These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Science & Industry

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Structures too defensive?

Knight Odds
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#1 - 2017-04-10 23:21:03 UTC

It's a rumor....not even that...barely a hint of a time 4:23.
Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#2 - 2017-04-11 08:22:17 UTC
I don't think it's a rumour that the devs think structures are too defensive but any discussion about what they intend to do about it or when is pure speculation. I agree that they are too defensive, despite the fact that I am an industrialist based in engineering complexes. 3 operations taking more than a week seems unreasonable.

Personally, I'd like to see a requirement for some fuel - perhaps 1 block per hour, to keep the lights on - an unfueled structure should simply die, not go into reinforcement. The timers should allow the entire operation to complete in less than a week for highsec wars. It would be nice if the defender could adjust the timers similar to a POS with strontium clathrates.
Seventh Seraph
AFK Empire
#3 - 2017-04-12 13:44:05 UTC
I agree with the base fuel requirement. I mean...what the hell is powering everything and what are the workers doing in there?
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2017-04-12 17:54:50 UTC
The main problem I see is, that they effectively kill the chokepoint "station" as a place to fight. No more "station" camps to force a fight. Nullsec is safer than ever. If they introduce jump bridge capabilities to citadels, nullsec entities will be untouchable without nerf. Fighting about the citadels themselves does not compensate for the lost content.

Highsec and wardecs are a mess, because the attacker has all the advantages, where the defender's weapons and potential are crippled.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Shiloh Templeton
Cheyenne HET Co
#5 - 2017-04-13 01:49:20 UTC
i think 'defensible' was a bad choice of words. Unlike a POS a citadel has no inherent defense. It's more of a defense multiplier for an active defense fleet.

I don't think they want to make citadels less powerful. I think they want to address two issues: abandoned citadels are going to clutter up everything. There is no direct financial benefit to attacking citadels except in WH space.

Tying invulnerability to a stront supply would solve the first issue. I don't know how CCP could address the second issue without having every citadel in HS destroyed during an annual "Sherman's march through HS" event. A dickstar POS has a great inherent defense whereas an astrahus has very little. Admittedly some CCP developers would probably love to see HS turned to ashes.

Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#6 - 2017-04-13 07:54:23 UTC
Citadels have markets - we've been told that 1, probably in Delve, is now larger than Rens. That means trillions in player assets. Just looking at my own operation, I have 10s of billions in blueprints and materials in Engineering Complexes. That wouldn't happen without asset safety. Killmails in the hundreds of billions or trillions would be too tempting and any structure can be killed if enough people show up to get the job done. Who would place their assets at risk in one of those structures?

A modification that would allow an unfueled structure to be taken down in a single shoot makes sense to me - it should drop enough modules/components/salvage to make the operation worthwhile.