Asset Safety Cap In Nullsec Citadels


This is a proposal to overcome the conflict stagnation and a few other problems in Eve. It proposes an asset safety cap (3 times the hull price) per nullsec citadel, enforced by an asset safety “vault module” which can be equipped at most 3 citadels per system, effectively limiting assets you can safely keep in a system. The aim is to make it really a trade off for larger nullsec empires to enjoy asset safety, while smaller groups can still enjoy it as is.

Problems this proposal attempts to (partially) solve:

These are classic problems all of you are complaining about Eve nowadays.

  1. No reason for some entity to attack someone’s sov apart from penis measurement. No conflict drivers, no war.

  2. No motivation to destroy citadels.

  3. Huge alliances clustered in small areas, all economic activity and players flocking inside a couple of regions.

One often proposed but also problematic solution:

Remove asset safety in null.

The crucial problem with the above solution:

A few largest entities seizing assets of everyone in their path, making the game even more favoring to null blobs. Ideally we want to encourage large entities attacking other large entities. One thing this solution gets right is that with the new sov citadels are in the center of the conflict. Perhaps a tweak in the asset safety system is still useful. The goal we should achieve here is selectively distinguishing blob-like null empires and making it really inconvenient for them to enjoy asset safety privileges, while protecting smaller entities and not completely forcing them outside the sov null gameplay.

Circumventing the crucial problem:

What if nullsec citadels had an “asset vault” service module which were capable of keeping only a certain amount (in value) of assets safe? Perhaps 3 to 5 times the hull value? E.g. if you deployed an Astrahus, it can hold 3 to 5 billion safe and the rest is dropped (perhaps with the same “drop” mechanics with ships) upon destruction of the citadel? This way since smaller groups will have less assets in their citadels, their assets will be under protection, thus they won’t attract large blobs on their citadels. Meanwhile large blobs can try and evict other large blobs and seize their stuff.


Offensive citadels?

Once a citadel is online there is an 7 days period (or however much needed for an offensive campaign beachead) in which all assets are safe.

Null empires would move staging systems into NPC stations

This is a problem I did not anticipate. But that already brings some practical disadvantage. You won’t be able to dock your supers and titans. You will be forced to stage from a single area in your space. I’m not sure if mega alliances will want to opt in for this.

But in case they do, one solution is that we could convert them into NPC citadels and apply a “capture” mechanic in which once the citadel/station is 1% structure it surrenders and ejects all assets except 300 bil of randomly selected safe assets, like a keepstar would. Then the citadel would repair back. If you wanna live in NPC null you would see whether the citadel is “full” and live there at your own risk if it is. Or you could siege these citadels if they are full.

At any rate I am sure this problem is solvable in a delicate manner with further thought.

Won’t this encourage “citadel spam” for larger entities?

There should also be a cap on the number of citadels that can equip this module per system. Say 3 citadels can equip this module per system. Now you can store a maximum 1.5 t of stuff per system maximum, and even that requires deploying 3 Keepstars.

This way the game will have an effective hard limit on how many capitals (among other assets) you can stack in a system (or a region etc.) and have them protected. Large blobs will choose between spreading their stuff out or enjoying asset safety.

Which assets will be under protection?

This is not really super important imho, but it can be a “first docked first served” basis. When assets are undocked they can be put back on top of the list. Alternatively, if the limit is exceeded no assets could be put under protection. Alternatively, things could be manually put into the “vault” once the citadel is under siege (the module can be used even during the structure timer).

The number of asset value limit per citadel, and vault module per system should be X instead of Y.

As long as the principle is agreed upon the numbers can be tweaked for optimal targeted separation between blob-like entities and others. With all the data they have CCP should be in a better position to impose good number. That’s one advantage of this system, it is open to be balanced by merely playing with numbers.

Fozzie sov encouraged huddling up for large entities in small areas. Isn’t this system a step back?

Fozzie sov wanted to open up space for small entities. At the moment there is vast space for small entities to take. But nobody joins small entities anymore. Renting or carving up your own space became irrational instead of utilizing the already strong infrastructure of a null blob. Most ISKmaking activity happens in a couple of regions really. This is because the system gave large entities the capability of feeding thousands of accounts off a couple of constellations. If you have large number of capitals you can protect your PvE’rs, rendering null risk really low. Then everyone joins these entities due to significant comparative risk in null PvE activity, instead of carving their space. And there is no motivation whatsoever for these entities to limit recruitment.

So yeah, I think it’s fine if this system encourages large blobs to spread out if they wanted asset safety. Alternatively they can keep huddled but risk being evicted/seized, which could be fine as they might be confident in their defensive capabiltiies.

There’s a way to simplify this. How about each structure comes with a limited number of ‘safety deposit’ boxes? Say 150. Various station modules could increase or decrease this amount. The box can hold 100,000,000 m3 guaranteed.

You rent a box from the station owner similar to how you rent a corporation office. Pay on time, you get to keep your box. If the station blows up and your stuff is in the safety deposit box, it gets transferred into asset safety. If not, it gets ejected as loot.

If you don’t pay on time, the safety deposit box is revoked your items/ships are dropped back into you private ‘unsecured’ hangars.

1 Like

Do you really believe that anyone in a small group would even think about going to null sec if they knew a bigger group could just roll in, destroy their structures for fun, have almost all their assets destroyed and then go back to their home or another smaller entities area and repeat? If you believe removal of asset safety would improve the state of null sec, I want the stuff that you had before you wrote this.


I want the stuff you had before reading my proposal (if you ever read it), which is designed exactly to overcome your kind of worry. I don’t propose a removal of asset safety but I propose a cap on asset safety. And I expect smaller entities should be able to enjoy it as it is under my proposal. If they can’t, then I’m willing to modify the cap in my proposal until they can.

The fact that you already have 2 likes gives me an idea how much you people read other people’s stuff before responding.

You underestimate values. I have more than 5B in my hangars alone as one char. I repeat my request: Give me the stuff you smoked or swallowed. :smile:

1 Like

All right. Maybe larger cap for smaller citadels then. I’d be down even with something like 50 b per astra and 150 b per fortizar. The more important cap is the upper limit on Keepstars.

We can really crunch numbers to reach to ideal numbers. CCP can do this with all the data they have way better than me. What matters is whether you think the principle behind is viable. I already told this in the initial post. You don’t have to regurgitate hatred the moment you see something slightly off in someone’s proposal. You are not here to show you have a larger epeen (hopefully).

Personally, I do not think this principle is valid. Not only because it limits what you can have in a citadel but also because the limit for the number of certain citadel types is easily exploitable by bigger groups to deny placement of citadels at all by someone else.

1 Like

Remember that some citadels have markets and a few of those markets have trillions of ISK worth of product on offer - very little of that value actually belongs to the corporation that owns the citadel. Citadels also hold the personal belongings of line members - who aren’t all wealthy.

Assets have never dropped when Outposts are conquered - but people still do it.

1 Like

My personal view isn’t that there is no penalty for losing a citadel… but rather there’s no benefit for killing one.

We don’t need to penalize the loss of a citadel, we need to put incentives on destroying them.

My idea is that if you destroy enough citadels in a system to trigger a payment for asset safety (say by killing all of an alliance’s citadels in a system so their objects go to lowsec NPC stations at the 15% cost)… there needs to be some method for about half of that cost that is already paid to invoke asset safety to be split among those on the KM for the citadel. Maybe allocated by % damage done.

There then becomes a profit motive for destroying citadels… in fact for wiping out all the citadels in a system. The hardest part would be how to figure out how to allocate those isk… but the general idea is to make people want to grind out citadels.

1 Like

Well… you actually do gain control of the outpost when you conquer it. There is an incentive to go through the effort (control of the station). After the next release, they’ll just be citadels I suppose.

There’s no financial benefit for killing one. Inside of a sov war, bashing their citadels is how you take away staging points. It’s essential for eviction.


Quick way to drive up conflict would be to halve or quarter the number of PVE opportunities in null with an increase in payout (if you reduce spawn rate by 50%, increase payout by 25% as null is supposed to be nearly “the best space for krabbing”). It’d be to the point where a single super would be able to max out a system’s pve content. Net result, alliances that want to krab would have to get more space. Renters would constantly be getting encroached on by people looking to krab.

Goons would definitely expand then. I fully expect that nullsov would be dominated by the larger groups, but that’s more or less what nullsov was meant to be…

Arbitrary ISK value is silly considering how item price can be manipulated. Just look at skins and clothes. Hangar size (m3) is far more stable and manageable.

Non-null market hubs are safe. My proposal only involves nullsec citadels. If a large alliance wants a null market hub they could try and defend it. Those hubs serve nobody but the alliance members themselves anyway. If independent marketers seed null markets they could add invasion to their possible risks.

In game ISK value still sounds more reasonable than other possible metrics like, say, m3. The most common manipulation (choose a rare item, buy/sell it many times with high prices) can only occur upward, and there is no gain for any alliance to manipulate what they have in a citadel upward. Meanwhile, the stuff you keep in citadels are not particular items but all items you have. Good luck manipulating the price of thousands of items downward.

1 Like

The proposal is limited by sov nullsec. You need to own sov to use an asset safety module (perhaps when sov is lost can remain active for 30 days to avoid exploitation). So offensive denial is impossible without actually attacking sov. And if an entity takes your sov and holds it for 30 days then they deserve the assets.

I’m not concerned with downward price manipulation in Order to hold more stuff. It’s the sense that this is going to evolve into an asinine micro management struggle of What your line members can store in the Citadel in the case items become wildly expensive over some market speculation of an upcoming patch or purposeful market action.

Again, the mass of an item is far more stable than its price.

But then low m3 high value items can be kept safe.

But remember, asset safety is there only to protect small to medium entities. I think if people want asset safety, no more than 3-5 semi wealthy people should live off a single citadel anyway. If your net worth is 150 b you should probably have your own fortizar if you want asset safety. Mid size corporations of 50-100 people can distribute their wealth across their pocket. Even larger alliances can do the same for a region. And if they want to live in the same place, they should give up asset safety.

That’s fantastic! Additionally, if you augment the asset safety system to award a percentage or all of the payment cost to remove items from asset safety to the player (or corporation) with top damage on the structure (or character with ‘final blow’ if you want to give it the feel of a lottery). The more valuable the items in asset safety the more failed defenders have to pay their attackers after the battle to remove (or discard) pricey goods.

That, in my eyes, is sweet victory.

If you are set on having an asset cap, structuring the cap by container size (not price) also leads to the secondary affect of resource spillage–namely PI and minerals. They require a lot of space and have lower ISK values meaning more valuable items would be prioritized first for storage in the limited number of asset safety vaults.

When the attacking corp destroys the structure large quantities of mineral resources would drop. The attacking corp has the choice to engage in the logistics endeavor to haul them out (risking counter-attack on their haulers) or destroying the structure can, thus eliminating those resource products (and man-hours required to gather them).

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.