EVE Information Portal

Wow,when did wh people become such bears? We used to be HC man. Only space where you can really END your opponent.....

Hm...as one of those weird people in this world that likes playing healers in games, I'm disappointed that remote repair has NO interplay with this system - someone on page 1 suggested it shorten the timer or increase the damage input required from the attackers to keep the timer delayed. I actually liked seeing small corps of newbros field little repair fleets of cap chained T1 logi to bring shields/armor back up to save a structure, and RR parties bringing back up POSes or Outposts have been enjoyable experiences to me to shoot the breeze with Corp/Alliance/Coalition-mates in a sort of lower key group activity.

So I wish you guys could work RR mechanics in somehow.

However, that gripe aside, I like the direction this is going, so kudos for listening and at least doing something (granted, we're still not seeing the FULL picture since we haven't see what you guys are planning for Capitals yet, which might complete the mental image for us when we get around to that.)

Any updates/thoughts on some of the feedback in the thread? e.g. the use of the Target Spectrum Breaker mechanic?

*snips*
Could you reference where you got 1. from, as I think you may have mixed up being able to scan the current fittings of the Citadel, I.E. what guns and services it is currently fitted with & being able to scan the entire cargo list.

2. Well yes, many people have yelled at CCP about that and that logging off in space should not be a better option than logging off in a Citadel, and 'hopefully' they will listen though it seems to only be because of Wormholes that they have any chance of listening.

3. Well yes, M Citadels should be vastly cheaper.

Citadels themselves won't be so expensive as such, it'll be the rigs on them that give bonuses to the services that will cost large sums.

I have a question about the tethering on the undock

Since you are going to replace pos in the future with these, can you stay tethered and give out mining or pvp boosts?\

Will you getan weapon timer for that and go untethered?

So after the 24h anchoring invulnerability timer the repair timer automatically start without any outside influence, yours or 3th party?

If we stand back and consider these changes from a very broad perspective, we can make certain predictions based on the economic cost of both offensive and defensive actions.

All war is an economic contest. If one side can cause more economic loss than they suffer when mounting offensive actions, offensive actions will prevail. Alternatively, if a defensive posture can inflict more economic cost on the offensive side than it suffers before being overwhelmed, a committed and robust defence will break an offensive enemy.

It is fairly simple logic to reason that an equilibrium can only exist where defensive postures are sustainable. If offensive strategies yield dividends, they shall be favoured and shall prevail as the dominant strategy. The strong will eclipse the weak, and a state of constant war shall persist until one single offensive alliance has destroyed every weaker party.

The logic here is that offensive beats defensive, and the bigger force has the option to go on the offence, while the weaker is forced to adopt defensive strategy.

Why does the larger force have the initiative to adopt an offensive posture?

Well, each side must balance the enemy forces, or leave themselves obviously exposed to localized defeat. Only the larger side in a stand off has a remainder of forces with which to plan offensive actions. The weaker force will always commit 100% of its forces to a balanced defence, or it must otherwise leave some areas of its line completely exposed with no counter to the enemy. And so the enemy takes the complete initiative on that front, achieving easy wins due to an absence of local opposition.

Students of history may note that static equilibriums between tribes, nations and states have only ever occurred when technological advantages have been spread more or less equally across the world, and where the defensive strategy thus prevailed. Where technology has allowed an offensive strategy to prevail, the stronger side has spread with great speed and across huge distances.

Turning back to Eve, we can predict, with reasonable conviction, that if the Citadel cannot destroy a great ISK value of ships in the vulnerability window than it costs to establish and lose against a committed offensive action, then Citadels will be an obvious waste of time and a certain losing proposition for all players.

If, by contrast, a manned citadel can easily destroy a greater ISK value of attacking ships than it costs to replace after being overwhelmed, then a defensive strategy can use the economics of attrition to defeat a stronger adversary who wishes to use size and strength to prevail with an offensive strategy. The defensive side will lose structures, but over time they can bleed the aggressor dry and prevail through economic might.

At first glance, it seems the greatest difficulty shall be the operation of logistics in the offensive fleet. If the offensive fleet can stop expensive assault ships being destroyed, at all, or even delay their destruction significantly, then the person manning the citadel is never going to inflict a sufficient economic cost of the offensive fleet that can make a defensive war posture effective over time.

It is false logic to imagine that "support fleets" can affect this balance, simply because we must assume that support fleets will suffer ISK losses in direct proportion to the enemy losses they inflict. This is unless they can target and fire from a position of invulnerability, or given some other clear, significant battlefield advantage for the defending forces.

I will wait for the early data to emerge, but at first glance I fear the changes fall well short of allowing a committed defence to inflict the kind of economic harm to a committed offensive fleet that would permit the rational adoption of a defensive posture by a serious party to war.

I just can't see the pilot of a citadel being able to break expensive hulls that are supported by large fleets of chained logistic support ships.

Unless an assault on a citadel piloted a competent defensive player means serious (greater than cost of the citadel once destroyed) cost for ANY attacking force, in blood and isk, citadel owners shall become goon fodder and that truth will erode player confidence in the strategic worth of structures.

A mechanic that might be useful is a doomsday weapon for citadels, one that can fire every 12 minutes. That means the offensive fleet will lose two major ships in each window.

From an aesthetic perspective, it is right and proper than assault fleets feel the cost of going over the top and losing good men to concentrated enemy fire. It is effeminate and slightly ridiculous to imagine that risk averse leaders can overwhelm citadels with strategies that favour the timid.

Automated defenses may not fend off a properly sized attacking fleet, but pos's do get some great comedy kills. Plus, if you're going to kill someone on a pos solo or with a small group, you need to at least somewhat know what you're doing. Those defenses make them dangerous to be around if you're not welcome there, and that shouldn't be removed.