Assembly Hall

this is about that ibis , in M-OE , isn't it ...

citadels were fine when you guys were sling bubbling everyone and their brother into yours in 7RM- ..

now the tables are turning , the little guys are catching up , and you run to ccp to protect you .
same as every large entity , that establish the meta , to have it turned on them , THEN it needs fixing .
history repeats itself , ad nauseam ..

Bold is a suggestion that would inevitably hurt smaller groups more than larger groups. If you want to live in a world where your victim's **** drops head to wormhole space. This is clearly a suggestion coming from a member of a larger group who would likely not be put in the position of potentially losing their **** to begin with. I mean unless PL has suddenly decided they are going to punch around their weight class and go siege goons?

I would instead suggest something to dis-incentivize multiple citadels in a given system or constellation with exponential maintenance fees or even limiting citadels anchored in systems/constellations while still allowing outside alliances to anchor maybe one for offensive purposes. Bam problem solved without beating the **** out of smaller groups.



Most of what you have said here is nonsensical, to your credit however his perspective is coming from that of a large entity. It is however undeniable that Citadels are an issue but I do think he is going about changing it wrong.

I like all these suggestions, but would also add that citadels should require fuel. Abandoned citadels should get no reinforce and no damage cap. Having just ground through all the citadels in Esoteria, it was awful. These mechanics, mostly the loot drop, would help, but I still think that abandoned citadels should be much, much easier to remove.

So your major complaints are that you don't think loss should be involved on an asset level with citadels, that this would hurt new players, and that somehow punishing multiple citadels per system would not punish new players.

Really curious how you justify the last two in the same thought process. Sure this sort of event would make messing with little guys more appealing, it would also make teaming up against larger entities that have lived out of one central location very attractive to the entire game. Every keepstar, and staging citadel would suddenly be a loot pinata waiting to be plucked for potential tens or hundreds of billions in gained profits. Big groups would likely spend more time picking on actual juicy targets rather than small entities living in the backwaters of Eve.

As for the whole loss averse thing, content in Eve has forever been loss driven. Possibility of loss is what spurs people to actually show up on both sides. When TEST cleared esoteria of the hundreds of citadels it was a slog, but if every citadel dropped a few bs, a pile of ratting materials or modules. You can bet that every fleet would be swelling with members, as this loss creates a hunger for the line members.

On the opposite side those who placed the citadels were under no real drive to protect them, knowing that even if the citadel was destroyed it would only cost them a few dozen to hundred million to safely get all of their assets back in lowsec at a later time. I believe this is contradictory to how EvE is and has always been. Eve needs loss, ergo citadels need loss.

I also agree with Claire that citadels should have a fuel cost, and that without fuel they should outright lose weapons and reinforcement timers.

If we wanted to chase down tiny barely sov holding entities we could already do that presently. This would make it harder for us to do so as we couldnt just put our staging citadel in the home system of our target. There would be more risk involved in a small entity in general, but no more so than everyone else was dealing with.