I came back after about 1 1/2 years of not playing EVE to any degree. The amount of citadels everywhere just blew me away. I think that there needs to be a cost associated with tethering, and there should also be a 1+(A * (B/C) formula for determining the cost of tethering where:
A= number of citadels in system
B= arbitrary number set by CCP that is ideally helped by ADM, lets say .5 because that’s a number
C= ADM
So if you have 100 citadels in a system with an adm of 6.0:
1+(100*(0.5/6.0)) = 9.33
It costs roughly x9 as much to tether in that particular system. And if you set it so that tethering sucks up fuel blocks or something, it might radically affect how alliances plop them down willy-nilly.
That’s just an example mind you, but it seems beyond obnoxious that anyone in anything resembling danger can just immediately warp to any number of citadels, for which they automatically gain the bookmark to, and be immediately safe on landing.
At least with a POS, there was at least some form of cost associated with instant safety (POS shield) that ensured that people didn’t just slap a pos down on every moon they possibly could, because they could.
Ok you don’t understand one of the fundamental problems with player owner/built structures in Eve. The problem isn’t restricted to nulsec there is structure spam all over New Eden, highsec in particular is plagued with abandoned structures, many of which will remain because there is a cost involved for anyone wishing to destroy the spam structures and who wants to pay to shoot something that 1; takes several days to kill 2; won’t offer any challenge (is boring to shoot at) 3; probably won’t drop anything worthwhile.
Implementation of structures was poorly planned, hence the problems with them now but aside from that you seem to be commenting on something that wasn’t part of the topic being discussed.
Finally - Eve is an odd game - More “PC” isn’t always good due to the nature of Eve.
No-one is saying there should be more “NPC” just that CCP needs to learn how to implement “PC” better. Or at least not add it until the negative side effects of it can be determined and minimized.
Using TQ as the Beta server 15 years in just isn’t how it should be done.
Why is an abandoned structure a problem? If you don’t want to spend time killing it… don’t.
I just re-read the OP. It is so ambiguous and non-specific that my interpretation of what the topic was is just as valid as yours or anyone else’s who commented here. Especially considering many other OPs I’ve read complaining about the same or similar things as what I wrote about.
In fact, what I wrote is relevant to the topic regardless, whether you know it or not. As with other threads on the general topic, I detect a philosophical divide. Call it “control freak/regulator” types vs. “other” types. People who see something that bothers them in some way in game, and want some authority to do something about it (“I hate all this spam! Someone should do something about it!”) vs. people who don’t necessarily think some power sitting on high should regulate everything known to man.
This divide exists in the real world too, of course, so it is only natural that it exists here.
Structure spam in all parts of space is just bad and as for highsec structures that have been abandoned it isn’t just a matter of “want to kill it” it is having to pay CCP to be able to spend a couple of days to kill something that is dead in space, making some system/s look like nothing more than giant junk yards.
Again, you haven’t explained the issue. You’ve just said you don’t like it. There’s lots of things I don’t like, in real life and in game. I don’t like the look of Gallente ships - I think they look like space turds, sex toys, or any number of other things. It doesn’t mean CCP should do something about it.
The point is, your “not liking something” is not a sufficient reason, in and of itself, for anyone to do anything about it. This is one of the points I was trying to get around to with the other poster as well.
Who cares. If an alliance wants to develop their space and put down lots of citadels…why do you care?
I find it interesting. In that past we used to have systems that were wastelands in NS. An outpost would be dropped, maybe, for staging. But other than that is was simply empty (you might find the odd cyno alt hanging out).
Now, we have it so people can do quite a bit in a single system and…now that is a problem.
Thats what i am saying, being able to achor a citadel should have been a landmark in the “gaming” life of a player, something to work towards. Now it is just a stepping stone.
Well I agree the price of the materials and blueprints for the structure should be balanced for the ‘tier’ or ‘importance’ or ‘loftiness’ or ‘weightiness’ of the structure. Just like we don’t want capships to be as spammable and easy to sit in as frigates, the same could probably be said for structures. Having said that, I don’t know what the numbers should be, I merely acknowledge that you have a point.
Also increase them in size to 2.000.000 m3 lets say and introduce new class of freighters with cargo hold this large called perhaps super-freighters with 5.000.000 cargo hold and their JF equivalent with 2.000.000 cargo hold
Lag isn’t an issue here, as the one signature generated by a citadel is nothing compared to the hundreds of POS sigs we’ve had to wade through over the years. You only notice citadels more because you have them on your overview.
