Warfare & Tactics

First, I don't think that the "always vulnerable, POS-style RF timer" concept is going to be viable, since CCP has pretty clearly made the decision to use the FozzieSov vulnerability windows on these new structures. Since that's the case, I don't think that deploying a Citadel in lowsec (even in FW lowsec) should be that much more risky than dropping one in nullsec. I also doubt that CCP really wants to return to the days of POS timer kiting and the like, given the direction their structure designs have been going. Keeping the "old days" going in FW lowsec just because we like the feel of it better doesn't seem like good game design IMO.

Second, I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that Citadels largely circumvent the station lockout mechanics, and that changes the face of FW dramatically - which is pretty much the very reason this thread exists. If we don't allow pilots to dock in Citadels in hostile space at all, then FW continues to stagnate - especially after they remove POSes completely, as there will be no place to stage assets in space to stage an assault.

So, since they're removing POSes and we need some way to assault heavily defended systems, we need to be able to allow pilots to dock in Citadels in hostile space. In addition, if you allow pilots to dock in Citadels - or anchor Citadels - in SovNull they don't own, it would be clumsy as hell to outlaw it in FW Lowsec.

On the other hand, it's a massive shift in gameplay, so we do need to add in some additional risk. CCP Nullabor during EVE Vegas did mention using some of the same mechanics they're envisioning for anchoring Citadels in SovNull for anchoring them in hostile FW space, but I haven't seen what those mechanics are and so can't comment on them.

That said, IMO we need increased vulnerability for these Citadels in FW space you don't own. That puts the onus on the owner to defend it longer, which to me seems a reasonable balance. The question is how to make that happen.

One way would be to simply extend the vulnerability timers on the Citadels if you don't own the space. It would be simple and straightforward.

But, CCP is also looking to introduce these NPC patrols, and is using FW lowsec as the initial test bed. To me, that offers an interesting opportunity to achieve the mechanical effect - extending vulnerability windows - without requiring them to change how Citadels themselves work. It also means that dedicated groups who actually defend their Citadels during their vulnerability windows have an advantage - if they clear out the NPCs, their Citadels aren't under attack, and the vulnerability windows will close as they normally should.

So, you achieve the desired mechanical effect - increased vulnerability - without requiring increased player effort to accomplish it, while giving Citadel owners a way to mitigate that effect if they're willing to do so. That seems like an elegant solution to me.

Finally, you're right that if your Citadel goes boom your assets are safely moved to another Citadel in the same system or to the nearest NPC station. Of course, that takes 5 or 20 days, so... it's not like those assets are immediately available. Oh, and of course, if you're attacking a FW system you don't own, the nearest NPC station would be the one in the system you're attacking... that you don't own, and can't dock in. Meaning not only is your stuff not available at all for 5-20 days, once it is you still can't get to it. That seems consequential to me.

I disagree. This would actually provide currently stationless systems with a significant degree of strategic importance and help shift some of the focus away from home systems which are notoriously difficult to flip.

Take Eha, Kehjari, and Martoh as an example. Currently Martoh is inconsequential beyond maintaining tier, if you could simply anchor a dockable structure anywhere it remains unimportant as your choice is obvious and the structure goes in Kehjari or Eha. This in turn removes the importance of home systems as each side anchors dockable structures in home systems to circumvent docking lockouts.

By restricting the placement of dockable structures in hostile FW space, Martoh immediately gains significance because whoever controls it gains the ability to potentially dock there if they anchor a large enough structure in it. You now have a mini-station within 1 jump of several station systems, which you can anchor moorable structures in. There is then a distinct logistical chain between your station, your L or XL structure, and the smaller M structures inside hostile space. Flipping the system becomes important if existing Citadels become easier to destroy if the system changes hand (increased fuel cost, increased vulnerability windows, etc.)

This extends to a whole host of currently ignored systems that should actually be quite important. Chokepoints and Junctions without stations gain significance because someone might decide to set up shop in them. Shifting focus away from stations is a great idea to liven up the war zone, but decoupling it from system control completely eradicates the importance of lockout mechanics and shifts attention to endless structure bashes once a satisfactory tier has been reached.

I do agree that the vulnerability windows need addressing though. They're nowhere near vulnerable enough as they stand. The timers might suit null, but they certainly need addressing in other areas of space. I'm not sure how viable the NPCs attacking would be to artificially inflate them, as it would in theory mean they spend less time moving around the war zone, but it's an interesting idea as a bit of fluff at least.

All of this talk is pointless. Alts prevent any idea that involves restrictions/bonuses based on who the anchoring corp is. In other words, if CCP prevents Gallente from anchoring a citadel (or giving to many penalties or bonuses) in Caldari held space, then I will just roll a neutral or Caldari alt, anchor the citadel as them, and then allow my Gallente mains to dock at the citadel.

Any restrictions/benefits need to be tied to who is allowed to dock, not who owns it. Even this can be exploited in the fact that you can change standing/who is allowed to dock such that 99% of the time you get the benefits and then just allow your FW mains to dock when needed, then revoke the docking rights.

These things are going to completely change the face of FW. The only viable solution that I can think of is to just extend the docking restrictions that currently exist in NPC stations to Citadels. This prevents docking restrictions from being removed as a conflict driver, but at the same time makes Citadels pretty worthless in FW space except for non-station systems.

