Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 08:42:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Malcanis on 15/10/2010 08:43:33 WHEREAS~ outposts are being deployed in such numbers that almost 1 in 5 systems in sov 0.0 have an outpost in them
WHEREAS~ outposts are no longer a major alliance level project to deploy, but are now easily within the means of any old 0.0 corp
WHEREAS~ outposts are no longer just about economic infrastructure, but are now the basis of defensive sovereignty
I propose that a method of destroying them be put in game. Now simply making an outpost disappear has all sorts of problematical implications, so what I'm actually proposing is a way to wreck them.
The items involved are deployable modules like SBUs or TCUs. I propose an equivalent manufacturing cost of 500 million ISK at today's material prices.
To wreck a station requires that there be no sovereignty in the system, and that the outpost be reduced to zero shields and armour (ie: an outpost that has recently been captured). Once deployed, the module will take 12 hours to activate. Successfully onlining a TCU during this period will cancel the demolition timer.
Wrecking a station has the following effects:
(1) All station upgrades are irrevocably destroyed
(2) All station services are irrevocably destroyed, with the sole exception that ships can be assembled (but not fitted)
(3) All market orders are immediately cancelled, with the ISK and items being returned to wallets and hangars respectively. Market taxes are not refunded. Items and ships in a wrecked station cannot be contracted. The outpost no longer appears as a market location.
(4) Docked ships remain in player ship hangars, but once undocked, they cannot return.
(5) Player item hangars are accessible from space but only by their owner.
(6) The station wreck remains in place permanently.
(7) Medical clones are immediately destroyed. Jump clones remain in place but can no longer be created.
(8) The station wreck does not appear on overview as a station, but as a container. It is no longer a celestial object.
Conceptually, the Station Wreck is essentially a giant Corp Hangar Array that you cant put anything in to, only take stuff out of. Freighters can collect items from Station Wrecks.
I think these conditions allow meaningful infrastructure destruction, and a viable way to counter "outpost spam" as a defensive strategy, whilst at the same time maintaining the "safe haven" for player assets for people who occasionally have to spend more than 12 hours away from the game.
Comments and suggestions welcomed.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Sylar McIntyr
Konstrukteure der Zukunft Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 08:53:00 -
[2]
Thats a good idea! Supported!
|
Gaius Bismarck
Darkwave Technologies Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 09:07:00 -
[3]
yeah. stop the outpost spam! ------ äDon't tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." -US Army General Patton |
Minorius
Gallente Biotronics Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 09:16:00 -
[4]
Supported!
Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 15/10/2010 08:43:33 (7) Medical clones are immediately destroyed. Jump clones remain in place but can no longer be created.
Does that mean you can JC into the hangar? They should be destroyed also.
* What happens to the players who were docked before the station was wrecked?
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 09:23:00 -
[5]
Support everything that supports more destruction
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 09:29:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Malcanis on 15/10/2010 09:35:21
Originally by: Minorius Supported!
TY, but dont forget to tick the little button thing
Originally by: Minorius
Originally by: Malcanis
(7) Medical clones are immediately destroyed. Jump clones remain in place but can no longer be created.
Does that mean you can JC into the hangar? They should be destroyed also.
Really it should but clones can be very significant assets (eg: pirate implants), and the idea behind my proposal is to destroy the station, not individual player assets in a way that they cant counter. Obviously it seems inconsistent to leave jump clones intact, but the over-riding principle of the outpost as a safe asset store takes precedence, I feel. And CCP have said they feel this way also - it's a prime reason why we cant destroy outposts right now. If we're going to allow asset destruction then we dont need to monkey about with all the other refinements, we can just go ahead and vaporise the thing.
EDIT: And it's not any more inconsistent than new station owners being able to remove med clones but not jump clones. The principle here is the same.
Also, I'm all in favour of creating gameplay situations. Daring high-risk operations to extract assets from a wrecked station (and sneaky treacherous operations to hijack said loot) seem like all kinds of awesome to me.
Originally by: Minorius
* What happens to the players who were docked before the station was wrecked?
Good question. I'm going to go with "nothing much - except that they suddenly have no access to station services so they cant fit or insure ships, and everything on the market is suddenly unavailable". Being in a wrecked station is much like being in a permanently reinforced POS.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Mr Booger
Task Force Zener Blade.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 09:45:00 -
[7]
Excellent idea, and I hope to see this implemented.
|
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 10:16:00 -
[8]
*cough* credit *cough*
But I'm all for it.
|
TazDev
DRUCKWELLE Evolution The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 10:22:00 -
[9]
Sounds to me like a proper workaround on the current problem, why outposts shouldn¦t be destructable. For more wrecks in space!
|
okcerg
WEPRA CORP Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 10:24:00 -
[10]
I'd like to see also a proposal "From now on only 1 outpost per constellation"
|
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 10:42:00 -
[11]
Originally by: okcerg I'd like to see also a proposal "From now on only 1 outpost per constellation"
Actually I'm all in favour of allowing multiple outposts per system. For one thing, the reason so many systems have outposts is that you cant put more than 1 in a system. For another, conquering (and with my proposal, wrecking) 2+ outposts in one system is much easier than dealing with 2+ outposts (and 2+ hubs and 2+ TCUs and 2+ cyno jammer POS) in 2+ systems.
People want to build outposts. People should be allowed to build outposts if they want to and can afford them (sandbox hey?). But the flip side of that is that other people should be allowed to set them on fire and then gun down the inhabitants as they run out screaming.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Realtef
Madhatters Inc. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 10:53:00 -
[12]
As long as either the cap on Outposts per system is removed or once the outpost is destroyed another can be put in that system. I am in favour of the former not the latter though.
But excellent idea but I think the online time for the module should be longer, say 24 hours.
|
Aralyn Cormallen
Wraith.Wing Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 11:18:00 -
[13]
I like, solves all concerns without erasing some poor sods entire possessions.
Originally by: Minorius Edited by: Minorius on 15/10/2010 09:49:18 Supported!
Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 15/10/2010 08:43:33 (7) Medical clones are immediately destroyed. Jump clones remain in place but can no longer be created.
Does that mean you can JC into the hangar? They should be destroyed also.
* What happens to the players who were docked before the station was wrecked?
Keeping jumpclones seems a fair idea. Assuming that the destoyed station would not allow you to jump to another clone from it, it gives people one chance to use their JC for a snatch and run op to get their stuff back.
|
SikPuppy
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 11:25:00 -
[14]
+1 |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 12:08:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Realtef As long as either the cap on Outposts per system is removed or once the outpost is destroyed another can be put in that system. I am in favour of the former not the latter though.
But excellent idea but I think the online time for the module should be longer, say 24 hours.
Bear in mind that to capture the station, the attacking alliance has already endured 4 reinforce timers of up to 3 days. The defenders have had plenty of opportunity to save their station, and my proposal would still give them an extra 8 hours.
Have mercy. Even invaders need to sleep eventually.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
GalF0rgheed
Kiith Paktu Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 12:46:00 -
[16]
Edited by: GalF0rgheed on 15/10/2010 12:47:27 This could give the art department something to do too - re design each station environment with crap thrown everywhere and everything broken down.
You WIS people could even later ask for a "space suit" that would allow you to walk in broken stations - a type of exploration maybe allowing some sort of salvage. :¼)
Training of the skill Wife Control to level 1 has not been completed, are you sure you want to run ExeFile.exe?.. really... TWICE? |
Rexthor Hammerfists
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 13:02:00 -
[17]
i like -
|
Limdood
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 13:20:00 -
[18]
2 problems i see with the proposal as stated:
1.) station becomes a container, isn't a celestial anymore, etc. - so...how do people get to the station to get their stuff if destroyed? are people going to be expected to bookmark all their outposts in the eventuality they get destroyed so they can retrieve their stuff from the infinity that is space? Also, as stated, it removes a decent PvP/Ambush location to make them no-longer celestials....however i do understand that the goal is to avoid 17 outpost wrecks in a system with a lot of turnover/value.
2.) ships can be accessed via ship hanger, but not redocked. -and- items are accessed from space. - doesn't this seem a bit inconsistent? in order to get ships, you MUST dock, but, since you can't return to the station you can only do this in a pod. I'd suggest a change to make it always be able to be docked at (and treat items in the hanger like a loot can spawned from salvaging a full ship - you can tae from it, but not put stuff in). OR you can make the station NEVER able to be docked at. Ships would have to be removed via hauler or capital ship (for assembled ships). Though you'd likely have to allow contracts to take place at those wrecked stations if that was the case.
Also, on a final note. Why would anyone WANT to destroy an outpost? if there is no drawback to controlling an outpost, and in order to use the outpost demolisher, you'd have to take the station to structure anyways, then why not simply take control of the outpost? who would want to spend 500m to destroy something that would make you money to keep around?
|
TazDev
Amarr DRUCKWELLE Evolution The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 13:36:00 -
[19]
Edited by: TazDev on 15/10/2010 13:37:52
Originally by: Limdood
Also, on a final note. Why would anyone WANT to destroy an outpost? if there is no drawback to controlling an outpost, and in order to use the outpost demolisher, you'd have to take the station to structure anyways, then why not simply take control of the outpost? who would want to spend 500m to destroy something that would make you money to keep around?
Because sometimes alliances just start wars to have some fights and suddenly they end up being huge spaceholders, they never wanted to be ;) Also it is a nice additional option for merc contracts ;)
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 14:02:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Limdood 2 problems i see with the proposal as stated:
1.) station becomes a container, isn't a celestial anymore, etc. - so...how do people get to the station to get their stuff if destroyed? are people going to be expected to bookmark all their outposts in the eventuality they get destroyed so they can retrieve their stuff from the infinity that is space?
Outposts are anchored at planets, not in deep space. Even if you've forgotten at which planet the outpost was anchored, it shouldn't take long to find it.
Originally by: Limdood
Also, as stated, it removes a decent PvP/Ambush location to make them no-longer celestials....however i do understand that the goal is to avoid 17 outpost wrecks in a system with a lot of turnover/value.
I dont see how the ambush potential is reduced. People get ambushed at POS, and indeed even at safespots. And yeah we definitely dont want the overview cluttered with wrecks. I dont want to propose anything that makes EVE's UI more difficult or cluttered.
Originally by: Limdood
2.) ships can be accessed via ship hanger, but not redocked. -and- items are accessed from space. - doesn't this seem a bit inconsistent? in order to get ships, you MUST dock, but, since you can't return to the station you can only do this in a pod.
I envisage the Wreck working like a Ship Maintenence Array in a POS. You dont dock at SMAs, you approach them and board a ship inside them. Another alternative to using a pod would be to fly a disposable ship to get to the Wrecked Station, then transfer to your ship in the Wreck.
