EVE General Discussion

The question should be "is it balanced that right now I can secure a 20 billion isk ship that can wreck whole fleets of sub caps by spending a mere 1 bil isk and it will even kill people who try to attack it while I'm away?". I think that if one wants to play with super caps, one should have to invest a lot in it's safety.

It's like I said earlier, in the past CCP screwed up and made things too easy/too cheap/too safe to do (and as evidenced from the above quoted post not just in high sec), and now there is this expectation (*cough feeling of entitlement cough*) that that state of affairs will continue. IMO it shouldn't.

Well I've never wasted the isk on a super-capital, since I generally fly solo and have no use for one. Interesting insight.

However, from everyone I've ever met who tries to use a supercapital in any small group...that is pretty much their experience with current mechanics as well....so it still isn't really a change. Super-caps are just fairly useless without being in a big group - in general. Particularly after the upcoming nerfs you mentioned that are going to remove your current ability to solo-pwn in them.

So yeah, it kind of sucks for small groups like you...but you have bigger issues than just citadels.

I normally fly a supercarrier with a small group, where we typically drop them ratting carriers. (we typically have about 5 people in a group): https://zkillboard.com/kill/54707825/ for example. Are you saying that since we don't have a huge group that we should just sell our supers and deal with it? A ship type should not be limited by the size of an alliance in terms of usefulness, that just makes it so megabloc coalitions get more powerful. Hell, if I absolutely needed to (say to make a fuel run) I can drop a small pos from my super, eject, and go about my business with the super remaining relatively safe as long as the pos stayed up. (Not saying that its a good idea, but it is still at least an option) Citadels will eventually remove the ability to do this, and that is NOT a good thing. (Not to mention the whole 24 hours anchoring thing, which makes moving a super safely a LOT more difficult)

Edit : I forgot to mention, even if we did have the money for a keepstar, how the hell would we keep it alive? As soon as it got out that a small alliance was anchoring a keepstar, every swinging **** around would show up for the anchoring timer, and we'd be completely unable to defend it, whereas a large pos can be put up without anyone even realizing you'd done so.

you forgot about "i can solo destroy an outpost"

You in fact have the most valid points in this entire thread - even though they aren't really what the OP had in mind.

I would advise you to watch carefully what new structures CCP releases in their *ongoing* attempts to replace existing POSes, outposts, and NPC stations. Please keep in mind that Citadels are not the end of this process, they are just the first of several new structure types - there may be something that replaces this functionality before they are finished.

I agree, groups like yours are a minority that may well get screwed over by CCP in this process - but it hasn't happened yet, so your best bet is to try to provide input to avoid it and just enjoy the current mechanics while you have them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but once tethering tech has been fully implemented, will you not be able to use even medium citadels to protect supercaps?

I believe you are correct - though he did already address that by stating that you can still be bumped out of tethering range. Not sure if that is true or not, but if it is true then it isn't a very good option for a super-pilot. v0v

oh you mean last month ?



Well now that i have read about you i would not expect to know about a thing before you talk so knowledgeable about it, so let me humbly tell to the expert : you cannot fit a citadel during the initial vulnerability window or when it takes damage.

No mate you do not understand : all the citadels destroyed were not fitted because all the owners were simply too idiots, while this guy comes now and enlightens us all.

I am very amused how he proves to be an idiot with each one of his posts and he still does not realize how lame he is and continues to do it...

Regarding citadel combat capabilities:

All sizes are monsters against capital ships, even mediums. (Although obviously mediums chew through capitals much more slowly than extra-larges.) If any attacker goes against a citadel with capital ships, they are almost guaranteed to lose more in ISK than the defenders.

Against subcaps, a lone medium citadel is about as good or slightly better than a lone dread. They both cost about the same, so that seems reasonable. (In fact before inflation hit citadel construction materials, they were quite a bit less expensive than the dreads they have similar capabilities of.) It's just that lone dreads are unable to break multiple subcap logi, just like citadels are unable to break multiple subcap logi. The problem isn't the capabilities dreads or citadels have against subcaps - it's the strength of subcap logi. CCP has fixed logi issues in capitals via the FAX and triage changes, in the AT by banning more than one logi, but they need to address subcap logi too IMO.

Large and extra-large citadels are better against subcaps than mediums obviously, but again are unable to do much against a solid logi wing.

If an attacker brings subcap logi, all citadel defenders need a mandatory support fleet.

Citadels are new - CCP has been focusing on defect fixes so far. Their balance pass hasn't come yet. CCP may very well decide to increase anti-subcap application. It's too early to start crying about their combat capability or lack thereof.

Whether citadels are appropriate replacements for POSes, Outposts, NPC stations and the like - not yet, not entirely. As CCP has said, those things will come "over time."