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.

Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.18 20:38:00 - [31] 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. Nah, Stations have only about 100 mil hp. Dread does ~3500 ... 6000 dps (long or short range). Let's say 3500 dps. 28 571 seconds for solo dread. Approx 8 hours. For single dread. 48 or more dreads will do a station in one siege cykle (10 minutes). Any territory holding alliance and many non territory holding ones can field that. We have seen that you can stick about 1600 pilots in one system without node melting. Not very playbale ofc if every shot takes 5 minutes, let's say 800 pilots. With 800 guy in system you can bring about 100 dreads and 300 .. 400 support. Dozen (12 stations) would take about 2.5 hours for 50 dreads (2 hours of shooting and 30 minutes for warping around). Sticking 20 stations in system will not make it invunerable even now, not to mention should the sov system tweaked a bit to take it into account. Actually I think that the idea that if one of em falls all become vunerable is also something that might even work. Stations alone do not defend space any better than putting death star at every moon did back in the day. And unlike death stars they do not even shoot back.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.03.18 20:52:00 - [32] Originally by: Carniflex 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. Nah, Stations have only about 100 mil hp. Dread does ~3500 ... 6000 dps (long or short range). Let's say 3500 dps. 28 571 seconds for solo dread. Approx 8 hours. For single dread. 48 or more dreads will do a station in one siege cykle (10 minutes). Any territory holding alliance and many non territory holding ones can field that. We have seen that you can stick about 1600 pilots in one system without node melting. Not very playbale ofc if every shot takes 5 minutes, let's say 800 pilots. With 800 guy in system you can bring about 100 dreads and 300 .. 400 support. Dozen (12 stations) would take about 2.5 hours for 50 dreads (2 hours of shooting and 30 minutes for warping around). Sticking 20 stations in system will not make it invunerable even now, not to mention should the sov system tweaked a bit to take it into account. Actually I think that the idea that if one of em falls all become vunerable is also something that might even work. Stations alone do not defend space any better than putting death star at every moon did back in the day. And unlike death stars they do not even shoot back. how many attacking dreads would be left if they would just shoot the station for 2.5hours? 0? you should bring realistic numbers and not base on "they wont defend anyway".
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.18 21:04:00 - [33] If the defenders can't defend 1 station in a system, how will they defend 2 or more? Shooting a station is what happens after the system has been secured. Seriously, it's a non issue. If you want to spam stations to make your space a grind to conquer, it's hugely more effective to put 12 stations (and 12 ihubs) in 12 systems than it is to put 12 stations and 1 hub in 1 system.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.03.18 21:12:00 - [34] Originally by: Malcanis If the defenders can't defend 1 station in a system, how will they defend 2 or more? Shooting a station is what happens after the system has been secured. Seriously, it's a non issue. If you want to spam stations to make your space a grind to conquer, it's hugely more effective to put 12 stations (and 12 ihubs) in 12 systems than it is to put 12 stations and 1 hub in 1 system. you are sure about the station thing? from http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=709 it seems you need to reinforce ihub and outposts to get the system.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.18 22:06:00 - [35] Edited by: Bagehi on 18/03/2010 22:14:28 Originally by: Malcanis If the defenders can't defend 1 station in a system, how will they defend 2 or more? The reason stations get reinforced without being defended is usually because there isn't enough time for a decent defense fleet to form up, get in position, and attack. As was stated, with enough dreads, it only takes a cycle. The longer you spend with a cap fleet in enemy space, the more likely they are to start dropping titans in and popping you ships, the more likely they are to start harassing your ships, if not enough time to call every last friend they have and hit your fleet with a few hundred dreads. That's what would happen. So, sitting in a hostile system, logged in, in siege, for 2.5 hours... this would be silly, bordering on suicidal. I'm fairly certain it would take far longer than that anyway. I've been in fleets led by Goons, -A-, Atlas, TCF, and Razer FCs. Getting from 1 tower to the next tower in the same system takes a LOT longer than the 2 minutes you give it. And that's assuming there are no problems. That's assuming intel doesn't come that a hostile fleet is near and everyone has to safe up. That's assuming everyone sieges and warps like clockwork (which never happens in a big fleet). That's assuming you can keep a fleet together for hours just to flip one system.
