These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Citadels, sieges and you v2

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Absent Sworn
Lamprey Systems
#221 - 2015-09-18 23:59:17 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
After great and very useful feedback from you, the player community, ... Entosis links are not going to work on new structures, to attack those new structures you need to go through their hitpoints.


This is a super promising turnaround, both for future game state and social capital, thank you CCP. The new system looks much better and I look forward to recreating how I currently play EVE in it after all. 'Course the down side of heeding feedback is incentivizing more feedback :) So, a few thoughts that stuck out when reading this blog:

* This wasn't clear to me, but if only 1+ damage is required to pause the repair timer that is probably easily exploitable.

* This is a minor point, but having everything instantly repaired (shields, armor, and hull) doesn't feel right at first blush. If you're attacking hull on a structure and fail you should maybe only have to work back through armor again, if not just have the opportunity to go at hull again next window. Basically work back up the same weekly vulnerability path to full HP (hull attack fails => armor restored, one week later shields restored, or something).

* I can't speak for many but I'm not sure the "auto defenses give a false sense of security" premise holds much water. I don't personally know of anyone that thinks having a few guns on your POS renders you completely safe. Rather, the point is to have a minimal amount of defenses such that an aggressor would actually have to plan an engagement -- a bored small gang of Ishtars can't casually swing by and wreck your stuff while you're at work. And happy coincidence, having a minimal amount of auto defenses would also mitigage the "1+ damage pauses repair timer" issue (if it exists).

Thanks again!

May your mushrooms always be sautéed and your onions always be grilled.

Not Sworn Absent since 2009
Grorious Reader
Mongorian Horde
#222 - 2015-09-19 04:45:57 UTC
Quote:
Structures destroyed in wormhole space will see all of their assets lost when destroyed and subject to the magical loot fairy rules that would normally apply for ship cargohold.


Hoping this doesn't mean CCP has already forgotten what was complained about in previous asset safety discussions. If a Citadel being destroyed means that players logged off inside are podded, nobody will ever log off in the citadel. I don't have a problem with loot being dropped, but I think it's necessary to eject any players logged off in station - along with their active ship - to a random point in space. Otherwise people will just be undocking to log off, which is a needless annoyance.

Regarding defenses
Perhaps if a group wants automated defenses they could fit a sort of auto-targeting module to the citadel, like ships can have. If this consumed a high power slot it would reduce the citadel's potential damage output but would provide some degree of automated defense if the owner is willing to make that sacrifice. If not a high power slot, then perhaps a rig slot would be more appropriate, since they represent a bigger commitment. Maybe the rig would allow for some degree of automated defense with targeted weapons, but the weapons would have a reduced fire rate (or other DPS reduction) when under the control of the automated defense system.

Alternatively, drones could be used as an automated defense system. Unlike other weapon types, drones can be destroyed by attackers so they could not continue the defense indefinitely. However, they might be enough to deter uncommitted trolling attacks.

Regarding XL Citadels in WH
I know the numbers aren't final or anything, but as they are given the XL citadel will be an incredibly boring grind if it's allowed in w-space. You will basically never get that kind of fire power into somebody else's system. Especially something like a C1 or C2. If those numbers are going to stay in that ballpark, I suggest that XL citadels not be allowed in W-space. If they are designed for super-caps and titans, and L citadels are able to dock/support carriers and dreads, this should not be a loss for anyone and would prevent the sort of "boredom tank" that POSes currently represent in some areas of space.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#223 - 2015-09-19 05:23:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Grorious Reader wrote:
Regarding XL Citadels in WH
I know the numbers aren't final or anything, but as they are given the XL citadel will be an incredibly boring grind if it's allowed in w-space. You will basically never get that kind of fire power into somebody else's system. Especially something like a C1 or C2. If those numbers are going to stay in that ballpark, I suggest that XL citadels not be allowed in W-space. If they are designed for super-caps and titans, and L citadels are able to dock/support carriers and dreads, this should not be a loss for anyone and would prevent the sort of "boredom tank" that POSes currently represent in some areas of space.
It's the same problem in highsec - the EHP is of the XL is just way too much. The L citadel is proposed to have more EHP than the current large POSes and they are already rarely attacked now in low-class wormholes or in highsec - the tedium is too great. However getting 20 battleships together is at least plausible for a smaller group. But the XL? That will never be lost unless one of the largest groups in the game takes enough interest in you to rope 150+ people into an structure grind. It would take tens of wormholes even to get the battleships into a C2 and a XL in a C1 would be even safer and require more people. This design seems to fail hard, even worse than the current POSes, for allowing players to use boredom as a defensive strategy instead of requiring an active defense.