Originally by: Limdood
I'd suggest a change to make it always be able to be docked at (and treat items in the hanger like a loot can spawned from salvaging a full ship - you can tae from it, but not put stuff in). OR you can make the station NEVER able to be docked at. Ships would have to be removed via hauler or capital ship (for assembled ships). Though you'd likely have to allow contracts to take place at those wrecked stations if that was the case.
I definitely dont want to see ships able to dock at Wrecked stations because that cancels out half the reason for wrecking them in the first place.
Originally by: Limdood
Also, on a final note. Why would anyone WANT to destroy an outpost? if there is no drawback to controlling an outpost, and in order to use the outpost demolisher, you'd have to take the station to structure anyways, then why not simply take control of the outpost? who would want to spend 500m to destroy something that would make you money to keep around?
There are many reasons to want to wrreck an outpost.
(1) Poorly placed outposts can be a horrible strategic liability.
(2) Revenge, role-playing reasons or just plain spite.
(3) Sabotage - remember, anyone can anchor the Demolition module, so it offers excellent game play opportunities for 3rd parties to mix things up. Imagine ransoming a station!
(4) Scorched Earth - the defending alliance might want to stop a valuable staaging point falling in to hostile hands.
(5) Complacency - alliances with many many stations are incredibly dificult to invade, and they have become complacent about losing a station or two to smaller alliances, because they can just exhaust their opponents in to submission with reinforce timer griefing. Station Wrecking allows smaller invaders the opportunity to do lasting damage if the defenders try to rely on this strategy.
(6) Gameplay - some people dont like the idea of 0.0 being literally filled with outposts, and would prefer to see empty space
(7) Economics - if you have a station, you also need to pay for a hub, cyno jammer POS etc etc. A station that isn't much used is an economic liability.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
|
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 14:29:00 -
[21]
Although I am more biased towards a 'drop table' kind of solution, any option to destroy outposts is better than none.
|
Limdood
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 15:32:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Limdood stuff
stuff
very well refuted, i like your arguments and reasons and i support this now
/bandwagon
|
M'aak'han
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 16:45:00 -
[23]
Definitely a step in the right direction.
I'm not very fond of the "wrecking module" idea though, I'd rather see some sort of "bring enough explosives, fill up the station, and BOOM !" (this could use a several hours long timer too, operatives need time to carefully place charges at weak spots )
But maybe this will lead to some complete removal of wrecked outposts someday. Maybe they could slowly degrade and disappear after a year or so (wild dreams... )
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 17:25:00 -
[24]
Originally by: M'aak'han Definitely a step in the right direction.
I'm not very fond of the "wrecking module" idea though, I'd rather see some sort of "bring enough explosives, fill up the station, and BOOM !" (this could use a several hours long timer too, operatives need time to carefully place charges at weak spots )
But maybe this will lead to some complete removal of wrecked outposts someday. Maybe they could slowly degrade and disappear after a year or so (wild dreams... )
The precise cinematics of how the station is destroyed aren't really important - heck, rather than make this a deployable module, this could one day be an amazing Incarna gameplay option if CCP so desired, as long as the basic structure is preserved re: sov requirements and timers. Making it a deployable SBU-style object was rather unimaginative on my part, and I'd love to hear more interesting suggestions such as yours.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Shobon Welp
GoonFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 18:26:00 -
[25]
Taking the idea of attackable station services and really giving the idea teeth is something I do like the sound of.
Not sure I'd go quite as far as described here though.
|
Arklan1
Dunedain Rangers
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 22:21:00 -
[26]
hells yea!
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 22:25:00 -
[27]
WHEREAS~ Obvious troll because anyone with internet can see there isnt even 1 outpost in every 10 systems in 0.0 WHEREAS~ this plan would make the vast majority except areas held by the same alliance for an incredibly long time complete ****ing wastelends because people would simply get tired of rebuilding. Increasing the population in empire and decreasing that in 0.0 further.
Great plan!
|
Mynxee
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 23:29:00 -
[28]
Some very interesting creative ideas in this proposal...deserves some consideration by CCP, I think!
Life In Low Sec |
Virtuozzo
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 23:42:00 -
[29]
Old but awesome idea, and for once very well structured. I would however make it more expensive, so that you elevate it to a weapon of disdain annex mass destruction.
Just one question, what about a possible angle for rebuilding the outpost. There is after all, an empty hulk of transformed veldspar left in space. Could be a nice isk sink.
≡v≡ once was about internet spaceships. Then those became serious business. Now all that's left, serious business, and spaceships are docked for two years till after the Dust of Incarna. |
Fournone
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 23:47:00 -
[30]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources WHEREAS~ Obvious troll because anyone with internet can see there isnt even 1 outpost in every 10 systems in 0.0
*cough*providence*cough*
Quote: WHEREAS~ this plan would make the vast majority except areas held by the same alliance for an incredibly long time complete ****ing wastelends because people would simply get tired of rebuilding. Increasing the population in empire and decreasing that in 0.0 further.
If you build it, more will come, if you desteroy it, they will rebuild. If you fought and died fro this space, defending or attacking, ofc you'll rebuild, otherwise whats the point?
Quote: Great plan!
yep, dominion was an amazing expansion.
|
|
BuRniZZ
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.16 00:50:00 -
[31]
Got my support. Say no to Stationshooting online!
|
Trelayne
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.16 02:47:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Trelayne on 16/10/2010 02:47:55 Nice idea malc big thumbs up from me! Like the idea of it being tied to incarna and saboteurs too
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2010.10.16 05:01:00 -
[33]
I don't like the idea of destroying a station just by pressing a button, but I do like this idea. I would like it to be more of a death star type thing. You build a death star and its a one shot deal, it travels to its target system slowly and then takes a few days to power up its main gun and then wrecks the station. Should be a way to cause some more fights as well.
It could even be the basis for a new expansion, an expansion based on a giant death sphere that wrecks stations is about 100x more interesting then some more sansha rats. - It's not "Play through a pre-set story, become stronger, do endgame". Gameplay is open ended, and you make your own story. Unless you're too afraid of 'pvp grief' to do anything relevant |
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.10.16 05:44:00 -
[34]
Originally by: BuRniZZ Got my support. Say no to Stationshooting online!
what part of the following did you not understand?:
Quote: To wreck a station requires that there be no sovereignty in the system, and that the outpost be reduced to zero shields and armour (ie: an outpost that has recently been captured).
Cautious support. If implemented, the rate of destruction and consequences should be analyzed for impact on 0.0 population drop. The destruction requirements should then be rebalanced. ________________________ CCP: Where fixing bugs is a luxury, not an obligation. |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.16 07:52:00 -
[35]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources WHEREAS~ Obvious troll because anyone with internet can see there isnt even 1 outpost in every 10 systems in 0.0
~530 outposts, ~3000 sov 0.0 systems.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
WHEREAS~ this plan would make the vast majority except areas held by the same alliance for an incredibly long time complete ****ing wastelends because people would simply get tired of rebuilding. Increasing the population in empire and decreasing that in 0.0 further.
Great plan!
Outposts cost less than an Aeon at market prices these days.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.16 09:36:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Vaal Erit I don't like the idea of destroying a station just by pressing a button, but I do like this idea. I would like it to be more of a death star type thing. You build a death star and its a one shot deal, it travels to its target system slowly and then takes a few days to power up its main gun and then wrecks the station. Should be a way to cause some more fights as well.
It could even be the basis for a new expansion, an expansion based on a giant death sphere that wrecks stations is about 100x more interesting then some more sansha rats.
Oh yes! A ship that flies something like a freighter, huge and slow, you fly it to a station, and activate destruct mode, like a 10 minute seige timer or something. Replace the 12 hour wait with a slow vulnerable ship that has to be physically moved in to place. Nice, that's much better than a boring anchorable module.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Pascal Almaric
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2010.10.16 11:32:00 -
[37]
Thumbs up.
I think the wrecking module should be more expensive, costly enough that people will (mostly) only use it if they have a strategic reason rather than for lulz.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.10.16 14:39:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources WHEREAS~ Obvious troll because anyone with internet can see there isnt even 1 outpost in every 10 systems in 0.0
~530 outposts, ~3000 sov 0.0 systems.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
WHEREAS~ this plan would make the vast majority except areas held by the same alliance for an incredibly long time complete ****ing wastelends because people would simply get tired of rebuilding. Increasing the population in empire and decreasing that in 0.0 further.
Great plan!
Outposts cost less than an Aeon at market prices these days.
Aeon's "at market value" are over double what they cost to build because people are stupid. Anyone paying 20b+ for a Supercarrier is getting swindled.
I also notice you fail to provide a link or source of data for your outposts to system ratio. You simply provide a number that is mysteriously the exact ratio you suggested earlier.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.10.16 18:34:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Pascal Almaric Thumbs up.
I think the wrecking module should be more expensive, costly enough that people will (mostly) only use it if they have a strategic reason rather than for lulz.
You mean like how when Titans were originally introduced they were designed to be so expensive that they'd be a rare sight and surely no alliance would be able to afford more than 1 or 2 of them?
Cost based restrictions never work in EVE. At all. Ever. Attemping to introduce one will simply give the rich superpowers another tool which they can wave around when they need to keep smaller alliances in line.
-----------------
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.16 18:48:00 -
[40]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources WHEREAS~ Obvious troll because anyone with internet can see there isnt even 1 outpost in every 10 systems in 0.0
~530 outposts, ~3000 sov 0.0 systems.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
WHEREAS~ this plan would make the vast majority except areas held by the same alliance for an incredibly long time complete ****ing wastelends because people would simply get tired of rebuilding. Increasing the population in empire and decreasing that in 0.0 further.
Great plan!
Outposts cost less than an Aeon at market prices these days.
Aeon's "at market value" are over double what they cost to build because people are stupid. Anyone paying 20b+ for a Supercarrier is getting swindled.
I also notice you fail to provide a link or source of data for your outposts to system ratio. You simply provide a number that is mysteriously the exact ratio you suggested earlier.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
|
Glyken Touchon
Independent Alchemists
|
Posted - 2010.10.16 18:52:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Glyken Touchon on 16/10/2010 18:55:22 Supporting the principle, as it would introduce a new mineral sink.
Make it a capital only module (dreadnaught?).
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.10.16 21:00:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Malcanis http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance
That list seems to count conquerable stations which were spawned from day one of EVE, not just player-constructed outposts.
-----------------
|
Xianthar
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.17 08:14:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Malcanis http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance
That list seems to count conquerable stations which were spawned from day one of EVE, not just player-constructed outposts.
Yea it does, but there are only like 50 something conquerable stations, for example 8 of IT's 67 are conquerable stations.
Not that it matters, they can abide by the same rules as outposts IMO.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.17 09:16:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Malcanis http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance
That list seems to count conquerable stations which were spawned from day one of EVE, not just player-constructed outposts.
Why should these be treated differently?
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Taudia
Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.10.17 09:49:00 -
[45]
Supported, though I have a few gripes with the proposal.
1) If the station wrecks are permanent fixtures, wouldn't we just end up cluttering space with station wrecks instead? Surely a rebuilding mechanism is sensible.
2) I am not sure I understand the mechanic you propose for accessing items in a wrecked station. Is the idea that anyone now has access to everything, in terms for ships and/or items, in that station? if that is the case, the load this would place on the server is completely unjustifiable.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.10.17 10:47:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Malcanis http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance
That list seems to count conquerable stations which were spawned from day one of EVE, not just player-constructed outposts.
Why should these be treated differently?
They probably shouldn't, but you included their numbers in your OP when talking about the amount of outpost systems and rate at which new outposts were being built, which distorts the actual figures somewhat.
-----------------
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.17 11:32:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Malcanis http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance
That list seems to count conquerable stations which were spawned from day one of EVE, not just player-constructed outposts.
Why should these be treated differently?
They probably shouldn't, but you included their numbers in your OP when talking about the amount of outpost systems and rate at which new outposts were being built, which distorts the actual figures somewhat.
At the current rate of outpost creation, a few dozen conquerables are barely a couple of month's worth of building - 30 outposts have been built in the last 35 days, and as it is, player built outposts outnumber them 10:1.
When new outposts are being created at the rate of almost 1 per day, then we have to consider that they're no longer special enough to be immune from destruction.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.10.17 13:32:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Malcanis The items involved are deployable modules like SBUs or TCUs. I propose an equivalent manufacturing cost of 500 million ISK at today's material prices.
Balancing game mechanics purely by cost is seldom a good idea. I'd suggest making it of negligible cost, but tricky to deploy (freighter required).
Quote: To wreck a station requires that there be no sovereignty in the system, and that the outpost be reduced to zero shields and armour (ie: an outpost that has recently been captured). Once deployed, the module will take 12 hours to activate. Successfully onlining a TCU during this period will cancel the demolition timer.
I think a 24-hr timer would be necessary, as any significant changes to outposts would probably need to be done over downtime, as with outpost deployment.
Quote:
Wrecking a station has the following effects:
(1) All station upgrades are irrevocably destroyed
How would this work if all the offices were occupied and removing the upgrades reduced the number of offices?
Quote:
(2) All station services are irrevocably destroyed, with the sole exception that ships can be assembled (but not fitted)
(3) All market orders are immediately cancelled, with the ISK and items being returned to wallets and hangars respectively. Market taxes are not refunded. Items and ships in a wrecked station cannot be contracted. The outpost no longer appears as a market location.
Presumably R&D jobs in progress at the outpost would be cancelled. What about jobs taking place at starbases elsewhere in the system with the BPO in the outpost?
Also, re medical clones: The default location should transfer back to corp HQ (which is always a station in Empire).
I think making the transition Outpost -> non-Outpost with the remaining conditions you suggest would be quite a lot of work to implement. I think there are 2 other options which would work better:
1. Leave an intact outpost in a permanently crippled state, with all services disabled, all corp assets irrevocably impounded and all docking rights revoked. The owner of the outpost should have the option to rebuild it by deploying a similar device in a similar way, costing maybe half what an outpost costs to build.
2. Remove the outpost entirely, along with everything (items, clones and all) inside it at the time of destruction. I think this is the better option --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust
|
Posted - 2010.10.17 13:40:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Lykouleon on 17/10/2010 13:41:58 Holy F*** someone else in this world that knows how to make a motion based on Roberts Rules of Order. MARRY ME!!!!
Other than that, supported...but I seriously hope CCP gives it a much cooler name.
edit: stupid support button...
Quote: Lord Makk > Be warned, Lykouleon is akin to the love-child of a Goon and a Maru'Kage, with just a touch of Butter Dog for bitterness
|
Orb Vex
|
Posted - 2010.10.17 14:32:00 -
[50]
|
|
Sotemnus
Starkstrom The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.17 15:24:00 -
[51]
Great idea |
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2010.10.17 15:41:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 17/10/2010 15:42:57 this is very similar to the pillage idea I've heard about outposts.
I agree with the general concept, except that I disagree with destroying medical clones. I think that can create a lot of problems for people. I also think it's not necessary if you keep jump clones alive. Considering people wont be able to resupply (fit ships, bring in new stuff, etc), people wont want to keep their med clone in a destroyed station anyway. I'm also not sure about treating it as a big corp hangar array, as it would suddenly leave a lot of people's personal items vulnerable for theft (who has access to the container contents, etc).
I have one suggestion: allow people to rebuild the outpost in the same way you build one in the first place. The outpost is wrecked but you can put raw materials into it (like you put in an outpost egg). Once you've filled it up, the outpost can be repaired/rebuilt and once again open for business. This should be a significant cost, of course - but not quite as much as a new outpost. Allowing this mechanic also justifies keeping people's stuff "trapped" in a destroyed outpost. Want your crap back? Rebuild the outpost!
* * * Director of Education :: EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman
|
K'racker
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.10.18 02:58:00 -
[53]
Edited by: K''racker on 18/10/2010 02:59:47 you want to be able to destroy stations you're losing, while still being able to get your stuff out, at your convenience.
like self destructing a ship, and the modules aren't destroyed, but go into a permanent wreck, that only you can loot.
not supported. if you're that spiteful to deny a station to those who've beaten you, be ready to lose everything, when you pop the station.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.10.18 03:18:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources WHEREAS~ Obvious troll because anyone with internet can see there isnt even 1 outpost in every 10 systems in 0.0
~530 outposts, ~3000 sov 0.0 systems.
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
WHEREAS~ this plan would make the vast majority except areas held by the same alliance for an incredibly long time complete ****ing wastelends because people would simply get tired of rebuilding. Increasing the population in empire and decreasing that in 0.0 further.
Great plan!
Outposts cost less than an Aeon at market prices these days.
Aeon's "at market value" are over double what they cost to build because people are stupid. Anyone paying 20b+ for a Supercarrier is getting swindled.
I also notice you fail to provide a link or source of data for your outposts to system ratio. You simply provide a number that is mysteriously the exact ratio you suggested earlier.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance
Here is where I point out your "data" only shows the number of player owned outposts vs player owned systems. It does not in fact show the hundreds upon hundreds of completely unconquered space because let's face it, it's largely worthless.
|
Wenoc
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.18 06:19:00 -
[55]
Excellent.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.18 06:26:00 -
[56]
Originally by: K'racker Edited by: K''racker on 18/10/2010 02:59:47 you want to be able to destroy stations you're losing, while still being able to get your stuff out, at your convenience.
like self destructing a ship, and the modules aren't destroyed, but go into a permanent wreck, that only you can loot.
not supported. if you're that spiteful to deny a station to those who've beaten you, be ready to lose everything, when you pop the station.
Note that wrecking a station would imply having system control for at least 8 hours. That's an odd definition of "beaten".
But even if it weren't what of it? I can self destruct a ship; why not a station? The basis of my proposal is that outposts just aren't that special any more.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.18 06:29:00 -
[57]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Here is where I point out your "data" only shows the number of player owned outposts vs player owned systems. It does not in fact show the hundreds upon hundreds of completely unconquered space because let's face it, it's largely worthless.
Here is where I point out that you should learn both to read and to count. Maths is really pretty easy once you try to learn it, and there are lots of good people willing to help you start.
After that, you can make a start on basic logic - which will perhaps enable you to explain why the number of claimed systems is in any way relevant.
Once you have done that, then you'll be in a position to possibly make a useful contribution to this thread.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Enlat
|
Posted - 2010.10.18 09:21:00 -
[58]
I like that Idea!
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.18 16:52:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 17/10/2010 15:49:10 this is very similar to the pillage idea I've heard about outposts.
I agree with the general concept, except that I disagree with destroying medical clones. I think that can create a lot of problems for people. I also think it's not necessary if you keep jump clones alive anyway, why not med clones too? Considering people wont be able to resupply (fit ships, bring in new stuff, etc), people wont want to keep their med clone in a destroyed station anyway. I'm also not sure about treating it as a big corp hangar array, as it would suddenly leave a lot of people's personal items vulnerable for theft (who has access to the container contents, etc).
I have one suggestion: allow people to rebuild the outpost in the same way you build one in the first place. The outpost is wrecked but you can put raw materials into it (like you put in an outpost egg). Once you've filled it up, the outpost can be repaired/rebuilt and once again open for business. This should be a significant cost, of course - but not quite as much as a new outpost. Allowing this mechanic also justifies keeping people's stuff "trapped" in a destroyed outpost. Want your crap back? Rebuild the outpost! This should require sov in the system, obviously.
I'm not sure that it's really needed to make them recoverable. It's not like it's that hard to build them. However if they are recoverable, then the upgrades should not be.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.10.18 17:20:00 -
[60]
to get some real numbers behind the discussion: SELECT count( `solarSystemID` ) FROM `mapSolarSystems` WHERE `regionID` IN (SELECT `regionID` FROM `mapRegions` WHERE `regionID` < 11000000 AND `factionID` IS NULL) AND `security` <= 0.0;
that returns 2858;
regionID greater than 11000000 are wh space.
|
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.10.19 02:11:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Here is where I point out your "data" only shows the number of player owned outposts vs player owned systems. It does not in fact show the hundreds upon hundreds of completely unconquered space because let's face it, it's largely worthless.
Here is where I point out that you should learn both to read and to count. Maths is really pretty easy once you try to learn it, and there are lots of good people willing to help you start.
After that, you can make a start on basic logic - which will perhaps enable you to explain why the number of claimed systems is in any way relevant.
Once you have done that, then you'll be in a position to possibly make a useful contribution to this thread.
Saying "ur bad at math" doesn't do anything to make my point less valid. You still have yet to show us where you found a count of how many 0.0 systems there are total.
|
Qolthus
ldiocracy
|
Posted - 2010.10.19 05:18:00 -
[62]
An excellent idea and well laid out... CCP give this one a serious look.
|
Zeerover
Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.10.19 13:17:00 -
[63]
Supported
|
Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 01:24:00 -
[64]
|
CATTYS
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 08:27:00 -
[65]
suported too...but i dont thing this will happend soone...
|
Zothike
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 09:42:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Zothike on 20/10/2010 09:45:38 Edited by: Zothike on 20/10/2010 09:45:14 I support it even if 80% of all my assets are trapped in 0.0 station i dont have access to at the moment :p will bring indeed many new gameplay but -yes a ship instead of a module, would make a worthy new class of ship (not easy to create one now) and some time sink for new skill(s) to train "station destroyer lvl5 skill completed" ^^ -full station removal with all content = no (and fortunatly people who want that dont work for the game industry...) -should be possible to rebuild outpost i suggest you to submit it for the next CSM that will happen the 23/10 as for now nothing is scheduled http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1390186
|
Jin Labarre
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 15:27:00 -
[67]
For everything that can be created in game, no matter what it is, there has to be a way to remove, destroy, consume or demolish it. Ships, modules, titans, stations,... doesn't matter. All things that players can create needs a method of removal, because otherwise it will be spammed everywhere. Stations took a while to become irritatingly normal in zerosec and it may even be a bit longer before the number of outposts starts reminding of highsec stations, but unless a method to get rid of them is introduced, it will happen because it has to happen.
I'd not go for any weird station destroyer modules or ships, though. Look at the things. They are small outposts. Those things are not battle fortresses (which would be cool to have) layered in shells of rock, shields and armor plates. They are just huge buildings. Once you have full access to a building, taking it apart is a simple matter of whether or not you want to do it.
In EVE, the method to strip apart immobile, unshielded, defenceless objects are mining lasers and salvagers. So the logical choice would be to give two options to get the dismantling process started.
1. Controlled deconstruction. Just starts a timer of about 1 week and if the station has not changed hands again by that time, it is dismantled and turns into a station wreck resembling the skeletal structure of what it has once been and two containers of which one contains a take-only hangar with everyone's stuff inside (where you can only access your own stuff ofc) and another take-only can that includes a portion of the stuff that was invested into building the outpost in the first place.
2. Scuttle. To do that, fly in a big load of explosives, which thanks to PI already exist, wire the station of demolition and start a 1 day timer. After that -> *Boom*. Outpost is turned into a wreck with the aforementioned containers. The second one being empty. In turn for not returning any building material, the station wreck can be salvaged with capital salvagers (like normal salvagers, only on carriers, but could work with regular salvagers too), which produce a steady supply of metal scraps (which nobody loves, but they can be refined into tritanium at least) and a little bit of actual salvage (armor plates, tritanium bars, some circuit and capacitor stuff,...). 4-5 carriers should take a few hours to pull out all available metal scraps and salvage. Skeletal structure of the station remains.
In both cases, anyone with control of the system could simply rebuild the station if he wants to, using the station wreck as an already existing outpost construction platform. Just put the materials needed to build the outpost in the material can and rebuild it as if you'd build a new one.
With the ability to destroy outposts and gain something from doing it at the same time, there is motivation for many entities in EVE to actually do so. -- Smoke me a Rifter. I'll be back for lagfest. |
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 17:42:00 -
[68]
Nice, I like this idea.
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sig.php |
Krotfric McEnchroe
Medical Mechanical Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.10.20 19:34:00 -
[69]
Sounds like a good idea
|
Xtops
ldiocracy
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 05:29:00 -
[70]
|
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 14:49:00 -
[71]
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Wreck_outposts_%28CSM%29
will bring this up in the meeting on the 24th
* * * Director of Education :: EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman
|
Train Tracks
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 18:11:00 -
[72]
sounds pretty cool...supported!!!!
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2010.10.24 17:30:00 -
[73]
this issue was passed 5/3 and will be presented to CCP
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Wreck_outposts_%28CSM%29
* * * Director of Education :: EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.24 17:33:00 -
[74]
I'd like to thank Deidre for spending a considerable amount of time with me refining the concept and clarifying some ambiguities.
Thanks also to the people in this thread who supported and critiqued the idea.
And finally, props to Ed from HR for taking the first steps towards improving his education.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Br41n
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 13:01:00 -
[75]
Well make the hull hitpoints huge and give the station nanobots that repair hull slowly so that this has to be done fielding capital ships.
Also if this would be possible the station should have slots to put defense batteries in that go in effect when the timer hits 0 and the station becomes destructable shooting ships based on standings (bit weird now aint it that in empire all stations have sentry guns but you cant put them around your outposts) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pinky: Gee, Brain. What are we going to do tonight?
Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Don Pellegrino
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.10.29 14:11:00 -
[76]
Excellent idea.
|
Veriasse Valence
Axitek Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 01:13:00 -
[77]
I like this idea! If outposts are left permanent forever eventually all of 0.0 will look like Empire, and some regions already do (I participated in creating the madness that is Providence).
|
El Mauru
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 02:44:00 -
[78]
good stuff. supported. doubt it'd make it in anytime soon but there's always hoping
|
illford baker
STK Scientific IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 03:16:00 -
[79]
players brought outposts into this world, and we should be able to take em out. theoretically, you could use this to self destruct an outpost so you can place a new one of your liking in its place. though, it would have to be for a very good reason to spend all that isk.
|
Cheekything
Gallente Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 04:47:00 -
[80]
Would be fun but not practical.
The problem isn't that stations are too cheap but that it's better to place them now due to them being involved with sov.
Like before people would drop 50 large towers at 360 mill each (18 bill) which is the equivalent to a station.
Also I remember someone from CCP saying why it couldn't happen when someone asked asked about a Station Class ship that could move about.
|
|
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 04:58:00 -
[81]
No
0.0 is not utilized enough as it is, making outpost destroyable will just make even fewer folks in 0.0 it is counterproductive.
|
Leksi Bar'zuk
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 05:08:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 31/10/2010 05:13:05 Edited by: Leksi Bar''zuk on 31/10/2010 05:12:25 +1
Originally by: El'Niaga No
0.0 is not utilized enough as it is, making outpost destroyable will just make even fewer folks in 0.0 it is counterproductive.
Baww, nullbear tears. Please don't bring that not enough players in 0.0 crap up again. There are plenty of targets.. I mean players out here, and more than enough stations too. Allowing them to get ****ed places at least SOME pressure on alliances to protect border turf rather than just re-flip at a later date. If people just rebuild, awsome, another mineral sink in the game is just what we need.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 10:37:00 -
[83]
Originally by: El'Niaga No
0.0 is not utilized enough as it is, making outpost destroyable will just make even fewer folks in 0.0 it is counterproductive.
Counterpoint: the last QEN snapshot showed that 37% of characters were in 0.0 space.
Additionally, the CSM have already passed the proposal as per Deidre's post above.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Lady Parity
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.10.31 14:14:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Lady Parity on 31/10/2010 14:15:30 Idea is good, I am all for killing stations / outposts but lets be realistic here if CCP allowed this you would just get bigger alliances griefing smaller alliances.
Dont get me wrong I really like the idea of this but we all know how the fat guys work in this game and for easy kills they will attack things smaller than them just for the sake of attacking.
Eitherway I will support since it does promote more PvP but thats not to say it wont be abused
|
Lucy PewPew
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 12:48:00 -
[85]
I'll let my posting alt give support to this. I currently have assets trapped in 0.0 outposts/stations, losing them due to destruction doesn't seem too different. I've just a couple of things I'd like to add:
I don't like the idea of making it a special ship to wreck outposts. It should be possible using conventional means. If this means that a Titan blob kills it quicker so be it. This is a sandbox, stop putting artificial limits on things.
If its a wreck make it function like a wreck. Only a portion of assets should survive wrecking. I don't like the idea of the wrecker not being able to loot the station wreck. It seems a bit clunky to allow people to access their own hangers from external to the wreck as well. What is stopping other people from doing that?
I understand that it is a UI challenge but it would be good to have various containers available within the station wreck corresponding to different corp and personal hangers. Perhaps use of the archeology skill to open up the hangers, with the hacking skill being used to try and gain access to password protected containers stored within them. You could maybe give a bonus to people trying to recover their own materials from the station given that they'd know where to look.
I'd also destroy all clones in the station, probably ships too. If you are docked you're podded and appear either at your clone location, or the nearest empire NPC station, if your clone was at the station.
|
earthope
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 23:44:00 -
[86]
like the idea! like others, i think it would be nice to have the option to completly remove the station wreck by exploding it or turning it into scrap metal (or more)if wanted. don't like the idea of a special ship to do this.. and think there must be a way for the new owners of sov to loot everything that hasn't been destroyed in the station . i admit that the idea of letting it accecible only to the first owners can lead to some nice fights, but after some times, if the first owners haven't been able to take their assets back, new owners should be able to do whatever they want from that wreck.
so, for the clones,yes, medical clone should be send to the high sec corp HQ, and jump clone could be active until the new sov owners have the possibility to fully destroy the station. this could be done after some time that has to be determine: maybe not just a timer, maybe with some system that force the old owners to regulary (and lightly) fueling the station wreck for maintaining minimal security fonction for their assets)
i'm not a big eve player,so, i can think it wrong, but i think it could be a nice way to do it! oh, and, no wreck or large collidable object, i'm for some new name in overview for station's wreck.
(sorry for my poor english )
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 00:25:00 -
[87]
All player structures have to be destroyable, one way or another.
And I don't want to hear any carebear bull**** from CCP about clones and personal items in the hangar - all must be destroyed.
|
Voddick
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 15:34:00 -
[88]
Yes to isk sinks
|
Thyme Waster
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 21:17:00 -
[89]
Moar isky sinky
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 12:54:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Lady Parity Edited by: Lady Parity on 31/10/2010 14:15:30 Idea is good, I am all for killing stations / outposts but lets be realistic here if CCP allowed this you would just get bigger alliances griefing smaller alliances.
Dont get me wrong I really like the idea of this but we all know how the fat guys work in this game and for easy kills they will attack things smaller than them just for the sake of attacking.
Eitherway I will support since it does promote more PvP but thats not to say it wont be abused
What smaller alliances?
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
|
Shobon Welp
GoonFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 13:56:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Malcanis What smaller alliances?
The fact that some existing features serve to screw over smaller alliances does not mean you're free to ignore the danger of further screwing them over when introducing new features.
Granting an outpost wrecker which megacoalitions can churn out in large numbers and hold over the heads of smaller groups to keep them on their knees is a powerful tool for maintaining the status quo. Pretty much everyone seems in principle to be in favour of CCP reworking 0.0 to somehow incentivise smaller spaceholding alliances, but granting another tool which will more likely be used against them than by them clearly risks working against that aim.
And of course, to ensure a level playing field its only fair that such a weapon should also be deployable against NPC stations in lowsec and NPC 0.0 (perhaps introduced as part of an expanded and revamped Factional Warfare review).
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 15:43:00 -
[92]
(1) There aren't any "small alliances" independantly holding space in sov 0.0. Nor are there ever likely to be on anything except a very temporary basis.
(2) Even if there were, how could it worse for them to be kicked out of their space and the outpost to be wrecked - which allows them at least a chance to retrieve assets - than it is for them to simply be kicked and to be locked out of the outpost?
(3) Outpost wrecking is actually more dangerous for large alliances, since (as I said on page 1) they actually have to defend their peripheral outposts, rather than complacently assuming that they can let 1 or 2 fall to an insurgency, only to gain them back later.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |