Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
283
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 21:02:54 -
[211] - Quote
I think its way too soon before Fozziesov to change how assets are stored. Changing this mechanic is NOT going to increase 'content'. I'd much rather keep the current system. Having your assets locked in a station you no longer own is more than enough to encourage getting a station back. Ask yourself, did Solar finally get their stuff back from RPO or whatever system that was? Those are now assets that can be used again, to create content.
Also lets not forget that this mechanic will be exploited for the sole purpose of grrreifing. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2225
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 21:22:43 -
[212] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:I think its way too soon before Fozziesov to change how assets are stored. Changing this mechanic is NOT going to increase 'content'. I'd much rather keep the current system. Having your assets locked in a station you no longer own is more than enough to encourage getting a station back. Ask yourself, did Solar finally get their stuff back from RPO or whatever system that was? Those are now assets that can be used again, to create content.
Also lets not forget that this mechanic will be exploited for the sole purpose of grrreifing. its going to be hard to get the structure back when its been blown to smithereens. |
Arctic Estidal
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club
19
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 13:08:15 -
[213] - Quote
If a station is destructible and contents inside. remove fatigue from Jump Freighters and increase the hold size by x100 so I can fit everything I own in it.
Everyone keeps talking about how good it is going to be looting structures. But no one will invest in null sec and its costs billions in upgrades etc already if you have little protection from being raided and you cannot perform an evac because of the jump fatigue, limit on jump freighter holds, capital ship jump reduction etc, makes the process impossible. |
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
116
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 16:28:50 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Also, please note, it is possible for such mechanics to only be available in the largest structures (most likely XL) since existing Starbases do not have any kind of item safety mechanic (and would likely end up as L size equivalent in the new model). Is it also possible to make sure that Large POS's maintain their ability to ward off attacks (or discourage) like they currently are in HS. As hinted the new "large" structures will be much easier to dispatch than what current "large POS's" are...at which point what is the motivation for even putting one up if it takes very little relative commitment to be destroyed...hyperdunking these new structures might become a thing if you are not careful. |
Fzhal
Anoikis Vergence The Last Chancers.
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 17:36:54 -
[215] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:I think its way too soon before Fozziesov to change how assets are stored. Changing this mechanic is NOT going to increase 'content'. I'd much rather keep the current system. Having your assets locked in a station you no longer own is more than enough to encourage getting a station back. Ask yourself, did Solar finally get their stuff back from RPO or whatever system that was? Those are now assets that can be used again, to create content.
Also lets not forget that this mechanic will be exploited for the sole purpose of grrreifing. Yep, within the next 3-5 releases they are going to be re-sculpting everything that is 0.0. This is going to be one of the biggest events in Eve's history.
Upcoming Changes: Null belts/ore content (has put the markets in limbo) Null mineral increase in BPOs Structures, which primarily affect Null (specifically, ship safety will be re-defined no matter how hard they try to keep it the same) Sovereignty mechanics
This is too much at once. There will be too much noise between these factors to the point that CCP is will be unable to pinpoint the right things to tweak among all the changes that were made in null's interconnected system. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1668
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 19:10:16 -
[216] - Quote
Arctic Estidal wrote:If a station is destructible and contents inside. remove fatigue from Jump Freighters and increase the hold size by x100 so I can fit everything I own in it.
Everyone keeps talking about how good it is going to be looting structures. But no one will invest in null sec and its costs billions in upgrades etc already if you have little protection from being raided and you cannot perform an evac because of the jump fatigue, limit on jump freighter holds, capital ship jump reduction etc, makes the process impossible.
Don't worry, the attacking side will be stuck with the exact same problem if it happen. How the hell will they haul all that loot anyway?
"Hahahahahha I can loot whatever I can!!!!"
*open can window*
*client load content*
*client freeze*
*CTD*
"WTF CCP???!?!?!?!!" |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
284
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 19:56:55 -
[217] - Quote
Let us also consider that Eve is about shooting spaceships and blowing up spaceships. Destructible stations that risk stored assets, station market stores or contracts, are going to have at least two CATASTROPHIC effects to this:
1. People will keep as few ships as possible in stations (resulting in much less pew pew)
2. People will keep far less things on market or contracts (resulting in even less pew pew as less replacements are available) |
Fzhal
Anoikis Vergence The Last Chancers.
