These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Perimeter Citadel Battle

Author
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#61 - 2016-05-02 18:33:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Dracvlad wrote:

I have seen people getting upset because the old mechanics which often resulted in a confused carebear being shootable for no explainable reason were replaced by crimewatch 2.0. I saw a lot of people completely bemused how they ended up being shot or got CONCORDED. And people bemoand that change, are they serious...

The idea that the old aggression system was hard to understand is just a talking point CCP Greyscale shat out to justify him leading a big project he could brag about and was supported by the ignorance of non-highsec players and carebears who had literally zero understanding of the system and still don't understand the current one.

The old system was actually extremely simple. If you steal from a can you get flagged to the corp, if you rep someone who stole from a can you get flagged the corp too. Same goes if you remotely assist someone at war, you inherent the flag the person you're assisting has. Timers related to individual characters were identical to limited engagements but lasted 15 minutes. All flags have the same duration and work the same way.

That's seriously the whole thing. The only part that was worse was the fact that criminal flags could propagate through a rep chain without warning, which was a bug because there was meant to be an dialog box which didn't always trigger before the flag propagated.

Whereas new crimewatch added multiple different flagging types of different function and duration and which interact with each other and with the safety system in unexpected ways. My favorite is how allies in a war can't remotely assist the people they're allied with or vice versa without becoming suspect flagged. It also didn't even bother to fix logistics repping awoxers not becoming flagged, which is not a bug and is still normal gameplay. Also it eliminated clan flipping from the game, which was a great low-investment way to introduce new players to PVP in a controlled environment and actually generated conflict (my first war against an alliance much larger than my corp happen when they declared war on us because I was can flipping them) and replaced it with suspect baiting which is far less interesting and accessible.

It's worse in pretty much every respect with regards to its stated goals. It didn't eliminate edge cases at all, in fact they failed to realize that in the first version there was no way for neutral logistics involved in a war to gain any kind of flags at all and there was a period of about 30 days post patch where neutral RR could not be legally attacked at all. This was a glaring logical error that illustrates the total lack of thought and care put into the system. CCP didn't consider the "edge case" called "wars". It's also not easier to understand, see everyone BAW has ever killed because suddenly all of their logistics shut off in the middle of a fight because they don't know what is and is not considered "neutral logistics" or what happens if you remotely repair any character that has an LE with anyone.

It doesn't affect me negatively because I'm not new or inexperienced and am generally the one in a position to leverage it's bizarre behavior to screw over people who are, but I absolutely hate the design of the whole system, it behaves very strangely and has a distinct anti-combat flavor to it.
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#62 - 2016-05-02 19:00:33 UTC
I have a feeling location may be part.of the survivability of a citadel. It's no different than mining. Mining in the ice belt closest to jita means you will probably be ganked. Mining out in Khanid Kingdom and you'll have plenty of belts to yourself with nothing but rats to keep you company.

As for use of a medium citadel, aren't there unlimited storage space? Do they not have some repair functionality? Use depends on your need but a medium may be a nice step up from a POS in a stationless .5 system or in a system where you want a station nearby but the closest is 94 AU away?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#63 - 2016-05-02 19:22:09 UTC
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:
I have a feeling location may be part.of the survivability of a citadel. It's no different than mining. Mining in the ice belt closest to jita means you will probably be ganked. Mining out in Khanid Kingdom and you'll have plenty of belts to yourself with nothing but rats to keep you company.

As for use of a medium citadel, aren't there unlimited storage space? Do they not have some repair functionality? Use depends on your need but a medium may be a nice step up from a POS in a stationless .5 system or in a system where you want a station nearby but the closest is 94 AU away?


That is dare I say is a fairly niche use for what is supposed to be a game changer... But yeah distance from and location will help that is for sure.

Actually it is not a step up from a POS, lets take refining a massive investment in rigs and stuff, and the cost of onlining the module is huge as pointed out earlier by a poster in this thread. Just online a small POS which you have offline, put on a refining array do the job, then offline, scoop and put the POS offline.

