These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Maximum citadels in a system?

Author
Wallstreet J0urnal
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1 - 2017-01-20 19:36:53 UTC
I would like to know what you guys think of limiting the amount of homes being dropped in systems and should there be a limit? I think if there were a limit it would creat more conflict (especially around trade hubs) but on the other hand it would favor the bigger corp/alliance beating up on the small guy.

Another benefit could be performance improvements but I'm more interested in what some other players think of either pros or cons....
Demolishar
United Aggression
#2 - 2017-01-20 19:43:58 UTC
So these threads are beginning to appear with reference to TQ now, huh?

Guess it's becoming a real problem.
lord xavier
Rubbed Out
#3 - 2017-01-20 19:45:06 UTC  |  Edited by: lord xavier
They should make corporations be required to have faction standings in high sec systems to anchor citadels. In 2 years high sec will be littered in astrahouses to the magnitude of Perimeter right now in the quiet systems.

Astrahouse
6 Faction = 0.9-1.0
5 Faction = 0.7-0.8
4 Faction = 0.5-0.6

Fortizar
8 Faction = 0.9-1.0
7 Faction = 0.7-0.8
6 Faction = 0.5-0.6

Keepstar
9 Faction = 0.9-1.0
9 Faction = 0.7-0.8
8 Faction = 0.5-0.6

Palentine (lololol)
Cant Anchor in HS
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#4 - 2017-01-20 19:49:33 UTC
All we really need is more options to remove the lower tiered ones from overview. So instead of just Citadels and Engineering complexes being the checkboxes is that they are separated into their respective sizes to reduce the lower tiered clutter for the most part. As unless you really need to most people will use the larger sizes respectively anyway.

But yes the entire citadel clutter is bad.Roll

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#5 - 2017-01-20 21:04:57 UTC
Why limit them?
Lulu Lunette
Savage Moon Society
#6 - 2017-01-20 21:45:48 UTC
I've always kind of wondered how well some sort of degradation mechanic could work in New Eden? If left unpowered or unoccupied long enough, the Control Towers and Astrahaus' and POCO's eventually lose their orbits or maybe better yet - much, much easier to destroy. Maybe instead of 5,000,000 hitpoints, it's like 250k. (just brainstorming not really serious)

The wormhole i'm living in had POCO's installed well over 5 years ago (assuming that's when that corporation was still playing and active based on their killboards.) and they still had the benefit of full 2 day reinforcement timers.. Ugh

@lunettelulu7

Moksa Elodie
Hijo de la Luna
#7 - 2017-01-20 23:15:21 UTC
The main issues I can think of for having limits are:

-too low a limit and you will have systems filled with citadels by a single entity, similar to how POSes can be

-too high a limit and you don't solve the performance issue

I agree with the faction standing requirement solution above, though it wouldn't solve the issue outside of high sec. Maybe citadels should be easier to remove?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#8 - 2017-01-21 04:00:28 UTC
High sec citadels are easy to remove, the defences on them are pathetic without the AOE weapons. Just get a few friends together an blow them up if they annoy you. If you don't care enough to blow them up, then obviously they aren't actually causing you any issue.
Salvos Rhoska
#9 - 2017-01-21 10:00:59 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Citadels are a mess.

1) Beyond their initial cost, they are trivial in cost to maintain.
2) There is no meaningful restriction on how many Citadels there can be in a system, or where.
3) Asset safety makes aggressing a Citadel inherently unprofitable. Free magical transport, or 15% value cost? Really?
4) Vulnerability mechanics significantly favor the defender.



Implications per sector:

-HS: Asset safety is automatic, free and complete. There is always an NPC station nearby. As HS is not player owned, there is no reason to aggress a Citadel. There is no telling how many Citadels may proliferate in HS.

-LS:
Exactly as above. Though LS is more aggressive and territorial in culture, the same mechanics apply, meaning Citadel destruction benefits the aggressors only by depriving the target of the cost of the Citadel.

-WH: J-space gets proper shafted by loss of POS, except as grandfathered. I am unclear on whether j-space can transfer its assets, safely, to another owned Citadel in the same system. The support info indicates yes, but I have read player testimony indicating it cant, and just drops as a cargo crate. In anycase the logistic difficult of transporting/sourcing a Citadel in j-space are disproportionate.

-NS:
Proliferation of Citadels in border systems constitutes fortification. I dont even want to think of the potential increase in grind required to capture a system from another NS entity. It will extend from weeks, into months, whilst all the time asset safety mechanics allow safe, free and magical transfer of assets, or for a mere 15% of value (which can potentially be gamed to transfer assets to a LS frontier on a flank).

Furthermore, rich NS entities can construct an infinite amount of such Citadels in any system, making it infinitely more expensive and arduous for any opponent to take that system. Due to negligible upkeep costs, and lack of restrictions, a bottleneck system might have potentially any number of Citadels, making conquering of a single system a task that will take many months, or potentially even years.

---A) How long will players bother to show up to Citadel attacks, when they realize they are likely to spend hours on end in TiDi, grinding through each Citadel in a system and its defenders, risking their own ship at their own cost (despite SRP), for no profit?

---B) Even if the alliance/corp is successful in eventually taking the system, the profits from that system go to alliance/corp leadership, not to the rank and file participants (whom carry the loss personally).

---C) Due to Asset Safety mechanics, the defending alliance/corp does not lose its existing assets, except for the cost of the Citadel. This means that they can still field just as many ships/assets readily available to defend the next Citadel. Their assets, as physical, are not reduced, except by loss of the Citadel itself. Meaning resistance will be as voluminous in each Citadel defence, as in the first. They just stage out of another Citadel in the same system. Ergo, the destruction of the Citadel does not impair the defenders capacity to defend other Citadels, except by loss of of Citadel itself. The assets within are still available for use in future defense thanks to Asset Safety.

---D) The 5 day Asset Safety transfer timer, doesnt matter in regards to larger Citadels. The defender has ample time to transfer assets, for free, magically, in entirety, re-stage an equivalent defense based out of that same system before the next Citadel in the system is brought down, as well as defining its vulnerability window for advantage.

---E) This is like WWI trench and attrition warfare, where you must expend and lose more manpower than the defender inorder to advance the front past the next trench/Citadel. Yes, it advances the front, and looks good on the generals map back at HQ, but its the participants, as rank troops, that are paying the price, spending hours upon hours in TiDi, and earning no profit from it, infact taking losses, I doubt they will participate for long. Esprit de corp only goes so far. Players will get tired of grinding multiple hours through multiple Keepstars, at their own cost in time and isk, with no profit to themselves.

---F) Furthermore, its also akin to a medieval castle/siege warfare situation. As long as one enemy Citadel exists in the system, it is not secure, owned or controlled. But you cannot starve it out, as would have been typical for this paradigm of warfare at that time, in EVE. There is no equivalent mechanic to that in EVE. That remaining Citadel can spawn any number of defenders via jump clones and preponderance of assets, especially if moved there by mechanics of Asset Safety from a neighboring destroyed Citadels, 100% and free.

No matter how many Citadels you destroy, the enemy will still have all their ship assets to again resist you in the next remaining Citadels defense, with full character and asset force, thanks to Asset Safety.


TLDR:
-HS/LS: Proliferation of inconsequential Citadels, with little to no incentive to destroy them.
-WH: Enormous logistic problems/risks in creating operations in systems already isolated and difficult by mechanics.
-NS: Concretion, fortification and stagnation of existing NS dynamics between player entities Sov borders, especially against weaker neighbors, with almost no risk of stored asset loss. Individual attacking players will shoulder their own risk, for hours on end in TiDi, for no profit. And when they aggress the next Citadel, the enemy assets will not have been diminished. Its lose/lose for rank alliance/corp members involved in the attack.

Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#10 - 2017-01-21 10:46:36 UTC
42

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

Moksa Elodie
Hijo de la Luna
#11 - 2017-01-21 12:33:00 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
High sec citadels are easy to remove, the defences on them are pathetic without the AOE weapons. Just get a few friends together an blow them up if they annoy you. If you don't care enough to blow them up, then obviously they aren't actually causing you any issue.


When I mentioned about citadels being easier to remove I wasn't talking about dps, it was regarding the multiple timers.

If the high sec citadels are so easy to remove, how would you find taking down, say, 10 in one system? 20?

I would say that taking down citadels are as tedious as taking down POSes, if not more.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#12 - 2017-01-21 12:49:49 UTC
If you think it's bad now... just wait until they start removing POS...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#13 - 2017-01-21 15:36:33 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
If you think it's bad now... just wait until they start removing POS...

So much this.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#14 - 2017-01-21 16:22:37 UTC
Moksa Elodie wrote:

When I mentioned about citadels being easier to remove I wasn't talking about dps, it was regarding the multiple timers.

If the high sec citadels are so easy to remove, how would you find taking down, say, 10 in one system? 20?

I would say that taking down citadels are as tedious as taking down POSes, if not more.

The more you are taking down in the same area of space, the less bother it becomes actually, because you will have your fleet up already and at least some of them will have timers close enough together.
It's also not like you are forming up a 200 man fleet for these, unless you are taking down 10 dead keepstars in a system.

But really, if it's bothering you enough you will blow them up.
If it's not really a bother, then you won't.

Even the most 'packed' system I've seen is normally only 3 or 4 citadels, a couple of actual trade hubs currently might be exceptions to that. And really the removal of POS will mean almost nothing to that.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2017-01-21 19:08:08 UTC
Lulu Lunette wrote:
I've always kind of wondered how well some sort of degradation mechanic could work in New Eden? If left unpowered or unoccupied long enough, the Control Towers and Astrahaus' and POCO's eventually lose their orbits or maybe better yet - much, much easier to destroy. Maybe instead of 5,000,000 hitpoints, it's like 250k. (just brainstorming not really serious)

The wormhole i'm living in had POCO's installed well over 5 years ago (assuming that's when that corporation was still playing and active based on their killboards.) and they still had the benefit of full 2 day reinforcement timers.. Ugh


A new type of wandering Drifter should be deployed to shoot vulnerable citadels. And entosis SOV.


Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#16 - 2017-01-21 19:51:19 UTC
Wallstreet J0urnal wrote:
I would like to know what you guys think of limiting the amount of homes being dropped in systems and should there be a limit? I think if there were a limit it would creat more conflict (especially around trade hubs) but on the other hand it would favor the bigger corp/alliance beating up on the small guy.

Another benefit could be performance improvements but I'm more interested in what some other players think of either pros or cons....


No, there should not be a limit.

Conflict is already occurring in hisec around trade hubs and yes that favours the bigger guys and so what?

There is no reason to limit the number just because you see them in your overview, well remove them from the overview. You could do a campaign of removing them all in one system, seems a fair enough thing to do, if you don't like them go and shoot them.


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

Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#17 - 2017-01-21 20:46:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Pahrdi
Lulu Lunette wrote:
I've always kind of wondered how well some sort of degradation mechanic could work in New Eden? If left unpowered or unoccupied long enough, the Control Towers and Astrahaus' and POCO's eventually lose their orbits or maybe better yet - much, much easier to destroy. Maybe instead of 5,000,000 hitpoints, it's like 250k. (just brainstorming not really serious)

90 days without any fuel consumption in the structure: Shields begin to deteriorate. Shields are gone after 180 days and armor is exposed to open space. Armor is gone after another 90 days and damage seeps into structure.

Once the first structure hitpoint is gone, you cannot online anything anymore, until structure and armor damage are both repaired to full. After another 90 days of neglect, structure hitpoints are gone too. The whole thing goes boom, drops in space whatever it would drop in an attack and asset safety kicks in. So exactly after 360 days of neglect it's gone for good.

If you actively repair your structure (shields, armor, structure), you can keep it afloat without any fuel consumption.

Edit: @OP: No, i don't think this should be reglemented much. It's the players job to keep their space clean Pirate.

Remove standings and insurance.

ACESsiggy
Deaths Consortium
#18 - 2017-01-21 23:03:17 UTC  |  Edited by: ACESsiggy
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
Lulu Lunette wrote:
I've always kind of wondered how well some sort of degradation mechanic could work in New Eden? If left unpowered or unoccupied long enough, the Control Towers and Astrahaus' and POCO's eventually lose their orbits or maybe better yet - much, much easier to destroy. Maybe instead of 5,000,000 hitpoints, it's like 250k. (just brainstorming not really serious)

90 days without any fuel consumption in the structure: Shields begin to deteriorate. Shields are gone after 180 days and armor is exposed to open space. Armor is gone after another 90 days and damage seeps into structure.

Once the first structure hitpoint is gone, you cannot online anything anymore, until structure and armor damage are both repaired to full. After another 90 days of neglect, structure hitpoints are gone too. The whole thing goes boom, drops in space whatever it would drop in an attack and asset safety kicks in. So exactly after 360 days of neglect it's gone for good.

If you actively repair your structure (shields, armor, structure), you can keep it afloat without any fuel consumption.

Edit: @OP: No, i don't think this should be reglemented much. It's the players job to keep their space clean Pirate.


Pretty interesting idea, but maybe too much of an extended time period 'imo' The cost of such structures isn't terrible and is easy to rebuild or restart if you're away for an extended period of time from EVE. If you know you'll be away for x amount of days, which would cause the structure to become vulnerable due to natural decay, the player can easily transfer high value items to a NPC station for safe keeping until his or her return Cool

“The open-minded see the truth in different things: the narrow-minded see only the differences.”

Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#19 - 2017-01-21 23:21:58 UTC
ACESsiggy wrote:
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
Lulu Lunette wrote:
I've always kind of wondered how well some sort of degradation mechanic could work in New Eden? If left unpowered or unoccupied long enough, the Control Towers and Astrahaus' and POCO's eventually lose their orbits or maybe better yet - much, much easier to destroy. Maybe instead of 5,000,000 hitpoints, it's like 250k. (just brainstorming not really serious)

90 days without any fuel consumption in the structure: Shields begin to deteriorate. Shields are gone after 180 days and armor is exposed to open space. Armor is gone after another 90 days and damage seeps into structure.

Once the first structure hitpoint is gone, you cannot online anything anymore, until structure and armor damage are both repaired to full. After another 90 days of neglect, structure hitpoints are gone too. The whole thing goes boom, drops in space whatever it would drop in an attack and asset safety kicks in. So exactly after 360 days of neglect it's gone for good.

If you actively repair your structure (shields, armor, structure), you can keep it afloat without any fuel consumption.

Edit: @OP: No, i don't think this should be reglemented much. It's the players job to keep their space clean Pirate.


Pretty interesting idea, but maybe too much of an extended time period 'imo' The cost of such structures isn't terrible and is easy to rebuild or restart if you're away for an extended period of time from EVE. If you know you'll be away for x amount of days, which would cause the structure to become vulnerable due to natural decay, the player can easily transfer high value items to a NPC station for safe keeping until his or her return Cool

Then make it a 180 days total. Doesn't really matter that much. It must be long enough to hurt, if you are waiting for it to happenn on its own. If any third party wants your structure down badly, waíting for it to happen should be significant.

I.e. related whines here on the forums are due to the fact that people can't be bothered to take those moons they want to put their pos up at. If you want a structure gone, you should have to go through the related conflict. Abandoned structures should go boom on their own eventually, but it needs to matter.

Remove standings and insurance.

Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#20 - 2017-01-22 00:34:50 UTC
The more there are, the less likely they are to be defended. You realize citadels do NOT defend themselves, right? A player has to actually "man the guns".

So if there are too many and you find it cluttered, (war dec them if high sec and) kill them.
123Next pageLast page