[Idea] FW lowsec and citadels

structure
pvp
low-sec

(Sam Knob) #1

Geez, a couple of days ago I was of the opinion FW needed no change and here I am proposing changes. Hear me out on this one though, I’ll try to keep it short.

  • Militias have a non-NPC executor corp that decides on who is able to install new citadels in their space. The executor-corp is determined by vote from omega-state militia members.
  • Fortizars and Keepstars get a new anti-citadel weapon that can be launched on any citadel in the same system and ignores vulnerability.
  • Anti-structure weapons have a spool-up time during which the aggressing citadel is vulnerable to be killed within a single timer.
  • According to the damage the aggressing citadel(s) have done, you can put the target structure straight into a desired vulnerability window. (2 Fortizars fire upon another Fortizar and put it into armor and therefore into an immediate armor-timer).

This could weaken timezone-tanking overall, make removing unwanted citadels less of a hassle and still give the defenders some time to react (anchoring of enemy citadel + spool-up time). Let me know how bad of an idea this is.


(George Tomato) #2

Its the position of power. The big lowsec kids will do anything(threats, bribes etc.) to get that ‘executor’ position. After that they will quickly flip all FW warzone space to their faction and get their sweet lowsec citadel superiority with no opposition. I dont think FW will benefit from this


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #3

Was going to say wrong forum untill I read your idea and discovered it was a troll


(Sam Knob) #4

Oh god, is it that bad? Haha, well I thought it’s something worth discussing, but nvm then.


(Sam Knob) #5

The largest powerblocks in lowsec are not in the militias, they however are often affiliated to some groups within the militia. I’d say in order to have a stable situation where they could have citadels in all the important systems they’d have to make agreements with both sides which would also mean less direct interference with FW and also makes it more meaningful to hold certain systems for a militia. Overall there would also be more options to force a fight. Am I overlooking something?


(Lady Ayeipsia) #6

So I can drop a moon mining structure in FW space, not be apart of FW, but get impacted by their structures s d never get the chances to do the same?

This seems biased towards FW and would limit other groups who may occupy that space.

Also… Weapons tend to be modules so this would be something they equip. What happens when the corp drops faction warfare? This is not a major issue, it could just go offline, but it needs to be covered.

All that said, why not a simpler change… To anchor a structure in FW space, you need high standings with the faction currently in control of the space. Make this apply to all people regardless of FW affiliation or not. You would still see neutral citadels but it would take a bit more effort to put them up. It’s not super easy to get say a 5 standing with Caldari and Gallamte across a whole corp level.


(Flyinghotpocket) #7

“The largest powerblocks in lowsec are not in the militias, they however are often affiliated to some groups within the militia.”

Right now thats true. only because fw is dead.

besides pirate power blocks that reside in fw space have an entirely different power projection large ships n stuff.

FW entities power projects in smaller ships. and youll find more often than not each entity wins their own turf.

This suggestion post seems like you want to use FW chars to blow up some citadels that reside in fw space that are you enemies. or this post is mega troll.


(George Tomato) #8

They will join FW for dank citadel superiority and they will awox their FW allies cause ‘lol, more targets’ and they dont care about standings and ■■■■. People will abuse new stuff.


(Sam Knob) #9

Ah gotcha. No I don’t want to blow up structures in lowsec and I don’t have any quarrels with anyone on a corp level either. Militia people however have been complaining ever since citadels have been introduced that they ruined FW, so I thought this might help.


(Sam Knob) #10

Hm intersting suggestion. Not sure how the standings for a corp/alliance towards a faction are calculated, but I think it’s got to do with the individual standings of the members. Wouldn’t it be possible in that case to just have a couple of alphas with perfect standings in corp to tank the -10’s of everyone else?


(Sam Knob) #11

Maybe I’ve not been around for long enough, but I don’t seem to remember that ever happening outside the individual level. Was there an instance of let’s say PM/Snuff awoxing Galmil?


(Sam Knob) #12

No, no, these weapons would of course be available on all citadels of a certain size. Yeah indeed, otherwise this would be insanely biased.


(Lady Ayeipsia) #13

Stations in FW prevent people from docking if they are in the militia opposite of the one controlling the system. So say if Gal owned the system, Cal militia could not dock. Cal militia might be able to anchor a POS but POS access is limited. This meant that staging a take over was far tougher for the offense as they have to reship out of system.

Citadels changed this drastically. A corp could throw one down and grant access to all. This eliminated the defender advantage. Plus, attacking a neutral structure leads to security status loss unless you want to war dec the owner. So basically the citadels changed things in an unintended way.

As for a fix, this is a hard one. The suggestion of a weapon for FW groups is biased against neutrals and yet neutrals are half the problem. Still, people want to maintain the sandbox freedom. Whatever the change, it will be a tough sell as some group will get mad and vocal about it.


(system) #14

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.