Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
 

ENGINEERING COMPLEXS AND CITADELS SHOULD NEED TO ALWAYS USE FUEL

Author
Northern Associates.
#1 - 2017-07-16 15:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: ttt esc Ikkala
So i noticed if they dont have services running on the m they use no fuel . This is only going to lead to prolifieration of derilect structures that are not in use on the server . As such i have the following reccomendations

1- Make citadels/engineering complexes use a base fuel amount

2 - If no fuel is present remove timers so they can be instantly killed

3 - Give a grace period of about a month or two then make high/low sec citadels / egineering complexes shootable by anyone if they have not been fueled that long (E.G no fuel since begining of January) they have till the end of february to fuel it or it becomes killable by all of eve )
Caldari State
#2 - 2017-07-16 17:23:44 UTC
ttt esc Ikkala wrote:
So i noticed if they dont have services running on the m they use no fuel . This is only going to lead to prolifieration of derilect structures that are not in use on the server . As such i have the following reccomendations

1- Make citadels/engineering complexes use a base fuel amount

2 - If no fuel is present remove timers so they can be instantly killed

3 - Give a grace period of about a month or two then make high/low sec citadels / egineering complexes shootable by anyone if they have not been fueled that long (E.G no fuel since begining of January) they have till the end of february to fuel it or it becomes killable by all of eve )


I too think that they should require fuel at all times but dont think any grace period is acceptable. If my lawnmower runs out of gas there isnt some grace period where it keeps functioning for a month or two on an empty gas tank. My lawn mower will instead stop functioning the second it runs out of fuel and so should citadels, etc.

Searing destruction of your viewpoint is incoming and no you won't win the discussion or even walk away with anything resembling a win, so bail out early or suffer repeated embarrassments. You have been warned.

#3 - 2017-07-17 13:20:42 UTC
Unlikely to happen for two reasons.

One, Citadels are far more expensive than POS sticks. A POS needs to be online for something like a year or more to cost the same as an Astrahus that's just online not using any fuel. On top of that Citadel service modules each cost fuel to run, and the fuel totals for those modules are generally greater than the fuel to run a POS.

Throw on top of that that the fuel market is a bit squeezed already and I don't see CCP actually adding anything like this, at least without making Citadels generally cheaper to run and operate overall.
#4 - 2017-07-17 13:33:02 UTC
-1

Fuel is expensive and one of the design criteria for citadels and engineering complexes was to make it feasible for small groups to have them. The purchase price of these structures already pushes the limits of what many of those smaller groups can afford and adding fuel costs to the equation would make it even more expensive preventing them from having one. I know we struggle to fuel a POS part time, if we had to pay for fuel all day everyday it would be impossible for us to have a structure.

Timers are used to balance structures across time zones giving defenders and attackers a reasonably even chance to defend / destroy. As long as time zones are a thing in this world we need to have timers to balance them.

Not the whole abandoned structure line of crap again, I thought we would leave that behind as the POS faded out of the game.
If the structure is abandoned there will be minimal defenses to deal with and no one will come to rescue or repair it. So just like those POS if you want it gone you get to do the time to remove it.

Caldari State
#5 - 2017-07-17 15:05:27 UTC
Should make them auto-unanchor the moment they run out of fuel! Then the first person happening by with an indy ship can scoop it.

If you want infrastructure, support it. If the fuel is too expensive, your small group is too small.
#6 - 2017-07-18 03:59:37 UTC
Sounds okay to me. I've seen a few proposals to the effect of having a baseline fuel consumption that overlaps with services fuel consumption, with the net effect being that it's really only an additional cost for no/low service structures.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Northern Associates.
#7 - 2017-07-18 09:42:04 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
Should make them auto-unanchor the moment they run out of fuel! Then the first person happening by with an indy ship can scoop it.

If you want infrastructure, support it. If the fuel is too expensive, your small group is too small.



I agree fuel is expesnive thats why i suggest a defualt of a small amount say 100 fuel blocks a day with no services and get each service to reduce the structures fuel usage so that if you run all slots with services it negates the 100 fuel blocks a day. That should address that issue
#8 - 2017-07-18 11:29:36 UTC
As already mentioned, citadels are too expensive to be used at all if you risk lose it instantly. Better approach, from my point of view, is no concord protection if high sec citadel do not have faction charts in special cargo hold (like POS once did). You do not pay for safety - your structure will be not protected by concord , so anyone can shoot it witout wardeccing your corp. And also damage cap can be lifted - one afk drone frigate can kill fortizar if given enough time.
Warped Intentions
#9 - 2017-07-18 12:48:50 UTC  |  Edited by: James Zimmer
I agree with the OP. The citadel spam was something I predicted before they were even introduced. With no upkeep cost, three timers and no limit to how many citadels are in a system, there is a strong incentive to spam citadels and make a system a miserable grind to take, despite the sov falling easily.

IMO, there needs to be some sort of upkeep cost to enforce a practical limit on how many citadels you can maintain at any given time, and to give a practical mechanism to remove abandoned structures. It doesn't need to be an enormous amount of fuel, and the fuel bays could be fairly large, but it needs to be enough so that at some point, there is the "can we really afford another citadel?" discussion, and at some point, if you abandon your structures, someone can go take out the trash fairly easily.
I Aim To Misbehave
#10 - 2017-07-18 13:50:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
The OP needs to rethink their solution. The consequences for loss of fuel supply are far too drastic. Also, 100 blocks is a LOT of fuel. The nominal consumption ammount should be much less. I'd suggest 1 to 10 units per day - and should be zero with service modules online.

The consequence of zero fuel should not be destruction, vulnerability to attack, or unanchoring. Citadels do sometimes become unfuelled and this is sometimes due to operator neglect - it doesn't mean the structure has been abandoned. If you make the risks too high, then, no one will use these structures... Ever.

Instead I would recommend the following consequences instead:

1. Refitting & Repair will be disabled;
2. Structure teathering will become inoperable;
3. Structure defence modules will be brought offline

I believe that these are satisfactory consequences. When in highsec, a wardec will still be required to destroy it, and the station can easily be brought back online without loss for the operator. Their assets are still intact - and yet, are rendered more vulnerable and open to attack. I believe this strikes a suitable balance between the needs of everyone concerned.
#11 - 2017-07-18 14:43:57 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
If the fuel is too expensive, your small group is too small.

The saddest part of this whole thing is that you guys really believe that this idiotic idea of constant fuel burn will help prevent "citadel spam." Well that and you are too blinded by how cool you think this idea is to actually see who and what it would affect.

Using four (4) times the daily fuel burn of a large POS as an example the small nul sec group I have a character in could easily afford to keep at least 5 citadels up and running at all times and if we needed or wanted to we could probably feed fuel to 8 or 10 of them. Given this and the huge disparity between what we can make every month and what the group that controls sov for the space we rent makes they could probably afford to fuel 1,000 or more citadel a month so one with any logic left in their brains has to wonder just how effective would this constant fuel burn be as a tool to control citadel spam.

I agree the citadel have had far to many negative affects on this game and perhaps the most troubling of them all is the way they affect sov, and I agree that this needs to be looked at and changes made. What I do not and cannot agree with is the use of fuel burn as a controlling mechanism because the costs of that additional fuel would not have any significant impact on the larger groups that are responsible for the "citadel spam".
Rate My Ticks
#12 - 2017-07-21 15:36:03 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Old Pervert wrote:
If the fuel is too expensive, your small group is too small.

The saddest part of this whole thing is that you guys really believe that this idiotic idea of constant fuel burn will help prevent "citadel spam." Well that and you are too blinded by how cool you think this idea is to actually see who and what it would affect.

Using four (4) times the daily fuel burn of a large POS as an example the small nul sec group I have a character in could easily afford to keep at least 5 citadels up and running at all times and if we needed or wanted to we could probably feed fuel to 8 or 10 of them. Given this and the huge disparity between what we can make every month and what the group that controls sov for the space we rent makes they could probably afford to fuel 1,000 or more citadel a month so one with any logic left in their brains has to wonder just how effective would this constant fuel burn be as a tool to control citadel spam.

I agree the citadel have had far to many negative affects on this game and perhaps the most troubling of them all is the way they affect sov, and I agree that this needs to be looked at and changes made. What I do not and cannot agree with is the use of fuel burn as a controlling mechanism because the costs of that additional fuel would not have any significant impact on the larger groups that are responsible for the "citadel spam".


REALLY average a citadel uses over 300 blocks a day if its running services and that on a medium . Fact is a cosntant fuel upkeep would be enough to make citadel spam less pervasive and if you loose timers when the fuel runs out after a set period of time it would make it possible to then prevent mass spam as unfueled citadels become kill mail fodder.
#13 - 2017-07-22 08:18:05 UTC
I don't think that is the issue that has to be addressed. Citadels are fine as is.
#14 - 2017-07-23 15:26:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
zieg miner wrote:
REALLY average a citadel uses over 300 blocks a day if its running services and that on a medium .

Before I respond the answer is NO I do not deal with this stuff in game, there are others in the group that want to handle it so I leave it to them. I do oversee the ISK aspect of the corp and this 300 fuel blocks a day revelation does clear up a significant difference I was seeing in the corp finances.

Our old Large POS used to burn 40 fuel blocks every hour or 960 a day, with average costs of 21,000 per block that is 21.16 million ISK per day.

Based on this 300 fuel blocks per day and the average cost of the fuel still at 21,000 per block our fuel costs have dropped to 6.3 million per day. No wonder I can distribute so much more ISK to the corp member every month.

Since I am not involved in that aspect I based my estimate on a citadel using 4 times the fuel of our old large POS, now you tell me that essentially our citadel is actually using roughly 1/3rd the amount of fuel our large POS did. You are right this does significantly change things, it means that we can actually afford 12 to 15 citadels instead of just 5.

Cost never has been and never will be a useful factor in controlling the proliferation of an item in game and the citadel will be no different. All these increased costs due to fuel burn will do is prevent many small groups from benefiting from these structures.

As I stated before the purpose of timers is to balance the game and actions taken in it across time zones. As long as there are time zones on this earth the timers must stay.
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#15 - 2017-07-24 06:45:48 UTC
while you say a citadel may run out of fuel due to neglect, what about the ones that have been offline for 2-3 months. the only answer for that is to put up your own citadel instead of being able to use the one that's there, so we end up with 10-20-30 citadels in a single system, on gates outside npc stations, near fields. and a 1 week timer with nothing to gain in normal space turns off those who really want to blow them up.

Eventually the market is going to saturate with everyone owning their own station and that mart of the market will stall and crash.

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Warped Intentions
#16 - 2017-07-24 22:21:24 UTC
Cost is a balancing factor; that's exactly what they're doing with pirate battleships right now.

The cost doesn't have to be high, and you could even eliminate it entirely if you have any service module online, so it doesn't change the cost of actively running a citadel. The main thing I'd advocate is that as some point in time, the cost to refuel citadels, whether that be ISK cost, or a time cost of warping around to citadel after citadel refueling the things, causes someone to say "Yeah, we have enough, I'm not fueling another one". Also, if someone completely abandons the thing, after some period of time someone else can take out the trash without running through 3 timers.

If this doesn't happen, I fully expect some rich coalition to put 30-50 citadels in their staging system to make taking that system a miserable multi-month affair that no one is willing to do.
Forum Jump