# Citadel Vulnerability Mechanics: A Causal Players Perspective

**URL:** <https://forums.eveonline.com/t/citadel-vulnerability-mechanics-a-causal-players-perspective/30467>\
**Category:** Player Features & Ideas\
**Created:** [October 9, 2017, 7:56pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/citadel-vulnerability-mechanics-a-causal-players-perspective/30467 "2017-10-09T19:56:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chocolate\_Pickle](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/chocolate_pickle/32/12219_2.png) [@Chocolate\_Pickle](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Chocolate_Pickle)\
**Post date:** [October 10, 2017, 3:13am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/citadel-vulnerability-mechanics-a-causal-players-perspective/30467/13 "2017-10-10T03:13:34Z")

</div>

I suggested something similar a while ago.

> **[Upwell Structures Should Consume "Base" Amounts of Fuel or ISK](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/upwell-structures-should-consume-base-amounts-of-fuel-or-isk/4019/52?u=chocolate_pickle)**
>
> I posted this on r/eve a few months ago. Figured I should re-post it here for critique. Increase the base vulnerability time on Upwell structures; \* 4x for M-Size \* 3x for L-Size \* 2x for X-Size Add a Service/Module that configurably reduces...

I’m interested in seeing how CCP’s current proposal is going to pan out. It’s simultaneously less- and more-extreme than my proposal.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/citadel-vulnerability-mechanics-a-causal-players-perspective/30467)._