These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

To: The Developers (New Rigs For Citadels And Engineering Complexes)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Fifty Three
Doomheim
#1 - 2017-04-29 20:07:29 UTC
1. Rig for energy efficiency, that applies to all modules, for 10% less fuel consumption. So a bit less fuel blocks will be used per day.

2. 3 different rigs, like how you do it on ships already to boost the Shield/Armour/Structure strength of the Citadels+Engineering Complexes, by 5%. Therefore, at most, the strength of the citadel/Engineering complexes can only get 15% more Hitpoints, if all 3 rigs are used.

3. Rig for Un-anchoring faster, 3 day or so.
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union
#2 - 2017-04-29 21:01:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rovinia
To: The OP

Please stop these "To: ..." titles. Your Threads won't get more attentions from the Devs if you do that. It just looks silly. It's the PURPOSE of this forum section to post and discuss ideas.
Vokan Narkar
Doomheim
#3 - 2017-04-29 23:25:06 UTC
1 and 2 sounds good to me
Cade Windstalker
#4 - 2017-04-30 00:18:31 UTC

  1. The cost to run a module is fixed, considering some modules don't have any rigs affecting them and there are *no* fuel cost reduction rigs I fail to see why CCP would put one out, let alone one that affects *all* modules.

  2. The HP of a Citadel is a balance parameter. The whole point here is that you don't have to fit tank which both means the Citadel is always reasonably hard to kill and you can't brick tank one.

  3. No. CCP specifically talked about anchoring times earlier, the reason you can't do this is because if you change the unachoring time to less than a week then you can put a Citadel up and take it down again before it's vulnerable.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#5 - 2017-04-30 18:17:52 UTC
You don't need to say "to the developers". That's literally the point of this section of the forums.

Do you think they're sitting there reading all of these posts and say "holy ****, THIS guy said "to the developers!" it must be super important!"
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#6 - 2017-05-01 03:18:35 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
You don't need to say "to the developers". That's literally the point of this section of the forums.

Do you think they're sitting there reading all of these posts and say "holy ****, THIS guy said "to the developers!" it must be super important!"

I think that he doesn't like it when people critique his ideas. His post history is... let's go with "consistent." I cannot mean that in a good way, sadly.

My favorite was the one that pointed out his ship-loss history.

Oh dear, he just lost another Machinaw.

...his "fit" though? THIS. I don't even know what to say.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#7 - 2017-05-01 10:55:18 UTC
This guy..............

I have nothing to add because Cade already pointed out the relevant things.

Other than to say to the OP

I am so sorry you can not spend more than 1 million ISK on a Bounty Big smile
and I guess being blocked is better than receiving mails from you.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#8 - 2017-05-01 21:51:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Sonya Corvinus
grgjegb gergerg wrote:
I think that he doesn't like it when people critique his ideas. His post history is... let's go with "consistent." I cannot mean that in a good way, sadly.

My favorite was the one that pointed out his ship-loss history.

Oh dear, he just lost another Machinaw.

...his "fit" though? THIS. I don't even know what to say.


Oh I know. I post that response to every one of his threads in the vain hope that he will one day realize how silly it sounds.

On the plus side he did put a bounty on me. That sure put me in my place.
Tessa Sage
Long Pig Luncheon Meat
Sending Thots And Players
#9 - 2017-05-02 10:02:09 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


(3) No. CCP specifically talked about anchoring times earlier, the reason you can't do this is because if you change the unachoring time to less than a week then you can put a Citadel up and take it down again before it's vulnerable.


Goodness, if I undock from a station and things aren't clear enough to begin aligning anywhere, I dock back up and usually don't lose the ship in the process. If a citadel is every bit as tentative in its first anchoring, you bet half of New Eden would rather unanchor that huge target in the first grace period available!
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#10 - 2017-05-02 16:15:23 UTC
grgjegb gergerg wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
You don't need to say "to the developers". That's literally the point of this section of the forums.

Do you think they're sitting there reading all of these posts and say "holy ****, THIS guy said "to the developers!" it must be super important!"

I think that he doesn't like it when people critique his ideas. His post history is... let's go with "consistent." I cannot mean that in a good way, sadly.

My favorite was the one that pointed out his ship-loss history.

Oh dear, he just lost another Machinaw.

...his "fit" though? THIS. I don't even know what to say.


Well.. look at it this way. Why would he bother fitting the ships since he loses them so quickly? This is obviously an attempt to improve his isk-efficiency!Pirate
Carnivorous Swarm
Doomheim
#11 - 2017-05-02 16:52:15 UTC
grgjegb gergerg wrote:
I don't even know what to say.


You missed the active triple-tanked Skiff.
B'ron Jan Escobar
Rentenkasse des Kartells
#12 - 2017-05-02 17:53:41 UTC
Fifty Three wrote:
1. Rig for energy efficiency, that applies to all modules, for 10% less fuel consumption. So a bit less fuel blocks will be used per day.

2. 3 different rigs, like how you do it on ships already to boost the Shield/Armour/Structure strength of the Citadels+Engineering Complexes, by 5%. Therefore, at most, the strength of the citadel/Engineering complexes can only get 15% more Hitpoints, if all 3 rigs are used.

3. Rig for Un-anchoring faster, 3 day or so.




Idea 1. : Actually Fuel Consumption is Regulated by the Space you Deploy them. (HighSec,LowSec,Null/WH)

Idea 2. : I don't really see the Purpose ot that, because the Timewindow when you need to Attack is Stopped when you max of Damage. So it would not matter having to kill 1 Million Shield Points, oder 10 Million. When you Stop the Timer, it would just take more Time, and when also Tidi kicks in, no Keepstar would ever fall agai...... OH Wait a Second, i see what you did there!!!!

Idea 3. : Eh.... wouldn't Unanchor the Citadel Destroy that Rigg too? So that you Wait money, only to.... i don't really see that being Useful Sir. Nope!
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#13 - 2017-05-05 19:55:48 UTC  |  Edited by: grgjegb gergerg
Carnivorous Swarm wrote:
grgjegb gergerg wrote:
I don't even know what to say.


You missed the active triple-tanked Skiff.

I don't think it REALLY counts as triple tanked, since it just has a hull/armor repper, no shield booster. Unless you count passive shield tank, but it had no extender, just resists.

I didn't miss that one, I just wanted to hold it in reserve. Also, it made my brain hurt.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#14 - 2017-05-07 23:03:51 UTC
1 you would see a base increase increase in fuel cost so sad not to mess with ice prices

2 no the punt was they would always be destroyed within a predictable time given a minimum force

3 would just turn into a free to quickly remove a structure


-1 to all

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble