These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Faction Warfare and Citadels: Anchoring Discussion

First post
Author
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#1 - 2015-11-02 02:09:14 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Logibro
Hi some more,

The structure revamp is well on its way and we are looking to see Citadel enter the game next year. I'd like your thoughts on a few things regarding anchoring and warzone control.

(I am writing a separate post to discuss Citadel bonuses in the warzone)

Citadel, unlike POS, can be docked at. They can be taken down but the system will be a bit different from POS. (Please check the dev blog: Citadels, Sieges and you v2)

Along with changes to attack, XL Citadel will be able to house supers. While capitals are changing in the future (Please see the dev blog: Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins!) this is still a big change in how forces will potentially be able to attack in the future.

I feel that the ability to dock in the new structures creates a different situation than POS does when it comes to fleets having a safe retreat or a base of attack. I'd like to gather your opinions on the topic.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#2 - 2015-11-02 04:13:11 UTC
Have them become the structure hub we have to destroy for occupancy to trade hands. This would limit how many there will be and how central they are, or when they can become vulnerable to attack. I did not read anything on where exactly these are going to be allowed to anchor or how ownership is determined. By Corp would make the best spread. I cannot see how a large number of these in low can be good for FW..
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#3 - 2015-11-02 05:24:20 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
Have them become the structure hub we have to destroy for occupancy to trade hands. This would limit how many there will be and how central they are, or when they can become vulnerable to attack. I did not read anything on where exactly these are going to be allowed to anchor or how ownership is determined. By Corp would make the best spread. I cannot see how a large number of these in low can be good for FW..


They can be anchored anywhere.

They are owned by corporations but will have more granularity. They can also be made public for docking and use of the market and other services.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#4 - 2015-11-02 05:37:58 UTC
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Oreb Wing wrote:
Have them become the structure hub we have to destroy for occupancy to trade hands. This would limit how many there will be and how central they are, or when they can become vulnerable to attack. I did not read anything on where exactly these are going to be allowed to anchor or how ownership is determined. By Corp would make the best spread. I cannot see how a large number of these in low can be good for FW..


They can be anchored anywhere.

They are owned by corporations but will have more granularity. They can also be made public for docking and use of the market and other services.



What is the delay for reputation changes? From public to non, for example, and will assets be forfeit? Can they be un-anchored? Will owners of assets be informed when these changes occur?
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#5 - 2015-11-02 07:17:17 UTC
tbh i would leave it completely unrestricted (regarding anchoring and also no special case for FW docking rights) and see what happens.

it is difficult to estimate how many of those will be in the area or how difficult it will be to kill one (we don't know any details on the weapons for example). Having a freeport XL in every FW system would entirely override FW docking rules but it is probably unlikely that this happens - we will see.

my only wish is that ccp should make sure that we get a chance to actually kill them. For example i would like to see the game forcing you to put at least 1h of your vuln window to the weekend, so that you have the chance to attack a structure which operates in a different timezone.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Nameira Vanis-Tor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2015-11-02 11:32:19 UTC
For FW corps why not just have an additional 'militia' setting? So that friendlies in the same militia can dock, almost a 'militia freeport'.

Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc
Templis CALSF
#7 - 2015-11-02 11:53:21 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
tbh i would leave it completely unrestricted (regarding anchoring and also no special case for FW docking rights) and see what happens.

it is difficult to estimate how many of those will be in the area or how difficult it will be to kill one (we don't know any details on the weapons for example). Having a freeport XL in every FW system would entirely override FW docking rules but it is probably unlikely that this happens - we will see.

my only wish is that ccp should make sure that we get a chance to actually kill them. For example i would like to see the game forcing you to put at least 1h of your vuln window to the weekend, so that you have the chance to attack a structure which operates in a different timezone.


I doubt every major alliance in FW can even afford to deploy an XL citadel in every FW system and realistically defend it. Remember CCP said those things will cost as much as titans in terms of building materials. I'm guessing the norm will be mediums with the occasional larges for major home systems and such.

Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!

May Arethusa
Junction Systems
#8 - 2015-11-02 14:48:39 UTC
So much about these structures seems incompatible with current FW mechanics, and we still know so little about their capabilities that it's hard to know how to treat them. First of all though, I would restrict the availability of XL and L Citadels in FW Space.

