Make citadels hackable so they can be taken over or self-destructed by the hacker.
How about only allow citadels to be placed by corporations who are part of the milita of the controlling faction?
And if their corp leaves that militia or another militia takes control… the structure pops.
That would give locals a strong incentive to defend that space.
There can’t be a limit to the number of citadels per system. Think about it, the reason is obvious.
HINT: it has to do with sov null.
I think fiddling with citadel proliferation in terms of numbers anchorable per system, will make a flawed system worse. You have to account for all areas of space and all kinds of game mechanics that are directly or indirectly affected by cit mechs. If you limit the numbers, every Sov Null entity will use that to stop others from anchoring anything. In highsec, i don’t know. It probably just means that the long arm of nullsec will do the same there, effectively excluding every highseccer from having own structures.
We have so many because they are extremely cheap for what they offer. It’s kind of funny how an entire station can be cheaper than a capital ship. Then again, one rig can easily as expensive as the entire structure. The smallest structures should have been at least 10 times the price of what they are now. Then, we also wouldn’t have needed 3 different lines of Structures, specifics could have been done in a modular way. Maybe upgradeable in terms of docking options or something like that. The entire way the vulnerability works would have needed a completely different approach. They should have never been visible as beacons, unless set as public. They should have not be anchorable on grid with Stargates or Stations. The should have needed fuel for even docking. They should have a much shorter anchoring time, with immediately active defensive systems, but in exchange a permament vulnerability and much shorter timers.
I mean, these are ■■■■■■■ stations. People who anchor them, should need to make a real investment, but get real means of defending it. Possible attackers should have a harder, but less frustrating experience and much higher rewards for taking one down.
A few of these things could still be done, but the price-problem will stay. Unless CCP would try to solve it by making it harder to acquire PI ressources, which might be not totally bad and surely nowhere as bad as making it easier to get PI, but it would negatively effect the newer or less rich entities.
We need even more structures, so mine can hide in obscurity.
@Rovain_Sess sure… but there is a limit to the number of POSes you can anchor in a system, one per moon, and in comparison Upwell structures are very young. POSes were introduced in 2004, that’s 14 years of POS anchoring, if EVE is still around in 14 years and there is no limits placed on Citadel anchoring how many do you think Perimeter will have in it?
Played with some data that I pulled off the Adam4EVE site. It’s data for all the structures in HighSec 0.5 and above that are being reported by CCPs ESI interface. This covers all structures that allow public access and thus are visible in-game in the structure browser. Any private structures are not listed on the Adam4EVE site, since they are not included in the provided data.
|Year Anchored||Astrahus||Athanor||Azbel||Fortizar||Raitaru||Sotiyo||Tatara||Grand Total||Days||Avg/Day|
|The Bleak Lands||14||3||1||1||15||0||0||34||0.080188679245283|
There is a lot of work that needs to be done with Upwell structures, they are far from perfect… the initial numbers and timing that CCP have proposed for Upwell 2.0 aren’t great, they definitely need to take a closer look at that stuff, but that’s all stuff that other folks much smarter than I can discuss.
I am of the thought that there should be a fueling requirement for all Upwell structures with a dedicated fuel bay that takes one of the Structure Management skills to load so that not just any Alpha toon can load it up.
I posted this with the intent of getting a discussion of a capacity limit started, being able to anchor an unlimited number of citadels in any given system is absurd.
Maybe if they ever release a small sized citadel they could look at some sort of forward operating base, make it easier to bash than an Astrahus/Raitaru/Athanor, more like a POCO bash, so it’s not overly powerful, have it cost zero points to anchor so that crews can anchor it in systems that have reached their Upwell structure capacity.
That Upwell FOB would give an invading force a place to stage out of, although with them introduced I think tethering would need to get fixed so that it does not allow bumping.
That was the way that control towers worked. It was also the way that control tower sov worked, and it was a reason for everyone to fill every moon in systems that had strategic value, and forced people to care for hundreds of structures they didn’t really use to block spots strategically.
IMO this would soon cause perimeter to be filled with blocking fortizars.
I can’t possibly see how disallowing bumping is useful.
- I do agree that there will be some blocking going on, there is no ‘easy’ answer for this but with the points system I proposed there couldn’t be a Fortizar on every beacon. Obviously the system could/would get blocked by filling up the Upwell structure capacity of the system, but that would generate content for folks wanting to get their own citadel put in place. I’ll say it again, having absolutely no limitations on the number of Upwell structures that you can anchor in any given system is absurd.
- I don’t believe I’m off the mark saying Upwell structures were/are supposed to give you the same level of ‘protection’ that POSes did and as far as I am aware, barring some foul play or treachery, you can not be bumped out of a POS shield. So that should translate to Upwell structures and you should not be able to be bumped off a Citadel if you are tethered, again unless there is some sort of foul play or treachery in play.
While I do believe you are correct that the idea is to replicate the safety of a POS, I do believe as well that were it deemed to prevent bumping, they would have given citadels a shield around the tether border to simply keep the reds out.
Rather than mess with Eve-physics, it would be a lot easier to simply prevent the bumping altogether.
Instead you are proposing that every strategic system in the game be filled to your arbitrary limit, with structures that are fitted only with defenses and whatever module is cheapest to run when they require it for the timer, and a year+ worth of fuel (since stupid amounts of fuel fit).
You can’t get bumped out of a citadel dock.
The small pos didn’t restrict ships that should have been too large for it, the tether as is, works as a reasonable compromise.
- I did mention that ~ “I am of the thought that there should be a fueling requirement for all Upwell structures with a dedicated fuel bay that takes one of the Structure Management skills to load so that not just any Alpha toon can load it up.”
- This is how it was already working with POSes isn’t it, POSes were placed on strategic moons for goo, in strategic systems for jump briges, etc? But yes that is the point, it would cause conflict creating content which is what we’re looking for no?
CCP actually initially stated that tethering would prevent bumping. They didn’t want a shield because shield physics caused all sorts of issues.
They just ran into coding issues on tethers preventing bumping and appear to have given up.
The people that want to put up citadels don’t want to shoot citadels in order to put them up, and they don’t want to be attacked simply because they are holding a spot that needs to be blocked. Not only that you’d find that blocking citadels will extend to areas around major alliance regions - ie anywhere logical to stage into delve, would be blocked.
The people that want to shoot things, don’t really like shooting citadels that much.
So basically you are proposing that everybody do more things that they don’t want to do, and actually motivate people to drop even more useless citadels.
@Coralas I appreciate that you’re entitled to your argument but we can go round and round with this, it won’t change my belief that there should be a capacity limit to the number of citadels that can be anchored in any given system or some day down the road we’ll see systems with 100+ citadels in them and that’s just plain dumb.
FInding a good spot for High Sec POSes was fun, lets do it again!
Hey there, FW expert here. I would actually be very much okay with this.
However pirate alliances like Shadow Cartel, who currently have two keepstars in FW lowsec may not be as pleased with this,
What ? Why ? You just keep repeating yourself, at least give explanation of WHY this is absurd.