They either need to be limited as to where they can be deployed, there needs to be some way to deliver capital-level DPS against structures in highsec and low-class wormholes, or some mechanism needs to exist to make them much more vulnerable if left undefended (maybe based on entosis ?) so that a group of only 20-30 people have a viable strategy to attack them without grinding them for 10+ hours. As it is, the L and especially the XL will almost never be attacked because of the time cost for the agressors in low-class wormholes and in highsec.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#224 - 2015-09-19 06:54:30 UTC
Thron Legacy wrote:
Gabriel Karade wrote:
I really like the 'built-in Target Spectrum Breaker' idea of Skia Aumer, soft cap as opposed to hard cap, and can be implemented using something already in game (though would need some tweaking I think).

so you feel safe in your m-class citadel cause it got ecm
suddenly marauders

Target Spectrum Breaker is not ECM and it affects marauders, dreads and supers.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#225 - 2015-09-19 07:04:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Black Pedro wrote:
Grorious Reader wrote:
Regarding XL Citadels in WH
I know the numbers aren't final or anything, but as they are given the XL citadel will be an incredibly boring grind if it's allowed in w-space. You will basically never get that kind of fire power into somebody else's system. Especially something like a C1 or C2. If those numbers are going to stay in that ballpark, I suggest that XL citadels not be allowed in W-space. If they are designed for super-caps and titans, and L citadels are able to dock/support carriers and dreads, this should not be a loss for anyone and would prevent the sort of "boredom tank" that POSes currently represent in some areas of space.
It's the same problem in highsec - the EHP is of the XL is just way too much. The L citadel is proposed to have more EHP than the current large POSes and they are already rarely attacked now in low-class wormholes or in highsec - the tedium is too great. However getting 20 battleships together is at least plausible for a smaller group. But the XL? That will never be lost unless one of the largest groups in the game takes enough interest in you to rope 150+ people into an structure grind. It would take tens of wormholes even to get the battleships into a C2 and a XL in a C1 would be even safer and require more people. This design seems to fail hard, even worse than the current POSes, for allowing players to use boredom as a defensive strategy instead of requiring an active defense.

They either need to be limited as to where they can be deployed, there needs to be some way to deliver capital-level DPS against structures in highsec and low-class wormholes, or some mechanism needs to exist to make them much more vulnerable if left undefended (maybe based on entosis ?) so that a group of only 20-30 people have a viable strategy to attack them without grinding them for 10+ hours. As it is, the L and especially the XL will almost never be attacked because of the time cost for the agressors in low-class wormholes and in highsec.


What the hell, they are meant to be hard to attack, Eve is supposed to be a hard game which you often say to others and yet you are saying that Xl's and L's are too difficult. If you really want to kill that hisec XL then you will have to hire all of the merc alliances in hisec or gather up allies, there you are done and dusted, can't do that, well that is your fault for not being a good enough player to do that in terms of ISK and contacts.

In reality the XL is going to be a serious investment and needs to be difficult to kill, the L is also a serious investment and really should not be killable by a 3 man corp like yours, hell even an M cannot be killed by your corp which is as it should be, my alliance could kill a Medium and soon we will be able to kill a Large and I am not crying because we cannot kill an XL yet...

There will be different structures too and not all of them will be as hard as Citadels, you can attack them instead while you build up to take out the harder target ...

CCP another example of the HTFU group of which this player is a member who routinely uses lines like get friends, have allies, your a poor player because you have not got ISK or allies and yet here he is moaning about EHP when he has not set himself up to be able to do this, he wants you to lower it so they can. Now stick to what you said, the EHP is great as is the damage mitigation plus the limited vulnerability periods and repair approach, I am now looking to build some of these things and I can tell you straight, before this latest dev blog I was not even going to bother, so well done, stick to your guns, please make it so the HTFU players have a challenge.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Black Pedro
Mine.
#226 - 2015-09-19 07:25:06 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

What the hell, they are meant to be hard to attack, Eve is supposed to be a hard game which you often say to others and yet you are saying that Xl's and L's are too difficult. If you really want to kill that hisec XL then you will have to hire all of the merc alliances in hisec or gather up allies, there you are done and dusted, can't do that, well that is your fault for not being a good enough player to do that in terms of ISK and contacts.
You can shout HFTU all you want, but I am just pointing out the reality of the numbers. XLs will never be attacked in highsec/wormoles without caps. There are hardly any groups of sufficient size to field 150+ players over three days to attack them, and that assumes no opposition which with the force multiplier these citadels are suppose to have will put the number of players needed into many several of hundreds.