"Fortress" Systems have long dominated the front lines of FW, and we're beginning to see the introduction of mechanics that can actually embrace and enforce this, taking control of the war away from faceless NPCs and putting it into the player's hands. As such, I'd like to see anchoring of XL Citadels restricted to designated Capital systems for alliances. Similarly L Citadels should be bound to corp-level "Home" Systems. I would also flat out ban the anchoring of neutral XL Citadels in FW Space.

While it appears that Citadels were built with null-sec in mind and little thought given to their consequences outside of null, there's no reason we can't embrace other mechanics to enhance our own. A medium Citadel is roughly the same size as a Control Tower, and as such we can expect their capabilities to be roughly the same. Therefore it's safe to assume that L and XL will allow the docking of ships, and anything smaller can only be moored at. By limiting L and XL citadels, we retain the ability to use mediums and smalls as FOBs for system pushes, and provide corporations and alliances with an official home along with significant benefits for holding onto it. Should your home system change hands, your structures remain in place and you can still dock there, but operate less efiiciently based upon the System level (10-50% more fuel consumed, constantly vulnerable to attack rather than during windows, etc.)

Better organised militias can co-operate to ensure decent coverage, with L and XL structures spread across the warzone open to their militia, offering agents and other benefits via the various services available for fitting. Militia Observation Arrays feedng intel to one another to provide a meaningful source of information about friendly and hostile space while maintaining some sense of a fog of war deeper into enemy territory.

Simply allowing anyone to anchor anything anywhere removes a lot of the reasons we have for pushing systems (besides the fights it generates.) By linking Citadel rights to system control, systems begin to regain some of their meaning beyond their points contribution to tier levels. There are plenty of currently stationless systems nobody really cares about that would suddenly become a lot more meaningful if someone dropped a dockable structure in them.
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#9 - 2015-11-02 15:17:32 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Oreb Wing wrote:
Have them become the structure hub we have to destroy for occupancy to trade hands. This would limit how many there will be and how central they are, or when they can become vulnerable to attack. I did not read anything on where exactly these are going to be allowed to anchor or how ownership is determined. By Corp would make the best spread. I cannot see how a large number of these in low can be good for FW..


They can be anchored anywhere.

They are owned by corporations but will have more granularity. They can also be made public for docking and use of the market and other services.



What is the delay for reputation changes? From public to non, for example, and will assets be forfeit? Can they be un-anchored? Will owners of assets be informed when these changes occur?


The asset safety mechanics wrap your stuff up and ship them to a NPC station. You do get a notice. You can in some way do this on demand. The standings will probably hit as normal but I'm not 100%. You won't be forfeiting your stuff but you will/can be inconvenienced.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#10 - 2015-11-02 15:19:10 UTC
May Arethusa wrote:
By limiting L and XL citadels, we retain the ability to use mediums and smalls as FOBs for system pushes, and provide corporations and alliances with an official home along with significant benefits for holding onto it.


Just tossing in that there are no small citadels. Small structures are our current deployables.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#11 - 2015-11-02 17:54:58 UTC
Yang Aurilen wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
tbh i would leave it completely unrestricted (regarding anchoring and also no special case for FW docking rights) and see what happens.

it is difficult to estimate how many of those will be in the area or how difficult it will be to kill one (we don't know any details on the weapons for example). Having a freeport XL in every FW system would entirely override FW docking rules but it is probably unlikely that this happens - we will see.

my only wish is that ccp should make sure that we get a chance to actually kill them. For example i would like to see the game forcing you to put at least 1h of your vuln window to the weekend, so that you have the chance to attack a structure which operates in a different timezone.


I doubt every major alliance in FW can even afford to deploy an XL citadel in every FW system and realistically defend it.

it doesn't have to be a XL and it doesn't have to be a FW alliance. But we will see

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Kirith Kodachi
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#12 - 2015-11-02 18:17:58 UTC
I don't think there should be any artifical restrictions in Faction Warfare space on the deployment of Citadels. If you put any restrictions on corporations in militias, they will simply use friendly non-militia alt corps. If you put restrictions based on the space (i.e. it is part of the warzone), you negatively impact non-militia groups like pirates and possibly force them out of the warzone diluting the population.

Personally, much like POSes, I think we should like emergent behaviour from player activity take over and see how many XL, L, and M citadels can survive in low sec.
Arla Sarain
#13 - 2015-11-02 19:05:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
These are so new, I doubt it is possible to make any concrete predictions. Acting on any hypothetical assumptions is just going to make a mess of it.