7
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 20:01:08 -
[218] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:Let us also consider that Eve is about shooting spaceships and blowing up spaceships. Destructible stations that risk stored assets, station market stores or contracts, are going to have at least two CATASTROPHIC effects to this:
1. People will keep as few ships as possible in stations (resulting in much less pew pew)
2. People will keep far less things on market or contracts (resulting in even less pew pew as less replacements are available) 3. Alliance staging systems will move to Low-Sec |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2233
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 21:48:56 -
[219] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:Let us also consider that Eve is about shooting spaceships and blowing up spaceships. Destructible stations that risk stored assets, station market stores or contracts, are going to have at least two CATASTROPHIC effects to this:
1. People will keep as few ships as possible in stations (resulting in much less pew pew)
2. People will keep far less things on market or contracts (resulting in even less pew pew as less replacements are available) Why are you assuming the assets are going to be destroyed? |
w1ndstrike
Strange Energy The Bastion
25
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 23:16:48 -
[220] - Quote
Rowells wrote:SFM Hobb3s wrote:Let us also consider that Eve is about shooting spaceships and blowing up spaceships. Destructible stations that risk stored assets, station market stores or contracts, are going to have at least two CATASTROPHIC effects to this:
1. People will keep as few ships as possible in stations (resulting in much less pew pew)
2. People will keep far less things on market or contracts (resulting in even less pew pew as less replacements are available) Why are you assuming the assets are going to be destroyed?
he doesn't assume asset destruction, he assumes loss of assets (someone looting them still means the original owner loses them)
this is my primary concern with this as I have outlined in previous postings. I have yet to see a good reason for having asset loss from destruction or looting that would actually be healthy for the game as a whole.
for anyone else who hasn't read the whole thread: try to think about the whole game ecosystem before you form an opinion. looting might sound cool until you realize it's also why you'll have to go 50+ jumps to find anyone to fight in nullsec. |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2234
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 23:33:08 -
[221] - Quote
w1ndstrike wrote:Rowells wrote:SFM Hobb3s wrote:Let us also consider that Eve is about shooting spaceships and blowing up spaceships. Destructible stations that risk stored assets, station market stores or contracts, are going to have at least two CATASTROPHIC effects to this:
1. People will keep as few ships as possible in stations (resulting in much less pew pew)
2. People will keep far less things on market or contracts (resulting in even less pew pew as less replacements are available) Why are you assuming the assets are going to be destroyed? he doesn't assume asset destruction, he assumes loss of assets (someone looting them still means the original owner loses them) this is my primary concern with this as I have outlined in previous postings. I have yet to see a good reason for having asset loss from destruction or looting that would actually be healthy for the game as a whole. for anyone else who hasn't read the whole thread: try to think about the whole game ecosystem before you form an opinion. looting might sound cool until you realize it's also why you'll have to go 50+ jumps to find anyone to fight in nullsec. I'm not seeing where personal belongings are being looted either, unless you're referring to another players suggestions |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
925
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 13:30:01 -
[222] - Quote
Phig Neutron wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:I'm seeing a couple of 1000 eve players that really haven't embraced the core concept of loss that is eve. Another high school kid that doesn't grasp the concept that there is life outside of EVE. If the game demands a 24 hour commitment, it will lose most of its players. Permanent loss of assets is a great mechanic when you are actually playing the game, not when it means you can't log out for a family vacation.
Actually, when folks in my wh corp take a break 1 of several options occur.
1. We help them put their stuff in HS for safe storage (it's a big pita when you consider wh mass a good route and so on) 2. They just donate all thier non evac'd assets to corp (they donate them, we don't confiscate them) 3. If they leave unexpectedly, then we move out what we feel is appropriate and contract it to them when they get back. (Use a corp contract from a random station you don't use and let it go to the corp hangar when it expires)
As a HS graduate that has raised 3 college graduates I do grasp that there is life outside of eve. Heck, I even have a responsible job - I've had one my entire life.
If you don't have enough faith in your corp/alliance that you fear losing all your poop while on vacation, then I'll recommend a better corp/alliance or moving stuff to a safe haven until you get back.
Every WH player / director / CEO really understands that they could lose everything. Heck you could personally be dunking my system as I type this (I'm at work... read up about that job thing I have). Yeah I do laugh at you big bad null bears and your need to not lose assets. In my mind it comes down to this. Mega alliance leadership can't realistically protect all their minion's assets, so they rely on CCP to provide protection for them.
Your only justification for not being able to manage your assets and/or those of your corpmates comes down to lazy (It's too difficult for me to haul all my / his stuff to an npc station) or you're group is just too big to be able to take care of itself logistically. Either way - I think your a bunch of lazy crybabies and there really isn't anything you can say on this forum to change that.
I would think it fair for CCP to give 8months to a year heads up that null stations will actually be destroyed and lootable after sustaining millions of points of damage. (I've never gotten my arms around shooting a station for millions of points of damage 3 times and then occupying a perfectly useable station via... magic??
TL/DR Blow the crap up for real and loot the spoils. If you still want a station there - build a new one. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
928
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 13:39:24 -
[223] - Quote
w1ndstrike wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:As a wh gal I find this whole discussion of the safety of ones assets after you get your poop pushed in kind of amusing. I'm seeing a couple of 1000 eve players that really haven't embraced the core concept of loss that is eve. Very amusing indeed.
I'm seeing folks feeling entitled to the rewards of living in null but also demanding the safety of empire stations. This dichotomy is quite interesting. as a wormholer you made a conscious choice with full knowledge of the risks/rewards and with a specific set of expectations. you are correct is saying that loss is a part of eve, however in nearly all cases you know the risks before you choose (or not) to take them. choice vs imposition is a big deal. impositions cause massive changes in player psychology because they set a precedent of "even if you calculate your risks you can still get ****** by changes on a whim" which is bad for the continued health of the game. loss in eve should be meaningful, and usually that's a result of choosing to take a calculated risk and succeeding or failing. getting screwed by something you had no way to expect or plan for is not meaningful, its just **** game design. basic premise: outpost destruction is cool, loss of assets for those that put them there when a different set of assumptions was in play is not.
I agree, CCP should give 8 months notice that things are changing. Feel free to conquer any stations containing stranded assets in the interim.
I really don't want to hear that everyone will quit eve if station destruction were to come about. I have more faith in the player base than that. They just won't put their crap in poorly defended stations.
A station owner should have 3 options. 1. Cut some sort of deal and hand it over in one piece (negotiate asset removal as needed). 2. Fight it out, and if need be - cut a deal during the defense and hand over a broken station. 3. Fight it out until the end and leave only loot and a great story.
I think grinding down a station over time and then getting a shiny new one w/ no damage is the work of magic and belongs in other types of games. |
w1ndstrike
Strange Energy The Bastion
25
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 23:45:05 -
[224] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote: I agree, CCP should give 8 months notice that things are changing. Feel free to conquer any stations containing stranded assets in the interim.
I really don't want to hear that everyone will quit eve if station destruction were to come about. I have more faith in the player base than that. They just won't put their crap in poorly defended stations.
A station owner should have 3 options. 1. Cut some sort of deal and hand it over in one piece (negotiate asset removal as needed). 2. Fight it out, and if need be - cut a deal during the defense and hand over a broken station. 3. Fight it out until the end and leave only loot and a great story.
I think grinding down a station over time and then getting a shiny new one w/ no damage is the work of magic and belongs in other types of games.
the one major problem that we have to acknowledge is that entities DO exist that will headshot major systems just to get tears. not for any other reason.
this creates several problems in nullsec environments that wormholes currently mitigate to some degree by nature. for wormholes, there is a limit to how much of an attacking force can enter the hole and threaten your stuff, no such inherent protection really exists in null, if someone who wants to watch your system burn feels inclined and has them available, they could drop 300 caps in your system and destroy everything you own.
the scenario above would give people even more reason to blob together with the most powerful single entities (or get held hostage by them); precisely the scenario that CCP has openly stated they're working to prevent.
personally I have loved WH space since its creation because it represents the ultimate risk/reward system in eve that actually has an artificial limiter to give the defender a decent advantage (unless you plan poorly then its your own damn fault). null doesn't have that by it's nature as a static system and the existence of blops/jump drives/null T3s/etc.
null does get some things wormholes don't, mostly the ability to create region markets and have actual supported economies, but both of these rely on some level of protections for the assets involved given the timescales. market hubs aren't just something you can "pack up" and move when threatened. these would disappear entirely as the risk would be so ridiculously out of proportion to the reward, or markups to mitigate risks would be so severe no one would buy anything anyway. nullsec heavy industry would be completely FUBAR aside from supercap production by necessity.
there is a middle ground to be found somewhere, as destructible stations could be done (and proivide loot) without unduly damaging the individual player. |
Fzhal
Anoikis Vergence The Last Chancers.
7
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 03:17:10 -
[225] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote: Actually, when folks in my wh corp take a break 1 of several options occur.
1. We help them put their stuff in HS for safe storage (it's a big pita when you consider wh mass a good route and so on) 2. They just donate all thier non evac'd assets to corp (they donate them, we don't confiscate them) 3. If they leave unexpectedly, then we move out what we feel is appropriate and contract it to them when they get back. (Use a corp contract from a random station you don't use and let it go to the corp hangar when it expires)
If you don't have enough faith in your corp/alliance that you fear losing all your poop while on vacation, then I'll recommend a better corp/alliance or moving stuff to a safe haven until you get back.
Every WH player / director / CEO really understands that they could lose everything. Heck you could personally be dunking my system as I type this (I'm at work... read up about that job thing I have). Yeah I do laugh at you big bad null bears and your need to not lose assets. In my mind it comes down to this. Mega alliance leadership can't realistically protect all their minion's assets, so they rely on CCP to provide protection for them.
A C6 WH can support how many before before holes get massed and make people stranded? Can you spend a week down chain and get back in 6 minutes?
Alliances have thousands, most of which are just a number. Would you have the faith to let 500 people have access to your stuff so they could move it for you? Would you mind moving 5 people, with capitals and unlimited space, every week?
Let's face it, as much as we like them, wormholes are a bad comparison. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
936
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 16:37:52 -
[226] - Quote
Of course there are vast differences between running a wh corp and a null empire.
I think an underlying problem in eve right now is that currently there is no real incentive for the leadership of large organisations to actually play the game. Folks play other games until a ping of sufficient value comes up. I know CCP is working to change that. I think the destruction and looting of stations would be a great way to reach that end.
I think it would be a great set of options if stations were destructable and lootable. Here's just one idea that could create both a measure of security and a possibility for loots. I'll call it an 'evac button' but you can call it whatever you like. Here's how it might work.
Blob A wants the station belonging to Blob B.
1. Blob B is a bunch of risk averse ninnies, so the CEO owner of the station agrees w/ the agressor CEO to negotiate a withdrawal from the system. CEO B enters the evac option. This allows the agessor CEO to confirm they have a deal. The station becomes invulnerable for a set period of time (48 hours, 3 hours, a week - whatever the reasonable time is - the actual value has little meaning in this discussion). So the station is safe and the evac is on. The retreaters have some time to get their stuffs out. Once the timer times out, then CEO A now owns the station. He can loot what's left. He can flush clones down the vat bay drain. Whatever. It's his station now.
2. Blob B decides to fight it out. Pew pew pew. Pew pew. On no! Blob B is losing. CEO B enters into an evac situation as above. If CEO A agrees, then the timer starts. Evac happens. The new owner gets a broken station at the end of the timer and has some form of activity to repair the station back up to fully operational.
3. Blob B is HARD CORE. Screw you Blob A, we're goning down with the ship. Pew pew pew. Pew pew. Blob B either fights off the attackers or the station is in ruins, gets looted and is gone forever.
Link this to the entosis mini game and much fun will be had. Stations will go from something you build everywhere to a strategic asset you have to think about before you put it up. Sure folks will pull stuff out of stations. So what? If I lived in deep null and had assets in a poorly defended station I didn't trust, then I'd put up a POS or maybe 3 to split out my stuff.
I understand that POS will be a thing of the past, so think of it as moving my booty out of the XL alliance loot pinata structure and spreading it around in several large/medium/small structures. You can spread your loots over several small structures over several systems in your home constellation.
And a final note. I really truely deep deep down could give a ratsassafrass about the stuff that belongs to a guy that hasn't logged in for 2 years. Really - I don't care. |
Arctic Estidal
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club
19
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 00:13:55 -
[227] - Quote
The question which hasn't been answered, is why would groups build multi-billion isk structures which can be destroyed, where the benefits of the structures is small compared to the risk they now create as a signficiant target.
Remember each region has one major staging station, so the attacker only has to headshot one station.
Finally - Can we stop comparing WH to Null-Sec they are completely different. |
Malcaz
Addicted to Shljivovica The Looper Collective
36
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 16:05:37 -
[228] - Quote
Making stations destructible is a mistake. All stations belonging to smaller alliances will be shortly destroyed by trolls with super fleets that nobody can defend against except for the strongest alliances, and it will not be worth the investment to build them anymore. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2876
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 16:53:20 -
[229] - Quote
I love the idea of the Red Cross (Sisters of Eve) coming to the station after the fight and retrieving all the dead bodies (loot) and hauling it back to their loved ones (to their current cloning station).
Make is so 10% of the items are dropped for the attacking forces to be picked up as loot. The rest gets shipped back to that player's current cloning station. DONE.
BUT, I must insist that you actually spawn Sisters of Eve Jump Freighters, which would be protected by CONCORD, to retrieve those items and then have them jump out. One transporter for each player. It would be a really cool thing to see in local, and I'm pretty sure the attacking force would be more than willing to give up quite a few gank Taloses to kill a SoE NPC for lols.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
2876
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 16:58:37 -
[230] - Quote
Also, the solution to whether or not to build stations is to make stations less expensive (time/isk/operations) to build perhaps? Then the cost of taking one down (wrt time needed) will be weighed against how easily one can be deployed.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
|
Chen Chillin
Deep Structure. The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 07:15:14 -
[231] - Quote
along with all of this excellent point and counter point.. lets add... Hey CCP you want more 0.0 Sov and people to use the structures? get rid of NPC Stations in Null Sec. Hold Sov or run back to low sec to play station games and troll!
ok.. I know it was a bit off topic... am still trying to digest the previous 14 pages, but.... lets break this down a bit.
Assembly arrays - go ahead and destroy, loot and salvage. Unless the bonuses for these are majorly advantageous... there is nothing you can't do adequately in an XL station including super construction if i understand the new station structures and mods correctly.
Research labs - same.... they became obsolete 2 patches ago.
Drilling platforms - destroy, loot, salvage - really no difference then now.
Observatory arrays - new but yeah... destroy, loot, salvage.
Advertisement Centers - LOL... just what we need, Commercials on TV are bad enough... Definitely Destroy these.
so the following are the only controversial ones if I understand correctly.
Market and Office Hubs, Gates, Administration Hubs.
Hmmmmm Definately need to think more on those myself, will have to compose a post off line to get this one close to what i want to say.
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
395
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 09:55:18 -
[232] - Quote
Why does there need to be any loot? There does need to be an option to capture rather than destroy (that castle you just reduced may be pointing in the wrong direction but it's still a castle) and it makes sense to allow some of the infrastructure to be salvaged if destruction is chosen but I don't see a reason to add incentives to destroy structures (at least with regard to those too large to scoop and run away with) beyond destroying the structure. If it's in the wrong place, if it's an Amarr Outpost and you really want a Caldari Station...etc. then what you can do afterwards is the motive for destruction; if you don't think you can hold the system when the original owners turn their attentions back to you and you don't want them using that station as a stage for their counterstrike then that is the motive for destruction. Although we all like explosions I would also suggest that we need an alternative method of destruction. You can plant charges or bombard it to the point of unusability of course... But could you not also send in a bunch of guys with plasma cutters and lifting equipment, spanners and serious demeanours to slowly break it up, salvaging all of that useful material for use in another, nearby project?
With regard to people's stuff... I feel that the scale of the "stuff" many people are likely to be dealing with is such that One-time undocks or planetary launches (particularly in what is now hostile space) are insufficient to the task. Not only that but the timeframe involved is far too short given that we're not looking at months of siege but a terrain which can change completely in a few weeks. However, we also don't want to create a situation where capsuleers do stuff which is completely incompatible with the world in which they reside - like blowing up their own stations to save their logistics guys from having to transport the stuff within it... |
Arctic Estidal
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club
19
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 11:51:19 -
[233] - Quote
I re-read the dev log regarding entosis and stations.
When the station is attacked and the defenders lose the station goes into 48 freeport mode. If this is designed to be used as evac, then there has to be an effective zone around the station that ships can cyno in and out of safely to enable the evac. If this is not possible, then the purpose of the freeport only benefits the attackers.
They will be able to dock and use services, providing a significant advantage not currently available to attackers, when the second battle commences to determine final ownership of the station.
There has to be defensive bonuses for the current owner of the station. Potentially defensive turrets, etc which can provide a numbers advantage for the defender.
Defenders should always have the advantage instead of the attacker. The current mechanic proposed for the station provides no advantage for the defender. Making the attacker take longer to undertake the capture is not a defensive bonus, it must be the ability to shut the capture down.
|
Alexis Nightwish
147
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 20:45:01 -
[234] - Quote
The prevailing philosophy for nullsec is "bring everything I own out to one virtually impervious location, and in the off chance we lose the station, I may have to sell all my stuff but I won't actually lose any of it so it's all good."
Why? Even with the current mechanics why bring all your stuff out there? Other than a few PvE ships aren't most of what you fly doctrine ships provided by the alliance? So why bring all your personal assets out there?
Instead of adapting the mechanics to continue supporting this mentality, perhaps adapting one's mentality to the new mechanics would be a better solution? CCP wants to distribute fights. If station loss resulted in asset loss I think that not only would people fight harder to defend their space, but also would distribute assets so as to not lose everything if they lose one station. Distributed fights would reduce TIDI, blobs, and would make nullsec wars much more dynamic.
CCP has an opportunity to really shake things up for the better, but I don't think they will because of the outcry of so many nullsec residents who are stuck in the old paradigm of having all their eggs in one basket in complete safety. Complete safety. In nullsec. Wasn't that supposed to be risky, dangerous space?
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
|
Fzhal
Anoikis Vergence The Last Chancers.
8
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 21:06:57 -
[235] - Quote
No Dev input for 3 weeks (day of posting). At this point, discussions are all rehash without direction. Pointless. |
O2 jayjay
Tit-EE Sprinkles Stratagem.
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 05:07:26 -
[236] - Quote
I honestly think it should all drop and be on a first come first serve bases. There is plenty of isk to be made in null sec and if you have the isk to put up your own station then you should have the players and isk to defend it. At this point you should own enough space and make enough income to replace your assets 3 times over. If not then that's bad planning and financing on the players part.
My 2 cents |
O2 jayjay
Tit-EE Sprinkles Stratagem.
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 05:09:47 -
[237] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:The prevailing philosophy for nullsec is "bring everything I own out to one virtually impervious location, and in the off chance we lose the station, I may have to sell all my stuff but I won't actually lose any of it so it's all good."
Why? Even with the current mechanics why bring all your stuff out there? Other than a few PvE ships aren't most of what you fly doctrine ships provided by the alliance? So why bring all your personal assets out there?
Instead of adapting the mechanics to continue supporting this mentality, perhaps adapting one's mentality to the new mechanics would be a better solution? CCP wants to distribute fights. If station loss resulted in asset loss I think that not only would people fight harder to defend their space, but also would distribute assets so as to not lose everything if they lose one station. Distributed fights would reduce TIDI, blobs, and would make nullsec wars much more dynamic.
CCP has an opportunity to really shake things up for the better, but I don't think they will because of the outcry of so many nullsec residents who are stuck in the old paradigm of having all their eggs in one basket in complete safety. Complete safety. In nullsec. Wasn't that supposed to be risky, dangerous space?
Well said. This is how null should be. Risk vs Reward |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2256
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 05:40:14 -
[238] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:The prevailing philosophy for nullsec is "bring everything I own out to one virtually impervious location, and in the off chance we lose the station, I may have to sell all my stuff but I won't actually lose any of it so it's all good."
Why? Even with the current mechanics why bring all your stuff out there? Other than a few PvE ships aren't most of what you fly doctrine ships provided by the alliance? So why bring all your personal assets out there?
Instead of adapting the mechanics to continue supporting this mentality, perhaps adapting one's mentality to the new mechanics would be a better solution? CCP wants to distribute fights. If station loss resulted in asset loss I think that not only would people fight harder to defend their space, but also would distribute assets so as to not lose everything if they lose one station. Distributed fights would reduce TIDI, blobs, and would make nullsec wars much more dynamic.
CCP has an opportunity to really shake things up for the better, but I don't think they will because of the outcry of so many nullsec residents who are stuck in the old paradigm of having all their eggs in one basket in complete safety. Complete safety. In nullsec. Wasn't that supposed to be risky, dangerous space? people would start hiding things in actually safe locations like NPC space is what they would do. the idea of risk vs reward needs consider that the other options comparably. Free station that I can never lose my stuff or access to sounds much better than "I will lose everything here if I lose two fights, while the winner takes the loot back to his safe NPC station.
You won't encourage more anything so long as better options are available. |
Eryn Velasquez
99
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 06:02:17 -
[239] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:The prevailing philosophy for nullsec is "bring everything I own out to one virtually impervious location, and in the off chance we lose the station, I may have to sell all my stuff but I won't actually lose any of it so it's all good."
Why? Even with the current mechanics why bring all your stuff out there? Other than a few PvE ships aren't most of what you fly doctrine ships provided by the alliance? So why bring all your personal assets out there?
This is not the right question. Why should any industrialist ever want to invest time and effort to build up a big business in a system, when he's in danger to loose millions of m-¦ stuff worth billions of ISK within days?
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Instead of adapting the mechanics to continue supporting this mentality, perhaps adapting one's mentality to the new mechanics would be a better solution? CCP wants to distribute fights. If station loss resulted in asset loss I think that not only would people fight harder to defend their space, but also would distribute assets so as to not lose everything if they lose one station.
That's no solution. If you want to kill nullsec industry completely, this would be the way.
_GÇ£A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.GÇ¥-áGÇò Jean-Jacques Rousseau-á_
|
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
363
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 10:49:55 -
[240] - Quote
First of all I haven't read through all the pages, so this may have been suggested before.
So, about the risk/reward ratio of using those new structures vs NPC stations for safety could be kept in check by a simple feature:
Just limit the overall storage capacity of any station, even the biggest ones. If mooring slots are finite, so should the items and ship hangars be finite.
This way, if an alliance has enormous storage needs, they would just have to use multiple stations. Those could even be on the same grid, so that their combined firepower would provide additional safety and the assets would be protected by more EHP as well.
Fuel costs would decentivize abusive station spamming on a same grid. Actually, fuel needs could be increased by nearby structures (additional maneuvering required to prevent collisions). Maybe a function of total structure mass on the grid (using a 250km radius as grid, since it's the hard limit for locking range anyway), so that smaller structures wouldn't increase the cost as much. Distance could also decrease the fuel need increase.
This would also be a step towards the idea of cities in space. You could have an XL industrial structure surrounded by M and L military structures to protect it. The synergy created increases fuel costs, so that players have to decide how much - if any - military presence they need and/or can afford.
On grid distance would also be a tactical element, considering that the minimal warp range is 150km. Do you want your structures packed for a maximal concentration of firepower, or do you spread them out some more for decreased fuel usage and easier warping around?
That being said, the proposed mechanic, inspired by planetary launches, seems fine to me. The above is just an idea to mitigate the increased risk when compared to npc stations.
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |