These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort
#521 - 2016-04-18 23:06:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Trespasser
If you don't own the ihub in the system you anchor the citadel in, it should be vulnerable during the whole anchoring phase.

If you own the ihub then it should be invulnerable during the anchoring phase.


Also, in any case no matter if you own the ihub or not.. the citadel should finish its anchoring timer during the vulnerability window of the ihub in the system its anchored in



This make it so if you want to anchor a citadel in someones system then its going to come out in their prime time, not yours.

And if you do own the system then it comes out in your prime time so you can set everything up properly
Lugh Crow-Slave
#522 - 2016-04-18 23:28:14 UTC
Trespasser wrote:
If you don't own the ihub in the system you anchor the citadel in, it should be vulnerable during the whole anchoring phase.

If you own the ihub then it should be invulnerable during the anchoring phase.


Also, in any case no matter if you own the ihub or not.. the citadel should finish its anchoring timer during the vulnerability window of the ihub in the system its anchored in



This make it so if you want to anchor a citadel in someones system then its going to come out in their prime time, not yours.

And if you do own the system then it comes out in your prime time so you can set everything up properly



... expecting some one to have to guard these for well over 24hrs is a bit much

they are suposed to be hard to put up in some one else's space not impossible

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort
#523 - 2016-04-18 23:52:50 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Trespasser wrote:
If you don't own the ihub in the system you anchor the citadel in, it should be vulnerable during the whole anchoring phase.

If you own the ihub then it should be invulnerable during the anchoring phase.


Also, in any case no matter if you own the ihub or not.. the citadel should finish its anchoring timer during the vulnerability window of the ihub in the system its anchored in



This make it so if you want to anchor a citadel in someones system then its going to come out in their prime time, not yours.

And if you do own the system then it comes out in your prime time so you can set everything up properly



... expecting some one to have to guard these for well over 24hrs is a bit much

they are suposed to be hard to put up in some one else's space not impossible




If an alliance wants to drop a citadel that costs 70 billion in hostile space, they should have to defend it.

But hey im not lock into the vulnerability, but it absolutely should be required to exit anchoring during the vulnerability window of the ihub. This will force them to show up and defend it before it has a chance to get all of its defenses up.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#524 - 2016-04-19 00:00:09 UTC
Trespasser wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Trespasser wrote:
If you don't own the ihub in the system you anchor the citadel in, it should be vulnerable during the whole anchoring phase.

If you own the ihub then it should be invulnerable during the anchoring phase.


Also, in any case no matter if you own the ihub or not.. the citadel should finish its anchoring timer during the vulnerability window of the ihub in the system its anchored in



This make it so if you want to anchor a citadel in someones system then its going to come out in their prime time, not yours.

And if you do own the system then it comes out in your prime time so you can set everything up properly



... expecting some one to have to guard these for well over 24hrs is a bit much

they are suposed to be hard to put up in some one else's space not impossible




If an alliance wants to drop a citadel that costs 70 billion in hostile space, they should have to defend it.

But hey im not lock into the vulnerability, but it absolutely should be required to exit anchoring during the vulnerability window of the ihub. This will force them to show up and defend it before it has a chance to get all of its defenses up.


if your ADM is up it will take a week to anchor if you can't orginize people to get on then you have a bigger issue

also none of them cost 70B large is 7b XL is over 100b lol

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
John Hand
#525 - 2016-04-19 00:22:18 UTC
Trespasser wrote:
If you don't own the ihub in the system you anchor the citadel in, it should be vulnerable during the whole anchoring phase.

If you own the ihub then it should be invulnerable during the anchoring phase.


Also, in any case no matter if you own the ihub or not.. the citadel should finish its anchoring timer during the vulnerability window of the ihub in the system its anchored in



This make it so if you want to anchor a citadel in someones system then its going to come out in their prime time, not yours.

And if you do own the system then it comes out in your prime time so you can set everything up properly


+1

I like this idea
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#526 - 2016-04-19 03:22:19 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:
CCP Claymore wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Gigiarc wrote:
Are there any special factors affecting the anchor time for citadels? I just threw out an XL and L in nullsec, and both are showing 6 days on the anchoring timers.


you broke something they should only be 24

What did you put the vulnerability time at could that be messing with it?


Sooo we did make a change for NS, which I think we announced in a devblog a while ago.

If you try to anchor a Citadel in NS space you do not own, you will be subject to an anchoring penalty of 1 day per strategic index

Strategic 0 = 24 hour per normal
Strategic 1 = 48 hour anchor
etc
etc






Why not just the current restriction that is present on outposts for null space. You own it or you cant deploy it. The length of the anchor doesn't really do much for the defender other than give them more time to prep to try and kill it as soon as it finishes anchoring. Due to the power citadels represent in more or less station levels of functionality a citadel in hostile sov needs to be destructible DURING the anchor time (which I think you should feel free to shorten), or they shouldn't be able to manage the trick at all.

Simpler to be aware of what is going on in your space and making plans and co-coordinating resources to blow the thing into dust by the time it exits unanchoring. It will be pretty easy to kill at that point, providing your group cares enough to kill it. Also: you can hire mercs to kill it outside your time zone if it exits then.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Circumstantial Evidence
#527 - 2016-04-20 01:15:43 UTC
Structure Guided Bomb ammo explosion radius stats have been tuned, AoE radius for damage versions is not stated (can we assume 40km based on void AoE radius?)

Material requirements for building structure ammo still appear to be placeholder values; anti-capital missile req's same as sub-capital. (expectation: anti-cap missiles should cost more than sub-cap versions)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#528 - 2016-04-20 01:22:28 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:


Material requirements for building structure ammo still appear to be placeholder values; anti-capital missile req's same as sub-capital. (expectation: anti-cap missiles should cost more than sub-cap versions)


partiicularly when you add in the sub cap launchers shoot faster

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#529 - 2016-04-20 09:54:56 UTC
Just one more time to hope you see why compression needs to be treated separate in roles and taxable


You guys want to push trading into player citadels well if any of these do manage to spring up odds are they will have very low if not 0 refining tax in order to incentives people who sell large quantities of minerals to use their market.

What this means is if you set up a refinery structure you won't be able to tax it anywhere that uses that market citadel particularly in hs.

There is very little reason for anyone to refine in your citadel even if it's free do to the convenience they gain from compressing in order to move their ore to sell. Same goes off they are building they will want to compress the ore in order to build closer to a market.

So unless there is a good reason why this service should not be taxable please make it so.

Also this change is gong to make it where there is little to no uncompressed ore sold in eve is this intended?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Sekeris
Order of Celestial Knights
#530 - 2016-04-20 17:01:51 UTC
Played about a bit with the citadel on sisi, and i have to say the new management window is pretty nice. However the vulnerability window is a bit wierd still. If i pick an hour of vulnerability i get a second hour for free, with no explanation what that is. I guess it means if it gets attacked it will exit refo at that time? If that is so should there not be another box for the second refo?

A legenda would probably help. in this view.

Also why bother with giving a medium 3 hours vulnerability when basicly your saying it doesnt matter what you pick because you get more of it, at a time you probably wont be around, because its not one of the hours you said you wanted on another day. Basicly you have to plan for 3x3 hours on at least 3 days?

Lastly, the view itself is bugged, when you save and reopen it shows something like -9 out of 3.
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
#531 - 2016-04-20 21:17:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Vigilanta
was playing around today and noticed this. There is no repair option in citadels? If it exists i cant find it, seems like this is a relatively significant oversight as you have no way to repair modules or ships while docked. You could make it a service module id be okay with that, but this should absolutely be something included at launch if you want them to be used as repairing is a big piece of core functionality.

Edit: Also +1 to trespassers idea of having a citadel anchoring in hostile sov space come out of anchoring during the ihubs vulnerability window rather that a multiple of 24 from when it was anchored. If you did this I think it would create a nice balance.
Commissar Kate
Kesukka
#532 - 2016-04-20 21:26:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Commissar Kate
Am I missing something or is there no direct trading available in citadels? By intent or just a bug?

Also what's the difference between Admin and Manager on the Access List?

-k8

My Fanclub
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#533 - 2016-04-20 22:25:28 UTC
Commissar Kate wrote:
Am I missing something or is there no direct trading available in citadels? By intent or just a bug?



You need to rig the citadel with a trading thingy.

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
Lugh Crow-Slave
#534 - 2016-04-20 22:27:52 UTC
TheSmokingHertog wrote:
Commissar Kate wrote:
Am I missing something or is there no direct trading available in citadels? By intent or just a bug?



You need to rig the citadel with a trading thingy.



... there is no such thing


you can not trade in citadels on release

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#535 - 2016-04-20 22:32:27 UTC
Sekeris wrote:


Also why bother with giving a medium 3 hours vulnerability when basicly your saying it doesnt matter what you pick because you get more of it, at a time you probably wont be around, because its not one of the hours you said you wanted on another day. Basicly you have to plan for 3x3 hours on at least 3 days?


what?

you only need 3 hrs a weak

that lighter colored box that comes up shows you when it will come out of RF if it enters it during that vuln timer.

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#536 - 2016-04-21 01:00:13 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:
was playing around today and noticed this. There is no repair option in citadels? If it exists i cant find it, seems like this is a relatively significant oversight as you have no way to repair modules or ships while docked. You could make it a service module id be okay with that, but this should absolutely be something included at launch if you want them to be used as repairing is a big piece of core functionality.

Edit: Also +1 to trespassers idea of having a citadel anchoring in hostile sov space come out of anchoring during the ihubs vulnerability window rather that a multiple of 24 from when it was anchored. If you did this I think it would create a nice balance.


Just undock and the tether will repair any heat or shield/armor/hull damage you have, for free. It doesn't repair damage to drones though, and I dint know what CCP plans for that.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#537 - 2016-04-21 01:45:20 UTC
I have been preparing my notes on citadels but the bashing tests were held up until now because the vulnerability system was barely working, and for the first time a citadel actually became vulnerable correctly so I was able to do two stages of a bash and... to my horror, reinforced for SIX STRAIGHT DAYS. You CANNOT be serious! This isn't even a fortizar, it's an astrahus! Complete bash testing before release isn't even possible with this, never mind the insane attacker commitment and yet another disgustingly huge defender advantage.
Circumstantial Evidence
#538 - 2016-04-21 02:06:14 UTC
Commissar Kate wrote:
Am I missing something or is there no direct trading available in citadels? By intent or just a bug?
Per CCP Claymore in previous posts, No direct trading available on release, but you can right-click / Deliver items to another named player's Deliveries hanger.

I'm having trouble granting admin or manager or even a new docking right, with the Access List today. A previously set access list is working all too well, allowing a member to take control of the citadel.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#539 - 2016-04-21 02:47:42 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
I have been preparing my notes on citadels but the bashing tests were held up until now because the vulnerability system was barely working, and for the first time a citadel actually became vulnerable correctly so I was able to do two stages of a bash and... to my horror, reinforced for SIX STRAIGHT DAYS. You CANNOT be serious! This isn't even a fortizar, it's an astrahus! Complete bash testing before release isn't even possible with this, never mind the insane attacker commitment and yet another disgustingly huge defender advantage.



To be fair the function of these is asset defence so they are supposed to take a huge commitment to siege. The ones coming out in the future will be much easier.

These things are more expensive and in many ways more limited to a pos their only real advantage is they are going to be hard to kill and that's the point

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#540 - 2016-04-21 06:45:34 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
These things are more expensive and in many ways more limited to a pos their only real advantage is they are going to be hard to kill and that's the point


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I have some comments about "more limited" but I need to finish testing, I still think I've barely scratched the surface of how many ways you can break eve with citadels.