Originally by: Chewan Mesa

---

Edited by: Chewan Mesa on 17/07/2007 16:42:35
I agree that Outposts should be destroyable in some way...not just walking in, taking Sov and popping it, but having them there permanent with ever-expanding alliances is sooner or later going to cause serious issues.

Concerning your last point, what do you mean losing an outpost doesnt have any real cost for people involved?

---

Originally by: Hannobaal

---

Originally by: Brox alDragoran

---

How much fun would that be, holding your sworn enmies pos for x days, fighting wave after wave of attacks and then laughing as you push the big red button.

---

If you capture an outpost, why would you want to destroy it? Those things are very expensive to set up.

---

Originally by: Chewan Mesa

---

Originally by: Hannobaal

---

Originally by: Brox alDragoran

---

How much fun would that be, holding your sworn enmies pos for x days, fighting wave after wave of attacks and then laughing as you push the big red button.

---

If you capture an outpost, why would you want to destroy it? Those things are very expensive to set up.

---

Its expensive for whoever set it up, not for you if you conquer it. And if you'd conquer it merely for the purpose of blowing it up and hurting your enemy...

---

Originally by: Hannobaal

---

Originally by: Brox alDragoran

---

Originally by: Hannobaal

---

Originally by: Brox alDragoran

---

How much fun would that be, holding your sworn enmies pos for x days, fighting wave after wave of attacks and then laughing as you push the big red button.

---

If you capture an outpost, why would you want to destroy it? Those things are very expensive to set up.

---

If you dont understand the valuse of destroying billions of your opponents assets I'm not sure i can help you.

---

I understand the value of doing that. Do you understand the value of owning an outpost? Even if you don't want to hold it (for whatever reason) you can always sell it back to the original owners or to someone else for a hefty price.

---

Originally by: Hannobaal

---

Edited by: Hannobaal on 18/07/2007 10:50:03

Originally by: Brox alDragoran

---

yes i do, I know the problems they cause me moving around, i understand how much they cost to set up and i can see how bad a loss it would be. I dont think you understand what the problem is here.

Everything in EvE is risk vs reward.

You invest X isk to put up a pos and if your unlcky/stupid or somone very bad comes along it can be destroyed however they enable a corp/alliance to amke a lot of isk and have a staging post.

There is reward and there is risk.

With an outpost you invest XXXXXX and get a huge reward, my sweet holy funk is it rewarding to own an outpost. Where however is the risk ? ok it can be taken by someone else, but you can always take it back and within a few days be back where you started.

There is no risk of the asset being removed, only of a tempory change in ownership.

Do you see the diffrence ? Do you see how there might be an imbalence here. Try to look at the bigger picture.

---

I think the bigger picture here is really that you would rather 0.0 remain a wild wasteland instead of being colonized by player alliances and become a player run version of empire space. And that's ok, but it's not where CCP seems to want Eve to go.

---

Originally by: duckmonster

---

I reckon it'd be more fun just to do this;-

1) Keep the ability to destroy modules (hint establishment;- You can probably ransom folk on those with the mothership)

2) Get rid of Pos's

3) Station sovereignty can be gaine just by shooting it.

What I mean is go back to flipflop wars. I'd love the idea of taking a station, destroying its services, bubbling the **** out of the station and podding its inhabitants back to newbies again.

---

Originally by: duckmonster

---

You already can kill services. Check the latest revelation patch notes.

Its grief++, and its awesome.

---

Originally by: ToxicFire

---

Originally by: Brox alDragoran

---

Edited by: Brox alDragoran on 17/07/2007 15:11:06
I have two questions.

1) Why can't you blow them up ? Seriously why not, ok you can take them over but why is permantly removing them not allowed?

2) How long is it going to be before the big alliances have outposts in all the space they own and blocking every entry point to 0.0 with cyno jammers ?

It's not going to be much fun if everywhere you go theres an outpost.

---

Can't be bothered to read everything in between

1) Database management simple as that ever wondered why theres a downtime to put an outpost up, same kinda senario for removing it.

2) Quite a long time, its a logistical nightmare to manage it so what if the entry way is blocked cyno in behind them then come at them from both angles in BS's and other non cyno requiring ships cap ships aren't invincible anymore and you don't need a capship to kill a capship either.

---

Originally by: Frygok

---

Edited by: Frygok on 18/07/2007 12:13:53
Damn straight, make those Outpostst destroyable!

This is EVE, for gods sake. We mock WoW on the forums for being carebear, but apparently you can put out indestructable outposts? What is up with that? This is EVE, and space wars. You should be able to absolutely destroy empires, remove all their stuff, their outposts(including the items for all I care). People are supposed to take fatal losses economically and head back up into empire or whatever. EVE is supposed to be harsh.

I know CCP wants more people in 0.0 space. But if they can't hack it, stay in empire. Frankly, the servers can't even handle the current amount of EVE players in 0.0.

0.0 is supposed to be the end-game, where everything can be lost in a matter of weeks. Where the tough and hardcore people fight a desperate battle for survival. As it is now, it seems to become more and more carebearish.

I know alot of people prolly disagree with my romatisized view of how EVE should be, but as it is now, it feels far away from the battle for life and death in 0.0 space, and has become "POS-spam" online, and Outposts that can't be removed. The EVE that is portrayed to the outside(WoW players, media, etc.) doesn't sound like the EVE I am playing, to be honest.

---

Originally by: Tecam Hund

---

There is a problem with outposts being destructible.

As it stands right now more powerful alliances can pretty much erase any smaller ones from the face of EVE. The reason they don't do it is because they do not want extra space to control. Now, if the outposts were destructible what would stop the current mega alliances from simply turning everything but their space into a wasteland?

Some might enjoy being peons, but there are still people in EVE who don't feel like being a part of multi-thousand army is fun. The field has to be leveled at least to some extend to allow smaller entities some room to breathe.

---

Originally by: Tecam Hund

---

Originally by: Brox alDragoran

---

Edited by: Brox alDragoran on 18/07/2007 13:52:07
Edited by: Brox alDragoran on 18/07/2007 13:51:11

Originally by: Tecam Hund

---

There is a problem with outposts being destructible.

As it stands right now more powerful alliances can pretty much erase any smaller ones from the face of EVE. The reason they don't do it is because they do not want extra space to control. Now, if the outposts were destructible what would stop the current mega alliances from simply turning everything but their space into a wasteland?

Some might enjoy being peons, but there are still people in EVE who don't feel like being a part of multi-thousand army is fun. The field has to be leveled at least to some extend to allow smaller entities some room to breathe.

---

The abilty to remove massive stratigic advantages that only the super rich can deploy is the only way a smaller force can strike back and cause massive amounts of damage.

---

Consider what is more likely though, for a large alliance to destroy a poorly defended outpost or for a smaller force to successfully siege and destroy an outpost defended by a larger force equipped with vast capital fleet?

I am not sure what Establishment is up to now, but assuming you were able to destroy outposts. Would you attack the poorly defended ones trying to ransom them, or head to BoB space to try and score one of theirs? The choice is pretty obvious.

I can see your point, but smaller alliances will be the ones to suffer the most. Their outposts would be destroyed before anyone manages to inflict heavy damage to more protected areas.

---

Originally by: Hannobaal

---

Edited by: Hannobaal on 18/07/2007 15:38:17

Originally by: Malachon Draco

---

I ama aware of the distinction and the fact we in the drone regions only have outposts. However I doubt whether the discussion here touched at all on that distinction or that any of the participants chose the term outpost as a signal that they wanted conquerable stations to be exempted.

---

I disagree. The point made was that since players can create them, they should be destructible.

Originally by: Brox alDragoran

---

I understand how cool it is for people putting them up but it if players can build it why cant it be destroyed ?

---

The subtext running clearly through the entire thread (no matter what other arguments are brought forward) is anti-alliance and anti player alliance colonization of 0.0. And that is the real issue here.

Originally by: Brox alDragoran

---

2) How long is it going to be before the big alliances have outposts in all the space they own and blocking every entry point to 0.0

---

Originally by: Chewan Mesa

---

having them there permanent with ever-expanding alliances is sooner or later going to cause serious issues.

---

Originally by: Brox alDragoran

---

The problem is that every part of 0.0 needs to be accessd from empire space and to get into deep 0.0 where isk is to be made you will need to travel through at least 1 choke point.

---

Originally by: Brox alDragoran

---

Am i the only one thats worred 0.0 will become a seriers of impenitrable alliance blocks, where only huge fleet battles take place. I understand CCP wanted to move the game towards fleet combat and alliance sized warfare but some of us dont want to play that sort of game.

---

---

Originally by: Hannobaal

---

Edited by: Hannobaal on 18/07/2007 17:34:48

Originally by: Brox alDragoran

---

Do you not see a problem with all of 0.0 becoming alliance owned ? I know it will make mining and ratting safer for people but im sure totally safe 0.0 would get boring very fast.

There is no "sub text" i am very open about not wanting alliance collonisation in 0.0 .
I look at it like this. There is a war on. This war is not betwene one faction or another its betwene safe space and lawless space the battle lines are where ever the outer linits of empire are. Putting up an outpost and securing an area of space pushes that boundry out into 0.0 . The problem as is see it, is that there is atm no way to push that boundry back. Once the foot is in the door thats it. Now for your perspective it might be good to only ever step forward but for people who like a conflict to be able to go both ways its a big problem.

Do you inderstand the point i am trying to make ? With no chance of losing there can be no real victory.

---

Alliances colonizing 0.0 won't remove risk. There will always be war in 0.0, and it will always be "lawless" in the sense that law is determined and enforced by the inhabiting players instead of by npc nations like in empire space. What will happen is it will just move to a different level where it becomes more and more like major wars between large separate "nations" than skirmishes between roving gangs of raiders. I'm all for that.

I would also like to se 0.0 having almost as many stations as empire space.

---

Originally by: Tecam Hund

---

Why lay claim to a region, when you can lay claim to a few systems?

The "larger dudes" are the most powerful. Give them power to destroy outposts, and there will be no small dudes.

Smaller raider alliances? First of all, I don't believe that any smaller alliance will be able to compete against the outpost power blocks that will form up (no doubt there), and even if they could, why make EVE all about POS wars?

"Hey guys, we have a cool thing happening over the next 3 weeks. We are going to attempt to disrupt sov. over *insert constellation name here* and hopefully blow up the outpost" ZzzZz

---

Originally by: Rodj Blake

---

Edited by: Rodj Blake on 19/07/2007 15:24:30

There's a very good reason why you shouldn't be able to destroy outposts.

Let's say that when they were first introduced there was a dominant alliance.

This alliance would of course be the first to build outposts.

But they would also have the resources to capture and destroy other outposts as soon as they were built.

In the current system, such a dominant alliance can still capture other outposts, but the drain on resources to simultaneously hold outposts across the map is great enough to prevent this. There's no point in capturing an outpost that you'll have to leave a week later.

So in short, by allowing outposts to be destroyed, you would in fact ensure that only BoB would have any outposts, and they would all be in BoB held space.

Is that really what any of us want?

---