Repairs, yes for Shield, Hull and Armour, takes 20 seconds to start and does 4% every tick, however is that worth 2.1bn plus the cost of modules and rigs on top and becoming a big target for war decs?

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

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#64 - 2016-05-02 19:27:29 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
CCP made a gross error in making these Medium Citadels useless.

The failure of CCP to provide either content driving objects and resources in highsec or mechanics that enable content creation is pretty legendary at this point.

There's two distinct factors there, things that create conflict and mechanics that enable it. CCP is worse at the later, the general desire to blow things up compensates for the former to some extent.

The problem is there's the more than one group of people who perceive anything pertaining to PVP in highsec as being inherently bad for various ridiculously ill-conceived reasons. So when someone says something like "CCP should remove faction police because that would actually enable a massive amount of anti-ganking/criminal hunting player-enforcement gameplay like people keep saying they want" all the people who don't actually care about highsec PVP gameplay and just want characters who have low security status for whatever reason to have as many penalties stacked on them as possible all whine relentlessly about it. And that's before you even get to the people who think all highsec gameplay should just be straight up bad (I've literally seen people straight up state that it's good for highsec to have bugged, unintuitive gameplay), because they're elitists about the kind of space they live in and think everybody should be there.

Heaven forfend that all types of space might have good gameplay opportunities.

Even if there were more things of value to shoot you'd still be limited by the fact that the only way to do anything whatsoever to structures is war declarations, which are a rich man (and his friends) game. A better highsec PVP environment would require more mechanics facilitating PVP and those ideas won't gain traction because they always face huge amounts of opposition from people who don't have or want to have any involvement in highsec PVP, but think it shouldn't exist.


First and second paragraph I agree with.

The problem is that anyone who criticises bad mechanics gets labelled straight off as a whining carebear, for example the risk free bumping issue, which is a poor mechanic and bad for game balance because there a bumper can hold someone in place without any real consequences. People saying this was wrong got unfairly labelled as such. I have pushed for docking penalties because I want CODE and other gankers to have to have a Citadel in space or a POS, you see where I am going with this, its to create meaningful content, not because I want to punish them and yet I have been accused of stacking penalties because I don't like their game play. That was not a whine but many people will accuse me of whining.

Earlier on the AG channel I bemoaned the fact that the collateral system had no mechanic to control that amount of collateral against the value of the items moved, to me it just seems stupid that people have to take this on blind trust, because its not realistic, yes its a game but its more fun if its realistic at least to me. As a result some guys made 200bn with no risk at all. A number of people in the AG channel said it would not be Eve and they are right, it just annoys me that its such high return low risk.

I have seen people getting upset because the old mechanics which often resulted in a confused carebear being shootable for no explainable reason were replaced by crimewatch 2.0. I saw a lot of people completely bemused how they ended up being shot or got CONCORDED. And people bemoaned that change, are they serious...

I want you war dec corps and alliances to have meaningful targets and battles and loot, which is why one has to have something in space that needs to be defended, the Citadels could change all that, and a Large or XL will certainly create some fairly interesting combat as long as the people who put it up get the support of enough people against the war decs that are sure to come.

But I really do not think this hub and pipe camping is really fun at all for both sides, I do believe that war dec's will have more meaning with these new structures but only if they are useful, can be defended or cheap enough that it does not matter.

It is all a question of game balance and what I found refreshing about the AG channel is that the majority of people in there want PvP and ganking in hisec, but they want it to be balanced and that is not whining or moaning.

The key thing to make war decs meaningful is to have something worth defending, the rest is utter rubbish...




The most ideal solution, were it up to me™, would be to require that only corporations with infrastructure in space could declare war and have war declared on them. But I would also require that a "corporation" not having infrastructure is downgraded to an LLC and all they get is a corp chat and no other "corp features" (and are not deccable not able to declare war either, because most corps exist without roles, wallet use, hangars, etc.), corporations that lose their infrastructure get downgraded and their hangars and wallets go into "escrow" and must reestablish infrastructure and corp status to get their stuff back.

The idea is that both sides need to have something to defend. When one side can just blanket dec with nothing to lose but some ISK and potentially some ships, then what is even the point of fighting them? The deccers can hub hump for that one hauler or mission runner who didn't get the memo regarding being at war, the defenders can go play something else or JC out to nullsec for a week.

CCP has given something that defenders can fight for, but attackers have nothing to lose as usual.


More unused content. It's almost as if the weaponized boredom mechanics of the Goon Age are going to take time to work out of the systems.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#65 - 2016-05-02 19:27:37 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

I have seen people getting upset because the old mechanics which often resulted in a confused carebear being shootable for no explainable reason were replaced by crimewatch 2.0. I saw a lot of people completely bemused how they ended up being shot or got CONCORDED. And people bemoand that change, are they serious...

The idea that the old aggression system was hard to understand is just a talking point CCP Greyscale shat out to justify him leading a big project he could brag about and was supported by the ignorance of non-highsec players and carebears who had literally zero understanding of the system and still don't understand the current one.

The old system was actually extremely simple. If you steal from a can you get flagged to the corp, if you rep someone who stole from a can you get flagged the corp too. Same goes if you remotely assist someone at war, you inherent the flag the person you're assisting has. Timers related to individual characters were identical to limited engagements but lasted 15 minutes. All flags have the same duration and work the same way.

That's seriously the whole thing. The only part that was worse was the fact that criminal flags could propagate through a rep chain without warning, which was a bug because there was meant to be an dialog box which didn't always trigger before the flag propagated.

Whereas new crimewatch added multiple different flagging types of different function and duration and which interact with each other and with the safety system in unexpected ways. My favorite is how allies in a war can't remotely assist the people they're allied with or vice versa without becoming suspect flagged. It also didn't even bother to fix logistics repping awoxers not becoming flagged, which is not a bug and is still normal gameplay. Also it eliminated clan flipping from the game, which was a great low-investment way to introduce new players to PVP in a controlled environment and actually generated conflict (my first war against an alliance much larger than my corp happen when they declared war on us because I was can flipping them) and replaced it with suspect baiting which is far less interesting and accessible.

It's worse in pretty much every respect with regards to its stated goals. It didn't eliminate edge cases at all, in fact they failed to realize that in the first version there was no way for neutral logistics involved in a war to gain any kind of flags at all and there was a period of about 30 days post patch where neutral RR could not be legally attacked at all. This was a glaring logical error that illustrates the total lack of thought and care put into the system. CCP didn't consider the "edge case" called "wars". It's also not easier to understand, see everyone BAW has ever killed because suddenly all of their logistics shut off in the middle of a fight because they don't know what is and is not considered "neutral logistics" or what happens if you remotely repair any character that has an LE with anyone.

It doesn't affect me negatively because I'm not new or inexperienced and am generally the one in a position to leverage it's bizarre behavior to screw over people who are, but I absolutely hate the design of the whole system, it behaves very strangely and has a distinct anti-combat flavor to it.


I don't know, I saw some very odd things happen, but there are certainly some bad mechanics in this one, for example the inability to rep alliance mates is crazy, or those in the same war, it makes no sense and I wish CCP would sort it out. Using logistics in hisec is an utter nightmare, like last night for example.

Can flipping was rather naff because someone was shooting in the main ships that could not fire back, its like baby seal clubbing. Suspect baiting is actually likely to get real fights, but some of the baiting is just rather silly at times...

Generally I prefer the clarity, it would be impossible to do anti-ganking with the old system that is for certain.

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

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#66 - 2016-05-02 19:38:41 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

I have seen people getting upset because the old mechanics which often resulted in a confused carebear being shootable for no explainable reason were replaced by crimewatch 2.0. I saw a lot of people completely bemused how they ended up being shot or got CONCORDED. And people bemoand that change, are they serious...

The idea that the old aggression system was hard to understand is just a talking point CCP Greyscale shat out to justify him leading a big project he could brag about and was supported by the ignorance of non-highsec players and carebears who had literally zero understanding of the system and still don't understand the current one.

The old system was actually extremely simple. If you steal from a can you get flagged to the corp, if you rep someone who stole from a can you get flagged the corp too. Same goes if you remotely assist someone at war, you inherent the flag the person you're assisting has. Timers related to individual characters were identical to limited engagements but lasted 15 minutes. All flags have the same duration and work the same way.

That's seriously the whole thing. The only part that was worse was the fact that criminal flags could propagate through a rep chain without warning, which was a bug because there was meant to be an dialog box which didn't always trigger before the flag propagated.

Whereas new crimewatch added multiple different flagging types of different function and duration and which interact with each other and with the safety system in unexpected ways. My favorite is how allies in a war can't remotely assist the people they're allied with or vice versa without becoming suspect flagged. It also didn't even bother to fix logistics repping awoxers not becoming flagged, which is not a bug and is still normal gameplay. Also it eliminated clan flipping from the game, which was a great low-investment way to introduce new players to PVP in a controlled environment and actually generated conflict (my first war against an alliance much larger than my corp happen when they declared war on us because I was can flipping them) and replaced it with suspect baiting which is far less interesting and accessible.

It's worse in pretty much every respect with regards to its stated goals. It didn't eliminate edge cases at all, in fact they failed to realize that in the first version there was no way for neutral logistics involved in a war to gain any kind of flags at all and there was a period of about 30 days post patch where neutral RR could not be legally attacked at all. This was a glaring logical error that illustrates the total lack of thought and care put into the system. CCP didn't consider the "edge case" called "wars". It's also not easier to understand, see everyone BAW has ever killed because suddenly all of their logistics shut off in the middle of a fight because they don't know what is and is not considered "neutral logistics" or what happens if you remotely repair any character that has an LE with anyone.

It doesn't affect me negatively because I'm not new or inexperienced and am generally the one in a position to leverage it's bizarre behavior to screw over people who are, but I absolutely hate the design of the whole system, it behaves very strangely and has a distinct anti-combat flavor to it.


I don't know, I saw some very odd things happen, but there are certainly some bad mechanics in this one, for example the inability to rep alliance mates is crazy, or those in the same war, it makes no sense and I wish CCP would sort it out. Using logistics in hisec is an utter nightmare, like last night for example.

Can flipping was rather naff because someone was shooting in the main ships that could not fire back, its like baby seal clubbing. Suspect baiting is actually likely to get real fights, but some of the baiting is just rather silly at times...

Generally I prefer the clarity, it would be impossible to do anti-ganking with the old system that is for certain.



I recall the days of "Aggro Fu", when an alliance called TEARS was active.

On the surface it just plain looked bad. It was a gotcha game, "Oh you don't know this one loophole to the addendum of the agro rule that was updated then patched then changed and patched again last week" and blap goes the space ship.

Crime Watch and the ability to abandon loot (and set drones to passive) was the end of that. It did not fix Aggro Fu, just made it avoidable.

And out of anger the Aggro Fu black belts started bumping miners. The rest is history. But sometimes I wonder why CCP does not just start teleporting people past a certain SP out into the middle of nullsec as a means of getting a point across.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#67 - 2016-05-02 19:41:51 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
But sometimes I wonder why CCP does not just start teleporting people past a certain SP out into the middle of nullsec as a means of getting a point across.


Now that would be funny you make me LOL, we should also make the JC's fail and the death clone re-set to a station in Cobalt Edge, now that would be fun...

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

Rook Moray
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2016-05-02 19:48:30 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

I recall the days of "Aggro Fu", when an alliance called TEARS was active.

On the surface it just plain looked bad. It was a gotcha game, "Oh you don't know this one loophole to the addendum of the agro rule that was updated then patched then changed and patched again last week" and blap goes the space ship.

Crime Watch and the ability to abandon loot (and set drones to passive) was the end of that. It did not fix Aggro Fu, just made it avoidable.

And out of anger the Aggro Fu black belts started bumping miners. The rest is history. But sometimes I wonder why CCP does not just start teleporting people past a certain SP out into the middle of nullsec as a means of getting a point across.



If you try to build a space station, someone will find an excuse to blow it up. Babylon 5, Deep Space 9, both Death Stars...

I might have agreed with the teleportation idea. But skill injectors are a thing.



“When you want to know how things really work, study them when they're coming apart.” -Guristas Proverb.

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#69 - 2016-05-02 19:51:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
I recall the days of "Aggro Fu", when an alliance called TEARS was active.

On the surface it just plain looked bad. It was a gotcha game, "Oh you don't know this one loophole to the addendum of the agro rule that was updated then patched then changed and patched again last week" and blap goes the space ship.

Crime Watch and the ability to abandon loot (and set drones to passive) was the end of that. It did not fix Aggro Fu, just made it avoidable.

And out of anger the Aggro Fu black belts started bumping miners. The rest is history. But sometimes I wonder why CCP does not just start teleporting people past a certain SP out into the middle of nullsec as a means of getting a point across.

The "aggro fu" was literally just that you could shoot a drone, anchorable, cargo container or abandoned ship owned by a person and it would extend a timer against someone indefinitely. It was patched out long before crimewatch was implemented.

Pretty much all of the "strange stuff" with old aggression was fixed prior to crimewatch.
Shayla Etherodyne
Delta Laroth Industries
#70 - 2016-05-02 20:25:12 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
I really hope CCP is going to change wardec mechanics before the rollout of all structures is complete, because at this rate not many high sec structures will ever exist. Current war dec mechanics were already broken before this, but they are highly incompatible with the way structure vulnerability works.

What changes to wardecs do you think CCP should make to fix this perceived "incompatibility"? How should one go about shooting a structure in highsec?

POCOs were implemented with the exact same rules regarding vulnerability to wardecs and transferability while under a war declaration. I still see POCOs on essentially every planet in highsec and while they do change hands, it is rare to see one actually reinforced. Why do you think this new batch of structures would be any different?


You mean: when I am wardecced, I give the crane to a different corp, I lock this planet forever without a custom office?

How it work for a a assembled POCOS?
Shayla Etherodyne
Delta Laroth Industries
#71 - 2016-05-02 22:46:49 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
CCP made a gross error in making these Medium Citadels useless.

The failure of CCP to provide either content driving objects and resources in highsec or mechanics that enable content creation is pretty legendary at this point.

There's two distinct factors there, things that create conflict and mechanics that enable it. CCP is worse at the later, the general desire to blow things up compensates for the former to some extent.

The problem is there's the more than one group of people who perceive anything pertaining to PVP in highsec as being inherently bad for various ridiculously ill-conceived reasons. So when someone says something like "CCP should remove faction police because that would actually enable a massive amount of anti-ganking/criminal hunting player-enforcement gameplay like people keep saying they want" all the people who don't actually care about highsec PVP gameplay and just want characters who have low security status for whatever reason to have as many penalties stacked on them as possible all whine relentlessly about it. And that's before you even get to the people who think all highsec gameplay should just be straight up bad (I've literally seen people straight up state that it's good for highsec to have bugged, unintuitive gameplay), because they're elitists about the kind of space they live in and think everybody should be there.

Heaven forfend that all types of space might have good gameplay opportunities.

