These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Maximum citadels in a system?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Salvos Rhoska
#61 - 2017-01-24 11:56:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scipio Artelius wrote:

She was trying to help you appreciate that Citadels are being killed across highsec, after you said that if it was worthwhile to kill Citadels, they'd be getting killed across highsec.

The data is there to see that they are being routinely killed across highsec. There hasn't been a week since their introduction , that Citadels haven't been killed in highsec; and the same with Engineering Complexes since their introduction.

There's clearly some people that find them worth killing for whatever reason and whether you want to ignore the data or not (oe dismiss it as above), doesn't change what she wrote. Citadels are being killed across highsec.

Double checking the data, since Citadels/ECs have been introduced, there's been 246 killed in highsec. If your measure is that there's a 1090 highsec systems, so 67 in 3 weeks is a pittance by your standard or not, that's a good number of kills for the number of highsec systems there are.

At a minimum of 100 million ISK in wardec fees to kill a Citadel/EC, assuming each of those 246 is an individual wardec (which it probably isn't) then as a maximum, that represents nearly 25 billion in wardec fees alone. Given the numbers posted by Dracvlad above as examples, it seems there is profit to be made in killing them. That's a pretty good income in loot since their introduction.


1) 5 Citadels at that point in time, 3 of which in 1 system, is hardly "across HS".

2) Assuming a conservative estimate of 2 Citadels per HS system (3+ is probably closer to reality) 67 would mean 3% attrition in 3 weeks. Or more accurately, as that is an additive result, 1% per week.So a 1 in 100 chance your Citadel will get destroyed, per week out of all the Citadels in HS (whereas a large % of that infact happens in specific systems recurrently)

3) Assuming 246 destroyed Citadels/ECs since April 27th 2016 (allowing for the later introduction of ECs, and the gradual accumalation of either in space as existing structures), as compared to the above conservative estimate of 2 per HS system, that would mean a total 11% attrition over 8 months.However, since that is additive, on a monthly basis, that means a monthly average of 1.4% attrition.

That is peanuts.

4) Wardec costs:
-You present them as somehow conducive to Citadel destruction, whereas they are the opposite.
-Wardec costs reduce the profitability of destroying a Citadel.
-Wardec costs have not changed, nor have wardec mechanics.
-Whether a wardec is issued inorder to specifically destroy a Citadel, is not something we have data on.
-We can thus naturalise the cost of wardec as the cost of aggressing another Corp in HS, regardless of purpose or Citadels.
-25 billion in wardec costs over 8 months is peanuts (and, as you pointed out, the number is infact much smaller due to you construing that figure as each wardec as individual)
-Furthermore, many of those wardecs may have comprised destruction of multiple Citadels, further reducing that pitiful 25bil estimate. That 25bil comes nowhere close to the cost of subbing the dozens if not hundreds of accounts involved in those 246 structure destruction.

5) I do not dispute, from this point onward, that some may find the effort "worthwhile", for whatever reason.
However the incidence of it occuring, is around 1% (probably less due to conservative estimate of numbers of structures) of total amount, per month. That evidences that it is largely not worthwhile, and is a marginal activity.

6) You three times falsely represented that the stats given for that day at that moment by Ptraci, where wrong, or that I had submitted them. I checked them at that time, and they where accurate for that moment. However, I did not submit them, Ptraci did. In future if you have issue with submitted stats, take them up with their submitter, and acknowledge when you have misread and/or misrepresented.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#62 - 2017-01-24 12:52:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Dracvlad wrote:
Snip for space


1) I concede that the value of the Citadel specific material drops itself is sufficient, in favor of moving beyond that point.
Fact is that Citadels are being destroyed, for whatever reason, albeit at a very low rate (especially compared to proliferation, for which we unfortunately have no hard figures) and that is not in dispute.

2) Whether Asset Safety costs 5% or 15%, or stratified, is a matter for consideration, but what is important, as you agree, is that it is not free.

Personally, I would prefer both a % loss of stored assets, as well as a hardcoded Asset Safety recovery cost % of remaining assets.

3) In HS, specifically, NPC station proliferation is endemic. There are systems without them, but they are few. As I pointed out, and to which you agree, only NPC stations should allow 100% asset safety. This feeds into the point above 2).

Player placed structures should not have 100% free and/or 100% asset safety.

4) Players that have assets in a Citadel that is under attack, should take steps to either remove their assets, or participate in its defense. This applies to both owning corp/alliance members, and to neutrals.

Neutrals can already remove their assets from the structure during the substantial invulnerability windows.
They need not participate in the war. If they are wardecced themself, due to for example the attacker investigating what corps are HQd there, they can fly the assets out on neutral alts, or make a hauling contract as per usual.

I am unclear whether they receive a report of the structure in which they have assets being attacked, This certainly can be implemented and is not likely a technical obstruction or a balance obstruction.

5) The situation of trade hub consolidation, especially in the Jita monolith, is a result of the sheer volume of material moving within HS, from both within and without (school of fish principle, safety in numbers) and the mechanics difficulties of aggressing them not only in HS, but in LS, in NS entry avenues, and via wormholes.

6) There are anomalies, such as the weirdness I discovered in Rens/Hek the other day in regards to Angels ammo orders vs Jita. But they where not in Citadels, they where still n the NPC stations.

7) I dont believe Citadel markets will substantially change the current NPC trade hub systems:
-The volume of trade is insurmountable.
-The benefit of Citadel markets, is only to those with preferred status with the Citadel owner.
-Citadel trading poses risks that NPC hubs dont, such as sudden blocking,change in standings, Citadel destruction, rate changes etc
-As in point 5), the issue is the safeness of material transport, arguably throughout EVE, across all its sectors, not in Citadel markets.

8) Yes, all change has impact. However, as we have agreed, 100% free and 100% safe Asset Safety, is a anathema to EVE.
Especially in HS, where CONCORD, HS restrictions, NPC station proliferation, and wardec mechanics already institute systemic safety.

9) The increasing proliferation of Citadels in HS, as weighed against the 1% of attrition, invariably means Citadels will become increasingly cheap to purchase off the market. Thus as Citadels get cheaper, the more of them will be placed. 1% attrition is completely inadequate to offset proliferation, and as there is no limit in a system, or in corp ownership of citadels, there is no roof.

10) Whats even worse, if CCP changes asset safety parameters eventually, later rather than sooner, there will be an enormous uproar of thousands of Citadel owners in HS about how their Citadels are then suddenly expensive loot pinatas, amidst endless ship-toasting, adulation and celebration by HS antagonists emptying system after system on chained ops.

A change has to happen now, before it reaches that point and locks CCP into continuing 100% free and 100% safe assets in HS Citadels, in perpetuity, as weighed against the consequences later on of a change.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Qwerty Ernaga
Doomheim
#63 - 2017-01-24 13:05:51 UTC
I never understood the asset safety mechanic in the first place, in my opinion it goes totally against the philosophy of this game. Like if citadels, why not ships...

And if all stored items, ships and mods would either be lost or could be looted (RNG), I believe it could partially help to solve "the problem".
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#64 - 2017-01-24 13:10:50 UTC
Qwerty Ernaga wrote:
I never understood the asset safety mechanic in the first place, in my opinion it goes totally against the philosophy of this game. Like if citadels, why not ships...

And if all stored items, ships and mods would either be lost or could be looted (RNG), I believe it could partially help to solve "the problem".

Because Citadels are competition for NPC stations & Player outposts, and if they didn't have asset safety no-one would use them like CCP wants them to be used.
Just like no-one with a remotest part of a brain stores stuff in a POS in K space when it can go in a station or outpost instead.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2017-01-24 13:35:52 UTC
Qwerty Ernaga wrote:
I never understood the asset safety mechanic in the first place, in my opinion it goes totally against the philosophy of this game. Like if citadels, why not ships...

And if all stored items, ships and mods would either be lost or could be looted (RNG), I believe it could partially help to solve "the problem".

Which creates a counter problem (which was already discussed at length when citadels were propsed): if you have no asset safety, how do you convince people to use them over NPC stations?

Like it or not, you need some pretty big carrots to move people from the time-tested, perfectly-working, entrenched, established system.

It's not that I disagree with your philosophy here; quite the opposite actually. It's just that pragmatically, I don't see how it could work with the behavior of people in EvE.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Salvos Rhoska
#66 - 2017-01-24 13:36:00 UTC
Player structures are different from ships in two significant ways:
-They cannot move, and hence cannot escape.
-They are persistent in EVE, whereas ships disappear off the grid when logged out (according to various timers)
(Asset storage is a 3rd distinction, but Orcas etc blur that distinction)

This justifies some degree of asset safety, as well as vulnerability window systems.

What is in dispute here, is the degree of that asset safety, its risk and its cost, in HS.

100% free, and 100% efficient asset safety is something unacceptable in EVE, in terms of player structures.
Only NPC stations have that.

Yes, player structures can be destroyed, whereas NPC structures cannot, but consider the following:
-The cost, profit, control and ownership of the player structure, is vested in Corp leaders.
-The contents of that structure, however, can be anyone's depending on access options.
-So when a Citadel in HS is destroyed, only the owning Corp loses out only the cost of the Citadel.
-All the other occupants, including corp members and neutrals, get 100% free and 100% efficiency in safety.
-So neutral and low level corp occupants of the structure, could care less about defending the structure, or moving their assets out
Their assets are 100% safe, for 100% free.
-Especially in HS, the corp leadership will also just say "meh, defending this will cost us more time and isk than just building another. Our assets will be 100% safe and 100% free"

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#67 - 2017-01-24 13:39:05 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Qwerty Ernaga wrote:
I never understood the asset safety mechanic in the first place, in my opinion it goes totally against the philosophy of this game. Like if citadels, why not ships...

And if all stored items, ships and mods would either be lost or could be looted (RNG), I believe it could partially help to solve "the problem".

Which creates a counter problem (which was already discussed at length when citadels were propsed): if you have no asset safety, how do you convince people to use them over NPC stations?

Like it or not, you need some pretty big carrots to move people from the time-tested, perfectly-working, entrenched, established system.

It's not that I disagree with your philosophy here; quite the opposite actually. It's just that pragmatically, I don't see how it could work with the behavior of people in EvE.


This is where I am on asset safety.

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
Qwerty Ernaga
Doomheim
#68 - 2017-01-24 13:52:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Qwerty Ernaga
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Player structures are different from ships in two significant ways:
-They cannot move, and hence cannot escape.
-They are persistent in EVE, whereas ships disappear off the grid when logged out (according to various timers)
(Asset storage is a 3rd distinction, but Orcas etc blur that distinction)

This justifies some degree of asset safety, as well as vulnerability window systems.


I would slightly argue because ship can be attacked at any given time and citadels have the timer which should be enough to justify the 0 asset safety (I see your counter-argument with ship log off though).

If this would discourage some citadel deployment, the better? (Don´t fly ships you cannot lose, don´t deploy citadels you cannot defend or at very least evacuate in time?)
Salvos Rhoska
#69 - 2017-01-24 14:07:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Dracvlad wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Qwerty Ernaga wrote:
I never understood the asset safety mechanic in the first place, in my opinion it goes totally against the philosophy of this game. Like if citadels, why not ships...

And if all stored items, ships and mods would either be lost or could be looted (RNG), I believe it could partially help to solve "the problem".

Which creates a counter problem (which was already discussed at length when citadels were propsed): if you have no asset safety, how do you convince people to use them over NPC stations?

Like it or not, you need some pretty big carrots to move people from the time-tested, perfectly-working, entrenched, established system.

It's not that I disagree with your philosophy here; quite the opposite actually. It's just that pragmatically, I don't see how it could work with the behavior of people in EvE.


This is where I am on asset safety.


I disagree.

The reason for that, is that I see building Citadels in HS for the majority of its systems, and the majority of its occupants, as completely pointless and unprofitable, as compared to simply setting up shop in someone elses or operating out of an NPC station whilst utilizing other corps Citadels for certain functions.

This may change as more functions are added to Citadels, but the fiscal equity and risk does not.

Its far cheaper to operate out of, or in, someone elses Citadel, and negotiate a favored rate, than to build your own and risk losing it.
(Albeit that risk is very small, according to current stats)

HS asset safety insures you, 100%.
You have zero incentive in defending or moving assets out of a Citadel you do not own in an attack situation.
If the Citadel is destroyed, you lose nothing, at zero cost.

Yes, player psychology clearly indicates, by behavior, that everyone wants their OWN Citadels, for whatever reason.
But is it fiscally or equitably wise? No.

What is at work here, is a carebear "home building" phenomenon. Its not rational, or equitable.
And if any changes are made to Asset Safety in HS, they will all lose their minds crying about loses in destruction of their "home".
Its a recipe for impending disaster.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#70 - 2017-01-24 14:35:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Qwerty Ernaga wrote:

I would slightly argue because ship can be attacked at any given time and citadels have the timer which should be enough to justify the 0 asset safety (I see your counter-argument with ship log off though).

If this would discourage some citadel deployment, the better? (Don´t fly ships you cannot lose, don´t deploy citadels you cannot defend or at very least evacuate in time?)


I agree completely, in principle.

However, we have to be real considering circumstances and a wide range of player interests, especially as this a HS specific topic:

-There are enormously wealthy, established, experienced NS entities that operate in HS out of boredom back home. They can easily overwhelm any number of HS carebear entities with any number of poorly defended Citadels, if provided with an incentive to do so.

-There needs to be some degree of Asset Safety stratification, according to sector mechanics. Currently, this is represented by J-space utter lack of it, and HS as its opposite where there is almost always an NPC station nearby. This largely applies to LS as well. But in NS there is a weird peculiarity that destruction of a NS Citadel with a Titan onboard, can infact move it, safely, to the closest LS NPC station. Furthermore, Titans have no real registered market value from which the system can calculate the 15% cost.

In anycase, as I argued in my posts above, it is irrational and anathema to EVE that a Citadel in HS has 100% free and safe assets, (or anywhere in EVE) especially considering all the extant restrictions that HS places on aggression. Citadel prices will drop over the next year, leading to even more Citadels being anchored in HS, and making their destruction even less equitable to antagonists in terms of loss to the target.
-If Asset Safety costs, mechanics, or free transfer periods are adjusted, this inherently means richer or more warlike corps have an advantage. Personally, I dont see that as a problem. But it WILL be a problem in the minds of these people who are building Citadels everywhere in HS with no real capacity to defend them should Asset Safety be adjusted from its current 100% free and safe state. They will whine and leave, whilst their aggressors laugh and profit.

-If CCP is going to change this, they need to do it sooner rather than later. HS Citadels are proliferating like mushrooms. The later they leave it, the more uproar there will be from these HS Citadel owners.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#71 - 2017-01-24 15:01:57 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


I disagree.

The reason for that, is that I see building Citadels in HS for the majority of its systems, and the majority of its occupants, as completely pointless and unprofitable, as compared to simply setting up shop in someone elses or operating out of an NPC station whilst utilizing other corps Citadels for certain functions.

This may change as more functions are added to Citadels, but the fiscal equity and risk does not.

Its far cheaper to operate out of, or in, someone elses Citadel, and negotiate a favored rate, than to build your own and risk losing it.
(Albeit that risk is very small, according to current stats)

HS asset safety insures you, 100%.
You have zero incentive in defending or moving assets out of a Citadel you do not own in an attack situation.
If the Citadel is destroyed, you lose nothing, at zero cost.

Yes, player psychology clearly indicates, by behavior, that everyone wants their OWN Citadels, for whatever reason.
But is it fiscally or equitably wise? No.

What is at work here, is a carebear "home building" phenomenon. Its not rational, or equitable.
And if any changes are made to Asset Safety in HS, they will all lose their minds crying about loses in destruction of their "home".
Its a recipe for impending disaster.


First thing about Citadels, the only use for an Astrahus in hisec is the clone bay, nothing else, it is a damn useful feature, but at this point I see no reason to do it for what I am currently doing. So we agree there, I have one setup, but I have not bothered putting it in space.

In terms of Raitaru's, one issue is that if you do a job and someone no longer refuels it your job stops, until they refuel it, furthermore if the citadel is un-anchored or they remove the module your materials are lost. This means that doing serious manufacturing in another persons EC is not a good idea. So for me I will not do any major manufacturing in another persons EC. This is an important fact and I have noted a number of people being caught by it.

Yes it is 100% security, but what do you do about people who move around have breaks due to jobs etc., how committed do you make it and can you realistically expect that people can be on call to handle it, this is where it gets messy, Eve is tough enough as it is for casual players, can CCP afford to make it so harsh that casuals say nope when subscriptions are so low.

I also think that people have zero interest in defending another persons citadel even if there was no asset safety, I saw what happened with the low reaction to defend the public citadels in Perimeter and I have experience of people doing AG off their own backs for no reward. It will not be a conflict driver.

I think people get too hung up about carebear as a concept, for me it is simply an asset for use and I would put up a load of Raitaru's to mask the three that I have fitted. Because their defences are so poor my only option apart from being in a mega corp which will likely not help defend my Astrahus is to flood an area for the classic boredom strategy to work.

What do you say to people who go on a break and lose everything? Why would they come back to Eve after that break and pick up where they left off. You ahve to get that balance right, even if it goes against the ethos of Eve. I respect your point of view, but this is the issue that CCP has and they cannot get away from having to balance out on this.

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
Salvos Rhoska
#72 - 2017-01-24 15:15:28 UTC
General:

HS Citadel Asset Safety parameters or other restrictions, need to be adjusted ASAP.

If they arent, HS Citadel proliferation result will effectively block CCP from making a change later, by means of an enormous uproar of thousands of HS Citadel owners crying about losing their 100% free and 100% safe transfer of assets (which is anathema to EVE ethics in the first place anyways).

A substantial portion of those players will leave the game, just for that. Even more will whine, and then leave the game, once their Citadels are rolled whilst their antagonists laugh at their lack of defense.

With the current system, and current rate of attrition, we can expect indefinite amounts of HS Citadels in all HS systems.

Why?
Cos there is no risk to assets, except the structure itself.
Cos Wardecs can be mitigated by certain means such as joining an alliance and reassigning the Citadel to another corp.
Cos there is no restriction on how many Citadels a Corp can own.
Cos there is no restrictions on how many Citadels in a system.
Cos there is no standing requirement for Citadel anchoring.
Cos Citadels are getting cheaper to buy vs destruction rate of 1%.
Cos who is going to bother Wardecing your Corp, when there are 5-20+ other Citadels in the system.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#73 - 2017-01-24 15:33:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
General:

HS Citadel Asset Safety parameters or other restrictions, need to be adjusted ASAP.

If they arent, HS Citadel proliferation result will effectively block CCP from making a change later, by means of an enormous uproar of thousands of HS Citadel owners crying about losing their 100% free and 100% safe transfer of assets (which is anathema to EVE ethics in the first place anyways).

A substantial portion of those players will leave the game, just for that. Even more will whine, and then leave the game, once their Citadels are rolled whilst their antagonists laugh at their lack of defense.

With the current system, and current rate of attrition, we can expect indefinite amounts of HS Citadels in all HS systems.

Why?
Cos there is no risk to assets, except the structure itself.
Cos Wardecs can be mitigated by certain means such as joining an alliance and reassigning the Citadel to another corp.
Cos there is no restriction on how many Citadels a Corp can own.
Cos there is no restrictions on how many Citadels in a system.
Cos there is no standing requirement for Citadel anchoring.
Cos Citadels are getting cheaper to buy vs destruction rate of 1%.
Cos who is going to bother Wardecing your Corp, when there are 5-20+ other Citadels in the system.


Seriously there is no benefit in having a Medium Citadel in hisec apart from the clone bay, so you should make a distinction between Citadels and EC's. because EC's are damn useful.

I have noted now a fall off in the number of new citadels and EC's, I have not seen a new one put up for quite some time in the area in which I operate, also the plaintive wails of people advertising their services seem to have ended. People have realised taht there is no gain and only pain. People will put up the indy ones and there is a vale in them. I think it is too early to get worried just because Perimeter and Ashab look like a mess. In my 0.6 system out of the way there are two Astrahus, next door two Astrahus and one Raitaru, its no big deal.

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
Salvos Rhoska
#74 - 2017-01-24 15:50:46 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


First thing about Citadels, the only use for an Astrahus in hisec is the clone bay, nothing else, it is a damn useful feature, but at this point I see no reason to do it for what I am currently doing. So we agree there, I have one setup, but I have not bothered putting it in space.

You can have jump clone in an NPC station in HS, and those are almost anywhere.
You dont need a Citadel for this.

In terms of Raitaru's, one issue is that if you do a job and someone no longer refuels it your job stops, until they refuel it, furthermore if the citadel is un-anchored or they remove the module your materials are lost. This means that doing serious manufacturing in another persons EC is not a good idea. So for me I will not do any major manufacturing in another persons EC. This is an important fact and I have noted a number of people being caught by it.

This is a valid point, but just proves why HS Citadel proliferation is a bad thing. Instead of a few reliable manufacturing points, ypu have several unreliable ones. I agree, however, that this is a reason to build your own. BUT, if you build your own, and refuel it for your own needs, then you are one of the few reliable structures for other users. Might as well get rid of the rest.

Yes it is 100% security, but what do you do about people who move around have breaks due to jobs etc., how committed do you make it and can you realistically expect that people can be on call to handle it, this is where it gets messy, Eve is tough enough as it is for casual players, can CCP afford to make it so harsh that casuals say nope when subscriptions are so low.

5-15% loss of assets if held in a player structure, and 5-15% cost of recovering the remainder in HS, is reasonable.
If you will be afk for a protracted period, then move your assets to a NPC station, of which HS has no shortage.
NPC stations are safe. Player structures should not be.

I also think that people have zero interest in defending another persons citadel even if there was no asset safety, I saw what happened with the low reaction to defend the public citadels in Perimeter and I have experience of people doing AG off their own backs for no reward. It will not be a conflict driver.

They have zero interest in defending the structure, because they have 100% free and safe Asset Safety.
This applies to both neutrals and corp members.
If they stand to lose, they will either defend the structure, or evacuate it manually.
The Citadel is a corp level asset, the corp members infact shouldnt care if it is lost, cos they only stand to lose in defending it, and earn none of the profit from its revenue. Citadels in HS are not co flict drivers, as long as 100% free asset safety exists.

I think people get too hung up about carebear as a concept, for me it is simply an asset for use and I would put up a load of Raitaru's to mask the three that I have fitted. Because their defences are so poor my only option apart from being in a mega corp which will likely not help defend my Astrahus is to flood an area for the classic boredom strategy to work.

This exactly underlines on reason for Citadel proliferation, according to current negligible risk.
Just build more of them.

What do you say to people who go on a break and lose everything? Why would they come back to Eve after that break and pick up where they left off. You ahve to get that balance right, even if it goes against the ethos of Eve. I respect your point of view, but this is the issue that CCP has and they cannot get away from having to balance out on this.

J-Space loses everything. What do you say about that?
As to HS, which is the topic of this discussion, Im not, nor have, proposed complete loss.
I am proposing a 5-15% loss of assets dropped into space for recovery and a 5-15 % rote cost for recovery of the remainder.
Furthermore, as I said above, every player in HS can move their assets to a NPC station before going on a break.


PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#75 - 2017-01-24 16:07:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Dracvlad wrote:


Seriously there is no benefit in having a Medium Citadel in hisec apart from the clone bay, so you should make a distinction between Citadels and EC's. because EC's are damn useful.

I have noted now a fall off in the number of new citadels and EC's, I have not seen a new one put up for quite some time in the area in which I operate, also the plaintive wails of people advertising their services seem to have ended. People have realised taht there is no gain and only pain. People will put up the indy ones and there is a vale in them. I think it is too early to get worried just because Perimeter and Ashab look like a mess. In my 0.6 system out of the way there are two Astrahus, next door two Astrahus and one Raitaru, its no big deal.


1) You dont need a Citadel for a Clone Bay.
There are numerous HS NPC stations everywhere that have that facility, for free.

If you have a jump clone in an Citadel, and it is destroyed, you will LOSE that jump clone and implants. If you have a jump clone in a HS NPC station, you cannot lose it. It is pointless to have a Clone Bay in a HS Citadel. There is invariably an NPC station with an immune to destruction Clone Bay in that system or nearby.

2) Your observance of your locality, is anecdotal and temporal. Next week there might be twice that in both your own system and the one next door. I agree, and hope, that people will realize how pointless it is building Citadels in HS as I have explained in posts above. But there is also the nascent desire of players, especially in HS, as demonstrated in many MMOs aside from EVE, to build their own home, whether or not they realize it is unprofitable. Competition between them is negligible. and IF intense, invariably leads to near to zero rates anyways, thus making the Citadel itself unprofitable.

3) Just as pointless as it is to build HS Citadels, it is also as pointless to destroy them.
Asset Safety mechanics means nothing except the Citadel and its integral materials, may be lost.
The rest, is 100% safe and 100% free moved to the ubiquitous nearby NPC station.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#76 - 2017-01-24 16:11:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


First thing about Citadels, the only use for an Astrahus in hisec is the clone bay, nothing else, it is a damn useful feature, but at this point I see no reason to do it for what I am currently doing. So we agree there, I have one setup, but I have not bothered putting it in space.

You can have jump clone in an NPC station in HS, and those are almost anywhere.
You dont need a Citadel for this.

In terms of Raitaru's, one issue is that if you do a job and someone no longer refuels it your job stops, until they refuel it, furthermore if the citadel is un-anchored or they remove the module your materials are lost. This means that doing serious manufacturing in another persons EC is not a good idea. So for me I will not do any major manufacturing in another persons EC. This is an important fact and I have noted a number of people being caught by it.

This is a valid point, but just proves why HS Citadel proliferation is a bad thing. Instead of a few reliable manufacturing points, ypu have several unreliable ones. I agree, however, that this is a reason to build your own. BUT, if you build your own, and refuel it for your own needs, then you are one of the few reliable structures for other users. Might as well get rid of the rest.

Yes it is 100% security, but what do you do about people who move around have breaks due to jobs etc., how committed do you make it and can you realistically expect that people can be on call to handle it, this is where it gets messy, Eve is tough enough as it is for casual players, can CCP afford to make it so harsh that casuals say nope when subscriptions are so low.

5-15% loss of assets if held in a player structure, and 5-15% cost of recovering the remainder in HS, is reasonable.
If you will be afk for a protracted period, then move your assets to a NPC station, of which HS has no shortage.
NPC stations are safe. Player structures should not be.

I also think that people have zero interest in defending another persons citadel even if there was no asset safety, I saw what happened with the low reaction to defend the public citadels in Perimeter and I have experience of people doing AG off their own backs for no reward. It will not be a conflict driver.

They have zero interest in defending the structure, because they have 100% free and safe Asset Safety.
This applies to both neutrals and corp members.
If they stand to lose, they will either defend the structure, or evacuate it manually.
The Citadel is a corp level asset, the corp members infact shouldnt care if it is lost, cos they only stand to lose in defending it, and earn none of the profit from its revenue. Citadels in HS are not co flict drivers, as long as 100% free asset safety exists.

I think people get too hung up about carebear as a concept, for me it is simply an asset for use and I would put up a load of Raitaru's to mask the three that I have fitted. Because their defences are so poor my only option apart from being in a mega corp which will likely not help defend my Astrahus is to flood an area for the classic boredom strategy to work.

This exactly underlines on reason for Citadel proliferation, according to current negligible risk.
Just build more of them.

What do you say to people who go on a break and lose everything? Why would they come back to Eve after that break and pick up where they left off. You ahve to get that balance right, even if it goes against the ethos of Eve. I respect your point of view, but this is the issue that CCP has and they cannot get away from having to balance out on this.

J-Space loses everything. What do you say about that?
As to HS, which is the topic of this discussion, Im not, nor have, proposed complete loss.
I am proposing a 5-15% loss of assets dropped into space for recovery and a 5-15 % rote cost for recovery of the remainder.
Furthermore, as I said above, every player in HS can move their assets to a NPC station before going on a break.




The clone bay in a Citadel allows you to switch without a timer, this is very useful, you should check this out, but that is the only reason to put up a medium in hisec. A Large can have a market which is valuable, most people will not put up a large in hisec, only bigger entities or very well funded individuals and there are market wars.

My comment on putting a load up in space is based on EC's and there is a value in medium ones but their defences are just too weak, so it actually is beneficial to flood the area with decoy ones. It is what I am planning to do. I have proved to you that there is enough value in attacking fitted Raitaru's.

I think you are getting too worried about them, you should wait and see a bit more.

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
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#77 - 2017-01-24 16:19:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Seriously there is no benefit in having a Medium Citadel in hisec apart from the clone bay, so you should make a distinction between Citadels and EC's. because EC's are damn useful.

I have noted now a fall off in the number of new citadels and EC's, I have not seen a new one put up for quite some time in the area in which I operate, also the plaintive wails of people advertising their services seem to have ended. People have realised taht there is no gain and only pain. People will put up the indy ones and there is a vale in them. I think it is too early to get worried just because Perimeter and Ashab look like a mess. In my 0.6 system out of the way there are two Astrahus, next door two Astrahus and one Raitaru, its no big deal.


1) You dont need a Citadel for a Clone Bay.
There are numerous HS NPC stations everywhere that have that facility, for free.

If you have a jump clone in an Citadel, and it is destroyed, you will LOSE that jump clone and implants. If you have a jump clone in a HS NPC station, you cannot lose it. It is pointless to have a Clone Bay in a HS Citadel. There is invariably an NPC station with an immune to destruction Clone Bay in that system or nearby.

2) Your observance of your locality, is anecdotal and temporal. Next week there might be twice that in both your own system and the one next door. I agree, and hope, that people will realize how pointless it is building Citadels in HS as I have explained in posts above. But there is also the nascent desire of players, especially in HS, as demonstrated in many MMOs aside from EVE, to build their own home, whether or not they realize it is unprofitable. Competition between them is negligible. and IF intense, invariably leads to near to zero rates anyways, thus making the Citadel itself unprofitable.

3) Just as pointless as it is to build HS Citadels, it is also as pointless to destroy them.
Asset Safety mechanics means nothing except the Citadel and its integral materials, may be lost.
The rest, is 100% safe and 100% free moved to the ubiquitous nearby NPC station.


1. There is no timer in jumping to the Citadel one, bear that in mind, it is important and it is useful.

2. So many people say look at Perimeter and Ashab and yet those are the two main market hubs, I see on average one ot two put up out in the systems away from the main areas, I have not seen a new one put up in those out of the way areas for quite some time I think people have realised that there is no point in putting up Astrahus at this point and a market hub in a Fortizer makes no sense either. The exceptions are perch points on a hisec system into a lowsec system where they have a citadel to camp the gate. Which is fine.


Many hisec groups operate under the radar, I keep pointing out that the defences of the Raitaru are such that it really is a good idea to put unfitted dummy ones to waste peoples time on which is not a good thing. People will be putting Raitaru's up and using them.

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
Salvos Rhoska
#78 - 2017-01-24 16:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Dracvlad wrote:
Snip for space.


1) So you can swap a jump clone without a timer when present in that Citadel, but you get the timer if located on an NPC station during the exchange of clone? I honestly dont know. I was under the impression that if you are present on location at any jump clone location, regardless of ship/station stats, you can swap without incurring the timer. Am I wrong?

2) The market module may be valuable, for those that have the preferential standing with the Citadel owner. However, as I have observed the market overall, the NPC trade hubs still have the best deals, both in terms of buy and sell orders (excluding the Perimeter anomaly)

3) Im not sure your decoy strategy is sound. Aggressors will be able to ascertain the defensive capabilities of each of your decoys, and main. They can also ascertain it through trade volume. Furthermore, and wh7ch is best and typical, once they have ascertained your vulnerability windows, which you most likely have set as the same according to your life cycle, they can roll through all of them, in sequence, through each vulnerability window of decoys and main, sequentially. Or just focus on your main.

4) The defenses of any Citadel, are weak. They rely on fleet support. No fleet support=dead Citadel. You cannot solo defend a Citadel vs a fleet optimized to destroy it, in numbers, composition and fits.

5) Im a little bit concerned, that your posts above belie a bias for defending your own interests in terms of your stated plans for creating HS decoys for your main HS Citadel. Regardless, your proposition substantiates Citadel proliferation in HS, even if from misguided reasons. Your opponents will know which is your main Citadel. The masking by other Citadels wont wotk, as that can be ascertained easily.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#79 - 2017-01-24 16:55:10 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Snip for space.


1) So you can swap a jump clone without a timer when present in that Citadel, but you get the timer if located on an NPC station during the exchange of clone? I honestly dont know. I was under the impression that if you are present on location at any jump clone location, regardless of ship/station stats, you can swap without incurring the timer. Am I wrong?

2) The market module may be valuable, for those that have the preferential standing with the Citadel owner. However, as I have observed the market overall, the NPC trade hubs still have the best deals, both in terms of buy and sell orders (excluding the Perimeter anomaly)

3) Im not sure your decoy strategy is sound. Aggressors will be able to ascertain the defensive capabilities of each of your decoys, and main. They can also ascertain it through trade volume. Furthermore, and wh7ch is best and typical, once they have ascertained your vulnerability windows, which you most likely have set as the same according to your life cycle, they can roll through all of them, in sequence, through each vulnerability window of decoys and main, sequentially. Or just focus on your main.

4) The defenses of any Citadel, are weak. They rely on fleet support. No fleet support=dead Citadel. You cannot solo defend a Citadel vs a fleet optimized to destroy it, in numbers, composition and fits.

5) Im a little bit concerned, that your posts above belie a bias for defending your own interests in terms of your stated plans for creating HS decoys for your main HS Citadel.


1. I need to check the exact parameters of this but if you jump clone to a citadel no JC timer.

2. The market module only works on Large or above, so there is no value for people putting them up unless they can defend it. Recent events in Perimeter have shown that.

3. They have to find out which one is the one I use but they will have a lot of boring shooting to do. You should go and check out the cost of the rigs then you will understand why this is a valid strategy vs 554m for the EC

4. Which is why most hisec players will not put them up because in truth it is something worth ISK that they can get to you by shooting it, either a fight or a green killboard. Most hisec players operate under the radar, so it makes no sense to put up a come and wrack me structure.

5. I do not want restrictions period, I chose a huge system in size for a reason and to be told there can only be 2 or 10 structures in it grates a lot, I like the idea of building a little place in space, but I only intend to do it in one system, though the jump clone offers an advntage so perhaps one near the mission hub too...

I just do not like the artifical limits after we asked CCP to get away from having to have them at moons, back to that rubbish again, ugh...

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
Salvos Rhoska
#80 - 2017-01-24 17:24:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
So your plan is to build 10+ structures in a huge HS system somewhere (probably without NPC stations), with 1 or more trade stations, and otherwise masking and redundant Citadels inorder to insure free and safe transfer of assets to another incase of destruction, as well as forestall any attempt at aggression by sheer preponderance of Citadels in that system.

You will also attempt to aggress and force out POCO owners and other Citadels.

Might this be in an HS island with atleast 1 adjoining HS system, or 1 NPC station?
Such that you hope to consolidate island control, plus attract LS business?

Whats my accuracy %?

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent