These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
John Hand
#401 - 2016-04-10 03:38:14 UTC
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
#402 - 2016-04-10 04:29:12 UTC
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
#403 - 2016-04-10 04:31:05 UTC
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
#404 - 2016-04-10 05:11:27 UTC
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
#405 - 2016-04-10 18:03:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Stan
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. "18:38:56 Hint You'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?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#406 - 2016-04-10 19:39:20 UTC
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

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#407 - 2016-04-10 19:40:55 UTC
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. "18:38:56 Hint You'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

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#408 - 2016-04-10 20:51:28 UTC
Good catch, Lugh.

Scrammed fighters can still activate their MWD and MJD.

Cannot warp to a Citadel that somebody is controlling. "20:48:49 Notify You are unable to align or warp to the selected object because your warp drive is unable to lock onto it."
Lugh Crow-Slave
#409 - 2016-04-10 21:19:39 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
Good catch, Lugh.

Scrammed fighters can still activate their MWD and MJD.

Cannot warp to a Citadel that somebody is controlling. "20:48:49 Notify You 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?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#410 - 2016-04-10 21:42:48 UTC
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
#411 - 2016-04-10 21:45:39 UTC
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)

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#412 - 2016-04-10 23:27:39 UTC
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.
23:24:18 Notify You 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
#413 - 2016-04-11 00:00:58 UTC
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
#414 - 2016-04-11 00:42:10 UTC
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

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Rilly Dagons
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#415 - 2016-04-11 01:24:13 UTC
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
#416 - 2016-04-11 01:27:06 UTC
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

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#417 - 2016-04-11 01:28:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Lugh Crow-Slave
#418 - 2016-04-11 04:02:43 UTC
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

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
John Hand
#419 - 2016-04-11 09:50:53 UTC
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
#420 - 2016-04-11 11:25:30 UTC
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 Psycho Sisters