No.
If you can’t muster the firepower to drop the citadel, you don’t get to drop it. You don’t get a cheat code to steal their fuel.
2 Likes
We all know you are a progodlegend alt and therefore you cannot post. 
1 Like
You are completely opposed to late night fuel raids by AUTZ?
Also, it’s not just about dropping a structure. High and low power structure states are an approaching reality. Fuel neut and siphon mechanic open up new gameplay options to raid, weaken, and siege. There are sensible counter mechanisms.
As an AUTZ nerd, I’d totally be down for placing these down an hour before DT and picking them up before I go to sleep.
1 Like
Siphons were already a thing.
They didn’t really contribute anything to the game.
This idea is more of the same bad, passive mechanic.
1 Like
Apples to oranges. Siphoning an existing resource (structure fuel) that dictates high/low power states of structures is not the same as extracting raw/processed moon goo.
Yes. Your idea is worse because your passive actions could cost someone their citadel.
1 Like
They still have a shield and structure timer to mount a defense in lower power mode.
This is not a purely passive mechanic. The hacking mini-game turns off/on the fuel neut/siphon ability (reminder: hacking does not turn off the fuel import/export block aspect).
Attackers and defenders have counter-play moments while someone is hacking the structure to turn it off or on.
@Your_Ex-Girlfriend, how much fuel can be put into a structure fuelbay?
She appears to have gone silent.
AFAIK there is currently no cap on fuel. You could stick years worth of fuel in a trade hub and at worse your market modules would cost more to run (which you pass on in the form of higher broker taxes).
If your trade hub is attacked and the defense fleet is unable to rid the structure of neut/nos structures during any part of the engagement (preventing the structure owner’s ability to import/extract fuel from the bay) that fuel goes into asset safety (or drops as a loot pinata in j-space).
Are we still talking about EvE?
Fuelling a citadel sounds like it’s a pretty passive mechanic too. So I don’t see much of a problem with fuel-siphons. Random third-parties can loot or camp the siphons. So more content all around.
2 Likes
That seems like too little–at least for high sec. I’d want a group to wardec me first before being allowed to place these.
2 Likes
Fair, tying them to wardecs would mandate a threshold on investment to neutralize/siphon someone’s fuel. In that case, a 3rd party hacking, Reinforcing, or destroying a SFN should be a suspect act. The wardec attackers could bait some fights rather than trying to go all-in on a structure bash.
On the other hand, tying it to the announcement of a wardec takes away some of the covert potential of siphoning someone’s fuel in the off-hours (regardless of security sector).
I’d vote anchoring a SFN unit without a wardec makes you suspect. No wardec also voids any 3rd party suspect flags (anyone is free to hack or destroy your SFN without being flagged).
On the topic of covert siphons, giving dscan immunity to T2 variants would be excellent for fuel raid gameplay.
I’d be open to greatly reducing (or dropping) reinforcement timers for dscan concealment in covert variants.
Low price / high price? T3 structure skill loss (New category) if your neut / siphon is destroyed?
What are people’s thoughts in this department?
That’s a silly idea. I think the Fuel Siphon is a good idea, but attaching a skill loss to it isn’t.
The break-even point on fuel blocks sucked should be after a few days of deployment. More for meta/T2/faction variants.
1 Like
That seems like a sensible way to structure it.
However, while fuel siphon potential is pretty flatly tiered, the capability of the fuel neut structure is entirely dependent on the number of active standup service modules. It’ll disproportionally impact larger structures that tend to fit high fuel guzzling services (neut increases fuel inefficiency leading citadel to consume more fuel to keep services online).
I’d like the siphon/neut system to afford some structure spam, yet I’d like it to be manageable balance for raiders and defenders. Material cost can’t be the only balance consideration.
Updated OP:
Structure Fuel Neutralizer [SFN] conditionally blocks citadel owner from manually turning off standup service modules to conserve fuel that is locked in fuel bay. If structure owner chooses to disable service module in inefficient state, the service module is destroyed. The goal of the SFN and Structure Fuel Siphon [SFS] is to push a high power structure to low power. More concurrent standup services in single structure = greater potential for fuel inefficiency.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.