Test Server Feedback

Okay, I got me a character out of corporation and did some permission testing.
Well, they don't work. Or are not implemented yet.

That is, I have a citadel in a custom profile that had docking permissions set for my corp and everyone (but control permissions only for corp).
I can dock an out-of-corp character, but can not take control of the citadel.
So far so good.

I create a new group, add the caracter to it and add docking and controlling permissions to it.
The character still has no control over the citadel.

I put the character in the group into the blokced state, but the character still can dock.

The conclusion is, either permissions do not work, or they take time to apply, and it still has not happened.

Also tested the market module.

A character in the corporation (actually the one that set up the citadel) can put and see market orders in the citadel. Their own and those by other characters.

The out-of-corp character (Trade II Marketing I) can put orders, but does not see them, even their own orders. Also this times group permissions do work - the order is affected by the sales tax set up for the group.

Also orders are visible in the wallet orders tab for both characters, but both characters can not interact with their citadel orders via that interface. RMB does nothing. But the orders are working (even those set up by the out-of-corp character) - as in they can be correctly fullfilled.

IIRC Menu - Business - Structure browser.
There you can get the list of all your structures and a list of profiles.
You create a new profile and drag&drop your structures of interes into it.
This profile will then contain the selected structures and have a tab called "properties" or something like that.

In the properties tab you can manage per-group permissions and taxes. Well, sort of manage permissions, because permissions apparently aren't decoupled from the groups (as far as explicit denial goes), so the resulting permission should apparently be a product of the group being listed under a certain allowed activity or tax and status of the member of interest in the group. Probably. So far the mechanism doesn't look to be well thought out or indeeed working at all.

Properties tab by default has your Corp as the sole added group for all activities. There's also a default group called "Everyone".
You can RMB on the table header and add a group or go to the group management window.

In the group management window you can create new groups, add members to them via drag&drop and manage member statuses (admin/member/blocked).

Well, there's not only docking but also citadel control.

I don't think learning how to use a citadels defences, which should be easy for anyone, is the problem.

The problem is, like anything else in EVE, the capabilities of a citadels defences will be worked out very quickly, and the large wardeccer corps will have absolutely no trouble bringing an appropriate force to knock one down.

You could say that's intended, but unfortunately that then simply means absolutely any citadel belonging to a small and/or industrial entity can be blown over at any time by a wardeccer corp/alliance, for the basically non-existent price of 50 mil.

The idea of small mixed/indy corps wardeccing each other through personal rivalries and having evenly matched fun space battles in highsec is nothing but a nice idea today. The vast majority of wardeccing is done by large highly experienced factions that no indy corp stands any remote chance of defending against.

With a pos, if the defender reacts accordingly to a wardec, they can take the pos down, If they don't react accordingly then they lose their pos. Now however it seems that there is basically nothing they can do, and I don't see how industrial citadels belonging to independent indy corps are meant to exist in highsec if it takes an entire week to dismantle one.

A medium citadel is going to be about a billion isk, a wardec is 50 million, every helpless indy corp will be decced for no other reason than just to have their citadel destroyed, there needs not be any other reason. The defender will just be there to watch, with a medium citadels defences doing nothing against aggressors with appropriate logistics.

There's no difference in the safety of a citadel in high compared to low if the ability to dismantle before a war is removed.

Even if the forces needed to bring down a medium were substantial, that force wouldn't be forming to take down one citadel, but to attack dozens of them at a time on the pattern of vulnerability windows, from wardecs done en-masse, as they are currently. Even if it took 40 battleships and logistics to deal with a medium, that would present little obstacle, they would just be immobile billion isk killmails waiting to be farmed.

The solution to this is audit log containers, in the same way they're currently used in stations.


This is currently possible in stations / outposts with corp hangars; directors can view corp member personal hangars already. This functionality could be carried over to Citadels.


Providing the structure isn't in a wormhole, a character can use the asset safety mechanics at any time to move their stuff somewhere safe.

any news on Supercapital production restrictions`? is it possible in lowsec with a L or XL citadel post patch?

No manufacturing will be possible with Citadels on initial release. More structure types will follow in future along with the service modules to support their functions.

Defend against who or what though? A force 10 times your size with far greater experience?

The idea that any small indy corp can defend against a merc alliance, just by being in the right place at the right time and using a little effort, is, as you would say, ludicrous.

The theoretical fight in question here, isn't a dance around the region staying out of harms way until a single possibility to strike back presents itself, it is the defence of a fixed position in space.



If the forces and pilot capability is stacked overwhelmingly against the defender, then what else do they do? Once again it is ludicrous to believe that just through sheer effort, a small indy corp can defend a fixed position in space against any of the major merc alliances.

If a large wardec alliance decs you, and you encounter two dozen of them at a trade hub, are they there just for you? Did they buy those ships and assemble those people just to wait for you, no, they are at war with a hundred other corps. A sandcastle smashing force is no different, even if it required a dozen T3/BS and logi, that's not an expenditure being made just to knock over one citadel.



A force of that size is simply gross exaggeration to get across the point, the reality is a much smaller force fit simply to deal 4000 dps and tank the dps and ewar potential of any medium citadel. The entire defensive and offensive potential of the structure will be known inside out to everyone before the very first one even finishes anchoring on TQ. No wardeccing entity will be "doing battle" with a medium citadel, they will simply bring what it takes to destroy it without incurring any losses, like an incursion fleet running an incursion site, and that's about all there will be too it.

Anything on top of that and we are just talking about a fight in a fixed location between experienced mercs and inexperienced indy people, if you can call that a fight. How many small indy corps form pvp fleets and defeat large merc alliances in wardecs?



How much does the purchasing of a defence force cost for the small indy corp, less than the 50 million the large wardeccing alliance paid to dec them? How often is that defender just made up of the same people or are friends of the attackers anyway?

The point here isn't that, if such a force attacked a citadel, it shouldn't be able to destroy it, clearly they cant be made into indestructible deathstars. If a deccer has put together a force that can destroy citadels without incurring any losses, then why shouldn't they deserve to destroy the citadel. None of that is the issue, the issue is that small indy corps get decced by the hundred a day by entities they cannot possibly fight, there is no ulterior motive besides farming, and while they can dock up their ships, any citadels are completely unable to be saved if they cannot be unanchored before the war begins.

You ether have to, change wardeccing, which isn't going to happen, or, make the destruction of random citadels not worth ether the time, or somehow ensure that a manned citadel can somehow deal equal its cost in damage before it goes down.

How exactly does it do that, it will have a maximum dps and only so much ewar, and it doesn't move, an attacking force can make itself immune to any danger with just a few logistics. You could snipe it with nagas or something from 250km away, go at it at point blank with a spider tank design of some sort. The maths of it will be figured out instantly, and it will be no more dangerous to a prepaired attacker after that than a sansha battletower is.

I still don't understand why you guys don't seem to 'get it'....

In current TQ, you have the POS forcefield mechanics to provide a good degree of security while in a valuable ship that cannot dock for whatever reason. You can swap out pilots, you can step out for short periods of time, all behind a PW protected barrier that has, at worst case, 41 hours of life to it should it all go pear shaped....

The way you have implemented tethering has completely removed that security - you can no longer securely swap out pilots unless you've invested in the gold plated XL citadel solution. Given that the intention is to remove POS completely, in time, if you can't afford an XL Citadel, you are stuffed.

Why can you not implement the tether to stay attached to the ships? Conceptually it makes so much more sense that the tether stays on the ship, rather than switching to the tiny piece of metal that just detached from it [Capsule]. I suspect if you implemented it this way, you could implement Titan bridging much more easily too....

So again; why have you implemented tethering this way?




Ps. The early concept stuff showed large ships securely 'moored' to the structure giving the impression what I described above was the intention all along - obvious disadvantage being everyone can see all the high value junk you've moored to it...

is not being able to put mods my citadel when it's damaged a bug or intentionally because my citadel anchored damaged and now i cant do anything with it

Intentional, so that a defender cannot refit their citadel during the middle of a battle.
Damage being present after deployment however is, I think, a bug.
Also, any damaged citadel should fully rep itself after a period of time (15 or 30 minutes or some such) of not receiving any new damage.