016.03.20 00:58:53 - [85] - Quote Erika Tsurpalen wrote: So all 3 citadels currently take 24 hours to anchor, this is differnt to what was announced before, (2/3/4 hours for M/L/XL) What is the current stance on that, are they remaining 24 hours each when they move onto TQ, with the 15 minute "Activation" after they finish where they are vulnerable, or are they having a proper 2/3/4 hour vulnerability timer and then become instantly available? Whats the source on your anchoring timers? I ask because its always been the plan for all citadels to take 24 hours afaik. https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/citadels-sieges-and-you-v2/
Gabriel Karade Noir. Mercenary Coalition 317	Posted - 2016.03.20 13:55:31 - [86] - Quote 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. War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Torgeir Hekard I MYSELF AND ME 239	Posted - 2016.03.20 15:28:16 - [87] - Quote Question on group management. I can create a group and add members to it from peoples and places. But how do I public groups? That is, I want an "everyone else" group. Is it possible? Also, how do I Add a structure to a custom structure profile? Ah! It appeared automatically after some time (or maybe I've done something I'm unaware of). Apparently, it's drag&dropping. PS: When anchoring a citadel, there are options to move and rotate. But moving is possible only in horizontal plane. We are IN SPACE. How do I move it vertically? (I'd also ask how to rotate it in more vertically enabled planes, but that would probably be trolling). PPS: Ye olde F10 map stopped working And I have to enter planet mode each time after undocking because no modules in UI otherwise.
Keaden Aemar 4 Marketeers Rura-Penthe 11	Posted - 2016.03.20 15:48:11 - [88] - Quote Is the fact that I cannot see a citadel on dscan while it is anchoring by design? (haven't seen an online one yet to test)
Cadaverous Emperess Aim High SWAG Co 0	Posted - 2016.03.20 16:19:54 - [89] - Quote Cadaverous Emperess wrote: Nazzarus wrote: Anchored 3 citadels yesterday, 24 hour anchor time. Logged in this morning to check on them, time reset to 24 hours as soon as i undocked. Edit: others are posting that when no one is in local the timer resets. I teleported off and then flew back manually, the timer did not reset. I'm having the same issue - 3 anchored, all more than 1,000km from each other. The timer has reset twice now, first time it got down to 22 hours remaining, I logged off, logged back in a few hours later, and they were back to 23 hours 59 minutes. Logged off for the night, logged back in today, and again they were all back to 23 hours 59 minutes. It seems to happen when you login a new session, based on the timer being at 24 hours the second you login. In the 'Citadels' channel on Sisi there were a few others experiencing the same issue as well. I also submitted a ticket on Sisi under the Outposts/Starbases category (could not find a category for Citadels/anchorables). Slight update -- now it seems the timer is not resetting to 24 hours, but rather, pausing whenever I logoff, and begins again when I login. Smells like the whole "solar system goes to sleep when nobody is in local" thing that is pretty common on Sisi (I'm in a random lowsec system with no traffic). Everytime I logoff, when I log back on the timer is running, but its at whatever it was when I logged off last. so far 36 hours have elapsed since anchor time.
Somebody TheGreat Somebody's Corp Care Factor 4	Posted - 2016.03.20 17:09:08 - [90] - Quote 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. Tether swaps to your pod when you eject, leaving the ship untethered.

Rock Brackenshield Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S 14	Posted - 2016.03.20 17:19:08 - [91] - Quote Hey there, I've had some issues with Keepstar geometry when warping to it, getting stuck bumping off of it and the like. I tried submitting things through F12, but couldn't send it as a bug report, there were "No Choices" available for selecting a category, and I couldn't submit it was a bug report without said Category pick, so I copy/pasted what I wrote below Desc: When warping to a Keepstar from probe results at zero, my Buzzard became stuck in the geometry, and was unable to warp out, as it was constantly bumping off alignment, and unable to reach the correct speed. I ejected from the Buzzard, and repeated the attempt to warp out in my pod, however even the pod had issues with the geometry, and it took 6 or 7 tries before I was actually able to warp out from the interior of the Keepstar. Later (currently), the same is happening with a Wyvern. I created a Bookmark on the actual Keepstar marker, warped to it at 20km, and the Wyvern has been bumping off the interior of what looks like a docking port from side to side, unable to break free. While technically not a bug, reworking of the geometry of the Keepstar to better bump things out from the inside, or moving the Keepstar icon somehow so that a pilot is not locked inside of it when warping to the Keepstar. Reproduction Steps: 1. Warp to Keepstar 2. Get caught in geometry 3. Attempt warping to several different celestials 4. Eject from ship into pod 5. Attempt to warp to serveral different celestials 6. Succeed to warp to a celestial 7. Board Wyvern 8. Warp to Keepstar Bookmark at 20km, get stuck in geometry 9. Send bug report (=P)
Blue Harrier 219	Posted - 2016.03.20 23:55:07 - [92] - Quote From the few tests IGÇÖve done on both an Astrahaus and a Keepstar IGÇÖve found the following; If you warp to zero on either citadel with a small to medium sized ship you can easily land inside the citadel and become stuck in the geometry. To release your ship do a safe log off and your ship will be removed from space you can then GÇÿStop ShipGÇÖ as it warps back in when you log back in to the game (did this twice and it worked both times). The circle of lights around the citadel is the outer marker of the GÇÿTetherGÇÖ zone, anywhere inside of this zone seems to be an instant dock zone. I used a Helios with Microwarp drive and by docking then undocking and burning out roughly half way to the circle of lights, then make a bookmark as the GÇÿdocking pointGÇÖ, this worked really well for anything up to freighter sized ships. I could warp to the bookmark and dock instantly. If you donGÇÖt have a bookmark for the Astrahaus them warp to 20Km should land you outside the citadel and you can dock from there. The Keepstar on the other hand you will need to warp to 100Km or above to land outside the geometry. For anyone that is having trouble with installing fittings on your citadel (and I had to ask at first), buy your parts from the market, load them aboard your ship, fly to citadel and dock. Click on the citadel to select it then click the upper pointing arrow in the top right next to the undock button. Next click the Ship Fitting button to open the fitting window and finally click the Inventory button to open your inventory. You should have your citadelGÇÖs inventory, a fuel bay and a Fighter section along with your shipGÇÖs inventory. Now just drag and drop the items from the inventory to the fitting window just like fitting a ship. To exit click the downward pointing arrow at the bottom of your hud display. If your hud fails to display then load any PI planet wait for it to load then shut it down and the hud should appear. NB: some items will not work at the moment as this is a GÇÿwork in progressGÇÖ, also Service Modules require fuel blocks (lots of them to start the module up) and keep it running, the citadel needs no fuel to operate. "You wait - time passes, Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold." from The Hobbit on ZX Spectrum 1982.
Dern Morrow Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 10	Posted - 2016.03.21 00:35:48 - [93] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Dern Morrow wrote: I haven't seen this in the notes, so I wanted to mention: As a wormhole dweller, it would be very useful to be able to use the POS component construction array to construct structure components. Presently you can't, it won't let you build structure components in a POS. Thanks in advance! Super excited for Citadels. Have you tried the "Equipment Assembly Array" ? Yup. I've tried as recently as just now. Neither the Equipment Assembly Array nor the Component Assembly Array presently allow manufacturing of Structure components. This is on TQ. Everything is blue on the manufacturing screen except the 'Start' button which gives the error 'the selected blueprint activity is not supported at the current facility' no matter which construction tool I use. Thanks in advance. :)
Cadaverous Emperess Aim High SWAG Co 0	Posted - 2016.03.21 03:07:37 - [94] - Quote Cadaverous Emperess wrote: Cadaverous Emperess wrote: Nazzarus wrote: Anchored 3 citadels yesterday, 24 hour anchor time. Logged in this morning to check on them, time reset to 24 hours as soon as i undocked. Edit: others are posting that when no one is in local the timer resets. I teleported off and then flew back manually, the timer did not reset. I'm having the same issue - 3 anchored, all more than 1,000km from each other. The timer has reset twice now, first time it got down to 22 hours remaining, I logged off, logged back in a few hours later, and they were back to 23 hours 59 minutes. Logged off for the night, logged back in today, and again they were all back to 23 hours 59 minutes. It seems to happen when you login a new session, based on the timer being at 24 hours the second you login. In the 'Citadels' channel on Sisi there were a few others experiencing the same issue as well. I also submitted a ticket on Sisi under the Outposts/Starbases category (could not find a category for Citadels/anchorables). Slight update -- now it seems the timer is not resetting to 24 hours, but rather, pausing whenever I logoff, and begins again when I login. Smells like the whole "solar system goes to sleep when nobody is in local" thing that is pretty common on Sisi (I'm in a random lowsec system with no traffic). Everytime I logoff, when I log back on the timer is running, but its at whatever it was when I logged off last. so far 36 hours have elapsed since anchor time. Another update: Tried staying logged in for a full 24 hours to keep the timer from resetting/pausing, managed to get about 17 hours in before a cluster restart was done. Upon logging back in, all 3 are back at 23h59m to anchor. Total time for all 3 has exceeded 48 hours now.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 363	Posted - 2016.03.21 05:05:06 - [95] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Petrified wrote: I was able to anchor an Astrahaus, however, after it showed the timer for the anchoring, the client crashed. Also: I was under the impression we could 'fit' citadels prior to anchoring, is this still in the works, have I missed something in the UI, or was that idea scrapped? This will not be the case, code says no :( Thank you for the clarification. At some point in the future does the Magic 8-Ball indicate that the code might say 'yes'? Running for CSM 11. You should vote for me.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1715	Posted - 2016.03.21 05:27:08 - [96] - Quote Dern Morrow wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: Dern Morrow wrote: I haven't seen this in the notes, so I wanted to mention: As a wormhole dweller, it would be very useful to be able to use the POS component construction array to construct structure components. Presently you can't, it won't let you build structure components in a POS. Thanks in advance! Super excited for Citadels. Have you tried the "Equipment Assembly Array" ? Yup. I've tried as recently as just now. Neither the Equipment Assembly Array nor the Component Assembly Array presently allow manufacturing of Structure components. This is on TQ. Everything is blue on the manufacturing screen except the 'Start' button which gives the error 'the selected blueprint activity is not supported at the current facility' no matter which construction tool I use. Thanks in advance. :) this may be a bug ccp has said several times that you will be able to build them in WHs Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1715	Posted - 2016.03.21 05:31:36 - [97] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Are non-targeted attacks supposed to hurt you while tethered? I lost my Chimera to a doomsday while tethered to a Keepstar. i just did this a bit before server went down and the DDs did not hurt our tethered ships in fact a ship that was not tethered begain to take damage and then it stopped once he became tethered Also when you are in fleet with the current pilot of a citadel you can shoot it outside of its vulnerability timer. If this is a bug please keep it as even on TQ i can see a use for this when just playing around or running drills Citadel worm hole tax
Rock Brackenshield Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S 14	Posted - 2016.03.21 05:46:19 - [98] - Quote Cadaverous Emperess wrote: Cadaverous Emperess wrote: Cadaverous Emperess wrote: Nazzarus wrote: Anchored 3 citadels yesterday, 24 hour anchor time. Logged in this morning to check on them, time reset to 24 hours as soon as i undocked. Edit: others are posting that when no one is in local the timer resets. I teleported off and then flew back manually, the timer did not reset. I'm having the same issue - 3 anchored, all more than 1,000km from each other. The timer has reset twice now, first time it got down to 22 hours remaining, I logged off, logged back in a few hours later, and they were back to 23 hours 59 minutes. Logged off for the night, logged back in today, and again they were all back to 23 hours 59 minutes. It seems to happen when you login a new session, based on the timer being at 24 hours the second you login. In the 'Citadels' channel on Sisi there were a few others experiencing the same issue as well. I also submitted a ticket on Sisi under the Outposts/Starbases category (could not find a category for Citadels/anchorables). Slight update -- now it seems the timer is not resetting to 24 hours, but rather, pausing whenever I logoff, and begins again when I login. Smells like the whole "solar system goes to sleep when nobody is in local" thing that is pretty common on Sisi (I'm in a random lowsec system with no traffic). Everytime I logoff, when I log back on the timer is running, but its at whatever it was when I logged off last. so far 36 hours have elapsed since anchor time. Another update: Tried staying logged in for a full 24 hours to keep the timer from resetting/pausing, managed to get about 17 hours in before a cluster restart was done. Upon logging back in, all 3 are back at 23h59m to anchor. Total time for all 3 has exceeded 48 hours now. Yeah, unfortunately the server restarts re-up the timer to full. Been waiting about 4 days or so now to try to get Citadels to anchor. Maybe this next time's the charm? =P Lovin' it though CCP, having fun with the squadrons regardless of Citadel timers =D
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 707	Posted - 2016.03.21 08:47:36 - [99] - Quote Couple of points: 1) You can launch mobile depots (and probably other structures) when controlling a citadel 2) Is it intentional that there is currently no way to find friendly Citadels aside from corp bookmarks or probing? I would have expected them to be either globally visible or warpable from the structures list 3) Structure Doomsdays can be fired, unfitted then fitted again to bypass the cooldown.
NextDarkKnight Mental Disorders Inc. Guardians of the Asylum 47	Posted - 2016.03.21 19:35:57 - [100] - Quote We have a few deployed but the timers do not seam to work and they are always anchoring. Is there anyway you could script them to auto anchor after your sisi downtime to prevent the timer frustration? The 24 hour timer restarts when you come back on grid after downtime.

Side1Bu2Rnz9 Trojan Legion Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2016.03.22 02:24:40 - [101] - Quote Please just do us a favor and make sisi into Duality for the duration of the capital changes. Everyone (even those with not as much skills) deserves to see what's being worked on and how it will.... "effect" EVE in the future...
Lugh Crow-Slave 1719	Posted - 2016.03.22 05:19:23 - [102] - Quote Side1Bu2Rnz9 wrote: Please just do us a favor and make sisi into Duality for the duration of the capital changes. Everyone (even those with not as much skills) deserves to see what's being worked on and how it will.... "effect" EVE in the future... The point of this server is not for you to play with it is to test the game If everyone is in capitals no one will be in sub caps Also the biggest change is to fighters this every one can test using citadels to launch them even without skills atm Citadel worm hole tax
Ace Aideron Red Falcon Group Intrepid Crossing 6	Posted - 2016.03.22 09:41:13 - [103] - Quote I'm seeing some of the same issues reported by others: 1. Bug report form is slow to load, and can't be submitted (the Category list only contains "No Choices") 2. Right-clicking on an anchoring Keepstar and warping to zero puts me 5000 km away 3. Anchoring timers in FD-MIJ are apparently being reset to 24 hrs when the server reboots 4. Spelling errors in a few places There's some quirkiness in the way structures are anchored. The reason for the red vs. blue coloring wasn't obvious at first. Then I found that if I left-clicked in wrong point in space, the structure would disappear from the screen. Rotating the camera around, I saw it had been moved, but to some unexpected place. It was also frustrating to not be able to pan the camera. If I moved the structure far away from the ship's warp-in, it's difficult to zoom-in (to check rotation angle, for example) without also being able to pan. About 24 hrs ago, I was also seeing the following issue (it's working fine again now): After purchasing a number of items from the market, none of them appeared in my inventory. Closing and re-opening the Inventory window didn't help, nor did undocking and redocking. 1. Open Inventory window and Regional Market 2. Buy something from the market Expected: item should appear in the Item Hangar. Actual: Item does not appear.
Always Shi t Posting 35	Posted - 2016.03.22 09:52:13 - [104] - Quote Since the update earlier the right-hand station interface window (showing undock button, guests list, etc) doesn't load when docked in a Citadel. This also prevents taking control of the structure.

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 11:04:08 - [105] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Are non-targeted attacks supposed to hurt you while tethered? I lost my Chimera to a doomsday while tethered to a Keepstar. I will take a look Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 11:06:08 - [106] - Quote 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? Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 11:08:36 - [107] - Quote Keaden Aemar wrote: Is the fact that I cannot see a citadel on dscan while it is anchoring by design? (haven't seen an online one yet to test) I do not think d-scan is working properly at the moment, but I will take a look. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 11:10:01 - [108] - Quote Rock Brackenshield wrote: Hey there, I've had some issues with Keepstar geometry when warping to it, getting stuck bumping off of it and the like. I tried submitting things through F12, but couldn't send it as a bug report, there were "No Choices" available for selecting a category, and I couldn't submit it was a bug report without said Category pick, so I copy/pasted what I wrote below Desc: When warping to a Keepstar from probe results at zero, my Buzzard became stuck in the geometry, and was unable to warp out, as it was constantly bumping off alignment, and unable to reach the correct speed. I ejected from the Buzzard, and repeated the attempt to warp out in my pod, however even the pod had issues with the geometry, and it took 6 or 7 tries before I was actually able to warp out from the interior of the Keepstar. Later (currently), the same is happening with a Wyvern. I created a Bookmark on the actual Keepstar marker, warped to it at 20km, and the Wyvern has been bumping off the interior of what looks like a docking port from side to side, unable to break free. While technically not a bug, reworking of the geometry of the Keepstar to better bump things out from the inside, or moving the Keepstar icon somehow so that a pilot is not locked inside of it when warping to the Keepstar. Reproduction Steps: 1. Warp to Keepstar 2. Get caught in geometry 3. Attempt warping to several different celestials 4. Eject from ship into pod 5. Attempt to warp to serveral different celestials 6. Succeed to warp to a celestial 7. Board Wyvern 8. Warp to Keepstar Bookmark at 20km, get stuck in geometry 9. Send bug report (=P) This should be fixed in the next update. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 11:11:54 - [109] - Quote Dern Morrow wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: Dern Morrow wrote: I haven't seen this in the notes, so I wanted to mention: As a wormhole dweller, it would be very useful to be able to use the POS component construction array to construct structure components. Presently you can't, it won't let you build structure components in a POS. Thanks in advance! Super excited for Citadels. Have you tried the "Equipment Assembly Array" ? Yup. I've tried as recently as just now. Neither the Equipment Assembly Array nor the Component Assembly Array presently allow manufacturing of Structure components. This is on TQ. Everything is blue on the manufacturing screen except the 'Start' button which gives the error 'the selected blueprint activity is not supported at the current facility' no matter which construction tool I use. Thanks in advance. :) And there is the confusion :) This will be added with the release, you will be able to build Citadels in POS. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 11:15:23 - [110] - Quote CynoNet Two wrote: A few points: 1) You can launch mobile depots (and probably other structures) when controlling a citadel 2) Is it intentional that there is currently no way to find friendly Citadels aside from corp bookmarks or probing? I would have expected them to be either globally visible or warpable from the structures list 3) Is it also intentional that tethering fully repairs undocking ships (including overheated modules), or is this just for sisi? 4) Structure Doomsdays can be fired, unfitted then fitted again to bypass the cooldown. 1. Known issue. 2. This is being implemented at the moment 3. Nope, this is fully intentional 4. Known issue, it will not go to TQ like this Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


Lair Osen 113	Posted - 2016.03.22 11:38:16 - [111] - Quote 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? At the moment you can put up a POS that costs a couple of hundred million ISK. fly your super inside it and eject then leave it there in relative safety. If you remove POSes the only way to get out of your super without leaving it floating in space for anyone to board will be to dock into a 200 Billion ISK XL citadel. Additionally, is there going to be any way to prevent hostile bumping while being tethered? Because the tether isn't very useful if you can just bump people out of tether range and shoot them.

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 11:46:35 - [112] - Quote Lair Osen 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? At the moment you can put up a POS that costs a couple of hundred million ISK. fly your super inside it and eject then leave it there in relative safety. If you remove POSes the only way to get out of your super without leaving it floating in space for anyone to board will be to dock into a 200 Billion ISK XL citadel. Additionally, is there going to be any way to prevent hostile bumping while being tethered? Because the tether isn't very useful if you can just bump people out of tether range and shoot them. The bumping is something CCP Nullarbor is looking at as I type this as we are aware this is an issue. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Gina Rosenstall Jump Drive Appreciation Society 0	Posted - 2016.03.22 12:35:00 - [113] - Quote 1. Bug reporting on SISI not working, since I can't select a category and can't report wo one 2. Can't rename citadel "You can't rename that type of object". 3. Can't take control of my citadel; button is greyed out. Edit: 4. After undocking from a citadel (or station) the overview is emtpy besides the sun. I have to switch tabs to get it working again.
Mister Ripley Ministry of War Amarr Empire 173	Posted - 2016.03.22 12:44:30 - [114] - Quote My citadels in Nakugard are now anchoring for four days... Did I do something wrong?
Always Shi t Posting 36	Posted - 2016.03.22 13:43:12 - [115] - Quote Always Shi wrote: Since the update earlier the right-hand station interface window (showing undock button, guests list, etc) doesn't load when docked in a Citadel. This also prevents taking control of the structure. Apparently pressing Ctrl-Tab until you select the untitled window will get this back
Rilly Dagons Galactic Pilot's Union 0	Posted - 2016.03.22 14:01:32 - [116] - Quote Mister Ripley wrote: My citadels in Nakugard are now anchoring for four days... Did I do something wrong? Also the 0km "box" around the citadels is far too big. It has a ~10km bigger radius than the structure itself. Anchoring is a known issue and the 10km is the range of the tethering field
Mister Ripley Ministry of War Amarr Empire 174	Posted - 2016.03.22 14:33:54 - [117] - Quote Rilly Dagons wrote: Mister Ripley wrote: My citadels in Nakugard are now anchoring for four days... Did I do something wrong? Also the 0km "box" around the citadels is far too big. It has a ~10km bigger radius than the structure itself. Anchoring is a known issue and the 10km is the range of the tethering field I'm not sure if I understand your post correctly. What I mean is that the 0km box is insanely huge. You are at 0km (overview) while being "visually" ~10km away. Does the tethering range go up to 10km (in overview)? Or do you mean you are in tethering rang as long as you are in the 0km "bubble" and then suddenly are not when you leave it without a way to see your actual range properly?
DaOpa Static Corp 55	Posted - 2016.03.22 14:44:41 - [118] - Quote You can anchor Citadels at Static DED Complexes, even ones that require a special key to get into... Making these even more secure since the only way to get to them is via this gate. I assume this is not going to be allowed or be prevented in a way? LP Stores DB - WH List / Systems - Live Streamer

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 14:53:52 - [119] - Quote Gina Rosenstall wrote: 1. Bug reporting on SISI not working, since I can't select a category and can't report wo one 2. Can't rename citadel "You can't rename that type of object". 3. Can't take control of my citadel; button is greyed out. Edit: 4. After undocking from a citadel (or station) the overview is emtpy besides the sun. I have to switch tabs to get it working again. 5. Guest list is empty, even when I am docked. 6. Station window is not visible until you activate it with ctrl+tab. 7. If I dock with the structure browser open, the citadel correctly shows the name of my corporation in the station window, but if I dock with it closed, it show no corporation. 8. If I dock with the structure browser open, the citadel correctly shows "View outside structure" as an option in the station window, but if I dock with it closed, it shows "Enter Ship Hangar" even if I am already in the hangar. 1. We are looking into this 2. This should be fixed when sisi is next updated 3. Was someone already in control? 4. Will take a look 5. This will be implemented once sisi is next updated 6. Not sure what is going on here 7. Will take a look 8. Will take a look Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 14:54:25 - [120] - Quote Mister Ripley wrote: My citadels in Nakugard are now anchoring for four days... Did I do something wrong? Also the 0km "box" around the citadels is far too big. It has a ~10km bigger radius than the structure itself. You are doing nothing wrong, it is an issue with the build, should be sorted when sisi is next updated. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones



CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 14:55:59 - [121] - Quote DaOpa wrote: You can anchor Citadels at Static DED Complexes, even ones that require a special key to get into... Making these even more secure since the only way to get to them is via this gate. I assume this is not going to be allowed or be prevented in a way? This will not be allowed. Will not ship to TQ like this. If you could throw me the name of one of these sites I will get a defect entered so we remember to fix this. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Gina Rosenstall Jump Drive Appreciation Society 0	Posted - 2016.03.22 14:56:45 - [122] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Gina Rosenstall wrote: 1. Bug reporting on SISI not working, since I can't select a category and can't report wo one 2. Can't rename citadel "You can't rename that type of object". 3. Can't take control of my citadel; button is greyed out. Edit: 4. After undocking from a citadel (or station) the overview is emtpy besides the sun. I have to switch tabs to get it working again. 5. Guest list is empty, even when I am docked. 6. Station window is not visible until you activate it with ctrl+tab. 7. If I dock with the structure browser open, the citadel correctly shows the name of my corporation in the station window, but if I dock with it closed, it show no corporation. 8. If I dock with the structure browser open, the citadel correctly shows "View outside structure" as an option in the station window, but if I dock with it closed, it shows "Enter Ship Hangar" even if I am already in the hangar. 3. Was someone already in control? No, since no one from my corp was online on SISI at that time. I am not sure if there is a problem with the ownership. It showed under "my citadels", but not under my corps citadels. Edit: It shows partly as owned by my corp and partly by something like "The Rare Glitch Project".

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 15:00:11 - [123] - Quote Gina Rosenstall wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: Gina Rosenstall wrote: 1. Bug reporting on SISI not working, since I can't select a category and can't report wo one 2. Can't rename citadel "You can't rename that type of object". 3. Can't take control of my citadel; button is greyed out. Edit: 4. After undocking from a citadel (or station) the overview is emtpy besides the sun. I have to switch tabs to get it working again. 5. Guest list is empty, even when I am docked. 6. Station window is not visible until you activate it with ctrl+tab. 7. If I dock with the structure browser open, the citadel correctly shows the name of my corporation in the station window, but if I dock with it closed, it show no corporation. 8. If I dock with the structure browser open, the citadel correctly shows "View outside structure" as an option in the station window, but if I dock with it closed, it shows "Enter Ship Hangar" even if I am already in the hangar. 3. Was someone already in control? No, since no one from my corp was online on SISI at that time. I am not sure if there is a problem with the ownership. It showed under "my citadels", but not under my corps citadels. Edit: It shows partly as owned by my corp and partly by something like "The Rare Glitch Project". What system is this in? Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Gina Rosenstall Jump Drive Appreciation Society 0	Posted - 2016.03.22 15:06:47 - [124] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Gina Rosenstall wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: Gina Rosenstall wrote: 1. Bug reporting on SISI not working, since I can't select a category and can't report wo one 2. Can't rename citadel "You can't rename that type of object". 3. Can't take control of my citadel; button is greyed out. Edit: 4. After undocking from a citadel (or station) the overview is emtpy besides the sun. I have to switch tabs to get it working again. 5. Guest list is empty, even when I am docked. 6. Station window is not visible until you activate it with ctrl+tab. 7. If I dock with the structure browser open, the citadel correctly shows the name of my corporation in the station window, but if I dock with it closed, it show no corporation. 8. If I dock with the structure browser open, the citadel correctly shows "View outside structure" as an option in the station window, but if I dock with it closed, it shows "Enter Ship Hangar" even if I am already in the hangar. 3. Was someone already in control? No, since no one from my corp was online on SISI at that time. I am not sure if there is a problem with the ownership. It showed under "my citadels", but not under my corps citadels. Edit: It shows partly as owned by my corp and partly by something like "The Rare Glitch Project". What system is this in? Thera. I am currently in it.
DaOpa Static Corp 55	Posted - 2016.03.22 15:25:12 - [125] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: DaOpa wrote: You can anchor Citadels at Static DED Complexes, even ones that require a special key to get into... Making these even more secure since the only way to get to them is via this gate. I assume this is not going to be allowed or be prevented in a way? This will not be allowed. Will not ship to TQ like this. If you could throw me the name of one of these sites I will get a defect entered so we remember to fix this. System: Garisas Beacon: Port Maphante Has a warp to called "Blood Crypt" which is a static Blood Raiders complex site. You can also post these 500k off Jove Observatories, and in a sense use it to farm Drifters. LP Stores DB - WH List / Systems - Live Streamer

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 15:30:01 - [126] - Quote DaOpa wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: DaOpa wrote: You can anchor Citadels at Static DED Complexes, even ones that require a special key to get into... Making these even more secure since the only way to get to them is via this gate. I assume this is not going to be allowed or be prevented in a way? This will not be allowed. Will not ship to TQ like this. If you could throw me the name of one of these sites I will get a defect entered so we remember to fix this. System: Garisas Beacon: Port Maphante Has a warp to called "Blood Crypt" which is a static Blood Raiders complex site. You can also post these 500k off Jove Observatories, and in a sense use it to farm Drifters. Right on, will take a look later this afternoon, thank you. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Circumstantial Evidence 265	Posted - 2016.03.22 16:13:13 - [127] - Quote "CCP is terrible, they never listen to us and release these features untested." Thank you CCP Claymore for this post flood, and all of QA - for digging into the problem solving trenches every day!

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.22 16:42:01 - [128] - Quote Updated original post Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Demolishar United Aggression 1080	Posted - 2016.03.22 17:48:50 - [129] - Quote I would like to see brighter colours used on the 'holograms' when anchoring citadels. It's quite hard to see them against the dark background of space currently. Just a tiny quality of life thing.
Tra'con Han The reality disfunction 14	Posted - 2016.03.22 17:54:13 - [130] - Quote Please save my sanity! How do I 'manage' this thing? I do not see an option, tried inside, in space, in the structure browser.... It was anchored without issue by this character (the ceo) but I have tried with another character as well. It is located in Aderkan.

NextDarkKnight Mental Disorders Inc. Guardians of the Asylum 48	Posted - 2016.03.22 19:25:07 - [131] - Quote I noticed if I'm tethered to a citadel, if I eject it still shows my name as being in the ship and stays tethered.
Erin Aldent Eagle Wing Industries Prodigal Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.03.22 20:18:04 - [132] - Quote How does one go about finding and warping to these citadels, I could find no way to do it, other than a premade bookmark.
Unkind Omen Voyagers Inc. 45	Posted - 2016.03.22 20:31:39 - [133] - Quote My medium citadel in Onnamon, planet V, managed to get into secured state without being fully repaired. In fact it only repaired 9% of its armor and I cannot do anything with its fitting.
LoisMustDie All-One-Word Caldari Provisions Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.03.22 20:43:32 - [134] - Quote Any special restrictions for anchoring in wormholes? Currently, moonlocking prevents hostiles from easily setting up a beachhead for an invasion. Is that defensive measure going away with the release of citadels?
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt 165	Posted - 2016.03.22 21:23:28 - [135] - Quote I did my first brawl today with a yellow blinky skiff. https://imgur.com/6tBCdR7 -the anticapital-missles didnt shot(not even the charon, that i tried before), there were no antisubcap-missles on the market. -the traktor and the repulsor had no noticible effect -the skiff could not fight back. the hobs didnt wanted to shoot the fighters "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)
Erin Aldent Eagle Wing Industries Prodigal Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.03.22 22:28:20 - [136] - Quote Mark O'Helm wrote: -the traktor and the repulsor had no noticible effect In that screen shot you are using both repulse and tractor at the same time, did you try one or the other?
Phoenix4264 Reasonable People Of Sound Mind 2	Posted - 2016.03.22 22:33:29 - [137] - Quote Combat probing Citadels - When probing Citadels if you scan one down to 100% and then scan another location the result will degrade back to an un-warpable state. This is the same behavior we currently have for ships and deployables, so this is understandable, but it would be preferable that these results remain without needing to bookmark them. Structures are essentially celestials and cannot move without being unanchored and reanchored which takes a significant amount of time unlike a ship warping around a system. In particular this would be helpful for scouting the locations of all structures in a system. I live in w-space, and we regularly scout and catalog the locations of hostile POSs when exploring new systems. POSs are currently tied to moons, so we can scout these without ever needing to use probes. With the new structures we will need to probe them down to locate and put eyes on the hostile staging structure. This is already going to announce our presence to the locals more than we needed to do with the old POS system, I would prefer to be able to drop probes, quickly scan the structures and pull my probes before needing to warp around to look at them or make bookmarks. Probing while tethered - Currently you cannot launch probes while tethered, you get an error stating that "Your ship is realigning its magnetic field, please wait a moment." However if I leave the tether, either by flying out of range or warping off, I can launch probes and then return to the safety of the tether and continue probing. I don't have a particular preference one way or the other, but I feel you either should be able to probe while tethered in which case launching probes should be allowed or it should be disallowed entirely as it is currently when inside POS forcefields.
Blue Harrier 221	Posted - 2016.03.22 23:11:21 - [138] - Quote Slight bug found tonight; Docked at medium citadel Entered Hanger, noted the button had changed to View Outside. Took control of citadel and did some checks Released control of citadel and button had changed to Enter hanger but I was already in the hanger view Clicked button and view changed to outside view again but button stayed the same at Enter Hanger. Did this test twice more and it was repeatable. "You wait - time passes, Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold." from The Hobbit on ZX Spectrum 1982.
Arline Kley PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 647	Posted - 2016.03.22 23:15:20 - [139] - Quote Tra'con Han wrote: Please save my sanity! How do I 'manage' this thing? I do not see an option, tried inside, in space, in the structure browser.... It was anchored without issue by this character (the ceo) but I have tried with another character as well. It is located in Aderkan. You can anchor the citadel if you have Station Management roles, but to actually manage the station you need CEO/Director roles. It is also known that the interface is buggy, with some people with those roles having access and others not. I truely hope it isn't limited to that in the full release. "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
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt 165	Posted - 2016.03.23 00:04:26 - [140] - Quote Erin Aldent wrote: Mark O'Helm wrote: -the traktor and the repulsor had no noticible effect In that screen shot you are using both repulse and tractor at the same time, did you try one or the other? Yes, i tried them single handed and both. Maybe i don't understand proper what they should do. "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)

Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 424	Posted - 2016.03.23 02:15:05 - [141] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1720	Posted - 2016.03.23 03:52:18 - [142] - Quote For your number 4 issue it may be because capital ships are not supposed to be using the same hanger as the sub caps at least the CSM minutes talked about a second hanger interior for them so that may be why it is bugged (I however have no idea of this is the case still) And another issue I found with the most recent patch is that the manual fighter control does not work for citadel fighters only carrier launched ones Citadel worm hole tax
Sabirah Seldanar 1	Posted - 2016.03.23 04:12:49 - [143] - Quote Posting our corp feedback after interacting with astraus and fortizar type of citadels: 1) Anchoring and deploying After we launched the citadels from fleet hangar / freighter we had issues in moving it and rotating on the grid, most of the time we have been unable to move / rotate it and instead we moved the camera. Intuitively, we used the left and right mouse button on the citadel wireframe, as you did with pos structures in the past. The undocking direction was not clear when we anchored; on our first deployment try, we faced a fortizar in very bad undocking direction (opposite of all system gates), and we found out we cannot change the direction of it once the anchoring order was given, nor once it was fully operational. Considering the decommission timer of 7 days, I would love to see some arrows on the wireframe of the citadel indicating the general undocking direction and / or the option to rotate it once operational. The latter maybe with a long cool down. 2) Fitting the citadel It was not specified you had to sit in the driver seat to start the fitting process, but it was rather intuitive. The corpmate with the structure skills proceeded then to equip missile launchers, a couple of energy neut and a point defense in the high slots. The point defense module didn't active as intended stating the safety measure prevented it from activating, we didn't test however what would happen turning the security off (red). We tested webbing, scrambling, neut, repulsion and tractor beam. The last two are not yet implemented, they did activate but nothing happened, the other modules performed their intended role. We then tried to activate some services. The refinery couldn't be equipped while the cloning bay didn't turn on, as expected as they are not implemented. We equipped the market and proceeded to turn it on. The service appeared in the citadel management tool, but not inside the citadel. We tried to make a market order, the corp mate commanding the citadel had not trading skills, and the item even it was at the same station required marketing I to be placed on sale; The error message he got was with his skill was limited to placing orders only the station. Once the order was placed it appeared on my sell orders, but it could not be found anywhere on the market. Either we didn't set properly the market authorizations or I don't know, I admit it was not very clear what we had to do, probably adding it to the market module description or in the ingame guide would be for the best. From what we discovered the only way to turn off / on a service is by commanding the structure, maybe adding the option to the citadel management tool for directors to turn services on and off would be a good idea, since you don't need any skill for activating them and powergrid / cpu of the citadel is not affected by any skills. 3) Fighters We did a bit of fighter testing, mainly hitting stationary targets. I really felt the lack of an "approach and orbit" command or a "keep at range", this coming from homeworld where i could have a fighter squadron following the battleship group. So far once you activate your weapons, the fighter slowboat (unless you use mwd or other tools) to it. The fighters required no skill to operate, but that's probably something it's going to be fixed in later builds I guess. It is no clear how many fighters are needed to make a full squadron until you load them. For the rest the system seemed pretty solid. 4) Others The citadel min zoom in is still too far in our opinion. Hope it helps, we will update the more we test.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 363	Posted - 2016.03.23 04:57:51 - [144] - Quote 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? Running for CSM 11. You should vote for me.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1722	Posted - 2016.03.23 08:10:34 - [145] - Quote Si currently you can't refit a citadel of it is damaged now this makes a lot of sense. However you also can't refit dieing reinforce between fights I think this needs to be a possibility to let defenders react to an aggressors fleet and of course allow for the offending fleet to try to put think a defender who now has 24hrs to refit and reorganize. Basically being able to refit the citadel will greatly enhance the meta game involved in such sieges Citadel worm hole tax
Ayira Naydir Project Pendragon 0	Posted - 2016.03.23 08:44:39 - [146] - Quote Since the Game didn't let me submit a Bug Report (Can't chose a Category) i gona Post it here: I set up three Citadels, which finally anchored after the Timer Bug got sorted out, the Medium and Large are just fine, but the XL Keepstar was Damaged for some reason, and is now stuck in a "Secure: 0s" Timer since yesterday. I can't repair it, nor does it Repair itself as stated. I started anchoring a second one which will go up in 13~hours and see how this acts upon going online, because it also shows ~29% Armor damaged like the other already. http://imageshack.com/a/img924/5807/Jd5xkC.png To Highlight the Timer
Amak Boma Dragon Factory 177	Posted - 2016.03.23 09:47:18 - [147] - Quote this also affect highsec citadels. just anchored one and it has some armor damage cant repair it because of this weird timer

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:01:03 - [148] - Quote NextDarkKnight wrote: I noticed if I'm tethered to a citadel, if I eject it still shows my name as being in the ship and stays tethered. This sounds like a bug, if you can reproduce it again please enter a bug report through the F12 menu. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:03:24 - [149] - Quote LoisMustDie All-One-Word wrote: Any special restrictions for anchoring in wormholes? Currently, moonlocking prevents hostiles from easily setting up a beachhead for an invasion. Is that defensive measure going away with the release of citadels? Moon locking is going away Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Lugh Crow-Slave 1722	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:05:17 - [150] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: NextDarkKnight wrote: I noticed if I'm tethered to a citadel, if I eject it still shows my name as being in the ship and stays tethered. This sounds like a bug, if you can reproduce it again please enter a bug report through the F12 menu. Does that mean empty ships will not be able to tether? Citadel worm hole tax


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:06:36 - [151] - Quote Mark O'Helm wrote: I did my first brawl today with a yellow blinky skiff. https://imgur.com/6tBCdR7 -the anticapital-missles didnt shot(not even the charon, that i tried before), there were no antisubcap-missles on the market. -the traktor and the repulsor had no noticible effect -the skiff could not fight back. the hobs didnt wanted to shoot the fighters -Did you activate the missiles? I am trying to get the antisubcap missiles seeded -These are not actually implemented yet -I will look into this. If a Citadel is not vulnerable then you can't shoot it, but the fighters you should be able to I think Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:07:10 - [152] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: NextDarkKnight wrote: I noticed if I'm tethered to a citadel, if I eject it still shows my name as being in the ship and stays tethered. This sounds like a bug, if you can reproduce it again please enter a bug report through the F12 menu. Does that mean empty ships will not be able to tether? Empty ships can't be tethered. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:08:59 - [153] - Quote Phoenix4264 wrote: Combat probing Citadels - When probing Citadels if you scan one down to 100% and then scan another location the result will degrade back to an un-warpable state. This is the same behavior we currently have for ships and deployables, so this is understandable, but it would be preferable that these results remain without needing to bookmark them. Structures are essentially celestials and cannot move without being unanchored and reanchored which takes a significant amount of time unlike a ship warping around a system. In particular this would be helpful for scouting the locations of all structures in a system. I live in w-space, and we regularly scout and catalog the locations of hostile POSs when exploring new systems. POSs are currently tied to moons, so we can scout these without ever needing to use probes. With the new structures we will need to probe them down to locate and put eyes on the hostile staging structure. This is already going to announce our presence to the locals more than we needed to do with the old POS system, I would prefer to be able to drop probes, quickly scan the structures and pull my probes before needing to warp around to look at them or make bookmarks. Probing while tethered - Currently you cannot launch probes while tethered, you get an error stating that "Your ship is realigning its magnetic field, please wait a moment." However if I leave the tether, either by flying out of range or warping off, I can launch probes and then return to the safety of the tether and continue probing. I don't have a particular preference one way or the other, but I feel you either should be able to probe while tethered in which case launching probes should be allowed or it should be disallowed entirely as it is currently when inside POS forcefields. 1. Will raise with team. 2. I think I have already raised this with the team but honestly can't remember so will do it again. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Grookshank Jump Drive Appreciation Society 72	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:11:32 - [154] - Quote Can we please have a confirmation on citadels in Thera? It was stated they will not be allowed in shattered wormhole systems, but they currently work in Thera on SISI.

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:14:07 - [155] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: 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. 1. Will take a look as this is the second report I am reading of the missiles not working. 2. I will take a look 3. Will raise this with appropriate team 4. Capitals should be the same func as currently on TQ, supers and titans should not be able to move the camera at all in their hangar 5. Will raise this with appropriate team 6. I will take a look at this. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:16:52 - [156] - 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? Cyno not working is something we are looking at. Just not implemented yet. There will not be an alternative to Cynosural Generator Array on first release. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Lugh Crow-Slave 1722	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:17:18 - [157] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Phoenix4264 wrote: Combat probing Citadels - When probing Citadels if you scan one down to 100% and then scan another location the result will degrade back to an un-warpable state. This is the same behavior we currently have for ships and deployables, so this is understandable, but it would be preferable that these results remain without needing to bookmark them. Structures are essentially celestials and cannot move without being unanchored and reanchored which takes a significant amount of time unlike a ship warping around a system. In particular this would be helpful for scouting the locations of all structures in a system. I live in w-space, and we regularly scout and catalog the locations of hostile POSs when exploring new systems. POSs are currently tied to moons, so we can scout these without ever needing to use probes. With the new structures we will need to probe them down to locate and put eyes on the hostile staging structure. This is already going to announce our presence to the locals more than we needed to do with the old POS system, I would prefer to be able to drop probes, quickly scan the structures and pull my probes before needing to warp around to look at them or make bookmarks. Probing while tethered - Currently you cannot launch probes while tethered, you get an error stating that "Your ship is realigning its magnetic field, please wait a moment." However if I leave the tether, either by flying out of range or warping off, I can launch probes and then return to the safety of the tether and continue probing. I don't have a particular preference one way or the other, but I feel you either should be able to probe while tethered in which case launching probes should be allowed or it should be disallowed entirely as it is currently when inside POS forcefields. 1. Will raise with team. 2. I think I have already raised this with the team but honestly can't remember so will do it again. Number two is currently how pos work of you launch probes outside the ff you can fly back in and continue And with not being able to tether unmanned ships why is that (doesn't really bother me) currently I can put up a small pos and leave a capital just sitting there if I choose Citadel worm hole tax

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 266	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:17:52 - [158] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Si currently you can't refit a citadel of it is damaged now this makes a lot of sense. However you also can't refit dieing reinforce between fights I think this needs to be a possibility to let defenders react to an aggressors fleet and of course allow for the offending fleet to try to put think a defender who now has 24hrs to refit and reorganize. Basically being able to refit the citadel will greatly enhance the meta game involved in such sieges Good point, will raise with team. This might just be a bug tbh. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 268	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:19:39 - [159] - Quote Grookshank wrote: Can we please have a confirmation on citadels in Thera? It was stated they will not be allowed in shattered wormhole systems, but they currently work in Thera on SISI. They will not be allowed. We have just not implemented the restrictions yet. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Amak Boma Dragon Factory 177	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:32:48 - [160] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Grookshank wrote: Can we please have a confirmation on citadels in Thera? It was stated they will not be allowed in shattered wormhole systems, but they currently work in Thera on SISI. They will not be allowed. We have just not implemented the restrictions yet. kind of bad idea. why not let us have shattered wormhole restriction only to medium citadels? only these could be anchored as poses have no moon . med citadel could be handy we know wormholes never intended to be place to live in them but we do so why not give shattered wormhole a medium citadel? what is wrong with this. maybe add some negative effects sush 20% armor/shield/hull amount on citadels in shattered wormhole reduction 20% reduced damage done by citadel weapon systems in shattered wormholes? something like that but to be honest citadels in shattered wormholes could give another ignition effect for more wormhole wars. so my proposal is 1. shattered wormholes allowed to house only medium citadels 2. 20% reduced of damage done by citadel weapons 3. 2% citadel armor hull shield amounts reduced 4/ shattered wormhole citadels will be vulnerable all time 5. sleepers can attack your citadel if its 500km from anomaly sites so if you want to have citadel in shatered wormhole you need group of players either to defend it or attack another citadel

Lugh Crow-Slave 1722	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:46:33 - [161] - Quote Amak Boma wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: Grookshank wrote: Can we please have a confirmation on citadels in Thera? It was stated they will not be allowed in shattered wormhole systems, but they currently work in Thera on SISI. They will not be allowed. We have just not implemented the restrictions yet. kind of bad idea. why not let us have shattered wormhole restriction only to medium citadels? only these could be anchored as poses have no moon . med citadel could be handy we know wormholes never intended to be place to live in them but we do so why not give shattered wormhole a medium citadel? what is wrong with this. maybe add some negative effects sush 20% armor/shield/hull amount on citadels in shattered wormhole reduction 20% reduced damage done by citadel weapon systems in shattered wormholes? something like that but to be honest citadels in shattered wormholes could give another ignition effect for more wormhole wars. so my proposal is 1. shattered wormholes allowed to house only medium citadels 2. 20% reduced of damage done by citadel weapons 3. 25% citadel armor hull shield amounts reduced 4/ shattered wormhole citadels will be vulnerable all time 5. sleepers can attack your citadel if its 500km from anomaly sites so if you want to have citadel in shatered wormhole you need group of players either to defend it or attack another citadel The reason these holes were added was to make a space you could not live in Also according to the siege v2 dev blog at the end of the repair cycle when you went back into invuln all damage was going to be repped shield armor and hull. Currently it only reps the layer you are on (so if armor was damaged you only get full armor) is this intended or a bug. If it's intended I would say make it so it at least repairs the next layer up (if you were fighting for structure and win you get full armor) this way if the defenders win they feel like they ate gaining ground. If the current system is not a big I can also see it being abused by simply damaging the armor with out a full engagement to force the defenders to stay in armor for another cycle. The one I personally prefer (at least for Citadels do to the asset safety role) is if you fail to put the structure into rf or destroy it then it goes back to full Citadel worm hole tax
Torgeir Hekard I MYSELF AND ME 243	Posted - 2016.03.23 10:48:56 - [162] - Quote Okay, so citadels can haz fighters. Then what's the relationship between those citadel fighters and player skills? Are fighter stats affected by the skills of the one controlling them? Are fighter skills required to use citadel fighters? (ATM they are not, but is this intended?)
Lugh Crow-Slave 1722	Posted - 2016.03.23 11:00:01 - [163] - Quote Torgeir Hekard wrote: Okay, so citadels can haz fighters. Then what's the relationship between those citadel fighters and player skills? Are fighter stats affected by the skills of the one controlling them? Are fighter skills required to use citadel fighters? (ATM they are not, but is this intended?) ATM you don't even need them to launch fighters from a carrier so I'm sure there is a big there As to if skills effect them and ate needed they better well not ccp went on this home thing on o how citadels would not be skill intensive (right before they announced 4 new skills in the next paragraph) and just training to fighters is a lot of work and that's ignoring leveling the skill itself or the other 3 x12 skills Citadel worm hole tax
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 707	Posted - 2016.03.23 11:05:31 - [164] - Quote Torgeir Hekard wrote: Okay, so citadels can haz fighters. Then what's the relationship between those citadel fighters and player skills? Are fighter stats affected by the skills of the one controlling them? Are fighter skills required to use citadel fighters? (ATM they are not, but is this intended?) I'm not sure about the rest, but Fighter Hangar Management does currently increase the fighter bay size in Citadels.
Ace Aideron Red Falcon Group Intrepid Crossing 6	Posted - 2016.03.23 12:30:19 - [165] - Quote Playing around with a Keepstar in FD-: 1. The structure sometimes appears as "all dots" -- looks like the many small lights are there, but the structure itself is not. It often looks that way when I approach it the first time. However, the structure can appear (sometimes, not always) after docking and undocking. 2. When shooting at a target from the citadel, the various beams appear, and look fine. However, the client with the ship being shot at doesn't see any of the beams. 3. The ship being shot at sees indicators above the cap display for web and target painter, but not for any other modules. 4. None of the destructive weapons work, except the DD. 5. All of the non-destructive mods appear to work (visually, at least), except the Repulsor and the Tractor. 6. The Market came online fine, but items put up for sale in the citadel aren't visible, either locally or remotely. 7. After a server reboot, the Market went offline, and had to be re-onlined, with the associated fuel cost. 8. I was able to dock a Titan in an Astrahus. Is that intentional? 9. After docking a Titan, right-clicking on the ship displays a cryptic message about not having the right keys. 10. You can activate the first-person camera for the structure, but it's strange since the view is always fixed. 11. Before the shutdown a few minutes ago, FD- was running with a time dilation factor of 50%, with about a half-dozen people in system. 12. The interior and exterior audio feels very loud. The audio controls for interior audio in the current stations don't seem to work for citadels, and I was unable to find a new control that did anything, other than Master. 13. The citadel's fuel bay seems to have an unlimited size. Is that intentional? Maybe not a bug, but being able to dock a Titan in a station and then having the camera fixed feels broken. If I can spin the camera around the ship while in space, why not while it's docked? Suggestion: while docked with any ship, with the station interior visible, I would really like to see two things: 1. The actual ships other users are in while docked. Not every user, of course, just a couple of "neighbors" 2. A "big window" that shows outside the station. I don't need to see everything outside like in the current view -- just part of it. I would much, much, much rather have that than those (silly and very annoying) video monitors.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3792	Posted - 2016.03.23 12:48:41 - [166] - Quote I set one up, then checked to see what was needed to take it down. I could not find any options for unanchoring and/or scooping. Where are they? Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Lugh Crow-Slave 1722	Posted - 2016.03.23 13:04:06 - [167] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: I set one up, then checked to see what was needed to take it down. I could not find any options for unanchoring and/or scooping. Where are they? they are in the structure management window also the citadel missiles seem confused in some cases they are SD MD LD and others they are HD MD LD i'm assuming the first set is Sort Distance Medium Distance Long distance while the second is High Damage Medium Damage and Low damage may want to pick one or the other Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1722	Posted - 2016.03.23 13:18:58 - [168] - Quote CCP any chance we can get this hanger to also include capitals and not just supers us WH pilots would like a change of scenery every now and then to and Christ dreads are bigger than supers lore wise wouldn't they also need the bigger bay? and dont even get me started on the FAX Citadel worm hole tax
Selak Zorander Mord-Sith 7	Posted - 2016.03.23 13:34:25 - [169] - Quote Ayira Naydir wrote: Since the Game didn't let me submit a Bug Report (Can't chose a Category) i gona Post it here: I set up three Citadels, which finally anchored after the Timer Bug got sorted out, the Medium and Large are just fine, but the XL Keepstar was Damaged for some reason, and is now stuck in a "Secure: 0s" Timer since yesterday. I can't repair it, nor does it Repair itself as stated. I started anchoring a second one which will go up in 13~hours and see how this acts upon going online, because it also shows ~29% Armor damaged like the other already. http://imageshack.com/a/img924/5807/Jd5xkC.png To Highlight the Timer Im having the same issue with mine. Its stuck at "secure: 0s" and sitting at 24% armor but as far as i know it has never been attacked as no notification about that was ever sent.

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 268	Posted - 2016.03.23 13:37:27 - [170] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: CCP any chance we can get this hanger to also include capitals and not just supers us WH pilots would like a change of scenery every now and then to and Christ dreads are bigger than supers lore wise wouldn't they also need the bigger bay? and dont even get me started on the FAX No, at least not for the initial release. Anything more would be a decision for the art dept. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


Lugh Crow-Slave 1724	Posted - 2016.03.23 13:54:51 - [171] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: CCP any chance we can get this hanger to also include capitals and not just supers us WH pilots would like a change of scenery every now and then to and Christ dreads are bigger than supers lore wise wouldn't they also need the bigger bay? and dont even get me started on the FAX No, at least not for the initial release. Anything more would be a decision for the art dept. q.q one day maybe i'll be able to see the top of my nag Citadel worm hole tax
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 709	Posted - 2016.03.23 13:58:42 - [172] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: CCP any chance we can get this hanger to also include capitals and not just supers us WH pilots would like a change of scenery every now and then to and Christ dreads are bigger than supers lore wise wouldn't they also need the bigger bay? and dont even get me started on the FAX Liking this idea; the Naglfar and FAX already break current hangar interiors so it just makes sense.
NextDarkKnight Mental Disorders Inc. Guardians of the Asylum 49	Posted - 2016.03.23 14:09:38 - [173] - Quote If I land near a citadel with a golem and go into bastion mode while being engaged.. My bastion cycle will end but won't allow me to reactivate or move or warp away. Even with logging off the Golem stays stuck and leaving ship. The only way to fix the golem is to scoop it with another ship.

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 268	Posted - 2016.03.23 14:13:39 - [174] - Quote NextDarkKnight wrote: If I land near a citadel with a golem and go into bastion mode while being engaged.. My bastion cycle will end but won't allow me to reactivate or move or warp away. Even with logging off the Golem stays stuck and leaving ship. The only way to fix the golem is to scoop it with another ship. Enter a bug report for this please. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Ace Aideron Red Falcon Group Intrepid Crossing 6	Posted - 2016.03.23 14:29:05 - [175] - Quote I had a short engagement after my XL entered vulnerability today. 1. The damage-dealing modules worked, except the bumper (didn't try the tractor). 2. After the missile batteries finished one batch of missiles, they wouldn't reload. The error was that reloading isn't allowed when the structure is damaged. Is that intentional? 3. After the engagement, the message on the structure's icon said something like "Repair 14m 50s PAUSED". I didn't see a countdown. 4. The structure did eventually repair, as shown in the damage info near the cap display. However, although the shield went full, the percentage (which I have enabled) remained at 99%.

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 268	Posted - 2016.03.23 14:32:29 - [176] - Quote Ace Aideron wrote: I had a short engagement after my XL entered vulnerability today. 1. The damage-dealing modules worked, except the bumper (didn't try the tractor). 2. After the missile batteries finished one batch of missiles, they wouldn't reload. The error was that reloading isn't allowed when the structure is damaged. Is that intentional? 3. After the engagement, the message on the structure's icon said something like "Repair 14m 50s PAUSED". I didn't see a countdown. 4. The structure did eventually repair, as shown in the damage info near the cap display. However, although the shield went full, the percentage (which I have enabled) remained at 99%. 1. Cool 2. No, you should totally be able to reload, there is already a defect on someone to fix this. 3. It should be paused whenever it is being shot, and should be paused for I think 30 seconds, then it should continue counting down 4. This is probably another fantastic example of "EVE Rounding", I will take a look. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

helana Tsero Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 428	Posted - 2016.03.23 14:38:41 - [177] - Quote Some feedback on the aesthetics of the citadels. - Great job on making the structures look cool. seriously well done ! - when docked you need to allow us to zoom in to the citadel alot more.. like really close. I want to look at the citadel not see it from a distance. - that tethering graphic tractor beam needs to go. looks silly. Why is it even needed ? the overview indicator should be enough. - the small displays should feature ads for citadel services or even business not just random meaningless symbols. - the traffic indicators (assume they are traffic indicators and not construction bots).. the small firefly dots could be better.. there is so many that it looks like the citadel is taken over by fireflys.. not ships. In caldari space they are fairly good but in minnie space.. the firefly dots combined with the red background looks a bit to busy. - was hoping to be able to see the citadels defenses visible on the citadels.. like large missile batteries etc.. - tethering indicator ring is subtle and well done. - hope to see some advertising billboards included soon. and also space for corp logos. - where is the indicator of how many pilots are docked in the citadel ? - you are planning to put captains quarters in the citadel... aren't you ??? (please) - the Fortizar large citadel looks alot smaller than the Astrahus medium citadel. - citadels need some more multicolored lighting/ shading when viewed from vast distances eg 1000s of KM. because they tend to look like unfinished shapes when viewed from significant distance. "... 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 !
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 425	Posted - 2016.03.23 14:56:47 - [178] - 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.
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 709	Posted - 2016.03.23 15:01:18 - [179] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: 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. Check the Business > Groups function for setting structure permission groups. It's work-in-progress but some parts do work.
Annexe I N E X T R E M I S Tactical Narcotics Team 33	Posted - 2016.03.23 15:49:00 - [180] - Quote I like how the citadels have small lights around them to give the sense of smaller ships flying around (i assume this is what they are) but is it possible to tone it back a bit? I remember hearing that citadels will have more/less lights based on activity, i assume sisi has max settings? Can the colour of the lights be more mono-tone so it doesn't look too much like a christmas tree? Citadel X-Mas Tree Annexe ITAI - VIP "i will pop your wreck with faction loot"

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?

Doddy Esoteric Operations 951	Posted - 2016.03.24 15:46:56 - [211] - 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. If you cannot defend a citadel for 3 hrs a week you shouldn't have one obviously. I mean why are the defenders just watching? Why are they not fighting? Where are these 40 bs war dec fleets? If one existed why are these "dozen" high sec corps not co-operating? Why have they not hired defenders? It is ludicrous.
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 709	Posted - 2016.03.24 16:33:46 - [212] - Quote Thalesia wrote: any news on Supercapital production restrictions`? is it possible in lowsec with a L or XL citadel post patch? No manufacturing will be possible with Citadels on initial release. More structure types will follow in future along with the service modules to support their functions.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 428	Posted - 2016.03.24 18:20:53 - [213] - 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.
Little Bad Wolf Partial Safety 1	Posted - 2016.03.24 20:08:26 - [214] - Quote Doddy wrote: If you cannot defend a citadel for 3 hrs a week you shouldn't have one obviously. Defend against who or what though? A force 10 times your size with far greater experience? The idea that any small indy corp can defend against a merc alliance, just by being in the right place at the right time and using a little effort, is, as you would say, ludicrous. The theoretical fight in question here, isn't a dance around the region staying out of harms way until a single possibility to strike back presents itself, it is the defence of a fixed position in space. Quote: I mean why are the defenders just watching? Why are they not fighting? If the forces and pilot capability is stacked overwhelmingly against the defender, then what else do they do? Once again it is ludicrous to believe that just through sheer effort, a small indy corp can defend a fixed position in space against any of the major merc alliances. Quote: Where are these 40 bs war dec fleets? If one existed why are these "dozen" high sec corps not co-operating? A force of that size is simply gross exaggeration to get across the point, the reality is a much smaller force fit simply to deal 4000 dps and tank the dps and ewar potential of any medium citadel. The entire defensive and offensive potential of the structure will be known inside out to everyone before the very first one even finishes anchoring on TQ. No wardeccing entity will be "doing battle" with a medium citadel, they will simply bring what it takes to destroy it without incurring any losses, like an incursion fleet running an incursion site, and that's about all there will be too it. Anything on top of that and we are just talking about a fight in a fixed location between experienced mercs and inexperienced indy people, if you can call that a fight. How many small indy corps form pvp fleets and defeat large merc alliances in wardecs? Quote: Why have they not hired defenders? It is ludicrous. How much does the purchasing of a defence force cost for the small indy corp, less than the 50 million the large wardeccing alliance paid to dec them? How often is that defender just made up of the same people or are friends of the attackers anyway? The point here isn't that, if such a force attacked a citadel, it shouldn't be able to destroy it, clearly they cant be made into indestructible deathstars. If a deccer has put together a force that can destroy citadels without incurring any losses, then why shouldn't they deserve to destroy the citadel. None of that is the issue, the issue is that small indy corps get decced by the hundred a day by entities they cannot possibly fight, there is no ulterior motive besides farming, and while they can dock up their ships, any citadels are completely unable to be saved if they cannot be unanchored before the war begins. You ether have to, change wardeccing, which isn't going to happen, or, make the destruction of random citadels not worth ether the time, or somehow ensure that a manned citadel can somehow deal equal its cost in damage before it goes down. How exactly does it do that, it will have a maximum dps and only so much ewar, and it doesn't move, an attacking force can make itself immune to any danger with just a few logistics. You could snipe it with nagas or something from 250km away, go at it at point blank with a spider tank design of some sort. The maths of it will be figured out instantly, and it will be no more dangerous to a prepaired attacker after that than a sansha battletower is.
Shalashaska Adam Partial Safety 129	Posted - 2016.03.24 20:25:43 - [215] - Quote offtopic
Gabriel Karade Noir. Mercenary Coalition 317	Posted - 2016.03.24 20:38:03 - [216] - Quote 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 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Terrence Malick Standard Fuel Company 1	Posted - 2016.03.24 20:40:44 - [217] - Quote Any idea why I am unable to anchor an Astrahus citadel? IGÇÿm a director of my corp, therefore I have the Station Manager role, I can launch the citadel for my corporation, I am able to position the citadel to a valid position (safe spot, more than 1000 km away from anything but my ship), but I canGÇÿt anchor. I gave the structure a name and I selected three hours of vulnerability, the button GÇPAnchorGÇ£ is unlocked, but whenever I click it, nothing happens at all.
Smuff Gallente KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 9	Posted - 2016.03.24 20:58:48 - [218] - Quote 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
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 428	Posted - 2016.03.24 21:15:57 - [219] - 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 - [220] - 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.

Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg 166	Posted - 2016.03.24 22:26:14 - [221] - Quote Terrence Malick wrote: Any idea why I am unable to anchor an Astrahus citadel? IGÇÿm a director of my corp, therefore I have the Station Manager role, I can launch the citadel for my corporation, I am able to position the citadel to a valid position (safe spot, more than 1000 km away from anything but my ship), but I canGÇÿt anchor. I gave the structure a name and I selected three hours of vulnerability, the button GÇPAnchorGÇ£ is unlocked, but whenever I click it, nothing happens at all. Did you moved the citadel 5 km away from your ship. Then the shadow changes from red to white and you can anchor it. If you have already done this, ignore what i wrote here. Then i cannot help you. "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)
Nooien Soong Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2016.03.24 22:31:01 - [222] - Quote I hope the following is a bug, since if not, will be a show stopper for our corp. Whilst the fortizar was in the 24 hour anchor mode, my other corp mate had the option to scoop up the citadel, which he then did. As a side test, he then left the corp into a NPC corp, and we did the same test, and he managed to scoop up the citadel whilst it was still anchoring. I'm really hoping this is a bug since we're a single TZ corp and can't have someone sitting there for 24 hours defending it during the anchor period. Also, we've now manage to "lose" the deployed citadel. We all bookmarked it, but regardless of where we are in system, there's no warp to option, only approach/dock even though it's not on grid.
Jonathan Rotineque Eldorado Exhumers Darwinism. 1	Posted - 2016.03.24 22:42:56 - [223] - Quote Currently in a POS you simply enter the shield and you can access / move almost anything. Will pilots similarly be able to access personal and corp hangars [that they have rights too] while outside Citadel on the Tether?
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg 166	Posted - 2016.03.24 22:48:29 - [224] - Quote Jonathan Rotineque wrote: Currently in a POS you simply enter the shield and you can access / move almost anything. Will pilots similarly be able to access personal and corp hangars [that they have rights too] while outside Citadel on the Tether? Iirc this is indeed the plan, for cap pilots f.e. cannot dock in an astrahus, but can access their hangar Inside. "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)
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg 166	Posted - 2016.03.24 22:56:03 - [225] - Quote Nooien Soong wrote: I hope the following is a bug, since if not, will be a show stopper for our corp. Whilst the fortizar was in the 24 hour anchor mode, my other corp mate had the option to scoop up the citadel, which he then did. As a side test, he then left the corp into a NPC corp, and we did the same test, and he managed to scoop up the citadel whilst it was still anchoring. I'm really hoping this is a bug since we're a single TZ corp and can't have someone sitting there for 24 hours defending it during the anchor period. Also, we've now manage to "lose" the deployed citadel. We all bookmarked it, but regardless of where we are in system, there's no warp to option, only approach/dock even though it's not on grid. You cannot even warp to the bookmark from the persons and places window? Weired. I couldnt warp to it first time, because, it said i were not in a fleet. When i joined one with an alt, i could. I could even use the -warp to fleetmember-command, when she was docked inside the citadel. If this is intended, i like it. "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)
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg 166	Posted - 2016.03.24 22:59:57 - [226] - Quote Btw. I placed the Citadel exactly at an instawarpout point about 1000km from my currently Homestation. In that way i could warp between them without being targeted. Nice. "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)
Nooien Soong Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2016.03.24 23:09:34 - [227] - Quote Mark O'Helm wrote: Nooien Soong wrote: I hope the following is a bug, since if not, will be a show stopper for our corp. Whilst the fortizar was in the 24 hour anchor mode, my other corp mate had the option to scoop up the citadel, which he then did. As a side test, he then left the corp into a NPC corp, and we did the same test, and he managed to scoop up the citadel whilst it was still anchoring. I'm really hoping this is a bug since we're a single TZ corp and can't have someone sitting there for 24 hours defending it during the anchor period. Also, we've now manage to "lose" the deployed citadel. We all bookmarked it, but regardless of where we are in system, there's no warp to option, only approach/dock even though it's not on grid. You cannot even warp to the bookmark from the persons and places window? Weired. I couldnt warp to it first time, because, it said i were not in a fleet. When i joined one with an alt, i could. I could even use the -warp to fleetmember-command, when she was docked inside the citadel. If this is intended, i like it. unfortunately, didn't have anyone docked in it. We have two setup in the system, and whilst the second was anchoring, we were testing the weapons on the first one. Only when we tried to do an alternate fit on the second, found we couldn't warp to it anymore. Not the end of the world, but next time will park one next to a planet warp in point
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg 166	Posted - 2016.03.24 23:57:14 - [228] - Quote Maybe you can probe it down? "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)
Doddy Esoteric Operations 951	Posted - 2016.03.25 00:11:46 - [229] - Quote Little Bad Wolf wrote: [quote=Doddy] How exactly does it do that, it will have a maximum dps and only so much ewar, and it doesn't move, an attacking force can make itself immune to any danger with just a few logistics. You could snipe it with nagas or something from 250km away, go at it at point blank with a spider tank design of some sort. The maths of it will be figured out instantly, and it will be no more dangerous to a prepaired attacker after that than a sansha battletower is. Basically you are saying you hate eve. and everything it stands for, nice. Why can they "not possibly fight" these entities? None of the war dec alliances field anything more than 20-30 in thier (rare) structure bashes and those are usually multiboxing talos against unarmed/offline towers. Usually they are fielding a dozen guys. If the industry corp, who gets to choose when the fight happens multiple times over an extended period, is incapable of fielding a force to fight this with all the advantages the citadel gives them they simply do not deserve to have a citadel, that is eve. If a corp that weak must continue its existence it should join an alliance, that is the whole point of alliances, mutual defence. Obviously paying a defence force would cost more than the war dec cost. I mean you could have defended it for free but you divested yourself of your responsibilities so obviously you need to pay a premium. It is amazing how you underestimate people. Truth is unless you have annoyed somebody so much the war deccers brought 10 times the force needed to actually kill the citadel a half dozen guys in anything from bombers to ewar cruisers will disrupt an attack enough for the citadel to do the rest. An Asturhaus can change its weaponry instantly to suit the size of its target, it does omni damage, it cannot be out ranged, it cannot be firewalled, it cannot be jammed. On its own it fields the damage of two battleships and a carrier with no range constraints. it can also field the jamming of a scorpion, the tackle of recons and the neuting of a 100k range curse. All on a platform which cannot be killed for at least 30 minutes. It can also source defenders with replacement ships. So you are basically saying that it is unfair that a corp who "cannot possibly win" a fight at a time of their choosing in high sec with the back up of an unkillable carrier, 2 battleships and 3 recons having had the possibility of arranging allies before hand might get bitten by "don't fly what you can't afford to lose"?
Doddy Esoteric Operations 951	Posted - 2016.03.25 00:14:24 - [230] - Quote Nooien Soong wrote: Mark O'Helm wrote: Nooien Soong wrote: I hope the following is a bug, since if not, will be a show stopper for our corp. Whilst the fortizar was in the 24 hour anchor mode, my other corp mate had the option to scoop up the citadel, which he then did. As a side test, he then left the corp into a NPC corp, and we did the same test, and he managed to scoop up the citadel whilst it was still anchoring. I'm really hoping this is a bug since we're a single TZ corp and can't have someone sitting there for 24 hours defending it during the anchor period. Also, we've now manage to "lose" the deployed citadel. We all bookmarked it, but regardless of where we are in system, there's no warp to option, only approach/dock even though it's not on grid. You cannot even warp to the bookmark from the persons and places window? Weired. I couldnt warp to it first time, because, it said i were not in a fleet. When i joined one with an alt, i could. I could even use the -warp to fleetmember-command, when she was docked inside the citadel. If this is intended, i like it. unfortunately, didn't have anyone docked in it. We have two setup in the system, and whilst the second was anchoring, we were testing the weapons on the first one. Only when we tried to do an alternate fit on the second, found we couldn't warp to it anymore. Not the end of the world, but next time will park one next to a planet warp in point Just bookmark in space next to it rather than bookmark the structure itself. Those bookmarks don't work because the access system is not in yet. You can probe down the one you already deployed though.

Doddy Esoteric Operations 951	Posted - 2016.03.25 00:26:05 - [231] - Quote Shalashaska Adam wrote: Are their figures available currently for the expected dps output of a medium citadel? Depends what you are shooting at. There are different missile types for different size targets and different launchers also. Each launcher can do anything from 180 dps (anti frigate missiles on anti sub-cap launcher) to 11000 dps (anti supercap missile on anti capital launcher). Medium citadel has 2 launcher hard points, large has 3, extra large has 4. All do omni damage. So 360 to 22000 dps on a medium from missile damage. Then you have the fighters which is the same situation, varies depending which fighters you use which will ddepend which target you are fighting. Fighter stats are not correct on sisi atm so dps figures are meaningless. It is however roughly the same capability as a supercarrier.
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg 166	Posted - 2016.03.25 01:39:09 - [232] - Quote Doddy wrote: Shalashaska Adam wrote: Are their figures available currently for the expected dps output of a medium citadel? Depends what you are shooting at. There are different missile types for different size targets and different launchers also. Each launcher can do anything from 180 dps (anti frigate missiles on anti sub-cap launcher) to 11000 dps (anti supercap missile on anti capital launcher). Medium citadel has 2 launcher hard points, large has 3, extra large has 4. All do omni damage. So 360 to 22000 dps on a medium from missile damage. Then you have the fighters which is the same situation, varies depending which fighters you use which will ddepend which target you are fighting. Fighter stats are not correct on sisi atm so dps figures are meaningless. It is however roughly the same capability as a supercarrier. ... and the skill requirement is a joke compared to a supercarrier. The only bad thing is, you cannot move. So, no dodging under enemy missles. Its like a supermarauder in bastion. "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 249	Posted - 2016.03.25 05:11:56 - [233] - Quote Doddy wrote: Basically you are saying you hate eve. and everything it stands for, nice. Why can they "not possibly fight" these entities? None of the war dec alliances field anything more than 20-30 in thier (rare) structure bashes and those are usually multiboxing talos against unarmed/offline towers. Usually they are fielding a dozen guys. If the industry corp, who gets to choose when the fight happens multiple times over an extended period, is incapable of fielding a force to fight this with all the advantages the citadel gives them they simply do not deserve to have a citadel, that is eve. If a corp that weak must continue its existence it should join an alliance, that is the whole point of alliances, mutual defence. TBH you don't know what an "industry" corp is. Lets abstract from the current citadel state and move to a further point in time where medium citadel is supposed to replace curent POSes. POSes in highsec are currently used (among other things. Maybe some people have other uses, but that's what I do with mine) for T2 and T3 invention/production. First because they have bonuses that overcome upkeep costs at pretty modest manufacturing volumes. Second because that's the only way to reversse-engineer. Stations simply don't allow for it. If you want T3 reverse-engineering, you must use a POS. Now contrary to popular belief both activities DO NOT require a large corporation. In fact, one of the appeals of the crius expansion was the talk on then-undisclosed "team" mechanic which people first assumed to be a form of actual player-to-player teamwork that would benefit manufacturing if you wanted to do it with your friends. Sadly it turned out to be an underwhelming bidding contest. The T2/T3 manufacturing itself does not require a large corporation. In fact, unless you also deal in resource extraction, which quite frankly you should not be doing because it's economically sensible to specialize, it's easier to manage the production chain alone, and the only benefit of the corp is sharing POS upkeep costs (and quite frankly a single person can easily load a small tower with enough work for it to be profitable). I suspect heavily that the current HiSec POS population is part compression tower for mining corps (those guys do have numbers), two parts individual R&D towers for people doing solo T2/T3 production. The removal of a viable solo R&D tower option will just sqeeze the small business out of the market and impose a minimum entry requirements for these activites (at least in regards to T3. T2 can be reasonably done in stations, possibly less profitable, but manageable) that quite frankly does not correspond to how people actually are comfortable doing these things.
Little Bad Wolf Partial Safety 3	Posted - 2016.03.25 08:27:55 - [234] - Quote Doddy wrote: It is amazing how you underestimate people. I think you are underestimating how gamed and straightforward a "fight" against a medium citadel will become as soon as a comp made to counter them is developed. Also underestimating the capability and the lengths of boredom any of the large 100-war merc alliances will go to, just to knock over everyones billion+ isk sandcastles. After that factor is worked out, once again, you are just talking about the success rate of little indy guys fighting the big wardec alliances, and we don't need any theorycrafting to see exactly how that works already. As I said numerous times, the problem is not about whether or not the attacker is bringing a force that "deserves" to destroy the citadel, because if it can, then it by definition does. The problem is that these medium citadels are meant to be the space homes of small indy corps and even single people in highsec, and that is just unsustainable for the numerous little guys in the face of current wardec mechanics and the major wardeccing entities, if the ability to dismantle before a war is non-existent.
Ace Aideron Red Falcon Group Intrepid Crossing 7	Posted - 2016.03.25 09:41:42 - [235] - Quote Little Bad Wolf wrote: I think you are underestimating how gamed and straightforward a "fight" against a medium citadel will become as soon as a comp made to counter them is developed. Also underestimating the capability and the lengths of boredom any of the large 100-war merc alliances will go to, just to knock over everyones billion+ isk sandcastles. Time will tell -- and from what I've read, POSs should still be around for at least another year, so there's a long time still for CCP to polish and refine the mechanics. At the moment on Sisi, station guns are amazing powerful. With a medium citadel, I would be shocked if you couldn't destroy much more isk than you would lose. Structure missiles can have a range of about 750 km, with more than 11,000 DPS on the large missiles, or 490 DPS on the smaller ones. Plus neuts, webs, target painters, fighters, and so on. With that kind of range, Logi will be vulnerable as well. I had a carrier attack the Keepstar I setup, and it was destroyed in just a few seconds (even without resorting to the DD). Little Bad Wolf wrote: After that factor is worked out, once again, you are just talking about the success rate of little indy guys fighting the big wardec alliances, and we don't need any theorycrafting to see exactly how that works already. As I said numerous times, the problem is not about whether or not the attacker is bringing a force that "deserves" to destroy the citadel, because if it can, then it by definition does. The problem is that these medium citadels are meant to be the space homes of small indy corps and even single people in highsec, and that is just unsustainable for the numerous little guys in the face of current wardec mechanics and the major wardeccing entities, if the ability to dismantle before a war is non-existent. Although I don't think it will be difficult to survive and prosper in a medium structure, mitigating the risk of living in one is an important part of Eve -- building an active defense, finding and joining the right alliance, and so on. Look at those of us who live in null, where there isn't a need for a wardec before attacking. We survive and prosper just fine. In fact, if you're in the right alliance, it's usually safer in null than in high!
Terrence Malick Standard Fuel Company 2	Posted - 2016.03.25 09:55:56 - [236] - Quote Mark O'Helm wrote: Terrence Malick wrote: Any idea why I am unable to anchor an Astrahus citadel? IGÇÿm a director of my corp, therefore I have the Station Manager role, I can launch the citadel for my corporation, I am able to position the citadel to a valid position (safe spot, more than 1000 km away from anything but my ship), but I canGÇÿt anchor. I gave the structure a name and I selected three hours of vulnerability, the button GÇPAnchorGÇ£ is unlocked, but whenever I click it, nothing happens at all. Did you moved the citadel 5 km away from your ship. Then the shadow changes from red to white and you can anchor it. If you have already done this, ignore what i wrote here. Then i cannot help you. Yes, I did. Thanks for trying nevertheless :)
Terrence Malick Standard Fuel Company 2	Posted - 2016.03.25 10:16:14 - [237] - Quote Someone on SiSi told me in the Singularity chat channel that anchoring is bugged right nowGÇª
Shalashaska Adam Partial Safety 129	Posted - 2016.03.25 10:48:02 - [238] - Quote With a medium in highsec, obviously the DD's and the impressive anti-capital missile dps is off the table, so its just a matter of what kind of applied subcap damage a medium can do against, for instance, a force of heavy resist small sig T3's with T2 logi. No experienced wardeccer is going to be taking losses to attack medium citadels, so it really does just come down to what kind of composition is required to handle them with negligable risk, it will be figured out and figured out fast. The way CCP have spoken about medium citadels, implies that even a solo player can defend one in highsec just by being there to respond to an attack. I don't currently see how that will be realistic, unless CCP imagine only an equally sized enemy is going to be interested in having the killmail.
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg 166	Posted - 2016.03.25 11:40:40 - [239] - Quote Shalashaska Adam wrote: With a medium in highsec, obviously ... the impressive anti-capital missile dps is off the table... Why? Do they not work in Highsec? Or do they not any Damage to a Battleship for example, when it is webbed, maybe doubble webbed? "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)

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 268	Posted - 2016.03.25 11:44:28 - [240] - Quote Nooien Soong wrote: I hope the following is a bug, since if not, will be a show stopper for our corp. Whilst the fortizar was in the 24 hour anchor mode, my other corp mate had the option to scoop up the citadel, which he then did. As a side test, he then left the corp into a NPC corp, and we did the same test, and he managed to scoop up the citadel whilst it was still anchoring. I'm really hoping this is a bug since we're a single TZ corp and can't have someone sitting there for 24 hours defending it during the anchor period. Also, we've now manage to "lose" the deployed citadel. We all bookmarked it, but regardless of where we are in system, there's no warp to option, only approach/dock even though it's not on grid. Yeah, this totally sounds like a bug! We are aware of an issue where not all bookmarks are working as expected. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


Shalashaska Adam Partial Safety 129	Posted - 2016.03.25 12:09:20 - [241] - Quote Mark O'Helm wrote: Why? Do they not work in Highsec? Or do they not any Damage to a Battleship for example, when it is webbed, maybe doubble webbed? Do anti-capital missiles not currently have an explosion radius of 10km? They might be fittable sure, but their appied dps on targets with a 400m sig I wouldnt imagine to be better than the subcapital missile choices, given anti subcap isnt what CCP intend the anti capital missiles to be for. I expect typical missile formula, in other words there isn't going to be 11k applied dps coming from medium citadel missiles in highsec, not against battleships let alone T3's. All information at the moment points towards a medium being tankable with only a few logistics, assuming the attackers are properly fit for the job of handling it.
Annexe I N E X T R E M I S Tactical Narcotics Team 37	Posted - 2016.03.25 12:18:48 - [242] - Quote Not sure if this has been mentioned... If someone has control of the citadel, you cannot warp to it, you must be in a fleet with the person. Is this a bug that will be fixed? Annexe ITAI - VIP "i will pop your wreck with faction loot"

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 268	Posted - 2016.03.25 13:27:01 - [243] - Quote Annexe wrote: Not sure if this has been mentioned... If someone has control of the citadel, you cannot warp to it, you must be in a fleet with the person. Is this a bug that will be fixed? This is a bug that will be fixed. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 429	Posted - 2016.03.25 15:11:25 - [244] - 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.
Circumstantial Evidence 265	Posted - 2016.03.25 16:58:22 - [245] - Quote One feature of existing POS is that its individual weapons can be targeted and incapacitated. Will this not be or become possible vs Citadels, requiring an attacker to take all Citadel damage, up until it's reinforced?
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 430	Posted - 2016.03.25 18:11:40 - [246] - 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.
Blue Harrier 221	Posted - 2016.03.25 18:57:54 - [247] - Quote A couple of suggestion for fuel logistics on a Citadel. Would it be possible either to add to the GÇÿStructure BrowserGÇÖ from the Neocom, or on some other window a read out for the daily fuel consumption per hour in real time? Also on the Structure Browser list a change in the icons to show if a particular Service Module is on or off-line (Blue ON, White or Bright Red OFF [colour blind] would help a lot). At the moment I had to fly to a Keepstar, dock and take control to find the Market Module had gone off-line. "You wait - time passes, Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold." from The Hobbit on ZX Spectrum 1982.
Nooien Soong Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2016.03.25 20:06:55 - [248] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Nooien Soong wrote: I hope the following is a bug, since if not, will be a show stopper for our corp. Whilst the fortizar was in the 24 hour anchor mode, my other corp mate had the option to scoop up the citadel, which he then did. As a side test, he then left the corp into a NPC corp, and we did the same test, and he managed to scoop up the citadel whilst it was still anchoring. I'm really hoping this is a bug since we're a single TZ corp and can't have someone sitting there for 24 hours defending it during the anchor period. Also, we've now manage to "lose" the deployed citadel. We all bookmarked it, but regardless of where we are in system, there's no warp to option, only approach/dock even though it's not on grid. Yeah, this totally sounds like a bug! We are aware of an issue where not all bookmarks are working as expected. I hope you mean the scooping the structure by another non-corp char whilst anchoring is the bug. Bookmarks I can deal with since when it get''s deployed on TQ, likely to BM the outer tether location, since with the one I can warp to, a warp to zero put's me inside the structure.
Terrence Malick Standard Fuel Company 2	Posted - 2016.03.25 20:25:33 - [249] - Quote How do I "online" my citadel? I successfully anchored it, but I can't dock. Reason given: "structure is offline". Does it online silently? I don't see a timer or anything.
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg 168	Posted - 2016.03.25 21:08:18 - [250] - Quote Terrence Malick wrote: How do I "online" my citadel? I successfully anchored it, but I can't dock. Reason given: "structure is offline". Does it online silently? I don't see a timer or anything. Did you wait 24 hours? Or until the structure looks complete and busy? "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)

CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 709	Posted - 2016.03.25 22:17:36 - [251] - Quote How come these have been de-listed from the market? Standup Fighter Damage Amplifier I
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 709	Posted - 2016.03.25 22:37:09 - [252] - Quote It would be really helpful if the larger citadels launched their fighters from a central location. On an XL it currently takes several minutes to even get them at the same point, let alone engage a target.
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg 168	Posted - 2016.03.25 23:00:02 - [253] - Quote CynoNet Two wrote: It would be really helpful if the larger citadels launched their fighters from a central location. On an XL it currently takes several minutes to even get them at the same point, let alone engage a target. Shouldn't you have the ability to warp your fighters to a certain point on grid or is that restricted to carriers? "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)
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg 168	Posted - 2016.03.25 23:01:42 - [254] - Quote Shalashaska Adam wrote: Mark O'Helm wrote: Why? Do they not work in Highsec? Or do they not any Damage to a Battleship for example, when it is webbed, maybe doubble webbed? Do anti-capital missiles not currently have an explosion radius of 10km? They might be fittable sure, but their appied dps on targets with a 400m sig I wouldnt imagine to be better than the subcapital missile choices, given anti subcap isnt what CCP intend the anti capital missiles to be for. I expect typical missile formula, in other words there isn't going to be 11k applied dps coming from medium citadel missiles in highsec, not against battleships let alone T3's. All information at the moment points towards a medium being tankable with only a few logistics, assuming the attackers are properly fit for the job of handling it. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I am quite new to Missles. "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)
GetSirrus Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 106	Posted - 2016.03.25 23:06:10 - [255] - Quote Terrence Malick wrote: How do I "online" my citadel? I successfully anchored it, but I can't dock. Reason given: "structure is offline". Does it online silently? I don't see a timer or anything. Hello Terrence, You can point by point list out the steps you did to get the anchor to success. I have launched for Corp. positioned away from the ship, until blue outline named the structure unable to toggle option of profile clicked three vulnerability hours clicked anchor (which lights after the hours are set) and nothing happens...
Germanicus Motsu Endgegner. Kids With Guns Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.03.26 04:01:25 - [256] - Quote Have anchored 3 Citadels, xl, l, and m all on the same grid, all more than 1000k away from one another. Only the Large anchored (it was dropped first) but the other two have stalled, both saying they have 0 seconds left for anchoring. It's been this way for more than a day now. No docking, it says they aren't online.
cant think2 Ministry of War Amarr Empire 12	Posted - 2016.03.26 09:51:17 - [257] - Quote I have a few questions on Citadels and plans for them when shipped to TQ: 1: At the moment on SISI I can see all citadels in open space, and have been informed in game that they will have to be probed out. Don't get me wrong I get this mechanic and its a fair point. But I was sort of hoping for a deep safe citadel (med) and it not showing up at all. It is a celestial, but it will soon be replacing pos's (or rather a new drilling platform citadel will). As it stands you can't see poses in open space unless your within range of one. So is it definitely going to be viewable depending on distance? 2: Don't even start me on this anchor crap, from deploying and then re-deploying (note on SISI im a CEO of an old corp so permissions isn't the issue), it doesn't give me any time limit, doesn't say when it will be up.. doesn't say anything besides a big ring.. that makes no sense. is this to be fixed? or am I just not understanding something? Its properly anchored with a new profile and named.. 3: Flying the Nyx was fun, except that the I couldn't use bombs, forgive me for being ignorant. I've tried to read up on as much as I can given my current eve time lately, So from what I understand we are losing the DCU(Drone control unit) to extend the amount of fighters? i tried looking for it or an alternative on SiSi it was not there. 4: Fighters are so easily destroyed, They do amazing amount of damage, so much so I wouldn't even want to be on the same grid as a SC in the future.. hell even if I was in a SC/Titan I wouldn't want to be. Its way over powered! 5: Are citadel's going to follow the same process as Pos's when it comes to Hi-sec? I have this feeling my view of space is going to be absolutely covered.. forget Jita, we are going to need a new trading Hub because everyone and their mistress is going to have one positioned anywhere they can put one down. Brings another interesting dynamic to the game and opens up a lot of different content.. Space Real-estate! " your Citadel will have amazing views of Planet V with day to night transitions of this volcanic wasteland.." hmm.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1736	Posted - 2016.03.26 12:58:33 - [258] - Quote There have been a few ppl talking about citadels only being able to use damaging weapons during their vulnerability period. Is this a feature or a bug. Reason I ask is them being able to attack out side that period can mitigate Staton games for groups who want to put one up. At the same time is not particularly broken or over powered since no one is forcing you to fight on their front lawn Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1736	Posted - 2016.03.26 13:00:58 - [259] - Quote Shalashaska Adam wrote: Mark O'Helm wrote: Why? Do they not work in Highsec? Or do they not any Damage to a Battleship for example, when it is webbed, maybe doubble webbed? Do anti-capital missiles not currently have an explosion radius of 10km? They might be fittable sure, but their appied dps on targets with a 400m sig I wouldnt imagine to be better than the subcapital missile choices, given anti subcap isnt what CCP intend the anti capital missiles to be for. I expect typical missile formula, in other words there isn't going to be 11k applied dps coming from medium citadel missiles in highsec, not against battleships let alone T3's. All information at the moment points towards a medium being tankable with only a few logistics, assuming the attackers are properly fit for the job of handling it. It's this a bad thing? From what I understand citadels ate just meant to give defenders an advantage not outright defend themselves. Sorry was to lazy to look back and find the rest of this convo Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1736	Posted - 2016.03.26 13:24:22 - [260] - Quote cant think2 wrote: 4: Fighters are so easily destroyed, They do amazing amount of damage, so much so I wouldn't even want to be on the same grid as a SC in the future.. hell even if I was in a SC/Titan I wouldn't want to be. Its way over powered! . I'll assume you are talking about heavies as I have not used them and after the nerf lights seem to be in a good dps range for what they do unless you want to give up your tank. And to be honest I find at least light fighters to be a little hard to destroy I would rather they be a little softer and carriers be given a slightly larger fighter bay to compensate. Citadel worm hole tax

