Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
443
|
Posted - 2017.07.19 13:04:54 -
[31] - Quote
they problem with cleaning it up is it takes a week to due it thanks to the non-fuel consuming 2 timers we get to have. also if theres no point in having a citadel in empire, there was never a reason to have a pos.
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
Spookyjay
Air The Initiative.
8
|
Posted - 2017.07.19 13:49:55 -
[32] - Quote
Yea maybe its about time people started yelling in public. Especially the CSM. The CSM was created to stop ridiculous development choices and get the wish of the players across. Instead its become a bureaucratic crap heap full of players with their own agendas that actually probably holds up some development. Fopr example. The NC guy who wants to nerf mjd's. Literally the 1 thing that has made a change to the landscape of the battlefield in years. And he wants it removed because it hurts the blob. He should be kicked off CSM for that. it's entirely negative as breaking the blob should be one of CCP top priorities as its literally the stagnation that will slowly kill this game.
The Sov system is the other part of that stagnation. NOTHING is worth fighting for. Citadels are destroying tactical gameplay and fozzy sov is true cancer. a growing festering lump at the core of this games mechanics. IT IS TIME PEOPLE SHOUT AND SCREAM IN PUBLIC. Because it seems to be the only way CCP realise something needs fixing immediately. Players shouting and screaming in public are like EVE signs of illness. CCP heavy handed forum moderation and CSM have effectively killed EVE being able to show it's developers something is wrong and it is ill. |
Peta Chieve
White Partyhat Headquarters
4
|
Posted - 2017.07.21 08:49:37 -
[33] - Quote
I think an interesting way to fix this issue aswell as balance cits would be to introduce a mechanic that links cit capacitor, fuel and rf timers.
Here's how, Citadels have a set amount of cap that they need to have in reserves, in order to go into reinforced mode, say 35%. If the structure is below that value when the attacking force breaches the shields, armor or hull, the citadel does not go into rf. This means citadels cannot spam bombs and webs relentlessly without some sort of trade off. Then make it so that if a structure runs out of fuel, it cannot regen it's cap at all and sits at 0 until refueled. Through this, structures that are unfueled can be ground down in the same way that offline towers can be. Then make it so that structures destroyed without fuel in them, drop all the loot within it.
Proud CEO of White Partyhat Trading Company
To contact us, feel free to join our discord: White Partyhat Trading Company
|
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
228
|
Posted - 2017.07.21 09:34:35 -
[34] - Quote
If you give them a fuel burn it's also a good idea to have similar to current POS mechanics.
Where if the fuel runs out you can blow it up in one go and don't need 3 reinforcement timers. |
Ebony Texas
The Knights Armada Sev3rance
82
|
Posted - 2017.07.21 15:25:57 -
[35] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Spookyjay wrote:GIVE THEM FREAKING FUEL BURN. honest to god. I do wonder if the devs and half of CSM even play this game any more. Im pretty sure they just think they do. But they spend so much time in bureaucratic talking about this game they don't really. tbh, this is something I've suggested. Please don't assume that we're not talking to CCP about things just because we're not yelling about something in public. Though the fuel burn I'd prefer isn't a flat cost. it's a minimum. So if you're running services, it doesn't increase your costs. Just sets a minimum.
Steve,
Seriously dude I know you work hard on the csm, but seriously the citadel deployment and its issues have been incredibly denied.. there should have been standings requirements to deploy in high sec.. I don't know what in living hell ccp fozz-bird was thinking to allow this mess but seriously...something has to be done.
its also totally bullchit to be able to deploy a fawking citadel in sov owned null sec without being part of an alliance as well.
you and your peers have failed us all.. |
Spookyjay
Air The Initiative.
10
|
Posted - 2017.07.21 15:58:10 -
[36] - Quote
There is just no excuse for the current state of Sov and structure. The problems with them have been pointed out since day 1 of their announcement. It's exactly the same as with incarna when me and others were telling CCP it was a crap idea. CCP don't listen. But now they are even worse. Because now they have the CSM between them and the players, so the player they should be listening too are even more ignored. Instead what they have is a bunch of figure heads of EVE telling them what they want.
Lets put it in simple contexts. If the core is broken, every other aspect of the game will wither. And right now the core is more broken than it's ever been. |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
2702
|
Posted - 2017.07.21 19:25:09 -
[37] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:The answer is simple and I have suggested this with POSs as well. You should be able to hack any structure left un-fueled for 30 days or more. Hack it, make it yours, then refuel it or unanchor it and steal it. Folks would start paying attention if they new someone could walk off with it if it is ignored!
Nah, that's a ****** idea that starts with the presumption that you deserve to gain something. You don't. It would be adequate to have a baseline fuel requirement that overlaps with service modules (e.g., If a medium requires a baseline fuel burn of 10/hr, and has no services installed, it burns 10/hr. With a single module installed that requires 5 per hour, the cit still burns 10 per hour. If it has service installed burning 12/hr, it burns 12/hr.). Unfueled structures are stuck on vulnerable, and get a single 24 hour reinforcement cycle.
And that is a ****** reply. Why am I saying I "gain" something. I didn't talk about the details to hack an abandoned structure. Something left un-serviced for a month should be subject to risk. What you shouldn't be able to assume is something left in space indefinitely remains safe. |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
1709
|
Posted - 2017.07.21 21:55:35 -
[38] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Mara Pahrdi wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Can you please define unused with regards to citadels? Run out of fuel for more than a month and no player of the owning corp has docked within the last 30 days. So really 'no player of the owning corp has docked'. Because citadels have no fuel burn, if they have no online service modules. (I've had discussions about this with various people) I'm well aware of the fact. I never calculated how much fuel it takes to run a service module though, so I cannot tell, whether the fuel hold would keep a single module running for a month or two.
I'd be fine with a single module running on fuel for two months and no player docking though. As long as there's a minimum of attention devoted to the structure, it should be fine.
Structures, that are not serviced or used at all though, should decay and go poof within something of 4 to six months.
Remove standings and insurance.
|
ANTONE1357
Enigmous Prime Manifesto.
4
|
Posted - 2017.07.22 04:56:01 -
[39] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Can you please define unused with regards to citadels?
So how is a Citadel that is not being used in regards to activity and fuel being inputted confusing to you and mostly everyone that doesn't understand and see why this is a problem. Still allowing a citadel with the capability's of tethering, corp offices and fitting modules on ships is a problem. If a POS. ran out of fuel then basically your not able to use it there's no reinforcement timer if your trying to hit it. You have three timers to reinforcement a unused Citadel that is not fueled. Come on your the CSM to CCP and the actually players voice. Both you and I know there is an issue with the mechanics of this, and really me addressing this to CCP in my header is a great way to get the needed discussion going. I hoped this would bring attention and honestly it Is a topic that is well needed to be addressed. I see the big problem that is needing in the restructure of structures and the mechanics behind them. But a Citadel that has no fuel should not give you any benefits as to storage, repairing, fitting mods, offices, tethering, docking, ext. Put some Ideas as to what you want to change about structures with no fuel and maybe CSM and CCP will fix it. . I like to see this game take on a new light, and forces players who have valuables anchored structures in space have to log in everyday and maintained their structures and fuel them. Also ratting and keep those local factions at bay or maybe they hit your structures that you don't pay attention too would be a fun part of the game. Tower's and Citadels that's are offline or have no fuel should go poof if their not fueled for over months definitely go poof. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
6757
|
Posted - 2017.07.22 15:33:43 -
[40] - Quote
ANTONE1357 wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Can you please define unused with regards to citadels? So how is a Citadel that is not being used in regards to activity and fuel being inputted confusing to you and mostly everyone that doesn't understand and see why this is a problem. Still allowing a citadel with the capability's of tethering, corp offices and fitting modules on ships is a problem. If a POS. ran out of fuel then basically your not able to use it there's no reinforcement timer if your trying to hit it. You have three timers to reinforcement a unused Citadel that is not fueled. Come on your the CSM to CCP and the actually players voice. Both you and I know there is an issue with the mechanics of this, and really me addressing this to CCP in my header is a great way to get the needed discussion going. I hoped this would bring attention and honestly it Is a topic that is well needed to be addressed. I see the big problem that is needing in the restructure of structures and the mechanics behind them. But a Citadel that has no fuel should not give you any benefits as to storage, repairing, fitting mods, offices, tethering, docking, ext. Put some Ideas as to what you want to change about structures with no fuel and maybe CSM and CCP will fix it. . I like to see this game take on a new light, and forces players who have valuables anchored structures in space have to log in everyday and maintained their structures and fuel them. Also ratting and keep those local factions at bay or maybe they hit your structures that you don't pay attention too would be a fun part of the game. Tower's and Citadels that's are offline or have no fuel should go poof if their not fueled for over months definitely go poof.
Citadels don't _require_ fuel.
If they have no service modules, they don't use any. So put a single fuel block into them, and they're fueled forever.
Or you can manually offline all the fitted modules, and fuel will stick around.
Put in a quantity of fuel which isn't evenly divided by the quantity it burns, and you'll have the service modules offlining, and fuel being left.
You begin to see why more definition is required?
Woo! CSM XI!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
|
Worgen Fratmon
Netflix and Kill Digital Vendetta
4
|
Posted - 2017.07.23 02:45:28 -
[41] - Quote
Require them to use fuel for any operation, like fitting, hangars, weapons, shield, reinforcement. Require this fuel before the services can be fueled or activated. Require strontium for reinforcement. |
Fluffy Moe
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2017.07.23 05:08:52 -
[42] - Quote
Marcus Binchiette wrote:ANTONE1357 wrote:Wouldn't it be cool if one day you see your structure being hid by the local faction NPC. Them dropping caps, and shooting at your structure. Putting it into reinforcement, and creating timers to respond to making you have to protect even to the local NPC. I see a problem in this game with Citadels being dropped in random. Some corps not even using them, almost a waste and honestly who needs 5 citadels in systems their no longer using. I think this would be a start to something interesting, and why has CCP dropped the ball on this. Think about it, a actually agent NPC being paid to go attack structures, wouldn't that be cool. What do you guys think about something like this, your honest opinion on Citadels littering the game? There are corporations which do this. If you talk to your local mercenary corp I'm sure they'd be able to offer you a reasonable price for doing the job. The whole point of player owned structures is to create player driven content. The idea of offloading this to NPC's because you're too lazy to get off your fat arse and do it doesn't fit with that paradigm.
Moot point. I actually tried to rally some people up for it but the merc corps you mention kinda suck or want prices that are so exurberant they are completely and utterly unusable. And yes, there are wayyyyyyy too many citadels. All they do now is basically spam your overview and they're being used as placeholders to hold real estate space more or less for sale or investment.
O and inb4 "you can remove them from overview", yea, if you never venture out to low / null and never need to actually see them to know which one is which, otherwise no you can't. I would like to see them blown up just for this reason alone, not to mention the other reasons.
Just way too many of them, too much citadel spam, they're as bad as caps in null, if not even worse at this point.
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6757
|
Posted - 2017.07.23 19:51:53 -
[43] - Quote
ANTONE1357 wrote:Wouldn't it be cool if one day you see your structure being hit by the local faction NPC. Them dropping caps, and shooting at your structure. Putting it into reinforcement and creating timers for you to respond too. Making you have to protect your assets even to the local NPC factions. I see a problem in this game with Citadels being dropped in random. Some corps not even using them, almost a waste and honestly who needs 5 citadels in systems their no longer using. I think this would be a start to something interesting, and why has CCP dropped the ball on this. Think about it, a actually agent NPC being paid to go attack structures, wouldn't that be cool. What do you guys think about something like this, your honest opinion on Citadels littering the game?
This is a player driven game, not a game driven my NPCs or CCP. You want to see caps killing stuff...get to work. Build up your network of in game contacts, start a corporation, alliance, etc. Or join such an organization and motivate them to do this.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers EVEolution.
659
|
Posted - 2017.07.24 09:40:53 -
[44] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Spookyjay wrote:GIVE THEM FREAKING FUEL BURN. honest to god. I do wonder if the devs and half of CSM even play this game any more. Im pretty sure they just think they do. But they spend so much time in bureaucratic talking about this game they don't really. tbh, this is something I've suggested. Please don't assume that we're not talking to CCP about things just because we're not yelling about something in public. Though the fuel burn I'd prefer isn't a flat cost. it's a minimum. So if you're running services, it doesn't increase your costs. Just sets a minimum.
was never happy with the reverse order of things with them, should have been x amount of fuel per hour end of, once fueled your fittings are limited only by cpu and power grid. just like a pos.
leaves them open to be used as unfueled no servive needed deployment points. cheap as peanuts too. which leads to them being deployed in the way they are. numbers will only rise i'm sure. |
Doddy
Excidium.
965
|
Posted - 2017.07.25 03:29:55 -
[45] - Quote
I don't get what this thread is about? If a Citadel is unused why does it bother you? If it does bother you why don't you kill it and make some isk? |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |