These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Citadels are now on Singularity

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rain Kaessinde
Liminal Cloudwatch
#381 - 2016-04-08 06:51:06 UTC
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
#382 - 2016-04-08 08:58:14 UTC
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 Psycho Sisters
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#383 - 2016-04-08 12:21:28 UTC
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
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#384 - 2016-04-08 13:56:51 UTC  |  Edited by: MR Spleen
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!

Join IAPUB in game if you want 0.0 pvp.
Porus Kurvora
Phoenix Enterprise Inc
From The Ashes.
#385 - 2016-04-08 20:54:41 UTC
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

Check out our website

We are recruiting!
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#386 - 2016-04-08 22:04:46 UTC
Missile launchers are working again, thanks. Still cannot activate Standum Scrams while invulnerable, however. I assume that's deliberate?
RainReaper
RRN Industries
#387 - 2016-04-08 22:15:23 UTC
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
#388 - 2016-04-08 22:16:18 UTC
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

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
RainReaper
RRN Industries
#389 - 2016-04-08 22:22:43 UTC
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
#390 - 2016-04-08 22:27:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
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

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
#391 - 2016-04-09 00:39:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Dain2
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.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#392 - 2016-04-09 00:46:25 UTC
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

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
#393 - 2016-04-09 00:56:14 UTC
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
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#394 - 2016-04-09 08:05:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
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
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#395 - 2016-04-09 08:20:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
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 What?

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Lugh Crow-Slave
#396 - 2016-04-09 11:15:14 UTC
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

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Tra'con Han
The reality disfunction
#397 - 2016-04-09 18:31:26 UTC
My citadel is stuck at 0 while anchoring, and has been for an hour. Is there a work-around / fix?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#398 - 2016-04-09 18:53:48 UTC
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

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#399 - 2016-04-09 23:28:01 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave
#400 - 2016-04-09 23:29:42 UTC
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

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble