These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Ability to capture a citadel.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cade Windstalker
#21 - 2017-06-29 13:54:13 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Well you're at 800b not including all defensive structures for POS's (Zkill doesn't appear to have a group for that and I frankly don't know the names of more than a few of them). It also doesn't include anything scooped.


That's what I've been trying to tell you, most POS mods are *very* cheap. The most common defensive weapon type is Artillery Batteries and the *entire* category for those amounts to less than 10b in losses per month. The only categories I've found with more than 100b in losses a month on average are the POS sticks and the SMAs, and as Nevyn already pointed out those SMA kills are clustered in a few high value losses rather than being a consistent thing.

There isn't nearly 600b in POS module losses per month among all other categories. You got most of the major ones and of the remaining ones I've yet to find any that cross 30b average per month.

For reference: https://zkillboard.com/group/426/stats/

Scialt wrote:
As far as the scooping... I frankly have no idea how to judge that. Ship assembly arrays strike me as something likely to be scooped for example. In may of 2015 34b worth of them were destroyed. Is the amount scooped half-again that amount? Double it? Ten times? Frankly, I don't know how you'd tell. Same goes with something like a compression array. Only 6b destroyed... but how can you know how many are scooped? As an estimate, I used double the value in destroyed stuff other than towers... but there's absolutely no way to tell if that's too high, too low or dead on.

But the big point is that there was and still is economic incentive to kill POS's. And even today POS's are killed at double the rate of citadels. In part because it's easier... but also in part because there's incentive.


I can tell you from experience that you're *massively* overestimating the amount of POS mods that get scooped. Most of them are low value and the ones that *aren't* low value on their own tend to have contents, which means they need to be destroyed since they can't be scooped while there's stuff in them. That includes SMAs as well as SAAs.

Also POS mods are huge and people are lazy, so the majority of people I know often opt to simply kill the mods for the KM rather than scoop them.

Scialt wrote:
Also... a good point was raised by Wormhole citadels dropping loot.

of the 206 citadel losses so far this month, 77 of them were in wormholes (the only place with a financial incentive to kill citadels) . Those KM's throw off the analysis... because they work more like POS's do as opposed to citadels outside of wormholes. A much higher percentage so far has been an online citadel as opposed to one killed in the process of onlining... which makes sense as it's much easier to wait until your connecting wormholes are low traffic before dropping a citadel.

To me... given the smaller percentage of eve's population that lives in wormholes compared to high sec, low sec and null, that the actual financial incentive of destroying citadels in wormholes does lead to more destruction of citadels... even though they're almost all going to require several weeks of work and annoying logistics with shifting wormholes.

A good chunk of EVE's destruction of online citadels seems to be because in some part of space a financial incentive exists to do so. I know there are strategic incentives as well (trying to take over someone else's hole)... but those incentives exist in sov null space too... but it simply doesn't seem to happen as much compared to the number of citadels that are in null-sec/wormhole space.


First off, comparing W-Space to K-Space is apples to oranges. W-Space is far more violent than K-Space per person by any metric you care to measure and this has always been the case both before and after Citadels. You're taking this fact and then using it to erroneously draw conclusions about the effect this sort of incentive has on Citadel death. Never mind that Wormholes have also historically accounted for an outsized percentage of both POS and Capital kills as well.

Also killing a Citadel in W-space is *much* easier than in K-Space as well, since they don't have the same timer setup as in K-Space, so once again your comparison doesn't really work.

IMO you're really stretching to justify this whole financial incentive idea, even though there have been several potential problems raised with it and the idea that it'll actually lead to significant movement in Sov Null is tenuous at best.

Especially since in Sov Null the two big reasons to kill POSes were always A. claiming space and B. claiming valuable moons for the Alliance. In terms of the value involved the kind of setup you're talking about here is a rounding error on an Alliance's balance sheet. Not enough to significantly incentivize a large scale war, unless of course you can get 10% of the value of someone's staging fleet, in which case no one will ever stage out of a Citadel unless they're sure to win, which would be bad for gameplay...
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#22 - 2017-06-29 18:39:03 UTC
The thing is wormholes had plenty of aggression for POS's and still have aggression for Citadels.
Null used to have a lot of aggressionf for POS's... but now don't have near the aggression toward citadels.

There's still a financial reason to attack citadels in wormholes. There's not in null. Is it really a stretch to think the change in behavior is a result in the change in financial incentive?

Yes... there are other incentives (strategic importance or kill mail padding).
Yes.. the difficulty to destroy being higher is also an impact.

But the fact of the matter is it is a cost benefit analysis on if you make the effort to destroy a citadel. And right now the benefit is nerfed from where POS's were and the cost (in time) to do so is raised. Both sides of this probably need to be adjusted.

Kind of feels like people arguing what the best way to fix a budget deficit is... raise taxes or cut spending. The proper answer is likely "both".
Previous page12