| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kaysai
Independent Traders
   |
Posted - 2011.02.10 21:14:00 -
[1]
When I first started playing Eve many years ago, 0.0 was a scary place. It was far from the safety of empire, where one could go many jumps without seeing another soul or another player made object. This was how 0.0 was meant to be. High rewards for high risks. Unfortunately today, the opposite is true. There are no risks if you're paying attention and you can live just about anywhere without any hassle due to the station proliferation that has overcome Eve in recent times.
Personally, I think building stations is great. It's quite like building your own alliance supercap, it's something everyone can work towards. However, unlike everything else you build in Eve, it's indestructable. You can ping pong it around between alliances, remove clones and corp hangars, but apart from that, nothing. The station will remain there forever. So what happens when your space is invaded?
Over the last few years, a trend has been emerging. One alliance loses it's space, waits a few months, then retakes it, with all it's assets intact, ready to be re-used again, sitting in a station. See for example MC vs NC, Goons vs BoB (and IT). There's no real problem with losing all your sov. If your patient and your alliance isn't some paper tiger, the chances are you will retake your station some day, then build more stations.
I know it has been discussed before, and deemed impossible, but it needs to change. This should be a major priority for CCP, and if its required, code should be rewritten. Stations need to be destructable. I'm not gonna go over how I think they should be made destructable, as that's another days discussion. Currently there are at least 10 regions with more than 25% station coverage in space. This, frankly is ridiculous.
Some Data:
In order of station coverage (%)
Providence
52 Stations
84 Systems
61% Station Coverage
Deklein
28 Stations
68 Systems
41% Station Coverage
Delve (Not including Blood Raiders NPC Space)
34 Stations
85 Systems
40% Station Coverage
Tribute
21 Stations
54 Systems
39% Station Coverage
Period Basis
13 Stations
40 Systems
33% Station Coverage
Total Stations in these regions: 148
Average Station Coverage: 42.5%
These are just 5 regions (admittedly ones that looked most station crowded on map) in all of 0.0. Not only do stations provide sanctuary for pilots and assets, but they also provide huge defensive advantage as you have to reinforce each one three (3) times, which the defender gets to set timers for.
Finally, this would allow alliances to go on a "scorched earth" campaign and actually inflict some damage on hostile infrastructure. |
Kitty McKitty
Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 21:19:00 -
[2]
Supported, burn them all  |
Larkonis Trassler
NibbleTek
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 21:21:00 -
[3]
Most definately supporting this. It's not something that will be easy to implement and, if it is, it shouldn't be a trivial act to destroy a station, requiring a good time and manpower investment to get the job done. |
Ephemeron
BeerTia Maniacs
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 21:26:00 -
[4]
I support the general idea of destroying stations.
However, I don't like the way strategic fleet battles are done in EVE. It wouldn't be fair to allow stations be destroyed under current sov mechanics.
Maybe something like this: the current owner of the Outpost can self destruct the Outpost after 30 days of ownership. Self destruct timer 24 hours.
That gives people enough time to try reclaim it. |
Tertiacero
JESUS CHRIST IT'S A LION GET IN THE CAR
WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 21:32:00 -
[5]
Big support. Something like this needs to happen if 0.0 is every going to break away from the 'go ahead and knock it down, we'll just rebuild it later and lose nothing' mentality it has right now.
I'd even go so far as to say if stations were destructable ccp should allow multiple player stations in systems. The biggest problem I see with this is the person who unsubbed 2 years ago and has all their stuff sitting in a station in Delve will not be amused if he resubs now to find it has all been welped. Destroy stations, sure, but some form of asset preservation or even compemsation needs to be in place. This is one of those things that eve desperately needs, but it needs to work the first time and it needs to be implemented in full(not like the halfassed and still broken lolsov changes).
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Certified Household Sweeping Consulting
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 21:34:00 -
[6]
I just want the bisons roam free. ****ing farmers and railroads.
|
hblade
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 22:17:00 -
[7]
I agree with this i like that 0.0 is hard to live in it should not be made to easy. the challenge is half the fun.
|
Frank Shitlitz
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 22:21:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Frank ****litz on 10/02/2011 22:21:23
 Originally by: Kaysai
one could go many jumps without seeing another soul or another player made object. This was how 0.0 was meant to be. High rewards for high risks.
Just curious: If there is nobody around to make the sexee time on you, how risky can it really be? Seems, to me, that you have it backwards m8.
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 22:29:00 -
[9]
while i agree that stations should be made destructable, you argument carries no weight, does not propose a solution and highlight something that isnt even an issue. I have no problem wiht null having 200% station coverage, it's not like those stations just spontaneously appeared there, people worked their butts off for them, you know.
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
Certified Household Sweeping Consulting
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:04:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
while i agree that stations should be made destructable, you argument carries no weight, does not propose a solution and highlight something that isnt even an issue. I have no problem wiht null having 200% station coverage, it's not like those stations just spontaneously appeared there, people worked their butts off for them, you know.
I think you're missing the point where evil griefers are hopefully supposed to be able to rob/destroy player made structures, like in said dark world (tm) (quote from some random ccp interview i cannot recall now) they would.
Currently stations cannot be destroyed or even looted, even POS's are pretty difficult to loot since, well, ppl can just warp out their stuff, even if someone has time to waste to shoot POS two times. Currently practical way to rob people is just join corp and get a password/hangar access.
|
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:06:00 -
[11]
While I'm not entirely convinced by your argument about proliferation, I certainly do agree that non-NPC 0.0 stations should be vulnerable to destruction just like everything else there.
-----
Andreus Ixiris
CEO, Mixed Metaphor
|
Shobon Welp
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:14:00 -
[12]
Only if NPC 0.0 and lowsec stations can be destroyed too.
|
Kaysai
Independent Traders
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:16:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
while i agree that stations should be made destructable, you argument carries no weight, does not propose a solution and highlight something that isnt even an issue. I have no problem wiht null having 200% station coverage, it's not like those stations just spontaneously appeared there, people worked their butts off for them, you know.
This thread isn't the propose a solution on how to design the mechanics of how you destroy stations. CCP have stated it is impossible with current coding, so this thread is to highlight that that needs to be changed soon.
People work their butts off for titans too, but they're destructable. Stations go against the grain in Eve.
|
Andreus Ixiris
Gallente
Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:23:00 -
[14]
I'd like to comment that I also think 0.0 should have delayed local like wormhole space, an entirely different gate mechanic and be twice as large.
-----
Andreus Ixiris
CEO, Mixed Metaphor
|
Nocturnal Hunter
APOCALYPSE LEGION
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:45:00 -
[15]
kill them with fire
|
FlameGlow
Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:55:00 -
[16]
Don't count the votes of folks whos alliance didn't build any stations while they were in it  |
Doctor Invictus
Gallente
Zaneta Enterprises Inc
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 02:53:00 -
[17]
This is one of the aspects addressed by my giant sovereignty reform proposal. Basically, stations would be rolled into colonies in planets/moons/belts, which would be built by alliances at great expense in time and effort (more so than outposts). These colonies would be the battle sites of sovereignty, and would be fully destructible (but not by DPS).
Theoretically, based on the system I've set up, you would see a lot of infrastructure build up in the cores of larger alliances during peace time, and a lot of destruction between alliances during war.
|
Lykouleon
Bad Kitty Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 03:28:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Kaysai
and your alliance isn't some paper tiger
...I see what you did there.
+1, anything to see CVA whining more about how the sov system is imbalanced against their former holdings
Quote:
ImRedYoureDead > carebearing is when you make the other person's ship explode, right?
ImRedYoureDead > I think they're officers or something
ImRedYoureDead > they got names, they got to die |
The Offerer
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 03:34:00 -
[19]
HELL NO!!!
Players didn't left to nullsec to risk everything they own even when they are not logged in.
|
Shadow Ballet
Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 09:00:00 -
[20]
Originally by: FlameGlow
Don't count the votes of folks whos alliance didn't build any stations while they were in it
In that case, supported.
|
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 12:48:00 -
[21]
A similar proposal, made by my humble self, has already been passed by the CSM.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Wreck_outposts_%28CSM%29
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1399927
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
VaMei
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 15:35:00 -
[22]
For anything player created, there should be a way for other players to destroy it. That's the reset button on a sandbox game.
Outpost proliferation was a point of concern shortly after they were 1st introduced. At the time, CCP did acknowledge the potential for an issue and said they were not opposed to making them destroyable if it did become an issue.
I won't say that it's a problem yet, but I think we're close enough that it's time to start talking seriously about it. If absolutely nothing else, rebuilding after a scorched earth campaign would certainly revitalize the economy.
|
The Offerer
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 05:14:00 -
[23]
Originally by: VaMei
For anything player created, there should be a way for other players to destroy it. That's the reset button on a sandbox game.
Ok then... Then there should be a way to destroy everything a highsec player owns in a station. You declare "war" on NPC corporation and siege it. The station doesn't get completely destroyed, since it's not player built, but everything player owned in it gets blown up... including pods, clones, etc.
|
Ephemeron
BeerTia Maniacs
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 05:32:00 -
[24]
Originally by: The Offerer
Ok then... Then there should be a way to destroy everything a highsec player owns in a station. You declare "war" on NPC corporation and siege it. The station doesn't get completely destroyed, since it's not player built, but everything player owned in it gets blown up... including pods, clones, etc.
Since it's a sandbox, there's no reason why only players in nullsec should play in quicksand.
You CAN destroy assets in high sec - when player moves them in a hauler/freighter.
You CAN destroy player clones - every time you pod people, their clone is gone.
But can you name 1 scenario in which it would be possible to destroy a station? There is none, and there should be
|
Col Callahan
Boogie Monsters
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 07:46:00 -
[25]
Hmmm this could be the fix to the isk flow problem CCP feels there is right now. Add an isk sink like and burn them all to the ground.
I like it 
I heard you the last time. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 10:10:00 -
[26]
"admittedly ones that looked most station crowded on map" .. do the others as well, it is still a barren wasteland for the most part.
Stations are dumped into regions prior to or immediately following an invasion to provide security (exception being Providence which was developed for developments sake by CVA + Friends).
If ships have nano-bots all over to facilitate repairs one can only imagine that stations have even more extensive systems for the same purpose.
Change the station mechanics in regards to what's "allowed" and how the capture mechanics function to introduce vulnerabilities rather than the uninspired "shoot until wreck".
- Remove ability to use RR within docking range (solves undock carriers and high-sec lameness in one swoop).
- Remove ability to anchor anything within docking range (want to bubble?, use a bloody ship!)
- Disable services while system is contested (ie. iHub reinforced).
|
The Offerer
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 10:38:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Col Callahan
Hmmm this could be the fix to the isk flow problem CCP feels there is right now. Add an isk sink like and burn them all to the ground.
I like it
ISK sink??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 15:12:00 -
[28]
There will be one more station in 0.0 very soon.
|
Voddick
|
Posted - 2011.02.15 05:03:00 -
[29]
Supported
|
bartos102
|
Posted - 2011.02.15 09:39:00 -
[30]
i live in 0.0 atm and i like the idea of destructible stations
but as stated earlier you can not just destroy everything in the station mainly because of inactive players
and nobody want's to run the risk of losing the 5 fitted carriers he has in a station
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |