These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

When Is CCP going to fix the issue with Citadels Littering the game!

First post
Author
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#21 - 2017-07-18 20:42:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Pahrdi
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.

Remove standings and insurance.

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#22 - 2017-07-18 21:37:05 UTC
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)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Spookyjay
Brain Farmers Inc
#23 - 2017-07-18 22:29:03 UTC
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.
Malphas Vynneve
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2017-07-18 23:03:09 UTC
ANTONE1357 wrote:


So tell me how its player driven when one player has 30 citadels not being used in high sec and there are plenty of stations in those systems. NPC's would force a player to respond, there for it to be player driven content. Making you have to defend it. or fuel it and actually manage it. If you don't see a problem with the Citadels being deployed so random and so much and for no real purpose. Then technically its not something you look for in general and well progressing the game in that area might change things. Having actual artificial A.I. NPCS that go after SOV or structures. There's not enough players or time in life, in eve to take out every Citadel that sits in high sec or low sec or null sec. With no fuel and no one to managing it, their just trash sitting there. Not forcing those people to log back in daily to check their system and or surroundings and actually doing something in space. Think about it other then paying "your local merc group", who could or couldn't give you the results. So if my ratting index falls or I'm not actually doing anything to combat the local NPC, now I have a bigger problem. We have NPC mining fleets that escalate, why not having NPC factions that go on the offensive. Its almost like the game cleaning its computer from useless unused memory by clearing out its cookies. Though to think I'm speaking from my ares tells me one thing. You really don't think to far into the future on things. I'm not lazy and my ares may be a little big, but my mind is thinking far better then yours. Thanks for your response and honestly of no help but a point to be heard.



This has been pretty well addressed, but i'm not above beating the dead horse.

If you don't see a problem with citadels being deployed so random and so much, then you're probably not A.) Trying to put a citadel there, yourself. B.) OCD about your overview, in which case, remove them from your overview. C.) just generally unhappy with highsec life, in which case, it's about time you moved to null.

Also, did you not consider the tactical advantage of the fact that if one person puts up a citadel somewhere, it hinders another person's ability to put up a citadel there; in that exact spot. For whatever strategic advantage a citadel's location may bring, occupying that space takes it away from someone else. So, what you see as useless, random, abandoned citadels, might actually just be strategically placed "citadel blockers". I mean, that's just a moment's though. Probably wrong, but you get the idea.
Malphas Vynneve
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2017-07-18 23:13:54 UTC
I'm just sayin, if this were all real and you were really in space and all that, lets say there actually was a bunch of abandoned citadels all over highsec. What would you do? Since unfit citadels are easy to kill and burn no fuel, what would you do? If you don't blow it up, it'll just float there. You gonna pray to the CCP Gods to just "remove " them or magically burn fuel for nothing? Ask concord to allow you to aggress a corporation without having been aggressed first or legally declaring war? Non-protecting, all punishing concord is probably not gonna sit too well with that idea.
Kixx
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#26 - 2017-07-18 23:23:25 UTC
Normally in EvE when we don't like something somewhere we just shoot it.

But that was before when it actually dropped loot.

Exactly what do I get for killing citadels?

Now you have to use a whole different game breaking solution of asking for someway to remove them to fix the last game breaking solution of making items magically float to a new station.

Nice direction this game is headed.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#27 - 2017-07-18 23:34:00 UTC
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.


You have to realize that a good chunk of the CSM DID think this through.
They realized that by littering their space with structures that had zero maintenance cost, but could be fired up at a moment's notice, they could create an impregnable defence.

And that is what is happening in null sec.
Now, whether the dev's were complicit it in this plan, or just out-thought by the null sec cartels, that is up for debate.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#28 - 2017-07-19 00:32:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
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.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#29 - 2017-07-19 02:00:20 UTC
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.


These things have been in space for months.
They have been creating a problem weeks after they were introduced, and it is only going to get worse.
The null sec cartels love them.

And CCP has made it clear that they have other priorities, like the idiotic alliance tourney.

You say that you suggested that they should have a fuel cost.
I believe you.
But you are not part of the null sec cartel bloc, but the very tiny minority of the CSM that is not run by the cartels.

So to expect your voice to be listened to, sorry, can't see it.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#30 - 2017-07-19 06:41:36 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Please don't assume that we're not talking to CCP about things just because we're not yelling about something in public.
Well to be fair to that poster, the CSM-CCP interactions are very opaque, intentionally that is, and it is not easy for an outsider to see what input their representatives have given. Judging from the things that slip through the cracks, the CSM does miss things and/or CCP ignores you guys on semi-regular basis for whatever reason and we have no way of knowing which it is.

I am trying to cut back on my back-seat game designing, and pontificating in general, but I am with Spookyjay there: just give them some freakin' fuel. This problem of accumulation of abandoned structures, and the ability to spam them everywhere, was pointed out to the design team on many occasions and was clearly heard, but Ytterbium and friends wanted to make them as easy to use and maintain as possible and ignored these concerns. I don't blame the CSM for this, and like most choices that have negative impacts, it was made with good intentions (that is to reduce the complaints from the few players whose role it is to refuel POS networks for large organizations). But honestly, the current imbalance is so predictable, and we have perfectly good paradigm for structure abandonment with POSes and their fuels, that I pains me to see such choices made by a game developer with as much experience as CCP should have.

Make fuelling as cheap and easy as you would like, but there needs to be some way for abandoned structures, either owned by players who have quit or by organizations that have been evicted from a space, to be much, much easier to remove. These things are suppose to be conflict and content generators, not time sinks that waste 1.5 hours times 5 people or more to get rid of, often in the middle of the night or work day. That is way too much tedium for an undefended structure.
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#31 - 2017-07-19 13:04:54 UTC
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
Brain Farmers Inc
#32 - 2017-07-19 13:49:55 UTC
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
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2017-07-21 08:49:37 UTC
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

We look forward to meeting you.

Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2017-07-21 09:34:35 UTC
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 Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2017-07-21 15:25:57 UTC
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
Brain Farmers Inc
#36 - 2017-07-21 15:58:10 UTC
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
The Honda Accord
#37 - 2017-07-21 19:25:09 UTC
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
#38 - 2017-07-21 21:55:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Pahrdi
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
GHOST REPLICAS
#39 - 2017-07-22 04:56:01 UTC  |  Edited by: ANTONE1357
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
#40 - 2017-07-22 15:33:43 UTC
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

Previous page123Next page