Little Bad Wolf Partial Safety 3	Posted - 2016.03.26 18:56:29 - [261] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: It's this a bad thing? From what I understand citadels ate just meant to give defenders an advantage not outright defend themselves. Sorry was to lazy to look back and find the rest of this convo They certainly give a defender advantage in a siege against an equally sized aggressor force, but the concern is whether they can be defended by solo or small industry corps in highsec in the face of the prolific wardec alliances. It's fair to say that no, they shouldn't be able to, but then we are left with the issue of 100-wars a day style highsec with indy medium citadles dropping left right and center whether or not the small defence the indy corp can muster is doing its utmost to defend or not. Currently, a pos can simply be unanchored before a war begins, and that ability is used daily. Not only that but when it's not used, it is still a known capability to everyone, and so acts as a deterrent even at times when perhaps the defender corp wouldn't have responded to take it down. The difference now is that medium citadels will not be able to be taken down, the aggressor just has to scout the vulnerability timer, wardec the defender, and then the defender has no choice but to be capable of repelling a far larger and more experienced aggressor, and even if a minority of them managed to pull that off, it's still dozens of highsec citadels being reinforced a day from all the small indy corps who currently rely on unanchoring their pos and docking up for the week. No, it isn't fun gameplay, never has been, but highsec war has rarely ever resulted in fair evenly matched fights. Other than the citadel itself, nothing has changed, so on some level we are talking about how much it can repel by itself. Once an attack begins, it doesn't end unless the defenders can stop all incoming damage for a set amount of time, it's not like they have to hold on for an hour and then all is good, they have to physically win the fight and take the grid, or the citadel remains vulnerable for as long as it takes the attackers to reinforce it, and there is no limit to the logistics the attacker can bring to make themselves practically untouchable.
StalkingWolf SUPER GOOSE SQUAD 0	Posted - 2016.03.26 21:00:31 - [262] - Quote GetSirrus wrote: Terrence Malick wrote: How do I "online" my citadel? I successfully anchored it, but I can't dock. Reason given: "structure is offline". Does it online silently? I don't see a timer or anything. Hello Terrence, You can point by point list out the steps you did to get the anchor to success. I have launched for Corp. positioned away from the ship, until blue outline named the structure unable to toggle option of profile clicked three vulnerability hours clicked anchor (which lights after the hours are set) and nothing happens... I am having this exact same problem. Mac OS X?
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg 169	Posted - 2016.03.26 21:17:09 - [263] - Quote StalkingWolf wrote: GetSirrus wrote: Terrence Malick wrote: How do I "online" my citadel? I successfully anchored it, but I can't dock. Reason given: "structure is offline". Does it online silently? I don't see a timer or anything. stuff... I am having this exact same problem. Mac OS X? I see your problem. You are using a Mac. But seroiusly. There are a lot of things to fix on it. This release could be a big mess. File a bug report. And buy a second and a third citadel and try doublicate the bug. Maybe the second one works. "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)
GetSirrus Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 106	Posted - 2016.03.27 01:33:03 - [264] - Quote StalkingWolf wrote: I am having this exact same problem. Mac OS X? Sorry no, win10.
John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.03.27 05:44:34 - [265] - Quote Terrence Malick wrote: How do I "online" my citadel? I successfully anchored it, but I can't dock. Reason given: "structure is offline". Does it online silently? I don't see a timer or anything. Currently there is a bug with Cits after going trough the anchor time, they get stuck at 0s. Seems like only a server restart fixes the issue. Cits do not need to be onlined, there anchor time doubles as there online time as well. They do not require fuel to run either, only the services need fuel to run but the building itself doesn't.
SpaceAngel GREENSPACE 0	Posted - 2016.03.27 06:39:27 - [266] - Quote It's possible to use the DD from a titan close to a keepstar then dock instantly, you might want to look into that CCP...
Mark O'Helm Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg 172	Posted - 2016.03.27 06:59:55 - [267] - Quote SpaceAngel wrote: It's possible to use the DD from a titan close to a keepstar then dock instantly, you might want to look into that CCP... ... and some other Stuff doesn't work right ... and the Release Date is still April 27. ... and Fanfest comes in front of it Man, i wouldn't wanne work at CCP right now. "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)
Lugh Crow-Slave 1737	Posted - 2016.03.27 07:31:35 - [268] - Quote Mark O'Helm wrote: SpaceAngel wrote: It's possible to use the DD from a titan close to a keepstar then dock instantly, you might want to look into that CCP... ... and some other Stuff doesn't work right ... and the Release Date is still April 27. ... and Fanfest comes in front of it Man, i wouldn't wanne work at CCP right now. to be honest with how fast they are getting things fixed i'm not all that worried Citadel worm hole tax
Cuprrr CuprCorp 1	Posted - 2016.03.27 12:05:18 - [269] - Quote StalkingWolf wrote: GetSirrus wrote: Terrence Malick wrote: How do I "online" my citadel? I successfully anchored it, but I can't dock. Reason given: "structure is offline". Does it online silently? I don't see a timer or anything. Hello Terrence, You can point by point list out the steps you did to get the anchor to success. I have launched for Corp. positioned away from the ship, until blue outline named the structure unable to toggle option of profile clicked three vulnerability hours clicked anchor (which lights after the hours are set) and nothing happens... I am having this exact same problem. Mac OS X? You have to create a structure Profile first. Business-Structure browser.
Gustav Mannfred Summer of Mumuit 139	Posted - 2016.03.27 12:13:32 - [270] - Quote As I have seen on Sisi, citaldels use the same station interior as Caldari NPC station, is that supposed to be like that or is the caldari hangar just a placeholder for the unfinished citadel hangars? i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183

Katrin BarRiona The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx 77	Posted - 2016.03.27 13:23:31 - [271] - Quote 1. Now citadel weapons work just in Shedules time? 2. I create groups, add to Struct browser roles, etc. Just director can use Take Control. Any roles and groups dont work. Is that okey? Img profile citadel img profile details
Philpip The reality disfunction 139	Posted - 2016.03.27 17:36:29 - [272] - Quote Ok, here is my list of observations. I'm aware that some of these have been mentioned. 1) When logging in I'm shown as undocked in 0.0 (I'm in hisec, docked in a citadel). 2) I have to re-online the Market every time. 3) Market currently won't load. 4) Fitted station services don't show up in Station Services window. 5) I cannot fit the Reprocessing Facility. 6) In the Structure Browser, Docking and Defense are coloured, the rest are grey. Should these be coloured if fitted? No, you were not blobbed, you just didn't bring enough people to the fight!
Lugh Crow-Slave 1739	Posted - 2016.03.27 19:16:31 - [273] - Quote Little Bad Wolf wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: It's this a bad thing? From what I understand citadels ate just meant to give defenders an advantage not outright defend themselves. Sorry was to lazy to look back and find the rest of this convo They certainly give a defender advantage in a siege against an equally sized aggressor force, but the concern is whether they can be defended by solo or small industry corps in highsec in the face of the prolific wardec alliances. It's fair to say that no, they shouldn't be able to, but then we are left with the issue of 100-wars a day style highsec with indy medium citadles dropping left right and center whether or not the small defence the indy corp can muster is doing its utmost to defend or not. Currently, a pos can simply be unanchored before a war begins, and that ability is used daily. Not only that but when it's not used, it is still a known capability to everyone, and so acts as a deterrent even at times when perhaps the defender corp wouldn't have responded to take it down. The difference now is that medium citadels will not be able to be taken down, the aggressor just has to scout the vulnerability timer, wardec the defender, and then the defender has no choice but to be capable of repelling a far larger and more experienced aggressor, and even if a minority of them managed to pull that off, it's still dozens of highsec citadels being reinforced a day from all the small indy corps who currently rely on unanchoring their pos and docking up for the week. No, it isn't fun gameplay, never has been, but highsec war has rarely ever resulted in fair evenly matched fights. Other than the citadel itself, nothing has changed, so on some level we are talking about how much it can repel by itself. Once an attack begins, it doesn't end unless the defenders can stop all incoming damage for a set amount of time, it's not like they have to hold on for an hour and then all is good, they have to physically win the fight and take the grid, or the citadel remains vulnerable for as long as it takes the attackers to reinforce it, and there is no limit to the logistics the attacker can bring to make themselves practically untouchable. Would toy rather they be so astron Strong small groups have no chance assaulting them? Citadel worm hole tax
Dublone Ember Inc. Curatores Veritatis Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.03.28 08:44:51 - [274] - Quote Hi CCP it is a Bug or a Feature/cool down, thats the Weapons not work on a Citadel? I say a massage "You Ship is realigning its magnetic field, please wait a moment". Only the DD work.
Dayland Montehouse Off Constantly. 4	Posted - 2016.03.28 20:32:14 - [275] - Quote I onlined my Medium Citadel Saturday evening (US TZ) and missed the anchoring zero countdown due to server being down and then logged in this afternoon to find my citadel has been damaged about 70% into armor. However, I didn't receive any notifications of any attacks on my citadel in my mail or popup and I have a repair timer sitting at 0s. Is this a known bug? GÖ½GÖ½ Never gonna lock you up GÖ½GÖ½ GÖ½GÖ½ Never gonna web you down GÖ½GÖ½ GÖ½GÖ½ Never gonna orbit around and shoot you GÖ½GÖ½ GÖ½GÖ½ Never gonna scram your prop GÖ½GÖ½ GÖ½GÖ½ Never gonna cyno blops GÖ½GÖ½ GÖ½GÖ½ Never gonna p-o-d and loot you GÖ½GÖ½
Infinite Destruction Caldari Provisions Caldari State 29	Posted - 2016.03.29 03:04:05 - [276] - Quote Tried going onto Sisi just now to look at these new Citadels. 1) My POSs (and everything in them, including ships I need) aren't showing up. 2) The market isn't loading so I can't buy/build anything. Sidenote - first time I've tried logging into the test server from the new launcher. A few hiccups but once I figured it out it was OK (though it seems it isn't loading the profiles for some of my toons even though they are set up properly). I'll keep trying (maybe) !
Cadaverous Emperess Aim High SWAG Co 0	Posted - 2016.03.29 04:09:46 - [277] - Quote Infinite Destruction wrote: Tried going onto Sisi just now to look at these new Citadels. 1) My POSs (and everything in them, including ships I need) aren't showing up. This has always been this way since SiSi has been around. Originally it was done as a means to protect sensitive information about what is happening around enemy POS's in TQ (since SiSi mirrors Tranquility). In a nutshell though, all POS's that were in the mirror from Tranquility disappear once mirrored to SiSi. Infinite Destruction wrote: 2) The market isn't loading so I can't buy/build anything. This has been happening periodically lately, usually gets fixed when the cluster gets restarted (which is happening shortly it looks like).
Regan Rotineque The Scope Gallente Federation 389	Posted - 2016.03.29 04:24:40 - [278] - Quote Hello CCP Can we get an updated front page please :) Its been a week and I dont know if anything new has been deployed or updated since the 22nd. I dont want to keep reporting things you already know about or be testing things that have been fixed already.....though that is not always a bad idea to do since some things can get fixed and then subsequently break again due to changes elsewhere. Thx ~R~
Infinite Destruction Caldari Provisions Caldari State 29	Posted - 2016.03.29 04:28:48 - [279] - Quote Cadaverous Emperess wrote: Infinite Destruction wrote: Tried going onto Sisi just now to look at these new Citadels. 1) My POSs (and everything in them, including ships I need) aren't showing up. This has always been this way since SiSi has been around. Originally it was done as a means to protect sensitive information about what is happening around enemy POS's in TQ (since SiSi mirrors Tranquility). In a nutshell though, all POS's that were in the mirror from Tranquility disappear once mirrored to SiSi. Thanks - I'd never noticed that before (in the very few times I went onto SiSi with the old methods).
Gigiarc Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 10	Posted - 2016.03.30 03:35:59 - [280] - Quote Currently the only option to deploy a citadel is to "launch for corp" which requires some roles most CEOs won't be willing to give out. Will there be a "launch for self" option so that personal citadels can exist without an alt corp in the alliance?

Lugh Crow-Slave 1748	Posted - 2016.03.30 04:17:35 - [281] - Quote Gigiarc wrote: Currently the only option to deploy a citadel is to "launch for corp" which requires some roles most CEOs won't be willing to give out. Will there be a "launch for self" option so that personal citadels can exist without an alt corp in the alliance? Probably not since they are one of the structures replacing pos and outposts and those are corp and alliance level assets Citadel worm hole tax
Lilith VonCarstion Adeptus Mechanicus. 0	Posted - 2016.03.30 09:51:58 - [282] - Quote first when I warp to my citadel I still warp in to the middle of it. second every time I enter it would be empty. now I cant even warp to it. when I was taking control of the station I could not leave the station or relinquish control to leave. I had to log out and log back in to leave the station. and once I did do that I coming back in I would get a black screen of death will all the toll bars and miny maps till I docked in a new station or warped to a different system.
Knitram Relik Running With Railguns 51	Posted - 2016.03.30 19:43:30 - [283] - Quote 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.
Keaden Aemar 4 Marketeers Rura-Penthe 11	Posted - 2016.03.30 21:37:18 - [284] - Quote For the better part of a week now (was working the first few days), the "Take Control" button has been grayed out for all my characters on all the citadels I have setup, no matter what I change in structure manager, group manager, corp rolls or otherwise. Other corp mates who have gotten on SISI also report the button being grayed out. Any tips on if it's something we need to fix or is this a bug?
Smuff Gallente KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 9	Posted - 2016.03.31 08:44:03 - [285] - Quote Hey claymore are citadel weapons systems going to be able to work Even if the citadel is not vulnerable i cant seem to find a straight answer on this Some say yes some say no so i'm going to the source
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 433	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:46:57 - [286] - 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.
Knitram Relik Running With Railguns 51	Posted - 2016.03.31 15:15:40 - [287] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: 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. It'll still be fun to tackle and blap someone who wasps to my cyno when I bring my JF in.
Knitram Relik Running With Railguns 51	Posted - 2016.03.31 15:17:52 - [288] - Quote Oops. Double post
Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 18:24:55 - [289] - Quote Knitram Relik wrote: Eli Stan wrote: 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. It'll still be fun to tackle and blap someone who wasps to my cyno when I bring my JF in. my issue is that ccp said they didn't like how players had to train for pos defeance and they wanted to avoid players creating citadel coffin toons but with fighters and the dedicated citadels skills thats exactly what will happen ignoring the skills need to get fighters they alone are 4 x12 skills Citadel worm hole tax
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 46	Posted - 2016.03.31 20:09:35 - [290] - Quote Sorry if you saw this comment in the capital changes, but I think that I posted in the wrong area. I was mentioning that I posted a video about the new skill "Doomsday Rapid Firing" and I want to know if it also applies towards the Citadel doomsday weapons as well?

Leonid Ragulin The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.04.01 08:58:38 - [291] - Quote Gigiarc wrote: Currently the only option to deploy a citadel is to "launch for corp" which requires some roles most CEOs won't be willing to give out. Will there be a "launch for self" option so that personal citadels can exist without an alt corp in the alliance? please. this. Or at the least, an extra grantable role 'manage personal citadels' so a player can drop his/her own citadel without letting them dabble with major corp assets. You are trying to get more people to play in nullsec - almost all major null corps have only a tiny number of people with pos roles, meaning these new citadels are unplayable to the vast majority of people. Every corp has spais, so simply saying 'join another corp' is meaningless, none will ever just give out starbase roles. The medium citadels especially, are ideal for players to use just like mobile depots - that anyone can drop.
Aaron Raus Diving club 0	Posted - 2016.04.01 09:17:30 - [292] - Quote I support this "small and personal" citadel idea.

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 269	Posted - 2016.04.01 11:32:07 - [293] - Quote Apologies for the lack of replies if people are asking questions. Super busy at the moment getting stuff implemented and tested, I am going to set aside some time over the weekend to try and answer what I can. Till then, thank you for joining us on Singularity. Hope you are liking what you see. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Lugh Crow-Slave 1763	Posted - 2016.04.01 13:30:51 - [294] - Quote Leonid Ragulin wrote: Gigiarc wrote: Currently the only option to deploy a citadel is to "launch for corp" which requires some roles most CEOs won't be willing to give out. Will there be a "launch for self" option so that personal citadels can exist without an alt corp in the alliance? please. this. Or at the least, an extra grantable role 'manage personal citadels' so a player can drop his/her own citadel without letting them dabble with major corp assets. You are trying to get more people to play in nullsec - almost all major null corps have only a tiny number of people with pos roles, meaning these new citadels are unplayable to the vast majority of people. Every corp has spais, so simply saying 'join another corp' is meaningless, none will ever just give out starbase roles. The medium citadels especially, are ideal for players to use just like mobile depots - that anyone can drop. just do what ppl do now make a one man corp with an alt to do this Citadel worm hole tax
Nooien Soong Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2016.04.01 19:46:58 - [295] - Quote Since a structure can only be deployed by a corp, shouldn't it automatically have corp hangers when you dock, rather than having to rent an office?
Lugh Crow-Slave 1763	Posted - 2016.04.01 20:02:53 - [296] - Quote Nooien Soong wrote: Since a structure can only be deployed by a corp, shouldn't it automatically have corp hangers when you dock, rather than having to rent an office? No it may want to put one down but not have an office Citadel worm hole tax
Cain Silver Ghost Net Industrialists Sock Puppet Federation 0	Posted - 2016.04.01 23:22:15 - [297] - Quote So Outposts will co exist, will there be any changes to their bonuses?
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3132	Posted - 2016.04.02 02:51:08 - [298] - Quote CCP, could you clarify how Citadel launched Fighters and skills interact please? Do they get the launching players skill bonuses? In which case you will need a lot of skill to properly be a defending pilot for a citadel. Or do they get no skills at all in which case they will be very weak targets compared to normal fighters and do a lot lower DPS. Additionally the maths says these Citadels are exceptionally low damage in Highsec where they are limited to just subcap launchers and possibly fighters? The missiles aren't going to stress any Cruiser or highers local tank even with a web & TP included, while adding in fighters you still aren't going to stress any kind of logistics set up or a Marauders local tank at all. Given these are supposed to be battle fortresses you really need to take a significant look at the Citadels defences in High Sec to ensure that they actually are going to be difficult to attack, and not simply a case of outnumbering the defenders and it being basically a fleet vs fleet fight with an insignificant citadel.
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1506	Posted - 2016.04.02 05:32:41 - [299] - Quote "Structure bracket shows how many are docked inside" That's pretty stupid. If the enemy wants that info, they should have to get a spy inside. Do not run. We are your friends.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1766	Posted - 2016.04.02 11:14:05 - [300] - Quote Tyranis Marcus wrote: "Structure bracket shows how many are docked inside" That's pretty stupid. If the enemy wants that info, they should have to get a spy inside. its because of WH groups complaining that they cant get free Intel like they can with a POS they want to know how risky it is to gank that site running drake b4 they commit to it Citadel worm hole tax

Night Predator Green Leaf Corp 0	Posted - 2016.04.03 03:12:51 - [301] - Quote 7 days for unanchoring ? I hope that CCP will publish info about citadels set up / working / destroyed in High/ low/ null at the end of each month. I'm affraid that having 1b kill will be enough reason for hunting citadels through high sec.
Nash MacAllister Anomalous Existence Low-Class 250	Posted - 2016.04.03 03:53:51 - [302] - Quote Ok, I have seen this asked several times with no answer but I have the citadel anchored but it will not online. Shows "Anchoring 0s" but docking permission is denied because "You cannot do that because the structure is currently offline". Is this a known issue or am I just missing something? The character is the CEO so roles should not be an issue even though I set the structure profile up to give corp access to everything. Thoughts? *Yes, if you have to ask yourself the question, just assume we are watching you...*
Knitram Relik Running With Railguns 51	Posted - 2016.04.03 11:26:55 - [303] - Quote I seem to be having an issue all of a sudden. I'm denied docking at all citadels. My own and others.
GetSirrus Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 106	Posted - 2016.04.03 11:27:41 - [304] - Quote Medium Citadel is anchored. I can dock. Take Control, and managed to fit a Tech2 "Standup M-Set HS Materials Recl' Rig. I have added some fuel (3000 units of oxygen type) to the fuel bay. But I cannot fit a Standup Reprocesing Facility I?
Lugh Crow-Slave 1771	Posted - 2016.04.03 12:04:28 - [305] - Quote Night Predator wrote: 7 days for unanchoring ? I hope that CCP will publish info about citadels set up / working / destroyed in High/ low/ null at the end of each month. I'm affraid that having 1b kill will be enough reason for hunting citadels through high sec. IDK a pos can alot of times be worth far more than that and they ate easier to siege Citadel worm hole tax
Infinite Destruction Caldari Provisions Caldari State 29	Posted - 2016.04.03 12:57:28 - [306] - Quote OK, launched and anchored a large (Fortizar) in hisec. Takes 24 hours to anchor. Note: Added "Citadels" (and the individual sizes) to my overview - BM'd the location of the structure - can't warp to it while it's anchoring (have to fast-boat it to where it is anchoring and then set a BM). Can warp to it normally after it has anchored. Can't add the "Standup Reprocessing Facility I" Service Module. It lets me add the Cloning and Market modules though, then tells me the "Standup Reprocessing Facility I can not be fitted onto a ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted" Was able to fit and load the ASML launchers (but not online them) but could only fit the Standup AXL Missile Launcher I. (Once I **** around and use some skill injectors or the mirror clone catches up with my Tranquility skills that should be fine. - Edit - worked normally after gaining the skill. Odd that I could fit and load one type of launcher without having the skill, but only fit the other kind.) Undocked from the structure, gazed at it's magnificence momentarily, warped to station, returned in a different ship and the structure is now "transparent", more so than when it was first anchoring (and when I undocked from it again it is still "transparent"). Left the system, came back and now it is back to normal. It appears you can fit multiple Cloning Centers and Market Hub modules though it doesn't say if there is any benefit to doing so. I had equal quantities of each type of fuel blocks in the bay then added the clone and market modules. The first time it started using up the Oxygen blocks, then the Nitrogen, then the Hydrogen and finally the Helium (instead of, for example, only using one type period or using an equal amount of each type). The second time I did the same but had a much larger quantity of Nitrogen blocks. This time it started by depleting the Hyrdogen blocks first then going after the Nitrogen. There is no description that I can see stating what kind of blocks are needed or if just any will do. Obviously - missing various Rigs on the SiSi market (like the Ice Rigs). A lot of missing information on the attributes of various rigs/modules as well as you are no doubt aware, like the Standup L-Set Ore Grading Processor I and Standup L-Set Ore Grading Processor II rigs where under attributes the T1 version has a blank line and the number "55" while the T2 also has a blank line and the number "56". Sure hoping that doesn't mean the difference between a T1 rig and a much more expensive T2 will only be 1% ! The Citadel shows up on my Asset List, but I can't select it as a destination or waypoint (and no "warp to" or "dock" option in the right-click menu when in system). It appears that perhaps the CPU/PG numbers may need tweeking. I've run out of CPU before even getting the highs and mids filled on a large citadel. Each type of rig notes that only 1 of the same type (including tech variations) can be fitted at a time however it seems there's no problem fitting 3 of the same (providing you don't go over the calibration limit). I don't see a restriction of the use of certain rigs in hisec (i.e. the Standup L-Set Bomb Aimer I ) which would be pretty useless in hisec but perhaps that is just a "buyer beware" matter. Speaking of bombs ! 4 MILLION structure HPs ?!??! A bomb that is harder to kill than a dread ?!?!??! Seriously ? Not to mention that the Structure missiles (cap and sub-cap) also have 4 MILLION structure HPs as well (compared to "XL Missiles or Torpedoes - formerly known as a Citadel Cruise Missiles or Torpedoes - which have a whopping 1,920 structure HPs !) While on missiles - the 3 ASML variants (HD - long range, MD - medium range and LD - short range) need some tweeking as well, especially as the "long range" HD version goes to 690 km while the "short range" LD version goes to 712.5 km and the grand total between the 2 is a mere 22.5 kms. It would appear that, based on the explosion velocities and radii that the HD are meant to be Heavy damage (vs BS/BCs) while the MD are probably Medium damage (cruisers ?) and the LDs are Light Damage (for frigates and destroyers). (Note the descriptions for each describe them as being designed for use against small, medium and large hull sizes such as frigates, cruisers or battleships. Don't see any rigs that add: CPU, PG, increase Armour/Shield/Hull resists/capacity/etc. Off to try and do some "corp related" matters though I think that will be a short lived exercise as I don't see a lot of options there (yet).
Lugh Crow-Slave 1771	Posted - 2016.04.03 14:17:25 - [307] - Quote The reason the missiles and bombs have so much hp is because they ate supposed to be immune to firewalling and not be destroy-able And there will be no rigs that add tank as they are never meant to take more than 1.5hrs to kill from full health 30 min per bar of you break past the damage reduction Citadel worm hole tax
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 46	Posted - 2016.04.03 15:16:46 - [308] - Quote Knitram Relik wrote: I seem to be having an issue all of a sudden. I'm denied docking at all citadels. My own and others. Same here. I was in the process of destroying a Customs Office when I noticed so I thought there was a problem there. Glad others are having the same problem. GetSirrus wrote: But I cannot fit a Standup Reprocesing Facility . The market is the only one that is functioning at the moment. I tried placing a sell order and screwed up the market. Everytime I selected the item in the market that I sold I got an error message and would not display the item. I had to remove the sell order before it display the item in the market again.
Night Predator Green Leaf Corp 0	Posted - 2016.04.03 17:01:49 - [309] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: IDK a pos can alot of times be worth far more than that and they ate easier to siege Yes, my POS is worth much more, but it is very hard to siege. First an enemy has to find it (intentionally visiting hundreds of moons, not accidentaly scanning for anomalies), second - when wardecced I disanchor all structures and move assets to another alt in another corp. I dont care about employment history, because I'm a solo player. I hate when a game developer forces me "to look for the friends" in-game. I stopped playing WOT, because of Personal Missions required platoons. I didnt want to join clan only for grinding the new tanks. Clan membership always forced me to participate in stupid conversations like "why dont you play with us Clan Wars?".
Lugh Crow-Slave 1771	Posted - 2016.04.03 17:52:50 - [310] - Quote Night Predator wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: IDK a pos can alot of times be worth far more than that and they ate easier to siege Yes, my POS is worth much more, but it is very hard to siege. First an enemy has to find it (intentionally visiting hundreds of moons, not accidentaly scanning for anomalies), second - when wardecced I disanchor all structures and move assets to another alt in another corp. I dont care about employment history, because I'm a solo player. I hate when a game developer forces me "to look for the friends" in-game. I stopped playing WOT, because of Personal Missions required platoons. I didnt want to join clan only for grinding the new tanks. Clan membership always forced me to participate in stupid conversations like "why dont you play with us Clan Wars?". So you want all reward and no risk? And finding a corps tower in hs is not hard neither is just seeing in there is an online tower in system in your looking to get a tower km all you need to do is dscan As for finding friend this is not only an mmo but an mmo built on interaction with other plays so expect to be disadvantaged if you play solo Citadel worm hole tax

Lugh Crow-Slave 1772	Posted - 2016.04.04 01:11:26 - [311] - Quote any reason the fighter icons are so bright now? i cant even read the numbers Citadel worm hole tax
Night Predator Green Leaf Corp 0	Posted - 2016.04.04 04:00:05 - [312] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: So you want all reward and no risk? And finding a corps tower in hs is not hard neither is just seeing in there is an online tower in system in your looking to get a tower km all you need to do is dscan As for finding friend this is not only an mmo but an mmo built on interaction with other plays so expect to be disadvantaged if you play solo I mean hell even if your citadel is destroyed all it costs is the hull and rigs you don't lose any items (this also means less treason to kill than a pos since only a small amount drops) Would you mind to tell me where I've told that I want "all reward without risk"? The current rules of citadels look like crap for me. I'm not going to use citadels, but staying in my POSs. I just hate to be forced to "socialize with other players, because socialized players stay longer" Regarding interacting with other players - I really do interact. It is hard to not interact trading with them, shooting at them etc. I really dont need to "socialize" to enjoy eve. I really enjoy of freedom doing anything I want in the game filled by thousands other players. This mechanics of "transfering assets to a NPC station from a destroyed Citadel" is stupid. If assets would be dropped and unanchor would be a few hours I used citadels. The current project of Citadels is poor. Lets explain exactly how wardecing works. 1. Assaulter chooses the target corp for warder. And now there is an important part - if the assaulter is not an idiot, he chooses the target wisely, being sure that he is strog enough to score kills. right? 2. Target corp can choose - accept the war (if they feel strong enough), or hide assets in NPC stations and wait for a week. Industrial cops choose this strategy. 3. Citadels cannot be too tough, because too strong would be pointless. So they will be vulnerable. And if they will be vulnerable, they will be useless for small corps. 7 days for unanchoring is not worth these 2% better reprocessing yield. POS is still better with its Hyasoda labs, reprocessing array etc. I hope that POSs will remain in this game, because
TheSmokingHertog Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium 375	Posted - 2016.04.04 08:36:11 - [313] - Quote Night Predator wrote: 7 days for unanchoring ? I hope that CCP will publish info about citadels set up / working / destroyed in High/ low/ null at the end of each month. I'm affraid that having 1b kill will be enough reason for hunting citadels through high sec. This is the exact reason why I find the tax adjustment ridiculous. If CCP would take the markets serious, they would scale up taxes with the amount of "free" market citadels out there, in stead of just raising taxes to a level that will kill all non hub markets ASAP. Consolidation due to the high tax rates, no ways to replenish an order and high costs for people distributing stuff in EVE. With current patch intentions, marketeers working in the fields of distribution, inter-regional trading and seeding non hubs, will simply stop their activities, due to spreads simply not making up for the cost of dong business. When you realize that only the bigger Citadels (X and XL) will have market hubs, it will be simply lots of dead markets, with a few active hubs. "Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X "Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron -= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
Dublone Ember Inc. Curatores Veritatis Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.04.04 11:45:24 - [314] - Quote He CCP. in the Dev Block "building-your-citadel-one-block-at-a-time" i see this picture: Raw Mats example the "Broadcast Node". We need for a Large Citadel 452 units. Ok the Large Citadel needs 40 units "Station market Network" and one unit needs 15 "Broadcast Node" and we have 15*40=600 "Units Broadcast Node" only alone for the "Station Market Network". Its the graphic in the Dev Block wrong?
erg cz Eleutherian Guard Villore Accords 422	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:08:27 - [315] - Quote Dublone wrote: He CCP. in the Dev Block "building-your-citadel-one-block-at-a-time" i see this picture: Raw Mats example the "Broadcast Node". We need for a Large Citadel 452 units. Ok the Large Citadel needs 40 units "Station market Network" and one unit needs 15 "Broadcast Node" and we have 15*40=600 "Units Broadcast Node" only alone for the "Station Market Network". Its the graphic in the Dev Block wrong? Yes, use that one instead. Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get your extra week of Eve for free!
Dublone Ember Inc. Curatores Veritatis Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:11:20 - [316] - Quote erg cz wrote: Dublone wrote: He CCP. in the Dev Block "building-your-citadel-one-block-at-a-time" i see this picture: Raw Mats example the "Broadcast Node". We need for a Large Citadel 452 units. Ok the Large Citadel needs 40 units "Station market Network" and one unit needs 15 "Broadcast Node" and we have 15*40=600 "Units Broadcast Node" only alone for the "Station Market Network". Its the graphic in the Dev Block wrong? Yes, use that one instead. Come that's from a Dev Blog? It is the finaly Mats? Ok then cost a Large Citadel much more as 6b ISK
Silent Seeker Deep Exploration Projects and Programs AXIOS. 0	Posted - 2016.04.04 13:18:35 - [317] - Quote I cannot anchor anything on Sisi atm, no Citadels and no towers. Towers I can launch and click anchor, the log shows the message for starting anchoring and the timespan needed, but then nothing happens. Tower stays unanchored and cannot be onlined. For Citadels I don't even get to the point of anchoring. When I click "launch for corp" the placement mode appears, but my citadel model always stays red, the button "Position" stays dead and shows "This structure is not a valid position". http://i.imgur.com/u2s4Mhq.jpg My chars have anchoring 5. Pls help
erg cz Eleutherian Guard Villore Accords 422	Posted - 2016.04.04 15:16:19 - [318] - Quote Dublone wrote: erg cz wrote: Dublone wrote: He CCP. in the Dev Block "building-your-citadel-one-block-at-a-time" i see this picture: Raw Mats example the "Broadcast Node". We need for a Large Citadel 452 units. Ok the Large Citadel needs 40 units "Station market Network" and one unit needs 15 "Broadcast Node" and we have 15*40=600 "Units Broadcast Node" only alone for the "Station Market Network". Its the graphic in the Dev Block wrong? Yes, use that one instead. Come that's from a Dev Blog? It is the finaly Mats? Ok then cost a Large Citadel much more as 6b ISK It is from one of the latest developer posts in thread about citadel (eve information portal section). I do not know what math you are using but concidering, that 1 piece of PI material after the patch will be about 10-15 milions and you will need over 4000 of them for large citadel, that is over 40 bilions just in PI materials, if I am not mistaken. Minerals can be produced en mass, advanced planetary materials will take time to build and harvested. Prices will get through the roof, when patch will be out. Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get your extra week of Eve for free!
Lugh Crow-Slave 1775	Posted - 2016.04.04 23:25:42 - [319] - Quote So the reprocessing tax here are the issues i see I cant tax or block compression This means that if i have this and hope to get tax off it i can't there will always be one in HS with 0% tax and i can compress 1Mm3 of ore small enough that it fits into a DST another issue when i use these in a citadel and not the drilling platform or what ever they will be called i'm doing it to stimulate the market so perhaps i will not tax the refining at all in hopes that they will sell in my market. If they can just compress for free they will do that and move the ore to a better market now if i can just say no compressing or i can make the isk back by taxing it that will be fine. Tax is in isk not minerals This is bad for both parties as it works of the EST value and that does not accurately reflect the market so maybe i tax 5% depending on the market it may actually be 6% or 4% and constantly changing taxes are not a good thing. Now with minerals 5% of the trit in veld is always 5% of the trit at the very least let the owner chose how the tax is pulled if not keep it minerals EDIT: also i thought broker relations was not meant to reduce market tax is this a bug because it is atm Citadel worm hole tax
Porus Kurvora Phoenix Enterprise Inc Guardians of the Morrigan 6	Posted - 2016.04.05 00:50:45 - [320] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Tax is in isk not minerals This is bad for both parties as it works of the EST value and that does not accurately reflect the market so maybe i tax 5% depending on the market it may actually be 6% or 4% and constantly changing taxes are not a good thing. Now with minerals 5% of the trit in veld is always 5% of the trit at the very least let the owner chose how the tax is pulled if not keep it minerals If the tax is in ISK rather than materials I would expect the ISK value be calculated similarly to how planetary customs offices calculate tax: each mineral has a fixed base cost on which to calculate the tax. I would prefer to have that method of tax collection than receiving actual materials which would have to be dealt with. It would be much easier to pay for fuel of the service if ISK is collected as tax. [PNXE] Phoenix Enterprise Inc. CEO PNXE is Recruiting!

