Citadels - Overpopulation

(Nevyn Auscent) #41

Why should wardeccing people be as lucrative as running anoms in null?

(Sabriz Adoudel) #42

Because it generates content.

(Mingja) #43

So does running Anoms in Null?

Hunt them, fight them, let them earn more isk for future destruction. All content.

Wardeccing should not be profitable at all. Wars should be costly. If they were, we wouldn’t have had the problem with wardeccs in high that we’ve had for a couple of years now.

(safira jomita) #44

I like this way of thinking, wardec should be very very costy and used to get rid of opposition (structures, mining fleets,etc) from a given place.

(Mala Zvitorepka) #45

The thing is that whenever you hit a structure, defender will be able to empty it almost completely no matter where it stood as long as it is in known space, the only thing you surely wreck are the long-running industrial jobs. WH people don’t have safety anyway.
Make recovery incredibly expensive and people will simply leave just scraps there and make sure their expensive ships and stuff are either put in JF and jump away, or the (capital) ships themselves jump away. Ditch jump drives and a dedicated force could keep the station locked down tight until it blows.
No solution for HS - neutral alts pick stuff in HS and get it to safety. There is A LOT of time for that, and many other stations (including NPC ones). Can’t fix that without making HS much less safe.

I suggest to rework asset safety: People having stuff in stations pay insurance. Only then you get asset safety - otherwise, non-insured stuff drops.
The amount you pay per month (or whatever would be the tick, maybe 12 weeks of current ship insurance) is approximately the same as the cost of the current asset safety. You cannot set up insurance for a station that is vulnerable or damaged - so if you do get attacked, you better had the safety ready before. Then, it becomes viable to attack the station for the hopeful loot or whatever.
Doesn’t fix HS though, as people would be able to evacuate everything out of the structure anyway (using neutral alts if needed). I don’t think there is ANY solution for that.

(Eric Kalfren) #46

Maybe even Keepstar one per region? Fort per constellation

(Jennifer Austin) #47

Let me try to say this in a nice way because I’m having a bad day and I would like to blow half of new Eden Sky High but we won’t go there asset safety is necessary for a smaller Corporation such as myself I don’t have guys that can be there 24/7 it’s me myself and I I’m not goonswarm Federation nor do I want to be I give you guys props for the destruction you do to keep the game flowing but removing asset safety from structures would be the dumbest thing you ever did think about it Please don’t make stupid decisions that’s going to ruin the game for the small corporations at least leave asset safety alone in the moons

(Rina Cotte) #48

This is easy to do, limit the system back too moons or planets. Then allow x mount of free stru allow to freely float anywhere. This system would add to risk vs reward for wanting a stru in system and the fact someone may want to put one anywhere.

The system is already in place for setting up jump gates and cyno stru. You only allow x mount of them to be set up anywhere in the solar system.

(Brisc Rubal) #49

I think I can safely say that asset safety isn’t going anywhere.

(Anderson Geten) #50

fix your damn overview.

(Sabriz Adoudel) #51

Evacuation was possible with POSes, it didn’t stop occasional ultra-lucrative HS POS loot pinyatas.

All aggression in highsec results in huge but not overwhelming defensive advantages the non-aggressor party, that is highsec’s mechanical identity. There are ways to attempt to counter evacuation operations such as ganking freighters.

(Anderson Geten) #52


Defensive and offensive have the same advantages.

(Rina Cotte) #53

With a problem a solution can be found so let’s work together and find one. Remember there must be a risk vs reward. There SHOULD BE NO completely safe way in eve. This is why the game is so much fun for some and not for others some days.

(Geo Eclipse Oksaras) #54

Maybe if the citadels had like a “lockdown” and when they get fired on, anybody who has any assets is unable to move their stuff until either reinforcement mode (to which they can only move a percentage of m3 during reinforcement) or until the citadel is destroyed and a percentage of those assets are in a can that can not be destroyed. That way the structure owner can take a loss and the deccer can be somewhat pleased with the outcome.

just a random thought

(Rina Cotte) #55

No need just limit them by moons and planets. Allow x mount of stru to be free anchored as well.

(Mina Sebiestar) #56

It’s a start at least stop the littering.
Remove(and prohibit) any structure that is on same grid as gate/station/beacon.
Stop space trash.

(Buoytender Bob) #57

I’m not sure what all the moaning about over saturation is in regards to citadels.
According to the data, both citadels and engineering complexes have been in a slow, but steady decline in numbers since January/February of this year. It is true that Refinery numbers are up, but their numbers have stabilized since this last summer. I wouldn’t mind removing the off lined units and there is no doubt that some systems have too large a number of citadels, but those are the exceptions, not the general rule.

(Kalam Harkair) #58

Earlier this year I put up a post on Citadel Proliferation - Citadel proliferation is a problem which needs to be addressed - which saw some discussion but there definitely needs to be some more.

Have also written a few blog posts on the subject:

(Zander Exvirus) #59

Give structures more defenses but at the same time take away reinforcements and timers. Make a vulnerability window, and if they can shoot it dead then its gone.

(Geo Eclipse Oksaras) #60

I’m sure those in null, worm, and lo wouldnt like that idea