These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Claymore
C C P
C C P Alliance
#421 - 2016-04-11 11:26:16 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.

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.


Rigs are not ready yet, hopefully tomorrow we will deploy a build with rigs and bonuses fully implemented.

Quality Assurance Analyst Team Psycho Sisters
CCP Claymore
C C P
C C P Alliance
#422 - 2016-04-11 11:27:36 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?


We are still investigating this. Thought we had a fix but apparently not.

Quality Assurance Analyst Team Psycho Sisters
CCP Claymore
C C P
C C P Alliance
#423 - 2016-04-11 11:28:07 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.


Anchoring will stay at 24h for initial release.

Quality Assurance Analyst Team Psycho Sisters
CCP Claymore
C C P
C C P Alliance
#424 - 2016-04-11 11:29:50 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?


We made a change in that backend that broke this, so it should be fixed in the next update.

Repulsor and Tractor are not going to make the initial release, we do not have time to do them justice so we are going to pull them from the initial release. This is sad but we feel it is the correct choice.

Quality Assurance Analyst Team Psycho Sisters
CCP Claymore
C C P
C C P Alliance
#425 - 2016-04-11 11:33:56 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


All the Citadels have the same amount of reinforcement periods.

Quality Assurance Analyst Team Psycho Sisters
Gianni Zuiverloon
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#426 - 2016-04-11 13:04:50 UTC
I can't place any citadel type on sisi atm, how am I supposed to test it?
If you disabled something then excuse me, but I didn't find any information about it in this post.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#427 - 2016-04-11 14:39:48 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
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."


I've figured out this one - non-fleet members cannot warp to a controlled Citadel just like non-fleet members cannot warp to a piloted ship in space. Fleet members, however, can warp to a control Citadel just fine. I don't know if that's deliberate, or just an interesting result of Citadels being based on ships, but I kinda like it. Hostiles can still get close to a Citadel via probes of course.
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#428 - 2016-04-11 18:19:14 UTC
Hello was testing the profiles/groups interfaces on SiSi today and have the following concerns:


1 - I cannot find anywhere to set access based on standings

why is this important? - well having to drop and drag individuals or corporations into the group window to individually add them access is cool - but could be very tedious in larger alliances/coalitions. I dont want to sit there for hours dropping and dragging corps/individuals and having this 'maintenance' issue. Far easier to set a standing and be done with it.

Also I want public access ( yes I did find a public access drop and drag ) however I want access given to only those I like not everyone. In null nobody is going to set public - well except maybe CVA however even they will want to screen based on standings and I dont see anyone there sitting and dragging individual pilots in and out of a large group settings.

From what my understanding is the hierarchy is:

Set up groups ~~ apply to Profile ~~ apply to citadel

you can apply multiple groups to any profile

one profile is applied to a citadel

So I think the only thing im looking for here is a way to apply standings to my group settings/public access

Cheers

~R~
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#429 - 2016-04-11 18:23:42 UTC
I think the number of the moving lights on the citadels could be reduced.

I find they make it a bit fuzzy looking when all lit up. Don't get me wrong I think they add a feeling of life to the structure, but it may be a bit of overkill ...im just looking at the keepstar right now, I have put up the other ones and would say the same on those.


~R~
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#430 - 2016-04-11 18:32:53 UTC
One other thing -

As we get closer to the release date I think it is important that CCP get out front on this one. These new structures are quite limited in terms of their use to start. One cannot build or research in them - I suspect many people who are not tied in to testing or the forums do not know this - many I have spoken to in game did not realize this was the case.

Rather than have pitchforks and torches CCP needs to set reasonable expectations with players - perhaps in game mails to every toon with links to the forums or You Tube vids.

I personally dont want another incarna - and the feedback I have heard talking to a few friends in game was "WTF you cant build in them???" and "What a waste of time if all you can do is dock in them"

I have tried to let people know that there are stepping stones in any new process and that these need to come online....be refined and added to over time. However not everyone is on board with that.....many expect instant results and I think there may be an over expectation on the delivery of this.

They are not POS replacements to start and even long term I dont see how these replace a POS since I can put one up and remove it quickly for little cost.

Cheers

~R~
Porus Kurvora
Phoenix Enterprise Inc
From The Ashes.
#431 - 2016-04-11 18:35:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Porus Kurvora
I like the design direction of the Citadels and prefer the moving lights how they are. The one thing I'd like to know is why some of the "tentacle" lights come out and turn. What is the design concept behind these lights versus the undock strips?

I found a bug today but not entirely sure how or why it happened. Here's what I know I did:

1. Anchored a Fortizar Citadel 2 days ago
2. Fit defensive and service modules to it today (Market, Clone, Reprocessing).
3. Rented an office
4. Unrented the office
5. Modified tax to 1,000,000 ISK
6. Rented office again
7. Modified tax to 0 ISK
8. Unrented the office.
9. Rented office.
10. Noticed service modules inactive
11. Take control and Open fitting window
12. Everything originally fitted is now gone, including fighters and fuel

wat? lol

[PNXE] Phoenix Enterprise Inc. CEO

Check out our website

We are recruiting!
Porus Kurvora
Phoenix Enterprise Inc
From The Ashes.
#432 - 2016-04-11 18:43:29 UTC
Regan Rotineque wrote:
One other thing -

As we get closer to the release date I think it is important that CCP get out front on this one. These new structures are quite limited in terms of their use to start. One cannot build or research in them - I suspect many people who are not tied in to testing or the forums do not know this - many I have spoken to in game did not realize this was the case.

Rather than have pitchforks and torches CCP needs to set reasonable expectations with players - perhaps in game mails to every toon with links to the forums or You Tube vids.

I personally dont want another incarna - and the feedback I have heard talking to a few friends in game was "WTF you cant build in them???" and "What a waste of time if all you can do is dock in them"

I have tried to let people know that there are stepping stones in any new process and that these need to come online....be refined and added to over time. However not everyone is on board with that.....many expect instant results and I think there may be an over expectation on the delivery of this.

They are not POS replacements to start and even long term I dont see how these replace a POS since I can put one up and remove it quickly for little cost.

Cheers

~R~


I feel they have made the information quite clear in the development blogs. The Citadel expansion will bring player run stations to compete with NPC stations. That is it right now and that should be the expectation. Industrial specific structures were said to come out later this year (Fall) although not set in stone. These structures will not replace POS's on April 27th nor in the fall, but the variety of structures CCP is planning to bring into EVE will eventually replace POS's and POS's will be removed at some point.

It's not all going to happen on the Citadel release. Anyone who doesn't see that these things take time or expect instant results will never be pleased. More information or more explanations will never satisfy those people.

The anticipation is killing me though :)
CCP is doing fantastic work.

[PNXE] Phoenix Enterprise Inc. CEO

Check out our website

We are recruiting!
Circumstantial Evidence
#433 - 2016-04-11 18:45:17 UTC
Regan Rotineque wrote:
I think the number of the moving lights on the citadels could be reduced.
I find they make it a bit fuzzy looking when all lit up. Don't get me wrong I think they add a feeling of life to the structure, but it may be a bit of overkill ...im just looking at the keepstar right now, I have put up the other ones and would say the same on those.
~R~
Agree with this, its a bit too much. Also too many holographic "traffic signs" - the repetition of these floating decal textures becomes very obvious, they could be reduced by half in number, and the result would still be visually engaging.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#434 - 2016-04-11 19:42:52 UTC
John Hand wrote:
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!



AGAIN IF THE STRUCTURES VULNERABILITY IS SET TO NEXT WEEK I COULD HAVE 100000000 dreads and i could not do **** to it with the 24 hr timer i have a chance to catch it when it is first coming out of anchor and pop it

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#435 - 2016-04-11 19:47:31 UTC
CCP Claymore wrote:
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.



i thought this was the case is there any chance we can make it so when the structure is invulnerable the disruption strength is just set to 0 so we can still use it to tern off mwd/mjd

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#436 - 2016-04-11 19:51:30 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Regan Rotineque wrote:
I think the number of the moving lights on the citadels could be reduced.
I find they make it a bit fuzzy looking when all lit up. Don't get me wrong I think they add a feeling of life to the structure, but it may be a bit of overkill ...im just looking at the keepstar right now, I have put up the other ones and would say the same on those.
~R~
Agree with this, its a bit too much. Also too many holographic "traffic signs" - the repetition of these floating decal textures becomes very obvious, they could be reduced by half in number, and the result would still be visually engaging.


i think the current level on SISI reflects a very very busy citadel and an average or little used one will not reach this level

unless ccp is no longer using lights to denote activity

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#437 - 2016-04-11 21:10:28 UTC
CCP Claymore wrote:
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.


Nice, I like it. Since ships won't be able to damage the Citadel, those ships should have the option to GTFO at any time. (Unless being tackled by some other ship which can be destroyed, of course. :) )

Regarding the lights discussion - put me down as liking all der blinkenlichten.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#438 - 2016-04-11 21:12:13 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
CCP Claymore wrote:
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.


Nice, I like it. Since ships won't be able to damage the Citadel, those ships should have the option to GTFO at any time. (Unless being tackled by some other ship which can be destroyed, of course. :) )

Regarding the lights discussion - put me down as liking all der blinkenlichten.



this is why i think just reducing the streangth to 0 is better than flat out disabling the mod

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#439 - 2016-04-12 02:53:41 UTC

also ccp can you tell us if docking fees are going to be added?


there really is not much reason do to how compression is handled to open up a citadel to the public and thats a huge limit to their potential

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Jerppu3
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#440 - 2016-04-12 04:37:14 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

also ccp can you tell us if docking fees are going to be added?


there really is not much reason do to how compression is handled to open up a citadel to the public and thats a huge limit to their potential


Docking fee sucks if CCP intent us to use that to compensate fuel for public compression. I really hope that CCP will add possibility to tax the usage of compression in Citadel. Without it they will kill the idea of having public Citadels for miners.

Citadel Compression & Reprocessing separated and to be taxable