This design is almost the complete opposite of the original entosis system proposed where one player could contest a structure. The damage mitigation mechanic may even the playing field for smaller groups in lowsec and nullsec, but it the lack of capitals makes this design markedly worse for empowering small groups in highsec and wormhole space. In fact, in completely neuters them.

If they are implemented like this I will continue to exploit the tedium to benefit from the structures with near zero risk like I currently do with large POSes in highsec and my wormhole. That doesn't mean it is good game design.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#227 - 2015-09-19 07:41:30 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

What the hell, they are meant to be hard to attack, Eve is supposed to be a hard game which you often say to others and yet you are saying that Xl's and L's are too difficult. If you really want to kill that hisec XL then you will have to hire all of the merc alliances in hisec or gather up allies, there you are done and dusted, can't do that, well that is your fault for not being a good enough player to do that in terms of ISK and contacts.
You can shout HFTU all you want, but I am just pointing out the reality of the numbers. XLs will never be attacked in highsec/wormoles without caps. There are hardly any groups of sufficient size to field 150+ players over three days to attack them, and that assumes no opposition which with the force multiplier these citadels are suppose to have will put the number of players needed into many several of hundreds.

This design is almost the complete opposite of the original entosis system proposed where one player could contest a structure. The damage mitigation mechanic may even the playing field for smaller groups in lowsec and nullsec, but it the lack of capitals makes this design markedly worse for empowering small groups in highsec and wormhole space. In fact, in completely neuters them.

If they are implemented like this I will continue to exploit the tedium to benefit from the structures with near zero risk like I currently do with large POSes in highsec and my wormhole. That doesn't mean it is good game design.


You say no group has the ability to attack an Xl in hisec, well think again you are totally and utterly wrong, other entities can go into hisec and do this, they can do the same to WH's too. Lets say the AG movement build an XL citadel in hisec and create a market Hub, lets say that this starts to impact CODE and Goon gank squads, you can bet that they will come in and take it down.

The Entosis link was designed to level the playing field to get into sov space, along with changes to anoms and power projection, the final piece is the structures which are far more important than IHUB's and TCU's in my opinion, they need to be damn hard to kill and the leveller here is the damage migration. But you still have to blow it up. Soon my Alliance/Coalition will have the ability to take out a Large, an XL is above us at the moment but taht is my lack of ability in being able to do it, but so what.

We took out Siggy's Medium POS in Niarja, we would have taken out a large POS if we needed to, most mercs don't even try a large POS because its too boring, not because they cannot. all you need to do is get a fleet of Ravens with cruise missiles backed up by logi further back and get to it, takes a long time, so what. Its supposed to be hard.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#228 - 2015-09-19 07:51:58 UTC
Thron Legacy wrote:
Gabriel Karade wrote:
I really like the 'built-in Target Spectrum Breaker' idea of Skia Aumer, soft cap as opposed to hard cap, and can be implemented using something already in game (though would need some tweaking I think).

so you feel safe in your m-class citadel cause it got ecm
suddenly marauders

You do know how target spectrum breakers work right?.... Cool

Quote:
Note: Will affect all targeting computers, including those of friendly vessels, of vessels immune to electronic warfare, and of the host ship itself. Can be fitted to Battleship, Black Ops and Marauder class ships.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Black Pedro
Mine.
#229 - 2015-09-19 07:55:30 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
We took out Siggy's Medium POS in Niarja, we would have taken out a large POS if we needed to, most mercs don't even try a large POS because its too boring, not because they cannot. all you need to do is get a fleet of Ravens with cruise missiles backed up by logi further back and get to it, takes a long time, so what. Its supposed to be hard.

That's what I am saying - it is too boring to kill a large POS in highsec and so people mostly don't do it. These XLs are 10 times worse. No one will ever try to kill them.

That is a problem that needs to be addressed before these new citadels are released.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#230 - 2015-09-19 08:15:35 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
We took out Siggy's Medium POS in Niarja, we would have taken out a large POS if we needed to, most mercs don't even try a large POS because its too boring, not because they cannot. all you need to do is get a fleet of Ravens with cruise missiles backed up by logi further back and get to it, takes a long time, so what. Its supposed to be hard.

That's what I am saying - it is too boring to kill a large POS in highsec and so people mostly don't do it. These XLs are 10 times worse. No one will ever try to kill them.

That is a problem that needs to be addressed before these new citadels are released.


Yes its boring but you can do it, I am not trying to be nasty with you,, but if that POS in Niarja had been a large I would still have taken it down, it would have been harder but we would have done it. I wanted to take it down to make his ganking in Niarja more difficult, boring or not it would have gone.