Some things to keep in mind:
Our invasion/push plans are subject to the same considerations as WH folk - POS setups can be restricted by occupying moons with dummy POS sticks. Availability of POSs determines how well an invasion can be carried out.
Citadels trivialise that by having no placement restrictions, meaning a push effort is restricted only by how much ISK you are willing to funnel into M sized Citadel staging points.

Citadel destruction mechanics are also likely to influence the time window of system pushes - currently if a POS setup slips the attention of the defender, they can still take it down within a short time window once they have pushed the aggressor back and stabilized the system, severely limiting any further push attempts. Citadels could take upto 15 days to take out though, seeing as you could put 3 hour vuln periods on the same day every week, and even if you lose those fights, you still get up to 2 reinforcement periods.

This forces a rather long enemy presence that cannot be circumvented in any way except for being on full alert for up to 2 weeks. Whilst 2-3 day pushes result in manageable content (speaking from the latest Kehjari battle PoV), a continuous 2 week threat is likely to burn people out.

Even worse if you manage to have a sizeable force available for defending it for 30mins a day 6 days per week. M Citadels will likely become extremely difficult to remove.

But like I said, this is just one plausible, but not guaranteed scenario.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#14 - 2015-11-02 19:20:11 UTC
Having zero restrictions to however many can be built or who can build them is significant. It can impact the war zone tremendously and even make some current very good docking restrictions meaningless. That would be unfortunate, as docking privileges and being able to refit is such a big deal and is one of the best things to happen in FW. Completely unrestricted is bad. Bad for FW and bad for lowsec. We already get visitors from null that swing their numbers around. We've done our best to fight smarter.

Secondly, if these are tied to system bonuses, you must imagine their should be one per system. Not restrictive at all, as any entity would be ready with a poco gantry when one is being destroyed; you can assume it could work similarly when a system flips. Association with the ihub itself is only reasonable at this point. As for alienation of neutrals, they need not live in FW space. There is a lot more lowsec out there, but accessibility flies in the face of functionality: What purpose do these really have in a system that has ideal, and public, stations already? The idea that the ihub can shoot back at you is so mind blowing that it could give new meaning to what a home system is and who lives there. Their value can only be respected if you also link its vulnerability to the system contestation mechanics. Losing a home, our besieging one, becomes that much more personal. I can see no greater impact these can have, if they are given a dull PoS existence. It offers nothing new to FW, while adding a fun piƱata FOR non-FW entities, which would make them not worth deploying. Better to have a titan for bridging.
per
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2015-11-02 19:39:01 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
Having zero restrictions to however many can be built or who can build them is significant. It can impact the war zone tremendously and even make some current very good docking restrictions meaningless. That would be unfortunate, as docking privileges and being able to refit is such a big deal and is one of the best things to happen in FW. Completely unrestricted is bad. Bad for FW and bad for lowsec. .


do you mind poses by any chance?
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#16 - 2015-11-02 19:49:15 UTC
per wrote:
Oreb Wing wrote:
Having zero restrictions to however many can be built or who can build them is significant. It can impact the war zone tremendously and even make some current very good docking restrictions meaningless. That would be unfortunate, as docking privileges and being able to refit is such a big deal and is one of the best things to happen in FW. Completely unrestricted is bad. Bad for FW and bad for lowsec. .


do you mind poses by any chance?



PoS require fuel. It is an expensive luxury and benefit. The modules/attachments to Citadels use the fuel. No mention of shields on the thing, like PoS. A pos can be removed in two days. These, I think, were meant to be much harder to destroy. The assets safety feature is nice, but what if there is no station in system? Ah, and supers.. Where would THEY go when one is destroyed?
While they share many aspects, they are more similar to stations than to PoS's at this point, if they don't just replace them with all the services that can make them better than a station.
per
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#17 - 2015-11-02 21:00:49 UTC  |  Edited by: per
Oreb Wing wrote:
per wrote:
Oreb Wing wrote:
Having zero restrictions to however many can be built or who can build them is significant. It can impact the war zone tremendously and even make some current very good docking restrictions meaningless. That would be unfortunate, as docking privileges and being able to refit is such a big deal and is one of the best things to happen in FW. Completely unrestricted is bad. Bad for FW and bad for lowsec. .


do you mind poses by any chance?



PoS require fuel. It is an expensive luxury and benefit. The modules/attachments to Citadels use the fuel. No mention of shields on the thing, like PoS. A pos can be removed in two days. These, I think, were meant to be much harder to destroy. The assets safety feature is nice, but what if there is no station in system? Ah, and supers.. Where would THEY go when one is destroyed?
While they share many aspects, they are more similar to stations than to PoS's at this point, if they don't just replace them with all the services that can make them better than a station.



well all that sounds to me like more pvp
there shoud be some DRASTIC bonuses/penalties for having that system high/low contested so ppl fight for it .. maybe something like denying docking in citadels while system is like stable or more like contested to (10% ... 20%.... w/e....) .. no hoping militia .. loyalty should be rewarded + give us promised rollbacks
+ nerf npc stations hard - insane repair prices, pay for fitting of your ship, etc.....
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#18 - 2015-11-02 22:34:29 UTC
if pos's are going to be removed, these new structures need to be as killable as current pos's in fw space.

0.0 is very different than fw. and most people choose to live in station, or at a pos with their corp.

much will come down to pricing. 100mil, i expect safety, a place to store ships and modules and go afk. easily killable shield man 20 man subcap fleets can destroy these small pos's

600mil for a large tower very safe and does alot more, plus takes more than just 50 guys unless its 20 dreads.

if these citadels are much more isk i expect much more power. owners get to restrict docking access to whoever they want. and very hard to take down.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro

Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#19 - 2015-11-03 00:35:58 UTC
Alright, I think everyone understands how big a deal structures will be in FW. In a lot of ways, it's true - Citadels will at least in part circumvent the station lockout features of FW, which has made it so hugely unique in terms of how fights play out. Even though previously you could base out of a POS, Citadels are simply far better logistics platforms in pretty much every single way.

1. While I initially thought that it would be gamebreaking to allow hostiles to anchor a Citadel in opposing faction space, the fact that one could simply use a one man neutral alt corp to accomplish the same thing makes any such restriction pretty easy to circumvent.

2. On the other hand, simply allowing hostile militias to drop Citadels with no restrictions at all makes a mockery of the occupancy war. Some penalty has to be available to balance things out - otherwise capturing systems has little value.

3. The best way to balance things out, IMO, is to make Citadels owned by corporations who are not a part of the militia owning the system more vulnerable in some way. Either raise the Damage Mitigation cap (meaning you can apply more DPS to it, with same EHP = faster kills), increase the vulnerability window, or some combination of the two.

4. Speaking only of the Cal/Gal warzone, no major home system has been flipped on either side for about a year now. Front lines are pretty static, and trying to assault with a 2 jump reship hasn't proven viable. Even stocking up assault POSes hasn't worked - either from the Caldari side hitting Sujarento, or from Gallente hitting Hasmijaala / Kehjari. We've gotten good enough at the current FW meta that we've reached a stalemate in some ways - I think that Citadels are the kind of thing we need to shake that up. Unfortunately, I feel it might serve the Gallente better at this point, as we're more often the ones mounting organized assaults on home systems.

5. I'm concerned with having nearly a week of perfect safety after anchoring. Once the initial vulnerability period is done (24hrs after anchoring completes), a savvy attacker can set the full vulnerability window to as far out in time as possible. That gives him nearly a week to assault out of a Citadel that can't be touched. That might be too much of an advantage - either you murder it when it anchors, or you're SOL for a while. Forcing the owner to spread his vulnerability windows over more than one day would help with that.

6. It'd be interesting if the proposed NPC patrols would attack Citadels not belonging to their faction. Probably not enough to kill them, but might be interesting to have them try.

That's all I've got for the moment. I'm of the opinion that any penalty applied to folks not in the militia holding the system (in terms of vulnerability windows or anchoring times) need to apply to corps / citadels that are not a part of any militia. These are active warzones after all, and capsuleers are crafty buggers never to be trusted. There's no reason that the Empires should let capsuleers who are not enlisted in their militia anchor Citadels in the warzones unimpeded.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#20 - 2015-11-04 02:20:06 UTC
Actually, the more I think about it the more I like the idea of NPC patrols attacking non-friendly citadels.

They're not a huge threat - I'm betting that most NPC patrols don't do thousands of DPS - so clearing them off a Citadel wouldn't be hard if you have a gunner. On the other hand, if they're not dealt with, that means your Citadel will eventually get RF'd... by NPCs no less. In addition, since Citadels don't end their vulnerability period until they stop getting shot... they could stay vulnerable for significantly longer than usual.

Just have convoys attack any Citadel that's vulnerable and has negative standings towards that faction. Would mean that Gallente NPC patrols would attack Cal/Min/Amarr Citadels... as well as those anchored by groups that tend to shoot GalMil pilots.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

123Next pageLast page