FINNNNAALLLLLYYYYY. Please do this, this needs to happen. So many citadels from dead corps with timers set to odd hours of the opposite timezones. This would make it slightly less painful to remove structures of dead corps from space.
This is a great idea.
removing them is supposed to be painful.
removing them is supposed to require friends.
removing them is supposed to require planning and firepower.
Now if the structure is belonging to a truely dead corp, then you will have no issue killing it, please take your instant gratification to COD or something, this is EvE scrub.
nope, its a shite idea.
I agree with your first 3 sentences. ButâŚ
Making Eve easy and removing boring tedium or inhibiting game elements are not the same thing. Structures are stupidly tedious to remove without someone there to shoot you (except in wormhole space) and are even harder to remove with someone around to fire the weapons systems.
This is not just some random idea, but a possible solution to an obvious and restrictive problem.
Personally, I would like to see a limit system set in place for Citadel anchoring too. Something to keep the spam down even more, but to also encourage one to be more strategic with their placement and use of citadels on an individual/corporate/alliance level.
I absolutely agree.
4 Likes
I despise POSâes after living out of that bugged thing for a year, but one thing was good about them- offline ones were loot pinatas and easy to take down regardless of location.
Base fuel+ a bit of isk consumption and fuel bay lasting a month (or 5 weeks, whatever) would be cool.
And stront if you want it to go into reinforce. Un-stronted towers are funny, maybe un-stronted citadels would be too.
It also opens up the possibility of director level backstabbing, which is always funny.
1 Like
i just wanted to make sure the whole of the game is taken into account in the event they actually do anythign about citadels. as i saw it the first time i read this thread it stunk of not accounting for the rest of the game, ie, wormholers. like i said Null players and the well established could easily divert resources to compensate, but smaller start up entities and maybe some well off wormholers are going to take the brunt of these changes.
You had to manage your POS in a wormhole. This shouldnât be any different nor hurt any worse.
And itâs well known that it sucked for a number of reasons.
âBecause in the past you had toâ is a sucky argument for most things.
I prefer the way it was. You had to have a sense of ownership and tend to it rather than mindlessly plop down 1b isk structures like it doesnât matter.
I havenât read this thread for awhile.
I would say any changes should be made in K-space. Something related to concord and the empires trying to tax the players for the structures in their space. As J-space is unattached, any upkeep cost would be avoided and be a perk of setting up in WH space.
2 Likes
How about less fuel consumption in a wh? This way it can go offline if a corp stops playing completely but doesnât require babysitting.
1 Like
I posted similar thoughts about structures on the old forums and on Reddit. I know itâs on the CSM radar as well, so thatâs good. Iâm convinced they will make a strong case for changes during the summit.
The one thing that needs to be addressed most of all is how easy it is to set up invulnerable safe houses absolutely everywhere. Medium structures are too easy/too cheap for all the benefits they provide right now.
An unfueled Raitaru costs 600m and, if onlined, can provide a 100% safe staging area for at least a week. Astrahusâ have the same problem. Whatâs currently happening in the north is a good example of how terrible these mechanics are.
Medium structures should be more similar to current POS mechanics and should have MORE vulnerability hours, not less, than large and extra large structures. Their timers need to be shorter and their damage cap needs to be higher.
Most importantly, having no fuel in a structure should have serious consequences for its services. No tether, no guns, no shield timer (or even no timer at all). Unattended structures should be quick and easy to blow up.
Thatâs my 2 cents in a nutshell. Iâm sure the CSM will argue a good case though. Hopefully CCP will make changes relatively soon after the summit, though I expect that any major structure changes will be rolled out together with the refineries or the outpost transition.
Need a leave it the same option.
I support the fuel idea, maybe isk to if for some reason interest in isk sinks and lore and function wise you think about the need to pay for the little people who make it run.
Also the fuel thing means you canât just put one up and ignore it forever, and in rare case if some group controls a space and some people stick it out they need to get more fuel somehow or the fortress falls.
Only way this would work is if fuel use drops on service modules to balance it for those actually using their citadels.
1 Like
No change. Throwing up structures is great and all, but with zero costs in maintenance the number of structures Iâve seen flying through certain systems crosses the border of ridiculous. Iâll make a passing reference to one Keepstar which is surrounded by no fewer than 28 Astrahus, Fortizars, and small indy structures. I maintain one Astrahus with a clone vat, that costs me 5200 in fuel a month. There are less expensive options (but really, whatâs 90mill ISK between friends??), if you can maintain 2.8 billion ISK (or a little less) per month in structure maintenance, great. 
Changes implementing fuel requirements for structures will be live this winter (or summer in southern hemisphere 
)
1 Like
I missed the Keynote, is that a Base Fuel Requirement for just the structure? Or does it still require a service to be running so as not to decay?