View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0023329 | AI War 2 | Bug - Gameplay | Jun 23, 2020 8:38 am | Feb 12, 2021 9:55 pm | |
| Reporter | ArnaudB | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | Beta 2.078 Mod and Expansion Prepping | ||||
| Summary | 0023329: Battlestations are no longer upgraded by citadel tech | ||||
| Description | A bug that showed up since 2.048 and still is on the Beta. For some reasons battlestations aren't getting mark up from the citadel tech anymore, and they have nothing but the "spend science on them" to mark up. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
I personally didn't like the change, but this is actually working as intended if you look at the patchnotes for Version 2.045. |
|
|
Indeed. It feels counter-intuitive but oh well. Thanks for your answer. |
|
|
I don't really recall the rationale for this. Is there something folks would like to see changed with the citadel and battlestation techs? I understand right now there is no battlestation tech. |
|
|
"Basic battlestations no longer benefit from the help of the central Citadel tech. They are only upgradeable by direct science, now. They were far too similar to citadels in terms of their ability to tech up, otherwise, which kind of devalued citadels. It doesn't seem like they warrant their own full separate tech, though. The direct science upgrades are now a bit cheaper than last build for battlestations, and a bit more expensive for citadels. Nothing giant in either case, but it skews them both a bit more, which is good. Thanks to -NR-SirLimbo for inspiring this change." |
|
|
Thanks for providing the context -- I do still think that they should feel a bit different from one another. I'm not 100% sure that this is the factor that it should be based on, though. |
|
|
It's a little odd to me that citadel tech exists instead of battle station, since the latter you will always have at least one (the starter) but citadels may not be captured at all Maybe citadel tech just shouldn't exist. Although citadels already feel more like candy capturable than something you can build a grand strategy around. |
|
|
I mean, citadels are still something I avoid even with the tech-thing. The two biggest downside are the horribly slow speed of citadels (none of which have infinite range weapons) and the enormous penalty to counterattack buildup even compared to battlestations. (I don't remember if it's five or ten times "normal flagship", in the XML). It does feel incongruous that citadels can get upgraded and not battlestations. It feels more like a bug than a design choice, from a player perspective. It's inconsistent. It'd be better to remove citadel tech upgrade like the battlestations, or both have them, or share. Just not the current odd mix. |
|
|
flagship_counter_attack_budget_multiplier_combat="2.0" flagship_counter_attack_budget_multiplier_fleet="2.0" flagship_counter_attack_budget_multiplier_support="1.0" flagship_counter_attack_budget_multiplier_lonewolf="2.0" flagship_counter_attack_budget_multiplier_battlestation_basic="1.5" <-- flagship_counter_attack_budget_multiplier_citadel="3.0" <-- I recall once noticing that there were very few capturable Battlestations/Citadels on the board, excluding those cases on a small galaxy where two Citadels are seeded directly adjacent to the Homeworld. I do not remember much of what my reasoning/thinking behind any of these units were. In Classic Fusion Battlestations were removed and the utility effects simply merged into Citadels (the few that are there anyway). Citadels copy the Human Fortresses from Classic, including that large range, which wouldn't work for vanilla due to the smaller grav-well and lack of dampening on structures. Plus the ability to go in and out of the same wormhole, letting shields recharge and attritioning everything. Happened with Golems before, on Diff 10. |
|
|
