As linked to the other guy
https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Capital_Ships_101#Dreadnought
With knowledge of this elusive ship class, and the expanded timers, you too can kill a keepstar! Assuming, that is, that your strategic FC team has capital combat experience outside of Havens and Sanctums 
So basically you think since it doesn’t benefit you, any more than say 5 citadels are unnecessary? Nifty…
And it seems since you want them only anchorable on moons (we’ll ignore the fact that some systems have 50+ moons), you basically want POS’s back. Awesome…
You could, maybe, possibly, leave high sec 
@CCP_Fozzie the gtfo was an important step in giving the larger high sec strictures an effective defence. Removing it leaves them vastly underpowered still. What are you giving high sec strictures in return to help them make up.for the lack of aoe. Especially since they have npc’s that will regularly attack them by current mechanics.
Really dude?
What can we expect to see added for HIGH SECURITY structures then since in highsec they are pretty flimsy, and an added value to gameplay as well would be nice.
You should have just added the GTFO for High then saw where it went from there.
…fire CCP Fozzie…
This is a step in the right direction. Thank you and the team for listening.
What is the reasoning for removing the fitting period? That seems negative move from a gameplay perspective all around.
It would be similar to if you disallow ship modules for a time period after undocking, it is just lame mechanics for both attackers and defenders.
I think you are pandering to players who don’t want smaller entities anchoring structures in ‘their’ space by reducing fights and content.
If the problem is with the power of the smaller structures, then that should be addressed instead of this bandaid of not allowing a structure to actually fit any modules for the initial timer.
Removing excess structures is Sisyphean as it is. There is no functional distinction between an offensive and defensive structure anchoring, and the impact of easy Citadel spam cuts both ways; both are obstacles to balancing Citadel gameplay.
CC Fozzie
Is it true capitals were able to stay teathered while their fighters are attacking?
I’m not sure how they did it… but I’m told it happened and if so isn’t that an exploit that should be addressed also?
Would it be possible to leave (some of) the smaller citadels at 15 minutes? Citadel spam to simply annoy the enemy is already a thing.
Structure spam already exists, ergo make the final timer on small structures should remain short? 
What about a longer repair timer in general if structure is in low power mode?
Thumbs up!
What I don’t understand why can’t they place fighter weapons and ship moves on different loads. Just like your mail room stuff should be sorted and send different ways instead of one big cluster being sent one way. Let the code be sort and sent to other severs to handle your requests form your client to sever.
So what happens when those servers desync. The fighter code thinks it’s shooting at where your ship was 30 seconds ago and now you wonder why fighters are shooting you while you are in warp and then you die.
Just like anything thing else weapons timers. You doomsday someone it has a cool down time. Fires then should once you stop cool down timer of so many mins. Also reminds me weapon reloading timers.
Your not going any we’re when it’s in 100% tidi enjoy. Your 30 min stay 
So in tidi it’s shooting where you were 5 or 10 minutes ago instead. The principle stays the same. And code to ensure the servers stay in sync is probably at least as difficult on the server as simply running both processes on the same server.
With far more ways it can go wrong with a separated physical server.
It’s not a simple matter to just spin off a portion of.code that requires real time interaction with other elements. Brain in a box worked because it doesn’t need constant calculation.
Solid changes, thanks for listening.