Test Server Feedback

Agreed, both should be added. This would enable viable business model too.

I would like to be able to move it on the Y axis and not just the x and z

The issue I have with the 24h timer is its far too long for the Medium and Large Cits. The time is just too much for the benefit you get out of anchoring one vs one of the bigger ones.

You could make a good argument for the 24hr timer for the XL as its the largest one AND the benefit it gives you (docking supers) plus its ability to defend itself is very good.

6 hours would be acceptable for the med, and 12 for the large, with 24 for the XL.

like i said b4 considering if you miss the anchor timer coming out you have to deal with an enemy citadel in your system for up to a week b4 you can do anything about it 24hr is thee minimum the timer can be

15 hs and max null index 30 in wh and 60 in null with no index

O.o you cant expect ppl to be on 24/7 and you certainly cant expect them to be on in enough numbers to deal with this.

24hrs is not that much to ask and if you do need something up fast you can just use a POS

NOT FOR THE SMALLER CITS!

Yes its reasonable for the XL cit, but by no means is it fine for the Medium or the Large. Both of those cits are very easy to push down, hell the medium alone can be taken down a single dread, or a small gang during both its deployment time AND vulnerable window. When someone goes to put own down, they better be ready to be up for nearly 24hours to DEFEND its deployment, and that is just not worth it for something like the smaller cits that have FAR less HP (and thus a lower DPS cap too) to chew through.

I am not talking about the XL cit, I am talking about the Medium and Large cits that have 1/2 and 1/4th the HP of the XL. 24hr is too ******* long for those smaller cits.

Might I also remind you that these are meant to replace POS's, especially the Medium cit which is aimed at the smaller corp/solo player.


I have time and again suggested PROPER anchor times that REASONABLY fit with the size of the cit and its resulting defense capabilities. As well as the ease of destruction of said cit, even at 6 hours for a medium, that gives an ACTIVE alliance plenty of time to find out about it (HINT: ALLIANCE WIDE NOTIFICATION) and form something to take it out.
It also allows the Solo Player to plant a Cit somewhere for his own purposes, aka like a Solo Pos for Reactions/compression ect. Without having to sit there waiting for it, or dropping it, going to bed, and waking up wondering if his cit lived or was killed by a roaming gang. These things are a fairly large investment, the Large and XL cits are aimed at Alliances or Large Corps (or Corps with Caps), The 12 and 24 HR timers are fine for such things, as an ALLIANCE or a Corp can stand guard by it. No one is going to drop a Large or XL in enemy space since those things cannot fit in industrial (large can only fit in a JF or bigger, and XL is Freighter only), unless they already are winning a war/need a new staging area to progress a war.

You are failing to understand because you are not taking the time to read about the updates and know the context.

1. Citadels themselves will not replaces POS's. They are only the first step towards phasing out POS's. The variety of structures that will be released in the next year or two will work towards phasing POS's out. At that point we will start seeing POS's phase out completely.

2. When a Citadel is deployed (regardless of it's size) it takes 24 hours to anchor. During this entire 24 hours it is invulnerable to attack. You will not need a 24 hour around the clock fleet to defend it.

3. Once the 24 hour anchor time is complete it will then enter a vulnerable mode and can be attacked. This is when you would need to defend it if you wanted to guarantee deployment.

4. Citadels have a specific length of time it is vulnerable for depending on where it is trying to be anchored. High-sec and Null-Sec (with full indexes) will be vulnerable for 15 minutes if not attacked. Low-sec and Wormhole space will be vulnerable for 30 minutes. Finally, Null-set (with no index) 60 minutes. If it is attacked you need to stop the aggression and once stopped the repair timer will start back from 0s.

5. Damage mitigation. Each structure has a cap on the amount of DPS that can be applied to it over a specific time frame. Any damage being applied over the cap is reduced significantly or negated. This is to keep the "big guys" in "big ships" from "popping" structures. Anyone who attacks the structure will be committed to the field for a certain amount of time regardless of ship type, size, dps. This benefits the "little guys" deploying "little structures" from getting rekt.

In the dev blog they gave the example of damage mitigation with a max of 4,000 DPS over a 30 second period. That means you can only do 120,000 damage to the citadel in a 30 second period. Currently on the test server the medium Citadel has 7,200,000 HP on hull.

With the example damage mitigation, 7200000 hp / 4000 dps = 1800 seconds / 60 = 30 minutes to destroy.

If anyone was wanting to blob the hell out of a medium citadel after the 24 hour invulnerability time, they would only be able to apply 4000 DPS and they'd have to stay on field applying damage for 30 minutes. If they bring less ships, they'll be there longer.

Your fears are invalid, small citadels will still be hard to destroy at all stages including initial anchoring. 24 hours is reasonable.

Here is the dev blog: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/citadels-sieges-and-you-v2/
Inform yourself.

Ah see that cleared a few things up.

1. I knew about the 30 min minimum time to kill/RF any sized cit because of the max DPS cap. A pair of sieged Moros's can reach the cap of the med cit without trying hard. 30min is the fastest any one cit can be killed/RF'ed, the more ships you bring the better you can stay at the max DPS despite taking losses from the cit.

2. They were vulnerable during there anchor time, like anything else in the game, unless that has recently changed, I have seen nothing else to suggest they are Invulnerable during there anchor time. Unless CCP is going to change slandered game mechanics, in which they will NEED to explain it or list it within its details. Otherwise people will assume it CAN be killed during its anchor time, much like how a POS or, well, anything that deploys

3. Yes I know this is the start of the phasing out of POS"s, and its a nice one at that, but that still doesn't mean we completely disregard game-play that EVERY EvE played is used to. 24 hr is a long ass time for ANYTHING to anchor, especially when it doesn't get adjusted based on DT, or auto build after DT like an Outpost. I would suggest that cits use that mechanic, but that could be problematic in how to code it to work right without being able to abuse it.

4. The fears of enemies dropping a cit in your space are unfounded at best, hell like I said many times, enemies already do that with POS's. If Cits remain vulnerable during there anchor time, then this becomes a null/mute point and we go back to 24hr being too long for the medium cit.

So based on the dev blog the anchoring mechanic will be different for Citadels than other structures. The game is always developing so anything can change when they decide it's time. And when POS's are phased out the old mechanic won't be there (same for outposts). POS's and Outposts will be phased out at some point.

I do agree 24 hours is a long time because "I want my CItadel up NOW!" (lol) but it's definitely a fair time so everyone involved has a chance to prepare for a fight. It's different gameplay and somewhat forces an competitive interaction. EVE is a PvP game after all. I would be pretty upset if it would auto-deploy after downtime. That would kill the gameplay CCP is most likely trying to invent with the new mechanics.

One thing CCP has said in the recent past is that they don't want people to feel like they have to play the game so very often in order to enjoy specific parts of gameplay. Part of that is not expecting people to be on at all times during the day. This is why 24 hours seems fair. Most people log in at least once within 24 hours to be able to see something worth contesting. A shorter time seems like it could be easily missed or more likely someone will be unable to plan/react to it.

That's my thought on why 24 hours is completely reasonable.