Citadels - Overpopulation


(Max Deveron) #21

ok, i shall grant you a pass.

However i can accept some tweaks to the Asset Safety, as long as it is not removed.
Some have mentioned turning it into a insurance racket thing for example so that maybe not everything can be covered by AS and the stuff that is not will drop regardless of what category of security space it is in.


(Brisc Rubal) #22

I think there’s a happy medium we can reach as well. Something to ensure that most assets are protected, while also giving attackers a prize for actually destroying a citadel and defenders (other than the actual owner) a reason to defend the structure if they’ve got stuff in it.


(Echo Mande) #23

Having toons in Perimeter I sort of agree that something probably needs to be done about Citadel Spam.

How about changing things so that setting a citadel to freeport costs extra ISK or fuel blocks? Or even better, that the amount of extra fuel used (or bill size) depends on the total number of freeports in system. If you’re the only freeport it’s free. If you’re in Perimeter, well, it’s going to cost you.

This would allow everyone to still plant Citadels, but mostly just for their own use.

Oh, and please implement the external delivery hatch that was originally talked about.


(Solstice Projekt) #24

how about fixing wars so more people do them, so more people remove the spam…


(Old Pervert) #25

Limit 2 per type per system, problem solved. Moons might be a complication, take their tether away and remove the qty limit.

You wanna drop a new one in Perimeter, get your gameface on.

Null wars would certainly get a bit more interesting, as nullblocs would fill every system with 2 astras, 2 raits, and quite possibly 2 azbels and 2 forts to block beachheads.

Coupled with the thread I made in PF&I allowing capture (at a cost, of course) there would be a MASSIVE increase in cost for maintaining space. Could be healthy for the game.


(Myrradah) #26

I’m not in goons.

I see this occurring - PvP is being limioted because there are so many ways to get safe and access is easy. The only real fights occurring in Null right now are mostly Alliance fleets or the idjit that isn’t paying attention.

I used to be able to counter some of the safe places, but now I have zero chance of it with so many options.

Let there be some risk out in Null sec already - this carebear life in null with minimal risk is…safer than Hi sec!


(DrysonBennington) #27

Quit complaining about PvP and not getting easy kills. If you don’t like the number of citadels in space either war dec the corporation and destroy the citadel or hire out a merc corporation to destroy the citadel.

PvPer’s in High Sec have become the whiners of the game because they want everything to be easy.

You can’t keep players from their citadels in High Sec. Suggesting that there be less places that are able to set their defenses against you to keep you away by providing a haven and then war decing you is really low class game play.

Citadels were designed to provide multiple access points to safe havens in all types of space except Abyssal space to help reduce station camping. If a corporation war decs you and their pilots run to their station to defend themselves what is the problem? You are asking CCP to get rid of an entire game mechanic because the game play does not suit you.

If you don’t like High Sec go into Null where you can bubble spawn up gates and travel routes between citadels to your little heart is content.

A few months ago PvPer’s attacked a disabled player named Jen who was simply asking for a place that all disabled and slower players could have to play and enjoy the game in.

With as much respect that she was given…High Sec gankers, CODE and their pets are no longer a vital aspect of this game.


(Ryan B Thiesant) #28

The citadels are designed to replace pos’s. To increase your chances of pvp, enrole in faction war. Surely you cannot blame citadels for the lack of pvp, when there are other options for you to explore.

Also ships can be bumped off citadels, which as far as I know is not an exploit. Citadels are part of the changing meta and are a welcome harbour for those not wishing to pvp at your convenience.


(Brisc Rubal) #29

The issue we’re hearing is the cluttering up of systems with structures. That’s not solely a PvP concern.


(Max Deveron) #30

Yet if it is not on grid and you do not have access it disappears or does not even show on your overview.

And another thing, there is more overview tabs than ever…a player especially these vets crying about them can change up their overviews to reduce the so called clutter.

Now if you really want to make a meaningful change?
Find a way to make it impossible for Offshore Tax Haven’s to exist.
This means for example…you can sell of course at the region level, but buy orders in Citadels should be regulated to system or Station only.

I am sure such a thing will reduce the clutter of so called Market Hubs near and around the Trade hub Systems.
Meaningful change in this way i think will provide players a choice…use the NPC Trade Hubs or a player Trade Hub…
And if you dont like the Player Hub competition in a particular system…then there is the wardec system.


(Ryan B Thiesant) #31

Dear friend, I agree that there is and element of design that means; approx 3 citadels are required to replace a POS, leading to an overpopulation. In the OP argument they mentioned a solace for players escaping pvp.

I addressed that point, because they wrote about it and i have recent and direct experience to share in the forum.

The problem from a 98% non PVP view.
However to duplicate the flexibility of the POS, many citadels are required. And so a change in citadels meta may be needed. This is because the rigs are destructible and expensive, and citadels in relation to rig costs are cheap.

It’s easier to put up a structure than to change a rig. Also to do a thing you need a whole structure (sic), where as before you could just add an array to a dedicated structure. research, moongoo, refining, engineering and defence, fighters, destroyers, et al. every iteration requires a citadel type.

Added to this is the rig/citadel/utility/economics/meta/replace POS dynamic.

All this makes it mandatory to have multiples types of engineering, refineries and (citadels), to achieve what a single POS did.

However I disagree with the idea of Spam, because more citadels means more content. And after all it’s a pvp game.

One does not look at a player/corp/alliance and say they are overpopulated with, isk, POS’s, players, supercaps or moon minerals.

So without malice I disagree on the basis of player freedom in a sandbox. Because if the sandbox allows it then what is the use of complaining.

You have the option remove citadels from your overview, wardec them, which will remove the overpopulation from the system for you, as from your post I can’t see a problem, except it is annoying to you.


(Nevyn Auscent) #32

Considering some systems could have up to about 50 Pos… it’s actually less clutter. It’s just more apparent to people since they have them on the overview so notice them.


(elitatwo) #33

Yes, very good!!!111111eleven

Now go out there and wardeck goons. Go forth and shoot a goon citadel once. Nothing can go wrong.


(Ryan B Thiesant) #34

There already an established working system of risk verses reward.

High sec = nurfed citadel bonuses asset safety, to WH = High citadel bonuses no asset safety.

Are you going to increase the bonuses to high sec citadels, and or allow Keepstars in highsec to compensate for this?

How will this affect high sec mercs and corps wanting to take down a Keepstar to get the loot inside?


(Brisc Rubal) #35

There are no active proposals on the table. We’re just talking.


(Ryan B Thiesant) #36

I wish you were there when I was “just” talking about something else in a feature. All of a sudden poof!! “I was forum camped, webbed, pointed, bubbled and then podded.” I think I even post SP. You might get an email.


(Ryan B Thiesant) #37

Sounds PVP adverse.


(Videles Silenthunter) #38

Removing it will brick the game even further. I like the idea where a part of the asset safety is paid out to the people killing it.


(Edward Dickcheese) #39

I’d like asset safety to remain for hisec structures, as every valuable will be evacuated within the 24 hour warmup before the wardec happens. The structure will be empty anyway, the only difference is people will move their stuff from their station to an NPC station, why not save them the hassle.


(Sabriz Adoudel) #40

What is missing is an incentive to attack structures.

The actual defenses on them is fine. Problem is the aggressor gets so little loot compared to doing other activities.

Say you hit a highsec Raitaru that’s actively being used and has a few dozen small manufacturing jobs going in it. The defenders staff the guns but field no ships to defend.

Loot is likely to be a couple hundred million ISK in salvage and another couple hundred million from the production jobs you interrupted (if you are lucky and the citadel owners have set up long jobs).

This is an acceptable return on the wardec costs and the risk involved in fielding the ships for the bash. However, it’s not an acceptable return when you consider the opportunity cost of that structure bash fleet not running incursions. In the same time the structure bash takes, the fleet could reasonably be expected to share 1000-1200m in incursion rewards.

Contrast this to the old school POSes. Most of the time you got stuff all, but on occasion you hit a POS that dropped 5 to 100 billion ISK in loot.

Short of hitting a Keepstar in production this is impossible now.

Concrete suggestion: Triple asset safety recovery fees. When a structure is destroyed, the aggressor entity gets a 50% stake in those recovery fees. Details of exactly whom this goes to to be determined - shared between all involved pilots, shared between all involved corporations, given solely to top damage, or whatever.