|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Those Infernal Machines
80
   |
Posted - 2017.01.23 17:32:30 -
[1] - Quote
You don't like'em. Blow'em up. |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Those Infernal Machines
81
|
Posted - 2017.01.24 04:28:29 -
[2] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Exaido wrote:You don't like'em. Blow'em up. Why bother? If it was worthwhile, Citadels would be exploding all across HS. Its not worthwhile. Infact, setting up a HS Citadel, in and of itself, is not worthwhile.
The worth is in resolving the "don't like it". Rather than being "paid to remove it". |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Those Infernal Machines
82
|
Posted - 2017.01.25 08:42:15 -
[3] - Quote
Citadels especially in hi-sec are squishy. Why would I put my stuff in a Citadel in hi-sec if when destroyed I lost my goods or even a percent of goods.
I wouldn't. No one in their right mind would.
They would then only use Citadels for processing minerals and freight it between NPC stations. Or have to ferry all their goods out after they get the 24 hour war-dec notice but that would then pose the question why bother keeping them in the Citadel in the first place.
And markets. So why would I put my stuff for sale in a Fortizar in hi-sec if I stood to lose my goods if the patron who owned the Citadel got attacked.
There's zero sense in it. It would make Citadels redundant and effectively mineral-processing platforms.
|
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Those Infernal Machines
82
|
Posted - 2017.01.25 08:50:38 -
[4] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Asset Safety should not be 100% free, and 100% safe.
Technically if it cost even 1 isk, and 1 random item was lost, it would fulfill that.
The degree of cost and safety is arguable, but I think most of us can agree it should not be 100% free and 100% safe, thus 100% without risk.
As the owner of the Citadel I lose a lot when it dies. I lose the rigs, the Citadel itself and there's considerable expense in operating the Citadel.
As a user of the Citadel I don't have any asset-risk. But if I did have asset-risk I simply wouldn't use it. I wouldn't need a Citadel. I would use an NPC station.
1 ISK would be pointless. A random item could be problematic. I have some expensive implants stored at mine. And what do we qualify as a random item. Would that include a ship?
Or mathematically, would I keep 500 separate stacks of 1 piece of Antimatter Ammo so the probability of me losing something good is reduced?
Asset-protection could for purpose of 'narrative' be considered a kind of insurance. Perhaps if a user rented space in a Citadel that would make sense and a revenue for Citadel owners. So they have a cost investment. |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Those Infernal Machines
82
|
Posted - 2017.01.25 08:51:53 -
[5] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Asset Safety should not be 100% free, and 100% safe.
Technically if it cost even 1 isk, and 1 random item was lost, it would fulfill that.
The degree of cost and safety is arguable, but I think most of us can agree it should not be 100% free and 100% safe, thus 100% without risk.
It should be noted. I do think this a healthy debate. |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Those Infernal Machines
83
|
Posted - 2017.01.25 09:16:01 -
[6] - Quote
The benefits of a Citadel work at scale.
There are few players who are enterprise level. It would reduce the number of citadels being put up if there were greater loss for users with an impact on assets for destruction. It would also mean the defending them would become a greater requirement but this would also have the impact of super-concentrating power in the hands of those corporations that dominate.
If Citadel defenses were strengthened than asset-risk might be more acceptable. At the moment they are a loot-pinata and would be made more so with asset-loss.
I believe as of date. There is not a single kill associated with a Citadel. The argument is made they are a force multiplier but if they can't drop a single ship, their contribution other than a staging platform is debatable.
An NPC station still serves as a force-multiplier for a war-dec'd corporation and cannot be destroyed.
So if re-worked. Then asset-risk might be more palatable. As they are now. I wouldn't put a tech one hobgoblin in a citadel if I was going to risk losing it.
As it stands, if asset-loss became a thing, outside of hi-sec, I'd probably use a giant secure container and float anything else I need out of an Orca. An Astrahus is really a parking garage in effect. |
Exaido
Fire Over Light
Those Infernal Machines
83
|
Posted - 2017.01.25 09:19:00 -
[7] - Quote
I guess my question is what conditions would need to occur to make asset-risk viable for citadels given their current status as a soft-target? |
|
|
| |
|