EVE Search - [Proposal] Allow building multiple stations per system in 0.0

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] Allow building multiple stations per system in 0.0

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.16 12:47:00 - [1] I have been wondering a while by now why can't we build multiple stations per system. There is nothing mentioned in backstory about it. Just arbitary limit placed on number of outposts you can have in system. If it is possible in NPC 0.0, low sec and in hi sec why not also in player claimed 0.0. It is the same space afterall. So I propose lifting this ban from EVE. Allow construction of several outposts per starsystem. I would also like to see ofc ability to build player station in low sec or even in hi sec also ofc, but for now I have to be content with proposing just ability to build multiple stations in starsystems in 0.0.
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.16 12:48:00 - [2] Posting to support my own topic.
cBOLTSON Shadow Legion. Talos Coalition	Posted - 2010.03.16 12:51:00 - [3] I have also allways wondered about this. Unless there is a very specific reason or what have you, /supported.
Sidus Isaacs	Posted - 2010.03.16 12:56:00 - [4] See no reason not to. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Depili Blood Works Inc. Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.03.16 14:11:00 - [5] With the current sov system being tied to stations and thus a system with multiple stations would be major pain in the ass to take over, not supported. Also why would you want to have more stations in the same system?
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.16 14:36:00 - [6] Originally by: Depili With the current sov system being tied to stations and thus a system with multiple stations would be major pain in the ass to take over, not supported. Also why would you want to have more stations in the same system? Taking over two stations in one system would be considerably easier than taking over two stations in 2 systems. Having multiple stations in 1 system is a considerable benefit for industrial activity. Consider having your refinery and factory stations close together. There is also the question of office space. Allowing multiple outposts per system would be a considerable help in increasing population density in 0.0
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.16 14:37:00 - [7] Originally by: Depili With the current sov system being tied to stations and thus a system with multiple stations would be major pain in the ass to take over, not supported. Also why would you want to have more stations in the same system? In my opinion having multiple stations in system would only be relevant if attacker and defender have more or less equal numbers. Currently this not seem to be case usually with attacker having clear numerical advantage. So this would just mean currently in everyday situation 1-2 more siege ticks for the 50+ dreads shooting at station while victims of the takeover stay docked or away as they do not have numbers to do anything against attacker. Yes - if numbers are equal it would make taking over the system with multiple stations a bit harder. But hey you would get multiple stations for your trouble. If you can under current system of countless RF timers in defenders prime time take a station system then one more station in that system would be irrelevant for the outcome. In fact it would be easier to take over 2 stations in same system than taking over 2 adjacent systems with 1 station in each of them. As far as why ? In my opinion this artificial limit is a bit immersion breaking. I can kinda understand why this system was in place under the old sov system - to avoid someone dropping 4 stations in one (sov 4) system with 5 moons and putting deathstar on each moon in system. Even then I tought that this is a bit dumb way of doing it as there was no reasoning whatsover provided WHY can't you build several stations in the same system in 0.0 while this can be done in empire and NPC 0.0 ? Ofc I also have agenda, I would prefer to keep factory station and refinery station in same system instead of having to run into adjacent system with my minerals. It's not about 'risk' as there is no risk doing that be that factory system next door or 5j out. Jump bridges and several accounts full of scouts plus proper intel channels and there is no danger of moving your minerals in freighter or JF. It is just not convinient. Ofc from leadership position one would want to make sure every system has station (bcos of sov warfare reasons) before making multiple stations per system (if that would be possible) - but that is entirely another story. So if you have to pick between conquering 1 system with 2 stations in it or 2 systems with both having 1 station in it what one would you prefer ? I sure would prefer the first one as an attacker - one less ihub to crunch thru.
Villian	Posted - 2010.03.17 04:06:00 - [8] I like the idea. It would seem it's more a matter of server side logistics, since each station gets a new database written. It couldn't hurt to ask the devs about it and get an official response one way or the other. Also, stations can't be destroyed, what would stop 0.0 space from becoming littered with outposts into the future?
Verys Burning Technologies Cult of War	Posted - 2010.03.17 06:58:00 - [9] I too would like to see this happen since the change of the sov system. This might also make it more attractive for attacking parties to go after certain systems which ends up within the risk/reward balance. Dropping 3 stations in one system (per example) will make it easier for your alliance however it also makes it a prime target for your enemy. What I'd also like to see in time is more customization of stations. For example having several stations of the same faction with a few changes across the board and different 3d models for each. Also what I'd like to see is that when a station has been upgraded that the materials don't mysteriously vanish into the station but make physical changes (yes modular stations). Add drone repair bays to carriers
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.17 08:33:00 - [10] Originally by: Villian Also, stations can't be destroyed, what would stop 0.0 space from becoming littered with outposts into the future? What prevents that happening right now ? Is there that big difference from the 'littered with outposts' perspective if there is 1, 2 or 3 stations in system. You can already put one station in every system you own. As far as I'm aware most big alliances have plans to do that in fact. Put one station in every single system they claim sov in. In my opinion main preventing factor is cost - after you have 2 to 4 stations in system why would you want more ? The population density a 0.0 system can support is finite, as resources in the system are finite. There is only so many people you can stick inside anomaly before you run into dimishing returns. So at some point you have to ask if you would want one more station or would for example one more supercarrier or titan serve you better. Second quite relevant reason to ask for lifting of this constraint is in fact the inability to remove stations. I would like to be able to remove stations, even if it would take months and considerable effort and cost. Currently, if some dumb person has built caldari station (it's deathtrap btw, kickout style) in strategically important location you are stuck with it. If the constraint is lifted you can just ignore the crap that previous owners of the space have installed and do that properly. Make sure that your station undock point is in line with moon where you can dump death star and all the small things that count. I would be asking for option to remove stations from your space also, but it has been already asked many times and devs have stated that they cant or do not want to do that.

Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.03.17 09:17:00 - [11] If it can be combined with a change to sovereignty mechanics to minimize the prevalence of MoArblob > all so that warfare actually becomes "good fights" and fun for everyone. Without such a change adding stations will just act as golden parachutes for "kickers-of-sandcastles" or whomever else is the first to make a 1k fleet. War is good and can be fun, but if mechanics keep being tilted towards kicking the castles over building them, the game loses value/attraction. Ever since BoB ran over ASCN all of 0.0 has been engaged in a perpetual escalation leaving no room for the builders .. this is the direct reason for the capital/super-capital spam and to a lesser degree the blobbing we are seeing today. Equal opportunity. Allow building to hold as much value as destroying.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.17 09:40:00 - [12] Originally by: Villian I like the idea. It would seem it's more a matter of server side logistics, since each station gets a new database written. It couldn't hurt to ask the devs about it and get an official response one way or the other. Also, stations can't be destroyed, what would stop 0.0 space from becoming littered with outposts into the future? This has already happened. Look at Delve, Providence, Deklein, Feythabolis, Tribute...
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.03.17 10:18:00 - [13] Originally by: Carniflex I have been wondering a while by now why can't we build multiple stations per system. There is nothing mentioned in backstory about it. Just arbitary limit placed on number of outposts you can have in system. If it is possible in NPC 0.0, low sec and in hi sec why not also in player claimed 0.0. It is the same space afterall. So I propose lifting this ban from EVE. Allow construction of several outposts per starsystem. I would also like to see ofc ability to build player station in low sec or even in hi sec also ofc, but for now I have to be content with proposing just ability to build multiple stations in starsystems in 0.0. could you explain why this is needed? the only reason i can see is "easier logistics between different outpost types" or "we want to have more than one outpost type without the increased sov costs". for the logistic part i would answer "more targets on the logistic routes, which is good". for the 2nd part ... i would answer "you want variations? pay the costs" so why do you want it?
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.17 12:01:00 - [14] Originally by: darius mclever could you explain why this is needed? the only reason i can see is "easier logistics between different outpost types" or "we want to have more than one outpost type without the increased sov costs". for the logistic part i would answer "more targets on the logistic routes, which is good". for the 2nd part ... i would answer "you want variations? pay the costs" so why do you want it? Immersion, empire building, industrial might ... reasons to ask for it are many. And having station in system does nothing to sov cost currently btw. iHub upgrades determine the sov cost - if you use the system you will have them and you pay for them. System without iHub upgrades on the other hand is relatively worthless as it has only rare complex or anomaly and belt ratting is history after one can do it in L5 military upgraded system. I have noticed that people for some reason seem to think that building a station in system makes the sov cost go up. It does not. Logistics routes. Dunno - perhaps in those alliances space that lack proper organization. In my part of space we do not use gates in non combat ships. There is this thing called jump bridge. Goes from one death star POS to another death star pos up to 5 ly away. And proper intel channels also ofc. One must be taking unreasonable risks if he manages to get killed in non combat ship in properly organized alliance space. And building second station in same system would be paying the cost. About 22 - 25 bil or so in fact, depending how deep you live and thus how big is your transportation cost for the egg + contents.
Gandar Kimokanen Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.17 12:03:00 - [15] I support this idea
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.03.17 12:06:00 - [16] well most people upgrade their station systems. and iirc jump bridges are sov index 4 and cost quite a bit. so either you are lying with the upgades or you use gates. ;)
CommmanderInChief Comply Or Die	Posted - 2010.03.17 13:06:00 - [17] Edited by: CommmanderInChief on 17/03/2010 13:07:27 Edited by: CommmanderInChief on 17/03/2010 13:06:42 Maybe its downt to the fact that not every low sec and empire system has a station, whereas in 0.0 you can build a station in every system if you so wish, Maybe thats the compromise. Tbh do i support it yes and no, but there isnt many stations being built anyway so the impact of allowing multiples in a system i dont seem would be large. So i guess ill support it..but i think it should be limited to say no more than 2
HeliosGal Caldari	Posted - 2010.03.17 13:09:00 - [18] only reason i can think is ccp wants to spread the player base out so forcing one per 00 system ( perhaps the alliances should work to making every sytem in 00 have an outpost and then see what ccp does) Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00
Donov StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.17 15:11:00 - [19] Im not one for the roleplay side but in eve we are all wealthy and our alliances are sometimes ever bigger then the empire alliances... Why cant we show our power by having multiple stations if we are to show off our welth i see this as a good way to go about it... Perhaps make the stations destructable if theres more then 1 station in the system... tho i see no reason against having a "capture station/destroy station" button.... would be a good idea i think. And the owners should have a self destruct button to stop hostile take over of their stations... tho the reason for having the indestructable stations is probably to stop the loss of assets... a simple disclaimer should solve that. And ofcourse the industrial benifits are great... ------------- DIRECTOR - STARHUNT [STRH] DIPLOMAT - FALLOUT PROJECT <HALO> http://www.eve-halo.com
Bongvir	Posted - 2010.03.18 11:04:00 - [20] Support

Iva Posavec Posavec Innovations Takhar Matari	Posted - 2010.03.18 11:18:00 - [21] My immediate thought was no, but after thinking about it I couldn't really think of a good enough reason for that, and I can think of a number of reasons why it would be a good idea which have already been mentioned. So it has my backing. . Alliance Creation Service
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.18 16:13:00 - [22] Edited by: Bagehi on 18/03/2010 16:13:26 If you have ever been involved in flipping a station to conquer a system, you would be against this. Unless they release a super weapon to rip apart stations, there should be a limit of 1 station to a system or people will begin putting a dozen stations in a system so it would be near impossible to conquer the system.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.03.18 16:28:00 - [23] Originally by: Bagehi Edited by: Bagehi on 18/03/2010 16:13:26 If you have ever been involved in flipping a station to conquer a system, you would be against this. Unless they release a super weapon to rip apart stations, there should be a limit of 1 station to a system or people will begin putting a dozen stations in a system so it would be near impossible to conquer the system. there is always the option of emptying wallets to change sov or disbanding alliances. proven to be a well working way to take over systems and stations.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.18 16:42:00 - [24] Originally by: darius mclever Originally by: Bagehi Edited by: Bagehi on 18/03/2010 16:13:26 If you have ever been involved in flipping a station to conquer a system, you would be against this. Unless they release a super weapon to rip apart stations, there should be a limit of 1 station to a system or people will begin putting a dozen stations in a system so it would be near impossible to conquer the system. there is always the option of emptying wallets to change sov or disbanding alliances. proven to be a well working way to take over systems and stations. LOL! Too true. Metagaming remains the only way to win 0.0 wars in Eve - even post-Dominion.
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.18 16:59:00 - [25] Originally by: Bagehi If you have ever been involved in flipping a station to conquer a system, you would be against this. Unless they release a super weapon to rip apart stations, there should be a limit of 1 station to a system or people will begin putting a dozen stations in a system so it would be near impossible to conquer the system. I have been present in several cases of flipping or trying to flip station system ownership under the new system. 49-U (failed attempt, timezone pingpong), D-G (biggest blob so far, capital turkey shoot), Period Basis (many station systems without any real opposition). I still consider lifting this ban preventing multiple stations per system reasonable. If CCP is worried about someone dropping 20 stations in system then they can either tweak sov system to take possibility into account or discourage station spam thru other means - for example making number of stations in system affect sov bill.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.18 17:06:00 - [26] Originally by: Carniflex Originally by: Bagehi If you have ever been involved in flipping a station to conquer a system, you would be against this. Unless they release a super weapon to rip apart stations, there should be a limit of 1 station to a system or people will begin putting a dozen stations in a system so it would be near impossible to conquer the system. I have been present in several cases of flipping or trying to flip station system ownership under the new system. 49-U (failed attempt, timezone pingpong), D-G (biggest blob so far, capital turkey shoot), Period Basis (many station systems without any real opposition). I still consider lifting this ban preventing multiple stations per system reasonable. If CCP is worried about someone dropping 20 stations in system then they can either tweak sov system to take possibility into account or discourage station spam thru other means - for example making number of stations in system affect sov bill. Fair enough. I'm just pointing out a major reason why it would be bad to allow multiple stations in a system in response to posts like these: Originally by: Iva Posavec My immediate thought was no, but after thinking about it I couldn't really think of a good enough reason for that, and I can think of a number of reasons why it would be a good idea which have already been mentioned. So it has my backing. and Originally by: Sidus Isaacs See no reason not to. and Originally by: cBOLTSON I have also allways wondered about this. Unless there is a very specific reason or what have you, /supported. As in, spamming stations as a means of defending a system is a big reason why to limit a system to only 1 outpost.
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.18 18:34:00 - [27] Originally by: Bagehi As in, spamming stations as a means of defending a system is a big reason why to limit a system to only 1 outpost. If EVE history has shown us anything then it is that cost alone does not prevent activities that give edge to one side in the territorial dance. However I'm fairly confident that if number of stations in system would cause exponential system maintenance cost increase after the first station one could station spam himself into bancrupcy. If number of stations would cause increasing of bill then it should be however 'offline' stations to avoid punishing whoever is unfortunate enough to conquer the system. Or you can just go easy route and make station hp in system shared. So you build 2 stations, fair enough, but they have their hp halved, etc etc. When making multiple stations cost something. CCP has stated on several occasions that they will not make stations destructible. Fair enough - how about offlining them. Nothing snappy ofc. Let's say 2 week timer to offline and 1 month timer to online a station. Offline station would be kinda like normal station just all station services would be disabled and you would not be able to put new items on the hangar floor in there as hangars would 'full'. Everyone could dock there as it's offline afterall. Saying that there should be only 1 station per system is like saying that there should be hard cap at 5 titans per system. If allowing multiple stations per system would unbalance something then simple - rebalance it. But damnit I want my sandbox!
Maxsim Goratiev Imperial Tau Syndicate	Posted - 2010.03.18 19:13:00 - [28] Quote: I want my sandbox! WFT, Why the hell would you limit it? Let's limit amount of money you can have in your wallet so rich don't get richer huh? Same thing here.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.03.18 20:03:00 - [29] Originally by: Carniflex Originally by: Bagehi As in, spamming stations as a means of defending a system is a big reason why to limit a system to only 1 outpost. If EVE history has shown us anything then it is that cost alone does not prevent activities that give edge to one side in the territorial dance. However I'm fairly confident that if number of stations in system would cause exponential system maintenance cost increase after the first station one could station spam himself into bancrupcy. If number of stations would cause increasing of bill then it should be however 'offline' stations to avoid punishing whoever is unfortunate enough to conquer the system. Or you can just go easy route and make station hp in system shared. So you build 2 stations, fair enough, but they have their hp halved, etc etc. When making multiple stations cost something. CCP has stated on several occasions that they will not make stations destructible. Fair enough - how about offlining them. Nothing snappy ofc. Let's say 2 week timer to offline and 1 month timer to online a station. Offline station would be kinda like normal station just all station services would be disabled and you would not be able to put new items on the hangar floor in there as hangars would 'full'. Everyone could dock there as it's offline afterall. Saying that there should be only 1 station per system is like saying that there should be hard cap at 5 titans per system. If allowing multiple stations per system would unbalance something then simple - rebalance it. But damnit I want my sandbox! How about this ... EVE is risk vs reward. correct? so .... when someone invades your system as soon as 1 outposts becomes vulnerable all other outposts in system become vulnerable too. risk: you loose way more assets when the system is taken. of course it means this system will be a more juicy target for invaders. reward: easier logistics as long as you hold the system. if we make the sov mechanics like that i would say ... drop as many outpost as you want into the system and make the pinata more juicy. ;) would you still want multiple outpost in a single system with this mechanic?
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.18 20:04:00 - [30] Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev Quote: I want my sandbox! WFT, Why the hell would you limit it? Let's limit amount of money you can have in your wallet so rich don't get richer huh? Same thing here. There is an artificial limit on how much dps you can bring to bear in a system. Whether it is the max dps a ship can do or the maximum number of pilots that you can put in a system before the node chokes, it isn't a whole lot when you compare it to the defenses of stations. Again, a dozen stations would probably make a system invincible, as you would likely spend the entire day (downtime-to-downtime) and end up unable to reinforce the last station. That's what I'm getting at.



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.