These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Citadels, sieges and you v2

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Circumstantial Evidence
#261 - 2015-09-20 10:09:19 UTC
Note that CCP gives a range in their chart, of 75-225 BS required. The chart is prefaced with "some very rough calculations on how many ship types would be required to reach the indicated damage mitigation" Fleet size needed will depend on their DPS. If I assume CCP's estimate is 75 for max DPS (polarized weapons?) and 225 means max tank, a middle-ground fleet might number 150. 
150 in 30m
 75 in 1hr
 38 in 2hr
 19 in 4hr
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#262 - 2015-09-20 10:18:53 UTC  |  Edited by: gascanu
Black Pedro wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it, if you want to kill it badly enough then you have to get allies or hire more people who have the will power to do so. My Coalition has the ability now to destroy a Medium, soon will be able to take out a Large, but an XL is above us, I accept that we do not have the means to kill the Xl because we are still bad at Eve.

If CCP make it easy then no one will put these things up apart from people who have massive control of their space or are too far away, in other words Deklin and deep in drone lands.
No friend, these are not just a massive investment to destroy, they are all but impossible to destroy. It's not a matter of being bad at Eve, it is just a broken numbers game. I can be the richest, most skilled PvP organization around willing to risk a trillion ISK to kill an XL citadel, but unless I have a few hundred players able to log in at the same time, I can do nothing. There is no viable strategy to attack an undefended structure in highsec, even if the person who has deployed it has left the game, no matter how good I am or how many resources I have. Only access to or influence over 200+ accounts will allow you to even try to attack them. That is just broken.

Again, I have no problem with XL citadels requiring 200 people to take it from 10 defenders. They should be a strong force multiplier after all. But requiring 200 people even if no one shows up to defend? That is way too much safety - just deploy and forget - and will result in them never being contested. Almost no one attacks large POSes in highsec or C1-C2 wormholes now, and they only require 20-30 people to take down in a reasonable time (and might actually drop loot). Requiring 150-200 players is completely unreasonable. Basically, the only people who will be able to attack them in highsec and low-class wormholes are the group you alluded to in Deklein. How is adding a nearly indestructible player station going to drive any conflict or make the game better?

This discussion is probably premature since we don't know what is happening with capitals. CCP Ytterbium has acknowledged there is a problem and I have no doubt will not release the citadels like this. Either caps will come to highsec/low-class wormholes or XLs will not or they will come up with some other solution because this is unworkable. I guess we will find out more at Eve Vegas about the capital changes, although if CCP Nullarbor or CCP Ytterbium have some ideas they wish to put forth, I would be happy to continue this discussion here.


you keep bringing that number up, 200 bs, but really how about a reality check:
60k dps is not 200 batleships omg; more like 200 frigs- even 200 cruisers or t3 destroyers do allot more dps than 60k
a max dps bs can go easy over 1.2k-1.5k dps so your "undefended" structure will go down to 40-50 bs in 30'; or 20-25 bs in 60';
eve is hard, i know, how about you get a a clue?

depending on the citadel weapons rof/tracking, i assume a full fleet of catalysts will be able to put some big problems to even a manned xl citadel, so yea, at least in high sec, things are not so one sided like some of you think they are
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#263 - 2015-09-20 10:33:07 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
No friend, these are not just a massive investment to destroy, they are all but impossible to destroy. It's not a matter of being bad at Eve, it is just a broken numbers game. I can be the richest, most skilled PvP organization around willing to risk a trillion ISK to kill an XL citadel, but unless I have a few hundred players able to log in at the same time, I can do nothing. There is no viable strategy to attack an undefended structure in highsec, even if the person who has deployed it has left the game, no matter how good I am or how many resources I have. Only access to or influence over 200+ accounts will allow you to even try to attack them. That is just broken.

Again, I have no problem with XL citadels requiring 200 people to take it from 10 defenders. They should be a strong force multiplier after all. But requiring 200 people even if no one shows up to defend? That is way too much safety - just deploy and forget - and will result in them never being contested. Almost no one attacks large POSes in highsec or C1-C2 wormholes now, and they only require 20-30 people to take down in a reasonable time (and might actually drop loot). Requiring 150-200 players is completely unreasonable. Basically, the only people who will be able to attack them in highsec and low-class wormholes are the group you alluded to in Deklein. How is adding a nearly indestructible player station going to drive any conflict or make the game better?

This discussion is probably premature since we don't know what is happening with capitals. CCP Ytterbium has acknowledged there is a problem and I have no doubt will not release the citadels like this. Either caps will come to highsec/low-class wormholes or XLs will not or they will come up with some other solution because this is unworkable. I guess we will find out more at Eve Vegas about the capital changes, although if CCP Nullarbor or CCP Ytterbium have some ideas they wish to put forth, I would be happy to continue this discussion here.


I don't think that is broken because its supposed to be hard so that people can put them in space. Look further at the changes to mentality that they may create, it may be that some very rich hisec people pull together and create their own market trade hub for blues in an XL citadel, this changes the game a lot. Also does it matter if that XL citadel is there if they have left the game, its not as if its going to be holding up people from putting one up as it is now. And it can still be attacked.

You look at it from a pirate angle, but I look at it from a different angle, I see nothing wrong in people who are small groups who want to loot etc. from not being able to do jack against an XL, that to me is totally balanced. We already agreed that the large POS is doable but being a boring event is not often done.

It might then develop into a serious hisec alliance that is specialised in such takedowns, which then develops hisec further. I happen to think however that you will see a lot of Mediums and Large that you can attack and we should not forget all the other structures they are planning, these will all require defending and have a meaningful value. Don't forget that the rigs to enable stuff in them are going to be very worthwhile to loot.

If we can see hisec move away from virtual corps and alliances then the game will have more conflict that actually matters instead of people looking for GF's or just easy loot pinata's from hit and run pipe camping or sitting on Jita 4-4.

I really do hope that a group of hisec people will set up a hisec based XL trade hub and set it up for agreed trade partners as a blue list, this will make the market a lot more interesting and also give reasons for trade based major conflict which is better than simplistic just get a toon into the station type rubbish, which by the way CCP needs to have something in the control structure that only enables blues to participate in the trading. At this point we will see proper economic warfare...

I agree with you that we need to wait more on changes yet to be announced, my feeling is that they will eventually let carriers and dreads into hisec, these new structures are one reason to do so and I there is another reason which I am not at liberty to say.

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
Black Pedro
Mine.
#264 - 2015-09-20 10:54:50 UTC
gascanu wrote:

you keep bringing that number up, 200 bs, but really how about a reality check:
60k dps is not 200 batleships omg; or maybe 200 very poor fit bs
a max dps bs can go easy over 1.2k-1.5k dps so your "undefended" structure will go down to 40-50 bs in 30'; or 20-25 bs in 60';
eve is hard, i know, how about you get a a clue?
No one will commit 30-50 pirate/faction battleships to attack a structure for no gain. You can't even get those ships into a C1 and you would need at least 3 or 4 separate wormholes to get them into a C2. Further, there is no highsec organization I am aware (maybe RvB?) of that that can field 50 high-skilled battleship pilots at one time. And, realistically you will need at least a hundred to do it within a vulnerability window - and that assumes zero opposition.

Without capitals almost no one will ever attack an XL citadel. I doubt even the Goons would bother unless it is for a significant propaganda reason as the opportunity cost is so large. The number of pilots required is just too high.

In any case, it certainly doesn't meet the stated goal of "the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack" since they are invulnerable to attack by any group unable to field 50-100 top-tier DPS battleships (or 200 entry fit battleships), or in other words almost every group in the game.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#265 - 2015-09-20 11:06:12 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
No one will commit 30-50 pirate/faction battleships to attack a structure for no gain. You can't even get those ships into a C1 and you would need at least 3 or 4 separate wormholes to get them into a C2. Further, there is no highsec organization I am aware (maybe RvB?) of that that can field 50 high-skilled battleship pilots at one time. And, realistically you will need at least a hundred to do it within a vulnerability window - and that assumes zero opposition.

Without capitals almost no one will ever attack an XL citadel. I doubt even the Goons would bother unless it is for a significant propaganda reason as the opportunity cost is so large. The number of pilots required is just too high.

In any case, it certainly doesn't meet the stated goal of "the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack" since they are invulnerable to attack by any group unable to field 50-100 top-tier DPS battleships (or 200 entry fit battleships), or in other words almost every group in the game.

You know those ships people gank with, what are they called.... Destroyers....
They output a lot of DPS for much lower cost.
Also if you look at the blog, if the repair timer is running the vulnerability window can extend a little longer.

So they are quite attackable.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#266 - 2015-09-20 11:18:10 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

You know those ships people gank with, what are they called.... Destroyers....
They output a lot of DPS for much lower cost.
Also if you look at the blog, if the repair timer is running the vulnerability window can extend a little longer.

So they are quite attackable.
Ah, so now you want to require a minimum of 3-400 players to even consider attacking an XL citadel? Sure, like that is ever going to happen.

It's not the equipment cost that is the issue it is the number of players required. Most groups in this game cannot field 200 pilots, especially groups based in highsec or wormholes. In fact, setting the bar at even 50 players means they are never going to be attacked. They will not drive conflict or create content in any meaningful sense.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#267 - 2015-09-20 11:34:07 UTC  |  Edited by: gascanu
Black Pedro wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

You know those ships people gank with, what are they called.... Destroyers....
They output a lot of DPS for much lower cost.
Also if you look at the blog, if the repair timer is running the vulnerability window can extend a little longer.

So they are quite attackable.
Ah, so now you want to require a minimum of 3-400 players to even consider attacking an XL citadel? Sure, like that is ever going to happen.

It's not the equipment cost that is the issue it is the number of players required. Most groups in this game cannot field 200 pilots, especially groups based in highsec or wormholes. In fact, setting the bar at even 50 players means they are never going to be attacked. They will not drive conflict or create content in any meaningful sense.


oh come on, see the bigger picture: a 30 bs gang, no faction bs can reinforce an undefended Xl in about 1h; i think it's much faster that a large pos;

the fact that you don't know of any grout that can field 200 pilots dosen't mean they don't exist; you don't belive me?
how about you "donate" a titan kill in one low sec close to jita, and see how many ppl come to shoot it...
an xl citadel in high sec will be a static "titan" killmaill waititng to happen. and allot ofbored 0.0 ppl are already preparing for it Blink

edit: also, i don't think you understand how this work, at least in hs: you don't need 300 ppl, you don't even need 200 ppl in destroyers; they can keep reshiping in case they die, and as long as the ships are insured they lose very little on each death, so they can keep coming Blink
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#268 - 2015-09-20 12:39:14 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Ah, so now you want to require a minimum of 3-400 players to even consider attacking an XL citadel? Sure, like that is ever going to happen.

It's not the equipment cost that is the issue it is the number of players required. Most groups in this game cannot field 200 pilots, especially groups based in highsec or wormholes. In fact, setting the bar at even 50 players means they are never going to be attacked. They will not drive conflict or create content in any meaningful sense.

T2 Catalyst, no Implants. 450 DPS (Not quite perfect skills, so.... maybe 1 months training for relevant DPS skills)
67 of them = 30150 DPS. 59 minutes.
T2 Mega, no Implants. 1020 DPS. Not quite perfect skills but significantly longer train admittedly.
30 of them = 30,600 DPS. 30 of them = 58 minutes to reinforce the Citadel.
T2 Naga, no Implants. 1165 DPS, About the same train as the Mega, but cheaper ship.
30 of them = 51 minutes.

So, if you can field 30 battleships you can reinforce the citadel in under an hour. If you can field 30 ABC's you can reinforce it in under an hour. If you can field 67 Destroyers you can reinforce a Citadel in under an hour.

If for some reason you can't field this, the Case Study also shows that the structure being under attack extends it's vulnerable time. So even if you bring only 15 Battleships, you can reinforce the XL Citadel in 2 hours by maintaining constant fire on the structure so it's repair timer never manages to kick in.

So..... For an XL Citadel, which is meant to be a massive investment of time and commitment for an organisation to build, this is actually an incredibly easy structure to bring down. 15 battleships for 2 hours? And you are complaining it's too hard to attack one, seriously?
Max Caulfield
Perkone
Caldari State
#269 - 2015-09-20 12:41:29 UTC
Thinking about the new structures as a player housing, aren't there concerns these will cause less interaction happening between the players?
Atan Auden
Hemus
Brave Collective
#270 - 2015-09-20 13:31:05 UTC
Horus V wrote:
"The current plan is for those structures not to have auto-defenses. This is still left to be debated, but we do believe existing auto-defenses on Starbases are nothing but a false promise to safety, since they are so easily abused and bypassed by attacking parties. They just give the owner a feeling of safety where none actually exists, like having a completely out-of-date firewall and anti-virus on your computer."

I disagree because everyone knows that when you have small fleet roaming whs and looking for easy POS to kill, they always think twice when they see a POS with more ressistances and lots of ecm. It just takes ages to kill such POS without dreads.

Also why cannot we just improve the defences so its actually a challenge instead of HP grind? The situation when defenders are offline makes the game boring. Lets make the bases intelligent and add some game play!



yes we definetly need the DEFENCES!! Please add them to the Citadels!!
Black Pedro
Mine.
#271 - 2015-09-20 13:33:03 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

T2 Catalyst, no Implants. 450 DPS (Not quite perfect skills, so.... maybe 1 months training for relevant DPS skills)
67 of them = 30150 DPS. 59 minutes.
T2 Mega, no Implants. 1020 DPS. Not quite perfect skills but significantly longer train admittedly.
30 of them = 30,600 DPS. 30 of them = 58 minutes to reinforce the Citadel.
T2 Naga, no Implants. 1165 DPS, About the same train as the Mega, but cheaper ship.
30 of them = 51 minutes.

So, if you can field 30 battleships you can reinforce the citadel in under an hour. If you can field 30 ABC's you can reinforce it in under an hour. If you can field 67 Destroyers you can reinforce a Citadel in under an hour.

If for some reason you can't field this, the Case Study also shows that the structure being under attack extends it's vulnerable time. So even if you bring only 15 Battleships, you can reinforce the XL Citadel in 2 hours by maintaining constant fire on the structure so it's repair timer never manages to kick in.

So..... For an XL Citadel, which is meant to be a massive investment of time and commitment for an organisation to build, this is actually an incredibly easy structure to bring down. 15 battleships for 2 hours? And you are complaining it's too hard to attack one, seriously?

Yes. Why should you as a single player, get to be completely immune from me unless I bring 50 or 100 of my friends? How is that at all balanced? As I have said several times, I have no problem if it requires 100 players to beat your 10 players actively defending, but setting the bar that high to even attempt to contest a structure if you don't bother showing up? No one, I mean no one, will ever do it.

Right now large POSes have about 60M HP and they are rarely attacked in highsec or low-class wormholes. These XL citadels require over 320M HP of damage to kill. They will almost never be contested without capitals, especially given they drop nothing of value for the attacker. No organization can regularly muster the hundreds of player hours necessary to kill them without capitals, probably not even Goonswarm.

They will provide significant benefit at no real risk for the players deploying them and with no responsibility to defend them. How can one highsec mining corp consider to attack a rival who deploys an XL citadel in their home system? Or how could the typical 10-man wormhole corp even attempt to evict another similarly sized group from a C2 without capitals? They have no reasonable chance with the bar that high.

It is just not good game design nor does it meet the objectives Team Game of Drones laid out for the new structures.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#272 - 2015-09-20 14:18:23 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

T2 Catalyst, no Implants. 450 DPS (Not quite perfect skills, so.... maybe 1 months training for relevant DPS skills)
67 of them = 30150 DPS. 59 minutes.
T2 Mega, no Implants. 1020 DPS. Not quite perfect skills but significantly longer train admittedly.
30 of them = 30,600 DPS. 30 of them = 58 minutes to reinforce the Citadel.
T2 Naga, no Implants. 1165 DPS, About the same train as the Mega, but cheaper ship.
30 of them = 51 minutes.

So, if you can field 30 battleships you can reinforce the citadel in under an hour. If you can field 30 ABC's you can reinforce it in under an hour. If you can field 67 Destroyers you can reinforce a Citadel in under an hour.

If for some reason you can't field this, the Case Study also shows that the structure being under attack extends it's vulnerable time. So even if you bring only 15 Battleships, you can reinforce the XL Citadel in 2 hours by maintaining constant fire on the structure so it's repair timer never manages to kick in.

So..... For an XL Citadel, which is meant to be a massive investment of time and commitment for an organisation to build, this is actually an incredibly easy structure to bring down. 15 battleships for 2 hours? And you are complaining it's too hard to attack one, seriously?

Yes. Why should you as a single player, get to be completely immune from me unless I bring 50 or 100 of my friends? How is that at all balanced? As I have said several times, I have no problem if it requires 100 players to beat your 10 players actively defending, but setting the bar that high to even attempt to contest a structure if you don't bother showing up? No one, I mean no one, will ever do it.

Right now large POSes have about 60M HP and they are rarely attacked in highsec or low-class wormholes. These XL citadels require over 320M HP of damage to kill. They will almost never be contested without capitals, especially given they drop nothing of value for the attacker. No organization can regularly muster the hundreds of player hours necessary to kill them without capitals, probably not even Goonswarm.

They will provide significant benefit at no real risk for the players deploying them and with no responsibility to defend them. How can one highsec mining corp consider to attack a rival who deploys an XL citadel in their home system? Or how could the typical 10-man wormhole corp even attempt to evict another similarly sized group from a C2 without capitals? They have no reasonable chance with the bar that high.

It is just not good game design nor does it meet the objectives Team Game of Drones laid out for the new structures.

ok, one last try:
i don't know what game are you playing, but in the eve i play there are allot of organizations able to put 100+ members in a fleet; allot!
the fact that you cannot, while a tragedy by itself, means exactly nothing/0 for the rest of us;
last time i checked, high sec was not on a different server, nor was there any law forbiding null sec alliance/coalitions/megacoalitions members to enter high security space; so while shocking as is its, no one really care if you personally cannot kill some 100+bil structure; the current mechanic is proposed accounting for the large aliances/coalitions that already exist in this game.
the significant benefit at no real risk for the players deploying them is only in your head, there are allot of bad ppl out there that will spend allot of effort for a "titan" killmaill, and for the tears.
really, grow up, eve is much much bigger that what you think it is
Black Pedro
Mine.
#273 - 2015-09-20 14:46:38 UTC
gascanu wrote:

i don't know what game are you playing, but in the eve i play there are allot of organizations able to put 100+ members in a fleet; allot!
Friend, there are a handful of highsec and low-class wormhole corps that can field 100 players regularly. The fact that there are some, does not mean that the vast majority of players and organizations will be locked out of contesting XL citadels without access to capitals.

I don't know why many people in this thread, yourself included, are assuming like you that XL citadels will be released as such. CCP Ytterbium has acknowledged this is a problem. We should be discussing ways to address this problem of manpower so that they can be allowed in highsec and wormholes, not trying to justify why it is completely ok that a new game mechanic requires people to be in groups of 100 or more to actually use. There is no way they will be released like that.

Contesting structures should be based on controlling the grid around them, not meeting some arbitrary DPS number. That is just the same grind all over that the new sov system and structures were suppose to address. The problem with the DPS number as this example shows is that it is incredibly difficult to balance across all sectors of space each of which have different ship restrictions.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#274 - 2015-09-20 15:31:55 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it


"ISK tanking".
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#275 - 2015-09-20 17:31:05 UTC  |  Edited by: gascanu
Black Pedro wrote:
gascanu wrote:

i don't know what game are you playing, but in the eve i play there are allot of organizations able to put 100+ members in a fleet; allot!
Friend, there are a handful of highsec and low-class wormhole corps that can field 100 players regularly. The fact that there are some, does not mean that the vast majority of players and organizations will be locked out of contesting XL citadels without access to capitals.

I don't know why many people in this thread, yourself included, are assuming like you that XL citadels will be released as such. CCP Ytterbium has acknowledged this is a problem. We should be discussing ways to address this problem of manpower so that they can be allowed in highsec and wormholes, not trying to justify why it is completely ok that a new game mechanic requires people to be in groups of 100 or more to actually use. There is no way they will be released like that.

Contesting structures should be based on controlling the grid around them, not meeting some arbitrary DPS number. That is just the same grind all over that the new sov system and structures were suppose to address. The problem with the DPS number as this example shows is that it is incredibly difficult to balance across all sectors of space each of which have different ship restrictions.


XL Citadels. XL
ofc you will need allot of man power to contest one, they are the largest type of those structures, and are meant for alliance use .
you keep trowing numbers like 200/300/400 when someone few posts earlier told with numbers how many ppl actually you need, and it's not eve close to yours

you keep comparing an XL citadel with a pos; a large faction fitted pos is what 2-3 bil? an xl citadel will be 100 bil +, but still you want that a citadel should die easier that a pos...
how about comparing a pos with a medium citadel, see how that goes?
as for wh, you keep missing the point, the gameplay is changing; poses are limited to moons, this new things will not be; to you can always anchor you own and start farming kills till they leave/surender;
not to mention that building a xl one will be a not so smart decision, since it will draw allot of unwanted attention and so on...
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#276 - 2015-09-20 17:31:25 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it


"ISK tanking".


I hate one liners like that, have you something intelligent to say about it or just like to try to make yourself look smart to those who would agree with you or silly to people who want a deep challenging game.

The Citadel is built for other reasons, one would think that such a massive investment would include defences, seems sensible to me.

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
Black Pedro
Mine.
#277 - 2015-09-20 17:44:30 UTC
gascanu wrote:
XL Citadels. XL
ofc you will need allot of man power to contest one, they are the largest type of those structures, and are meant for alliance use .
you keep trowing numbers like 200/300/400 when someone few posts earlier told with numbers how many ppl actually you need, and it's not eve close to yours

Ok. Well I am saying you shouldn't. And so is CCP Ytterbium it appears.

There is no way they will be released such that you need 50 or 100 or 200 players to contest them in highsec because it is clear that no one will ever try to contest them if that is the bar. The original proposal allowed 1 person to contest them so clearly CCP wants them to be vulnerable - they even said so in the first structure blog as I linked above. You can't make them invulnerable 95% of the time, require 100 players to attack and drop no loot or no one will ever attack them.

How about we try to come up with some ideas to make them vulnerable then? Otherwise, they will just be locked out of highsec and wormholes which maybe the only solution anyway.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#278 - 2015-09-20 17:48:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Masao Kurata
Dracvlad wrote:
Masao Kurata wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
No, a citadel is a massive investment to build and use, its should also be a massive investment to destroy it


"ISK tanking".


I hate one liners like that.


Sounds like a personal problem.

EDIT: Okay, seriously: I could write an essay about how one man's investment of billions of ISK does not justify automatic safety but this has been done many times on this and other forums already. The fallacy of ISK tanking is well known, nothing more needs to be said on the matter.
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#279 - 2015-09-20 18:00:29 UTC  |  Edited by: gascanu
Black Pedro wrote:
gascanu wrote:
XL Citadels. XL
ofc you will need allot of man power to contest one, they are the largest type of those structures, and are meant for alliance use .
you keep trowing numbers like 200/300/400 when someone few posts earlier told with numbers how many ppl actually you need, and it's not eve close to yours

Ok. Well I am saying you shouldn't. And so is CCP Ytterbium it appears.

There is no way they will be released such that you need 50 or 100 or 200 players to contest them in highsec because it is clear that no one will ever try to contest them if that is the bar. The original proposal allowed 1 person to contest them so clearly CCP wants them to be vulnerable - they even said so in the first structure blog as I linked above. You can't make them invulnerable 95% of the time, require 100 players to attack and drop no loot or no one will ever attack them.

How about we try to come up with some ideas to make them vulnerable then? Otherwise, they will just be locked out of highsec and wormholes which maybe the only solution anyway.


and here is where you are wrong. why do you think no one will contest them? we are talking about an 100 billion killmaill here, not you average 300 mil pos; ppl are suicide ganking freighters for an 1-2 bil killmaill and for tears but you assume no one will go for the "titan" killmaill just sitting there?
what do you think all those bored nul sec guys will do when they see one up?
you want to be able to contest one with 20 guys? good luck finding one to kill..
Black Pedro
Mine.
#280 - 2015-09-20 18:19:05 UTC
gascanu wrote:

and here is where you are wrong. why do you think no one will contest them? we are talking about an 100 billion killmaill here, not you average 300 mil pos; ppl are suicide ganking freighters for an 1-2 bil killmaill and for tears but you assume no one will go for the "titan" killmaill just sitting there?
what do you think all those bored nul sec guys will do when they see one up?
you want to be able to contest one with 20 guys? good luck finding one to kill..

I am not wrong at all. XL Citadels will easily be contestable with 20 guys in lowsec and nullsec using dreadnoughts. That is perfectly fine with me to require an semi-expensive capital fleet to attack them. In highsec/wormholes? You need 50-200 players to attack depending on their skills. That is way too high. Even Goonswarm didn't field more than 200 players during Burn Amarr recently so what makes you think they would do so for a single killmail?

If Gevlon put up an XL I am sure Goonswarm would torch it. But anyone else? They will not bother to demand such time from their membership to kill a random XL citadel for just a killmail. And this is besides the point. The manpower required is beyond almost every alliance that actually lives in highsec or low-class wormholes they won't even have the option.

It is a non-starter. It won't happen. There is no way CCP will release a structure that requires 100+ hours of player effort to attack even if the defender doesn't show up.

Sorry to break the news, but if that is all you have - that Goonswarm might attack one once because they are bored and are looking for tears - then XL citadels are destined to never be allowed in highsec.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?