|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lord Okinaba
Hidden Agenda
112
   |
Posted - 2016.04.17 11:27:41 -
[1] - Quote
I have no issue with complete loss upon destruction, but it should apply to citadels in Low sec and null sec too. WH dwellers are being short changed here.
And don't come at me with the lore crap that WH is unknown space and therefor not feasible. Please explain the lore behind stuff being magically transported from anywhere without haulers moving it. |
Lord Okinaba
Hidden Agenda
112
|
Posted - 2016.04.18 10:35:41 -
[2] - Quote
Sheeth Athonille wrote:Lord Okinaba wrote:I have no issue with complete loss upon destruction, but it should apply to citadels in Low sec and null sec too. WH dwellers are being short changed here.
And don't come at me with the lore crap that WH is unknown space and therefor not feasible. Please explain the lore behind stuff being magically transported from anywhere without haulers moving it. Originally they were planning on making citadels in WH's safe from asset destruction as well, but there was quite a bit of negative feedback. As for why it's not that way in null, people usually have far more non-movable assets in null. Lots of industry, very full markets, etc. Having the equivalent of outposts being destructible would completely remove an aspect of null game play (for better or worse) and the devs apparently don't want to do that. That said, it seems kind of ridiculous that the equivalent of current pos's (medium citadels) can't be looted. Though I guess a lot of the pos features are going to be done by other structures that havn't been released yet (like mining platform), and I'm going to go ahead and assume these can be looted at least...
Yes, I was one of those giving negative feedback, despite being a WH dweller myself. I had however assumed total asset destruction would apply to all.
People have lots of assets in WH's too and with the arrival of citadels they are soon to have their own markets as well. Seems like the majority are having they're voices heard over the minority. One rule for some and one for the others. |
Lord Okinaba
Hidden Agenda
113
|
Posted - 2016.04.18 11:53:12 -
[3] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:The reason for assets dropping per normal loot-rules is because that's the way it's been in W-space. We don't have stations that cannot be destroyed and hence the citadels don't need to compete with them. It's just keeping the situation similar to what it is now. CCP is afraid that if they allow loot to drop in K-space, nobody is going to use citadels as they can just keep their stuff in stations and have their stuff be safe.
But their plan is to phase out stations. They have said this in the past at least.
Why maintain the status quo? Eve is too safe for some people. People in null for the most part are filthy rich and continue to get richer. This game needs shaking up. |
Lord Okinaba
Hidden Agenda
113
|
Posted - 2016.04.18 18:25:34 -
[4] - Quote
ExookiZ wrote:Have those of you whining about big corps rolling over you actually tried out a citadel on SiSI? They're a small corp's dream.
Citadels were literally designed to allow for asymmetric warfare, a manned citadel with a small support fleet can easily turn away a fleet twice its size, possibly even three times all depending on the actual composition of each fleet.
Your citadel, if you actually fight to defend it is a very powerful weapon, and in wormholes where the attackers cant bring capitals their fighter squadrons are likewise a significant leg up you have over your aggressors.
For a corp who would let their POS burn, and SD their **** all because a bigger corp attacked them nothing will change. Your citadel will burn, except now you cant SD all your assets so our attackers will get loot for their effort.
For the corp who would at the very least go down in a glorious fire defending their space your chances of winning and defeating a larger aggressor just shot through the roof.
And the attackers, if from known space can take all that loot back to their citadel and sit on it indefinitely. Brilliant... |
|
|
| |
|