EDIT: To answer Sugar's original question, if Citadels go in as currently understood FW will completely change. Docking rights will no longer matter and people won't fight as hard for home systems. If you are in danger of losing your home system, just anchor a citadel and give up. You can use alts to ferry stuff between NPC station and Citadel (in case JF are not allowed to dock at a medium citadel). If somebody blows up your medium citadel, anchor a new one, and move your stuff (which was moved to NPC station) back from NPC station to new citadel. If both factions decide to live in the same system, then they will. It will come down to current lowsec mechanics of station/gate camping and generally making the other parties life miserable so they give up and go away. The unique FW mechanics will essentially go away and we will be fighting over lowsec mechanics (POCOs, Citadels, & Moons). Nothing will be more frustrating than beating your enemy to defeat them with FW mechanics (ie take their home system) only to see them retreat to Citadels. You will then have to use Citadel/lowsec mechanics to beat them. If so, what is the point of being in FW?

And do you know what? I'd be fine with that. Assuming there were penalties for structures remaining in hostile space of course. If rolling the war zone would be your natural response to anchoring restrictions (which I seriously doubt), sounds to me like it would end the stagnation and generate some meaningful content to boot.



Hence the suggestion that they suffer similar restrictions on citadel placement (locking out XLs entirely for neutral parties.) Third parties operate in FW space outside of the restrictions we place upon ourselves by being in FW, and they control the meaningful assets while we squabble over tier and station control. The introduction of these structures and their impact on FW should be seen as an ideal opportunity to wrestle some control of "our" war zone back, either by offering them incentives for joining, or encouraging them to stop hiding in low-sec and making the most of the sov changes that were supposed to encourage them to take null for themselves.

i fear this will be bypassed by neutral alt with nice standings




could be nice if neutral citadels would be shot by all militia patrols, this is warzone eh.... either join one side or go away from fw lowsec or go back to npc staion

What silver is trying to say, is that their vuln window wlll be between 6am and 9am eve time when there is litterally 3 gallente online. So ya its no wonder he is excited.

Cal mil and church of awesome in particular have no FCs willing and even less so the capability to fight any fleet with the capacity to attack such a structure. They have proven this time and again over many timers in the last year, opting to light a cyno for others and leaving field.

Silver is a prime example in my case. A small corp of plexers during other peoples downtime plexing up systems with minimal resistance, offering very little in the form of actual content. Their entire engagement profile is to try and bore people into leaving their home. Null has protection against this, with system vuln windows. FW does not. Nor should structures in FW beyond what pos mechanics already have.

Im not cinvinced that giving them and others an easier way to circumvent station lock outs is a good move.

Its a shame really since citadels really are an interesting proposition. Their biggest negative is their impact on proven mechanics elsewhere. So impossible to balance in FW without making them useless, so disruptive to fw if not properly balanced.

Great response. Coincidently, im just off to the fish market. Now justify why a citadel in a hostile homesystem should be invulnerable most of the day while the actual station that has been there forever is vulnerable to shooting rats all day.

Actually, i can answer for you. 'Because there are no war targets in our vuln window so our stations will never be attacked'.

Im fine with ignoring a death star because logistically its hard to use. But having a citadel in a system that equats to a more secure station than the ones we have been fighting over for years makes no sense.

I think vuln windows are a bad thing in general, to protect whining nullbears. FW has proven they are not needed, but ccp felt the need to coddle nullbears who are quite happy to accept the reward of churning out supers, but not the fact that their space could be attack at any time.

The idea that certain areas of null are impossible for others to attack by nature of their opposing geographical locationa irl is absurd.

Again, wrong line of thought. This can be easily exploited. Only one per system for the owning faction? Great, Snuff's Gal and Cal alt corps will anchor these all over the place, deny docking rights to both militias, have them shoot both militias, then laugh at us.

That would be pretty hilarious. Limit one citadel per Corp and we can thank snuff for giving us a solid extra 6 war zone points after we upgrade the system. Then we shall chill, like true Gallenteans, drinking our hangover ice tea as we look out the station window towards an iHub no one really needs to fly to. Let them worry about defending it if the system goes vuln.

Crosi, I understand where you are coming from but the vulnerability windows for FW are probably not going to be nearly as large a problem as you make out.

There are still too many unknowns at the moment with respect to the defence capabilities of these things to make a call but consider..

The DPS cap on mediums and larges (I think we can safely rule out a FW entity dropping an XL) suggests that a small sized force of dreads could push these things into the next window in such a short period of time that even a small corp with a handful of dreads using a surprise attack could do the first timer regardless of when the invuln window is set. Of course the next timer(s) will not be quite so simple as the owners of the structure have some time to organise themselves. But that's what makes this more interesting!

Regardless, Galmil are not nearly as bereft of players in the Asian time zone as you say they are.
Even if they were, some effort made into recruiting in the TZ you are deficient in would work no? Might even allow you remove that chip off your shoulder.
It cuts both ways too mind - this batphone that you speak off would surely be less of a threat / deterrent in an off TZ?


The lack of any real loss when these things get taken out (and they will) however is far more of an issue. There is simply no reason not to put these things up.
Maybe the risk of complete loss of docked assets like in wormholes if these things are forcibly removed would be a better mechanic if they are placed in FW space??