These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Maximum citadels in a system?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Astral Alliance
#41 - 2017-01-23 17:32:30 UTC
You don't like'em. Blow'em up.
Salvos Rhoska
#42 - 2017-01-23 17:36:43 UTC
Returning to topic, specifically on the issue of HS Citadels:

1) One of the stated reasons for inclusion of Citadels, was to create player based trade hubs.
-10/100/1000 Citadels in a HS system, refutes that. With that proliferation of competition plus NPC stations, none of them will ever become a trade hub.
--Yes this provides interesting opportunity for system traders/haulers, but a "trade hub"? Not gonna happen.
--It is possible, that some Citadels (or webs of Citadels) might, with great effort and expense, specialize as markets for very specific items, but due to the systems of EVE and the vastness and volume of the market, and free data on universal market prices elsewhere by 3rd party services, this is extremely unlikely.

2) Due to Asset Safety, and the NPC Stations in almost all HS systems, destroying a Citadel is not worthwhile. Instead, set up ypur own Citadel, with cheaper rates.

3) As HS Citadels proliferate, it is rational station owner taxes and favored player access will eventually reach near zero, as well as other services, as a result of competition.

4) This means its even more meaningless to destroy other Citadels, since the competitive margin against your own is already at minimum.Both of you are already competing at near to zero, if not zero, rates.

5) Ironically, no matter how many Citadels there are, NPC stations will still retain supremacy, as a factor of not being subject to sudden blocking of access by Citadel owners of individual players, or wardecs. Or sudden "SURPRISE" rate hikes. NPC stations also remain unattackable.

TLDR:
-HS Citadel proliferation will lead to competition eventually reducing Citadel profits to near zero.
-It is categorically stupid to setup a Citadel in HS. You will not get your money back.
-It is categorically stupid to destroy HS Citadels. You could be earning more doing something else.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#43 - 2017-01-23 17:40:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Exaido wrote:
You don't like'em. Blow'em up.


Why bother?

If it was worthwhile, Citadels would be exploding all across HS.

Its not worthwhile. Infact, setting up a HS Citadel, in and of itself, is not worthwhile.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#44 - 2017-01-23 17:44:51 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Returning to topic, specifically on the issue of HS Citadels:

1) One of the stated reasons for inclusion of Citadels, was to create player based trade hubs.
-10/100/1000 Citadels in a HS system, refutes that. With that proliferation of competition plus NPC stations, none of them will ever become a trade hub.
--Yes this provides interesting opportunity for system traders/haulers, but a "trade hub"? Not gonna happen.
--It is possible, that some Citadels (or webs of Citadels) might, with great effort and expense, specialize as markets for very specific items, but due to the systems of EVE and the vastness and volume of the market, and free data on universal market prices elsewhere by 3rd party services, this is extremely unlikely.

2) Due to Asset Safety, and the NPC Stations in almost all HS systems, destroying a Citadel is not worthwhile. Instead, set up ypur own Citadel, with cheaper rates.

3) As HS Citadels proliferate, it is rational station owner taxes and favored player access will eventually reach near zero, as well as other services, as a result of competition.

4) This means its even more meaningless to destroy other Citadels, since the competitive margin against your own is already at minimum.Both of you are already competing at near to zero, if not zero, rates.

5) Ironically, no matter how many Citadels there are, NPC stations will still retain supremacy, as a factor of not being subject to sudden blocking of access by Citadel owners of individual players, or wardecs. Or sudden "SURPRISE" rate hikes. NPC stations also remain unattackable.

TLDR:
-HS Citadel proliferation will lead to competition eventually reducing Citadel profits to near zero.
-It is categorically stupid to setup a Citadel in HS. You will not get your money back.
-It is categorically stupid to destroy HS Citadels. You could be earning more doing something else.

Not everything is about profit. Ironically CCP managed to deliver a feature with Citadels at which Blizzard has utterly failed so far: Useful housing in a mmo. Lol

Remove standings and insurance.
Deckel
Island Paradise
#45 - 2017-01-23 17:46:58 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
Deckel wrote:
While we're on the subject, there should probably be a method for a third party to alter the vulnerability window of a structure. If you really want/need to get rid of the competition and the vulnerability window is no good for most or your corp members then you are pretty much out of luck.

Hack the station during a vulnerability window to alter the time of day for when the next one is to occur, and can't be reset until the next one?
-Naturally if this is caught before the end of the current vulnerability window, then likely it can be be changed back, with either another hack or owner/corp permissions


There are these groups of players called mercenaries that, for a fee, will handle this sort of thing.


Afaik, nobody except the Citadel owners can do anything to change the vulnerability windows.
Mercs cant do it.

The only way to as ascertain these vulnerability windows is observing it frequently on a daily basis for a week.
And even then, the Citadel owners can set a new, different, vulnerability schedule for the next week.
Or, ofc, obtain the schedule via a mole.

Mercs cant do anything to change those windows.

As ro Deckels suggestion:
-It would mean taking away control of the assets settings away from its owner.
-At worst it would mean having to reset the windows against dozens of hacks, perpetually throughout the day, everyday.
-Since only Station Managers can adjust the window, this would create a necessity for being online basically all the time, and constantly checking vulnerability windows settings, which may also require being specifically in that system to do so.
-Its unworkable.
-Either recon the Citadel for its vulnerability windows, or get the data from an insider by means at your disposal.


Since I stated that the structure would only be available for hacking during the vulnerability window this means recon would still need to occur as the window would have to first be discovered before anything could occur, and would also mean that the station managers would only need to check things during this period, as this period would be the only time they could alter the time. Also, this change would only alter the time-of-day, not shift the actual day, so there would be no constant hacking attempts, in fact the hacking would likely be so difficult that failure would still be quite possible even with maxed skills, and a failure would alert the corp to the attempt.

Basically this hacking system would be a pre-war preparation for those wishing to fight. If hiring mercenaries is the only way to take out a target then something is wrong with the system as it has become exclusive content for a small minority of players.
Salvos Rhoska
#46 - 2017-01-23 18:07:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Deckel wrote:


Since I stated that the structure would only be available for hacking during the vulnerability window this means recon would still need to occur as the window would have to first be discovered before anything could occur, and would also mean that the station managers would only need to check things during this period, as this period would be the only time they could alter the time. Also, this change would only alter the time-of-day, not shift the actual day, so there would be no constant hacking attempts, in fact the hacking would likely be so difficult that failure would still be quite possible even with maxed skills, and a failure would alert the corp to the attempt.

Basically this hacking system would be a pre-war preparation for those wishing to fight. If hiring mercenaries is the only way to take out a target then something is wrong with the system as it has become exclusive content for a small minority of players.


You are requiring Station Managers to be present and constantly checking the settings of their vulnerability windows.
For Keepstars, that would mean up to 21 checks a week.

Your proposition is pointless. The asset owner defines the vulnerability window. No matter how hard the "hacking" you propose is, the Station Managers would still have to check after every vulnerability window hour to make sure any one of a dozen+ attempts by dozens+ players to hack it has been successful (of which any number certainly will have been successful)

This in addition to how unfair it is to other players with interests in the Citadel, whom dont have the means to access the vulnerability system to adjust the hacks result, even if they are aware of it.

Plus how are Citadels supposed to identify hackers? Can a corp/alliance member hack the Citadel too?
Are you suggesting a neutral should be able to hack the Citadels vulnerability timers?
So basically anybody on an alt?

Drop it. This is a stupid suggestion.

THINK if you as a Station Manager, had to constantly login and be on site to check if one of a dozen players dozen attempts has managed to change your vulnerability window, and then readjust it. This is stupid, man.

As to Mercs, this system has nothing systemically to due with Mercs.
Mercs cant change the vuln window anymore than you can.
You dont need Mercs to take out a Citadel. You just need superior numbers and/or firepower.
Mercs can scout, infiltrate, attack and defend. They cannot change the vuln window.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#47 - 2017-01-23 18:56:53 UTC
Davian Thule Pirkibo wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Why limit them?

take a visit to perimeter

I don't see a problem.

Well, other than it being hard to anchor them in an orderly fashion (OCD). Example: I did a circle of 7 on the test server, and it only managed to look like a semi-circle; I over-estimated the fudge-factor for the model size, so the circle had too large of a circumference.

I also wish it was easier to anchor them anywhere in a system, not just near where they are launched.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#48 - 2017-01-23 23:22:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Ptraci
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


If it was worthwhile, Citadels would be exploding all across HS.


Citadels ARE exploding across HS. Just today one died in Ainsan (0.5), THREE died in Perimeter (1.0) (an Astrahus AND two Fortizars), and another died in Talidal (0.5), according to killboards. Of course you won't see them if you ignore them because it's inconvenient to your argument. More and more I get the feeling you are just arguing with yourself.
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Astral Alliance
#49 - 2017-01-24 04:28:29 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Exaido wrote:
You don't like'em. Blow'em up.


Why bother?

If it was worthwhile, Citadels would be exploding all across HS.

Its not worthwhile. Infact, setting up a HS Citadel, in and of itself, is not worthwhile.


The worth is in resolving the "don't like it". Rather than being "paid to remove it".
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#50 - 2017-01-24 07:21:30 UTC
First of all the request for hacking to adjust the vulnerability timer is so lame. Seriously, people alarm clock to shoot things, why should that be any different, you want to kill it put personal effort in it, after all they are designed to be force multipliers.

I propose that CCP look at three important things to help this situation.

1. Adjust the rigs so that a single Engineering Complex can be rigged to cover all the different tasks, basically simplfy the rigs.

2. Improve the un-anchoring so people have a good chance to be able to scoop their EC or Citadel

3. Improve their defences in hisec so that people can actually defend them and not decide to put down a large number for redundancy or to hide the fitted ones.

There is nothing wrong with the loot drops, I went and checked the loot drops of fully fitted Raitaru's in hisec and they were between 330m to 954m and that is not bad at all.

People can bookmark the ones they use and remove from their overview, you have a lot more tabs, use them.

People are lazy and entitled, they want easy kills and nice loot drops or they won't bother, tough on them, why do people say Eve is a tough game and then expect such sugar coated easy loot drop kills, seriously that is so weak.

CCP should never put a restriction on the numbers in a system, it is artificial stupid play, wow I have a huge system but I cannot put one down because the limit is 10, facepalm...

Also put a limited market on the Medium one, so there is a reason to put one down, remove the ability to see that market from outside the citadel so it only is open to people who dock for the medium one only. Maybe limit it to 500 items, but it needs a market ability.

And a slight rant, for the love of a hard game do something to stop contract scams to Citadels, why should these people have such an easy way to make ISK and screw up transport to citadels and EC's for everyone else. Roll

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Salvos Rhoska
#51 - 2017-01-24 08:28:31 UTC
Ptraci wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


If it was worthwhile, Citadels would be exploding all across HS.


Citadels ARE exploding across HS. Just today one died in Ainsan (0.5), THREE died in Perimeter (1.0) (an Astrahus AND two Fortizars), and another died in Talidal (0.5), according to killboards. Of course you won't see them if you ignore them because it's inconvenient to your argument. More and more I get the feeling you are just arguing with yourself.


Pffft.
5.
Oh boy!

Also GJ completely ignoring my extended posts and rebuttals that are inconvenient to your argument.
By ignoring them you show you are infact just arguing with yourself.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#52 - 2017-01-24 08:46:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ptraci wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


If it was worthwhile, Citadels would be exploding all across HS.


Citadels ARE exploding across HS. Just today one died in Ainsan (0.5), THREE died in Perimeter (1.0) (an Astrahus AND two Fortizars), and another died in Talidal (0.5), according to killboards. Of course you won't see them if you ignore them because it's inconvenient to your argument. More and more I get the feeling you are just arguing with yourself.


Pffft.
5.
Oh boy!

Also GJ completely ignoring my extended posts and rebuttals that are inconvenient to your argument.
By ignoring them you show you are infact just arguing with yourself.

It's not 5.

In the 3 weeks of this year, a total of 67 Citadels/Engineering Complexes have been killed in highsec already.
Salvos Rhoska
#53 - 2017-01-24 08:48:52 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the loot drops, I went and checked the loot drops of fully fitted Raitaru's in hisec and they were between 330m to 954m and that is not bad at all.

Ok, granted. Whether that is good or bad, however, is a subjective matter.
Furthermore the fully fit ones will naturally be commensurately harder to take down.
Ill agree with you for sake of argument.

My real issue in the value and repercussions of taking them down, is with the 100% free asset safety.
As it is, destruction of Citadels only destroys Citadel materials and jump clones, if any.

In WH there is an extreme where all the contents drop.
Im not suggesting that should be the case in all sectors, but I do think a % of the contents should be destroyed or alternatively, that asset safety requires 15% value by rote.

100% free asset safety is anathema to EVE, and exclusive to NPC stations.
I dont agree that player installations should have that as well.

Atleast then Citadel destruction will involve risk to each player with assets in the Citadel (positively incentivizing defending the Citadel, even if you dont own it). Also this would contribute to material destruction and/or an isk sink to improve the economy.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#54 - 2017-01-24 08:57:11 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

It's not 5.

In the 3 weeks of this year, a total of 67 Citadels/Engineering Complexes have been killed in highsec already.


It was 5 for that day at that moment. Her post was specific to that day and moment. Read accurately.

67 is a pittance for 3 weeks compared to their proliferation.
There are over 1000 HS systems, in which arguably there is at least 1 Citadel in each.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#55 - 2017-01-24 08:59:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:

It's not 5.

In the 3 weeks of this year, a total of 67 Citadels/Engineering Complexes have been killed in highsec already.


It was 5 for that day at that moment. Her post was specific to that day and moment. Read accurately.

No it wasn't just 5 for that day. Go look at the data.

Citadels and Engineering Complexes are now outstripping POSs for kills in highsec.
Salvos Rhoska
#56 - 2017-01-24 09:06:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:

It's not 5.

In the 3 weeks of this year, a total of 67 Citadels/Engineering Complexes have been killed in highsec already.


It was 5 for that day at that moment. Her post was specific to that day and moment. Read accurately.

No it wasn't just 5 for that day. Go look at the data.

Citadels and Engineering Complexes are now outstripping POSs for kills in highsec.


If you dispute that figure at that moment in time, as submitted by Ptraci, then take it up with her.

Read accurately.

That Citadel destruction is outstripping POS destruction is not relevant, albeit interesting trivia.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#57 - 2017-01-24 09:16:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
If you dispute that figure at that moment in time, as submitted by Ptraci, then take it up with her.

Read accurately.

She was trying to help you appreciate that Citadels are being killed across highsec, after you said that if it was worthwhile to kill Citadels, they'd be getting killed across highsec.

The data is there to see that they are being routinely killed across highsec. There hasn't been a week since their introduction , that Citadels haven't been killed in highsec; and the same with Engineering Complexes since their introduction.

There's clearly some people that find them worth killing for whatever reason and whether you want to ignore the data or not (oe dismiss it as above), doesn't change what she wrote. Citadels are being killed across highsec.

Double checking the data, since Citadels/ECs have been introduced, there's been 246 killed in highsec. If your measure is that there's a 1090 highsec systems, so 67 in 3 weeks is a pittance by your standard or not, that's a good number of kills for the number of highsec systems there are.

At a minimum of 100 million ISK in wardec fees to kill a Citadel/EC, assuming each of those 246 is an individual wardec (which it probably isn't) then as a maximum, that represents nearly 25 billion in wardec fees alone. Given the numbers posted by Dracvlad above as examples, it seems there is profit to be made in killing them. That's a pretty good income in loot since their introduction.
Salvos Rhoska
#58 - 2017-01-24 09:40:01 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
If you dispute that figure at that moment in time, as submitted by Ptraci, then take it up with her.

Read accurately.

She was trying to help you appreciate that Citadels are being killed across highsec, after you said that if it was worthwhile to kill Citadels, they'd be getting killed across highsec.

The data is there to see that they are being routinely killed across highsec. There hasn't been a week since their introduction , that Citadels haven't been killed in highsec; and the same with Engineering Complexes since their introduction.

There's clearly some people that find them worth killing for whatever reason and whether you want to ignore the data or not (oe dismiss it as above), doesn't change what she wrote. Citadels are being killed across highsec.

Double checking the data, since Citadels/ECs have been introduced, there's been 246 killed in highsec. If your measure is that there's a 1090 highsec systems, so 67 in 3 weeks is a pittance by your standard or not, that's a good number of kills for the number of highsec systems there are.

At a minimum of 100 million ISK in wardec fees to kill a Citadel/EC, assuming each of those 246 is an individual wardec (which it probably isn't) then as a maximum, that represents nearly 25 billion in wardec fees alone. Given the numbers posted by Dracvlad above as examples, it seems there is profit to be made in killing them. That's a pretty good income in loot since their introduction.


5 Citadels destroyed in 3 systems, is hardly "across HS".

If we assume (conservatively) there is an average of 2 Citadels per HS system, 67 destructions would result in a 3% attrition rate over 3 weeks.

That is a pittance.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#59 - 2017-01-24 10:06:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the loot drops, I went and checked the loot drops of fully fitted Raitaru's in hisec and they were between 330m to 954m and that is not bad at all.

Ok, granted. Whether that is good or bad, however, is a subjective matter.
Furthermore the fully fit ones will naturally be commensurately harder to take down.
Ill agree with you for sake of argument.

My real issue in the value and repercussions of taking them down, is with the 100% free asset safety.
As it is, destruction of Citadels only destroys Citadel materials and jump clones, if any.

In WH there is an extreme where all the contents drop.
Im not suggesting that should be the case in all sectors, but I do think a % of the contents should be destroyed or alternatively, that asset safety requires 15% value by rote.

100% free asset safety is anathema to EVE, and exclusive to NPC stations.
I dont agree that player installations should have that as well.

Atleast then Citadel destruction will involve risk to each player with assets in the Citadel (positively incentivizing defending the Citadel, even if you dont own it). Also this would contribute to material destruction and/or an isk sink to improve the economy.


They are still not hard to take down, so that is a heavy loss to the player who put them up and drops quite good loot if fitted, glad to see you have accepted that.

I see your point of view on asset safety, but I admit to being in two minds on the issue of asset safety, one thing I would do is apply a cost of 15% to another system and 5% within the system so there is an impact in terms of an ISK sink for this. Because that asset safety already exists with NPC stations the games designers were in a bit of a hard place in terms of game balance, there is the hang tough part of me that does let them drop stuff, and I would of course put the barest minimum in them, but the impact on more casual players would be very heavy.

Also defending a citadel where you have stuff in it in hisec would require having to join in on the war dec and most players just do not want to do that, so that would not change anything in terms of fights, people will just shut down orders and remove their stuff and leave it to its fate. Also it would mean people just using Jita for market orders if they have that extra hassle which goes against your wish of removing the market hubs from the game which you have indicated you want in another thread which I also want to see.

This is the entire issue with balance, if you want to change things in one area you have to do things that will impact others in a negative way such as asset safetty. The purist in me dislikes the asset safety as much as you do, but it is helpful in changing something else I want to see changed and I sort of grit my teeth and say OK that will have to do.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Reinhardt Kreiss
TetraVaal Tactical Group
#60 - 2017-01-24 10:07:54 UTC
The explosion of Citadels and the issues that stem from there being so many really reminds me of the first iteration of Titans, how CCP never envisioned/expected them to be used THAT much and HOW they'd be used. And now that they're in it's kinda difficult to tone them down or restrict them again.

They should have been forced to anchor planets and/or moons only thus limiting the numbers and because of that creating conflict.