Even if there were more things of value to shoot you'd still be limited by the fact that the only way to do anything whatsoever to structures is war declarations, which are a rich man (and his friends) game. A better highsec PVP environment would require more mechanics facilitating PVP and those ideas won't gain traction because they always face huge amounts of opposition from people who don't have or want to have any involvement in highsec PVP, but think it shouldn't exist.



Your argument sum up to "high sec should be equal to low sec, with easy PvP". Then what is the function of high security space?
Make it all low sec, problem solved. Wait, wasn't that tried when the game was launched? Didn't CCP decided it don't work?
Shayla Etherodyne
Delta Laroth Industries
#72 - 2016-05-02 23:06:01 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

I have seen people getting upset because the old mechanics which often resulted in a confused carebear being shootable for no explainable reason were replaced by crimewatch 2.0. I saw a lot of people completely bemused how they ended up being shot or got CONCORDED. And people bemoand that change, are they serious...

The idea that the old aggression system was hard to understand is just a talking point CCP Greyscale shat out to justify him leading a big project he could brag about and was supported by the ignorance of non-highsec players and carebears who had literally zero understanding of the system and still don't understand the current one.

The old system was actually extremely simple. If you steal from a can you get flagged to the corp, if you rep someone who stole from a can you get flagged the corp too. Same goes if you remotely assist someone at war, you inherent the flag the person you're assisting has. Timers related to individual characters were identical to limited engagements but lasted 15 minutes. All flags have the same duration and work the same way.

That's seriously the whole thing. The only part that was worse was the fact that criminal flags could propagate through a rep chain without warning, which was a bug because there was meant to be an dialog box which didn't always trigger before the flag propagated.

Whereas new crimewatch added multiple different flagging types of different function and duration and which interact with each other and with the safety system in unexpected ways. My favorite is how allies in a war can't remotely assist the people they're allied with or vice versa without becoming suspect flagged. It also didn't even bother to fix logistics repping awoxers not becoming flagged, which is not a bug and is still normal gameplay. Also it eliminated clan flipping from the game, which was a great low-investment way to introduce new players to PVP in a controlled environment and actually generated conflict (my first war against an alliance much larger than my corp happen when they declared war on us because I was can flipping them) and replaced it with suspect baiting which is far less interesting and accessible.

It's worse in pretty much every respect with regards to its stated goals. It didn't eliminate edge cases at all, in fact they failed to realize that in the first version there was no way for neutral logistics involved in a war to gain any kind of flags at all and there was a period of about 30 days post patch where neutral RR could not be legally attacked at all. This was a glaring logical error that illustrates the total lack of thought and care put into the system. CCP didn't consider the "edge case" called "wars". It's also not easier to understand, see everyone BAW has ever killed because suddenly all of their logistics shut off in the middle of a fight because they don't know what is and is not considered "neutral logistics" or what happens if you remotely repair any character that has an LE with anyone.

It doesn't affect me negatively because I'm not new or inexperienced and am generally the one in a position to leverage it's bizarre behavior to screw over people who are, but I absolutely hate the design of the whole system, it behaves very strangely and has a distinct anti-combat flavor to it.


Someone still remember how it was possible to put a criminal flag on a miner grabbing the ore in a jetcan but not moving it to your bay.
It become "owned" by the player grabbing it, but he didn't received a flag as he hadn't moved it, but as soon as the miner or the hauler removed it they got the flag, for removing their ore from their can.
Sorry, but the old system was full of bugs.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#73 - 2016-05-02 23:48:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:
Someone still remember how it was possible to put a criminal flag on a miner grabbing the ore in a jetcan but not moving it to your bay.
It become "owned" by the player grabbing it, but he didn't received a flag as he hadn't moved it, but as soon as the miner or the hauler removed it they got the flag, for removing their ore from their can.
Sorry, but the old system was full of bugs.