A small nitpick, but the Interceptor Citadel has infinite range. Personally, I really like the fully upgraded Drainer Citadel; that thing just melts through the bigger ships (even if the extra beams decide they'd rather be targeting strikecraft) and it's the only Citadel that doesn't have abysmally low hull health (and I find even that is rarely a problem). In a 80/100 star map you will only ever see 2 Citadels, so you do have to put in quite a lot of research points for fairly little gain. Also researching the technology does not upgrade the turrets of a Citadel, but upgrading it directly does so there's another inconsistency for you and even less reason to go for the research if you are already on the fence about it. Having said all this I find them weirdly compelling: all those turrets have proven very useful during Superterminal hacks and Spire Relic hunts, and once fully upgraded they have something like 270.000 dps (and that's without bonus damage). It's the Battlestations I can't stand. I only really like the starting Revealer battlestation for it's tachyon array in the early game, and after the early game I only use it for the turrets and I never upgrade it at all. Even if Battlestations were upgraded by technology I wouldn't care unless it also upgrades their turrets. |
|
|
I don't think the Citadel tech should exist. They can now be upgraded with science like any other flagship, having a tech to upgrade them further seems redundant. No other flagship type gets its own dedicated tech, and they shouldn't have one. I can't stand Citadels because they're so slow. The 800 speed of Battlestations can already pose logistical problems when I want to bring them alongside my main combat fleet, so 400 speed Citadel is just completely unusable as anything other than a static emplacement. I'd use otherwise unchanged Citadels if only they had the same speed as Battlestations. |
|
|
I hear that on the citadel tech, yeah. That does make some sense. I wonder, though: if we take the hugely slow nature of citadels as a given -- basically them being the SuperFortresses that you don't move around from emplaced positions -- is there any way to make those feel awesome? Or is the temptation to move them around always going to make them feel crappy by comparison? Maybe they should get an extra boost, but be completely nonfunctional in enemy territory so the temptation isn't even there? I'm just kind of spitballing ideas. I like the idea of an ultra-slow unit, but it has to be really really worth it. |
|
|
If it were to be changed so they only upgrade via the fleet menu, then the upgrade costs would have to be reduced significantly. I'm not going to include the possible benefits of upgrading turret levels. Currently upgrading just one Citadel without technologies to Mark 7 costs 17900 Science total. The upgrade from Mark 6 to Mark 7 alone is almost as expensive as the same upgrade for the Botnet Golem (6500 vs 7000). So for two Citadels that is a total of 35800 Science if you were to refrain from the technology upgrades. That is a lot of Science. The Citadel technologies are in total 9200 Science; and with two Citadels that is an additional 2*(400+1100)=3000 Science to get them both to Mark 7. So 12200 Science total to get two Citadels to Mark 7 as they are now. |
|
|
"Or is the temptation to move them around always going to make them feel crappy by comparison? Maybe they should get an extra boost, but be completely nonfunctional in enemy territory so the temptation isn't even there?" Seems like a good idea. Or perhaps instead of being nonfunctional in enemy territory, they would merely suffer a significant nerfs outside of allied territory. Either way, the lore explanation could be 'because of logistics.' |
|
|
I think Citadels have always been underwhelming before because of how slow they are. Even on defense it takes a long time for them to reach the enemy provided they come from different wormholes (or they kite). It has gotten worse since the XP removal: you need less science for initial upgrades but more in the long term, and science is FAR more precious (higher demand&attractivity from Command Stations and Officer/Lone Wolf). Big issue really is speed. Lose the command station where they are located and it'll takes ages before they can retreat and stop being crippled. Worse, they cost a lot of money, so in any situation where you are already hurting for metal (due to AI offensive), repairing the citadel will make starvation worse (without guaranteeing the Citadel can reach the shifting frontline and give a hand in time). It doesn't help that Citadels and battlestations tends to wander around the planet when just in Attack move. I do think they need some sort of boost. It's also harder for them to reach higher mark due to the increased need for science everywhere and citadel tech being less competitive than before. There is also less incentive to upgrade them once their turrets reach Mark VII, which will happens easily when the citadel itself is Mark 3 or 4. Without changing their DPS or range (a troublesome balance thing to do), I'd suggest changing speed. The simplest option is a speed buff so they can both reach defensive locations more quickly and retreat faster to be repaired before the AI launch a follow up. I'd suggest... 800 speed like the Spire cruiser? My gut feeling is that 600 would be 'better' somehow but spire-speed is neat because then you can put both the Spire fleet and the citadel in the same group number, and be confident they'll stick together due to similar speed. It's currently what I do with my battlestation, I put it with the Spire Flagship so I get a crowd-control killer with the beam-heavy-hitter that is the flagship, and they stick together due to having the same speed. In that case the battlestations probably could gain some speed, probably 1000 or 1200 so it could be paired with Lone-Fleet or Officer fleets, in the same group (Much tidier and a nice QoL). A second option that come to mind, if Citadels are to be purely defensive and yet we want them to feel awesome when properly used. Citadels could have a speed multiplier bonus (Like 3.0 or 4.0) only effective on player-held planets, a bonus that stack with command stations speed bonus. The speed bonus would only affect citadels, but it would stack with others citadels, so you could have a 'power couple' of citadels that can move crazily fast around the player defensive lines... so long as the player-planets are interconnected and so long as the command station remain standing. The later point would prevent kiting since protecting the Command Stations remains critical, else the citadels drop to their native 300 speed (losing bonus their speed bonus and the command station bonus). That'd be more complicated to code, but having a couple of purely defensive forts able to zip around your planets would feel neat. Thoughts? |
|
|
As a side-note, it's weird that Mini-fortress (large turret) have two weapons and the citadels only have one (despite having turrets). |
|
|
ArnaudB, I think citadels are thematically meant to be similar to static defense, and that speeds bonuses for them (even when restricted to allied territory) would detract from that and make them overly ship-like. Ships are meant to compose your QRF. A citadel's placement is a key strategic decision, but allowing them to zip around allied territory would devalue that decision's significance. |
|
|
I don't think so. They're currently worthless. Make a better proposition then. |
|
|
I'd prefer citadels stayed slow but got buffed, to where they feel like a strong defensive station instead of a rapid response defense force or just another, yet rather slow, ship that you drag along with your fleet that might get there in time for the end of the battle. |
|
|
Citadels are simply never going to feel like a strong defensive station when we have to pour science into them. They are not a core mechanic like SuperForts were for defence, with their type being random & of questionable synergy. There's a LOT of things you could do to make Citadels better, but they almost universally fall into a step back towards AIWC, which is something you've purposefully moved away from. (I'm going to skip talking about those because any variety of "make them a global buildable" or "let you select their turrets" is a big design undertaking to mesh with AIW2, whereas it would be standard for AIWC) Outside of those AIWC-like options, Here are some weirder things I've thought up (each is divorced from the others): A) Make Citadels a "capturable" that functions as a Military Command Station with the extra goodies & durability, a kind of transform option for 1 command station. This would distinguish them from spire cities by literally replacing the planetary weak point with a, uh, strong... point? (This is probably the closest to the AIWC-type options I said I wouldn't talk about) B) Make Citadels function as a backup Command Station - they keep a planet perfectly functional while they're not crippled (unless a Reconquest Command Station is already present) Maybe with logistical capabilities, if this doesn't matter enough. C) Conservative option: Fold Citadel tech into Military Command tech, it's currently the cheapest and you could bump up each level 250-500 science. Option A) would probably end up including this one. D) Make them defensive force multipliers. Black hole machine, attack boost on friendly planets, somewhere else is Mantis is a suggestion for "turbo" ships that give fleetwide effects? Some of those could probably be used for this, i.e. 1k Metabolization planet-wide. There's only really going to be two per game, they (I think?) increase AIP, and a lot of Citadels would be easy to theme one of these to. E)... Remove them. If you find Citadels to be criminally underused, and Battlestations to be much more loved - salvage the remains of Citadels. Their best parts could probably be more-or-less transferred to Zenith Trader buildings or Battlestations. This would re-open the design space for another attempt at a SuperFort successor that isn't the Spire Cities, or allowing Militaries to be more the successor. Personally, I feel like removing them would be a bit soon at this point, but the game has also changed a lot since Citadels were conceptualized, and if large design shifts for them are non-viable, there might not be a niche for Citadels with Battlestations, and vice-versa. That was a long post, sorry about that. |
|
|
I don't like Battlestations because they feel weak to me, and Citadels don't cost AIP to capture so I'd rather have something that can at least do some damage. I like Citadels being slow, because almost everything else you can have outside of Spire ships is relatively fast or can be loaded into a transport to make it fast. They still aren't very impressive until you sink research into them and at that point they still don't feel like their firepower makes up for their lack of speed. For example, upgrading a Lost Spire Frigate gains you a bit less DPS than a fully upgraded Citadel for only 900 Science (and some AIP) and you can surpass that with an extra 2000. I don't think the turrets make up for that difference. I would like Citadels to be incredibly powerful, but slow (for variety); maybe have them only fully functional on player planets and disable/weaken their weapons systems after they've been on enemy planet for more than, say, 30 seconds? I strongly dislike the idea of just making them faster; in that case just boost the firepower of Battlestations and remove Citadels altogether. Or how about only Battlestations have turrets, and instead Citadels just have incredible firepower on their own without Science investment? |
|
|
What would make the Citadels more interesting is ditching the random additional turrets that can wildly not match your given techs for a run. Roll that power into guaranteed oomph for the citadel itself. Remove the ability to transit wormholes... instead give it the ability to "tap the grid" for a minute to charge a cross-galaxy jump that only can send it an owned planet of yours. Which means it can stay slow as hell in system because you are mostly using it alongside a cushion of a couple hundred thousand power to jump to exactly the planet targeted by the next wave of the AI. Thus exceedingly strong on defense, completely useless offensively. Because you'd only be able to jump it into allied systems. |
|
|
I strongly agree with GreatYng's comment on this matter. Right now the firepower of battlestations and citadels does not feel like it is worth the sacrifice of being stationary when compared to the firepower of fleets. Not enough oomph. CRCGamer's suggestion for limited Citadel teleportation is also very interesting. I still think Citadels should move at a glacial pace but be able to transit wormholes. Maybe the teleportation ability could be a module the player can opt in for on citadels? And perhaps by "tapping the grid," teleportation could very briefly incur a high energy cost (e.g., 1-2 million), so that this could potentially cause brownouts for players with insufficient energy production. Though I don't think it's accurate to say that teleportation for citadels would mean they would be "entirely useless offensively." It could still be used to establish a beachhead on a planet one away from some hardened target. Not sure whether this is desirable or not. |
|
|
For what it's worth: I like the idea of the citadels being purely defensive, perhaps via requiring planet ownership to be active, while battlestations still have the ability to beachhead. I like the idea of Citadel's turret strength being instead folded into the main citadel, and I like the idea of Citadels being something that lets you keep ownership of a planet (Though I personally would do it by making citadels grant invulnerability to command stations on the planet while active.). |
|
|
Worth noting that some people seem to think citadels can be very strong: https://steamcommunity.com/app/573410/discussions/0/2790494800085009414/ |
|
|
Investigated the seeding and amount of Citadels (and Battlestations) a bit. targetToSeed = (int)Math.Ceiling( (Math.Max( 2, galaxy.GetCountOfTotalPlanetsDestroyedAndOtherwise() / 150 ) * multplier) / 2f ); This is for Battlestations. It seems at minimum, there should be a value of 2 here. It then attempts to seed whatever number it got, in the "middle distance". Then after, it seeds that amount again "kind of wherever". Seems to suggest there should be 4 Battlestations minimum, unless I've missed something (not sure what's with the / 2f). targetToSeed = (int)Math.Ceiling( (Math.Max( 1, galaxy.GetCountOfTotalPlanetsDestroyedAndOtherwise() / 200 ) * multplier) / 2f ); This is for Citadels. Minimum of 1, and less impact of the galaxy size on how many you get. It does the same "middle distance" and "kind of wherever". Data here is done with Classic Fusion, but the only change here is that Battlestation spawns are instead Citadels, so my values would be for both combined. It appears that on 80 planet maps, and 160 planet maps, that I would get 4 total. If I set one of the capturable sliders for one of those (in this case, Battlestations) to 0x, I lose 2 of them. So it would seem in vanilla on default settings that there would only ever be 2 Citadels and 2 Battlestations maximum. Galaxy size seems to not factor in. This seems odd, since the code above would seem to suggest that it attempts to seed 2 Battlestations, twice, which should be 4...but there's only ever 2. Increasing the default slider even to 1.25x (the next higher setting) makes it seed 4. Setting it to 3x makes it seed 6. The Citadel seeding is odd as well. Increasing it up to 2x does nothing on an 80 planet map. Setting it to 2.5x then doubles the count, to 4 on the map. Stranger still, if I max out both, so 6 Battlestation spawns, and 4 Citadel spawns are expected, there are only 8 total, on a 160 planet map. I suspect I've messed things up or missed them, but I would suspect a major problem of Citadel Tech is that they simply don't really appear in high enough numbers. Considering how heavy the vanilla game can be in attrition, two units in the entire galaxy, who do not gain cap, cannot be rebuilt en masse, cannot focus fire on single targets, and are very defense orientated, would not show up well in Tech choices. Noticed these as well: <item name="Direct_Citadel" science_cost_per_time_unlocked="400,1100,2200,3300,4400,6500" is_visible_on_menus="false" direct_science_upgrade="true" sort_group="1" sort_index="1" /> <item name="Citadels" sort_group="80" sort_index="410" display_name="<color=#908dfe>Defense:</color> Citadels" science_cost_per_time_unlocked="1500,2300,2600,2800" icon_path="assets/sci-fi_game_icons/icons/png/transparent/9_b.png"/> You could upgrade 4 Citadels directly, for only a little more than a single Tech level. Then you'd also get the Turret benefits. Hope I got all that right... |
|
|
BadgerBadger the citadel in question in that post is Parasitic. I've made posts myself about the AI being brain-dead about how it treats subverter turrets. High damage multi-targeting parasitic weapons screened by chaff completely screws the AI up at current. It does *not* properly assign threat to parasitic targets other than the BotNet golem. Realistically assigning a 2x multiplier to estimated fleet power of the parasitic units and giving them a higher AI priority for being killed is probably in order. Other than that the full planet coverage of the tritium sniper array citadel is probably the closest runner up for being useful. |
|
|
On the steam feedback: it doesn't state or show how good or why the Citadel performed well. The mention of turrets makes me think the player included what the Citadel could build, we don't even know what type of citadel it was (I thought it was parasitic first, but he was using Parasitic hydra fleet). The argument could be for a battlestation, we don't have enough information to tell. (It notably surprises me that none of the AI threat seemed to think running to the player various planets and homeworld was a good idea, with overwhelming number seems a tad dumb for a 9/9/9. I'll investigate.) * On seeding generation: the sliders giving odd results seems correct. There always seems to be a rather low number of battlestations and citadels when nudging the sliders a little. There is also the annoying generation of "Pure Raid Battlestation/Citadel" that spam in nearly every game, which isn't great when you aren't going down the raid route (but potentially overpowered if you roll two full-raid station/citadel which did happen to me at least three times). |
|
|
throwing my own thoughts on the matter. These are my experiences with them, and I'm not trying to prove anyone right or wrong, but just express what i think of them, and some possible buffs they may get so that i can at least consider capturing citadels instead of ignoring them entirely. May as well remove citadel tech as a whole, similar to spire core, since spire core was made irrelevant. Citadels fundamentally are rather poor to use on attack due to the slow speed, and defensively they're ok, great even if upgraded with science but that's assuming that you can hard read where the AI will attack in the first place. Even with a logistic station highway, Citadels most of the time simply don't make it to defend a wave or hunter incursion in time mid to late game where you can (mostly) safely path through to different far away planets. The main issue I have with them is because of their slow speed. I rely much more heavily on and would rather eat the AIP to have a single golem of any type rather than 2 or even 3 citadels, simply because the golem can likely reach wherever the AI decides to attack in time as well as being able to multi role much more effectively (defense, offense, utility (such as drawing hunters/wardens, paralyzing, etc)) Citadels on attack: When attacking, the AI tends to either commit full force into defending if it thinks it can win with wardens and the occasional hunter fleet, or be filthy cowards and run away when it knows you have overwhelming force. The former nature means that a citadel is dead in the water due to it's low speed and rather high target priority (i notice it tends to get focused down first thing, assuming golems aren't also on the planet, then the golems get targeted first) and has to camp out near a wormhole to prevent getting crippled by overwhelming wardens. The latter nature means that bringing a citadel along in the first place is overkill. While the guns on some of the citadels are pretty powerful, some such as drainer or mass driver simply don't pack a big enough of a punch. Additionally, the turrets that they can build tend to be very hit or miss. some citadels have an amazing high amount of turrets. Others get the short end of the stick (seriously, this guy got shafted https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/729975461572116480/737613581520207902/20200728031146_1.jpg) . Speaking of turrets, another crippling thing about using Citadels on attack and just beach heading in general is the damage bonus against things in construction. That feature alone renders beachheading nearly unviable in almost all cases without some sort of forcefieldes and assisting engineers, as a small group of sentinel gunboats or trippers can just snipe down the turrets before they're finished construction, assuming they're not distracted by the citadel. Even with engineers, a small squad of units passing by turrets in construction can still take out plenty of the building turrets (as my attempt at difficulty 10 can attest to). Even worse, I'm fairly sure that turrets even if still being built contribute to Counter Attack budget for the AI. Suggested buffs for Citadels focusing on attack: turrets exclusive to battlestations and citadels no longer take bonus damage while building. this is a general buff to beach heading in general, and was discussed earlier internally. This buff alone would actually seriously make me consider taking a citadel, because turrets once completed are very effective weapons. Plasma turrets for example make great siege guns against guardpost and their great turret guards. citadels gain new offensive capabilities as they mark up. Compared to battlestations which focus on utility (gravity slows down everything, shield protects nearby stuff, tractor beams can grab albedo .4 instead of .3), Citadels focus more on directly killing specific targets. As they mark up, sure they gain more damage, but they are still only able to effectively kill targets within their parameters (assuming they have a damage bonus weapon. Things like Drainer and Parasitic need supporting fleets in order to actually get anything killed). Maybe as they mark up, give them more "effective" targets. For example, an Agravic citadel maybe gains damage bonus against fast moving ships at mark 3. The tripper already does this at mark 1. The Interceptor citadel gains a damage bonus against thin armored enemies. Drainer citadel can actually hit more than 1 target per beam, etc. Golems don't have this issue, and are effective against almost every target (baring artillery golem, but even that has a bigger impact imo than a citadel) citadels have innate engineering power and have a generous range to use it with: this can help with beach heading, repairing ships and constructing units if a mobile factory is nearby. This also pulls double duty on defense, helping to construct a defensive fleet or turrets. Citadels on defence: Citadels are pretty powerful when they're defending, especially with a logistics station to make them run rings around incoming attackers, combined with the citadels high target priority and you got yourself a decently powerful meat shield. Combined with the turrets you can build and you got yourself a fortress world. The problem is barring turrets, the citadel can only be in one place at one time. A multi pronged attack from hunters synchronized with a CPA and wave is not something that a single citadel can hold at one point. The AI would likely be able and wiling to attack multiple points at once. This problem is shard with golems, but golems have the benefit of having a much faster response time. Honestly not to much to say here. I did see successful use with an agravic citadel once, due to careful wave manipulation causing the AI to send nothing but raiders and raptors against the planet said citadel was on, allowing me to effectively ignore waves for the rest of the game. Citadels do their job defending well when the AI attacks a world with one present, but otherwise suffers from lack of mobility to intercept the AI as the player's empire grows. Suggested buffs for defense: Increase minimum turret cap. If you haven't seen the picture, it's literally just a blitzkrieg turret and 9 scrap turrets. Imo there should be at LEAST either 4 turret lines with a constant minimum 10 minor turrets or 3 major turrets, or 3 turret lines with 15 minimum minor turrets or 4 major turrets. This will allow players to cover more planets with turrets, rather than just having enough for only one planet. Increase speed on player planets when not in combat: this will help citadels transit along logistics highways and neutered planets much easier. I think the hunter fleet or at least fire teams do something similar. I'll maybe add more things later on, but these are most of my thoughts on the matter for now. if you got a question, shoot. |
|
|
Thanks! They have a tech of their own now, in some fashion. :) |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2020 8:38 am | ArnaudB | New Issue | |
| Jun 23, 2020 12:46 pm | Lord Of Nothing | Note Added: 0057425 | |
| Jun 23, 2020 2:35 pm | ArnaudB | Note Added: 0057426 | |
| Jul 22, 2020 12:45 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0057773 | |
| Jul 22, 2020 12:52 pm | RocketAssistedPuffin | Note Added: 0057774 | |
| Jul 22, 2020 1:28 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0057775 | |
| Jul 22, 2020 3:05 pm | ZeusAlmighty | Note Added: 0057778 | |
| Jul 22, 2020 3:44 pm | ArnaudB | Note Added: 0057779 | |
| Jul 22, 2020 4:37 pm | RocketAssistedPuffin | Note Added: 0057780 | |
| Jul 22, 2020 4:48 pm | GreatYng | Note Added: 0057782 | |
| Jul 23, 2020 5:43 pm | ANGRYABOUTELVES | Note Added: 0057815 | |
| Jul 23, 2020 6:05 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0057818 | |
| Jul 23, 2020 6:13 pm | GreatYng | Note Added: 0057819 | |
| Jul 23, 2020 9:46 pm | Apthorpe | Note Added: 0057823 | |
| Jul 24, 2020 8:20 am | ArnaudB | Note Added: 0057827 | |
| Jul 24, 2020 8:21 am | ArnaudB | Note Added: 0057828 | |
| Jul 24, 2020 12:18 pm | Apthorpe | Note Added: 0057838 | |
| Jul 24, 2020 12:59 pm | ArnaudB | Note Added: 0057840 | |
| Jul 24, 2020 1:44 pm | crawlers | Note Added: 0057841 | |
| Jul 25, 2020 10:44 am | ParadoxSong | Note Added: 0057846 | |
| Jul 25, 2020 1:58 pm | GreatYng | Note Added: 0057847 | |
| Jul 25, 2020 6:02 pm | CRCGamer | Note Added: 0057849 | |
| Jul 26, 2020 3:59 pm | Apthorpe | Note Added: 0057853 | |
| Jul 26, 2020 4:17 pm | Lord Of Nothing | Note Added: 0057854 | |
| Jul 26, 2020 6:26 pm | BadgerBadger | Note Added: 0057858 | |
| Jul 26, 2020 7:30 pm | RocketAssistedPuffin | Note Added: 0057860 | |
| Jul 27, 2020 2:42 am | CRCGamer | Note Added: 0057866 | |
| Jul 27, 2020 2:42 am | ArnaudB | Note Added: 0057867 | |
| Jul 28, 2020 6:22 am | DEMOCRACY_DEMOCRACY | File Added: 20200728031146_1.jpg | |
| Jul 28, 2020 6:22 am | DEMOCRACY_DEMOCRACY | Note Added: 0057880 | |
| Feb 12, 2021 9:55 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Feb 12, 2021 9:55 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Feb 12, 2021 9:55 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Feb 12, 2021 9:55 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0060515 |
