# Abuse of Depots and Citadels mechanics **URL:** \ **Category:** Player Features & Ideas\ **Tags:** balance, game-mechanics\ **Created:** [July 15, 2018, 11:05pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571 "2018-07-15T23:05:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 3:27pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/21 "2018-07-17T15:27:26Z")
> [@MinerArt](#): > > Standard fueling yes, but in this case a site is under attack and then it’s being pulled into online mode to give it that extra defense without ever fueling it for the rest of the time. They’re still actively maintaining their structure. Imagine the dude was at the movie theater when you attacked his structure… it’d be RF’d and on the hull timer already. No clone services obviously, so he had to literally park a character in there. I don’t see it as a problem to be honest. He logged in and fueled it, that’s to me more than enough commitment to maintain what is otherwise an active structure. Had it been abandoned, it would have stayed low power, which is what that mode was intended to combat (structure spam tactics and abandoned structures). ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 3:35pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/22 "2018-07-17T15:35:15Z")
> [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > They’re still actively maintaining their structure. No, they’re getting the alert that the structure is being hit, throwing enough in to online the structure, let it get beat down to reinforcement mode, and letting the structure return to low power. ---
**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 3:38pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/23 "2018-07-17T15:38:41Z")
> [@MinerArt](#): > > No, they’re getting the alert that the structure is being hit, throwing enough in to online the structure, let it get beat down to reinforcement mode, and letting the structure return to low power. How they’re maintaining it is moot. I’ve asserted that they’re maintaining it. The fact that it went out of low power mode proves that they’re maintaining it. They’re saving fuel by not onlining it all the time, sure. But they still onlined it. Ergo it’s being actively maintained. Again, consider what low power was intended to combat… structure spam tactics and abandoned structures. The described in the OP would NOT thwart low power mode for either of those two reasons. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 4:07pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/24 "2018-07-17T16:07:53Z")
> [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > The fact that it went out of low power mode proves that they’re maintaining it. The problem is it’s under attack and then magically gets another timer for the cost of putting the structure online for a whole minute. I can understand why they consider this an exploitation of low power mode. It’s just not being maintained until it hits that 10% and someone runs into it throwing fuel into the bay before 5% to online a single service module and poof… All that work you did is now denied. As was intended: > **[Upwell 2.0 - Structures Changes Coming On February 13th! (UPDATED) | EVE Online](https://www.eveonline.com/news/view/upwell-2.0-structures-changes-coming-on-february-13th)** > > This dev blog has been updated with changes to the plan made with help from the EVE community’s comments, discussion, and feedback. The biggest changes from the previous version of the dev blog are: The removal of the Standup GTFO module from the... > [@](#): > > The first major change to Upwell structures coming in February is the addition of new modes tied to whether service modules are online and consuming fuel in the structure. If a structure has at least one service module online, then it is considered to be at “full power” and it receives full strength defenses. If no service modules are online in a structure it is considered to be in a “low power” state and receives significantly reduced defenses until a service module is activated. > > The intent of this feature is to more closely tie structure defensibility to the investment and use of the structure. It will enable players to more easily clear uninhabited Upwell structures while preserving defensive options for structures being used for their services. > > Any Standup service module will enable “full power” mode on a structure, so structure owners can make use of any of the many service modules depending on their priorities and needs. Running more than one service module does not increase the “full power” bonuses, although each service module does continue to provide their own service benefits for structure users. > > While in “low power” mode, an Upwell structure will have: > > Significantly reduced shield and armor hitpoints > One less reinforcement cycle (jumping straight to the final reinforcement as soon as the structure shield are destroyed and skipping armor entirely) In effect they gain up to 11 days for the cost of 3 days worth of fuel time. It doesn’t need to be maintained. It just needs to have enough fuel to throw a switch to “on” and instant extra time granted. Thus even well planned strikes to minimize the timeline to 7 days suddenly become 14. 4 days becomes 8 for null space. 2 days in WH becomes 4. You gain this without maintaining the structure’s online status thru the entire timeline. You only need throw the fuel into the bay and online anything. You pay 3 days worth of fuel which is negligible. This is 1136 fuel blocks. I would make more than that in an hour. A wonderful cost of 26 million to gain days upon days of defense time. Negligible to anyone. Lower to me because I used to build them in the tens of thousands per month… Sounds like a joke to me that it wasn’t looked at. Perhaps it needs to be changed to “online when initially attacked” to be proper. ---
**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 4:20pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/25 "2018-07-17T16:20:13Z")
> [@MinerArt](#): > > The problem is it’s under attack and then magically gets another timer for the cost of putting the structure online for a whole minute. The fact that they put the structure online, for a minute or a year, shows that the structure is inhabited. Correct? > [@MinerArt](#): > > The intent of this feature is to more closely tie structure defensibility to the investment and use of the structure. It will enable players to more easily clear uninhabited Upwell structures while preserving defensive options for structures being used for their services. As you stated in your own quote, the intent is contingent on occupancy. Not all of the services a citadel provides need to be fueled. Consider that docking, tethering, and having a hangar are all technically services that you use in a citadel. They aren’t services that get onlined, but they are certainly a reason to deploy and use a structure. The position that “occupied” is the defining criteria is reinforced with the following: > [@MinerArt](#): > > structure owners can make use of any of the many service modules depending on their priorities and needs. Running more than one service module does not increase the “full power” bonuses, although each service module does continue to provide their own service benefits for structure users. A structure is either online or in low power; you don’t have to online everything, it doesn’t matter _how much_ fuel you use. It matters that you be there to take care of your structure. To you this means regularly shipping fuel in to it. To me this means being around to do something about attackers. > [@MinerArt](#): > > In effect they gain up to 11 days for the cost of 3 days worth of fuel time. It doesn’t need to be maintained. It just needs to have enough fuel to throw a switch to “on” and instant extra time granted. Thus even well planned strikes to minimize the timeline to 7 days suddenly become 14. 4 days becomes 8 for null space. 2 days in WH becomes 4. You gain this without maintaining the structure’s online status thru the entire timeline. You only need throw the fuel into the bay and online anything. You pay 3 days worth of fuel which is negligible. > > This is 1136 fuel blocks. I would make more than that in an hour. A wonderful cost of 26 million to gain days upon days of defense time. Negligible to anyone. Lower to me because I used to build them in the tens of thousands per month… > > Sounds like a joke to me that it wasn’t looked at. Perhaps it needs to be changed to “online when initially attacked” to be proper. And yet, the goal of a reinforcement timer is not to stop attackers, but to give defenders time to form. At the end of the day, CCP wants us to fight for these structures. Now there are 2 fights instead of 1. 2 chances for the defenders to inflict losses on the attackers. The cost of maintaining their structure is irrelevant. The goal of the timers is to create fights. OP might have been baited on a low power status, but he can take heart from knowing that he may well get an actual fight. We should be congratulating him, not lamenting creative (and certainly not harmful) use of mechanics. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 7:57pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/26 "2018-07-17T19:57:25Z")
> [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > As you stated in your own quote, the intent is contingent on occupancy. As stated by CCP: > [@](#): > > It will enable players to more easily clear uninhabited Upwell structures while preserving defensive options for structures being **used** for their services. So either CCP is wrong or you are misunderstanding intentionally. ---
**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 9:37pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/27 "2018-07-17T21:37:53Z")
> [@MinerArt](#): > > So either CCP is wrong or you are misunderstanding intentionally. Allow me to quote myself. > [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > Consider that docking, tethering, and having a hangar are all technically services that you use in a citadel. They aren’t services that get onlined, but they are certainly a reason to deploy and use a structure. At no point does it say “fueled services”. It simply says “services”. Edit: It also at no point states “stand-up services”. Those are a requirement for fuel consumption and for high power mode, but the player can use “services”… not “stand-up services”. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 9:41pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/28 "2018-07-17T21:41:27Z")
> [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > At no point does it say “fueled services”. It simply says “services”. Those services are always on regardless of the power mode. They are not part of the equation of low power mode. ---
**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 9:45pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/29 "2018-07-17T21:45:30Z")
> [@MinerArt](#): > > Those services are always on regardless of the power mode. They are not part of the equation of low power mode. Yet you by your own words admit they are services. Lets refer back to what CCP said. > [@MinerArt](#): > > It will enable players to more easily clear uninhabited Upwell structures while preserving defensive options for structures being used for their services. Ergo, the structure is occupied, and the player is using it for its services. That it has no stand-up services onlined at that particular moment has no relevance to whether the station is occupied (relevant and determining factor). That it has no stand-up services onlined does not define whether or not players are using the _services_ that it offers. They just aren’t using stand-up services. They make differentiation quite apparent, which means they obviously understand the difference. They chose to use the word “service”, not “standup service” in their classification. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 9:59pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/30 "2018-07-17T21:59:45Z")
> [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > Yet you by your own words admit they are services. And by CCP words they are not part of the low power equation. So you’re deliberately ignoring CCP again. This might help you: ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/9/5/95ad39b531ef0266b4c68bb393867c5e1a9c84bc.jpg) > [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > They chose to use the word “service”, not “standup service” in their classification. They actually DO use the words “service module” rather than “service” in the flowchart they posted. Guess I should ask it. @CCP_Falcon Would you bring this up with the people who actually do this piece of the structures and ask them if it is indeed intended to online a module at the last second just to gain that “First reinforce” while having zero standing cost of maintaining until such time? Would be much appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 10:09pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/31 "2018-07-17T22:09:26Z")
> [@MinerArt](#): > > And by CCP words they are not part of the low power equation. So you’re deliberately ignoring CCP again. You’re conflating the power status of the station with the occupancy and usage of the station. I’ll say it again. At no point do they say that a stand-up module must be online for the station to be considered occupied and in use. All they say is that for a station to enter high-power mode, a stand-up module must be online. You’re skipping the whole part where we identify whether low-power mode was even _intended_ to help the attackers. So again, lets look at when they want low-power mode to help players kill structures. > [@MinerArt](#): > > It will enable players to more easily clear **uninhabited** Upwell structures while preserving defensive options for structures **being used for their services**. Are there people using the services? Yes, obviously if nothing else they’re storing fuel in the hangar; the services are in fact in use. Are there people actually in the station? Yes, obviously someone was in the station to online the stand-up module. So, regardless of HOW you reach a high-power state on your structure, low-power mode was never intended to help in this particular instance because neither of the two criteria for when it was intended to help are met. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 10:12pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/32 "2018-07-17T22:12:35Z")
> [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > At no point do they say that a stand-up module must be online for the station to be considered occupied and in use. I must be hallucinating then because it clearly says service module rather than service in that flowchart. ---
**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 10:13pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/33 "2018-07-17T22:13:50Z")
> [@MinerArt](#): > > I must be hallucinating then because it clearly says service module rather than service in that flowchart. The flowchart shows the flow of reinforcement timers. It does not say whether or not it was intended to help kill the structure. I’ve been saying the same thing all along: Low power is not intended to help kill an occupied structure. It is intended to help kill an unoccupied structure. ---
**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 10:19pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/34 "2018-07-17T22:19:26Z")
Even if we ignore intent and go straight for the flow chart, which says nothing about WHY low power mode was introduced, look at the flow chart. When you go from “Shield Vulnerable” through “shot to 0 shield HP” it THEN looks for an online stand-up module. It specifically places the check after 0 shield HP. I say this as an aside; I still maintain that the purpose of low-power was not to help kill occupied structures, and as such this flow-chart really has absolutely no relevance… we’re debating whether or not it should have had 1 timer or 2 timers. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 10:19pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/35 "2018-07-17T22:19:29Z")
> [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > I’ve been saying the same thing all along: Low power is not intended to help kill an occupied structure. It is intended to help kill an unoccupied structure. And the base complaint from the top is that unoccupied structures are being dived into at the last second with a load of fuel to add time because shenanigans are allowed. But… You’re moving the goalposts. > [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > If they’re actually using their structure, they deserve the same window as the rest of us. Not actively using the structure… then pulling it out of not active for the time needed to gain that window only. Then letting it go back into low power for the cost of 3 days fuel. So they’re not using it or maintaining it. Until they want that window. Which contradicted your statement: > [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > They’re still actively maintaining their structure. And again. > [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > How they’re maintaining it is moot. I’ve asserted that they’re maintaining it. The fact that it went out of low power mode proves that they’re maintaining it. It sounds like it’s not being maintained until they want another window because it’s actively being hit. And in fact… > [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > They’re saving fuel by not onlining it all the time, sure. Which brings us back to the first post who thinks this is an unintended function: > [@Perkutor\_Jakuard](#): > > **Citadels** : We were bashing a low powered fortizar in a WH, in middle of the operation the owner logged in, fuel it and then disconnect just to have the +1 extra reinforcement, and due the time cycles it added a week to the final vuln. period. So I propouse that you were not able to switch from low powered to powered state while receiving damage, or you are POWERED ON paying your fuel as everybody does or you are OFF. And I see reason to ask CCP to respond to that piece only. ---
**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 10:23pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/36 "2018-07-17T22:23:54Z")
> [@MinerArt](#): > > And the base complaint from the top is that unoccupied structures are being dived into at the last second with a load of fuel to add time because shenanigans are allowed. But… You’re moving the goalposts. HELP CCP, THERE’S A GHOST IN MY STRUCTURE. A PERSON WHO WASN’T THERE WENT AND ONLINED A MODULE. Does that about sum it up? I’m not moving ■■■■. You’re just running out of arguments, and attempting to subvert the debate with false accusations. > [@MinerArt](#): > > Not actively using the structure… then pulling it out of not active for the time needed to gain that window only. Then letting it go back into low power for the cost of 3 days fuel. There we go back to cost again… the cost is moot. CCP could change the cost of a a fuel block to 0.1isk and the volume to 0.001m3. That would not have changed whether or not the structure was occupied or in use. It’s a red herring argument. > [@MinerArt](#): > > Which contradicted your statement Last I checked, “actively maintaining” is a kind of maintaining. There’s no contradiction there, try again. > [@MinerArt](#): > > Which brings us back to the first post who thinks this is an unintended function: The subject of our little debate, yes. CCP is free to weigh in any time… I doubt they will though, cause I don’t think they actually read this forum anymore. Based on the wording they’ve issued, low power was **intended** to help kill unoccupied structures. Someone was in the structure to online the module, which meant the structure was not unoccupied. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 10:28pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/37 "2018-07-17T22:28:48Z")
> [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > You’re just running out of arguments, and attempting to subvert the debate with false accusations. > [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > At no point do they say that a stand-up module must be online for the station to be considered occupied and in use. It is specifically stated in the flowchart… To which: > [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > Even if we ignore intent and go straight for the flow chart, which says nothing about WHY low power mode was introduced, look at the flow chart. So we are either using the flow chart to your advantage or discarding it because it declares something you don’t like based entirely on what benefits the structure being online most. How about this: We ask CCP to respond on if low power mode removal while under attack is working as intended? ---
**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 10:33pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/38 "2018-07-17T22:33:33Z")
> [@MinerArt](#): > > It is specifically stated in the flowchart… To which: Sigh. You’re either bad at reading, or intentionally misrepresenting my words. The FLOWCHART does not indicate intent. It indicates how reinforcement timers flow. It doesn’t indicate whether it was intended to help, or whether you were supposed to be able to online a module mid-combat. It doesn’t say “WHY”, it only says “WHEN”. What I have been saying is that “WHEN” doesn’t matter. We aren’t talking about “WHEN” because we clearly know when there is or is not an armor timer. “WHY” there is or is not an armor timer is the issue. > [@MinerArt](#): > > So we are either using the flow chart to your advantage or discarding it because it declares something you don’t like based entirely on what benefits the structure being online most. No, I’m saying that the flowchart is irrelevant for this discussion. The mechanical aspect is moot. The intent is what is being debated. But even if you ignore the intent and look solely at the mechanical aspect of it all, you’re still wrong because the check happens when the shield reaches 0 hp, which means the defender was perfectly within acceptable use to online the module before the shield hp hit zero. > [@MinerArt](#): > > We ask CCP to respond on if low power mode removal while under attack is working as intended? Feel free. Like I said, I really doubt they’ll answer. If they want to, I’m all ears. ---
**Author:** ![MinerArt](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/minerart/32/33728_2.png) [@MinerArt](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MinerArt)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 10:34pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/39 "2018-07-17T22:34:28Z")
> [@Old\_Pervert](#): > > No, I’m saying that the flowchart is irrelevant for this discussion. The mechanical aspect is moot. … The mechanic aspect is exactly what I’m discussing. ---
**Author:** ![Old\_Pervert](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/old_pervert/32/149708_2.png) [@Old\_Pervert](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Old_Pervert)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 10:36pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571/40 "2018-07-17T22:36:08Z")
> [@MinerArt](#): > > … The mechanic aspect is exactly what I’m discussing. And what, praytell, does the mechancial aspect have to do with the intent of the implementation of that mechanical aspect? The mechanical aspect is just the solution. Without a specific problem to apply that solution to, it’s entirely without meaning. The problem, which is what I’m discussing, is that low-power mode was intended to help clean up unoccupied structures. As the structure was occupied, low-power mode was never intended to be a solution for the attackers in this set of circumstances. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571.md?page=1) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/abuse-of-depots-and-citadels-mechanics/89571.md?page=3)