These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Citadel defence

Author
Benjimuss
Crowded Trousers
#1 - 2016-06-05 14:36:52 UTC
Hey guys just a quick question...do citadels attack hostile targets if you are not logged in?

Cheers
Ben
Loucxious Leopold
Dredge Nation
#2 - 2016-06-05 14:47:10 UTC
i believe a citadel requires an active defender.
Scarlett LaBlanc
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2016-06-05 15:12:52 UTC
Yep
Benjimuss
Crowded Trousers
#4 - 2016-06-05 15:16:29 UTC
thank you
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Astral Alliance
#5 - 2016-06-05 15:29:49 UTC
It's basically a stationary ship. I find it better to think of it that way, as then it makes it easier to understand why it's unable to defend itself, and why it needs a defensive fleet. So when you look at the cost of it (intended to be around 700 mil but actually for the citadel sans mods around 1.6BN now). It makes a lot more sense for this structure to be in many respects disposable.
Neadayan Drakhon
Heuristic Industrial And Development
AddictClan
#6 - 2016-06-05 18:21:04 UTC
needs 1 person controlling the citadel itself, and any other defenders in ships, the person controlling the citadel should be able to use all the modules and light fighters, yeah that means training those fighter drone skills, but if you don't have fighters in your citadel you're missing a good chunk of its defensive capabilities
Sustrai Aditua
Intandofisa
#7 - 2016-06-06 17:53:08 UTC
While we're on the subject. Why attack this stationary ship? There doesn't seem to be a point beyond wanton destruction, adolescent catatonic fit entertainment and maybe some loot/salvage if anyone's stupid enough to try to defend one in a real ship.

If we get chased by zombies, I'm tripping you.

Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#8 - 2016-06-06 17:57:15 UTC
Sustrai Aditua wrote:
While we're on the subject. Why attack this stationary ship? There doesn't seem to be a point beyond wanton destruction, adolescent catatonic fit entertainment and maybe some loot/salvage if anyone's stupid enough to try to defend one in a real ship.


Since when is wanton destruction not a decent reason to attack something?
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#9 - 2016-06-06 18:06:09 UTC
Sustrai Aditua wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a point beyond wanton destruction, adolescent catatonic fit entertainment

Im sorry, i dont understand the question ...
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2016-06-06 18:19:29 UTC
Sustrai Aditua wrote:
Why attack this stationary ship? There doesn't seem to be a point beyond wanton destruction
Your question is like going on a Tetris forum and asking "Why stack these blocks? There doesn't seem to be a point beyond removing full rows from the playing field."
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2016-06-06 18:29:36 UTC
Sustrai Aditua wrote:
While we're on the subject. Why attack this stationary ship? There doesn't seem to be a point beyond wanton destruction, adolescent catatonic fit entertainment ...


Are you playing the same game as the rest of us? Wanton destruction is the best reason to attack something.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#12 - 2016-06-06 19:14:48 UTC
Sustrai Aditua wrote:
While we're on the subject. Why attack this stationary ship? There doesn't seem to be a point beyond wanton destruction, adolescent catatonic fit entertainment and maybe some loot/salvage if anyone's stupid enough to try to defend one in a real ship.


Don't let the Ship v Ship gamers get to you. I understand what you are asking.

A vocal minority of the EVE populace does like to destroy stuff just to destroy stuff. They're like the kids kicking over your sand castles on the beach. It's fun to them and the game honestly centers around the chaos they do, but like a Galaxy, the further you go out from the chaotic center, the more peaceful it tends to get, but peaceful is a relative term in EVE.

There is almost no loot/salvage from a Citadel, so it's really just boredom driving the destruction.

The simple fact that the Citadels are going up faster than they can be taken down shows you how effective the building community is.
Maekchu
Doomheim
#13 - 2016-06-06 19:30:38 UTC
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
Sustrai Aditua wrote:
While we're on the subject. Why attack this stationary ship? There doesn't seem to be a point beyond wanton destruction, adolescent catatonic fit entertainment and maybe some loot/salvage if anyone's stupid enough to try to defend one in a real ship.


Don't let the Ship v Ship gamers get to you. I understand what you are asking.

A vocal minority of the EVE populace does like to destroy stuff just to destroy stuff. They're like the kids kicking over your sand castles on the beach. It's fun to them and the game honestly centers around the chaos they do, but like a Galaxy, the further you go out from the chaotic center, the more peaceful it tends to get, but peaceful is a relative term in EVE.

There is almost no loot/salvage from a Citadel, so it's really just boredom driving the destruction.

The simple fact that the Citadels are going up faster than they can be taken down shows you how effective the building community is.

They go up faster then they are taken down, because they are a PITA to take down and not worth the investment of time, unless you really want content/mess with someone. It has nothing to do with industrialists being "efficient". In fact, many industrialists are not efficient at all, which kind of surprises me. The amount of people who don't know how to calculate profits in order to maximize yield is surprisingly high, as well as those "minerals are free if I mine them myself" kind of people. One time, there was this guy afk mining with mining drones using an Orca. That was so inefficient, that I just had to wardec and kill it. Why would anyone think that was a good idea?

Sure we need people to build stuff for us to buy. But we equally need people to destroy stuff for the market to keep going. So many small minded industrialists don't seem to grasp that concept. In the end, we need both builders and destroyers for the EvE economy to work.
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#14 - 2016-06-06 19:54:31 UTC
Maekchu wrote:
They go up faster then they are taken down, because they are a PITA to take down and not worth the investment of time, unless you really want content/mess with someone. It has nothing to do with industrialists being "efficient". In fact, many industrialists are not efficient at all, which kind of surprises me. The amount of people who don't know how to calculate profits in order to maximize yield is surprisingly high, as well as those "minerals are free if I mine them myself" kind of people. One time, there was this guy afk mining with mining drones using an Orca. That was so inefficient, that I just had to wardec and kill it. Why would anyone think that was a good idea?

Sure we need people to build stuff for us to buy. But we equally need people to destroy stuff for the market to keep going. So many small minded industrialists don't seem to grasp that concept. In the end, we need both builders and destroyers for the EvE economy to work.


You kind of misread my intent but I can see how you got there so I'll deal with it this way...

I wasn't talking about efficiency from a standpoint of time vs ISK, or anything of the sort. I was talking about the sheer scope of those that create vs. those that like to destroy.

As far as efficiency goes, there are mini-maxxers in every MMO. They get enjoyment out of squeezing that last little bit of efficiency out of their gaming, whether it be building or destrying (in EVE you can do both). Most players, yes even industrialists, aren't of this type. They just like to creatively create. It's not an efficient process. I'm sure it drives all the spreadsheet captains nuts, but you can't really call their kind fun something that belongs in Excel.

I also find it dubious that someone would complain about ISK efficiency and then give an example of War Deccing a single ORCA player who was doing something that was found 'offensive'. That's not very ISK efficient at all, so even you understand the satisfaction of doing something just for self gratification.

This game isn't about ISK efficiency, or playing in ONE certain way. It's about playing the way you like to play.

I used to mock WoW because 40% of the population did EXACTLY the same kind of game-play because it was the most efficient. Whatever class character you had, you built it and equipped it like a hundred thousand other players with the same toon. It is boring to watch and play with.

I am glad EVE allows players to play however they like, no matter how inefficient or bizarre it is. That is what make EVE to me, there is no right way to play, only a bunch of ways that aren't optimal, and yes, even the most efficient EVE player is still inefficient because if you we 100% efficient, what the heck would you play for?

A large amount of HiSec industrialists are part time players like myself. You can't be efficient and play a day or two a week for a couple hours of day. It's more about logging in and doing whatever you feel like at that moment. If you do that, you're automatically inefficient and you're still having fun anyway.
Maekchu
Doomheim
#15 - 2016-06-06 20:10:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Maekchu
Pandora Carrollon wrote:

I also find it dubious that someone would complain about ISK efficiency and then give an example of War Deccing a single ORCA player who was doing something that was found 'offensive'. That's not very ISK efficient at all, so even you understand the satisfaction of doing something just for self gratification.

I never said I was ISK efficient. I hardly think any solo frigate PvPer would ever consider themselves ISK efficient. We simply will never have that dank 99% ISK efficient KB. I just commented on your notion on "efficient" industrialists, while my experience with industrialists is that there exists many that are far from it. Obviously, there are also industrialists that actually understands economy and does their business efficient. I'm not denying that.

Pandora Carrollon wrote:

This game isn't about ISK efficiency, or playing in ONE certain way. It's about playing the way you like to play.

Yes, I also support the notion to let people do whatever they like. If the afk mining Orca would continue doing that, I won't force him to change. However, I still have the freedom to keep blowing him up as well.

Like I said before, EvE need both builders and destroyers in order to work. But your former post, had some undertones of you not agreeing with PvPers and their playstyle. Is the way they play the game, somehow less valid than an industrialist? Might just be the way you formulated it. Tone often gets lost in the text. I'm sure many think my comments are more snarky than they actually are.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#16 - 2016-06-06 20:40:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Maekchu wrote:
Sure we need people to build stuff for us to buy. But we equally need people to destroy stuff for the market to keep going. So many small minded industrialists don't seem to grasp that concept. In the end, we need both builders and destroyers for the EvE economy to work.
Indeed, this is the basic idea of the game yet I am continually amazed at the conniption that many players throw if your dare attack THEM. Oh, it's perfectly fine to go blow someone else up (usually in the industrialist's mind someone who is looking for a fight) and to buy their goods to do it, but if you have the gall to actually shoot them you are a sociopath or a griefer who definitely needs some sort of nerf to your fun.

As for Citadels, they are a step forward in that they force the owner to defend them if you want to try to attack, but in themselves they offer little reason to do so (beyond the market module). However, if CCP can figure out some more conflict drivers either with the upcoming structures or otherwise, they will serve as a good big target to fight over (and one that can participate in interesting ways) and a tool to force an engagement.

But for now we are only left with wanton destruction as the primary motivator. Thankfully many Eve players enjoy wanton destruction so some content is happening, but really we need some more reasons to fight over things other than the explosions themselves, especially if you expect people to spend a week grinding structures that don't actually drop much of value.

On the other side of the coin, what is going to be the use of Citadels for industrialists, especially the Mediums once the industrial structures are released? Aside from perhaps part of a jump freighter highway, and maybe a place to swap clones, I don't see many uses for these structures which take too long to deploy/unanchor for tactical use and offer little that an NPC station already has. I toyed with the idea of deploying one for fun, but for the life of me I can't see what I would do with it.

I guess wormholers will be big users (and in wormholes there is a reason to attack without asset safety), but I am not sure there are many other reasons to choose the citadel over one of the other upcoming structures anywhere else.
Loucxious Leopold
Dredge Nation
#17 - 2016-06-06 21:30:31 UTC
I think one of the neat things about citadels is that you can "open" them to the public and allow the services to be used by anyone, for a price. I think this includes wormhole space. Making a safe haven there should be a real incentive for some folks not to blow one up, and I think that giving people the option in other parts of space can allow for more options for folks than destruction.

Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#18 - 2016-06-06 21:32:08 UTC
We won't know how Citadels actually play out until we see the other structures and how many NPC stations fold up tent and go away.

Wanton destruction has it's place and I'm certainly not pish-poshing Ship v Ship play styles. I completely understand the place of both in the scheme of things. However, it frequently gets represented that the Ship v Ship playstyles are "EVE", pretty much the 'focus' of the game.

I'm just validating that side of things that other people see that don't fit that mold. Since it's a sandbox, the only 'goal' of the game is whatever you make of it, basically, for you to have fun and pay money to CCP. It's why it exists. Since it's all PvP, even creative, combat shy players can come in and wage battle in building, selling, hauling, etc.

That's what makes this game so awesome and unpredictable, you never know when 'content' will happen, by your doing or someone else's. I'm glad people like Ship v Ship and wanton destruction it's one of the major game drivers, but not the only one.
Shiloh Templeton
Cheyenne HET Co
#19 - 2016-06-06 21:39:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Shiloh Templeton
Neadayan Drakhon wrote:
and light fighters, yeah that means training those fighter drone skills, but if you don't have fighters in your citadel you're missing a good chunk of its defensive capabilities
Is this true? I don't see anything about a drone/fighter bay in the dev blog.

Update: It is true -> I just 'took control' of a citadel and see there is a fighter bay.
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2016-06-07 00:20:42 UTC
Nobody is going to bother killing citadels in K-space unless it's one anchored in a strategic chokehold in a system without a dockable station.

W-space however..... loot pinatas!
12Next page