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.19 04:57:00 - [36] You can 'blitzkrieg' only the initial assault. Taking a system takes at best 4-5 days with all the RF timers in defenders prime time. It's not like your 50 dreads come out of blue when defender has 2 days of RF timer to stare at and organize defense fleet for particular time in his prime. Let's take for example D-G in providence. I would say that no matter what amount of stations would have been in the system the outcome would have been the same. Even without defenders inexperience dealing with lag. As far as saying that 50 dreads can't stay around 2 - 3 hours that just silly. I have seen dreads sitting in POS during 40-U campaign for 2 weeks straight 4-5 h a day waiting for action. If you are taking over station system where defenders do actually turn up you do not 'go home'. You stick to it until job is done. The RF timers make damn sure that there is absolute max numbers present on both sides. If defender cant bring that big blob he loses and if he can he wins regardless if attacker has to kill 1 outpost or 20.
Salasilm	Posted - 2010.03.20 13:47:00 - [37]
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate	Posted - 2010.03.20 14:52:00 - [38] This argument is stupid. stations are a logistical backbone, not defenses. if you whant alliances to be able to concentrate their logistics, you will need more then one station per system. Obviously taking the station over takes time, what, you whan to get it for free? if someone invested money into building multiple stations, it will take more effort to take that away from him, that much seems obvious to me. there isn't an artificial limit on amount of people, you will crash teh server, that's a technical limit. They are two different things.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.03.20 16:36:00 - [39] Allow stations to change hands but disallow any station management unless sovereignty is held (ie. anyone can dock/undock until system outcome is determined). Or go even further and disallow access to services entirely unless sovereignty is held. You can dock/undock, providing a beachhead but not much else. Want to take a multi-station system? Make sure you have the logistics in place and the manpower available because it is going to be a long slog.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.03.20 17:54:00 - [40] Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev This argument is stupid. stations are a logistical backbone, not defenses. if you whant alliances to be able to concentrate their logistics, you will need more then one station per system. Obviously taking the station over takes time, what, you whan to get it for free? if someone invested money into building multiple stations, it will take more effort to take that away from him, that much seems obvious to me. there isn't an artificial limit on amount of people, you will crash teh server, that's a technical limit. They are two different things. The point is that it takes multiple days for a system with a single station already. So having multiple outpost in one system and having to take them one after each other is just stupid.

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.20 22:34:00 - [41] Originally by: darius mclever Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev This argument is stupid. stations are a logistical backbone, not defenses. if you whant alliances to be able to concentrate their logistics, you will need more then one station per system. Obviously taking the station over takes time, what, you whan to get it for free? if someone invested money into building multiple stations, it will take more effort to take that away from him, that much seems obvious to me. there isn't an artificial limit on amount of people, you will crash teh server, that's a technical limit. They are two different things. The point is that it takes multiple days for a system with a single station already. So having multiple outpost in one system and having to take them one after each other is just stupid. This argument has already been dealt with. Why are you still going on about it?
Brian Khan StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.21 06:59:00 - [42] Support
Yldrad The Dandy KillerS	Posted - 2010.03.21 09:40:00 - [43] Only if we can destroy them.
Doris Dragonbreath	Posted - 2010.03.21 19:25:00 - [44] Sounds reasonable.
Mia Silverfang	Posted - 2010.03.22 09:55:00 - [45] I would like to see that.
Omega Flames Last Resort Inn SYSTEM SHOCK INITIATIVE	Posted - 2010.03.23 01:29:00 - [46] ------------------------- "Forsys > WAR Forsys > HUH Forsys > WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR Harry Sunday > loot Forsys > touchT"
Tehnomaag StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.23 22:36:00 - [47] Well. Seems like my doubts have been already addressed and this idea does seem reasonable.
Lykouleon Trust Doesn't Rust Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.24 01:34:00 - [48] Edited by: Lykouleon on 24/03/2010 01:34:05 Can you imagine what providence would be like if you could have multiple player-built stations in a system? Answer: my worst **ing nightmare. not supported. Quote:** CCP Mindstar > Sorry - I've completely messed all that up. lets try again
NeutronRonk	Posted - 2010.03.24 12:22:00 - [49] I don't think providence would have been any different than now. With 50 dreads a station is only 1 siege cyckle and with the upcoming insurance changes dreads will get even cheaper. So supported.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.24 16:56:00 - [50] Edited by: Bagehi on 24/03/2010 16:57:19 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: darius mclever Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev This argument is stupid. stations are a logistical backbone, not defenses. if you whant alliances to be able to concentrate their logistics, you will need more then one station per system. Obviously taking the station over takes time, what, you whan to get it for free? if someone invested money into building multiple stations, it will take more effort to take that away from him, that much seems obvious to me. there isn't an artificial limit on amount of people, you will crash teh server, that's a technical limit. They are two different things. The point is that it takes multiple days for a system with a single station already. So having multiple outpost in one system and having to take them one after each other is just stupid. This argument has already been dealt with. Why are you still going on about it? No, it really hasn't. As was said, it takes several days already. Claiming that additional stations in a system wouldn't make it more difficult to flip is just plain silly. Originally by: Carniflex As far as saying that 50 dreads can't stay around 2 - 3 hours that just silly. I have seen dreads sitting in POS during 40-U campaign for 2 weeks straight 4-5 h a day waiting for action. If you are taking over station system where defenders do actually turn up you do not 'go home'. You stick to it until job is done. You hit the nail on the head right there. In between each attack, caps warp off to a safe POS. So, again, I point out that even if a single station can be flipped during 1 siege cycle, the actual attack takes more than an hour. Multiply that by a dozen stations. Add an hour for formup. Add an hour to get everything in place. Add some cushion time and you can't do it in a day. While you are taking down one, defenders can easily be messing with another one. One important thing to remember is the idea of hitting a station just before downtime so you don't have to worry about it being re-flipped. If there were multiple stations, you would have to have 50 dreads and 50 carriers. Repping a station back up so it can't be flipped by a wing of bombers isn't a minor feat. Bottom line - the more stations in a system, the more static sov will be.

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.24 17:22:00 - [51] Originally by: Bagehi Edited by: Bagehi on 24/03/2010 16:57:19 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: darius mclever Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev This argument is stupid. stations are a logistical backbone, not defenses. if you whant alliances to be able to concentrate their logistics, you will need more then one station per system. Obviously taking the station over takes time, what, you whan to get it for free? if someone invested money into building multiple stations, it will take more effort to take that away from him, that much seems obvious to me. there isn't an artificial limit on amount of people, you will crash teh server, that's a technical limit. They are two different things. The point is that it takes multiple days for a system with a single station already. So having multiple outpost in one system and having to take them one after each other is just stupid. This argument has already been dealt with. Why are you still going on about it? No, it really hasn't. As was said, it takes several days already. Claiming that additional stations in a system wouldn't make it more difficult to flip is just plain silly. The additional difficulty is trivial. And it's far, far less than the difficulty of taking those same 12 stations in 12 different systems. +1 station in the same system = add 1-2 siege cycles per station reinforce cycle. Call it an hour tops. +1 station in another system with another iHub = add 3 more station reinforce cycles and 2 more ihub reinforce cycles. Call it another week, minimum. Yeah... an hour vs a week. Which to choose... so difficult...
