These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
 

Small Covert Citadel

Author
Netan MalDoran
Reckless-Endangerment
Manifesto.
#1 - 2017-07-18 16:33:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Netan MalDoran
Came up with an idea for the theoretical "Small Citadel", make it a specialized covert model!

Talking on TS, we were complaining that whenever you are in a system you can see all citadels present in the system on your sensor overlay giving free intel to everyone that you exist. I'm proposing that this small structure have the ability to bit a new service module, the "covert sensor disruption module".

No this module is NOT A CLOAK, however it would disrupt your ships normal sensors so that you can't see it on your sensor overlay (Like a POS) and you can't see it on D-Scan (Like a combat recon). The only way to find these would to combat probe the system and find the structure.

I also propose that the module would use around twice the normal fuel requirements than the average medium service module to make it costly to maintain. As they would be a smaller structure, I would see it applicable to have no armor on these structures, and make the hull and shield 25%-50% weaker than an astrahus. This way as its a smaller structure there would only be a single reinforce timer, and instead of a week long timer, have it be only 24 hours. I assume that a small corp would be able to knock one down to remove stagers in their space.

EDIT:
Meant to say combat recon, not force recon

"Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was!

Falcon's truth

Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2017-07-18 16:46:21 UTC
Lol, cloaky camping 2.0. Anchor one of these in a quiet area of their space, and you're ready to stage from there for months. Unless they're roaming through their space with combat probes, they'll never know.

I've nothing against cloaky camping, but anchoring infrastructure is completely counter to the concept of asymmetric warfare.

That said... I could see these being balanced if:

- There was no vulnerability window, and no timers. You want to pop it, it gets popped.
- Since there are no timers, give it shield/armor/hull roughly the same as an astra.
- No DPS cap
- No asset safety
- The as-mentioned double fuel requirement, with tethering being a service requiring fuel


~~

On the flip side of this... it makes me feel like blops BBs lack a niche. Sure they can bridge, but that's boring. Sure they can attack things, but so can bombers for 1/100th the price (and risk, given how much more gtfo a bomber has over a BB). I'm not sure that adding blops infrastructure would fix that... but I feel like it's kind of the role of a blops BB to be deep in enemy space for extended campaigns, where infrastructure does kind of need to exist.
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#3 - 2017-07-18 19:45:25 UTC
Are you thinking about creating a Citadel version of the combat recon - not visible unless combat scanned ?

Would be a nice ISK sink if the module used plenty of fuel
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2017-07-18 19:47:37 UTC
Fuel is manufactured by players, so not much of a sink there. It's just changing hands, not being removed from the game.
Netan MalDoran
Reckless-Endangerment
Manifesto.
#5 - 2017-07-18 20:05:42 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
Fuel is manufactured by players, so not much of a sink there. It's just changing hands, not being removed from the game.


True, the bigger idea was that it a heavier penalty so that there isn't 1001 of these things sitting around space.

"Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was!

Falcon's truth

Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2017-07-18 20:11:51 UTC
I can certainly +1 any suggestion that reduces the amount of space-trash we have floating around in space. Personal suggestion would be to strap the owners to a rocket and fly them through a debris field in orbit in full Kessler Syndrome fashion.

Shouldn't be long before various owners start running into the dismembered parts of other offending owners.

I don't think that small easily destroyable infrastructure would do that though... most of the citadel spam is because they're far too annoying to remove. Players would continue to use those for general "stuff".
Stephanie Rosefire
Jarlhettur's Drop
G0N3 F1SS10N
#7 - 2017-07-25 15:24:00 UTC
I like this idea, with old perverts blops idea.