Upwell structure suggestion: Only Capital systems get a third timer. All other systems (including HS) receive only 2 timers

structures
sovereignty
game-mechanics

(Winter Archipelago) #1

Citadel spam is absolutely out of control. Not only in places such as Perimeter and other next-to-a-hub systems, but in nullsec, as well. One of the big reasons for this is that the Upwell structures are absolutely awful to kill.

In order to make them more killable, I propose that all Upwell structures should receive only their first two timers, allowing them to be killed in just a few days. In sov nullsec, where you can designate a system as your Capital, any structure in that Capital system will receive the third timer.

This would help to lessen the headache of killing a structure, which should naturally lead to more of them dying. At the same time, it provides a pretty sizeable increase in “home” systems in nullsec, and would provide additional value for nullsec structures over highsec structures (beyond the rig bonuses).


(Nevyn Auscent) #2

It’s already been proven easy enough to kill Citadels in Perimeter. And Citadel spam even in Perimeter is barely at the same level as POS’es, everywhere else it’s vastly vastly rarer than POS’es.
If I recall the stats correctly it’s something like 1 in 5 ast’s have already been killed, Forts & Keepstars it’s a bit rarer, though keepstar stats might get skewed upwards via the number that die during setup because of giant null groups wanting to shut down the mid sized groups.
Feel free to go back and check CCP’s Dev blog on it if you want to though, and get the exact numbers, I’m running only by memory from them.

In short, No, they die easily enough anyway especially in highsec where the defences on them are an utter joke.


(Scipio Artelius) #3

Can you provide a link to those stats?

I’m interested as I track the structure kills (highsec only) on a weekly basis and the last stats I remember CCP publishing, >90% of Astrahus’s were still alive.

The Citadel mechanincs in their current form are about the safest mechanics in the game. That has been proven over and over again in null, especially where it is possible to go multiple weeks without any vulnerability timer.


(Nevyn Auscent) #4

Check back in CCP’s Dev blog history, they posted the kills to date somewhere a few months after Citadels were introduced for a date. It’s entirely possible your memory is more correct than mine, not going to argue without searching myself but I don’t have it as a convenient saved link, even if it is 1 in 10 that’s still fairly common deaths.

If it’s possible to go multiple weeks with no vulnerability in Sov Null, that’s something that could need addressing, once chance a month to start a fight doesn’t sound ideal, but that’s a tweak to the ADM stats & effects, not a change to Citadels themselves.


(Scipio Artelius) #5

So no in other words.

OK sure, I’ll go find it. If it’s the same figures I remember, no Citadels have been killed at that rate and that certainly doesn’t match at all with the figures I have.

Edit:

Was revealed on the o7 show and posted by Nana in the thread CCP Fozzie asked in:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6496265#post6496265

Since then, the number of Citadels has exploded and the deaths haven’t kept up. It will be interesting to see if we can get updated stats. I’ll reach out and see if we can find out.


(Petrified) #6

Sorry, but they are incredibly easy to kill - especially in High Sec.
You cannot repair a Citadel - it has to stop being damaged before it can self-repair.
In high sec you can have neutral remote reppers repairing your attacking ships - the Citadel receives no such benefit.
It is a true Ender’s Game scenario: unless you are there to shoot space ships, you go straight for the Citadel kill. So long as you can mitigate incoming damage from defenders via repair or removal of defenders, you are guaranteed a structure kill in 7 days.

Give Structures the ability to receive remote repair and you can take away the third reinforce.


(Petrified) #7

I think a better statistic to look at and compare is the rate of POS deployment to their destruction and compare that with Citadels.

Citadels are meant to be hard to kill… after all, your stuff is in it.


(Scipio Artelius) #8

Your stuff, which is perfectly safe and can’t be killed (outside wormhole space).

So purely based on POS mechanics alone, which could be attacked at any time (and could defend themselves on their own) and then dropped everything, POSs were at far more risk of loss than citadels are.

Citadels now are killed more frequently than POSs, which is a stat that has only just recently changed. I’ll run the stats again off zkillboards api and post the figures here since the start of last year (citadels and ECs not being there for the whole time).

But we’ll see if we can get an update from CCP on the overall survival, since that will be the best stats (ie. it will include a measure of total deployment also).


(Nevyn Auscent) #9

I’d be curious too, as I don’t see this Citadel explosion people are talking about in any area of space I live in, so I’m wondering if it’s actually only a perception based on a few systems being quite anomalous compared to the rest of EVE. Not saying that’s 100% the case, but putting it forward as an alternative possibility. - Also those stats are from only 22 days after Citadels went live. I’m sure there was a second stats released a few months after with some pretty graphics but I can’t find it. Regardless you are right, we need updated stats because stats at a time when most Citadels will have only been up 1-2 weeks is not very useful.

In either case I do agree that Citadels aren’t in an ideal spot, but removing an entire timer isn’t a good solution especially when they are so weak in high sec & possibly low sec (Not 100% sure if low sec gets the void bombs, didn’t think so). Asset safety being cost free in the same system is one area I can see being changed to discourage Citadel spam in a single system, if it costs you to the same system even (at a lower rate obviously) then trying to hold a system by chaining through multiple citadels is going to bleed you significantly and the cost difference of just evacing to a totally different system starts to become more sensible. (I.E. 5% vs 15%, 3 citadels later and you could have just paid the 15% once and gotten out of the area).

Looking at POS also isn’t entirely accurate, since really people never put stuff in the POS to be at risk of loss. Research could be run out of stations for 95% of POS lifetime, and manufacturing even the odd cases it was worth the costs people put the bare minimum into the POS. Losses of items in POS were primarily WH space, and the odd idiot who put there entire life into one. Everyone else lived out of stations & outposts exactly because it was silly putting stuff into a POS


(Petrified) #10

Stuff that gets tied up in asset safety for a period of time. But it is irrelevant. My main point is that the upwell structures are easier to destroy in high sec than elsewhere.

I still think a comparison of the overall destruction of POSes (with online and offline taken into account) to new structures compared to their anchoring would be an interesting study.


(Scipio Artelius) #11

How are they easier to kill in highsec than in other areas of space?

Surely that would require mechanics differences that make it easier to kill a citadel in highsec, yet the mechanics are the same everywhere.

2017 Highsec structure losses

2016 Highsec structure losses

I was wrong above. POS’s still outstrip Citadel losses in highsec by a long way. It’s Engineering Complexes that have recently matched the POS loss.


(Black Pedro) #12

They can’t fit AOE weapons in highsec. They also don’t have to face capital fleets though. I am not sure how that balances out and am willing to accept their defences are not sufficient in highsec, however, it is far too easy to tedium tank them by time zone or by moving vulnerability windows, or just spamming more than the attackers have the patience to attempt to kill.

An actively defended citadel should a tough nut to crack, but an abandoned one where the owners have left the game or been driven out of a space not so much. It agree in highsec that the added defences of manning the Citadel add little to your defence which mostly comes from the deterrence afforded by the boredom of shooting one in the middle of the night for no reward.

Sadly though, that does not make for compelling game design.


(Scipio Artelius) #13

Ah yeah. That all makes sense.

The damage cap though is the same everywhere, so even bringing capitals is useless after the damage cap is reached, which is part of the tedium of killing Citadels in low and null, especially when there is nothing really to be gained because all assets are perfectly safe.

Edit:

Looking at the numbers, highsec is substantially safer for Citadels in practice, than either low, null or j-space, though it’s the worst place to have an Engineering Complex:

The safest ‘affordable’ structure to put up in highsec is a Fortizar. Less than 1 a week is killed as opposed to 6.5 per week of Astrahus.

The worst to have in highsec is a Raitaru, with 10.2 killed per week.

I was surprised by how many Citadels are being killed in J-Space given the low population. There might be something to the claim that asset safety discourages conflict (or at least doesn’t motivate people to attack Citadels in other areas of space).


(SurrenderMonkey) #14

Ehh, you can’t say that (safest = fort) authoritatively based just on the loss-per-week value. There are far fewer forts deployed. You’d want at least a “per-capita” loss rate to say which is safer just on the probability of it being blown up, and from there you’d probably want to look at the average value of a loss against the per-capita loss rate to see which is “safer” in terms of expected loss value.

That said, it’s kind of surprising to see a thread with people actually supporting the unbridled nuisance that is Upwell structure removal.

This isn’t about difficulty (hell, go ahead and buff their non-AOE weapons for all I care), it’s about the sheer soul-sucking tedium of grinding them, even when entirely undefended.

Even the vaguest hint that an op is about grinding down a structure and I suddenly remember that I have to log off to practice my underwater basket weaving skills.


(Petrified) #15

I mentioned this earlier in the thread: You can bring neutral remote repping ships to the field. Ignore the defenders and go straight for the kill. Since the Upwell structure cannot be remotely repaired, you are guaranteed a kill unless the defenders can out damage the tanks and reps of the attacking fleet. Outside of High Sec, anyone else is free game if they show up on grid.


(Scipio Artelius) #16

Ah yep. That makes sense too.


(Scipio Artelius) #17

Yes, it’s not an authoritative statement. Just a simple raw numbers analysis.

There are certainly better measures, if we can get updated stats from CCP.


(Black Pedro) #18

[quote=“Petrified, post:15, topic:9017”]
You can bring neutral remote repping ships to the field. Ignore the defenders and go straight for the kill. Since the Upwell structure cannot be remotely repaired, you are guaranteed a kill unless the defenders can out damage the tanks and reps of the attacking fleet. Outside of High Sec, anyone else is free game if they show up on grid.
[/quote]Not really. Neutral repping isn’t a thing anymore and hasn’t been for years. Anyone who reps another player who is in a corporation that is at war immediately goes suspect so the neutral logi can indeed be shot by an enemy citadel (or anyone in New Eden for that matter).

True, bring enough in-corp logi to tank the citadel’s DPS and you are much safer bashing a structure in that only your legal opponents can get involved, but that is how highsec is suppose to work - you have defined opponents. There is plenty of time to add allies to a war to help defend your structure and anyone can join your corp, and the war immediately to join the defence.

A manned, but unsupported citadel is not suppose to be a serious threat on its own but rather a force multiplier for the defence fleet. I am not convinced that they are enough of a force multiplier in highsec, but their baseline offensive capabilities seem sufficient to drive off solo attackers and small, opportunistic gangs on their own. If you make them able to solo whole fleets, they just won’t die, especially in highsec where most groups are smaller and made up of more casual and newer players who can’t bring 12 guys supported by T2 logi to a fight.

The fight is suppose to go on between fleets on-grid with the citadel, not with the citadel itself. If you can’t beat the opposing fleet at least once out of three times, you are going to lose that structure. Seems to me working as intended and I see no “guarantee” of victory for the attacker anywhere in the design, even if they bring enough logi to tank the structure DPS (which, I must say is pretty much a requirement for any attacker to meet). Their ships are held on-grid for the defending fleet to shoot like fish in a barrel at their convenience.


(Petrified) #19

I thought they nixed that idea due to the crazy way it would become complicated.


(Black Pedro) #20

It is kinda complicated, but no, it is a thing:

https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Aggression_101#Suspect_Timer