Lugh Crow-Slave 1779	Posted - 2016.04.05 01:01:11 - [321] - Quote Porus Kurvora wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Tax is in isk not minerals This is bad for both parties as it works of the EST value and that does not accurately reflect the market so maybe i tax 5% depending on the market it may actually be 6% or 4% and constantly changing taxes are not a good thing. Now with minerals 5% of the trit in veld is always 5% of the trit at the very least let the owner chose how the tax is pulled if not keep it minerals If the tax is in ISK rather than materials I would expect the ISK value be calculated similarly to how planetary customs offices calculate tax: each mineral has a fixed base cost on which to calculate the tax. I would prefer to have that method of tax collection than receiving actual materials which would have to be dealt with. It would be much easier to pay for fuel of the service if ISK is collected as tax. but that is still a poor way to do it for the same reasons the actual tax would change based on the market like i said it would be best if it was left up to the owner on how it was done either way my biggest concern is the compression Citadel worm hole tax
helana Tsero Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 433	Posted - 2016.04.05 01:02:13 - [322] - Quote Just want to highlight that when docked the zoom level on the citadel is terrible. Please FIX ! I want to look at my citadel.. see the billboards and the twinkling lights of my minions in their tiny spacecraft moving around the citadel.... not see some zoomed out boring monolith structure.. "... 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 1779	Posted - 2016.04.05 01:35:10 - [323] - Quote the fact that fighter ability activate in sequence rather than simultaneously leads to desynk causing you to deactivate some when trying to activate all and vice versa is it possible to have it so they all activate at once or is there a technical issue there? Citadel worm hole tax
Ch3sh1r3 University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.04.05 02:39:53 - [324] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Amak Boma wrote: are citadels banned from shattered wormholes? They should be, if not, they will be. Just for clarification - any wormhole with a shattered planet falls under this, correct? - like a C3 with planet 1 being shattered (purposely leaving out the WH #). This is a WH not related to any of the Thera stuff.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1779	Posted - 2016.04.05 02:42:12 - [325] - Quote Ch3sh1r3 wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: Amak Boma wrote: are citadels banned from shattered wormholes? They should be, if not, they will be. Just for clarification - any wormhole with a shattered planet falls under this, correct? - like a C3 with planet 1 being shattered (purposely leaving out the WH #). This is a WH not related to any of the Thera stuff. no if there is no epicenter its not a shattered hole Citadel worm hole tax
Ch3sh1r3 University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.04.05 02:46:51 - [326] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Ch3sh1r3 wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: Amak Boma wrote: are citadels banned from shattered wormholes? They should be, if not, they will be. Just for clarification - any wormhole with a shattered planet falls under this, correct? - like a C3 with planet 1 being shattered (purposely leaving out the WH #). This is a WH not related to any of the Thera stuff. no if there is no epicenter its not a shattered hole Ok, - my main is sitting in the WH right now trying to place one for testing / checking out. Have the icon blue for placement, have the timers set, name set - clicking on the final Anchor does nothing... no popups or warning that I am doing anything wrong. Am a director in the corp - all is good there and have skilled up
Lugh Crow-Slave 1779	Posted - 2016.04.05 02:51:56 - [327] - Quote Ch3sh1r3 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Ch3sh1r3 wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: Amak Boma wrote: are citadels banned from shattered wormholes? They should be, if not, they will be. Just for clarification - any wormhole with a shattered planet falls under this, correct? - like a C3 with planet 1 being shattered (purposely leaving out the WH #). This is a WH not related to any of the Thera stuff. no if there is no epicenter its not a shattered hole Ok, - my main is sitting in the WH right now trying to place one for testing / checking out. Have the icon blue for placement, have the timers set, name set - clicking on the final Anchor does nothing... no popups or warning that I am doing anything wrong. Am a director in the corp - all is good there and have skilled up ... you make the profile? Citadel worm hole tax
Ch3sh1r3 University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.04.05 02:56:20 - [328] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ... you make the profile? Just read about that back on page 14 here - never saw that mentioned in any of the videos that I had watched.. So yea,, profile made - good to go - TY for the response
Lugh Crow-Slave 1779	Posted - 2016.04.05 02:59:59 - [329] - Quote Ch3sh1r3 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ... you make the profile? Just read about that back on page 14 here - never saw that mentioned in any of the videos that I had watched.. So yea,, profile made - good to go - TY for the response np but yeah in the future if you do want to keep WH ids secret don't describe them to the point that only one in the game matches your description Citadel worm hole tax
Ch3sh1r3 University of Caille Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2016.04.05 03:01:49 - [330] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Ch3sh1r3 wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: Amak Boma wrote: are citadels banned from shattered wormholes? They should be, if not, they will be. Just for clarification - any wormhole with a shattered planet falls under this, correct? - like a C3 with planet 1 being shattered (purposely leaving out the WH #). This is a WH not related to any of the Thera stuff. no j164104 is not a shattered hole not much point leaving out the number when there are only two that have this criteria and only one is a C3 kinda failed at that one didn't I.

Mr Grape Drink Sugar - Water - Purple Who. 84	Posted - 2016.04.05 03:50:54 - [331] - Quote Any chance at looking at station component M3? 100,000 feels a bit....off. Under 10k of materials go in, and 1.1 Million M3 just to build an 8k Astrahus
Tra'con Han The reality disfunction 14	Posted - 2016.04.05 18:20:28 - [332] - Quote Just had the message: Message: 'UnknownStructure' Args: None when I opened my market, I do have 1 item listed inside.
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5933	Posted - 2016.04.05 20:19:14 - [333] - Quote Things I find "odd" about citadels: 1. The abundance of "tentacle lights" for no apparent purpose. They distract from the appearance of the citadel. 2. Building a citadel. I didn't realize why there were "ghost" citadels until someone explained that they take time to build. 3. The timer labels in space on citadels are not self-explanatory.
Luscius Uta Anomalous Existence Low-Class 204	Posted - 2016.04.06 07:37:57 - [334] - Quote Are there any citadels in the test system where I can dock in with a supercarrier? Every one that I tried rejected me :( Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Aaron Raus Diving club 2	Posted - 2016.04.06 10:28:52 - [335] - Quote If citadel is not visible on the overview as warpa ble object, how the one should make it a popular trade hub? By putting it next to some warpable celestial? It seems not so comfort for me... Can we get some sort of setting: "visible for everyone". If this setitngs is set, citadel appears on overview as warpable object. So some frighter pilot, who came into the system for the first time, do not need to look for bookmark, but can warp straight to it.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1787	Posted - 2016.04.06 10:43:44 - [336] - Quote Aaron Raus wrote: If citadel is not visible on the overview as warpa ble object, how the one should make it a popular trade hub? By putting it next to some warpable celestial? It seems not so comfort for me... Can we get some sort of setting: "visible for everyone". If this setitngs is set, citadel appears on overview as warpable object. So some frighter pilot, who came into the system for the first time, do not need to look for bookmark, but can warp straight to it. If you would have bothered to read the dev blogs you would know that they ate intended to show up on the overview of you have docking rights Citadel worm hole tax

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 275	Posted - 2016.04.06 11:56:25 - [337] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Greetings to all you budding space property tycoons, Team Game of Drones here with some good news, Citadels are now available on Singularity. As with any feature on Singularity this is still work in progress and therefore stuff will be broken, some stuff is not implemented yet and numbers are still open to change. So please go forth and build but keep all this in mind. This will be the official feedback thread for Citadels and their related mechanics and features. Anything relating to Capital Ships, fighters, capital doomsdays should be given here link, but if you are REALLY not sure just post it in one of the two threads and it will find its way to the correct dev. Please give constructive feedback, if you do not like something please try and tell us why with maybe some alternative ideas. If you do discover any issues here on Singularity please report them through the F12 menu before restarting your client as there is loads of important information like logs that is lost upon a client restart. So, with all this in mind, here is a list of what is implemented at the moment: Deploying Citadels Docking and Undocking Taking Control of the Citadel Fitting and Unfitting modules Using high, medium, low slots and rigs, including numerous structure modules Reloading weapons, yes that means you can also fire them Manufacturing Citadels, modules, rigs, service modules. User lists, which give structure owners capability to filter who can access structure services. Those can be set up to allow corporation, alliance, all public or specific individuals to be added Structure browser, allowing players to filter which structures they can dock at, along with which services they provide. Citadel Inventories Corp Offices in Citadels Tethering, allowing ships which are allowed to dock inside a structure by the owner to be invulnerable to direct attack as long as no offensive action is set. Asset Safety All Citadel related blueprints and assets should be seeded as per usual Singularity rules. 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 Redeem Items is not possible in a Citadel and probably wont be on release Added 22 March 2016 Personal Deliveries - Right-click module in Citadel hangar -> Deliver to (works for offline players as well) Fixed an issue where tethering would not always work after warping to Citadel Trashing of items is disabled during final stage of Citadel attack Shortened delay of damage being applied from Citadel doomsday Station managers should be able to rename Citadels Anchoring should no longer be reset at server restart Citadel can't refit when it has taken damage Rig size restrictions have been implemented on Citadels Structure bracket shows how many are docked inside Guest list implemented for Citadels Directors can kick people out of the gunning seat (In Control) Ship hangar is implemented Warping to a Keepstar should no longer land you at 5000km from the keepstar Added 6 April 2016 Some of the following have been up a while but I did not update the list Public member added to groups Fixed an issue where a character in control of a Citadel logging out could break the Citadel Vulnerability window no longer stays open when anchoring a Citadel Market service implemented Reprocessing + compression service implemented Clone service implemented Fuel cost and consumption implemented Corp Asset safety implemented Fixed an issue where service modules would offline at server restart Fixed an issue where you could not stack items unless you were a member of the Citadel owning corp Fixed an issue where station services section of role management in corp window would not load Access check for docking + tethering implemented Fixed an issue where profiles would not save properly Profiles SHOULD be full operational now Added a default profile Docking is now limited by ship size Some notifications have been implemented Wrecks can now be salvaged Fixed an issue where reprocessing was broken in outposts and NPC stations Disabled service buttons if the service is disabled Citadels and the modules and skills are seeded on the market. You do not HAVE to build them using the blueprints, but feel free to. There are and will be more known issues, I will try and keep them up to date, but keep me honest on this one We have created a chat channel on Singularity called "Citadels". Join this channel if you have questions. Keeping in mind it will probably only have someone in it from around 9-5 EVE time. We will be monitoring this thread regularly, even if we are not replying, we will be reading the posts so please give us all the feedback you have. Go forth and build, Game of Drones. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Cordella Rex System lords Collective 0	Posted - 2016.04.06 14:45:31 - [338] - Quote "Vulnerability window no longer stays open when anchoring a Citadel" Is this what was causing me to be unable to fire the citadels weaponry?

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 276	Posted - 2016.04.06 14:51:55 - [339] - Quote Cordella Rex wrote: "Vulnerability window no longer stays open when anchoring a Citadel" 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 Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 435	Posted - 2016.04.06 17:40:28 - [340] - 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.)

Porus Kurvora Phoenix Enterprise Inc Guardians of the Morrigan 6	Posted - 2016.04.06 19:11:35 - [341] - Quote Feedback since the last SiSi patch update: - Compression is not working for me. Selecting ore and clicking compress does nothing. - Reprocessing works but I'm confused how the equipment base+rigs will work and how the tax works. Seems like tax is actually returning ISK but should ore be 100% yield? I know this is still in development so maybe reprocessing waste is not hooked up yet. - It's not absolutely clear that the "Market Tax" setting in the structures profile settings modifies the "Broker's Fee" figure. This should be indicated somewhere or the labels should be consistent. I would also suggest adding a tooltip for the cost breakdown in the sell window similar to how it's done in the industry window with the job limit & control range, job duration, and job installation cost. It would help players see how the tax is calculated and what skills they can train to lower each tax. I'm really enjoying testing this stuff out. Looks amazing! [PNXE] Phoenix Enterprise Inc. CEO PNXE is Recruiting!
Omak Topal Asgardreia 0	Posted - 2016.04.06 19:15:42 - [342] - Quote How does one repair ones citadel? Ours has been stuck(?) at 0% armor and shields for over a week now making it impossible to fit modules to the citadel. goats and sheep were offered on altars of worship in utter desperation...nothing.
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1507	Posted - 2016.04.06 19:44:04 - [343] - Quote I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but the description of the three different sizes of ASML missiles all claim to be designed to target and destroy small, medium, and large hull classes such as frigates, cruisers, or battleships. Why not put an accurate description on each type? Large for HD's, medium for MD's, and small for LD's? Hopefully this is just a temporary copy and paste and it won't go live as is? Do not run. We are your friends.
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1507	Posted - 2016.04.06 19:44:53 - [344] - Quote Omak Topal wrote: How does one repair ones citadel? Ours has been stuck(?) at 0% armor and shields for over a week now making it impossible to fit modules to the citadel. goats and sheep were offered on altars of worship in utter desperation...nothing. Try a llama. Sacrificing llamas seems to get results. The gods are kinky that way. Do not run. We are your friends.
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 51	Posted - 2016.04.06 19:49:23 - [345] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: We will be monitoring this thread regularly, even if we are not replying, we will be reading the posts so please give us all the feedback you have. Go forth and build, Game of Drones. Is this a bug? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BrDuiwpJT8 Did you change your minds about Doomsday on all sizes of Citadels?
Lugh Crow-Slave 1791	Posted - 2016.04.06 21:03:58 - [346] - Quote Porus Kurvora wrote: Feedback since the last SiSi patch update: - Compression is not working for me. Selecting ore and clicking compress does nothing. - Reprocessing works but I'm confused how the equipment base+rigs will work and how the tax works. Seems like tax is actually returning ISK but should ore be 100% yield? I know this is still in development so maybe reprocessing waste is not hooked up yet. - It's not absolutely clear that the "Market Tax" setting in the structures profile settings modifies the "Broker's Fee" figure. This should be indicated somewhere or the labels should be consistent. I would also suggest adding a tooltip for the cost breakdown in the sell window similar to how it's done in the industry window with the job limit & control range, job duration, and job installation cost. It would help players see how the tax is calculated and what skills they can train to lower each tax. I'm really enjoying testing this stuff out. Looks amazing! Compression is not working for me either the base refine should not be 100% like it is atm it seems the base % is not implemented yet It is taking isk for the tax (just tested this) f Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1792	Posted - 2016.04.06 23:10:38 - [347] - Quote Citadel fitting hanger basically a hanger for holding citadel fittings (also where they go if you hit unfit) either add a new role or make the access dependent on the current defense one Citadel worm hole tax
Ch3sh1r3 University of Caille Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2016.04.06 23:35:44 - [348] - Quote These were submitted today but sharing them here with you guys... Standup ECM will not load the Standup ECM racial scripts, also if there is no storage slot for the citadel itself I am guessing you would store your scripts in the ammo hanger? Not able to unload drones / fighters from the launch tubes, wanted to check out some of the different fighters - now stuck with whatever I loaded with on the first go around... Can launch and recover them, can refresh depleted / killed fighters but cannot unload the tubes to swap out between light. heavy and support If you have a corp office and put a ship (was using a fitted one for this) in one of the corp division hangars like you would normally do in a current POS and double click it to board like you would in a normal station you board that ship. Ship no longer shows on in any of the hangars but is visually shown in the docking bay as the correct ship. You cannot undock. Selecting another ship for the regular ship hangar you swap out ships but the one you boarded from the corp hangar division is now gone - never to be found again
Ch3sh1r3 University of Caille Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2016.04.06 23:41:01 - [349] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Citadel fitting hanger basically a hanger for holding citadel fittings (also where they go if you hit unfit) either add a new role or make the access dependent on the current defense one With a corp office you get corp hangar divisions. I decided to use the Security one as the division that could be shared between the directors and CEO for Citadel needs - fuel, ammo, fittings ect.. May not work for bigger alliances or some corps though.. But yea,, they have the fuel, fighter bay and ammo but can only be accessed via taking control. Would be nice if they had a general purpose storage up there as well
Lugh Crow-Slave 1793	Posted - 2016.04.06 23:54:54 - [350] - Quote so now that guns are working again i have noticed that anti capital guns Wreck capitals yet the sub cap ones just kinda supplement atm i haven't tested enough to see how this really affects things but i thought i would put it out Citadel worm hole tax

Mumemafu Praetoriam Imperium .H.E.M.P. 0	Posted - 2016.04.07 00:51:18 - [351] - Quote Now I cant dock in any of my Citatels, the reason is the old "profile" isent aplyed anymore, and there is no option to change it. Any clues? ty
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 51	Posted - 2016.04.07 02:36:47 - [352] - Quote Mumemafu Praetoriam wrote: Now I cant dock in any of my Citatels, the reason is the old "profile" isent aplyed anymore, and there is no option to change it. Any clues? ty Drag and drop row of the Citadel you want to add from the profile column before the State column over on to the profile name. It will add it to that profile. EDITED: If it is already in a profile select any blank column to drag and drop from.
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 51	Posted - 2016.04.07 06:43:30 - [353] - Quote Destiny Dain2 wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: We will be monitoring this thread regularly, even if we are not replying, we will be reading the posts so please give us all the feedback you have. Go forth and build, Game of Drones. Is this a bug? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BrDuiwpJT8 Did you change your minds about Doomsday on all sizes of Citadels? Sorry Claymore one more thing. I was playing with the market today and noticed when I set up a couple groups for the market, because I am the sole owner and member in my corp. (not including my alt) I am the admin for all groups and because of that I am given an average of the different fees. example: In one group I have myself at 0% tax and in a public group I set at 15%, because I am the admin for both groups I am being charged 12% for my sales for brokers fee. Is there a way to exclude admin. and managers from group settings?. If not, can we?

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 327	Posted - 2016.04.07 09:08:48 - [354] - Quote Porus Kurvora wrote: Feedback since the last SiSi patch update: - Compression is not working for me. Selecting ore and clicking compress does nothing. - Reprocessing works but I'm confused how the equipment base+rigs will work and how the tax works. Seems like tax is actually returning ISK but should ore be 100% yield? I know this is still in development so maybe reprocessing waste is not hooked up yet. - It's not absolutely clear that the "Market Tax" setting in the structures profile settings modifies the "Broker's Fee" figure. This should be indicated somewhere or the labels should be consistent. I would also suggest adding a tooltip for the cost breakdown in the sell window similar to how it's done in the industry window with the job limit & control range, job duration, and job installation cost. It would help players see how the tax is calculated and what skills they can train to lower each tax. I'm really enjoying testing this stuff out. Looks amazing! Nope, that is on us, we fixed one thing and broke compression. Will be sorted today hopefully. Reprocessing should not be at 100%, we have a wrong number on the reprocessing module, and no you won't get 100% reprocessing on TQ We change the tax to be an isk tax instead of an ore tax. Will raise your market tax concerns with the team. Thank you Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 327	Posted - 2016.04.07 09:10:38 - [355] - Quote Omak Topal wrote: How does one repair ones citadel? Ours has been stuck(?) at 0% armor and shields for over a week now making it impossible to fit modules to the citadel. goats and sheep were offered on altars of worship in utter desperation...nothing. There is your issue, we have tons of sheep here in Iceland, you should have offered some real good quality pork or beef :) No, this is a known issue. Due to the sisi mirror that is going to happen soon, this should be fixed when you next anchor a Citadel, but I would love to hear if it is not. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 327	Posted - 2016.04.07 09:11:24 - [356] - Quote Tyranis Marcus wrote: I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but the description of the three different sizes of ASML missiles all claim to be designed to target and destroy small, medium, and large hull classes such as frigates, cruisers, or battleships. Why not put an accurate description on each type? Large for HD's, medium for MD's, and small for LD's? Hopefully this is just a temporary copy and paste and it won't go live as is? I have already entered a defect about this to design and hopefully we can get things a little clearer for release Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 327	Posted - 2016.04.07 09:13:17 - [357] - Quote Tyranis Marcus wrote: Omak Topal wrote: How does one repair ones citadel? Ours has been stuck(?) at 0% armor and shields for over a week now making it impossible to fit modules to the citadel. goats and sheep were offered on altars of worship in utter desperation...nothing. Try a llama. Sacrificing llamas seems to get results. The gods are kinky that way. I have never tried llama. So maybe this would be a good start. (please don't actually sacrifice any llamas, I watched llamas with hats, they will end the world) Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 327	Posted - 2016.04.07 09:14:40 - [358] - Quote Destiny Dain2 wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: We will be monitoring this thread regularly, even if we are not replying, we will be reading the posts so please give us all the feedback you have. Go forth and build, Game of Drones. Is this a bug? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BrDuiwpJT8 Did you change your minds about Doomsday on all sizes of Citadels? This is totally a bug! Will get that sorted today. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 327	Posted - 2016.04.07 09:19:50 - [359] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Porus Kurvora wrote: Feedback since the last SiSi patch update: - Compression is not working for me. Selecting ore and clicking compress does nothing. - Reprocessing works but I'm confused how the equipment base+rigs will work and how the tax works. Seems like tax is actually returning ISK but should ore be 100% yield? I know this is still in development so maybe reprocessing waste is not hooked up yet. - It's not absolutely clear that the "Market Tax" setting in the structures profile settings modifies the "Broker's Fee" figure. This should be indicated somewhere or the labels should be consistent. I would also suggest adding a tooltip for the cost breakdown in the sell window similar to how it's done in the industry window with the job limit & control range, job duration, and job installation cost. It would help players see how the tax is calculated and what skills they can train to lower each tax. I'm really enjoying testing this stuff out. Looks amazing! Compression is not working for me either the base refine should not be 100% like it is atm it seems the base % is not implemented yet It is taking isk for the tax (just tested this) however it does not seem to be affected by the tax you set and is just using some base tax also i want to reiderate the need for the tax to be able to be paid in minerals and for you to be able to tax/disable compression individual from refining Yeah compression is broken, and reprocessing should not be 100%. That should be sorted soon here on sisi. I will take a look at the tax settings etc We are not having tax in minerals and isk, what are your thoughts for keeping mineral? Compression we are keeping tied with reprocessing and not taxable, but I am curious why you would want it separate and taxable? Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 327	Posted - 2016.04.07 09:20:18 - [360] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Citadel fitting hanger basically a hanger for holding citadel fittings (also where they go if you hit unfit) either add a new role or make the access dependent on the current defense one This is going to be the case afaik, looking at it today actually. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones



CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 327	Posted - 2016.04.07 09:21:40 - [361] - Quote Destiny Dain2 wrote: Mumemafu Praetoriam wrote: Now I cant dock in any of my Citatels, the reason is the old "profile" isent aplyed anymore, and there is no option to change it. Any clues? ty Drag and drop row of the Citadel you want to add from the profile column before the State column over on to the profile name. It will add it to that profile. EDITED: Do this with Any profile selected or if your in a profile you can select from any blank column to drag and drop from. We are looking at making this easier and more obvious Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 327	Posted - 2016.04.07 09:24:45 - [362] - Quote Destiny Dain2 wrote: Destiny Dain2 wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: We will be monitoring this thread regularly, even if we are not replying, we will be reading the posts so please give us all the feedback you have. Go forth and build, Game of Drones. Is this a bug? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BrDuiwpJT8 Did you change your minds about Doomsday on all sizes of Citadels? Sorry Claymore one more thing. I was playing with the market today and noticed when I set up a couple groups for the market, because I am the sole owner and member in my corp. (not including my alt) I am the admin for all groups and because of that I am given an average of the different fees. example: In one group I have myself at 0% tax and in a public group I set at 15%, because I am the admin for both groups I am being charged 12% for my sales for brokers fee. Is there a way to exclude admin. and managers from group settings?. If not, can we? I think this is actually your skills that are bringing this down to 12%. I will take a look at how the ordering of these is working exactly. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Erin Aldent Eagle Wing Industries Prodigal Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.04.07 10:44:12 - [363] - Quote The refine taxes seem a bit wonky, I had 2 rates, public at 1% and corp and 0.5%, it wanted to charge me the 1% public rate every time.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1793	Posted - 2016.04.07 16:39:57 - [364] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Compression we are keeping tied with reprocessing and not taxable, but I am curious why you would want it separate and taxable? The reason to separate it if i cant tax or block compression then i can simply compress over 1Mm3 of ore and haul it 13 or so jumps to the inebitable citadel that will have 0 or almost 0 refining or the main reason i want it for citadels say i set up a citadel with the hopes of getting a small local market going. in order to do this i set up the citadel to have 0 refine to promote the buy and sell of ore and minerals in my citadel however there is a better place to sell 15 or so jumps from me. why would anyone want to sell here if they can just compress for free and then easily haul over to that other market?(this will be an issue as well when assembly is added) and finally as a citadel owner why can i not charge for a servace i am paying to fuel. there are also situations where compression is the only service that would be needed meaning i have no hope making isk off of ppl refining in my citadel such as out of the way ice belts in systems with no station or systems no where near stations but large numbers of ore belts. basically forcing us to let ppl compress if we want to try to tax refining makes it really hard to tax refining. It limits tools to help prompt new local markets. and finanly it limits potential opportunities for players to be able to isk should they see a need for compression but not refining Citadel worm hole tax
Jerppu3 Solar Vista. The Anubis Accord 4	Posted - 2016.04.07 17:38:59 - [365] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: Compression we are keeping tied with reprocessing and not taxable, but I am curious why you would want it separate and taxable? The reason to separate it if i cant tax or block compression then i can simply compress over 1Mm3 of ore and haul it 13 or so jumps to the inebitable citadel that will have 0 or almost 0 refining or the main reason i want it for citadels say i set up a citadel with the hopes of getting a small local market going. in order to do this i set up the citadel to have 0 refine to promote the buy and sell of ore and minerals in my citadel however there is a better place to sell 15 or so jumps from me. why would anyone want to sell here if they can just compress for free and then easily haul over to that other market?(this will be an issue as well when assembly is added) and finally as a citadel owner why can i not charge for a servace i am paying to fuel. there are also situations where compression is the only service that would be needed meaning i have no hope making isk off of ppl refining in my citadel such as out of the way ice belts in systems with no station or systems no where near stations but large numbers of ore belts. basically forcing us to let ppl compress if we want to try to tax refining makes it really hard to tax refining. It limits tools to help prompt new local markets. and finanly it limits potential opportunities for players to be able to isk should they see a need for compression but not refining AGREED! ofc compression need to be separeted from refining. What's the point to deploy citadel in system and offer public services like reprocessing and compressing, when everyone can compress the minerals/ice and haul them away for free. All I get is the fuel bill.
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 51	Posted - 2016.04.07 19:49:54 - [366] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Destiny Dain2 wrote: Destiny Dain2 wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: We will be monitoring this thread regularly, even if we are not replying, we will be reading the posts so please give us all the feedback you have. Go forth and build, Game of Drones. Is this a bug? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BrDuiwpJT8 Did you change your minds about Doomsday on all sizes of Citadels? Sorry Claymore one more thing. I was playing with the market today and noticed when I set up a couple groups for the market, because I am the sole owner and member in my corp. (not including my alt) I am the admin for all groups and because of that I am given an average of the different fees. example: In one group I have myself at 0% tax and in a public group I set at 15%, because I am the admin for both groups I am being charged 12% for my sales for brokers fee. Is there a way to exclude admin. and managers from group settings?. If not, can we? I think this is actually your skills that are bringing this down to 12%. I will take a look at how the ordering of these is working exactly. You gave me an idea there. I will try to reorder the groups and see the outcome.
Cordella Rex System lords Collective 3	Posted - 2016.04.07 22:09:16 - [367] - Quote Hello CCP, thanks for answerings questions etc. I was wondering if we could hear your thoughts on the subject of capital production in citadels. Will you be able to produce super capitals inside XL citadels in nullsec and Low security space? if not are there any plans to maybe introduce a mechanic somewhat like sov to make production of super caps avalible in low sec sometime in the future?
Lugh Crow-Slave 1798	Posted - 2016.04.07 22:55:41 - [368] - Quote Cordella Rex wrote: Hello CCP, thanks for answerings questions etc. I was wondering if we could hear your thoughts on the subject of capital production in citadels. Will you be able to produce super capitals inside XL citadels in nullsec and Low security space? if not are there any plans to maybe introduce a mechanic somewhat like sov to make production of super caps avalible in low sec sometime in the future? assembly probably wont be out until the structures for it are i would like super production to be moved to LS so that med sized groups could produce them but i doubt it will happen unless CCP add more reasons to live in null atm its just moons and super production Citadel worm hole tax
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 51	Posted - 2016.04.07 23:10:41 - [369] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Cordella Rex wrote: Hello CCP, thanks for answerings questions etc. I was wondering if we could hear your thoughts on the subject of capital production in citadels. Will you be able to produce super capitals inside XL citadels in nullsec and Low security space? if not are there any plans to maybe introduce a mechanic somewhat like sov to make production of super caps avalible in low sec sometime in the future? assembly probably wont be out until the structures for it are i would like super production to be moved to LS so that med sized groups could produce them but i doubt it will happen unless CCP add more reasons to live in null atm its just moons and super production My guess is next will either be a Research Facility or Mining Facility. They might even talk about what is next at Fanfest. Here's Hoping.
Cordella Rex System lords Collective 3	Posted - 2016.04.07 23:51:19 - [370] - Quote is the 2k dps you get out the sub capital citadel launchers intentional or just placeholder numbers? seems VERY low compared to the capital launcher numbers of 37 000 fully maxxed out with ballistics? this is excluding fighters/bombs

Lugh Crow-Slave 1798	Posted - 2016.04.08 01:13:08 - [371] - Quote Cordella Rex wrote: is the 2k dps you get out the sub capital citadel launchers on the Fortizar (large) intentional or just placeholder numbers? seems VERY low compared to the capital launcher numbers of 47 000 fully maxxed out with ballistics? this is excluding fighters/bombs Also the drone interface dosen't pop up when you're launching them from the citadel not to mention that with fleet support the capital launchers do right around the same(sometimes more) dps to subcaps Citadel worm hole tax
Cordella Rex System lords Collective 3	Posted - 2016.04.08 01:19:14 - [372] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Cordella Rex wrote: is the 2k dps you get out the sub capital citadel launchers on the Fortizar (large) intentional or just placeholder numbers? seems VERY low compared to the capital launcher numbers of 47 000 fully maxxed out with ballistics? this is excluding fighters/bombs Also the drone interface dosen't pop up when you're launching them from the citadel not to mention that with fleet support the capital launchers do right around the same(sometimes more) dps to subcaps aye I just saw that on the test server, has to be a placeholder, numbers are just wrong... also curious if they will introduce Drone damage amplifiers for the citadel lowslots
Lugh Crow-Slave 1798	Posted - 2016.04.08 01:22:08 - [373] - Quote Cordella Rex wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Cordella Rex wrote: is the 2k dps you get out the sub capital citadel launchers on the Fortizar (large) intentional or just placeholder numbers? seems VERY low compared to the capital launcher numbers of 47 000 fully maxxed out with ballistics? this is excluding fighters/bombs Also the drone interface dosen't pop up when you're launching them from the citadel not to mention that with fleet support the capital launchers do right around the same(sometimes more) dps to subcaps aye I just saw that on the test server, has to be a placeholder, numbers are just wrong... also curious if they will introduce Drone damage amplifiers for the citadel lowslots they used to have ones for the fighters but they seem to be gone now Citadel worm hole tax
Cordella Rex System lords Collective 3	Posted - 2016.04.08 01:44:23 - [374] - Quote I figure 15k ish dps on subcap guns is a reasonable number, and maybe bring down the capital guns to closer to 30, cuz I don't see anything but supercarriers/titans going anywhere near citadels if a large can put out 47 k dps WITHOUT fighters, so what like 60k with heavy fighters? any dread in siege will go down in like 30 secs. or is this intentional design to promote citadels to only be attackable by huge subcapital blobs with heavy resists tanks and t2 logi?
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 51	Posted - 2016.04.08 01:59:57 - [375] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Destiny Dain2 wrote: Sorry Claymore one more thing. I was playing with the market today and noticed when I set up a couple groups for the market, because I am the sole owner and member in my corp. (not including my alt) I am the admin for all groups and because of that I am given an average of the different fees. example: In one group I have myself at 0% tax and in a public group I set at 15%, because I am the admin for both groups I am being charged 12% for my sales for brokers fee. Is there a way to exclude admin. and managers from group settings?. If not, can we? I think this is actually your skills that are bringing this down to 12%. I will take a look at how the ordering of these is working exactly. I was able to temporarily bypass this for the moment by making my master group with my 0% Tax at the bottom of the list of groups by calling it zzMaster and I am getting my 0% taxes now.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1798	Posted - 2016.04.08 02:11:45 - [376] - Quote Cordella Rex wrote: I figure 15k ish dps on subcap guns is a reasonable number, and maybe bring down the capital guns to closer to 30, cuz I don't see anything but supercarriers/titans going anywhere near citadels if a large can put out 47 k dps WITHOUT fighters, so what like 60k with heavy fighters? any dread in siege will go down in like 30 secs. or is this intentional design to promote citadels to only be attackable by huge subcapital blobs with heavy resists tanks and t2 logi? The sub cap guns should not have any more than 9km dps on XL 15k is way to much Citadel worm hole tax
Cordella Rex System lords Collective 3	Posted - 2016.04.08 03:03:58 - [377] - Quote 9k seems way too low, if it obliterates capitals it should be able to atleast destroy subcaps with some effiency, 9k would not break anything in a resist proteus fleet with t2 logi, the meta would stay the same and ppl will just en masse t3 blobs for victory. In fact now that I reflect on it, 15k is probably right on the edge of too low, should probably be closer to 20k to make any attack on a citadel costly and not a routine operation of grinding down enemy structures with no meaning or risk.
Darryn Lowe Golden Duck Frigate Mining Corp 38	Posted - 2016.04.08 04:21:51 - [378] - Quote Is there a step by step guide to deploying these things? I've deployed the little fella but I can't dock because it's not online but I can't workout how to online it. The Anchoring timer says 0s but it's been saying that all day.
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 51	Posted - 2016.04.08 04:44:37 - [379] - Quote Darryn Lowe wrote: Is there a step by step guide to deploying these things? I've deployed the little fella but I can't dock because it's not online but I can't workout how to online it. The Anchoring timer says 0s but it's been saying that all day. It is just a bug, Citadels online automatically when timer runs to zero. Leave system before downtime 05:00 and when you return after down time and refresh the system. It might online it for you. I had that happen today to me and went online the second I entered the system to investigate.
Darryn Lowe Golden Duck Frigate Mining Corp 38	Posted - 2016.04.08 06:05:56 - [380] - Quote Destiny Dain2 wrote: Darryn Lowe wrote: Is there a step by step guide to deploying these things? I've deployed the little fella but I can't dock because it's not online but I can't workout how to online it. The Anchoring timer says 0s but it's been saying that all day. It is just a bug, Citadels online automatically when timer runs to zero. Leave system before downtime 05:00 and when you return after down time and refresh the system. It might online it for you. I had that happen today to me and went online the second I entered the system to investigate. You are a legend. Thanks for that. It's working now.

Rain Kaessinde Adhocracy Incorporated 16	Posted - 2016.04.08 06:51:06 - [381] - Quote Is it seriously intended that citadels can only be located with combat probes? Because that's a big kick in the teeth for wormhole scouting, requiring an extremely specialized module which only T3 ships (and, for scouting purposes, only strategic cruisers) can use without severe fitting compromise. The stars might lie, but the numbers never do.

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 332	Posted - 2016.04.08 08:58:14 - [382] - Quote Cordella Rex wrote: Hello CCP, thanks for answerings questions etc. I was wondering if we could hear your thoughts on the subject of capital production in citadels. Will you be able to produce super capitals inside XL citadels in nullsec and Low security space? if not are there any plans to maybe introduce a mechanic somewhat like sov to make production of super caps avalible in low sec sometime in the future? Manufacturing will not be in the initial release of Citadels. When the Industry structures are released this will all be addressed. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Gabriel Karade Noir. Mercenary Coalition 317	Posted - 2016.04.08 12:21:28 - [383] - 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... I would still like to understand the design intent behind this. War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
MR Spleen Instant Annihilation I N G L O R I O U S 49	Posted - 2016.04.08 13:56:51 - [384] - Quote I like the idea of the citadels but figuring out the user interface is a SOB however I'm still keen on this but please leave the damned capital ships as they are and stop messing them up! CITADEL EXPANSION BRINGING YOU ALL NEW SELF DESTRUCTING CAPITALS
Porus Kurvora Phoenix Enterprise Inc Guardians of the Morrigan 7	Posted - 2016.04.08 20:54:41 - [385] - Quote 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. [PNXE] Phoenix Enterprise Inc. CEO PNXE is Recruiting!
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 443	Posted - 2016.04.08 22:04:46 - [386] - Quote Missile launchers are working again, thanks. Still cannot activate Standum Scrams while invulnerable, however. I assume that's deliberate?
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion 35	Posted - 2016.04.08 22:15:23 - [387] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Missile launchers are working again, thanks. Still cannot activate Standum Scrams while invulnerable, however. I assume that's deliberate? Think of it like this. If you could scram someone while invulnerable how the heck could they ever have a chance to flee? lol. Not to be rude or anything but I think it makes a bit of sense atleast.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1800	Posted - 2016.04.08 22:16:18 - [388] - Quote RainReaper wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Missile launchers are working again, thanks. Still cannot activate Standum Scrams while invulnerable, however. I assume that's deliberate? Think of it like this. If you could scram someone while invulnerable how the heck could they ever have a chance to flee? lol. Not to be rude or anything but I think it makes a bit of sense atleast. ... its the same with POS towers now they would have to slow boat Citadel worm hole tax
RainReaper RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion 35	Posted - 2016.04.08 22:22:43 - [389] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: RainReaper wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Missile launchers are working again, thanks. Still cannot activate Standum Scrams while invulnerable, however. I assume that's deliberate? Think of it like this. If you could scram someone while invulnerable how the heck could they ever have a chance to flee? lol. Not to be rude or anything but I think it makes a bit of sense atleast. ... its the same with POS towers now they would have to slow boat lol you can attack a pos. exept when its in reinforced mode. but then anything that uses cpu goes offline and with that. any scramblers and warp distrupters wont work.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1800	Posted - 2016.04.08 22:27:19 - [390] - Quote RainReaper wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: RainReaper wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Missile launchers are working again, thanks. Still cannot activate Standum Scrams while invulnerable, however. I assume that's deliberate? Think of it like this. If you could scram someone while invulnerable how the heck could they ever have a chance to flee? lol. Not to be rude or anything but I think it makes a bit of sense atleast. ... its the same with POS towers now they would have to slow boat lol you can attack a pos. exept when its in reinforced mode. but then anything that uses cpu goes offline and with that. any scramblers and warp distrupters wont work. good luck doing that alone and considering this time some one has to be in the citadel odds are you will just get a fight out of it best choice don't warp to a strangers house Citadel worm hole tax

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 Eli Stan wrote: 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 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



CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 333	Posted - 2016.04.11 11:26:16 - [421] - 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. I think high sec rigs should get more for their yield and null sec rigs should get more for theirs making things more level. Just my two cents, but I think numbers are not final. Rigs are not ready yet, hopefully tomorrow we will deploy a build with rigs and bonuses fully implemented. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 333	Posted - 2016.04.11 11:27:36 - [422] - 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? We are still investigating this. Thought we had a fix but apparently not. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 333	Posted - 2016.04.11 11:28:07 - [423] - 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. Anchoring will stay at 24h for initial release. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 333	Posted - 2016.04.11 11:29:50 - [424] - 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? We made a change in that backend that broke this, so it should be fixed in the next update. Repulsor and Tractor are not going to make the initial release, we do not have time to do them justice so we are going to pull them from the initial release. This is sad but we feel it is the correct choice. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 333	Posted - 2016.04.11 11:33:56 - [425] - 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 All the Citadels have the same amount of reinforcement periods. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Gianni Zuiverloon Hot Pursuit 0	Posted - 2016.04.11 13:04:50 - [426] - Quote I can't place any citadel type on sisi atm, how am I supposed to test it? If you disabled something then excuse me, but I didn't find any information about it in this post.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 448	Posted - 2016.04.11 14:39:48 - [427] - 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.
Regan Rotineque The Scope Gallente Federation 389	Posted - 2016.04.11 18:19:14 - [428] - Quote Hello was testing the profiles/groups interfaces on SiSi today and have the following concerns: 1 - I cannot find anywhere to set access based on standings why is this important? - well having to drop and drag individuals or corporations into the group window to individually add them access is cool - but could be very tedious in larger alliances/coalitions. I dont want to sit there for hours dropping and dragging corps/individuals and having this 'maintenance' issue. Far easier to set a standing and be done with it. Also I want public access ( yes I did find a public access drop and drag ) however I want access given to only those I like not everyone. In null nobody is going to set public - well except maybe CVA however even they will want to screen based on standings and I dont see anyone there sitting and dragging individual pilots in and out of a large group settings. From what my understanding is the hierarchy is: Set up groups ~~ apply to Profile ~~ apply to citadel you can apply multiple groups to any profile one profile is applied to a citadel So I think the only thing im looking for here is a way to apply standings to my group settings/public access Cheers ~R~
Regan Rotineque The Scope Gallente Federation 389	Posted - 2016.04.11 18:23:42 - [429] - Quote I think the number of the moving lights on the citadels could be reduced. I find they make it a bit fuzzy looking when all lit up. Don't get me wrong I think they add a feeling of life to the structure, but it may be a bit of overkill ...im just looking at the keepstar right now, I have put up the other ones and would say the same on those. ~R~
Regan Rotineque The Scope Gallente Federation 389	Posted - 2016.04.11 18:32:53 - [430] - Quote One other thing - As we get closer to the release date I think it is important that CCP get out front on this one. These new structures are quite limited in terms of their use to start. One cannot build or research in them - I suspect many people who are not tied in to testing or the forums do not know this - many I have spoken to in game did not realize this was the case. Rather than have pitchforks and torches CCP needs to set reasonable expectations with players - perhaps in game mails to every toon with links to the forums or You Tube vids. I personally dont want another incarna - and the feedback I have heard talking to a few friends in game was "WTF you cant build in them???" and "What a waste of time if all you can do is dock in them" I have tried to let people know that there are stepping stones in any new process and that these need to come online....be refined and added to over time. However not everyone is on board with that.....many expect instant results and I think there may be an over expectation on the delivery of this. They are not POS replacements to start and even long term I dont see how these replace a POS since I can put one up and remove it quickly for little cost. Cheers ~R~

Porus Kurvora Phoenix Enterprise Inc Guardians of the Morrigan 7	Posted - 2016.04.11 18:35:26 - [431] - Quote I like the design direction of the Citadels and prefer the moving lights how they are. The one thing I'd like to know is why some of the "tentacle" lights come out and turn. What is the design concept behind these lights versus the undock strips? I found a bug today but not entirely sure how or why it happened. Here's what I know I did: 1. Anchored a Fortizar Citadel 2 days ago 2. Fit defensive and service modules to it today (Market, Clone, Reprocessing). 3. Rented an office 4. Unrented the office 5. Modified tax to 1,000,000 ISK 6. Rented office again 7. Modified tax to 0 ISK 8. Unrented the office. 9. Rented office. 10. Noticed service modules inactive 11. Take control and Open fitting window 12. Everything originally fitted is now gone, including fighters and fuel wat? lol [PNXE] Phoenix Enterprise Inc. CEO PNXE is Recruiting!
Porus Kurvora Phoenix Enterprise Inc Guardians of the Morrigan 7	Posted - 2016.04.11 18:43:29 - [432] - Quote Regan Rotineque wrote: One other thing - As we get closer to the release date I think it is important that CCP get out front on this one. These new structures are quite limited in terms of their use to start. One cannot build or research in them - I suspect many people who are not tied in to testing or the forums do not know this - many I have spoken to in game did not realize this was the case. Rather than have pitchforks and torches CCP needs to set reasonable expectations with players - perhaps in game mails to every toon with links to the forums or You Tube vids. I personally dont want another incarna - and the feedback I have heard talking to a few friends in game was "WTF you cant build in them???" and "What a waste of time if all you can do is dock in them" I have tried to let people know that there are stepping stones in any new process and that these need to come online....be refined and added to over time. However not everyone is on board with that.....many expect instant results and I think there may be an over expectation on the delivery of this. They are not POS replacements to start and even long term I dont see how these replace a POS since I can put one up and remove it quickly for little cost. Cheers ~R~ I feel they have made the information quite clear in the development blogs. The Citadel expansion will bring player run stations to compete with NPC stations. That is it right now and that should be the expectation. Industrial specific structures were said to come out later this year (Fall) although not set in stone. These structures will not replace POS's on April 27th nor in the fall, but the variety of structures CCP is planning to bring into EVE will eventually replace POS's and POS's will be removed at some point. It's not all going to happen on the Citadel release. Anyone who doesn't see that these things take time or expect instant results will never be pleased. More information or more explanations will never satisfy those people. The anticipation is killing me though :) CCP is doing fantastic work. [PNXE] Phoenix Enterprise Inc. CEO PNXE is Recruiting!
Circumstantial Evidence 286	Posted - 2016.04.11 18:45:17 - [433] - Quote Regan Rotineque wrote: I think the number of the moving lights on the citadels could be reduced. I find they make it a bit fuzzy looking when all lit up. Don't get me wrong I think they add a feeling of life to the structure, but it may be a bit of overkill ...im just looking at the keepstar right now, I have put up the other ones and would say the same on those. ~R~ Agree with this, its a bit too much. Also too many holographic "traffic signs" - the repetition of these floating decal textures becomes very obvious, they could be reduced by half in number, and the result would still be visually engaging.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1875	Posted - 2016.04.11 19:42:52 - [434] - Quote John Hand wrote: 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! AGAIN IF THE STRUCTURES VULNERABILITY IS SET TO NEXT WEEK I COULD HAVE 100000000 dreads and i could not do **** to it with the 24 hr timer i have a chance to catch it when it is first coming out of anchor and pop it Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1875	Posted - 2016.04.11 19:47:31 - [435] - 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. i thought this was the case is there any chance we can make it so when the structure is invulnerable the disruption strength is just set to 0 so we can still use it to tern off mwd/mjd Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1875	Posted - 2016.04.11 19:51:30 - [436] - Quote Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Regan Rotineque wrote: I think the number of the moving lights on the citadels could be reduced. I find they make it a bit fuzzy looking when all lit up. Don't get me wrong I think they add a feeling of life to the structure, but it may be a bit of overkill ...im just looking at the keepstar right now, I have put up the other ones and would say the same on those. ~R~ Agree with this, its a bit too much. Also too many holographic "traffic signs" - the repetition of these floating decal textures becomes very obvious, they could be reduced by half in number, and the result would still be visually engaging. i think the current level on SISI reflects a very very busy citadel and an average or little used one will not reach this level unless ccp is no longer using lights to denote activity Citadel worm hole tax
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 448	Posted - 2016.04.11 21:10:28 - [437] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1875	Posted - 2016.04.11 21:12:13 - [438] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: 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. this is why i think just reducing the streangth to 0 is better than flat out disabling the mod Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1883	Posted - 2016.04.12 02:53:41 - [439] - Quote also ccp can you tell us if docking fees are going to be added? there really is not much reason do to how compression is handled to open up a citadel to the public and thats a huge limit to their potential Citadel worm hole tax
Jerppu3 Solar Vista. The Anubis Accord 6	Posted - 2016.04.12 04:37:14 - [440] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: also ccp can you tell us if docking fees are going to be added? there really is not much reason do to how compression is handled to open up a citadel to the public and thats a huge limit to their potential Docking fee sucks if CCP intent us to use that to compensate fuel for public compression. I really hope that CCP will add possibility to tax the usage of compression in Citadel. Without it they will kill the idea of having public Citadels for miners. Citadel Compression & Reprocessing separated and to be taxable

Lugh Crow-Slave 1887	Posted - 2016.04.12 05:30:49 - [441] - Quote Jerppu3 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: also ccp can you tell us if docking fees are going to be added? there really is not much reason do to how compression is handled to open up a citadel to the public and thats a huge limit to their potential Docking fee sucks if CCP intent us to use that to compensate fuel for public compression. I really hope that CCP will add possibility to tax the usage of compression in Citadel. Without it they will kill the idea of having public Citadels for miners. Citadel Compression & Reprocessing separated and to be taxable To be honest docking fees don't really suck you should be able to tax anything you want in your structure. But yesit is a crappy alternative to no tax on compression. Both should be added Citadel worm hole tax
Jerppu3 Solar Vista. The Anubis Accord 6	Posted - 2016.04.12 05:40:38 - [442] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Jerppu3 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: also ccp can you tell us if docking fees are going to be added? there really is not much reason do to how compression is handled to open up a citadel to the public and thats a huge limit to their potential Docking fee sucks if CCP intent us to use that to compensate fuel for public compression. I really hope that CCP will add possibility to tax the usage of compression in Citadel. Without it they will kill the idea of having public Citadels for miners. Citadel Compression & Reprocessing separated and to be taxable To be honest docking fees don't really suck you should be able to tax anything you want in your structure. But yesit is a crappy alternative to no tax on compression. Both should be added Agreed, both should be added. This would enable viable business model too.
Gyges Skyeye Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn 36	Posted - 2016.04.12 11:23:08 - [443] - Quote So while I'm waiting for a few citadels to anchor before I can contribute more heavily, some questions I have about current non-features. 1. Why can we not rotate and orient the citadels off of the horizontal plane? - This would greatly help for aligning the structures as desired 1a) Why is there no ability to simply auto-align a citadel to a target on the overview? - This would make things so much easier and there would be much rejoicing 2. Why do we not have some kind of item in the game to let us realign/reposition citadels after they have been dropped? - Call them structure or rocket thrusters. Make them built from rocket fuel and some other PI goods. Create a M/L/XL size and value them at 1-2% of the structure cost. Works like a character resculpt and lets you re-enter the structure positioning window. Takes effect at downtime, consumed on use.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1912	Posted - 2016.04.12 11:37:56 - [444] - Quote Gyges Skyeye wrote: So while I'm waiting for a few citadels to anchor before I can contribute more heavily, some questions I have about current non-features. 1. Why can we not rotate and orient the citadels off of the horizontal plane? - This would greatly help for aligning the structures as desired 1a) Why is there no ability to simply auto-align a citadel to a target on the overview? - This would make things so much easier and there would be much rejoicing 2. Why do we not have some kind of item in the game to let us realign/reposition citadels after they have been dropped? - Call them structure or rocket thrusters. Make them built from rocket fuel and some other PI goods. Create a M/L/XL size and value them at 1-2% of the structure cost. Works like a character resculpt and lets you re-enter the structure positioning window. Takes effect at downtime, consumed on use. I would like to be able to move it on the Y axis and not just the x and z Citadel worm hole tax
Thalezia Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.04.12 15:29:35 - [445] - Quote 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
John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.04.12 19:11:47 - [446] - Quote CCP Claymore 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. Anchoring will stay at 24h for initial release. The issue I have with the 24h timer is its far too long for the Medium and Large Cits. The time is just too much for the benefit you get out of anchoring one vs one of the bigger ones. You could make a good argument for the 24hr timer for the XL as its the largest one AND the benefit it gives you (docking supers) plus its ability to defend itself is very good. 6 hours would be acceptable for the med, and 12 for the large, with 24 for the XL.
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1521	Posted - 2016.04.12 20:52:51 - [447] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Tyranis Marcus wrote: "Structure bracket shows how many are docked inside" That's pretty stupid. If the enemy wants that info, they should have to get a spy inside. its because of WH groups complaining that they cant get free Intel like they can with a POS they want to know how risky it is to gank that site running drake b4 they commit to it Ah. lol. Thanks for pointing that out. Eve is all about risk, though. These days, you can't gank a Drake in lowsec without looking over your shoulder for the ambush. You may be able to see who's in local, but it's often so busy that doesn't help a whole lot, and you have no idea what's going down on the other side of any stargates. Not to mention hotdrops, which wh'ers don't have to worry about. We all still do it, though, and it's fun. Why should the dangerous unknown of wh space be safer to gank in? Honestly, they should just suck it up and deal with it. Also, once the existing outposts have been converted over to Citadels, and in systems with no outposts, it will make 0.0 roams easier, since you can instantly tell how many of the people in local are actually undocked. In that regard, it would increase the value of intel gained from local chat, which is something I had thought the devs were interested in finding ways to reduce. Do not run. We are your friends.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1918	Posted - 2016.04.12 21:36:10 - [448] - Quote John Hand wrote: CCP Claymore 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. Anchoring will stay at 24h for initial release. The issue I have with the 24h timer is its far too long for the Medium and Large Cits. The time is just too much for the benefit you get out of anchoring one vs one of the bigger ones. You could make a good argument for the 24hr timer for the XL as its the largest one AND the benefit it gives you (docking supers) plus its ability to defend itself is very good. 6 hours would be acceptable for the med, and 12 for the large, with 24 for the XL. like i said b4 considering if you miss the anchor timer coming out you have to deal with an enemy citadel in your system for up to a week b4 you can do anything about it 24hr is thee minimum the timer can be Citadel worm hole tax
Fera Rayl Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 0	Posted - 2016.04.12 23:06:40 - [449] - Quote Was there a change to how long a Citadel is vulnerable after the 24 hour anchor period? or is it still 15 min?
Lugh Crow-Slave 1925	Posted - 2016.04.12 23:13:01 - [450] - Quote Fera Rayl wrote: Was there a change to how long a Citadel is vulnerable after the 24 hour anchor period? or is it still 15 min? 15 hs and max null index 30 in wh and 60 in null with no index Citadel worm hole tax

John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.04.12 23:20:03 - [451] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: John Hand wrote: CCP Claymore 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. Anchoring will stay at 24h for initial release. The issue I have with the 24h timer is its far too long for the Medium and Large Cits. The time is just too much for the benefit you get out of anchoring one vs one of the bigger ones. You could make a good argument for the 24hr timer for the XL as its the largest one AND the benefit it gives you (docking supers) plus its ability to defend itself is very good. 6 hours would be acceptable for the med, and 12 for the large, with 24 for the XL. like i said b4 considering if you miss the anchor timer coming out you have to deal with an enemy citadel in your system for up to a week b4 you can do anything about it 24hr is thee minimum the timer can be And I have said also, if you Live in your space you shouldn't miss it, and if you so happen to miss it, then its your own damn fault. The rest of eve should not be punished for your own stupidity.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1926	Posted - 2016.04.12 23:29:58 - [452] - Quote John Hand wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: John Hand wrote: CCP Claymore 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. Anchoring will stay at 24h for initial release. The issue I have with the 24h timer is its far too long for the Medium and Large Cits. The time is just too much for the benefit you get out of anchoring one vs one of the bigger ones. You could make a good argument for the 24hr timer for the XL as its the largest one AND the benefit it gives you (docking supers) plus its ability to defend itself is very good. 6 hours would be acceptable for the med, and 12 for the large, with 24 for the XL. like i said b4 considering if you miss the anchor timer coming out you have to deal with an enemy citadel in your system for up to a week b4 you can do anything about it 24hr is thee minimum the timer can be And I have said also, if you Live in your space you shouldn't miss it, and if you so happen to miss it, then its your own damn fault. The rest of eve should not be punished for your own stupidity. O.o you cant expect ppl to be on 24/7 and you certainly cant expect them to be on in enough numbers to deal with this. 24hrs is not that much to ask and if you do need something up fast you can just use a POS Citadel worm hole tax
Porus Kurvora Phoenix Enterprise Inc Guardians of the Morrigan 8	Posted - 2016.04.12 23:40:18 - [453] - Quote John Hand wrote: And I have said also, if you Live in your space you shouldn't miss it, and if you so happen to miss it, then its your own damn fault. The rest of eve should not be punished for your own stupidity. 24 hours is reasonable. It's long enough to create risk for the group deploying it in any location and long enough for the locals to plan on defending their space and contesting the deployment. It will bring fights I'm sure, and it should. 24 hours is reasonable. Citadels are hard to kill and take a minimum amount of time to destroy once they are deployed. This will benefit the owner greatly. After the 24 hour timer the Citadel will be vulnerable to attack with only hull HP. Anyone contesting the deployment of this Citadel has that window of opportunity to make their move. A quicker invulnerability time would hurt the people who would contest and greatly favor the group deploying it. There would be less risk owning the structure. 24 hours is reasonable. The risk is adequately balanced at 24 hours. 24 hours is reasonable. [PNXE] Phoenix Enterprise Inc. CEO Check out our website We are recruiting!
John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.04.13 01:48:17 - [454] - Quote Porus Kurvora wrote: John Hand wrote: And I have said also, if you Live in your space you shouldn't miss it, and if you so happen to miss it, then its your own damn fault. The rest of eve should not be punished for your own stupidity. 24 hours is reasonable. It's long enough to create risk for the group deploying it in any location and long enough for the locals to plan on defending their space and contesting the deployment. It will bring fights I'm sure, and it should. 24 hours is reasonable. Citadels are hard to kill and take a minimum amount of time to destroy once they are deployed. This will benefit the owner greatly. After the 24 hour timer the Citadel will be vulnerable to attack with only hull HP. Anyone contesting the deployment of this Citadel has that window of opportunity to make their move. A quicker invulnerability time would hurt the people who would contest and greatly favor the group deploying it. There would be less risk owning the structure. 24 hours is reasonable. The risk is adequately balanced at 24 hours. 24 hours is reasonable. NOT FOR THE SMALLER CITS! Yes its reasonable for the XL cit, but by no means is it fine for the Medium or the Large. Both of those cits are very easy to push down, hell the medium alone can be taken down a single dread, or a small gang during both its deployment time AND vulnerable window. When someone goes to put own down, they better be ready to be up for nearly 24hours to DEFEND its deployment, and that is just not worth it for something like the smaller cits that have FAR less HP (and thus a lower DPS cap too) to chew through. I am not talking about the XL cit, I am talking about the Medium and Large cits that have 1/2 and 1/4th the HP of the XL. 24hr is too ******* long for those smaller cits. Might I also remind you that these are meant to replace POS's, especially the Medium cit which is aimed at the smaller corp/solo player. I have time and again suggested PROPER anchor times that REASONABLY fit with the size of the cit and its resulting defense capabilities. As well as the ease of destruction of said cit, even at 6 hours for a medium, that gives an ACTIVE alliance plenty of time to find out about it (HINT: ALLIANCE WIDE NOTIFICATION) and form something to take it out. It also allows the Solo Player to plant a Cit somewhere for his own purposes, aka like a Solo Pos for Reactions/compression ect. Without having to sit there waiting for it, or dropping it, going to bed, and waking up wondering if his cit lived or was killed by a roaming gang. These things are a fairly large investment, the Large and XL cits are aimed at Alliances or Large Corps (or Corps with Caps), The 12 and 24 HR timers are fine for such things, as an ALLIANCE or a Corp can stand guard by it. No one is going to drop a Large or XL in enemy space since those things cannot fit in industrial (large can only fit in a JF or bigger, and XL is Freighter only), unless they already are winning a war/need a new staging area to progress a war.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1976	Posted - 2016.04.13 01:50:53 - [455] - Quote John Hand wrote: Porus Kurvora wrote: John Hand wrote: And I have said also, if you Live in your space you shouldn't miss it, and if you so happen to miss it, then its your own damn fault. The rest of eve should not be punished for your own stupidity. 24 hours is reasonable. It's long enough to create risk for the group deploying it in any location and long enough for the locals to plan on defending their space and contesting the deployment. It will bring fights I'm sure, and it should. 24 hours is reasonable. Citadels are hard to kill and take a minimum amount of time to destroy once they are deployed. This will benefit the owner greatly. After the 24 hour timer the Citadel will be vulnerable to attack with only hull HP. Anyone contesting the deployment of this Citadel has that window of opportunity to make their move. A quicker invulnerability time would hurt the people who would contest and greatly favor the group deploying it. There would be less risk owning the structure. 24 hours is reasonable. The risk is adequately balanced at 24 hours. 24 hours is reasonable. NOT FOR THE SMALLER CITS! Yes its reasonable for the XL cit, but by no means is it fine for the Medium or the Large. Both of those cits are very easy to push down, hell the medium alone can be taken down a single dread, or a small gang during both its deployment time AND vulnerable window. When someone goes to put own down, they better be ready to be up for nearly 24hours to DEFEND its deployment, and that is just not worth it for something like the smaller cits that have FAR less HP (and thus a lower DPS cap too) to chew through. I am not talking about the XL cit, I am talking about the Medium and Large cits that have 1/2 and 1/4th the HP of the XL. 24hr is too ******* long for those smaller cits. Might I also remind you that these are meant to replace POS's, especially the Medium cit which is aimed at the smaller corp/solo player. I have time and again suggested PROPER anchor times that REASONABLY fit with the size of the cit and its resulting defense capabilities. As well as the ease of destruction of said cit, even at 6 hours for a medium, that gives an ACTIVE alliance plenty of time to find out about it (HINT: ALLIANCE WIDE NOTIFICATION) and form something to take it out. It also allows the Solo Player to plant a Cit somewhere for his own purposes, aka like a Solo Pos for Reactions/compression ect. Without having to sit there waiting for it, or dropping it, going to bed, and waking up wondering if his cit lived or was killed by a roaming gang. These things are a fairly large investment, the Large and XL cits are aimed at Alliances or Large Corps (or Corps with Caps), The 12 and 24 HR timers are fine for such things, as an ALLIANCE or a Corp can stand guard by it. No one is going to drop a Large or XL in enemy space since those things cannot fit in industrial (large can only fit in a JF or bigger, and XL is Freighter only), unless they already are winning a war/need a new staging area to progress a war. ok there HP means nothing nothing at all once even a med citadel is anchored you can't do anything to remove it FOR UP TO A WEEK why do you feel they need to be any less than 24hrs? you say its ridiculous but why? its not that long if a wait Citadel worm hole tax
Porus Kurvora Phoenix Enterprise Inc Guardians of the Morrigan 8	Posted - 2016.04.13 04:13:12 - [456] - Quote John Hand wrote: NOT FOR THE SMALLER CITS! Yes its reasonable for the XL cit, but by no means is it fine for the Medium or the Large. Both of those cits are very easy to push down, hell the medium alone can be taken down a single dread, or a small gang during both its deployment time AND vulnerable window. When someone goes to put own down, they better be ready to be up for nearly 24hours to DEFEND its deployment, and that is just not worth it for something like the smaller cits that have FAR less HP (and thus a lower DPS cap too) to chew through. I am not talking about the XL cit, I am talking about the Medium and Large cits that have 1/2 and 1/4th the HP of the XL. 24hr is too ******* long for those smaller cits. Might I also remind you that these are meant to replace POS's, especially the Medium cit which is aimed at the smaller corp/solo player. I have time and again suggested PROPER anchor times that REASONABLY fit with the size of the cit and its resulting defense capabilities. As well as the ease of destruction of said cit, even at 6 hours for a medium, that gives an ACTIVE alliance plenty of time to find out about it (HINT: ALLIANCE WIDE NOTIFICATION) and form something to take it out. It also allows the Solo Player to plant a Cit somewhere for his own purposes, aka like a Solo Pos for Reactions/compression ect. Without having to sit there waiting for it, or dropping it, going to bed, and waking up wondering if his cit lived or was killed by a roaming gang. These things are a fairly large investment, the Large and XL cits are aimed at Alliances or Large Corps (or Corps with Caps), The 12 and 24 HR timers are fine for such things, as an ALLIANCE or a Corp can stand guard by it. No one is going to drop a Large or XL in enemy space since those things cannot fit in industrial (large can only fit in a JF or bigger, and XL is Freighter only), unless they already are winning a war/need a new staging area to progress a war. You are failing to understand because you are not taking the time to read about the updates and know the context. 1. Citadels themselves will not replaces POS's. They are only the first step towards phasing out POS's. The variety of structures that will be released in the next year or two will work towards phasing POS's out. At that point we will start seeing POS's phase out completely. 2. When a Citadel is deployed (regardless of it's size) it takes 24 hours to anchor. During this entire 24 hours it is invulnerable to attack. You will not need a 24 hour around the clock fleet to defend it. 3. Once the 24 hour anchor time is complete it will then enter a vulnerable mode and can be attacked. This is when you would need to defend it if you wanted to guarantee deployment. 4. Citadels have a specific length of time it is vulnerable for depending on where it is trying to be anchored. High-sec and Null-Sec (with full indexes) will be vulnerable for 15 minutes if not attacked. Low-sec and Wormhole space will be vulnerable for 30 minutes. Finally, Null-set (with no index) 60 minutes. If it is attacked you need to stop the aggression and once stopped the repair timer will start back from 0s. 5. Damage mitigation. Each structure has a cap on the amount of DPS that can be applied to it over a specific time frame. Any damage being applied over the cap is reduced significantly or negated. This is to keep the "big guys" in "big ships" from "popping" structures. Anyone who attacks the structure will be committed to the field for a certain amount of time regardless of ship type, size, dps. This benefits the "little guys" deploying "little structures" from getting rekt. In the dev blog they gave the example of damage mitigation with a max of 4,000 DPS over a 30 second period. That means you can only do 120,000 damage to the citadel in a 30 second period. Currently on the test server the medium Citadel has 7,200,000 HP on hull. With the example damage mitigation, 7200000 hp / 4000 dps = 1800 seconds / 60 = 30 minutes to destroy. If anyone was wanting to blob the hell out of a medium citadel after the 24 hour invulnerability time, they would only be able to apply 4000 DPS and they'd have to stay on field applying damage for 30 minutes. If they bring less ships, they'll be their longer. Your fears are invalid, small citadels will still be hard to destroy at all stages including initial anchoring. 24 hours is reasonable. Here is the dev blog: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/citadels-sieges-and-you-v2/ Inform yourself. [PNXE] Phoenix Enterprise Inc. CEO Check out our website We are recruiting!
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 452	Posted - 2016.04.13 04:41:58 - [457] - 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
John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.04.13 05:23:25 - [458] - Quote Porus Kurvora wrote: You are failing to understand because you are not taking the time to read about the updates and know the context. 1. Citadels themselves will not replaces POS's. They are only the first step towards phasing out POS's. The variety of structures that will be released in the next year or two will work towards phasing POS's out. At that point we will start seeing POS's phase out completely. 2. When a Citadel is deployed (regardless of it's size) it takes 24 hours to anchor. During this entire 24 hours it is invulnerable to attack. You will not need a 24 hour around the clock fleet to defend it. 3. Once the 24 hour anchor time is complete it will then enter a vulnerable mode and can be attacked. This is when you would need to defend it if you wanted to guarantee deployment. 4. Citadels have a specific length of time it is vulnerable for depending on where it is trying to be anchored. High-sec and Null-Sec (with full indexes) will be vulnerable for 15 minutes if not attacked. Low-sec and Wormhole space will be vulnerable for 30 minutes. Finally, Null-set (with no index) 60 minutes. If it is attacked you need to stop the aggression and once stopped the repair timer will start back from 0s. 5. Damage mitigation. Each structure has a cap on the amount of DPS that can be applied to it over a specific time frame. Any damage being applied over the cap is reduced significantly or negated. This is to keep the "big guys" in "big ships" from "popping" structures. Anyone who attacks the structure will be committed to the field for a certain amount of time regardless of ship type, size, dps. This benefits the "little guys" deploying "little structures" from getting rekt. In the dev blog they gave the example of damage mitigation with a max of 4,000 DPS over a 30 second period. That means you can only do 120,000 damage to the citadel in a 30 second period. Currently on the test server the medium Citadel has 7,200,000 HP on hull. With the example damage mitigation, 7200000 hp / 4000 dps = 1800 seconds / 60 = 30 minutes to destroy. If anyone was wanting to blob the hell out of a medium citadel after the 24 hour invulnerability time, they would only be able to apply 4000 DPS and they'd have to stay on field applying damage for 30 minutes. If they bring less ships, they'll be there longer. Your fears are invalid, small citadels will still be hard to destroy at all stages including initial anchoring. 24 hours is reasonable. Here is the dev blog: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/citadels-sieges-and-you-v2/ Inform yourself. Ah see that cleared a few things up. 1. I knew about the 30 min minimum time to kill/RF any sized cit because of the max DPS cap. A pair of sieged Moros's can reach the cap of the med cit without trying hard. 30min is the fastest any one cit can be killed/RF'ed, the more ships you bring the better you can stay at the max DPS despite taking losses from the cit. 2. They were vulnerable during there anchor time, like anything else in the game, unless that has recently changed, I have seen nothing else to suggest they are Invulnerable during there anchor time. Unless CCP is going to change slandered game mechanics, in which they will NEED to explain it or list it within its details. Otherwise people will assume it CAN be killed during its anchor time, much like how a POS or, well, anything that deploys 3. Yes I know this is the start of the phasing out of POS"s, and its a nice one at that, but that still doesn't mean we completely disregard game-play that EVERY EvE played is used to. 24 hr is a long ass time for ANYTHING to anchor, especially when it doesn't get adjusted based on DT, or auto build after DT like an Outpost. I would suggest that cits use that mechanic, but that could be problematic in how to code it to work right without being able to abuse it. 4. The fears of enemies dropping a cit in your space are unfounded at best, hell like I said many times, enemies already do that with POS's. If Cits remain vulnerable during there anchor time, then this becomes a null/mute point and we go back to 24hr being too long for the medium cit.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2019	Posted - 2016.04.13 05:29:39 - [459] - Quote John Hand wrote: Porus Kurvora wrote: You are failing to understand because you are not taking the time to read about the updates and know the context. 1. Citadels themselves will not replaces POS's. They are only the first step towards phasing out POS's. The variety of structures that will be released in the next year or two will work towards phasing POS's out. At that point we will start seeing POS's phase out completely. 2. When a Citadel is deployed (regardless of it's size) it takes 24 hours to anchor. During this entire 24 hours it is invulnerable to attack. You will not need a 24 hour around the clock fleet to defend it. 3. Once the 24 hour anchor time is complete it will then enter a vulnerable mode and can be attacked. This is when you would need to defend it if you wanted to guarantee deployment. 4. Citadels have a specific length of time it is vulnerable for depending on where it is trying to be anchored. High-sec and Null-Sec (with full indexes) will be vulnerable for 15 minutes if not attacked. Low-sec and Wormhole space will be vulnerable for 30 minutes. Finally, Null-set (with no index) 60 minutes. If it is attacked you need to stop the aggression and once stopped the repair timer will start back from 0s. 5. Damage mitigation. Each structure has a cap on the amount of DPS that can be applied to it over a specific time frame. Any damage being applied over the cap is reduced significantly or negated. This is to keep the "big guys" in "big ships" from "popping" structures. Anyone who attacks the structure will be committed to the field for a certain amount of time regardless of ship type, size, dps. This benefits the "little guys" deploying "little structures" from getting rekt. In the dev blog they gave the example of damage mitigation with a max of 4,000 DPS over a 30 second period. That means you can only do 120,000 damage to the citadel in a 30 second period. Currently on the test server the medium Citadel has 7,200,000 HP on hull. With the example damage mitigation, 7200000 hp / 4000 dps = 1800 seconds / 60 = 30 minutes to destroy. If anyone was wanting to blob the hell out of a medium citadel after the 24 hour invulnerability time, they would only be able to apply 4000 DPS and they'd have to stay on field applying damage for 30 minutes. If they bring less ships, they'll be there longer. Your fears are invalid, small citadels will still be hard to destroy at all stages including initial anchoring. 24 hours is reasonable. Here is the dev blog: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/citadels-sieges-and-you-v2/ Inform yourself. Ah see that cleared a few things up. 1. I knew about the 30 min minimum time to kill/RF any sized cit because of the max DPS cap. A pair of sieged Moros's can reach the cap of the med cit without trying hard. 30min is the fastest any one cit can be killed/RF'ed, the more ships you bring the better you can stay at the max DPS despite taking losses from the cit. 2. They were vulnerable during there anchor time, like anything else in the game, unless that has recently changed, I have seen nothing else to suggest they are Invulnerable during there anchor time. Unless CCP is going to change slandered game mechanics, in which they will NEED to explain it or list it within its details. Otherwise people will assume it CAN be killed during its anchor time, much like how a POS or, well, anything that deploys 3. Yes I know this is the start of the phasing out of POS"s, and its a nice one at that, but that still doesn't mean we completely disregard game-play that EVERY EvE played is used to. 24 hr is a long ass time for ANYTHING to anchor, especially when it doesn't get adjusted based on DT, or auto build after DT like an Outpost. I would suggest that cits use that mechanic, but that could be problematic in how to code it to work right without being able to abuse it. 4. The fears of enemies dropping a cit in your space are unfounded at best, hell like I said many times, enemies already do that with POS's. If Cits remain vulnerable during there anchor time, then this becomes a null/mute point and we go back to 24hr being too long for the medium cit. Even in the dev blogs they state that the citadels are invuln until anchor hits 0 at that time they ate vulnerable with only hull hp. They remain vulnerable until the repair cycle finishes. This mechanic means the ones contesting your build of the citadel have time to plan a reaction and makes sure that those setting it up get to pick the time that a contesting attack can happen Citadel worm hole tax
Porus Kurvora Phoenix Enterprise Inc Guardians of the Morrigan 9	Posted - 2016.04.13 05:42:05 - [460] - Quote John Hand wrote: Ah see that cleared a few things up. 1. I knew about the 30 min minimum time to kill/RF any sized cit because of the max DPS cap. A pair of sieged Moros's can reach the cap of the med cit without trying hard. 30min is the fastest any one cit can be killed/RF'ed, the more ships you bring the better you can stay at the max DPS despite taking losses from the cit. 2. They were vulnerable during there anchor time, like anything else in the game, unless that has recently changed, I have seen nothing else to suggest they are Invulnerable during there anchor time. Unless CCP is going to change slandered game mechanics, in which they will NEED to explain it or list it within its details. Otherwise people will assume it CAN be killed during its anchor time, much like how a POS or, well, anything that deploys 3. Yes I know this is the start of the phasing out of POS"s, and its a nice one at that, but that still doesn't mean we completely disregard game-play that EVERY EvE played is used to. 24 hr is a long ass time for ANYTHING to anchor, especially when it doesn't get adjusted based on DT, or auto build after DT like an Outpost. I would suggest that cits use that mechanic, but that could be problematic in how to code it to work right without being able to abuse it. 4. The fears of enemies dropping a cit in your space are unfounded at best, hell like I said many times, enemies already do that with POS's. If Cits remain vulnerable during there anchor time, then this becomes a null/mute point and we go back to 24hr being too long for the medium cit. So based on the dev blog the anchoring mechanic will be different for Citadels than other structures. The game is always developing so anything can change when they decide it's time. And when POS's are phased out the old mechanic won't be there (same for outposts). POS's and Outposts will be phased out at some point. I do agree 24 hours is a long time because "I want my CItadel up NOW!" (lol) but it's definitely a fair time so everyone involved has a chance to prepare for a fight. It's different gameplay and somewhat forces an competitive interaction. EVE is a PvP game after all. I would be pretty upset if it would auto-deploy after downtime. That would kill the gameplay CCP is most likely trying to invent with the new mechanics. One thing CCP has said in the recent past is that they don't want people to feel like they have to play the game so very often in order to enjoy specific parts of gameplay. Part of that is not expecting people to be on at all times during the day. This is why 24 hours seems fair. Most people log in at least once within 24 hours to be able to see something worth contesting. A shorter time seems like it could be easily missed or more likely someone will be unable to plan/react to it. That's my thought on why 24 hours is completely reasonable. [PNXE] Phoenix Enterprise Inc. CEO Check out our website We are recruiting!

Siigari Kitawa Delta Laroth Industries 406	Posted - 2016.04.13 06:45:00 - [461] - Quote Are there racial citadels? Can a Rorqual/Orca dock at medium and/or Large citadels? Need stuff moved? Push Industries will handle it. Serving highsec, lowsec and nullsec - and we do it faster and more reliably than anyone else. Ingame channel: PUSHX
Lugh Crow-Slave 2021	Posted - 2016.04.13 06:50:13 - [462] - Quote Siigari Kitawa wrote: Are there racial citadels? Can a Rorqual/Orca dock at medium and/or Large citadels? There are no racial Rorquals need large orca can dock in any Citadel worm hole tax
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 452	Posted - 2016.04.13 15:11:03 - [463] - 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.
Ograst Faluum Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2016.04.13 16:56:55 - [464] - Quote Will there be citadels and modules seeded in the market with the release or will only blueprints find their way to Tranquility?
Jerppu3 Solar Vista. The Anubis Accord 6	Posted - 2016.04.13 17:09:32 - [465] - Quote 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? Blueprints
Lugh Crow-Slave 2060	Posted - 2016.04.13 17:48:19 - [466] - Quote 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 Citadel worm hole tax
Circumstantial Evidence 299	Posted - 2016.04.13 20:21:48 - [467] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Ograst Faluum wrote: Will there be citadels and modules seeded in the market with the release or will only blueprints find their way to Tranquility? I word of said that's a dumb question and ccp prides itself on everything built by players. Dailies make this a valid question now "Double SP weekend! Top 5 ActivityPoints earners win free Astrahus! Top 10 win _____!!! Tell a friend and log in today!" [EVE Dailies: please no.]
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 453	Posted - 2016.04.13 22:02:40 - [468] - 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!"
Lugh Crow-Slave 2066	Posted - 2016.04.13 22:54:30 - [469] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: 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!" tweet #EVEONLINESP for a chance to win 2M sp Citadel worm hole tax
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 385	Posted - 2016.04.14 00:05:56 - [470] - Quote I had anchored an Astrahus 44 hours ago. I came back today and noticed that the Astrahus was anchored, but the initial repair mode post anchoring did not start until I logged in. The system I anchored the Astrahus is in CY-ZP. I doubt that anyone entered the system between the time it anchored and the time I logged in so it is likely that the repair cycle is not occurring unless the node is loaded? This will be an issue if the Citadel's repair cycle is not active until someone enters the system/triggers the node the system is on, to load. Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Gigiarc Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 10	Posted - 2016.04.14 01:12:39 - [471] - Quote Are there any special factors affecting the anchor time for citadels? I just threw out an XL and L in nullsec, and both are showing 6 days on the anchoring timers.
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 55	Posted - 2016.04.14 02:12:40 - [472] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: We will be monitoring this thread regularly, even if we are not replying, we will be reading the posts so please give us all the feedback you have. Go forth and build, Game of Drones. Found another bug for you. I am going to farm rats in my Citadel tomorrow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPkF48qKT30
Lugh Crow-Slave 2078	Posted - 2016.04.14 05:15:31 - [473] - Quote Gigiarc wrote: Are there any special factors affecting the anchor time for citadels? I just threw out an XL and L in nullsec, and both are showing 6 days on the anchoring timers. you broke something they should only be 24 Citadel worm hole tax

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 342	Posted - 2016.04.14 08:51:29 - [474] - Quote Destiny Dain2 wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: We will be monitoring this thread regularly, even if we are not replying, we will be reading the posts so please give us all the feedback you have. Go forth and build, Game of Drones. Found another bug for you. I am going to farm rats in my Citadel tomorrow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPkF48qKT30 Totally a bug and thanks for the video :) Did you also submit a bug report about this issue? As much as we do read the forums we do sometimes miss a post here or there, and sometimes can go a couple days without reading the forums, but we are checking the bug reports every day and would easier find your issue. My apologies if you have already submitted a bug report, I just happened to check here first. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones


CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 342	Posted - 2016.04.14 08:55:47 - [475] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Gigiarc wrote: Are there any special factors affecting the anchor time for citadels? I just threw out an XL and L in nullsec, and both are showing 6 days on the anchoring timers. you broke something they should only be 24 What did you put the vulnerability time at could that be messing with it? Sooo we did make a change for NS, which I think we announced in a devblog a while ago. If you try to anchor a Citadel in NS space you do not own, you will be subject to an anchoring penalty of 1 day per strategic index Strategic 0 = 24 hour per normal Strategic 1 = 48 hour anchor etc etc Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 55	Posted - 2016.04.14 09:32:22 - [476] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Destiny Dain2 wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: We will be monitoring this thread regularly, even if we are not replying, we will be reading the posts so please give us all the feedback you have. Go forth and build, Game of Drones. Found another bug for you. I am going to farm rats in my Citadel tomorrow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPkF48qKT30 Totally a bug and thanks for the video :) Did you also submit a bug report about this issue? As much as we do read the forums we do sometimes miss a post here or there, and sometimes can go a couple days without reading the forums, but we are checking the bug reports every day and would easier find your issue. My apologies if you have already submitted a bug report, I just happened to check here first. No, but will attempt to right now. This bug was not as simple as clearing a belt and placing a Citadel. The Citadel was red until I did what I did (Your ears only so nobody runs out and does this) and now I can turn a red Citadel green around a gate. Hopefully there is room to explain this.
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 55	Posted - 2016.04.14 10:32:22 - [477] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Destiny Dain2 wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: We will be monitoring this thread regularly, even if we are not replying, we will be reading the posts so please give us all the feedback you have. Go forth and build, Game of Drones. Found another bug for you. I am going to farm rats in my Citadel tomorrow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPkF48qKT30 Totally a bug and thanks for the video :) Did you also submit a bug report about this issue? As much as we do read the forums we do sometimes miss a post here or there, and sometimes can go a couple days without reading the forums, but we are checking the bug reports every day and would easier find your issue. My apologies if you have already submitted a bug report, I just happened to check here first. Just sent the bug report under my alt (Dark Phoenixx) incase you go to look for it to see what I did.
Samsara Nolte Random Thinking Union Random Thinking 39	Posted - 2016.04.14 19:01:27 - [478] - Quote How are we supposed to build large and xl -citadels in Low-class wormholes ? it was mentioned that will be possible - but as i-¦m told there is no POS-array that let-¦s you build any of the structure components let alone the citadel and given the volume of those components flying them inside low-class womrholes is out of the question because no ship with enough cargo space can pass any of the connections those wh-¦s have. A clarification of this would be appreciated.
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 55	Posted - 2016.04.14 19:48:12 - [479] - Quote Samsara Nolte wrote: How are we supposed to build large and xl -citadels in Low-class wormholes ? it was mentioned that will be possible - but as i-¦m told there is no POS-array that let-¦s you build any of the structure components let alone the citadel and given the volume of those components flying them inside low-class womrholes is out of the question because no ship with enough cargo space can pass any of the connections those wh-¦s have. A clarification of this would be appreciated. Here is a quick video on Citadel construction. If you have any questions beyond this point, do not hesitate to ask. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogk2C5pj3rU After today I am heading back into Wormholes to do some more testing if there is something you want me to test while I'm there.
Crazy KSK Tsunami Cartel 109	Posted - 2016.04.14 23:11:19 - [480] - Quote did some weapon testing today with a fully rigged keepstar and the main thing I noticed is that everything it sends out be it missiles boms or fighters are incredibly slow, too slow, they absolutely need more missile bomb and fighter velocity 300% seems like a good start, it takes for ever till bomb reaches a target 250km away from a keepstar by that time I can fire 8 bombs total like what the hell other then that I noticed that the signature radius of large missiles is messed up Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2090	Posted - 2016.04.14 23:26:40 - [481] - Quote Destiny Dain2 wrote: Samsara Nolte wrote: How are we supposed to build large and xl -citadels in Low-class wormholes ? it was mentioned that will be possible - but as i-¦m told there is no POS-array that let-¦s you build any of the structure components let alone the citadel and given the volume of those components flying them inside low-class womrholes is out of the question because no ship with enough cargo space can pass any of the connections those wh-¦s have. A clarification of this would be appreciated. Here is a quick video on Citadel construction. If you have any questions beyond this point, do not hesitate to ask. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogk2C5pj3rU After today I am heading back into Wormholes to do some more testing if there is something you want me to test while I'm there. is it the EAA that is also used to build the components or is that the CAA? Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2090	Posted - 2016.04.14 23:29:39 - [482] - Quote Now Mr. CCP Claymore its not nice to play with a girls heart i saw the compression option was removed from my citadel could it be you are changing it to have a different role and tax to refining? EDIT: along the same lines we noticed that the refining rigs only take effect if you are controlling the citadel Citadel worm hole tax
Circumstantial Evidence 300	Posted - 2016.04.15 02:07:56 - [483] - Quote Crazy KSK wrote: did some weapon testing today with a fully rigged keepstar and the main thing I noticed is that everything it sends out be it missiles boms or fighters are incredibly slow, too slow, they absolutely need more missile bomb and fighter velocity 300% seems like a good start, it takes for ever till bomb reaches a target 250km away from a keepstar by that time I can fire 8 bombs total like what the hell other then that I noticed that the signature radius of large missiles is messed up I think the speeds may be OK, I think some of the perception of slowness comes from 100-200km flight distances. Structure bombs have the same velocity as stealth bomber-bombs, with the added advantage that they follow targets. I agree signature balance still needs a look: Explo Radius on Standup AM guided bomb is 150, should be pushed up closer to 400 like stealth bomber-bombs. As it is, one shot nearly crushes an interceptor with MWD off (if it doesn't simply try to outrun the bomb,) removing any desire to use the AS guided bomb. Citadel Fighters: Would like a "reconnect to lost fighters" option, same as we have for ships. If control is released while fighters are in space, they are currently abandoned / lost.
Jerppu3 Solar Vista. The Anubis Accord 6	Posted - 2016.04.15 06:17:31 - [484] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Now Mr. CCP Claymore its not nice to play with a girls heart i saw the compression option was removed from my citadel could it be you are changing it to have a different role and tax to refining? Oh PLEASE... CCP you can do it!