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.24 20:51:00 - [52] Originally by: Bagehi No, it really hasn't. As was said, it takes several days already. Claiming that additional stations in a system wouldn't make it more difficult to flip is just plain silly. Originally by: Carniflex As far as saying that 50 dreads can't stay around 2 - 3 hours that just silly. I have seen dreads sitting in POS during 49-U campaign for 2 weeks straight 4-5 h a day waiting for action. If you are taking over station system where defenders do actually turn up you do not 'go home'. You stick to it until job is done. You hit the nail on the head right there. In between each attack, caps warp off to a safe POS. So, again, I point out that even if a single station can be flipped during 1 siege cycle, the actual attack takes more than an hour. Multiply that by a dozen stations. Add an hour for formup. Add an hour to get everything in place. Add some cushion time and you can't do it in a day. While you are taking down one, defenders can easily be messing with another one. One important thing to remember is the idea of hitting a station just before downtime so you don't have to worry about it being re-flipped. If there were multiple stations, you would have to have 50 dreads and 50 carriers. Repping a station back up so it can't be flipped by a wing of bombers isn't a minor feat. Bottom line - the more stations in a system, the more static sov will be. Dreads warp to POS when stuff is reinforced and they do not have any more reason to sit around in space. Not inbetween warping between locations that need shooting. At least in my experience. We go to system, drop SBU's, then dreads go to ihub, RF it then after they exit siege they warp to station and RF it. If there would be few more stations then they would be warping there and RF'ing those also. Reason why taking a system takes several days is RF timers, not hardship of ganking few hundred mil hp structure or two. From your replys tho I get impression that you might have not been involved in sov warfare recently. If you are then my apologies - in that case our game experience differs quite a lot. You do raise a fair point tho - at what moment will the station be reinforced so it can't be repped up again when there is many stations in the system. Then again all this fuss about 'so hard sov warfare' is relatively easy to cirumenvent by just letting owner of the system point one of the stations as 'capital' of the system and making all stations in the system flip when capital station flips. Exactly the same sov warfare system as currently just with multiple stations in the system.
Komi Toran	Posted - 2010.03.24 23:00:00 - [53] If putting multiple outposts in a single system would make it too difficult to take over, then you simply need a mechanism where you only have to conquer a single outpost, which would make the rest flip to the attacker when it falls. Let's say, a system capital upgrade that must be installed on an outpost before multiple outposts can be deployed. If the outpost with the capital upgrade falls, so does the system. No need to go attacking the others.
Rebekbar Honored By Death Galactic Syndicate	Posted - 2010.03.25 03:59:00 - [54] I agree!!! There is no reason why a player own 0.0 system can not have several stations. Come on CCP....lift the ban!!!!
Kaarnakivi	Posted - 2010.03.25 12:11:00 - [55] I like it.
Johnny Dexter	Posted - 2010.03.26 00:57:00 - [56] I endorse this product / service. Having a refinery and a factory in the same system would be absolutely charming ( especially if their undocking ramps are pointed to each other )
Vlad Wormwing StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.28 08:19:00 - [57] Good idea.
Li Freeman	Posted - 2010.03.29 07:05:00 - [58] Well, why not. Few doubts I had have already been addressed in the replys.
Mashie Saldana Red Federation	Posted - 2010.03.29 09:42:00 - [59] Supported. Godly scientist/builder/reverse engineer for sale
Linda Dreamwalker	Posted - 2010.03.31 10:27:00 - [60]

Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.31 14:04:00 - [61] Originally by: Carniflex Dreads warp to POS when stuff is reinforced and they do not have any more reason to sit around in space. Not inbetween warping between locations that need shooting. At least in my experience. We go to system, drop SBU's, then dreads go to ihub, RF it then after they exit siege they warp to station and RF it. If there would be few more stations then they would be warping there and RF'ing those also. Reason why taking a system takes several days is RF timers, not hardship of ganking few hundred mil hp structure or two. From your replys tho I get impression that you might have not been involved in sov warfare recently. If you are then my apologies - in that case our game experience differs quite a lot. You do raise a fair point tho - at what moment will the station be reinforced so it can't be repped up again when there is many stations in the system. Then again all this fuss about 'so hard sov warfare' is relatively easy to cirumenvent by just letting owner of the system point one of the stations as 'capital' of the system and making all stations in the system flip when capital station flips. Exactly the same sov warfare system as currently just with multiple stations in the system. I was in the fleets rolling WI. out of Geminate right after the expansion. Early on, there was a constant threat of counter attack. If nodes wouldn't have completely lagged out nearly every time a fleet jumped/warped, that war would have had a lot more action than it did. Because the threat of lag was increasingly more feared than enemy fleets, fleets had to be split up more than they traditionally had been. This means cap fleets often do not have their support fleet near them for protection. This means things like this are a big worry in the current sov warfare system. IT moved a cap fleet without support because support + caps often means people get stuck. Grids don't handle anywhere near as many people as they used to. NC seems to have forgotten their experience in Geminate and elsewhere, and tried to load too many ships into the fight at the same time. So, even before the node died, many in the NC fleet were not involved in the fight, so far fewer ships were lost by IT than would have been lost if the NC fleet managed the entry of ships better. So, the point of that story is attacking a system with 12 stations would require a very large, very split up fleet. A fleet with a game mechanics weakness that will be exploited (unless fixed), making it impossible to take out a system. When fixed, it will only be a matter of re-flipping stations back with a handful of bombers or repping stations. Without a really large fleet, you won't be able to roll a system with a lot of stations.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.31 15:47:00 - [62] You still haven't explained why this would be more challenging than taking the same 12 stations in 12 different systems supported by 12 ihubs.
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.31 17:24:00 - [63] Edited by: Bagehi on 31/03/2010 17:26:27 Originally by: Malcanis You still haven't explained why this would be more challenging than taking the same 12 stations in 12 different systems supported by 12 ihubs. Because you can flip a station in one system right before downtime. When the servers come back up - presto-chango - it is fully repped, requiring a fleet to flip it back (rather than just a few stealth bombers). For this reason, station attacks are timed so the station will be flipped within minutes of downtime. Even if you managed to magically flip each station in a system with 1 siege cycle each and no time between, 12 stations would take 2 hours. That's plenty of time for the defender to sneak in and flip some of them back. Thus beginning a never ending flip back and forth of stations. A.K.A. Static Sovereignty. This would be rolling back the sov changes made in Dominion to the POS wars of old, but worse. With this mechanic, neither side would have to haul in and setup new resistars as stations don't die. So, if taking sov before was bad, taking it with multiple stations allowed per system would be impossible.
Manalapan Dynasty Banking General Tso's Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.31 18:33:00 - [64] I support this idea, but the idea should come with a thorough analysis of the sov system and not just it takes x amount of time to conquer the system with x number of stations. If an unlimited number of outposts are allowed maybe how outposts function needs to be reviewed, systems like destructable, operating costs, and total hp, so that while you can support a dozen outposts in a system maybe it becomes increasingly less cost effective to have a large number of outposts. Dynasty Banking
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.31 18:41:00 - [65] Originally by: Manalapan I support this idea, but the idea should come with a thorough analysis of the sov system and not just it takes x amount of time to conquer the system with x number of stations. If an unlimited number of outposts are allowed maybe how outposts function needs to be reviewed, systems like destructable, operating costs, and total hp, so that while you can support a dozen outposts in a system maybe it becomes increasingly less cost effective to have a large number of outposts. ... and then what? Stations can't be destroyed. If it costs too much to run all the stations, what does the alliance do? If they can remove/add stations at will, it is the old "drop towers on all moons" POS slog but worse. Most of the big alliances can easily hold a collection of strategic station eggs to make systems invincible in the face of attack. If you want more stations in systems, then sov can't be tied to the stations at all.
Manalapan Dynasty Banking General Tso's Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.31 19:12:00 - [66] Originally by: Bagehi ... and then what? Stations can't be destroyed. If it costs too much to run all the stations, what does the alliance do? If they can remove/add stations at will, it is the old "drop towers on all moons" POS slog but worse. Most of the big alliances can easily hold a collection of strategic station eggs to make systems invincible in the face of attack. If you want more stations in systems, then sov can't be tied to the stations at all. Agreed, like I and most everyone else has said for this to work sov needs to looked at. I was proposing a way to discourage the have an unlimited number of stations. You do bring up an interesting idea of unanchoring an Outpost like we do with POS. I feel that this would substantially lessen the value of an attack on a system with an Outpost if the defenders can just take it and run. Could easily come up with a back story that prevents the unanchoring of an Outpost, but still have a destructible capability. Also, what if we took the approach and removed the Station-Sov connection entirely. You don't need Sov to own a station maybe even to build a station (would obviously need to rework how stations are built then or let sov charge for planet anchoring or whatever). In empire there are Caldari Corporation Stations in Gallente Space and such why shouldn't a similar thing be possible in 0.0? Dynasty Banking
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.31 19:41:00 - [67] I believe station ownership/rights are connected to sov, and have been since the dawn of time. So, asking CCP to change that would (probably) be a major undertaking and met with similar "oh god, oh god, run and hide" response as to the repeated beating the dead horse threads. If stations are disconnected from sov (not in the OP proposal), I would support this proposal to a degree. However, I don't think CCP would even blink before saying "no" if CSM proposed it.
Zoltar Torzoid Gallente Swag Co.	Posted - 2010.03.31 20:21:00 - [68] Edited by: Zoltar Torzoid on 31/03/2010 20:25:22 AFAIK, the only connection to sov an outpost has is that you have to have sov to deploy one. Since Sov is an alliance level option, and outposts are corp level structures I see no reason why there should be a arbitrary hard limit on the number of stations aloud to be deployed in a system. On the other hand is SHOULD be limited in some way. I would suggest any additional stations in a system have certain limitations, or expenditures associated with them. Monthly fees should be added to additional outposts so you have to decide if the benefit is worth the cost. It's not so hard to come up with he ISK and materials to build a spare outpost in a system, but if it's going to incur a recurring cost that stacks with even more additional outposts then you now have some choices to make. EDIT: if the fees cannot be payed, or there is no controller of the outpost then start it on a decay timer and start letting rats use it as a base of operation, sorta like a dynamic mission based on lack of payment. Adds some atmosphere to the loss of an outpost. If it's left long enough, and it's decay timer runs out (very long timer) then blow it up. If the argument is that every new outpost has the potential of stressing the database with all new market information because they all have markets, simply force one of the outposts (first one obviously) to be labeled as the primary outpost and be the only one with market services. As far as overpopulation of 0.0 with outposts is concerned; at some point in the future there will be an outpost in every claimable system. Then those that wish to build their own are screwed. If you think this is impossible, open your map in-game and sort the star colors by services and select insurance as the filter. There are already a LOT of outposts in 0.0, and there will only be more in the future. -Zoltar
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.31 20:45:00 - [69] Originally by: Zoltar Torzoid AFAIK, the only connection to sov an outpost has is that you have to have sov to deploy one. Since Sov is an alliance level option, and outposts are corp level structures I see no reason why there should be a arbitrary hard limit on the number of stations aloud to be deployed in a system. On the other hand is SHOULD be limited in some way. A corp not in the alliance holding sov in a system cannot control the system's station. Flipping a station is one of the ways to flip sov in the Dominion sov mechanics. Originally by: Zoltar Torzoid I would suggest any additional stations in a system have certain limitations, or expenditures associated with them. Monthly fees should be added to additional outposts so you have to decide if the benefit is worth the cost. It's not so hard to come up with he ISK and materials to build a spare outpost in a system, but if it's going to incur a recurring cost that stacks with even more additional outposts then you now have some choices to make. EDIT: if the fees cannot be payed, or there is no controller of the outpost then start it on a decay timer and start letting rats use it as a base of operation, sorta like a dynamic mission based on lack of payment. Adds some atmosphere to the loss of an outpost. If it's left long enough, and it's decay timer runs out (very long timer) then blow it up. If the argument is that every new outpost has the potential of stressing the database with all new market information because they all have markets, simply force one of the outposts (first one obviously) to be labeled as the primary outpost and be the only one with market services. As far as overpopulation of 0.0 with outposts is concerned; at some point in the future there will be an outpost in every claimable system. Then those that wish to build their own are screwed. If you think this is impossible, open your map in-game and sort the star colors by services and select insurance as the filter. There are already a LOT of outposts in 0.0, and there will only be more in the future. -Zoltar Agreed. However, CCP said a while back that stations/outposts cannot be destroyed without a massive overhaul of the code. At some point, this should happen. When that happens, sov should also be disconnected from station ownership. When those two things happen, then multiple stations per system wouldn't be a problem.
Seriously Bored	Posted - 2010.03.31 20:58:00 - [70] I think this is a great idea. Seems silly to have a limit of one. Though I think there's a reasonable upper limit to have...say 5? 10?

Zoltar Torzoid Gallente Swag Co.	Posted - 2010.03.31 21:02:00 - [71] Yes I know outposts cannot be destroyed at-current, that would have to be changed to impliment the other crap in y post. ;-) Although, I gotta ask, If a corp owns an outpost, and is kicked from an alliance, they no longer have sov, and are no longer in the alliance, but they still own the outpost right? If it is impossible for a corp to own an outpost while not in an alliance then they would have to hand over the outpost before the alliance could kick them, but I assume that things of that nature happen between people on good terms, not between people that are mad enough to give someone the boot. Just wondering how that works right now, I've never encountered it so I don't know. -Zoltar
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.31 21:32:00 - [72] Originally by: Seriously Bored I think this is a great idea. Seems silly to have a limit of one. Though I think there's a reasonable upper limit to have...say 5? 10? Well logical limiter is number of planets you can deploy the station at. I'm not especially keen ofc about the limit of having to install it at the planet ofc either (as long as you can't install it in the same grid as POS) It's not like you can hide a station as it shines in the overview. As far as current sov warfare goes ofc it sucks and so does lag, but basing development decisions on lag is not that good idea either. Anyway - several ways to circumenvent the 'omg many station to shoot thru' issue (if it is issue) have been already posted. For example having to point one station in the system as capital or master station and if this flips then so do others in the system. So in my eyes the condition of current sov warfare is not a reason to keep that limit in place as it's easy to adress the concenrs related to many station in one system if so desired. I also do not see immediate danger of 0.0 getting filled with stations, as if this would be the issue it would be already happening. Eventually yes - there will be 1 station in every starsystem in 0.0 under current mehanics as CCP made sure of it when the sov was tied to station in the way it was done. After there is already a station in the system is that so big step upwards if there is several in the system ?
lilrez GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.22 09:14:00 - [73] If the goal is to allow "100's" of players in a single system, multiple stations will make this actually desirable rather than merely possible.
Marked Ugler	Posted - 2010.04.22 13:53:00 - [74] Originally by: Bagehi Edited by: Bagehi on 31/03/2010 17:26:27 Originally by: Malcanis You still haven't explained why this would be more challenging than taking the same 12 stations in 12 different systems supported by 12 ihubs. Because you can flip a station in one system right before downtime. When the servers come back up - presto-chango - it is fully repped, requiring a fleet to flip it back (rather than just a few stealth bombers). For this reason, station attacks are timed so the station will be flipped within minutes of downtime. Even if you managed to magically flip each station in a system with 1 siege cycle each and no time between, 12 stations would take 2 hours. That's plenty of time for the defender to sneak in and flip some of them back. NOw i finally see why so many people hate the idea- it would not let them station flip any more! OW my god! You would actually have ti fight? ISn't that what nulsec warfare is about?? thanks for being honest at least, 0 times suported. You are not suppose to be able to take over any system yourwhat easelly, if someone tok there time and invested money into building up 12 stations, they are suppose to be harder to take over. Maybe we should not allow people to get together in big fleets because they are harder to kill like this, huh?
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.04.22 14:08:00 - [75] Originally by: Marked Ugler Originally by: Bagehi Edited by: Bagehi on 31/03/2010 17:26:27 Originally by: Malcanis You still haven't explained why this would be more challenging than taking the same 12 stations in 12 different systems supported by 12 ihubs. Because you can flip a station in one system right before downtime. When the servers come back up - presto-chango - it is fully repped, requiring a fleet to flip it back (rather than just a few stealth bombers). For this reason, station attacks are timed so the station will be flipped within minutes of downtime. Even if you managed to magically flip each station in a system with 1 siege cycle each and no time between, 12 stations would take 2 hours. That's plenty of time for the defender to sneak in and flip some of them back. NOw i finally see why so many people hate the idea- it would not let them station flip any more! OW my god! You would actually have ti fight? ISn't that what nulsec warfare is about?? thanks for being honest at least, 0 times suported. You are not suppose to be able to take over any system yourwhat easelly, if someone tok there time and invested money into building up 12 stations, they are suppose to be harder to take over. Maybe we should not allow people to get together in big fleets because they are harder to kill like this, huh? you know it already takes a few days of fighting to take over a station system? I wouldnt call a few days of almost constant fighting an easy take over.
Orb Lati Minmatar ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.23 03:47:00 - [76] Absolutely not. I'm sure others before me have stated the obvious but more than 1 outpost per system provides a massive benefit to the defenders. 2 Additional semi random reinforcement timers per additional station. "We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible"
xChevalierx	Posted - 2010.04.23 23:34:00 - [77] propose this again when every single 0.0 system has a station in it?


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.