If you make it too easy then no one will put them up, in reality how many indy/trade alliances in hisec can take on one of the merc groups, as far as I can see none, this means that there needs to be that level of challenge on the XL citadels. In any case I am betting that over time the grip of the Empires will reduce and you will be able to use dreads and carriers in hisec.

Its a challenge, treat it as such.

I keep pointing out in this thread that these things need to be hard to take down and are not easy loot pinata's otherwise people like me will not bother, CCP knows this, I would much rather see a large number of structures floating around with people ready to fight to defend them giving lots of potential targets then only a Goon one sitting near Jita IV with its own market hub. A bit of a stark comparison but that is what you have to be careful of, they also have to be careful of making it too much of a chore for casual players, because I can tell you now I am going to play a couple of space games long term and I will not tolerate being forced to sit next to a structure so that people have it easy to attack them.

I want to build things in Eve, but I do not want to be forced to spend a load of time defending it. All of my alliance members will be playing Star Citizen and Eve, they are different games. What Eve needs is the wonder of building and maintaining your own space city, but not to make it such a chore that you will not bother, the balance CCP have suggested is about right from what I have worked out.

You should wait and see how this develops, if they have it right there will be loads of these things built, I know a load of people who are now waiting impatiently for the build costs, myself included...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Black Romero
Aviation Professionals for EVE
#231 - 2015-09-19 08:56:52 UTC
You COULD let Entosis links play SOME roll (a hybrid if you will).....

Question Why not let Entosis links slow the rate of repair once it has started? That way smaller ships have a roll in addition to JUST scouting.

Just an idea. Again...a hybrid one. Entosis mechanics are not bad...just need tweaking. Sort of like hacking the station.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#232 - 2015-09-19 09:11:13 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

If you make it too easy then no one will put them up, in reality how many indy/trade alliances in hisec can take on one of the merc groups, as far as I can see none, this means that there needs to be that level of challenge on the XL citadels. In any case I am betting that over time the grip of the Empires will reduce and you will be able to use dreads and carriers in hisec.

Its a challenge, treat it as such.
I have no problem with a large citadel requiring 20 people to kill or even an XL requiring 200 people to kill as long as they are actively defended. I am sure the plan will evolve - CCP Ytterbium confirmed on Reddit they know this is a problem - but allowing citadels to not only be immune from attack 95% of the time, and then requiring such a high bar to attack even if the defender doesn't even bother to show up will make them essentially invulnerable. No one will assemble such a force (not that many can in the first place) to kill something that doesn't even drop any loot.

Citadels should be easy to attack but even easier to defend if you want them to drive conflict like the original entosis design. Otherwise, they will just be like current POSes with "dead" ones littering highsec and wormholes, and used by players to do industry with impunity having no responsibility to defend them. They would not even need asset safety as they will never be attacked in highsec in the first place.

Allowing dreads in highsec would solve the problem there (but not in low-class wormholes) but capitals are ungankable in highsec thus this breaks hauling as a profession, at least until CONCORD is removed. So the only options are to play with the EHP of XLs in highsec/wormholes, add another way to attack them, or just ban them completely.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#233 - 2015-09-19 09:27:40 UTC
I've just realized that vulnerability windows have an interesting side effect.

Their purpose is to allow the defenders to be there to defend the structure at the time where it can be attacked.

That leads to setting the vulnerability window to the times when the defenders are more active ingame.

Which means that, if I attack them during their vulnerability window, they will need to defend the Citadel instead of doing anything else.

And then if it turns that they are mostly, or only, active during exactly those hours... I will be totally disrupting their gamepaly for as long as they need to defend the citadel!

All I need, is a bunch of friends to go pester that Citadel while I play something else, so *I* am not inconvenienced every time I log in, unlike the defenders.

Am I cunning or what? P

Now, if I was a videogame developer, what would be the end scenario of implementing that mechanic?

Big guys will defend and attack any Citadels as they please. Small guys are driven off from owning Citadels. Eventually the only players who use Citadels are those belonging to large alliances, which may find better to sign agreements and don't mess with each other's Citadels rather than be inconvenienced with attacking and defending them forever.

That sounds kinda familiar, but can't put my finger on why... Question
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#234 - 2015-09-19 10:40:48 UTC
Right now small groups can't realistically keep a pos as even large POS is not hard to take down. But they have them all the same. I don't think that the risk of losing something has been a deterrent for many to try and have it anyway.

Right now i like the zero Entois link gameplay. I think a soft damage limits would be better but the general idea is a good one. It would be nice not to lose everything if it died in a WH but i get that right now with large POS. But i really want this thing to shoot back. This would be the balance between solo and small corps and mega corps...

I think there needed to be loot outside WH space.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#235 - 2015-09-19 10:41:50 UTC
I was thinking that there is a lot of idle and unused junk, in player and corp hangers, in both player and NPC stations. And, since EVE junk never decays, pretty much everything that was stored since the game was launched is still sitting around somewhere.

Now, none of this unused junk really contributes to the game play - it just clutters up the database and makes it run slower.

So, maybe the right direction to go would be to make NPC stations destructible, like citadels, and reduce the drop rate of destoryed citadels and NPC players to something more like 5-25%. This will encourage players to only keep the stuff they really use, and convert the rest of it to ISK (sell it, reprocess it, or whatever). After a few months, the hundreds of destoryed player/NPC stations should really clean up the item database.

Also, as a new ISK sink, the drop rate could be tied to an insurance payment - the higher you pay, the more of your stuff will drop rather than be destroyed. As with ship insurance, the station insurance would only be good for a certain limited time - and also be on a per-station basis (so, the more stuff you have spread out across more stations, the more you'll end up paying to insure it all).

Ok... flame on, forum friends!
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#236 - 2015-09-19 11:07:02 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Thron Legacy wrote:
Gabriel Karade wrote:
I really like the 'built-in Target Spectrum Breaker' idea of Skia Aumer, soft cap as opposed to hard cap, and can be implemented using something already in game (though would need some tweaking I think).

so you feel safe in your m-class citadel cause it got ecm
suddenly marauders

Target Spectrum Breaker is not ECM and it affects marauders, dreads and supers.


Target Spectrum Breaker affects ships that are otherwise immune to electronic warfare? I did not know this...

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#237 - 2015-09-19 11:11:18 UTC
Yup, though, not sure how high the threshold (number of ships targeting) is for it to have an effect, hence there's probably few, if any instances of it breaking locks on Supers/Dreads.

However, it's there, and could be tweaked into an alternative approach to a 'hard' damage cap for Citadels.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2015-09-19 11:36:41 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
...

Now, none of this unused junk really contributes to the game play - it just clutters up the database and makes it run slower.

...!


Only if it's indexed badly ;)
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2015-09-19 11:39:04 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Grorious Reader wrote:
Regarding XL Citadels in WH
I know the numbers aren't final or anything, but as they are given the XL citadel will be an incredibly boring grind if it's allowed in w-space. You will basically never get that kind of fire power into somebody else's system. Especially something like a C1 or C2. If those numbers are going to stay in that ballpark, I suggest that XL citadels not be allowed in W-space. If they are designed for super-caps and titans, and L citadels are able to dock/support carriers and dreads, this should not be a loss for anyone and would prevent the sort of "boredom tank" that POSes currently represent in some areas of space.
It's the same problem in highsec - the EHP is of the XL is just way too much. The L citadel is proposed to have more EHP than the current large POSes and they are already rarely attacked now in low-class wormholes or in highsec - the tedium is too great. However getting 20 battleships together is at least plausible for a smaller group. But the XL? That will never be lost unless one of the largest groups in the game takes enough interest in you to rope 150+ people into an structure grind. It would take tens of wormholes even to get the battleships into a C2 and a XL in a C1 would be even safer and require more people. This design seems to fail hard, even worse than the current POSes, for allowing players to use boredom as a defensive strategy instead of requiring an active defense.

They either need to be limited as to where they can be deployed, there needs to be some way to deliver capital-level DPS against structures in highsec and low-class wormholes, or some mechanism needs to exist to make them much more vulnerable if left undefended (maybe based on entosis ?) so that a group of only 20-30 people have a viable strategy to attack them without grinding them for 10+ hours. As it is, the L and especially the XL will almost never be attacked because of the time cost for the agressors in low-class wormholes and in highsec.


Surely here would be the usual argument leveled against small hisec corps being outnumbered...Hire mercs. Also I thought they were considering allowing capitals into hisec. Maybe this is why.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2015-09-19 11:41:21 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Thron Legacy wrote:
Gabriel Karade wrote:
I really like the 'built-in Target Spectrum Breaker' idea of Skia Aumer, soft cap as opposed to hard cap, and can be implemented using something already in game (though would need some tweaking I think).

so you feel safe in your m-class citadel cause it got ecm
suddenly marauders

Target Spectrum Breaker is not ECM and it affects marauders, dreads and supers.


Target Spectrum Breaker affects ships that are otherwise immune to electronic warfare? I did not know this...


Imagine a citadel sized module effect from this! This would guve the graphics team something great to work on too...client rendered ghost returns showing up all around the target citadel...