EVE Information Portal

Do fitted ships that get relocated when the citadel goes boom boom.. do they lose modules as well?

[I hope that makes sense, I just took a dbl dose of cold medicine ]

I believe, whatever is in the Citadel when it gets hit with the magic wand, will magically appear in an npc station nearby. You just need to pay 10% of its value to CCP to get your stuff back.

Nothing will be lost or destroyed, except isk, for a replacement Citadel (if you bother) and return of your assets.
With the proposed high costs of Citadels, many groups will only get one and if it dies, they move to npc nul or lowsec.

Rather than having your stuff transported to a station. There should just be insurance policies which you can choose to take out or not.

Why are you so focused on destructible stations? It really is not that different from the current system.

As it currently stands, if my alliance cannot defend our Outpost, then all the stuff we cannot evacuate will get locked into it until we can take it back. My best bet in the current system is to take as much out as I can before we lose the station, then leave a jump clone in the station and try to fire sale everything I cannot evacuate. With the proposed system, rather than having to fire sale it to my worst enemy, I have to pay a 10% tax on whatever I cannot evacuate.

Oh please. You are telling fairy tales - Your current alliance, as with your previous ones, will never be in a position where they have to defend anything. Your surrounded by an army of blues, which ensures relative safety.
Unlike that group, many alliances won't be able to afford XL Citadels and so will be at even greater risk of loss.
Not every group has trillions of isk to just build another Citadel if one gets magically destroyed, so the extra 10% to recover assets is yet another barrier for unaligned groups to live in nulsec.
On top of that you want Citadels to be loot pinatas..
Lose a Citadel - Lose 50% of your assets - Pay 10% to reclaim remaining assets - Move to NPCnul or Lowsec.

-- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
So far the whole Citadel proposal is based on large groups being successful while reducing the ability of smaller groups to grow or even survive. Smaller unaligned groups can in some cases take and hold sov but once you add the additional cost of building and replacing Citadels worth billions of isk, you remove many of those smaller groups due to cost.

If CCP want eve/sov to be a vibrant active arena of wars and conflict - They need to look at the Citadel proposal all over again, starting with how they are destroyed. Then they need to look at cost, as I said above, not all groups have unlimited isk, so losing a Citadel could and would lead to losing more players. Removing the need for PVP (shooting things) in a PVP game is not good balance. Anything that reduces the need for "guns on grid" is bad in a game supposedly based around "guns on grid".
-- - -- - -- - --
Yes Entosis links did add new strategies to sov warfare, they removed the need for fleets to fight for sov. The best strategy for sov is based on conflict avoidance.

Overall - They need to rethink Entosis play, so far it is tedious and quite boring. It is not at all engaging game play, in fact it is too much about not fighting.

-- - -- - -- - --
The lack of destructible stations is not the reason nulsec is so stale and until the underlying reasons for the current state are addressed, introducing Citadels will only further reduce content. Small groups having to align with a larger group to survive, is not going to create content, it will reduce it further.
-- - -- - --
10% to safely get your assets back is a spit in the bucket, replacing a Citadel for many groups would see the bucket overflow.

So to answer your question, "Why am I fixated on destructible stations" - Because it is nothing like what we have now in many ways. It favours the rich well established groups. The proposal is currently, not balanced.

Now that I am on my computer vice my phone, I will respond to more of your post.



If your alliance can hold space in the new system, then they can afford XL Citadels. How expensive are these things going to be? I've built two Outposts, a Supercarrier, and two Titans myself - and don't even get to play that often these days.

Nothing about the Citadel prevents you from evacuating your stuff before it gets destroyed. The difficulty is having somewhere to which you can evacuate it. That is why I have proposed more NPC 0.0 space - so that small alliances have a way to evacuate their stuff.

Eve is supposed to be a dynamic world. If I am in a small alliance, I expect to have to build, evacuate, rebuild, etc. If you want long term stability, you are going to have to be part of a big coalition - or be very inconspicuous. For the record, my opinions on Eve are my own, and do not reflect the views of my corporation or alliance. So, please, try to take off your "Grr, Imperium!" goggles.

I believe that if I put a ship or structure out in space, it should be at risk. I firmly believe that the only "safe" places in Eve should be NPC stations. I am currently deployed to the Middle East. Before I left, I put all my stuff into "safe" places. Eve needs these "safe" spots, but it also needs to give more powerful incentives for putting things at risk.



Eve is based on large groups being successful. News at 11!

How is losing a Citadel different than being locked out of an Outpost?

Now, I completely agree with you that Eve should be balanced around "guns on grid." As I have said throughout the past few months, attackers should have to bring out the big ships to destroy your nice things.



Completely agree!

Just a guess, the size of the fleet needed maybe?

Dear CCP,

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
You introduce a magic transport of assets from a destroyed Citadel to fix other problems.
But let me start from the beginning:

The word Citadel implies a strong fortress, a place where you could feel safe. I think, you even wrote it yourself somewhere.
So, Citadels should really be strong fortresses. Auto defended, and only to be destroyed by the most massive force.
The idea, that the enemy comes with tiny, entosised frigates, attacking during this artificial (completely unlogical) "vulnerability window", finally even destroying the Citadel with nearly no firepower is - sorry - ridiculous .

What is the logical explanation for the transport of assets to the next NPC station in case of a Citadel's destruction? Worse in WH space: I cannot clone jump, but my stuff is being teleported?

Suggestion: make the Citadels really, really strong, auto-defended and limit them to one per Corp (kind of HQ). On the other hand, if someone brigs enough firepower, reward him with part of the stuff inside. No magic transport. Players can make a conscious decision, how much of their assets they want to store in their station.

Next thing: the "invulnerability link". Everyone can easily understand how a force field works. It is some kind of standard in the SciFi literature. And it makes perfect sense you have to fuel it. Beside that, I simply like the the effect.
You want to give us a "magical" invulnerability. Ship is outside the station, but still cannot be shot at? Deliver me a logical explanation for that, please!

Suggestion: keep the force field as it currently is.

Finally, it is a WH tactic to place POSes around each moon and deny enemies establishing a beachhead. If you allow to place structures everywhere, this tactic becomes obsolote. From a logical point of view, that is ok. But then, what is the logical explanation, it is not possible to place citadels in shattered WHs?

The rest of your ideas is great, fitting the Citadels like ships, offering new services.

I agree with you for the most part, except that you did not read the dev blog closely enough: stuff does not get magically transported out of a WH.

THANK YOU. So much more immersive and realistic than items just magically teleporting to another location.

Who moves asset protected items CCP? Invisible NPC haulers that teleport and are immune to all aggression? Bad idea is bad.