Because it takes 6-9 days just to take one Citadel down.
Sure you can split up your fleet but that just makes it a pain on logistics. (not logistics ships different thing )
But it doesn’t take 6-9 days of ‘work’ to take one Citadel down. And it will take about 3 days in some areas of space with Upwell 2.0 already, even assuming they are fueled. But you can chain a fair number during that time, even without splitting your fleet up.
If they aren’t fueled it can be less than 24 hours in WH’s when Upwell 2.0 rolls around.
Also fueling limits how many you can place in an area now.
2 Likes
Fuel isn’t an issue when you’re making dozens of trillions of isk every month.
Which… Maybe one region is.
And no-one else is even close to that.
And you still have to source all that fuel and ship it.
And you are assuming the people making the isk are the ones responsible for the fuel also.
So yeah. Fuel is still a limiter with the low power state.
2 Likes
I’m talking about your average null power bloc, PL, NC, etc.
Goons are probably making way more than that even.
Go read the MER’s. Each block can’t be making that much isk, because there simply isn’t that much isk accumulating in the game each month.
1 Like
Why is it really a problem, it always seems to bother someone, we do not need in game HOA’s trying to impose their will upon everyone, if the overview isn’t tidy enough just remove it from your overview.
Let players enjoy their complexes, you do realize that people spend real money to upkeep them, while others can bankroll with ISK, come on man, it’s not that simple.
5 Likes
Between the new upwell 2.0 and FOB we wont run into a problem of having infinite citidels in system.
Talking about citidels cluttering up your overview in a few bad systrms is like saying having 800+ people in jita is a problem that needs to be adressed, just ignore it.
Remove citidel from overview or better yet make their own tab.
Citidels in FW is an issue, as it defeats the purpose of taking systems for stratigically reasons
2 Likes
I agree with you completely on the FW part. As a fervent Galmil player myself it’s one of the biggest issues I believe in that mode.
2 Likes
We will have to wait and see exactly how Upwell 2.0 effects the proliferation of Upwell structures. I’m sure that we’ll see more destroyed but I’m not sure the changes will be enough to stifle the propagation.
At the moment docking, tethering, the use of fitting services and access to hangar storage requires no fuel. With that and the fact that there are no limits to where or how many structures you can anchor what we’re seeing is chokepoints being opened up (which is allowing the almost completely safe movement of capital ships) and all over New Eden we’re seeing systems being locked down by Citadel tanking.
Obviously there are different areas of space and Upwell structure anchoring limits would need to be addressed for each separately.
With the Upwell 2.0 release I see New Eden having 7 distinct areas of space.
High-sec (0.6 to 1.0)
Refinery High-sec (0.5)
Low-sec
FW Low-sec
NPC Null
SOV Null
Wormholes
High-sec (0.6 to 1.0)
- There could be an argument made to allow unrestricted anchoring in High-sec so that everyone and anyone can toss up there own ‘house’.
Refinery High-sec (0.5)
- You could also argue to allow unrestricted anchoring in this space as well, although I’d argue to see a generous limit set. Setting some level of limitation might create some good confilct, it would be cool to see High-sec industrial groups fighting over good industrial systems.
Once you leave High-sec I believe having limitations on the number of anchorable Upwell structures is essential. Yes this will create blocking, yes you’ll have to shoot a citadel to place your own but that is the point of setting limits, it will create conflict which in return creates content in New Eden and in the end isn’t that what EVE is all about… Content?
Low-sec
- I’m not familiar enough with the meta play and politics of Low-sec to recommend what sort of limitation should be set for Upwell structures for this type of space but many of the chokepoints for capital ship movement are through Low-sec.
FW Low-sec
- Also not super familiar with Faction Warfare Low-sec but I do know that the controlling Faction has access to stations and the attacking force does not. Upwell structures in FW have rendered that game mechanic meaningless.
NPC Null
- This space is frequently used by harassment or nomad roaming groups and also often used a stepping stone for groups looking to get into SOV Null. Setting a limit in NPC Null would create conflict between those groups. Also many of the NPC Null systems are also chokepoints for capital ship movement, unrestricted Citadel anchoring has made this activity too safe.
SOV Null
- In SOV null the idea is to fight for and take space, which will become nigh impossible when the defending force has decided to Citadel tank and has dropped 30+ Citadels in every one of their systems. Even with Upwell 2.0 Citadels will still be hard to clear and having to destroy 15, 20 or 30 of them in one system would be a lot more than a little tedious.
Wormholes
- Wormholes are somewhat similar to SOV null in regards to fighting for and defending your space. It will become nearly impossible to fight over a Wormhole when the local residents have Citadel tanked their hole.
For all those folks still asking “Why is it really a problem” - if you aren’t cognizant enough to see the inevitable problems with allowing an unlimited number of Upwell structures to be anchored everywhere in New Eden I’m not sure there is anything that anyone can say that will make sense to you.
2 Likes
You don’t actually need to take the citadels to take sov in null. But to use it free of harassment from the former residents… you’d need to do that.
Similarly, citadels are offensive weapons in sov null. Dropping a citadel in space held by someone else is a great way to pick a fight (and it does happen relatively often). Putting a max on citadels actually prevents invading parties from dropping structures to aid in their invasions (as every sov null system will be “filled” by the defending group).
Was mentioned up higher
"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…"
So what we want is a POS but name it something else - a FOB. Hmmmmmm… on another note - maybe the new concept of “Low Power” will cut down on Citadel overpopulation.
LOL. One of the more ridiculous complaints I’ve seen, especially proposals like artificially limiting the number of structures in systems. Why don’t we artificially limit the number of ships while we are at it, or [INSERT WHATEVER].
'Citadel proliferation" is about as much of a problem as ‘ship proliferation.’ Or ‘house proliferation’ in my neighborhood.
If you don’t like citadels for whatever reason, destroy them I guess?
2 Likes
OP asserts that ‘citadel proliferation’ is a problem without qualifying the problem, assuming that the problem is so obvious everyone should be aware of it. If it’s such an obvious problem, then it should be really easy to qualify.
OP, explain the problem, don’t be lazy.
the problem with the timers is they take so damn long, they went from taking 1 week to kill to 2 weeks if you don’t time it right than if you hack it and time it right it still takes a damn week to kill.
2 Likes
if you haven’t been over by jita than you need to get out from under the rock, why do we need over 30 stations in 1 system and all of them in a stones throw of each other.
1 Like
You’d have to ask the people who own them. I don’t need them at all, but what other people want/need has nothing to do with me.
And for the record, I quite like it under my rock. You’re not the police of me.
“why do we need over 30 stations” is not a problem. You have to actually define a real problem here, something detrimental to the game, and not just your experience, but everyone’s. I don’t want to hear about your FPS issues in Perimeter if you’r trying to play the game on a P2 with integrated graphics and a dial up connection, for example, because that’s a personal problem, not one with the game.
So tell me what the problem with the game is, and not the personal problem that you’re having with it.
5 Likes
It’s like when some liberal asks me why I ‘need’ X amount of guns in my home, or Y amount of ammo, or a car that can go Z miles an hour or weighs more than the liberal thinks it should weigh, etc.
It’s not a question of who ‘needs’ what. What are you… the ‘need’ police?
1 Like
Expected a whine fest about how CCP needs to solve something while the OP himself is too lazy to break out the guns. Found exactly that.
2 Likes