Speaking purely for myself, you may need to re-asses your assessment criteria,
Thank you for your post. While you touch the subject of the comparison between citadels and POSes, you do not address the problem in question : the defense capabilities ( and the incoming nerfs to the reinforce cyles, stasis and scrambler modules ). Unless what you suggest is that citadels were never advertised to be “replacement for the POSes” in that regard. If that is the case, i too would like to point out some older posts :
Structure combat is more exciting: Structure combat leaves a lot to be desired, as the AI target selection is lacking, while defensive options are limited and not that effective. This goal ensures structures work well in asymmetrical warfare, being force multipliers in the area they contest to compensate for their static nature. We want structure combat to feel more like ship combat between several parties and less like a static grind.
This means we can get rid of the Control Towers and greatly reduce anchoring complexity.
Of all the structures, we want these to be the most dedicated to asset safety, protection, and a feeling of home – just like when you are tucked inside your bed sheets while the elements rage outside. At your coziest you should be fortified in giant bunkers equipped with mega death rays to weather the storm.
We have established Citadels need to be able to take care of themselves in a fight.
As such they should:
Repel trolling attempts from a single player trying to capture them with an Entosis module
Act as force multipliers to deal with attacking fleets and promote asymmetric warfare (less defenders are required than attackers)
Size Number of Cruisers to reach damage mitigation
M 10-20
L 30-60 ( far from true )
New structure hulls are going to replace Starbases, Outposts and Deployables over time
CCP FAQ wrote:
What do the size differences mean for Citadels?
Medium sized Citadel structures will be around 5-25km in diameter and are tailored for INDIVIDUAL (!!!) or small groups of players. They will be able to fit some appropriate defenses to offer resistance against most kind of assaults including capital ships.
As they are now, the citadels offer just the “less grind” part but none of the “more effective defense”. Also, the force multiplier is non-existent as for a 4-5 subcaps attacking gang you need at least as many ships to assist in the defense, especially after 2.0 warp/stasis modules nerf. NONE offer a real defensive option for an INDIVIDUAL.
The pathetic defense of the citadels is not a new issue, it has been signaled since before the first release and several times since. Here are a couple of examples
a very ellaborate thread is here
where CCP agreed to the problem:
> CCP Darwin wrote:
> Quote:
> New structure hulls are going to replace Starbases, Outposts and Deployables over time
> This time has not yet arrived.
This was almost 2 years ago.
5 Likes
Thanks for the detailed post!
So firstly, I can confirm that Upwell Structures being the replacement to POSs and Outposts is very much still the case. To clarify what I was eluding to in my previous post, this does not necessarily mean that the defensive capabilities of an Upwell Structure will directly map 1 to 1 with the defensive capabilities of a POS. They may be more powerful in some ways, and less powerful in others.
I would personally argue that an Astrahus does still fill the role it was intended for, as detailed in the FAQ you mention above. It’s worth just highlighting a couple of things that improve a citadels capabilities when fighting subcapitals ships in this release. Firstly, we have significantly upgraded the combat capabilities of Fighters used by all Structures, making them a much more viable option. As well as this, with the addition of Tech II modules, specifically the Tech II Ballistic Control Units, will allow you to significantly increase the single target damage/second against subcapital ships. While their combat capability is of course getting balanced downwards in other ways, we feel like this will allow citadels to fill more of the role you are hoping post release.
We encourage you to test this out for yourself! You can take a look at these on Singularity right now, using Fitting Simulation or fitting an existing Citadel, or wait until tomorrow and give it a go on TQ. Given time we hope you will see that these changes are a net gain to Structure vs Subcap warfare, and we will be gathering data to ensure that this goal is reached.
Thanks again!
Thank you for the quick reply. I think that the quoted blogs above already prove enough the wide difference between what was advertised and what was delivered in terms of citadel defense capabilities.
I agree with the upgrade to T2 modules for the citadels, however my concern is that, with the nerf to the scram/stasis modules, no citadel will be capable to keep a ship on grid enough time to destroy it. That , while the current preferred strategy to destroy an astrahus/fortizar citadel in whs already is a machariel fleet jumping in/out of grid ( >100km distance ), almost impossible to be fended without an interdictor and significant fleet support. With the incoming nerfs, a citadel owned by a small corporation ( or an individual ) will be absolutely defenseless.
4 Likes
Will invading Empires be able to exploit the changes taking effect tomorrow?
CCP has a history of over-buffing and over-nerfing. Too many nerfs at once in this pass, imo. Not only does the warp scram get hit with a 60s cooldown, (even 5 seconds would have achieved the goal of giving an opportunity for attentive, aligned pilots to escape perma-scram) but, now we need a script, which comes with a range nerf. Enough? No. The cap drain on usage was significantly increased (2400 over 30s, to 4000 per 30s.)
Players complained POS’s were weak, got something stronger - too strong, now the shoe is on the other foot: CCP could re-issue the “wrecking machine” video, with the sides reversed. I’m looking forward to the nearly inevitable post-mortem dev blog.
3 Likes
I dont give a ■■■■, this is a good patch. Seriously ■■■■ your 1 man corp sitting in a citadel. You can’t defend, it dies.
1 Like
What small groups are trying to voice their opinion about is a POS with no guns owned by a 5 man corp was more of a deterrent to a 5 man gang then a fitted raitaru owned by a 5 man corp is now. For a small group CCP gave them more and safer hangar space and a set hull timer day and time window in return for less defense, less adaptability and higher cost.
1 Like
The only deterrent a POS had was the boredom caused by the time it took to shoot it down. It wasn’t good gameplay.
1 Like
thats the only deterrent an unmanned citadel with dps limit imposes so your point is neutral
2 Likes
You wrong. The deterrent was people especially in wh space would self destruct and no goodies would be had. It wasn’t the pos it’s self, I did plenty of pos bashes. But the fact we have people options, to fight, pay us, or we burn it down. They quickly discovered best way to stick a middle finger to us was to self destruct everything they couldn’t get out. 2011/12 I saw a guy in a c2 self destruct 3 caps in front of us before shields went down. That’s eve mechanics more so than pos’s. EvE is an MMO and has never favored the little guy. They can have success but it is a harder road. WORKING AS ■■■■■■■ INTENDED.
You can self destruct hangar content in citadel also. In any world, it is the prerogative of the owner to scrap his property rather than leave it to anyone else.
However there is no way you can compare a deathstar pos defense ( up to 25-30 batteries ) against subcaps to a citadel’s - maybe except keepstar’s. This point is acknowledged by CCP above. The citadels are much less powerful in what concerns defenses.
3 Likes
Thats nice that people used loot denial against you, not like you’re the first to experience it.
Its working as designed but even you can’t deny CCP gave its players a POS replacement that is several times the cost and has a fraction of the defense against subcapitals even though certain structures and fits were overpowered against capitals, with the main benefit being storage and repair.
2 Likes
Good, they should be less powerful. Form a fleet to defend.
They should be more value than having that person in a ship though. And currently they aren’t.
1 Like
They were promised to be efficient even for INDIVIDUALS ( the exact term used by CCP ), much like a POS is. I doubt you can man a citadel and pilot a fleet in the same time.
I understand that you would like to get 15-20 bil isk loot by yourself, but attacking something of such value should not be done without risking to lose something equally pricey.
2 Likes
Totally disagree with structure scrambler/disrupter only 30 seconds activation. Now any pilot can safely fly to citadel kill any miner near it and fly away, or try to kill citadel, but if he understands that he can’t take such damage fly away and bring another ship for test. It should be several minutes at least, to give defenders a chance to kill bad pilot who made an attack.
3 Likes
Upwell structures with no online Service modules will be in “Low power” mode which will incur the following effects:
-33% reduced shield and armor hitpoints
One less reinforcement cycle (jumping straight to the final reinforcement as soon as the structure shields are destroyed, skipping armor entirely)
I am confused, will the -33% effect armor or hull? Having reduced armor HP with skipped armor timer sounds a bit wierd.
Give that structures can’t be anchored in close proximity to each other, is it relevant to include structures in the Standup Heavy Fighters description?
Type: Structure-based Heavy Fighter
Role: Heavy Attack
Description: The Cyclops is purpose designed for anti-capital and anti-structure combat. This Standup variant of the Cyclops is more powerful than the carrier-based variants but does not benefit from capsuleer skills and may only be launched from Upwell structures.
Blaster Cannon: This weapon-system does large amounts of damage, but its tracking systems limit its effectiveness against fast moving targets.
Microwarpdrive: Giving a significant speed boost at the cost of higher signature radius. The Microwarpdrive has a long cool-down cycle between uses.
Torpedo Salvo: A salvo of super heavy unguided torpedoes. These weapons do significant damage against capital class starships and structures. They are unsuited to firing against sub-capital class starships.
2 Likes
Is the development team aware that there are medium industrial amd refinery platforms not capable to launch fighters and can fit one low module: either the excellent new ballastic control unit with T1 weapons and nerfed dps or cpu upgrade that allows to fit T2 weapons.
I checked the fitting simulator and clear net dps nerf (not to mention the 24x7 vulnerability and nerfed tacking modules)
1 Like