Citadel proliferation is a problem which needs to be addressed

(Kalam Harkair) #1

There are currently no limitations to where or how many Upwell structures can be anchored in a system and if you find yourself asking “What problems is this causing?” then you’ve been hiding under a rock somewhere.

Here is my very basically thought out solution -

What are your thoughts on citadel proliferation, do you have any suggested solutions?

(CaseyLP) #2

Just a quickly thought out idea:

Reduce all manufacturing, material costs, etc of Upwell Structures by 75%

Get rid of reinforcement timers all together, structures can be attacked at any time

Only one type of each structure can be placed in a system, with the exception of Refineries, which should only be able to be placed at moons.

That sounds confusing so basically what that means is you can only have one Keepstar, one Fortizar, one Astrahus, one Sotiyo, etc, in any given system. With the exception of Refineries which will be able to be placed at any moon.

(Do Little) #3

I have no problem with Citadel proliferation - they soak up vast quantities of minerals, PI and salvage = good for the New Eden economy.

If you find public structures cluttering up your overview - you can always give them their own overview tab so you don’t see them unless you want to.

I do believe they should be easier to kill - especially if unfueled and expect that change to be part of structures 2.0 later this winter.

I would support limiting the number of PUBLIC structures in a system - first come - first served. Might create some conflict in places like Perimeter!

(CaseyLP) #4

I agree that they need to be able to be killed much easier.

(Hir Miriel) #5

People like building things, and destroying things, but mostly building things. Making their own stuff. Their own place in space. I don’t know how long it will take CCP to twig onto that idea, I’d guess a while, I’m assuming their fix will be to make them worse to own. Which will make nobody happy, but that means everybody wins. Yay.

(CaseyLP) #6

When it takes a click of the button to put one down. And it takes 9 days, 3 battles all of which may take an hour or longer, and leagues of effort regarding coordination, to destroy a single Citadel.

That’s when it becomes an issue.

(Nevyn Auscent) #7

Refer to upwell 2.0 before talking about this issue.
Also know structure anchoring mechanics before claiming it takes 9 days to destroy a structure someone just started anchoring.

(CaseyLP) #8

I’m aware of anchoring mechanics. I never said anything about anchoring citadels, I’m referring to Citadels that are already anchored and active. Which most are…

(Nevyn Auscent) #9

In which case they’ve taken more than a click of the button to put down. Because they’ve had to be watched through two hull vulnerability timers also. So credit the owners with the work they’ve actually done.

However also see first point about upwell 2.0 also.

(Galaxy Chicken) #10

I’ve been hiding under a rock somewhere, what problem is this causing?

(CaseyLP) #11

It makes it a pain to take sov.

Not to mention it basically makes Faction Warfare mechanics meaningless, as station lockouts don’t mean anything when the enemy can just put down a cheap Astrahus/Raitaru for less than a bil.

(Rovain Sess) #12

Guess im a bit confused - they are going to replace POS’s, thus they should be proliferating. Ever notice how many POS’s are in space? We arent even close to that.

Not seeing a problem - seems all is as intended.

(CaseyLP) #13

I’m a bit rusty on POS mechanics

How do they work? Do they have vulnerability timers as well for shield, armor, hull?

(Ramona McCandless) #14

How is that not possible atm?

(Marek Kanenald) #15

Citadels should just be outright forbidden in FW lowsec.

And the cheaper citadels should be much easier to take down, if you want security invest in the higher tier ones.

(Drago Shouna) #16

No it doesn’t, it should be hard…in fact it should be harder than it is.

Why should the game revolve around players like yourself that just wants to destroy them?

What about the players who worked their asses off to afford one in the first place, don’t they deserve some consideration ?

Please don’t come and give me the ■■■■■■■■ about you deserve to lose it if you can’t defend it either, both sides pay their subs and equally both side deserve consideration from the development side.

(Ramona McCandless) #17

The only issue is how boring it is to actually drive conflict at all. They can be taken out reasonably efficently but like POSes before them unless you are at war or doing stuff in null its like “why bother”.

(Drago Shouna) #18

No they don’t. While ever it’s fueled the shield is up.

Also they can use shield boosters etc along with an abundance of offensive weaponry which can be set to auto, so even if it gets attacked and nobody is online it’ll fight back up to a couple of hundred kilometers out.

(Nevyn Auscent) #19

If you regard the stront timer as a vulnerability timer POS kinda do actually. You certainly can’t kill a stronted POS in a single attack anyway.

(Fluffy Moe) #20

Indeed. I don’t even do indy stuff, but I have to have them on my overview because I need to see the friendly / unfriendly ones and the spam is just incredible.