All of the bugs were fixed significantly prior to the implementation of the current crimewatch system which also was full of bugs on introduction, the obvious one being the fact that neutral logistics literally could not become suspect flagged, another is that neutral characters in fleet with someone with a timer could spontaneously gain that timer on session change without actually doing anything at all. Most of these bugs have, three years later, been fixed.

There was no sudden massive improvement in highsec PVP gameplay related to crimewatch that rained down like manna from heaven, the basic design of the system was so logically unsound that it didn't include a way for neutrals remotely assisting participants in wars from becoming engageable. This wasn't some accidental mechanical quirk, the basic design just didn't consider that participants in wars don't get LE timers and remotely assisting someone with a LE or suspect timers was the only way someone could gain a flag via remote assistance. It took CCP a month to fix it and in order to fix it they had to implement the kind of "edge case" exception that the entire system was specifically intended to avoid.

The entire thing from its concept to its deployment was badly done and has only reached a point of usability after a ton of additional work by other people. It's another item on the laundry list of greyscale failures.
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#74 - 2016-05-03 00:51:23 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
They aren't weak, though. They're actually pretty powerful, their EWAR is very effective, they neut a ton, are completely immune to electronic and capacitor warfare, do more dps than any sub capital ship that exists and they don't require any skills to use. The problem being experienced by this defender is that strength is relative to the threat.

When the threat is twenty guys with a coherent fleet of battleships and logistics who know what to expect. It's like sitting in space in a capital and expecting to be able to solo a twenty man subcapital fleet unsupported.



They are quite weak. People are easily killing them left and right, without even trying hard.

Been around since the beginning.

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#75 - 2016-05-03 00:54:49 UTC
d0cTeR9 wrote:
They are quite weak. People are easily killing them left and right, without even trying hard.

That's because the owners aren't defending them.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#76 - 2016-05-03 04:56:42 UTC
d0cTeR9 wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
They aren't weak, though. They're actually pretty powerful, their EWAR is very effective, they neut a ton, are completely immune to electronic and capacitor warfare, do more dps than any sub capital ship that exists and they don't require any skills to use. The problem being experienced by this defender is that strength is relative to the threat.

When the threat is twenty guys with a coherent fleet of battleships and logistics who know what to expect. It's like sitting in space in a capital and expecting to be able to solo a twenty man subcapital fleet unsupported.



They are quite weak. People are easily killing them left and right, without even trying hard.

Oh the horror. Things exploding in Eve.

Without exception (except maybe in a wormhole), every single Citadel that has died so far was killed during the Citadel's weakest window, the first vulnerability window 24 after anchoring before the structure had been fit. Player's clearly failed to maintain control of the system, and lost their structure to a superior force.

What you don't see in the killboards are the many fold more Citadels that made it past that critical phase and are now happily fit and invulnerable almost all the time, functioning as intended in the hands of the owners. CCP Nullarboar confirmed this directly.
Natural CloneKiller
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#77 - 2016-05-03 05:53:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Natural CloneKiller
The bounty Hunter role in eve does need an update as this system currently does not work the way I think many would like it to. As for how to fix this or suggested updates, I'm not sure!
etgfrogs
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2016-05-03 06:06:01 UTC
Does anyone know if the battles where the citadels were online had the fighters from the citadels out hitting things? I'm seeing everyone mention the missile launchers, but none about the fighters. At least according to the stats, the citadel can launch an equal amount of fighters that a carrier can.
Natural CloneKiller
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#79 - 2016-05-03 06:07:58 UTC
etgfrogs wrote:
Does anyone know if the battles where the citadels were online had the fighters from the citadels out hitting things? I'm seeing everyone mention the missile launchers, but none about the fighters. At least according to the stats, the citadel can launch an equal amount of fighters that a carrier can.


Yes the citadel used fighters in the first engagement.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#80 - 2016-05-03 06:13:31 UTC
Also fighters are bugged, that's not actually a big deal in this specific situation since even working correctly you can still tank them with 3 logi (we checked).