An idea to change citadel mechanics

(Kalain Kamerov) #1

It’s pretty simple. Citadels take too long to kill in their current state and have some broken mechanics.

My proposed solution is this: Break the fight into objectives and remove 1 stage of the fight.

  1. Citadel shields should ALWAYS be vulnerable. Once the shield goes down then it should enter it’s first reinforced state. It will not be able to repair the shields until the vulnerability window happens and the station repairs itself. However, a module can be attacked once the shields go down.
    -[Tethering Array] Once taken down ships will no longer be able to tether and repair. They can still dock and repair if they haven’t aggressed. [NPCs should attack this too]

  2. During the Armor Vulnerability Window the following modules can be attacked/destroyed and cannot repair until the station fully repairs
    -[Supercapital Docking Bay] Once destroyed Supercapitals will no longer be able to dock
    (They can still undock but not redock)
    -[Capital Docking Bay] Once destroyed capitals will no longer be able to dock (They can still undock but not redock)
    -[Repair Services] Once destroyed ships will no longer be able to repair using the structure.

  3. Structure should be the defenders last chance, but give the attacker some goals if they can’t take the structure down and hinder the defenders should there need to be another fight.
    During the Structure Vulnerability Window the following modules can be attacked/destroyed and cannot repair until the station fully repairs.
    -[Docking Bays] 50% Structure (Maybe 25%?)
    -[Weapons / Doomsday controller] 75% structure (maybe 50%?)

What do you guys think? What should be changed/removed/added or just a terrible idea?

(Rivr Luzade) #2

You are suggesting things that are already being discussed as part of the Firmware 2.0 update for citadels … which already has been examined and found to create even more problems.

(Drago Shouna) #3

Why should it be made easier for you?

The owners have an investment that should also be taken into consideration by the Devs. They ignore them at their peril…

(zluq zabaa) #4

Citadels were much too cheap in the first place. An Astrahus should have never cost less than a capital ship. The average price should have been around 10 Billion for one, 150 for a Fortizar and at least 1T for a Keepstar. At least.

In turn they should have had completely different defence mechanics.

For such prices they should never be vulnerable without one being able to use their defensive systems, which should also be much stronger if used with dedication. A few Bombers should not be able to take down a Space Station. A Space Station should cost more than a ship. Taking one down that isn’t defended, could be more or less the same as now, maybe in 2 instead of 3 cycles. Then, if they were much more expensive and much stronger in their defensive capabilities (we are talking a space-station after all), one could have also realized them without the stupid asset safety. Spoils to the victor and all that. Also, fuel should have been a requirement from the start on. They could also be permanently vulnerable, and the last timer should work more like Custom Office timers do.

People would actually commit to defend them, people would have to commit to attack them. Highsec-owners couldn’t be taken down before the thing ever onlines, but if they can’t form a proper defence, they’d lose more heavily than now.

The issues with Citadels will never be fixed, if CCP doesn’t find a way to fix their price.

P.S. If CCP had the hardest balls of steel, they’d announce a complete re-roll of Citadels. All Structures that are currently in space would need to be upgraded into proper Citadels, using 9+ Billion in materials, within a given timeframe. The same for Fortz and Keepstars with higher numbers. If the time passes and people fail to upgrade their Structures, they wander back into their personal hangar somewhere, to be reprocessed. I mean, with a community like this, one needs really big hairy balls, but are they hairy enough to admit a misconception and push through with something like that? I’d love it.

(Drago Shouna) #5

Citadels were supposed to be a replacement for the POS system, if an Astrahouse cost 10b then after rigging etc it would probably be 20b+ with far less functionality. No small investment for a small corp.

No Citadel should be weaker by having far less defences than a POS could have, they need far more offense and defence and an auto defence mode.

We seem to have an ever growing problem with the instant gratification crowd who appear to have the loudest voices and the ear of both the CSM and CCP. Nobody should have the right to take down a massive structure on easy mode. It should be way harder than it is. As you said “people would have to commit to attack them.”

I regret them ever being released as they are.

(zluq zabaa) #6

Correct, 10 Billion for the smallest Space Station, is not a small investment, especially not for a small corp. So? Right now Citadels are absolutetely meaningless in terms of cost. They are a more pricey Mobile Depot with a hell lot more functionality.

Citadels don’t need to have far less functionality. Certain details could have been done differently, okay, but in the end they will offer far more than any POS could ever have, currently with one exception: Large POS allow for a Super/Titan char not to be trapped inside the ship. Once they go away, only a Keepstar will offer the same and that’s a bit harsh on such pilots if they aren’t part of a group that can anchor a Keepstar.

Yes and no. Auto Defence Mode is not necessary. Active Defences are much better. But these need to be stronger, which again is only a sane decision, if the Structure itself would come at a much much higher price. If you’d just buff the current Structures in terms of offense/defense, you’d just make it worse.

I agree, but as I said, under the condition, that these structures need a far higher commitment to anchor them. In terms of fix and running costs. Right now, it is just dissatisfying for either side.

CCP should have certainly tested the waters in a better way. I have no idea how they came to make them so extremely cheap. I mean seriously, where is the fun, even for the smallest group in Highsec, to anchor them? Everyone can afford them easily, far too easily. They offer no sense of accomplishment, because they are far too cheap.

(Kobran 'Ruthless' Vaidrich) #7

I think the problem with citadels is the ability to spam them rather than the cost. I wonder what effect having some kind of limit on the amount of structures in system would have. I know a straight up limit wouldn’t work but I bet there’s a more sophisticated type of limiting system that exists that would be beneficial to the state of the game.

(Kobran 'Ruthless' Vaidrich) #8

Basically increasing cost of things essentially only affects small entities negatively and not large entities. Limiting numbers of things only affects the large entities negatively. So cost is the wrong change to make.

(Ramona McCandless) #9

Id dig a smaller quicker to move station, if a limit was made on “main” cits.

(Shailagh R) #10

Ccp is to busy designing skins and microtransactions to ever update or change citadel mechanics ignorant

(CaseyLP) #11

Uh, should I tell him?

(Gadget Helmsdottir) #12

Do it Friday.

–Secret Agent - Gadget

(zluq zabaa) #13

Not really. Larger entities will want to launch larger Structures and more of them, so it would affect them in a meaningful way too. Yes, the smallest of corps might have a harder time to come up with the 10B for an Astrahus in the beginning, but eventually they would. What are most of these Structures used for anyway? I wonder how many of them are in space, just because.

Limiting numbers with a per-system limit has a lot of negative effects, including the obvious step in which every Null Sovver could essentially hinder anyone else to anchor anything.

The only way to stop the spam is to make them a more meaningful, as in pricey, investment and higher the stakes for the defender and the attacker.

(Ebony Texas) #14

I agree CCP needs to re do all citadels cause the current structures in game are too weak, they die which ccp intends… but check this out… ccp will have a problem in the null sec game once all these structrures are blown the fawk up by that big bad evil…

so what happens when the community gets tired of doing the PI and decides… ive had enough of building and replacing structures that are constantly blown up?

(Kobran 'Ruthless' Vaidrich) #15

That’s why I said a straight up limit wouldn’t work, and there would have to be a more sophisticated system to handle that situation.

Increasing cost will only affect small entities, it will not affect large entities in the slightest since they have trillions and trillions to play with. You can make structures meaningful quite easily by limiting their numbers. If you are only able to put 1 structure down in a system for instance then it will matter.

The problem with citadels is atttacking alliances can spam them all over enemy SOV with ease, increasing cost won’t change that a single bit.

(zluq zabaa) #16

I think you totally underestimate the effect it would have on large alliances. While a small entity might need to source additional 9b for a small structure, a large Alliance would need Trillions over Trillions to keep their status quo. They’d probably have to downsize. And that is if there is even enough PI available.

It does surely not hit smaller ones harder, if you understand that larger Alliances have hundres of Structures, each of which would need a 9 - 900b upgrade, if my proposal would be implemented.

Limiting the number per system on the other hand, would exactly make it harder for the small guys, because they cannot win against the large ones. However, they may very well source 9b in PI.

(Old Pervert) #17

Yaaay it’s friday here. Time to burst the OP’s bubble.

(Kobran 'Ruthless' Vaidrich) #18

How does the first statement imply the second?

That doesn’t really matter, an astrahus costing 10b will not prevent large alliances spamming them in enemy territory.

(CaseyLP) #19

Limiting the number of structures in a system would help smaller alliances IMO

(Ebony Texas) #20

limiting the number in high sec or sticking standings rules on anchoring in a high sec system should be enforced!.. just look at perimeter… it looks like it belongs on SISI! for hell’s sake…

sorry ccp but you blind as hell when it came to anchoring and deployment of this mess. these structures and their funny looking overview icons have littered entire systems now.