These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#61 - 2015-11-16 18:57:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
As Andre said. Any response en masse for coordinated attacks will never be coordinated well out of a tower. There is too much time wasted with people unfamiliar with tower mechanics, standings, and security issues. The Citadel bypasses all of this, with a clone bay to boot. Even without any additional bonuses that have not been decided, these change the landscape of system sieges that actually were fun. I say were because I am pretty sure the squid is right in saying these will roll out as they have been presented. But I already voted with my feet when no one listened about the t3d's in smalls when the stats for the Svipul were released. Once can be a mistake, but twice and we see exactly what the t3d's were intended to become or how good. I even called how interceptors would troll null when the requirements for the entosis links were released. It's not hard to see ahead with some things. Giving Null timer roll backs but neglecting the same-case scenario patch for FW is a pretty sore thing to do. I'm a much bigger advocate for dual separate timers. This is much more constructive and positive when faced with a bloated timer, which will still be present with the rollbacks.

This two steps forwards one step back dance is not endearing at all.
Myra Stark
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#62 - 2015-11-18 02:46:51 UTC
I agree that the introduction of Citadels into FW space will massively change the nature of FW.

1. Citadels will make ownership of station systems close to worthless. The battles over key station systems drives the major fighting in FW. In the past year, the Battle for Hasmijalaa in January generated 3+ weeks of content across all the TZs. The Battle for Kehjari over 4th of July weekend generated 4 days of virtually non-stop fighting. These battles were over Caldari Fortress Systems. They were fights to preserve docking rights in strategically located systems and assaulted for the same reason. Citadels with the announced capture mechanics will significantly devalue station systems in FW. As the defender, I just put up a large citadel and continue to operate. As the attacker, I put up a large citadel and operate in hostile space unimpeded; why bother with plexing? Many will correctly point out that we can already do that with a POS. True, but a POS is vulnerable to being RFed 24/7 a Citadel once anchored & repaired is not. Lose your POS lose your stuff...Citadel goes boom your stuff is moved to an NPC station for your neutral alt to liberate. Finally, as Andre points out, operating from a POS has huge limitations for the attacker and gives the defender a significant home field advantage as it should. Citadels eliminate the defender's advantage.

2. The current destruction mechanics for Citadels make them to hard to attack in FW. A medium Citadel is vulnerable 3 hours a week compared to 24/7 with POSs. Any effective assault on a home/fortress system in FW requires the attacker to reship in system. System owners scan the moons daily to locate new POS towers and schedule STRATOPs to eliminate them as quickly as possible. The 24/7 vulnerability of the first timer on the POS enables the system owner to pick his best time to attack. The 2d POS timer enables the POS owner to pick the best time to defend. Citadels have eliminated this balanced vulnerability. Instead the Citadel owner dictates a vulnerability window of 3 hours a week vs 168 hours for the first POS timer. An FW example, I anchor my medium Citadel in an enemy system Sunday at 0700eve against a foe with few AUTZ pilots. On Monday, I have a small fleet sitting on my Citadel at 0700eve for 30 minutes. The repair cycle completes and I have a fully functional Citadel in an enemy system. I set my vulnerability window for Monday 0400-0700eve. I can now spend my week jumping in ships and stocking my Citadel to start my assault on Friday secure in the knowledge that my Citadel is completely invulnerable until after the weekend assault. The defender misses his 30 minute window on Monday at 0700eve and has NO COUNTER FOR A WEEK.

I agree that Citadels are a massive positive step forward for Eve. I am looking forward to their introduction into the game. I want them to work. But as a member of the FW community, I fear they will not only change our meta (change is good) but because of the 2 reasons explained above they will destroy the balance in our part of eve. The station lock out mechanic and station ownership in FW drives our meta. Citadels, as currently planned, reduce the effect of these mechanics to virtually zero.

In the interest of providing more than just negative feedback some potential solutions that need to be vetted by minds more devious than my own:

1. Increase the vulnerability windows, repair cycle times and/or reduce the EHP for Militia Citadels in hostile space. Of course, as already mentioned, this can be countered with neutral alts building the Citadel and providing docking rights to the Militia. Counter that with Militia pilots can only dock in Militia owned Citadels?

2. The contents of a Militia Citadel in hostile space are destroyed. This raises the risk when assaulting systems or establishing forward operating bases in enemy systems you don't plan to capture. For the defender, the option to anchor a citadel in system as a fall back position now comes with significant risk if you lose system control. This restores some (not all) value to system ownership and by extension plexing.

3. Use the POCO model for vulnerability. An attacker can bash the Citadel's shields at a time of his choosing. The attacker bashes the shield to zero. The Defender has pre-set the time window for the bash against the Citadel's armor and hull. If the Attacker fails to return for the Armor timer, the repair cycle is executed as presented in the DEVBLOG.

That's enough for now. Tear my ideas apart as you like. It makes this process work best and hopefully identifies some credible solutions. Citadels have lots of positives but for FW these 2 negatives need to be solved.





Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#63 - 2015-11-18 03:16:36 UTC
Its interesting how many FW dudes on all sides want a more hardcare version of the citadel designed for null. All apart from vesk obviously. He thinks itll all be fine as NPC rats will fix everything :p
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#64 - 2015-11-18 15:07:41 UTC
The docking restriction should be by restriction of sov and not ownership. Being the only ones restricted from docking in ANY other Citadel that is non-FW could impede participation in non-FW fleets that have nothing to do with FW.
Eggduck
Celestial Apocalypse
#65 - 2015-11-21 11:13:16 UTC
Too big for FW.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#66 - 2015-11-26 05:28:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
tl; dr: Would the Pavanakka campaign have taken place were Citadels in effect?

We very nearly had heated discussion about this in comms the other night (or morning?), but we were quickly hushed by our superior FC. Good ol' Jetstream seemed uncharacteristically edgy this campaign, but our FC's pulled us through some great fights. Mad respect.
Anyway, the argument began about enthusiasm for Citadels. As surely as the sun rises, I pounce as the devil's advocate and comment about this entire campaign not existing were Citadels in place. I was quickly refuted, but with yet again fruitless arguments without any substance.

The points I would have made, had the Algos WT fleet not put us into battle comms for the third time of what would be five engagements that hour:

What is the difference between Pavanakka and Hasmijaala when Citadels drop?
Did we, or the Squids, ship out of towers (which were in place) during this campaign?

Location was everything. Pav was a choke point to secure backwaters and an excellent invasion system. Boosters were used and boosters were killed (go Than!). JF's were once again pivotal in resupply. They still will be after Citadels, but I feel much of what makes all of the rest of this tick will no longer be present without the tock: Placement; geography; lockout's

I've tried my best to dump on what I think of Citadels, as they seem atm, Lord knows. I think they are awesome. Just not awesome for FW as they stand. I will continue to bad mouth 'em til I see them presented in a way I feel will be symbiotic with FW (as opposed to collateral objectives with probable, resilient, pita bonuses), and the great fun we are having during these pushes.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#67 - 2015-12-03 19:44:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Thanatos Marathon
Oreb Wing wrote:
tl; dr: Would the Pavanakka campaign have taken place were Citadels in effect?


Very likely.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#68 - 2015-12-03 20:47:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
Oreb Wing wrote:
tl; dr: Would the Pavanakka campaign have taken place were Citadels in effect?


Very likely.


In a way, you may be right. Mostly, I believe, because of the emotional attachment many of these systems have for us, but for no other reason. Once this begins to dawn on others, home systems will start to lose significance, unless the docking restriction is set in place. Even then, losing a system, and, consqeuently, docking rights to your own Citadel, will be laughably lame. They will be placed in bordering lowsec non-fw systems to avoid this when possible, and then what would be the reason for this thread? As I've said, there is no real solution to the docking restriction, and even though we all want one to be present, chances are the system will be free-game. That will be the worst outcome for FW related sov fighting. The most significant geographical (astrographical?) significance after Citadels will be cyno jump range.

+1 for iHub Hats. It's the only way!
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#69 - 2015-12-03 20:54:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
A better question would be, would it really matter who owned the system if citadels were a thing?

As for a solution, friendly citadels in hostile systems become undockable until the system is taken back. This really ruins the possibilities for what might be a great structure. But i think i like the dynamic of docking rights more than a half realised revamp to horrible POS mechanics that have been designed with no regard for FW mechanics.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#70 - 2015-12-03 21:07:01 UTC
xXxNIMRODxXx
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
#71 - 2015-12-04 23:54:44 UTC
I know it will sound weird, but honestly I'm not a fan of these new structures outside 0.0 space. They've been designed for that space and they should stick to that space only.
Why?
Well my POV is very simple.
Unfortunately/fortunately we have a standing system in the game for h-sec and low-sec regulation of fees for building, trading, etc. wich is tied to corporations and factions.
This system gives advantages to those that spend time grinding missions for a reason (the standings) to actually get some side-effect ISK benefits out of it (less fees to pay for trading, building, less ISK sinks)
Getting rid of the lowsec stations is basically going to alter this system, wich will become a niche for hisec production only.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#72 - 2015-12-07 15:54:12 UTC
xXxNIMRODxXx wrote:
I know it will sound weird, but honestly I'm not a fan of these new structures outside 0.0 space. They've been designed for that space and they should stick to that space only.
Why?
Well my POV is very simple.
Unfortunately/fortunately we have a standing system in the game for h-sec and low-sec regulation of fees for building, trading, etc. wich is tied to corporations and factions.
This system gives advantages to those that spend time grinding missions for a reason (the standings) to actually get some side-effect ISK benefits out of it (less fees to pay for trading, building, less ISK sinks)
Getting rid of the lowsec stations is basically going to alter this system, wich will become a niche for hisec production only.


POS
Rinai Vero
Moira.
Villore Accords
#73 - 2015-12-29 16:35:21 UTC
I'll admit first off that I don't personally have much experience with staging offensives from POSes, although I have observed and participated in offensives staged by allies and enemies. From what I've read about Citadel mechanics, Sugar and other folks saying this will change things in a major way are absolutely right. I think it would be a shame if the current dynamic of system lockouts was totally subverted.

My inclination is that CCP should make an effort to restrict Militia pilots from having the ability to dock freely in enemy space, and preserve some semblance of the current station lockout regime.

The challenge then is keeping our ability to stage an offensive from a player deployed structure. I suggest a specific "assault" type Citadel thats purpose is to be deployed in enemy space.

Set things up to where Militia pilots are restricted from docking in any Citadel deployed in Enemy space except an "assault" type Citadel deployed by their side. Neutral corps can deploy freeports in militia space all they want, but militia pilots who don't own the system won't be able to dock in them. If a FW group deploys normal Citadel assets in a system they control, they should be locked out of that Citadel if they lose the system. I also think that asset transfer should require the same use of neutral hauling alts we see in the status quo.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#74 - 2015-12-29 17:05:00 UTC
@Rinai
Once again, so many alternatives must be considered, so many circumstances and loops, restrictions and added work to make sense of these having the ability to drop anchor just anywhere.

With a mind for the future, what are peoples thoughts on it when they are greenlit for Null, or other parts of space? Much like what happened with assault frigates when T3D's came into FW, I fear that Eve will shoot itself in the foot with its new toys. PoS will serve only for moon mining? A smaller specialized structure is then requested. Stations people were proud to build, irrelevant after Citadels unless you require one to be present in system for item relocation. I'm sure so many people are eager to get out of their capital coffins, but this is a critical step that can dull everything by outshining it, or become a central force which all things encircle.

Citadels can be huge for Eve. Placement over the ihub (in FW or Null) like an alien superstructure over a pyramid, makes everything so much easier to understand. The progress to their vulnerability transparent and bearing a sense of finality that vulnerability windows can never offer.

iHub Hats is the only way.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#75 - 2015-12-29 17:40:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
You want to see the militias become more coherent? Give them this in the way over the iHub and you'll see them invigorated towards assaults and cohesion in forming to defend their own. Making true the saying I heard after Alparena returned to our hands last night, "If you build it, they will come."