These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Faction Warfare and Citadels: Anchoring Discussion

First post
Author
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#41 - 2015-11-07 21:39:32 UTC
Indeed. The final straw for citadels is the zero risk to assets. Just bad design in null amplified imo in fw since they are also at odds with core conflict drivers.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#42 - 2015-11-08 17:00:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
Le sigh. Has no one drawn the connection (were the ihub idea to fall through) that these could potentially provide an enormous amount of LP for busting. +1 for IHub hats!
Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2015-11-10 16:40:09 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
Le sigh. Has no one drawn the connection (were the ihub idea to fall through) that these could potentially provide an enormous amount of LP for busting. +1 for IHub hats!


If they provide too much LP for the other side and no benefit, then all the FW citadels will belong to neutral alt corps. Just saying....

.

Julius Foederatus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2015-11-10 22:58:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Julius Foederatus
Why not tie system upgrades to the ability for an enemy faction to anchor citadels? Something like no anchoring at 5, only meds at 4, etc.
Nicola Arman
Sehnlein
#45 - 2015-11-11 13:24:56 UTC
Seems very silly and very unlike EVE to have your 'stuffs' magically saved when your Citadel explodes. Where's the risk? They're meant to be safer than a POS? I understand there will be an ISK investment but all the 'stuffs' should burn in a fire or drop as loot. This could potentially fix our FW issue a bit and keep to our EVE fundamentals.

Maybe even add a penalty to enemy militia Citadels in their systems: Less resists, less HP, something that makes them inefficient so the core system doesn't seem to break.

Allowing Docking Rights from an alt's Citadel should not be possible either if you are the enemy militia and none of the above is addressed.

I want to see these structures in FW space but magic loot ferrying doesn't make me feel good... seems safe. Too safe..

Kale Freeman
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2015-11-11 14:18:20 UTC
Julius Foederatus wrote:
Why not tie system upgrades to the ability for an enemy faction to anchor citadels? Something like no anchoring at 5, only meds at 4, etc.


Always remember the neutral alt
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#47 - 2015-11-11 19:10:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
Andre Vauban wrote:
Oreb Wing wrote:
Le sigh. Has no one drawn the connection (were the ihub idea to fall through) that these could potentially provide an enormous amount of LP for busting. +1 for IHub hats!


If they provide too much LP for the other side and no benefit, then all the FW citadels will belong to neutral alt corps. Just saying....


How can you say it has no benefit? Docking and every single station service you can imagine. Oh top of that, you slap guns on it and drop modules to affordable prices for those you allow to dock. The benefits are clear, with more to come. The strategic value is there. Making them FW specific structures means there are no neutral Citadels in FW lowsec. They will either be orange or blue.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#48 - 2015-11-11 21:24:11 UTC
+1 for ihub hats!
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#49 - 2015-11-12 02:18:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
And the greatest benefit of all: The fights they will bring.

Their introduction, in any other way, with any other ridiculous vulnerability window, will be a poor whimper by comparison; they will be a distraction to FW instead of a focus. A bothersome, unrewarding, structure grind instead of a sentinel of death and home. Oh well. Maybe I'm the only one that sees it this way.
Dantelion Shinoni
The Black Squad
#50 - 2015-11-12 04:41:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Dantelion Shinoni
May Arethusa wrote:
Quote:
If we don't allow pilots to dock in Citadels in hostile space at all, then FW continues to stagnate


I disagree. This would actually provide currently stationless systems with a significant degree of strategic importance and help shift some of the focus away from home systems which are notoriously difficult to flip.


Underrated point right there!

Also whatever is decided to make those things work in FW will be a band-aid at best. Those things were clearly not designed with anything other than null-sec in mind, like things as Asset Safety, Vulnerability Windows, etc.. show.

If CCP wanted the intuitive approach here, those things would have been limited to null, but now they are a Jesus feature for the entire game instead, so they have to be shoehorn'd everywhere.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#51 - 2015-11-12 11:52:57 UTC
If there is no station in system, the assets should be forfeit.
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#52 - 2015-11-15 14:16:12 UTC
System under siege? Enemy militia set up a citadel and are basing out of it?

Blow. It. Up.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#53 - 2015-11-15 15:46:25 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
If there is no station in system, the assets should be forfeit.

Shouldn't be more harsh than nullsec IMO. There's no compelling reason for it.

And I think that a lot of folks miss that if you lose a Citadel in a system you're attacking, and don't have another one in system ready to receive your stuff, that stuff gets moved to the nearest NPC station - namely the one in the system you're attacking, that you don't own. You'll still lose access to your stuff unless you can flip the system after all.

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

Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#54 - 2015-11-15 16:57:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
vov It's eve. We like to make people lose things..

Besides. I still think the proliferation of these things is a detriment to FW, in that it introduces a foreign structure that completely ***** on home field advantages. Why should we even have docking restrictions with these present? A tower always created a kind of sadistic convenience; pos are hard to use and quickly ship out of in comparison to a station, which this thing is superior to in every way. Not integrating them into the body of FW, as I've said, makes them arbitrary and something of a nuisance. They will completely ruin the importance geography plays in war. That is a bad thing that reduces content quality and diversity. Sacrificing strategy and tactful thinking for the sake of new stuff is not good. Why can't you see that?
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#55 - 2015-11-15 18:41:30 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
vov It's eve. We like to make people lose things..

Besides. I still think the proliferation of these things is a detriment to FW, in that it introduces a foreign structure that completely ***** on home field advantages. Why should we even have docking restrictions with these present? A tower always created a kind of sadistic convenience; pos are hard to use and quickly ship out of in comparison to a station, which this thing is superior to in every way. Not integrating them into the body of FW, as I've said, makes them arbitrary and something of a nuisance. They will completely ruin the importance geography plays in war. That is a bad thing that reduces content quality and diversity. Sacrificing strategy and tactful thinking for the sake of new stuff is not good. Why can't you see that?



This is why I am looking for discussion both for and against or just in general about these structures. I brought up the docking restrictions in the warzone and that a Citadel is a bit different from a POS. However, currently people can drop and stage from a POS. The take down mechanics are significantly different but are they different enough to warrant exemptions. In wormhole space the movement, access, and usage was enough.

Citadel are a game wide change. I could very well stand nose to nose with the development team and say "No!" That does not mean they will go, "Okay." I also look at what can be done to put these in the best place for FW when they do come.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#56 - 2015-11-15 19:12:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
I desperately entreat CCP to deeply consider allowing these Tu function as POS in FW. If you are urged to create a thread to discuss the difficulties of new players coming into FW, you must see also how this structure, where it's headed, completely topples the balance in favor high SP and established entities to such a degree that there will not be an opposing forces that can dock in even the CLOSEST militia lowsec system. Only pity and laziness will keep this from happening. (p.s.) I am of the opinion that not too many people keen on how good these are will say much, because in null they are a logistic director's wet dream. Stations? Forget it. It will be Citadel placement attack and response; Citadel against Citadel and links will drive the win where they can dock. Wormholes! ::drops the mic::
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#57 - 2015-11-15 20:49:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
On the other hand, if these can be made to bloom out of the ihub upon deployment when it is busted or after, it could turn out positive results that are the opposite of all this bad. Limit placement to one per Corp and small groups would flourish throughout the war zone, creating little homes for their militia gang. This can echo in null. It would be such a great thing instead of such a cluster **** of new problems and making so many other things obsolete.
Silverbackyererse
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#58 - 2015-11-16 09:27:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Silverbackyererse
Vesk, you know that having assets in a hostile station can be gamed right. It'll be a minor inconvenience at most. Lot less trouble in fact than space taxi-ing sheet from a doomed POS would be.

Oreb, POS' are actually faster to reship from than stations. SMA use doesn't have the aggression timer that station docking does. No black screen of boredom when docking and undocking either.

There will be more advantages to Citadels than POS towers for sure though. Finding the right balance is nigh on impossible I think - and you know what, I don't think CCP view them as detrimental to FW or there would already be some wormholesque variation plan in place.

No offence Sugar but I think you're flogging a dead horse here. These will go ahead as is or with some inane system upgrade +/- ing that's just as useless as the crap we've already got for system upgrades.
FW changes since Inferno have been few and far between (cloaky radius bollocks and ship restriction changes anyone) and I don't see it being our turn on the wheel for a long time again.
If they won't / can't implement the small changes people have advocated for a long time such as the timer rollback, what chance of them putting some late changes into FW/Citadel/System boni? SFA chance I fear.

Folks are just going to have to adapt and deal with it.
It's not like these things are indestructible and I still think they bring more to the table than they take with respect to gameplay options.

So long as there's more pew pew I don't really give a rat's clacker to be quite honest.

If it turns out to be terrible then we can always vote with our feet aye?! :)

Yes, I'm a bitter vet. No you can't have my stuff. Lol
Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2015-11-16 14:45:17 UTC
Templar Dane wrote:
System under siege? Enemy militia set up a citadel and are basing out of it?

Blow. It. Up.


You cannot. The way the vulnerability timers work, the citadel won't be vulnerable for longer than it takes to siege the system.

.

Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2015-11-16 14:52:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Andre Vauban
Silverbackyererse wrote:
Vesk, you know that having assets in a hostile station can be gamed right. It'll be a minor inconvenience at most. Lot less trouble in fact than space taxi-ing sheet from a doomed POS would be.

Oreb, POS' are actually faster to reship from than stations. SMA use doesn't have the aggression timer that station docking does. No black screen of boredom when docking and undocking either.

Lol


That is true for a small and organized group, like COA. However, POS reshipping doesn't scale. It becomes a PITA when you have to deal with 50 different corps and alliances all needing the PW, all needing ships, repairing modules, checking ammo, assembling and fiting ships, etc, etc. It's fine for COA where you do coordinated assaults with people that are all on the same page. Try it with 50 newbro's who rename ships, remove ammo, unfit mods, burn out mods, etc, etc and then put them back into the ship maintenance arrays.

EDIT: I'm not saying citadels are bad either, but they will 100% completely change the face of FW fighting. Docking rights will no longer matter, nobody will care about sov except for mission agent systems. There will be no more plex fighting, unless there is a push to a certain tier level so people can farm missions. All the fights will be over Citadels.

Here is what is going to happen. Faction A is going to assault faction B's home system. Faction A will drop citadels. If faction A flips the system, faction B will drop a citadel and try and take the system back. At this point, both factions will be effectively living in the same system basing out of an effective station. At this point, the fight becomes not about FW mechanics, but about Citadel mechanics. The "winner" will be whatever faction can win the citadel fights. After the fact, the winner will most likely flip the system back, but the true fight will be over the citadel.

I think this change will be horrible for COA. Now Gallente can just completely ignore you in plexes when you come to a home system. The strategy will shift to "fight off COA as much as possible during their prime and deplex when they are sleeping" which means fun fights for you, to "move to a citadel and deny them content and bore them too death. If they take the system, meh, just wait until they leave and then flip it back".

.