Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

I would argue that providing JC availability to corp members would better be viewed as a 'corp service' and that looking at it as a isk-generator for the corp/alliance is to misunderstand the purpose of a corporation.

Further, your assumptions are terrible inre the math - you're talking about 31 jumps per month to break even - that's a luxury tax, not a service fee. If it's used that little, it's in a system that shouldn't have one installed. You're off by a factor of 10, imo - if there aren't 300 jumps in a month, it's a waste of a slot and fuel.

Except you don't have the range on the webs, the mobility to force them into web range, and the TP's on their own don't even come close to making effective damage applied. Citadel Sub Cap missiles have worse stats than Rage Torps do once you actually take pilot skills into account. Sure if you have an equal defence fleet to their attacker fleet you can do things, but then you have an equal fleet to start with.
Even if we assume 100% application an M Citadel appears to have less firepower than a BS, an L Citadel about a BS, and an XL Citadel roughly 1.5 BS. Fighters can be added but they've given us no details on fighters, and fighters can be killed as well. The support modules are a bit scarier, but still not going to make much difference in numbers. The stats just currently don't add up to a credible level so it's going to be all about who has the larger fleet. And if you have the larger fleet as the defender (assuming equal skill & fits anyway) you've already won and the Citadel firepower is irrelevant.

Is that with the 10%and 25% skill/hull bonus taken into account. And the idea is your going to need add defence fleet there so no they can't do it on there own but just getting people to show up and kill every single competing citadel that pops up is not going to be worth it.


EDIT: a large is 23.6k alpha and 1.5k dps and that's b4 damage mods and fighters

(Ps of your were interested they have given preliminary fighter stats on the capital focus group reddit page)

I wasn't taking the Hull bonus into account as they hadn't listed them as specifically bonused on Citadels, so I wasn't sure. If that's the case then increase my numbers by 25%, but they are still low.
I agree a defence fleet should be needed against a significant attack, but a T1 cruiser being able to local tank a Citadel is a bit weak. I'd be expecting an M Citadel to be somewhere around 3-4 BS worth of missile firepower, stated like RHML in order to actually apply to subcaps reasonably. L Citadel scaling up to 3-4 dread and XL to 3-4 Titan. Given the immobility of the Citadel and the ease of scanning it just before you attack for it's exact fit it seems reasonable to have more firepower than a comparable price of T1 ships, and that seems to fit decently without being silly.

I think they've possibly got the XL & L in a reasonable place vs Capitals, as the Capital launchers seem decent, and the Doomsday bounces to secondary targets which works as the multiplier fine. And the bomb launcher outside high seems like it will be killer to subcaps, imagining 2 or 3 of them volleyed for 60-90k volleys aimed at a 40 sig size.
But the subcap launchers themselves are very weak. The application isn't going to hit any subcap for remotely close to full without major aid, and the DPS is watery also.

P.S. Got link for that reddit? Some of us don't normally follow a million other forums like reddit :).

Edit. Those are the raw DPS numbers yes. But the problem is the application. Vs a T1 cruiser on AB you are applying about 5% of that paper DPS. With TP's it gets up as far as 10%. So an L Citadel is able to apply 150 DPS vs a T1 cruiser.

I agree they shouldn't be too strong, but they shouldn't be too weak either, and currently they are landing on the weak side. I don't think 3-4 T1 BS worth would be too hard for a smaller group to Siege them. A couple of T1 logi would be able to cope with that level of fire-power still, and Marauders would be able to local tank it also.

Thanks for the link, doesn't say anything about what Citadels will be able to use though, and if we assume a M Citadel gets the same as a carrier they only get 840 DPS in fighters, which can be killed. In fact probably a lot less than that because skills won't apply to Citadel fighters.

It was more the 3-4 titans that was getting on the high side. And your right they may be to low atm we will need to see once they hit test servers to get a better idea what a good place for them to be is.

And those fighter numbers are before carrier hull bonuses are applied not after bit don't read to much into them as they ate pure balance numbers anyway.

Well, that's XL Citadel vs Caps while in Null I was meaning, and since the DD on it spreads to 5 secondary targets I suspect it is near that 3-4 Titans of fire-power already. But yea, good point that we need to see them hit Sisi, as they are already making adjustments on feedback, but at least this way they can read the issues here and be forewarned about the possibility of issues :)
XL vs Subcaps in high is only going to be about 2.5 times what M Citadel vs Subcaps is after all. (2 vs 4 launchers and the possibility of BCU's)

Ok, I think the point is made here by now.

I do understand that you wish to "encourage" people to use Citadels.
And I do understand that you wish to ensure that you want to make it potentially able to cover the cost of running the clone service.

Now, The idea of paying for using one's jump clones is being widely reviled.
Whilst it is neccessary to introduce unpleasant and unloved mechanics to balance and improve the game, and pain is an unfortunate side effect, deliberately doing this in an attempt to alter behaviour is extremely dangerous, that - unless one has a population, that through emigration/immigration controls, and internal restrictions on movement or armed police to prevent revolution/rebellion,- is doomed to failure.
EVE does not have this, It is a game, and the choice of players, is wider, they can also choose to completely ignore the use of the feature, or just choose to log off.

You may have noticed that EVERY attempt to force players to behave in a certain way, other than for balance reasons, has resulted in an unholy rebellion.

We have already noticed this, After release, Everyone will notice it, expect a LOT of "agressive unwanted feedback"

There are two methods of controlling player behaviour, Carrot and stick. One is applied by dictators, and one is applied by successful companies. Any use of the stick may have the appearance of compliance, but eventually results in the removal of the dictator, or the company from the market.

So TL;dr
If you wish the citadel expansion to be a success, encourage people to use them, let people be delighted and surprised! People should WANT to switch into them.

Not driven unwillingly and resentfully forward into a hated new future, even though it would have been a far better future. Forced migration, even to paradise is never forgiven.

It really should not be a hard choice for a game company.

So make us WANT to keep clones in Citadels, small fuel costs for clone bays, possibly reduced Jump timers, fast switching between clones, wider range of implants insertable, pretty clones,something to engage us. A BAD idea is to artificially make NPC Stations painful, unpleasant or expensive. Remember Carrot VS stick.

You have made impressive efforts to create a beautiful new environment and opportunity for us, so much work has been done, success is so near.

Please do not pull smoldering failure from the ashes of success.
How we remember the citadels release, is being decided here.

The price is for PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED jump clones.


It is a one time fee, additonal 4.9M ISK or 5.0M ISK... NOT every time you change your clone guy.
And even 5M ISK @ 30 jump clones per month = 150M ISK per month...

@ all the others, who started "discussing" already
Guys, don`t tell me, that will ruin you PVP and you are not able to fight anymore...

I like the idea of citadels but frankly, if you want them to be a thing, make them better than the alternatives.

That is not at all the same thing as making the alternatives worse.