CCP Claymore C C P C C P Alliance 344	Posted - 2016.04.15 09:14:45 - [485] - Quote Jerppu3 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Now Mr. CCP Claymore its not nice to play with a girls heart i saw the compression option was removed from my citadel could it be you are changing it to have a different role and tax to refining? Oh PLEASE... CCP you can do it! Sorry, sounds like a bug or your permissions being revoked on the service. Quality Assurance Analyst Team Game of Drones

Lugh Crow-Slave 2119	Posted - 2016.04.15 09:20:12 - [486] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Jerppu3 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Now Mr. CCP Claymore its not nice to play with a girls heart i saw the compression option was removed from my citadel could it be you are changing it to have a different role and tax to refining? Oh PLEASE... CCP you can do it! Sorry, sounds like a bug or your permissions being revoked on the service. q.q just a bug then i was refining fine the rig things is also bugged >.> i still want to know how we are supposed to make isk off these if we can't practically tax refining or docking Citadel worm hole tax
PAPULA Black Aces I N F A M O U S 90	Posted - 2016.04.15 19:37:51 - [487] - Quote So how do i setup citadel so that everyone can use a service / dock ? I used a new profile i created which i added public to the profile and i set my citadel to use it. Still people can't dock.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2140	Posted - 2016.04.15 22:36:25 - [488] - Quote since we have not heard anything i'm assuming alliance logos will not be on the citadels in the first release rather it seems a place holder image is projected instead but is this still the plan or did it prove to hard to implement like logos on ships? EDIT: also the adds in the citadels are very cool and you have outdone yourselves but any chance the citadel owner can toggle these. you know i may not want grr goons propaganda in my citadel. something like Off>alliance logo>corp logo>owners portrait(my narcissistical favorite)>adds>random Citadel worm hole tax
Crazy KSK Tsunami Cartel 109	Posted - 2016.04.15 22:47:36 - [489] - Quote 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 Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2141	Posted - 2016.04.15 22:53:28 - [490] - 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 to be fair that fighter issue is not unique to citadels even the nids fighters get popped if they need to kill anything beyond 40-50km Citadel worm hole tax

Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 459	Posted - 2016.04.15 23:30:00 - [491] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2141	Posted - 2016.04.15 23:32:23 - [492] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: 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. or the missile speed can just be moved to a more practical number Citadel worm hole tax
Regan Rotineque The Scope Gallente Federation 389	Posted - 2016.04.16 06:23:33 - [493] - Quote Where can I see the Tax Rates charged by a foreign Citadel ? Also it would be nice to have a description for the Citadel not just the "info" on the type of citadel that it is. Perhaps I could write something to entice people to visit - or list the services/taxes that are available. I set the tax rate on the one I put up and made it 1% - however alts I have were not able to see the tax rate - I tried to hover over when i reprocessed but it did not show anything. Also what is the tax rate based on ? Is is the refined minerals content ? Is it the raw ore ? And where is it pulling this data - ie: is it Jita mean - regional pricing? I was trying to figure out what the calculation was using and was at a complete loss. Cheers ~R~
Lugh Crow-Slave 2144	Posted - 2016.04.16 06:26:55 - [494] - Quote Regan Rotineque wrote: Where can I see the Tax Rates charged by a foreign Citadel ? Also it would be nice to have a description for the Citadel not just the "info" on the type of citadel that it is. Perhaps I could write something to entice people to visit - or list the services/taxes that are available. I set the tax rate on the one I put up and made it 1% - however alts I have were not able to see the tax rate - I tried to hover over when i reprocessed but it did not show anything. Also what is the tax rate based on ? Is is the refined minerals content ? Is it the raw ore ? And where is it pulling this data - ie: is it Jita mean - regional pricing? I was trying to figure out what the calculation was using and was at a complete loss. Cheers ~R~ its minerals and from jita one of the reason isk tax is bad is that the true tax constantly changes with the market considering how bad est v is for ganging price with minerals 10% of the trit from veld is always 10% of the trit Citadel worm hole tax
Regan Rotineque The Scope Gallente Federation 389	Posted - 2016.04.16 06:29:11 - [495] - Quote I am unable to 'give' or 'trade' with any alts inside the citadel. I noted in reading through the previous posts that this was something that would not be working or available to start. It will be rather annoying in null to not be able to trade/give items to colleagues in other corps if we are using these as stations. I will have no ability to transfer a ship or give a module to a friend or alt unless they are in same corp. I hope that this is prioritized as I can see this being rather important feature moving forward.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2144	Posted - 2016.04.16 06:38:42 - [496] - Quote Regan Rotineque wrote: I am unable to 'give' or 'trade' with any alts inside the citadel. I noted in reading through the previous posts that this was something that would not be working or available to start. It will be rather annoying in null to not be able to trade/give items to colleagues in other corps if we are using these as stations. I will have no ability to transfer a ship or give a module to a friend or alt unless they are in same corp. I hope that this is prioritized as I can see this being rather important feature moving forward. unless its the same system contracts are a far bigger priority if ccp wants these to be used as markets hauling contracts are a necessity Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2149	Posted - 2016.04.16 09:33:00 - [497] - Quote so are trade hubs going to be off limits for citadels currently you get an error telling you they can not be placed in such systems Citadel worm hole tax
John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.04.16 10:02:34 - [498] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: so are trade hubs going to be off limits for citadels currently you get an error telling you they can not be placed in such systems I would certainly hope so. I also hope the anchor restrictions get changed/added to be 1AU from any Gate as well, otherwise high sec is gonna be ******** with so many cits near gates.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2149	Posted - 2016.04.16 10:11:43 - [499] - Quote John Hand wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: so are trade hubs going to be off limits for citadels currently you get an error telling you they can not be placed in such systems I would certainly hope so. I also hope the anchor restrictions get changed/added to be 1AU from any Gate as well, otherwise high sec is gonna be ******** with so many cits near gates. i agree with the trade hub but whats wrong with the gate? Citadel worm hole tax
John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.04.16 11:56:22 - [500] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: John Hand wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: so are trade hubs going to be off limits for citadels currently you get an error telling you they can not be placed in such systems I would certainly hope so. I also hope the anchor restrictions get changed/added to be 1AU from any Gate as well, otherwise high sec is gonna be ******** with so many cits near gates. i agree with the trade hub but whats wrong with the gate? Lag/performance reasons. They are beautiful things but that comes at the cost of FPS if too many get on grid at once. Same thing for even out in space, the 1000km from another cit is a bit too close as well, maybe .5au would be good? I would otherwise suggest a limit be placed on how many can be on grid with one another, this would solve FPS issues while near so many, as well as address exploitation issues of having so many in such close proximity from one another.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2150	Posted - 2016.04.16 12:21:57 - [501] - Quote John Hand wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: John Hand wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: so are trade hubs going to be off limits for citadels currently you get an error telling you they can not be placed in such systems I would certainly hope so. I also hope the anchor restrictions get changed/added to be 1AU from any Gate as well, otherwise high sec is gonna be ******** with so many cits near gates. i agree with the trade hub but whats wrong with the gate? Lag/performance reasons. They are beautiful things but that comes at the cost of FPS if too many get on grid at once. Same thing for even out in space, the 1000km from another cit is a bit too close as well, maybe .5au would be good? I would otherwise suggest a limit be placed on how many can be on grid with one another, this would solve FPS issues while near so many, as well as address exploitation issues of having so many in such close proximity from one another. Hmm maybe it's already hard to get more than 6 on the same grid and I have had no issue rendering that many. But if the issue is there a grid limit would be better if kind of like the idea of having a little city on one grid once the other structures are out Citadel worm hole tax
Phoenix4264 Reasonable People Of Sound Mind 2	Posted - 2016.04.16 15:45:12 - [502] - Quote Regan Rotineque wrote: I am unable to 'give' or 'trade' with any alts inside the citadel. I noted in reading through the previous posts that this was something that would not be working or available to start. It will be rather annoying in null to not be able to trade/give items to colleagues in other corps if we are using these as stations. I will have no ability to transfer a ship or give a module to a friend or alt unless they are in same corp. I hope that this is prioritized as I can see this being rather important feature moving forward. You can use the new Deliveries Hangar in citadels to trade items. Select the items in your main inventory, right click and select "Deliver To". This will bring up a window to select the recipient, either from your contacts or a search box. The items will be placed in their Deliveries hangar to be collected. The recipient does not need to be online.
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 56	Posted - 2016.04.16 16:39:34 - [503] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Destiny Dain2 wrote: Samsara Nolte wrote: How are we supposed to build large and xl -citadels in Low-class wormholes ? it was mentioned that will be possible - but as i-¦m told there is no POS-array that let-¦s you build any of the structure components let alone the citadel and given the volume of those components flying them inside low-class womrholes is out of the question because no ship with enough cargo space can pass any of the connections those wh-¦s have. A clarification of this would be appreciated. Here is a quick video on Citadel construction. If you have any questions beyond this point, do not hesitate to ask. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogk2C5pj3rU After today I am heading back into Wormholes to do some more testing if there is something you want me to test while I'm there. is it the EAA that is also used to build the components or is that the CAA? I quickly made this video up to help answer that question. There are a couple different things to be aware of on the modules and rigs and that, but all very simple. Citadel Production - Weapons, Ammo, Rigs and Drones are covered in here.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2150	Posted - 2016.04.16 16:59:24 - [504] - Quote Destiny Dain2 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Destiny Dain2 wrote: Samsara Nolte wrote: How are we supposed to build large and xl -citadels in Low-class wormholes ? it was mentioned that will be possible - but as i-¦m told there is no POS-array that let-¦s you build any of the structure components let alone the citadel and given the volume of those components flying them inside low-class womrholes is out of the question because no ship with enough cargo space can pass any of the connections those wh-¦s have. A clarification of this would be appreciated. Here is a quick video on Citadel construction. If you have any questions beyond this point, do not hesitate to ask. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogk2C5pj3rU After today I am heading back into Wormholes to do some more testing if there is something you want me to test while I'm there. is it the EAA that is also used to build the components or is that the CAA? I quickly made this video up to help answer that question. There are a couple different things to be aware of on the modules and rigs and that, but all very simple. Citadel Production - Weapons, Ammo, Rigs and Drones are covered in here. Lol that was all modules and ammo I was asking about components what do I use to build the parts used to build the citadels I would rather not haul a large worth of components. Citadel worm hole tax
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 56	Posted - 2016.04.16 18:49:04 - [505] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Destiny Dain2 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Destiny Dain2 wrote: Samsara Nolte wrote: How are we supposed to build large and xl -citadels in Low-class wormholes ? it was mentioned that will be possible - but as i-¦m told there is no POS-array that let-¦s you build any of the structure components let alone the citadel and given the volume of those components flying them inside low-class womrholes is out of the question because no ship with enough cargo space can pass any of the connections those wh-¦s have. A clarification of this would be appreciated. Here is a quick video on Citadel construction. If you have any questions beyond this point, do not hesitate to ask. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogk2C5pj3rU After today I am heading back into Wormholes to do some more testing if there is something you want me to test while I'm there. is it the EAA that is also used to build the components or is that the CAA? I quickly made this video up to help answer that question. There are a couple different things to be aware of on the modules and rigs and that, but all very simple. Citadel Production - Weapons, Ammo, Rigs and Drones are covered in here. Lol that was all modules and ammo I was asking about components what do I use to build the parts used to build the citadels I would rather not haul a large worth of components. Oh, LOL. Well if you thought that was long here is a complete listing of the components needed for each Citadel and the materials needed for those parts. http://tomseve.blogspot.com/2016/04/eve-online-citadel-production-structure.html
Lugh Crow-Slave 2165	Posted - 2016.04.16 19:00:40 - [506] - Quote q.q why do you torment me I just want to know what array builds those parts Citadel worm hole tax
Destiny Dain2 Your Destiny Corporation 57	Posted - 2016.04.16 19:15:20 - [507] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: q.q why do you torment me I just want to know what array builds those parts Third time is a charm. The components that make up Citadels are done in the Component Assembly Array. At least I manage to get a couple things done I wanted to do. LOL
Lugh Crow-Slave 2167	Posted - 2016.04.16 19:18:39 - [508] - Quote Destiny Dain2 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: q.q why do you torment me I just want to know what array builds those parts Third time is a charm. The components that make up Citadels are done in the Component Assembly Array. At least I manage to get a couple things done I wanted to do. LOL Lol thank you I was beginning to think you were messing with me Citadel worm hole tax
John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.04.16 21:58:01 - [509] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: John Hand wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: John Hand wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: so are trade hubs going to be off limits for citadels currently you get an error telling you they can not be placed in such systems I would certainly hope so. I also hope the anchor restrictions get changed/added to be 1AU from any Gate as well, otherwise high sec is gonna be ******** with so many cits near gates. i agree with the trade hub but whats wrong with the gate? Lag/performance reasons. They are beautiful things but that comes at the cost of FPS if too many get on grid at once. Same thing for even out in space, the 1000km from another cit is a bit too close as well, maybe .5au would be good? I would otherwise suggest a limit be placed on how many can be on grid with one another, this would solve FPS issues while near so many, as well as address exploitation issues of having so many in such close proximity from one another. Hmm maybe it's already hard to get more than 6 on the same grid and I have had no issue rendering that many. But if the issue is there a grid limit would be better if kind of like the idea of having a little city on one grid once the other structures are out I agree for when the other buildings come out, like the Gate and the Arrays, each should be able to defend itself. If it can't then I would assume they would be able to be placed within the targeting range of the "parent" building, aka the Cit. I don't have any issue rending multiple cits as well, much less massive fleet fights (TiDi causes more "lag" then actual FPS "lag") however we still need to be conscious of people with toasters out there who still think a Core 2 Duo is a good processor (or ever was LOL) or that AMD builds good cards. Also there is the exploit side to this, having multiple on grid. means there will be over-lapping fields of fire. The XL cit can target and hit out to 750km, meaning that 1000km min anchor from one another means that they can cover each-other. This means if you plant 7 XL cits together, the center one will be unkillable and don't laugh at the price of an XL, some alliance WILL do it. Knowing the track record of Goons, I wouldn't be surprised if they did find a way to exploit the system in that way.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2172	Posted - 2016.04.16 22:29:40 - [510] - Quote John Hand wrote: I agree for when the other buildings come out, like the Gate and the Arrays, each should be able to defend itself. If it can't then I would assume they would be able to be placed within the targeting range of the "parent" building, aka the Cit. I don't have any issue rending multiple cits as well, much less massive fleet fights (TiDi causes more "lag" then actual FPS "lag") however we still need to be conscious of people with toasters out there who still think a Core 2 Duo is a good processor (or ever was LOL) or that AMD builds good cards. Also there is the exploit side to this, having multiple on grid. means there will be over-lapping fields of fire. The XL cit can target and hit out to 750km, meaning that 1000km min anchor from one another means that they can cover each-other. This means if you plant 7 XL cits together, the center one will be unkillable and don't laugh at the price of an XL, some alliance WILL do it. Knowing the track record of Goons, I wouldn't be surprised if they did find a way to exploit the system in that way. Us they do need to be spread of the ranges are overlapping ... CCP did you do your math u wrong and think you made 250km of clearance and not 350km of overlap? If that's the case you need to up the minimum to 1750km Also the amd thing they don't make ** cards Nvidia just has a near monopoly on the software used and they gimp competing cardso when a game uses that software but the effect to the user is the same as of amd did make ** cards Citadel worm hole tax

Regan Rotineque The Scope Gallente Federation 389	Posted - 2016.04.16 23:48:07 - [511] - Quote Phoenix4264 wrote: Regan Rotineque wrote: I am unable to 'give' or 'trade' with any alts inside the citadel. I noted in reading through the previous posts that this was something that would not be working or available to start. It will be rather annoying in null to not be able to trade/give items to colleagues in other corps if we are using these as stations. I will have no ability to transfer a ship or give a module to a friend or alt unless they are in same corp. I hope that this is prioritized as I can see this being rather important feature moving forward. You can use the new Deliveries Hangar in citadels to trade items. Select the items in your main inventory, right click and select "Deliver To". This will bring up a window to select the recipient, either from your contacts or a search box. The items will be placed in their Deliveries hangar to be collected. The recipient does not need to be online. Okay this sounds great - however I tried on SiSi today several times - moved things into item hanger, corp hanger, ship hanger, ship cargo/fleet cargo I have no option in the drop down to "Deliver To". I am also having an issue with not being able to sell anything on the market - I have fuel - online market hub - but no cigar....right clicking items there is no sell option just buy and view market. Im pretty sure its not a permissions issue - I can reprocess, set clones, dock and do other things, both for myself and alts and other corps that I have granted access to, just no market sell/deliver related stuff. Is there a setting or permission that needs to be granted for that to function?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2182	Posted - 2016.04.17 11:32:05 - [512] - Quote So a huge QOL thing with the rigs can they please be broken into M L and XL rather than all tossed together on the market tab Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2187	Posted - 2016.04.17 15:20:09 - [513] - Quote I noticed the citadels fuel reduction bonuse was affecting the refinery that's not right is it? Also how long is a service cycle 1hr? Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2198	Posted - 2016.04.17 21:13:58 - [514] - Quote The option to launch fighters w/o a full flight would be nice even if you have more than enough to make one. Let us stop the loading of fighters and launch immidietly Citadel worm hole tax

CCP Habakuk C C P C C P Alliance 1532	Posted - 2016.04.18 01:57:53 - [515] - Quote Regan Rotineque wrote: [snip] I am also having an issue with not being able to sell anything on the market - I have fuel - online market hub - but no cigar....right clicking items there is no sell option just buy and view market. Im pretty sure its not a permissions issue - I can reprocess, set clones, dock and do other things, both for myself and alts and other corps that I have granted access to, just no market sell/deliver related stuff. Is there a setting or permission that needs to be granted for that to function? I am not sure about delivery, but the missing sell option is a bug while being in hangar view, which will hopefully be fixed soon. The sell option shows correctly in outside view (or when controlling the citadel). CCP Habakuk \| EVE Quality Assurance \| Team Gridlock Bug reporting \| Mass Testing

Regan Rotineque The Scope Gallente Federation 391	Posted - 2016.04.18 04:37:32 - [516] - Quote CCP Habakuk wrote: Regan Rotineque wrote: [snip] I am also having an issue with not being able to sell anything on the market - I have fuel - online market hub - but no cigar....right clicking items there is no sell option just buy and view market. Im pretty sure its not a permissions issue - I can reprocess, set clones, dock and do other things, both for myself and alts and other corps that I have granted access to, just no market sell/deliver related stuff. Is there a setting or permission that needs to be granted for that to function? I am not sure about delivery, but the missing sell option is a bug while being in hangar view, which will hopefully be fixed soon. The sell option shows correctly in outside view (or when controlling the citadel). Thank you ! I thought i was going mad ... I did manage to get both the sell option and the deliver option but only if I take control of the keepstar. I was unable to get either in the hanger mode or in the outside view. In addition i found that I was having the modules for the keepstar going offline when i toggled, or the modules in my ship going offline if I was in one. Though I have not been able to reproduce it regularly....so I have not submitted it as a bug yet since I cannot pin it down. Cheers ~R~
Cebraio 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 460	Posted - 2016.04.18 10:59:53 - [517] - Quote 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. 2. Docking rights management broke. I'll write a step by step log of what I did: - built an XL citadel - when it came online and out of repair, I docked I wanted to allow docking for the alliance: - Created anew access list, that contained alliance only (not my corp) - Assigned the access list to a new profile that I applied to the citadel - I then noticed, that I could no longe assume control of the citadel (although that was part of the profile) - I undocked and could no longer redock - I set the original profile again, but that didn't change a thing. It still didn't let me in. - I created another profile and access list. This time I allowed my corp and set myself as admin. - I could dock with that profile and assume control, but a corp mate could still not dock (corporation was included) - I then deleted all custom profiles and set the original profile again. This time, it all worked for myself and my corp mate (notice I had done the same before, without luck). Sorry for not making proper bug reports. I hope you can do something with it.
Rthulhu Voynich Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2016.04.18 13:58:33 - [518] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Somebody TheGreat wrote: .... 1: Being tethered does NOT prevent being bumped out of tether range. ... 1. We are already looking into this and have some ideas in the pipeline ... I checked this out today (April 18th). Bumping a tethered ship out of tether range is still possible.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 461	Posted - 2016.04.18 20:02:57 - [519] - 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.
Vigilanta S0utherN Comfort Circle-Of-Two 113	Posted - 2016.04.18 21:35:39 - [520] - Quote CCP Claymore wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Gigiarc wrote: Are there any special factors affecting the anchor time for citadels? I just threw out an XL and L in nullsec, and both are showing 6 days on the anchoring timers. you broke something they should only be 24 What did you put the vulnerability time at could that be messing with it? Sooo we did make a change for NS, which I think we announced in a devblog a while ago. If you try to anchor a Citadel in NS space you do not own, you will be subject to an anchoring penalty of 1 day per strategic index Strategic 0 = 24 hour per normal Strategic 1 = 48 hour anchor etc etc Why not just the current restriction that is present on outposts for null space. You own it or you cant deploy it. The length of the anchor doesn't really do much for the defender other than give them more time to prep to try and kill it as soon as it finishes anchoring. Due to the power citadels represent in more or less station levels of functionality a citadel in hostile sov needs to be destructible DURING the anchor time (which I think you should feel free to shorten), or they shouldn't be able to manage the trick at all.

Trespasser S0utherN Comfort Circle-Of-Two 50	Posted - 2016.04.18 23:06:01 - [521] - Quote If you don't own the ihub in the system you anchor the citadel in, it should be vulnerable during the whole anchoring phase. If you own the ihub then it should be invulnerable during the anchoring phase. Also, in any case no matter if you own the ihub or not.. the citadel should finish its anchoring timer during the vulnerability window of the ihub in the system its anchored in This make it so if you want to anchor a citadel in someones system then its going to come out in their prime time, not yours. And if you do own the system then it comes out in your prime time so you can set everything up properly
Lugh Crow-Slave 2211	Posted - 2016.04.18 23:28:14 - [522] - Quote Trespasser wrote: If you don't own the ihub in the system you anchor the citadel in, it should be vulnerable during the whole anchoring phase. If you own the ihub then it should be invulnerable during the anchoring phase. Also, in any case no matter if you own the ihub or not.. the citadel should finish its anchoring timer during the vulnerability window of the ihub in the system its anchored in This make it so if you want to anchor a citadel in someones system then its going to come out in their prime time, not yours. And if you do own the system then it comes out in your prime time so you can set everything up properly ... expecting some one to have to guard these for well over 24hrs is a bit much they are suposed to be hard to put up in some one else's space not impossible Citadel worm hole tax
Trespasser S0utherN Comfort Circle-Of-Two 50	Posted - 2016.04.18 23:52:50 - [523] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Trespasser wrote: If you don't own the ihub in the system you anchor the citadel in, it should be vulnerable during the whole anchoring phase. If you own the ihub then it should be invulnerable during the anchoring phase. Also, in any case no matter if you own the ihub or not.. the citadel should finish its anchoring timer during the vulnerability window of the ihub in the system its anchored in This make it so if you want to anchor a citadel in someones system then its going to come out in their prime time, not yours. And if you do own the system then it comes out in your prime time so you can set everything up properly ... expecting some one to have to guard these for well over 24hrs is a bit much they are suposed to be hard to put up in some one else's space not impossible If an alliance wants to drop a citadel that costs 70 billion in hostile space, they should have to defend it. But hey im not lock into the vulnerability, but it absolutely should be required to exit anchoring during the vulnerability window of the ihub. This will force them to show up and defend it before it has a chance to get all of its defenses up.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2211	Posted - 2016.04.19 00:00:09 - [524] - Quote Trespasser wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Trespasser wrote: If you don't own the ihub in the system you anchor the citadel in, it should be vulnerable during the whole anchoring phase. If you own the ihub then it should be invulnerable during the anchoring phase. Also, in any case no matter if you own the ihub or not.. the citadel should finish its anchoring timer during the vulnerability window of the ihub in the system its anchored in This make it so if you want to anchor a citadel in someones system then its going to come out in their prime time, not yours. And if you do own the system then it comes out in your prime time so you can set everything up properly ... expecting some one to have to guard these for well over 24hrs is a bit much they are suposed to be hard to put up in some one else's space not impossible If an alliance wants to drop a citadel that costs 70 billion in hostile space, they should have to defend it. But hey im not lock into the vulnerability, but it absolutely should be required to exit anchoring during the vulnerability window of the ihub. This will force them to show up and defend it before it has a chance to get all of its defenses up. if your ADM is up it will take a week to anchor if you can't orginize people to get on then you have a bigger issue also none of them cost 70B large is 7b XL is over 100b lol Citadel worm hole tax
John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.04.19 00:22:18 - [525] - Quote Trespasser wrote: If you don't own the ihub in the system you anchor the citadel in, it should be vulnerable during the whole anchoring phase. If you own the ihub then it should be invulnerable during the anchoring phase. Also, in any case no matter if you own the ihub or not.. the citadel should finish its anchoring timer during the vulnerability window of the ihub in the system its anchored in This make it so if you want to anchor a citadel in someones system then its going to come out in their prime time, not yours. And if you do own the system then it comes out in your prime time so you can set everything up properly +1 I like this idea
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 385	Posted - 2016.04.19 03:22:19 - [526] - Quote Vigilanta wrote: CCP Claymore wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Gigiarc wrote: Are there any special factors affecting the anchor time for citadels? I just threw out an XL and L in nullsec, and both are showing 6 days on the anchoring timers. you broke something they should only be 24 What did you put the vulnerability time at could that be messing with it? Sooo we did make a change for NS, which I think we announced in a devblog a while ago. If you try to anchor a Citadel in NS space you do not own, you will be subject to an anchoring penalty of 1 day per strategic index Strategic 0 = 24 hour per normal Strategic 1 = 48 hour anchor etc etc Why not just the current restriction that is present on outposts for null space. You own it or you cant deploy it. The length of the anchor doesn't really do much for the defender other than give them more time to prep to try and kill it as soon as it finishes anchoring. Due to the power citadels represent in more or less station levels of functionality a citadel in hostile sov needs to be destructible DURING the anchor time (which I think you should feel free to shorten), or they shouldn't be able to manage the trick at all. Simpler to be aware of what is going on in your space and making plans and co-coordinating resources to blow the thing into dust by the time it exits unanchoring. It will be pretty easy to kill at that point, providing your group cares enough to kill it. Also: you can hire mercs to kill it outside your time zone if it exits then. Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
Circumstantial Evidence 304	Posted - 2016.04.20 01:15:43 - [527] - Quote Structure Guided Bomb ammo explosion radius stats have been tuned, AoE radius for damage versions is not stated (can we assume 40km based on void AoE radius?) Material requirements for building structure ammo still appear to be placeholder values; anti-capital missile req's same as sub-capital. (expectation: anti-cap missiles should cost more than sub-cap versions)
Lugh Crow-Slave 2235	Posted - 2016.04.20 01:22:28 - [528] - Quote Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Material requirements for building structure ammo still appear to be placeholder values; anti-capital missile req's same as sub-capital. (expectation: anti-cap missiles should cost more than sub-cap versions) partiicularly when you add in the sub cap launchers shoot faster Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2239	Posted - 2016.04.20 09:54:56 - [529] - Quote 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? Citadel worm hole tax
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 16	Posted - 2016.04.20 17:01:51 - [530] - Quote Played about a bit with the citadel on sisi, and i have to say the new management window is pretty nice. However the vulnerability window is a bit wierd still. If i pick an hour of vulnerability i get a second hour for free, with no explanation what that is. I guess it means if it gets attacked it will exit refo at that time? If that is so should there not be another box for the second refo? A legenda would probably help. in this view. Also why bother with giving a medium 3 hours vulnerability when basicly your saying it doesnt matter what you pick because you get more of it, at a time you probably wont be around, because its not one of the hours you said you wanted on another day. Basicly you have to plan for 3x3 hours on at least 3 days? Lastly, the view itself is bugged, when you save and reopen it shows something like -9 out of 3.

Vigilanta S0utherN Comfort Circle-Of-Two 114	Posted - 2016.04.20 21:17:12 - [531] - Quote 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.
Commissar Kate GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 405800	Posted - 2016.04.20 21:26:32 - [532] - Quote Am I missing something or is there no direct trading available in citadels? By intent or just a bug? -k8 My Fanclub
TheSmokingHertog Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium 375	Posted - 2016.04.20 22:25:28 - [533] - Quote Commissar Kate wrote: Am I missing something or is there no direct trading available in citadels? By intent or just a bug? You need to rig the citadel with a trading thingy. "Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X "Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron -= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
Lugh Crow-Slave 2250	Posted - 2016.04.20 22:27:52 - [534] - Quote TheSmokingHertog wrote: Commissar Kate wrote: Am I missing something or is there no direct trading available in citadels? By intent or just a bug? You need to rig the citadel with a trading thingy. ... there is no such thing you can not trade in citadels on release Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2250	Posted - 2016.04.20 22:32:27 - [535] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Also why bother with giving a medium 3 hours vulnerability when basicly your saying it doesnt matter what you pick because you get more of it, at a time you probably wont be around, because its not one of the hours you said you wanted on another day. Basicly you have to plan for 3x3 hours on at least 3 days? 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. Citadel worm hole tax
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 465	Posted - 2016.04.21 01:00:13 - [536] - 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.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 483	Posted - 2016.04.21 01:45:20 - [537] - Quote I have been preparing my notes on citadels but the bashing tests were held up until now because the vulnerability system was barely working, and for the first time a citadel actually became vulnerable correctly so I was able to do two stages of a bash and... to my horror, reinforced for SIX STRAIGHT DAYS. You CANNOT be serious! This isn't even a fortizar, it's an astrahus! Complete bash testing before release isn't even possible with this, never mind the insane attacker commitment and yet another disgustingly huge defender advantage.
Circumstantial Evidence 304	Posted - 2016.04.21 02:06:14 - [538] - Quote Commissar Kate wrote: Am I missing something or is there no direct trading available in citadels? By intent or just a bug? Per CCP Claymore in previous posts, No direct trading available on release, but you can right-click / Deliver items to another named player's Deliveries hanger. I'm having trouble granting admin or manager or even a new docking right, with the Access List today. A previously set access list is working all too well, allowing a member to take control of the citadel.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2256	Posted - 2016.04.21 02:47:42 - [539] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: I have been preparing my notes on citadels but the bashing tests were held up until now because the vulnerability system was barely working, and for the first time a citadel actually became vulnerable correctly so I was able to do two stages of a bash and... to my horror, reinforced for SIX STRAIGHT DAYS. You CANNOT be serious! This isn't even a fortizar, it's an astrahus! Complete bash testing before release isn't even possible with this, never mind the insane attacker commitment and yet another disgustingly huge defender advantage. To be fair the function of these is asset defence so they are supposed to take a huge commitment to siege. The ones coming out in the future will be much easier. 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 Citadel worm hole tax
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 483	Posted - 2016.04.21 06:45:34 - [540] - Quote 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.

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]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.