These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Faction Warfare and Citadels: Anchoring Discussion

First post
Author
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#21 - 2015-11-04 05:30:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Make all the citadels attackable at any time with no vulnerability window. Let them go vulnerable in the same way as a pos with a max 36h(adjustable) countdown to becoming vulnerable to final attack.

Timer trolling with pocos and destronting posses to avoid fights is a legitimate strategy that can be countered in a few ways. Predesignated vuln windows is just a level of protection that is massively unbalanced since the worst thing you are risking is having all your assets transported to a safe station.

I like the idea of citadels. But dropping the same structures on fw as are proposed in null, as has been said, circumvent too much of what makes fw compelling.

And vesk, what are you playing at? I thought it was immature to question mechanics? Perhaps you should just be grateful that ccp are doing something even if it threatens key aspects of fw gameplay, be it station lock outs here. Or in the case of your precious NPC patrols, plex fighting in general.

I fear that the correct answer would be to prevent militias from docking in stations AND any citadels in hostile space. This would be throwing the baby out with the bath water, but i think the baby might grow up to be a problem for some of the best parts of fw in the state they are planned to be deployed.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#22 - 2015-11-04 13:54:26 UTC
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.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#23 - 2015-11-04 15:21:25 UTC
Citadels look like they will be amazing for FW lowsec. Will it cause a bit of a shake up? Sure. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

ATM defending a system is a little too easy imo, hopefully Citadels will shift that slightly. I'm looking forward to how FW Lowsec might impact citadels (vuln windows, fuel usage, etc.).

I'm also a bit sad that from what I've heard so far we'll still be looking at getting our standings absolutely torched if we use the AoE defenses (weather or not that means we get kicked from FW). If that ends up being the case I think FW groups should have significant advantages to having these up in systems they control vs enemy FW citadels & neutrals.
May Arethusa
Junction Systems
#24 - 2015-11-04 15:35:09 UTC  |  Edited by: May Arethusa
Quote:
If we don't allow pilots to dock in Citadels in hostile space at all, then FW continues to stagnate


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.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2015-11-04 17:04:08 UTC
Thing is, that if you can anchor in friendly space but not hostile, then the obvious solution is to roll the warzone and only hold the systems long enough to drop some Citadels. That way, even if they get taken back, you can still dock in your own Citadels. Since I doubt that CCP will change ownership / docking control for Citadels in FW as compared to Null, I have a hard time seeing them locking you out of your own Citadel if you don't own the system.

If that's the case - i.e. I can get a Citadel in hostile space as long as I hold it at least once - then there's little reason to prevent you from just dropping them in hostile space to begin with.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-11-04 17:45:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Andre Vauban
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?

.

Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#27 - 2015-11-04 19:23:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Vesk. If a citadel owner can decide what narrow window they are vulnerable to attack. Then somehow a system owner should be able to decide what window of vulnerability their system is open to attack as per null.

You cant defend a null mechanic in fw without giving us the same security. Citadels, as proposed are massively op as an offensive platform. Fw sov is a 24 hour affair, null vuln window citadels are simply not compatible with fw always vuln space in a healthy way.

Im a 1 man corp and i can comfortably afford to go out and put 1 in every system in gal/cal space.

I agree with andre, docking rights should be universally tied to the system. Lose the system, lose access to you citadel with chars from your faction. Dormant stations send inventory to npc stations the same as destroyed ones. The only way to access them would be with neutral alts. It would be a shame to lose the offensive potential of citadels but they are way too hard to remove with narrow vuln windows.

Besides which, most squid windows will be poised for various local power blocks rather than themselves and simply result in us fighting 50 arty machs or 80 man prot fleets.
May Arethusa
Junction Systems
#28 - 2015-11-04 19:46:01 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Thing is, that if you can anchor in friendly space but not hostile, then the obvious solution is to roll the warzone and only hold the systems long enough to drop some Citadels. That way, even if they get taken back, you can still dock in your own Citadels. Since I doubt that CCP will change ownership / docking control for Citadels in FW as compared to Null, I have a hard time seeing them locking you out of your own Citadel if you don't own the system.

If that's the case - i.e. I can get a Citadel in hostile space as long as I hold it at least once.


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.

Quote:
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.


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.
Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2015-11-04 21:20:30 UTC
May Arethusa wrote:

Quote:
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.


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.


Again, this is pointless. 3rd parties will just have alt corps in both factions and anchor anyway.

.

per
Terpene Conglomerate
#30 - 2015-11-05 18:08:29 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Just have convoys attack any Citadel that's vulnerable and has negative standings towards that faction.


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
Silverbackyererse
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#31 - 2015-11-06 22:50:17 UTC
Looking at these as more opportunities for pew pew myself. Church are frequent users of POS' in enemy held systems and these have us really excited for the future.

It looks like they are going to be extremely vulnerable to attack during their 24 hour anchoring stage and I doubt that a limited invul window will prove to be much of a problem to those dedicated enough to removing them and maybe some glorious fights will evolve from an entity putting these up in 'enemy' held space.
The opportunities for making non station systems relevant are going to prove to be extremely interesting for FW as already mentioned. I see only good coming out of these changes although as always it'll be down to the players use of the tools given to them.

Of course it's a shake up and will change things. Don't see that as a bad thing personally.



Don't mess with Citadels with these AI NPC's please. Stupid idea is just stupid. People make Eve what it is. NPC interaction has been and always will be ******* terrible. Most of us play this part of the game for the interaction with other people don't we?

Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#32 - 2015-11-07 02:18:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
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.
Silverbackyererse
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#33 - 2015-11-07 07:45:23 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Shots fired.


You should open up a fish and chip shop mate. Great place to use up all that salt and vinegar stocks you have. Lol

Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#34 - 2015-11-07 10:08:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Silverbackyererse wrote:
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Shots fired.


You should open up a fish and chip shop mate. Great place to use up all that salt and vinegar stocks you have. Lol



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.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#35 - 2015-11-07 14:18:16 UTC
I have not seen any arguments in favor of where you can anchor these, how many you can anchor, except for that they will be cool to launch an offensive campaign from. The rest has been unspecific approval, ambiguous and unhelpful, even if made from unicorn farts. The negative implications are very clear.

If we can only anchor one per system, within the war zone, then it must be tired to faction sov and the location must be singular: Sun or IHub. If it is the ihub, it might as well take its place and become awesome.
Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2015-11-07 15:58:20 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
I have not seen any arguments in favor of where you can anchor these, how many you can anchor, except for that they will be cool to launch an offensive campaign from. The rest has been unspecific approval, ambiguous and unhelpful, even if made from unicorn farts. The negative implications are very clear.

If we can only anchor one per system, within the war zone, then it must be tired to faction sov and the location must be singular: Sun or IHub. If it is the ihub, it might as well take its place and become awesome.


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.

.

Arla Sarain
#37 - 2015-11-07 16:27:08 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:


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.

Highly doubt CCP is doing what they are doing to Citadel Timer for the sakes of catering to NS "whining".

They gave them the FW mechanic - it didn't work. NS folk are used to gathering up on timers.

FW mechanics aren't particularly good either, typically end up in one side plexing up and then the other side plexing down, with some on and off encounters. We are also a lot milder in terms of what activity we can muster. If all the NS people came to FW with the intention of actually "playing the game" and flipping system, they'd change hands over night, whilst ironically having no fight. It's gameable.

The point of either mechanic is to funnel pilots (and content) into a concentrated place. But plexs don't make people stay, whereas Citadels might.

Sure it might seem like Citadels are catering to the risk-averse, but if the intention to siege a Citadel becomes clear to both sides, then it will likely gather both sides on grid at the same time. FW mechanics allow sides to avoid each other.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#38 - 2015-11-07 16:38:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
Andre Vauban wrote:
Oreb Wing wrote:
I have not seen any arguments in favor of where you can anchor these, how many you can anchor, except for that they will be cool to launch an offensive campaign from. The rest has been unspecific approval, ambiguous and unhelpful, even if made from unicorn farts. The negative implications are very clear.

If we can only anchor one per system, within the war zone, then it must be tired to faction sov and the location must be singular: Sun or IHub. If it is the ihub, it might as well take its place and become awesome.


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 Wesdo
War and Order
#39 - 2015-11-07 18:43:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Arla Sarain wrote:
Crosi Wesdo wrote:


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.

Highly doubt CCP is doing what they are doing to Citadel Timer for the sakes of catering to NS "whining".

They gave them the FW mechanic - it didn't work. NS folk are used to gathering up on timers.

FW mechanics aren't particularly good either, typically end up in one side plexing up and then the other side plexing down, with some on and off encounters. We are also a lot milder in terms of what activity we can muster. If all the NS people came to FW with the intention of actually "playing the game" and flipping system, they'd change hands over night, whilst ironically having no fight. It's gameable.

The point of either mechanic is to funnel pilots (and content) into a concentrated place. But plexs don't make people stay, whereas Citadels might.

Sure it might seem like Citadels are catering to the risk-averse, but if the intention to siege a Citadel becomes clear to both sides, then it will likely gather both sides on grid at the same time. FW mechanics allow sides to avoid each other.


As i have already mentioned. Squids simplly lack the capacity to fight at that level. It will simply be another content driver that results in gallente fighting one of 3-4 large low/null sec power blocks that cal mil batphone. Difference is, now these null sec power blocks are having a much larger effect on fw sov if they manage to force us off field.

Also. Vuln windows are indeed there to protect nullbears assets. Null has never had the raw fw mechanics as you suggest. Though you are correct about there being advantages to conflict driven by either one. The reason the always on battlefield is better, is that people have choices rather than being denied access to certain content simply by the enemy clicking a particular tz window in a menu somewhere. Vuln windows by their very nature are as much as a choke on conflict as they are a driver.
Silverbackyererse
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#40 - 2015-11-07 20:45:57 UTC
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! P

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?? Blink