EVE General Discussion

 
9 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

Citadel defenses are pathetic.....why bother?

Author
#1 - 2017-01-09 00:33:33 UTC
I just sat in Perimeter to watch The Horde attack the Perimeter V Fortizar. I was also in M-E008 (think I spelled that right) for the Keepstar attack more than a few weeks ago.

Both were pathetically messed up defensively. The Perimeter V Fortizar was pumping out missiles with practically no effect. Why even bother putting missiles on structures? CCP seems obsessed with making it a ship vs ship fight everywhere. In a perfect cluster that would be fine, but not every corp can go toe to toe with others. Some falsely believe their citadel and structure defenses will help keep them safe. No offense, but the damn things should fight better than they do right now.

If The Horde continues it's assault on Perimeter V it will be an easy kill for them. It won't even be any fun to watch, it will be a slaughter. Everyone stay home and see the clips on You Tube. it's not worth your time to see it in person.

Last week, I watched a guy alone in a Raitaru who with missiles flying couldn't fight off 2 battleships. It was so pathetic to see the impotence of ASML-LD missiles in action. My stomach turned at the sight.

How about it CCP? I would love to hear something positive from you on this subject.



Side Notes:

- I am neutral regarding the Perimeter fight. I am not in any way associated with either side. That being said, it was beautiful to watch The Horde's waves of Hurricane fighters in action while I sat cloaked at 50-150km. Very impressive display of a corp working together. That is one of the remaining few pleasures of EVE because CCP keeps changing most things for the worse (except the Orca, still pissed about The Hulk changes). Don't even get me started on the new crap Skill List.

- Also Kudos to CCP's graphics and audio teams for making it an incredible thing to watch and hear on my 55" Ultra 4K monitor and Bose Wave audio. You guys in graphics and audio don't get anywhere near the credit you deserve.

-

#2 - 2017-01-09 00:41:56 UTC
Can't imagine what point you think you're making.

You basically just described citadel defense working exactly as intended, which is to say that it is a force multiplier, and not a replacement for actually showing up to defend your assets.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Solitaire.
#3 - 2017-01-09 00:43:15 UTC
Not familiar with what their performance is but I would have assumed they wete able to defend themselves.
I thought you needed dreadnoughts to destroy stuff like that since they're designed to blow up structures.
Don't see a good reason why 2 battleships can take one.

Do citadels get bonuses per level like ships do? Maybe that would help if you would try to suggest to make them stronger. Never actually looked up their stats.
#4 - 2017-01-09 00:45:04 UTC
The Citadels aren't there to provide dps. The defending fleet is supposed to do that. The Citadel is there to support the defending fleet. CCP has already stated, that the Citadel is not supposed to be able to defend on it's own.

But yeah, those 250km scrams ain't OP enough :D

#5 - 2017-01-09 01:04:39 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Can't imagine what point you think you're making.

You basically just described citadel defense working exactly as intended, which is to say that it is a force multiplier, and not a replacement for actually showing up to defend your assets.


/thread

One of the most fundamental 'rules' of EVE is, if you can't protect what you have, you don't deserve it and are going to lose it.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

#6 - 2017-01-09 01:12:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Lothar Mandrake
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Can't imagine what point you think you're making.

You basically just described citadel defense working exactly as intended, which is to say that it is a force multiplier, and not a replacement for actually showing up to defend your assets.



Let me clarify. I'm not making a point. I am trying to get others to weigh in.

Other than the attackers movements just like a flock of birds (nice job ladies and gents), the whole thing was BORING! If that's CCP's objective, Congrats! They made citadel fights BORING! Even the attackers were "Ho Hum" about it during and after the fight. The fight (sorry, there was no real fight, that requires 2 sides).....I mean the attack itself was uninteresting.

Something as BIG as a structure or citadel should be able to handle the 1st hundred or so attackers. Defenders in ships should take out the rest.

It's sad when NPC mining fleets have better hit points than a citadel!

-

#7 - 2017-01-09 01:17:21 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Lothar Mandrake wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Can't imagine what point you think you're making.

You basically just described citadel defense working exactly as intended, which is to say that it is a force multiplier, and not a replacement for actually showing up to defend your assets.



Let me clarify. I'm not making a point. I am trying to get others to weigh in.

Other than the attackers movements just like a flock of birds (nice job ladies and gents), the whole thing was BORING! If that's CCP's objective, Congrats! They made citadel fights BORING! Even the attackers were "Ho Hum" about it during and after the fight. The fight (sorry, there was no real fight, that requires 2 sides).....I mean the attack itself was uninteresting.

Something as BIG as a structure or citadel should be able to handle the 1st hundred or so attackers. Defenders in ships should take out the rest.

It's sad when NPC mining fleets have better hit points than a citadel!


So basically what you're saying is that nobody showed up to defend it, and this is somehow the fault of the citadel?

And, not to **** in your cheerios or anything, but re: the coordinated, ballet-like motion of the attackers?

Yeah, they all just hit approach on one guy.

It's called "anchoring".

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

#8 - 2017-01-09 01:25:23 UTC
When one Raitaru can't take out a battleship with ASML-LD missiles, there is a HUGE problem with the mechanic of structure defenses in general. Just say it like it is, "Save Your ISK and don't buy missile launchers, they won't do anything anyway".

-

#9 - 2017-01-09 01:27:53 UTC
Lothar Mandrake wrote:
Something as BIG as a structure or citadel should be able to handle the 1st hundred or so attackers. Defenders in ships should take out the rest.

Yeah, needing 100+ people to take down a single citadel sounds balanced. Especially, given how easy they are to set up and how they are spammed across New Eden.

And no one is attacking you, we are just echoing what CCP have stated in the initial dev blogs. The Citadels where never meant to defend itself on its own. Instead, they are extremely good support to the defending fleet, if it actually shows up.

It is not CCPs fault, that people put out citadels without the means to defend it, thus resulting in a boring fight. Luckily people only have to sit and bash for 30min. So it's really not that bad.

If you want interesting fights, then tell people to go attack Citadels people actually want to defend.
#10 - 2017-01-09 01:29:50 UTC
Okay let's put this in perspective:
Battle Report

your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic

-Lan Wang-

-

Locator Agents cease to function on Offline Players:

#11 - 2017-01-09 01:31:36 UTC
Lothar Mandrake wrote:

Something as BIG as a structure or citadel should be able to handle the 1st hundred or so attackers. Defenders in ships should take out the rest.


Why? A citadel is meant to be a corp-level asset, especially a Fortizar. Tell me why there should be no requirement for that corp to defend it at any stage of an attack if they don't want to lose it.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

#12 - 2017-01-09 01:38:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Maekchu
In addition, highsec Citadels are already a PITA to take down. Not only do you have to wait for that 30min window to actually apply damage to it, you also need to get through 2 timers between every defence layer, and asset safety makes it a very unattractive grind compared to the time investment needed.

So let's not make it even safer than it already is, by additionally requiring a fleet of 100+ to even consider taking down a Citadel.
#13 - 2017-01-09 01:42:36 UTC
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Okay let's put this in perspective:
Battle Report



Now you're bringing defenders into it which defeats the whole point. I would like to see the same Battle Report with only the structure defense kills and no pilots.

I should put up a citadel and hire The Horde to kill it. I'll only use citadel defenses to fight back. That way I can show you in print what I mean. Keep it focused. I'm trying to show the issues with the ASML's very limited abilities. That mechanic needs a shot of Viagra.

-

The Devil's Warrior Alliance
#14 - 2017-01-09 01:50:12 UTC
Lothar Mandrake wrote:
Now you're bringing defenders into it which defeats the whole point.

no that is the point.

these things are conflict drivers first, force multipliers second, but even as force multipliers they will burn if undefended.

Horde have 11774 as of writing ,
damn straight its an easy kill.
#15 - 2017-01-09 01:51:01 UTC
Maekchu wrote:
In addition, highsec Citadels are already a PITA to take down. Not only do you have to wait for that 30min window to actually apply damage to it, you also need to get through 2 timers between every defence layer, and asset safety makes it a very unattractive grind compared to the time investment needed.

So let's not make it even safer than it already is, by additionally requiring a fleet of 100+ to even consider taking down a Citadel.


I'm not thrilled with the timers idea period. This game promotes itself on realism. Citadel defenses should be 100 times greater than they are (variable based on structure size). Timers should not exist. Who takes a time out if this was real? If you noticed, I made a hit against structure defense. I'm not just advocating more realistic defense but realistic destruction of structures too.

I'm not a head bobbing repeater of CCP documentation. I question everything that takes the game away from realism.

-

The Devil's Warrior Alliance
#16 - 2017-01-09 01:55:36 UTC
Lothar Mandrake wrote:
This game promotes itself on realism.

sure thing , internet spaceships , realism , what?
#17 - 2017-01-09 01:57:11 UTC
Lothar Mandrake wrote:
I question everything that takes the game away from realism.

Realism in a spaceship game featuring immortal clones? Yeah... let's aim for realism :D

The point by the above is, that it's a bad argument to balance something cause "realism".
#18 - 2017-01-09 01:58:30 UTC
Lothar Mandrake wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Okay let's put this in perspective:
Battle Report



Now you're bringing defenders into it which defeats the whole point. I would like to see the same Battle Report with only the structure defense kills and no pilots.

I should put up a citadel and hire The Horde to kill it. I'll only use citadel defenses to fight back. That way I can show you in print what I mean. Keep it focused. I'm trying to show the issues with the ASML's very limited abilities. That mechanic needs a shot of Viagra.




Do you have any first-hand experience with citadel combat, citadel launchers, or hell, any aspect of PvP other than losing freighters to wardecs and bizarre lowsec carriers to PL?

Because nobody cares about the opinions you've formed based on some casual observations you didn't really understand.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

#19 - 2017-01-09 01:59:35 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Lothar Mandrake wrote:
Now you're bringing defenders into it which defeats the whole point.

no that is the point.

these things are conflict drivers first, force multipliers second, but even as force multipliers they will burn if undefended.

Horde have 11774 as of writing ,
damn straight its an easy kill.


You're stating the way things are, not the way they should be. I want your perspective on how it should be. Your opinion is much more important to me and everyone else.

-

#20 - 2017-01-09 02:03:05 UTC
You're getting the answers you're asking for from several people so far.
9 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump