Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kassimila
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 18:21:40 -
[1] - Quote
So the current issue with Citadels is asset protection making peoples assets too safe. What I propose as a fix for this is the following:
Asset Protection - No Auto move after xyz time frame. You must pay 20% of the items value to have it returned to you. This money instead of going to CCP bank money removal place is instead distributed evenly to the players that participated in the killing of the complex (Hitting it during any of the three phases should count).
This will encourage players to fight over, and defend their complexes as well as reward players fairly for their destruction. This also allows the defender some reasonable asset protection.
This mechanic should be the same for ALL space. High/Low/Null/WH.
Other Fixes that this will require:
War Dec system - The price model on this needs to be updated to increase the cost of declaring war. |
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
3873
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 18:28:05 -
[2] - Quote
If this becomes a thing, you want to distribute money by damage done rather than evenly. You don't want people using a swarm of alphas with civilian weapons to ruin the payments of others.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Cade Windstalker
1300
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 18:32:20 -
[3] - Quote
The whole point of asset safety is feature parity with Outposts and to get people to actually be willing to keep assets in Citadels. There's no need for a fix here because nothing is broken.
Also you already have to pay to access your stuff depending on where it gets asset safety'd to, it just goes into a money black hole and an ISK sink.
Citadels are not intended to be multi-billion ISK loot pinatas. |
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
8
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 18:33:07 -
[4] - Quote
If you want to blow structures up for profit, move to w-space. There is already a place for no asset safety. |
Kassimila
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 18:39:34 -
[5] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:The whole point of asset safety is feature parity with Outposts and to get people to actually be willing to keep assets in Citadels. There's no need for a fix here because nothing is broken.
Also you already have to pay to access your stuff depending on where it gets asset safety'd to, it just goes into a money black hole and an ISK sink.
Citadels are not intended to be multi-billion ISK loot pinatas.
Actually Citadels are a replacement for POS's in which you get 100% of the loot, as well as Outposts. Last time I checked if I come take your outpost, you don't get any asset protection. All your crap is just stuck there and I deny you docking rights so.
My method allows for everyone to get some isk, gives conflict some purpose. Currently if you want to take down a keepstar, it will cost you many billions in losses and you get nothing out of it. Outposts have no defenses, citadels do. I think it's time to stop thinking of them as the same thing. |
Kassimila
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 18:41:06 -
[6] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:If you want to blow structures up for profit, move to w-space. There is already a place for no asset safety.
I'm not shocked that someone that lives in Null space is fine with Wormholers getting shafted, and everyone elses stuff (including yours) being fine and dandy. My idea is not to have no asset safety. My idea is to have the funds to get your stuff out of asset safety actually go to the people doing the attacking, not to magical space bank of isk to never be seen again. |
Cade Windstalker
1300
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 19:13:53 -
[7] - Quote
Kassimila wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:The whole point of asset safety is feature parity with Outposts and to get people to actually be willing to keep assets in Citadels. There's no need for a fix here because nothing is broken.
Also you already have to pay to access your stuff depending on where it gets asset safety'd to, it just goes into a money black hole and an ISK sink.
Citadels are not intended to be multi-billion ISK loot pinatas. Actually Citadels are a replacement for POS's in which you get 100% of the loot, as well as Outposts. Last time I checked if I come take your outpost, you don't get any asset protection. All your crap is just stuck there and I deny you docking rights so. My method allows for everyone to get some isk, gives conflict some purpose. Currently if you want to take down a keepstar, it will cost you many billions in losses and you get nothing out of it. Outposts have no defenses, citadels do. I think it's time to stop thinking of them as the same thing.
You should go read the original threads from the original structure dev blogs, they discussed a lot of this stuff especially CCP's thinking around asset safety... you're not going to convince CCP of anything unless you at least understand why they made the decision they did.
Citadels are a replacement for POSes as well as Outposts and Conquerable Stations. They're not like Outposts in that they blow up rather than just flipping sides. If your side loses an Outpost that outpost just flips and it's often still possible to get stuff out or fire-sale it at a discount.
POSes basically never got used for long term storage for anything outside of Wormhole space, which is the one place where there is no asset safety to preserve gameplay there.
Under your system there is a very strong incentive to store as little as possible in a Citadel since you're actively giving the attackers ISK. That sort of incentive is something CCP wanted to actively avoid.
It's not like we need an added incentive to destroy Citadels either, plenty of these things die all the time, either because of trade wars, because of Null wars, or just because someone saw there were no defenses and wanted something to shoot.
So again, asset safety is fine, it's working as CCP intended. |
Do Little
Virgin Plc Evictus.
1017
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 20:33:41 -
[8] - Quote
Some citadels already contain trillions in player assets - one citadel market is now larger than Rens. This will continue to grow if they become more important hubs for markets and industry. Imagine the killmail if those assets had a chance to drop.
Citadels serving as market hubs or industry hubs wouldn't be possible without asset safety. No one is going to risk their assets in a target that tempting! |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2883
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 20:39:30 -
[9] - Quote
Kassimila wrote:Pandora Deninard wrote:If you want to blow structures up for profit, move to w-space. There is already a place for no asset safety. I'm not shocked that someone that lives in Null space is fine with Wormholers getting shafted, and everyone elses stuff (including yours) being fine and dandy. My idea is not to have no asset safety. My idea is to have the funds to get your stuff out of asset safety actually go to the people doing the attacking, not to magical space bank of isk to never be seen again.
It was the WH community, writ large, that insisted on no asset safety in wormholes.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Kassimila
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 21:02:33 -
[10] - Quote
Do Little wrote:Some citadels already contain trillions in player assets - one citadel market is now larger than Rens. This will continue to grow if they become more important hubs for markets and industry. Imagine the killmail if those assets had a chance to drop.
Citadels serving as market hubs or industry hubs wouldn't be possible without asset safety. No one is going to risk their assets in a target that tempting!
I'm not understanding the point you're attempting to make. I never said "Get rid of asset safety". In my proposal your assets would still be 'safe'. As it is now you would need to pay 10% of the value to get it back. What I'm suggesting is that that 10% go directly to the people assaulting the place. Not to CCP magic land. |
|
Kassimila
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 21:08:05 -
[11] - Quote
I've updated the topic because I felt it was being misread by people. |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1101
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 22:46:46 -
[12] - Quote
Do what you want, but please god don't add asset protection to WHs. Hell, there shouldn't be asset protection anywhere in space. |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
468
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 22:51:19 -
[13] - Quote
I'm curious, what is actually broken about Asset Safety that requires a fix? |
Lothros Andastar
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
231
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 22:58:29 -
[14] - Quote
Already there is too much isk being produced vs being destroyed. If anything we need MORE isk sinks. |
Kassimila
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 23:03:40 -
[15] - Quote
Rawketsled wrote:I'm curious, what is actually broken about Asset Safety that requires a fix?
Excellent question. This is just my opinion, but there seems to be little value in attacking Citadels in general, especially in high sec. I see many systems FLOODED with astrahus's, because there is virtually no reason to attack them. Even without services/fuel requirements an attack has to work through 3 different timers, on the defenders schedule. What does the attacker gain for this hard work? 10% of the structure value is the current answer.
Giving the attackers some sort of incentive for their hard work will help generate game content, force players to actually defend their structures, and discourage citadel spam placement for no reason. |
Kassimila
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 23:04:34 -
[16] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Do what you want, but please god don't add asset protection to WHs. Hell, there shouldn't be asset protection anywhere in space.
There already is though, just put all your stuff in secure containers. Bam, no assets for you. |
Kassimila
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 23:08:46 -
[17] - Quote
Lothros Andastar wrote:Already there is too much isk being produced vs being destroyed. If anything we need MORE isk sinks.
This is a bit off topic, because my idea doesn't generate or destroy isk. It instead gives it to players doing the work. The main ISK sink in eve is the market taxes/broker fees of 1-2%. That can always be raised/lowered to stabilize Isk value. You could also take bounties off rats and instead make them drop tags sold to NPCs for values. So that way people might actually lose them hauling them around. This however has nothing to do with my original post. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3948
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 23:21:58 -
[18] - Quote
Kassimila wrote: This is a bit off topic, because my idea doesn't generate or destroy isk. It instead gives it to players doing the work. The main ISK sink in eve is the market taxes/broker fees of 1-2%. That can always be raised/lowered to stabilize Isk value. You could also take bounties off rats and instead make them drop tags sold to NPCs for values. So that way people might actually lose them hauling them around. This however has nothing to do with my original post.
It does however remove an isk sink, even if it's not one of the huge sinks. So it's not off topic at all. Additionally what you are doing is further encouraging the giant blue blob, by making it untenable for a small group to ever hold a citadel, and by making it impossible to win the isk war even if you lose your citadel. These are both very bad things to encourage.
Wars should for the most part be over an actual disagreement, not a 'LOL I can lose ships killing your structure and still make loads of isk' game.
So yeah, this is an idea attempting to create a problem that doesn't really exist. If there is a lack of reason to go to war, solve it other ways, not making it even more loaded in the attackers favour. |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
468
|
Posted - 2017.04.12 23:38:15 -
[19] - Quote
Kassimila wrote:Rawketsled wrote:I'm curious, what is actually broken about Asset Safety that requires a fix? Excellent question. This is just my opinion, but there seems to be little value in attacking Citadels in general, especially in high sec. I see many systems FLOODED with astrahus's, because there is virtually no reason to attack them. Even without services/fuel requirements an attack has to work through 3 different timers, on the defenders schedule. What does the attacker gain for this hard work? 10% of the structure value is the current answer. Giving the attackers some sort of incentive for their hard work will help generate game content, force players to actually defend their structures, and discourage citadel spam placement for no reason. I think the smarter option is to add a small maintenance cost to structures. Spend fuel. Get a period of invulnerability.
Getting a payout as an aggressor is nice, but we all find KMs and GFs sufficient payout as it is. If you make shooting an abandoned structure less of a cancerous affair, people will do it more for ***** and gigs.
Have you shot a POS or a POCO just to get a fight? I have, and I wasn't getting paid for it. |
Kassimila
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 00:05:51 -
[20] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Kassimila wrote: This is a bit off topic, because my idea doesn't generate or destroy isk. It instead gives it to players doing the work. The main ISK sink in eve is the market taxes/broker fees of 1-2%. That can always be raised/lowered to stabilize Isk value. You could also take bounties off rats and instead make them drop tags sold to NPCs for values. So that way people might actually lose them hauling them around. This however has nothing to do with my original post.
It does however remove an isk sink, even if it's not one of the huge sinks. So it's not off topic at all. Additionally what you are doing is further encouraging the giant blue blob, by making it untenable for a small group to ever hold a citadel, and by making it impossible to win the isk war even if you lose your citadel. These are both very bad things to encourage. Wars should for the most part be over an actual disagreement, not a 'LOL I can lose ships killing your structure and still make loads of isk' game. So yeah, this is an idea attempting to create a problem that doesn't really exist. If there is a lack of reason to go to war, solve it other ways, not making it even more loaded in the attackers favour.
It's hard to gauge what you've actually done in this game based on that fact that the toon you're posting as hasn't done much of anything in the way of combat. That being said, most of the 'wars' you see going on are fought 'for the lulz, or something to do'. My idea gives people actual objectives to fight over. Currently PVP in eve is just a way to lose the isk you made. 95% of it has no objective.
To your other point about small groups holding citadels, you're basically making my point for me. As it stands today if say NC/PL/Goons/etc wanted to kill a 20 man corps structure we could. Absolutely nothing is preventing any of those groups from doing so. The only reason they don't is because there is 100% no reason to do so, there is nothing to be gained, and it's a huge pain to kill one. That's not a healthy game mechanic, and you always have the option of simply moving your stuff out if you get attacked. It's not like it can be instantly killed. |
|
Kassimila
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 00:07:32 -
[21] - Quote
Rawketsled wrote:Kassimila wrote:Rawketsled wrote:I'm curious, what is actually broken about Asset Safety that requires a fix? Excellent question. This is just my opinion, but there seems to be little value in attacking Citadels in general, especially in high sec. I see many systems FLOODED with astrahus's, because there is virtually no reason to attack them. Even without services/fuel requirements an attack has to work through 3 different timers, on the defenders schedule. What does the attacker gain for this hard work? 10% of the structure value is the current answer. Giving the attackers some sort of incentive for their hard work will help generate game content, force players to actually defend their structures, and discourage citadel spam placement for no reason. I think the smarter option is to add a small maintenance cost to structures. Spend fuel. Get a period of invulnerability. Getting a payout as an aggressor is nice, but we all find KMs and GFs sufficient payout as it is. If you make shooting an abandoned structure less of a cancerous affair, people will do it more for ***** and gigs. Have you shot a POS or a POCO just to get a fight? I have, and I wasn't getting paid for it.
I do like the idea of a daily resource cost. Perhaps they plan to add it when they phase out POS's. However eve has never been about a safe space for your stuff. I'd like to see some sort of benefit go to an attacker for once. I think a lot of the people here nay saying the idea are people that have never had to bash a structure. |
Cade Windstalker
1300
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 00:11:51 -
[22] - Quote
Kassimila wrote:It's hard to gauge what you've actually done in this game based on that fact that the toon you're posting as hasn't done much of anything in the way of combat. That being said, most of the 'wars' you see going on are fought 'for the lulz, or something to do'. My idea gives people actual objectives to fight over. Currently PVP in eve is just a way to lose the isk you made. 95% of it has no objective.
To your other point about small groups holding citadels, you're basically making my point for me. As it stands today if say NC/PL/Goons/etc wanted to kill a 20 man corps structure we could. Absolutely nothing is preventing any of those groups from doing so. The only reason they don't is because there is 100% no reason to do so, there is nothing to be gained, and it's a huge pain to kill one. That's not a healthy game mechanic, and you always have the option of simply moving your stuff out if you get attacked. It's not like it can be instantly killed.
So, here's my point and response to this.
Why?
What sort of good behavior does this incentivize besides knocking over every Citadel in sight for fun and profit? You're taking an ISK sink (remember, disappeared ISK keeps the economy healthy) and turning it into a profit motive for anyone with the time and capability to kill a Citadel.
You say that it's not a healthy game mechanic for there to be no reason for Goons to run around killing Citadels, I say it's not a healthy game mechanic to overtly incentivize that.
On top of that just the fact that you would be paying your enemies to get your stuff back would be a big incentive against storing large amounts of stuff in Citadels. Saying "oh, well you can move it" just means you've created a reason not to keep more than you can reasonably evac. That's actually not a good game mechanic, as opposed to one you simply don't like...
Kassimila wrote:I do like the idea of a daily resource cost. Perhaps they plan to add it when they phase out POS's. However eve has never been about a safe space for your stuff. I'd like to see some sort of benefit go to an attacker for once. I think a lot of the people here nay saying the idea are people that have never had to bash a structure.
Being the attacker is the benefit. You get to attack, you get to choose to engage. To a significant extent you get to choose when, where, and how as well.
Also if you'd care to go back and read the dev blogs you'd know that CCP aren't adding a daily resource cost, the cost for Citadels is in the modules and the things you do with it. You can't do much more than dock up with a Citadel without modules and fuel.
The idea that Eve has "never been about a safe space for your stuff" is just ignorant. There has always been a degree of safety in this game, and there has to be for people to have any sort of foundation to build on. There's a reason CCP has never caved to the "let me kick over all the sandcastles" crowd any more than they've ever caved to the "make everything completely safe unless I say so" crowd. |
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
311
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 00:32:49 -
[23] - Quote
Yep, i agree with Cade....
Making the current ISK sink of asset safety payable to attackers of a structure would mean less utilization and less stuff stored in them. especially in highsec where NPC stations are in abundance.
Your idea would cause the total opposite effect CCP wants for these structures, and after the initial wooha of doing so, things would go back to the way they are now according to you, Big groups not hitting them because they are not worth the effort.
Now if you are talking about nullsec, seeing you are NC, if its a structure in your area, or near your area, or in an area you are about to deploy too.......that alone should be all the incentive you need to knock it out if doesnt belong to you deem it a threat to future operations.
ISK should never be your motivation with these things. |
Kassimila
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 00:51:41 -
[24] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Kassimila wrote:It's hard to gauge what you've actually done in this game based on that fact that the toon you're posting as hasn't done much of anything in the way of combat. That being said, most of the 'wars' you see going on are fought 'for the lulz, or something to do'. My idea gives people actual objectives to fight over. Currently PVP in eve is just a way to lose the isk you made. 95% of it has no objective.
To your other point about small groups holding citadels, you're basically making my point for me. As it stands today if say NC/PL/Goons/etc wanted to kill a 20 man corps structure we could. Absolutely nothing is preventing any of those groups from doing so. The only reason they don't is because there is 100% no reason to do so, there is nothing to be gained, and it's a huge pain to kill one. That's not a healthy game mechanic, and you always have the option of simply moving your stuff out if you get attacked. It's not like it can be instantly killed. So, here's my point and response to this. Why? What sort of good behavior does this incentivize besides knocking over every Citadel in sight for fun and profit? You're taking an ISK sink (remember, disappeared ISK keeps the economy healthy) and turning it into a profit motive for anyone with the time and capability to kill a Citadel. You say that it's not a healthy game mechanic for there to be no reason for Goons to run around killing Citadels, I say it's not a healthy game mechanic to overtly incentivize that. On top of that just the fact that you would be paying your enemies to get your stuff back would be a big incentive against storing large amounts of stuff in Citadels. Saying "oh, well you can move it" just means you've created a reason not to keep more than you can reasonably evac. That's actually not a good game mechanic, as opposed to one you simply don't like... Kassimila wrote:I do like the idea of a daily resource cost. Perhaps they plan to add it when they phase out POS's. However eve has never been about a safe space for your stuff. I'd like to see some sort of benefit go to an attacker for once. I think a lot of the people here nay saying the idea are people that have never had to bash a structure. Being the attacker is the benefit. You get to attack, you get to choose to engage. To a significant extent you get to choose when, where, and how as well. Also if you'd care to go back and read the dev blogs you'd know that CCP aren't adding a daily resource cost, the cost for Citadels is in the modules and the things you do with it. You can't do much more than dock up with a Citadel without modules and fuel. The idea that Eve has "never been about a safe space for your stuff" is just ignorant. There has always been a degree of safety in this game, and there has to be for people to have any sort of foundation to build on. There's a reason CCP has never caved to the "let me kick over all the sandcastles" crowd any more than they've ever caved to the "make everything completely safe unless I say so" crowd.
I can tell by your statement you've never actually killed a citadel. First the time is set on the defenders time table, and always comes out of RF on their time table. The attacker doesn't get to choose the engagement.
Astra without modules you can Dock, Tether, Repair your stuff, and fit your ships. - 900mil cost. Takes 3 days and a fleet to take down. (Or a couple bombers if completely undefended). Maybe it will take there being 2000 astras in peremiter before you will see my point. |
Cade Windstalker
1300
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 01:31:59 -
[25] - Quote
Kassimila wrote:I can tell by your statement you've never actually killed a citadel. First the time is set on the defenders time table, and always comes out of RF on their time table. The attacker doesn't get to choose the engagement.
Astra without modules you can Dock, Tether, Repair your stuff, and fit your ships. - 900mil cost. Takes 3 days and a fleet to take down. (Or a couple bombers if completely undefended). Maybe it will take there being 2000 astras in peremiter before you will see my point.
Let me clarify a little here, since something seems to have been lost in translation...
Yes, defenders get to pick when the Citadel comes out of reinforce and get to set the vulnerability timer. Within that the attacker still gets to pick when and how they attack, and at least some leeway within that. That, in and of itself, is an advantage. If you don't think you're going to win you can just not show up.
Might not be much fun to do that but it's still an advantage.
And yup, that's all an unfitted Astra provides. Not actually that much, all things considered.
Yes, there is currently an issue with structure vulnerability. That topic has been done to death, this is not a solution to that though, this is its own thing and has basically nothing to do with how easy or frustrating it is to kill a Citadel currently.
The claim that there will *ever* be that kind of Citadel spam is ridiculous. There are, at present, something like 35 Citadels in Perimeter. Since release a combined total of 67 Citadels and Engineering Complexes have died in Perimeter, or about 4 every three weeks and about twice the number currently anchored in that system.
The bogey-man of Citadel spam and cluttered overviews is just that, an unsubstantiated bogey man with little basis in fact or reality, nothing needs to be done to deal with this mythical issue because it's not an issue and it shows little sign of becoming one. |
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
311
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 01:56:32 -
[26] - Quote
Cade, i dont think that has anything to do with it at all (your basis of last post)
I could be wrong on some or all of what im about to type.
Last i knew PL/NC had some kind of partnership going, PH (always thought was related to PL) last i knew was still running a campaign in perimeter. Now if the PLEX lords from Null are no longer top of the food chain it makes sense fro them to bash these offshore trade hubs and stuff.
Only it costs time and ISK and replacement ammo, ships, etc....sounds like to me attrition of some sort is starting to take effect. The problem with the Perimeter offensive is that killing the Structures there is like killing a gankers catalyst....it doesnt mean anything. These trade moguls are far too entrenched, your only hitting the surface of their armor and only scratching the paint.
Now, a hilarious bit of advice from here........
If any of what i said rings true in any way (attempts to bring balance of power back towards Jita even a fraction) then Nullsec needs to go after the food source of these trade moguls. Quit hitting their structures, of course you have to, but change the focus. Your focus should be getting all of Null Blocs together for a Month straight.....and gank + Blanket Wardec anything and anyone using these structures that are not you. Literally lay waste and siege to everything in Perimeter and every other system around Jita for a Month straight, kill everyone that isnt a nullseccr.........
If your goal is to attempt to bring parity back towards to Jita, imo that is your only real option in fighting the trade moguls, bring the hammer down. Otherwise, just give up, let Highsec be controlled for once by someone that isnt Lording in Nullsec and return to your homes and figure something else out to do.
And like i said, i personally would find it funny if every single Nullsec Bloc united for a single month to do just that...basically instead of Burn Jita......it would be Burn Caldari State, question though......would yall be able to work together for that month? and is nullsec willing to for all intents and purpose officially declare war on Highsec? |
Krysenth
Saints Of Havoc Rate My Ticks
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 03:44:04 -
[27] - Quote
I just skimmed it, but in case no one else has mentioned it, the idea also falls apart when you fail to take into consideration that asset safety is also triggered when the structure UNANCHORS. That alone opens up the biggest "**** you" options to people with freeported market citadels. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2885
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 21:50:55 -
[28] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Do what you want, but please god don't add asset protection to WHs. Hell, there shouldn't be asset protection anywhere in space.
Agreed. Asset protection should mean the players haul their own stuff out.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Cade Windstalker
1303
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 22:42:31 -
[29] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Do what you want, but please god don't add asset protection to WHs. Hell, there shouldn't be asset protection anywhere in space. Agreed. Asset protection should mean the players haul their own stuff out.
Which would mean no one would ever actually live in these structures, they'd just keep barely enough ships to be usable in them.
Besides, in most areas of space Asset Protection only gets you as far as the nearest Station, if that, so you still have to move your stuff a fair ways, and a smart player can figure out where the stuff will end up and camp it out. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2885
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 01:01:22 -
[30] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Do what you want, but please god don't add asset protection to WHs. Hell, there shouldn't be asset protection anywhere in space. Agreed. Asset protection should mean the players haul their own stuff out. Which would mean no one would ever actually live in these structures, they'd just keep barely enough ships to be usable in them. Besides, in most areas of space Asset Protection only gets you as far as the nearest Station, if that, so you still have to move your stuff a fair ways, and a smart player can figure out where the stuff will end up and camp it out.
That's the nature of Aegis Sovereignty. You are not meant to build permanent empires protected by your past abilities. You are only as strong as you are today. Thus, you either stay strong or keep it light enough to travel.
A disciplined player can easily move everything a single character needs in a single capital ship (especially in this Cruiser and below dominated meta).
In the Eve sandbox, there is only sand. Not cement. Not big rocks. If I build a sand castle full of nice stuff, other people can come kick it over. If they do, they should get my nice stuff unless I move it out.
For long term storage, not day-to-day use, we have NPC stations. They are in every way less useful than player structures, but you cannot be locked out of them and they cannot be destroyed.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |