EVE Search - Outposts

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Outposts

» 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)
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:42:00 - [31] Edited by: Hannobaal on 18/07/2007 10:42:08 Originally by: Chewan Mesa Edited by: Chewan Mesa on 18/07/2007 10:35:44 Originally by: Hannobaal 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. The value of owning one is completely subjective. If you value it more to own a new one, rather than hurting your enemy by blowing his up, noone says you shouldnt do it, or shouldnt be able to. But 'some' people might think differently, and 'should' therefore have the option to do what they see more valuable. It's valuable whether you want to hold it hold or not. And I know for a fact that your alliance is not foreign to the idea of capturing outposts and selling them to other alliances. ------------------
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:44:00 - [32] 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. 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.
Chewan Mesa coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:45:00 - [33] Originally by: Hannobaal It's valuable whether you want to hold it hold or not. And I know for a fact that your alliance is not foreign to the idea of capturing outposts and selling them to other alliances. Sorry, but that is simply wrong. For BoB, or the Goons 1 Outpost has less value than for an alliance owning only 1 Outpost where they live from, without they would have to move to a new home. Again, I'm not arguing that an outpost has a certain Isk-cost that is ofc the same for everyone. But if alliance A had 10 outposts, and alliance B had 10, alliance A was able to defend their 10, but not an 11th or more cause of POSs etc, and they would still conquer 5 of alliance B, it makes much more sense to just blow the damn things up, inflicting ISK-damage on alliance B, than keeping them and losing them again.
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:48:00 - [34] 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. ------------------
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:53:00 - [35] Originally by: Chewan Mesa Originally by: Hannobaal It's valuable whether you want to hold it hold or not. And I know for a fact that your alliance is not foreign to the idea of capturing outposts and selling them to other alliances. Sorry, but that is simply wrong. For BoB, or the Goons 1 Outpost has less value than for an alliance owning only 1 Outpost where they live from, without they would have to move to a new home. Again, I'm not arguing that an outpost has a certain Isk-cost that is ofc the same for everyone. But if alliance A had 10 outposts, and alliance B had 10, alliance A was able to defend their 10, but not an 11th or more cause of POSs etc, and they would still conquer 5 of alliance B, it makes much more sense to just blow the damn things up, inflicting ISK-damage on alliance B, than keeping them and losing them again. Yeah, and if I own billions 1 million is not worth as much to me as it would be if my wallet is empty, but that has nothing to do with economic value. ------------------
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:56:00 - [36] 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. Did you read anything in the section you quoted ? I want people in 0.0 I want outpost I want people to hunt me down like the dog i am. Without the risk of death, defeat and failure this game is nothing but WOW in space. I'v got no candy for that.
duckmonster GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.18 11:09:00 - [37] 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.
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 11:15:00 - [38] 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. It would be cool if you could cripple a station. I think iv said this before but I'd love to be able to destroy even the ability to dock at an outpost unless someone hauls whatever components are apropriate, has the skills and the equiptment to slowly online it again. Then slowly work through the rest of the facilities onlining them.
Rawthorm Gallente The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 11:29:00 - [39] I did have some ideas regarding the implementation of station destruction without actualy removing the station from the game (from a technical aspect so you dont have to wipe out all the stations contents and docked players) Empire A attacks an outpost belonging to Empire B and captures it with the express purpose of scuttling it. A 7 day buildup to it's destruction is started (If the outpost changes hands at any point this time is canceled.) Once the 7 day timer expires, the following downtime see's the station model replaced by a newly designed dockable "wreck" with no ownership. Now at this point anyone docked is still able to undock and all assets inside the station are still intact. A new kind of vessel would be designed for large scale salvage operations. In addition to standard bonus's for everyday salvage and tractoring, it would have a special module that when used on an outpost wreck would allow a small chance for a gang member to dock with the damaged outpost assuming that the individual or his corporation hanger have assets in the station in question. No new items can be placed into the station but existing gear can be removed. This system would not only allow the station to become derilict, but would also mean no items have to be destroyed, no players get trapped (and at the same time people cant just randomly dock in the wreck to hide) plus you know walking around a dead station in your eva suit would be creepy when they release this whole walking in stations thing
duckmonster GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.18 11:32:00 - [40] You already can kill services. Check the latest revelation patch notes. Its grief++, and its awesome.
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 11:35:00 - [41] Edited by: Brox alDragoran on 18/07/2007 11:34:35 Originally by: duckmonster You already can kill services. Check the latest revelation patch notes. Its grief++, and its awesome. Killing services is one thing, but i bet youd love to turn a Bob outpost into a nice burnt out husk. Grief +++++ ?
ToxicFire Phoenix Knights Dark Nebula Galactic Empire	Posted - 2007.07.18 11:38:00 - [42] 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. Sig removed as it lacks EVE-related content. Mail [email protected] if you have questions. -Hango
ToxicFire Phoenix Knights Dark Nebula Galactic Empire	Posted - 2007.07.18 11:38:00 - [43] Originally by: duckmonster You already can kill services. Check the latest revelation patch notes. Its grief++, and its awesome. Its acutally incapcitate rather than kill they never disappear just go incapacitated when they go into structure. Sig removed as it lacks EVE-related content. Mail [email protected] if you have questions. -Hango
duckmonster GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.18 11:40:00 - [44] Edited by: duckmonster on 18/07/2007 11:42:00 Actually, I like the smouldering wreck idea, but I still think having it destroyed is probably innapropriate. How about this, once you've beaten down sovreignty, you can shoot a station until its a smouldering wreck, complete with a really cool busted up station interior. The facilities dont work, and half your gear is trashed. Heck, even make it brutal. Your clone is now alpha. For the capturing alliance however, you can still get that station, but you need to put 10bil worth of stuff (minerals, parts etc) into the station and hope it doesnt get all shot up , until downtime. After downtime, its all shiny and new, and you have a station. Its a bit like building a new station, but instead of 30-40 bil worth of junk, we are talking 5-10 bil. Its a repair job. For the pirate, the incentive is there, because you can say "Give us 5bil, or you'll spend 10bil repairing". Thats pretty damn profitable. That said, I still prefer ping-pong stations, just for the idea of constant rolling battles over sovreignty of stations. edit: Changed mil to bil.
duckmonster GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.18 11:41:00 - [45] Originally by: Brox alDragoran Edited by: Brox alDragoran on 18/07/2007 11:34:35 Originally by: duckmonster You already can kill services. Check the latest revelation patch notes. Its grief++, and its awesome. Killing services is one thing, but i bet youd love to turn a Bob outpost into a nice burnt out husk. Grief +++++ ? We see eye to eye here, my pirate friend :)
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 11:48:00 - [46] 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. 1) I understand the horror of the database management issues. II dont know if Raw's idea above solves these problems. 2) This then means that if you want to enter 0.0 you need to be able to muster a significant force of Bs + support only large corps and alliances can do this. We at the Establishment could pull somthing like that off. I am thinking about the majority of other small corps who will now have to be part of a big alliance to enter 0.0 and set up an operation. 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.
Frygok Minmatar Mean Anglo-Danes	Posted - 2007.07.18 12:14:00 - [47] 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.
FarScape III	Posted - 2007.07.18 12:19:00 - [48] Can you guys imagine if there were thousands of Outposts and then some day they were almost all empty and not even being used at all, just like SWG? lol. A Minmater City... Cool! My Skills
Tecam Hund The Buggers	Posted - 2007.07.18 12:23:00 - [49] 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.
Tarazed Aquilae	Posted - 2007.07.18 12:39:00 - [50] There are a lot of reasons to make outposts indestructible. If nothing else it gives players a way to permanently modify the Eve universe. If you want a role playing reason why it canÆt be doneà Look at the size of those things. Millions, even tens of millions, of people could comfortably live in an outpost. WeÆre not just talking about combatants, but women and children. So, itÆs probably simply unthinkable to destroy an outpost in that way. Your crew would mutiny, ***** open your pod, and hang you in the cargo bay of you ordered them to fire on an outpost.
Frygok Minmatar Mean Anglo-Danes	Posted - 2007.07.18 12:52:00 - [51] Originally by: Tarazed Aquilae There are a lot of reasons to make outposts indestructible. If nothing else it gives players a way to permanently modify the Eve universe. If you want a role playing reason why it canÆt be doneà Look at the size of those things. Millions, even tens of millions, of people could comfortably live in an outpost. WeÆre not just talking about combatants, but women and children. So, itÆs probably simply unthinkable to destroy an outpost in that way. Your crew would mutiny, ***** open your pod, and hang you in the cargo bay of you ordered them to fire on an outpost. And that is what is wrong in my opinion. The point about EVE is that it is NOT STATIC, like other games. You should not, in my opinion ofcourse, be able to modify the EVE universe permanently. Empires should rise and crumble, and people should have the ability to remove every last remnant of their enemies, burn their space to cinders. To me, you are taking away choices from the players, due to the comfort of people. I simply don't find this compromising the hardcore PvP environment that is the cornerstone of EVE 0.0 warfare to create a Sim-universe to be the right course. Others disagree, sure. But taking away the option for people to destroy an outpost seems to be a pointer the completely different way than what has been what EVE is all about. Fighting, building and destroying, rise and fall of empires.
Bob Stuart B. S. Radioactive Sheep Farm	Posted - 2007.07.18 13:00:00 - [52] Outposts being a permanent part of the game universe allows people to point at something fairly physical and say to others "I made that", as a permanent reminder of their achievements. But, that does not prevent the outpost being destructible. Having outposts being destroyable, but leaving permanent ruins, also allows people to point at something fairly physical and say to others "I destroyed that", as a permanent reminder of their achievements. There's lots of ruins floating about in space anyway, like the monument at Caldari Prime, which are part of the history of the empires, so why not have permanent ruins of outposts as part of the history of the players?
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 13:25:00 - [53] 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. Hell Yeah !!
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 13:31:00 - [54] Edited by: Brox alDragoran on 18/07/2007 13:33:52
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 13:34:00 - [55] 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 inabilty to remove massive stratigic advantages that only the super right can deploy is the only way a smaller force can strike back and cause massive amounts of damage.
Mithfindel Amarr Ordo Crucis Argenteus	Posted - 2007.07.18 13:53:00 - [56] Actually, the different sovereignty levels might actually bring some help to this. Perchance you could set the outpost on a system you hold a certain sovereignty level in to be destroyed. It is a gargantuan task to build an outpost, and it'll be empty. It would seem that it is even greater an issue to dismantle one, after it has been lived in. People have the tendency to collect all kinds of crap. EVE is not realistic, but I'd imagine that just blasting away one would create quite a navigational hazard. Also, this would allow two things: 1) Destroying an outposts isn't something you can do in a whim, you need to hold the sovereignty in the system for X amount of days. 1a) Some of the stuff can be evacuated from the outpost 2) The dismantling command may be set so that it will be executed during downtime. The length of the outpost destruction time would need some thought, as well. If it is too short, it would become one of the most devastating forms of corporate espionage. Imagine a leaving director take the corp wallet, a load of zydrine, and demolish the outposts.
Macon Squaredealer Squaredeal Enterprises	Posted - 2007.07.18 13:54:00 - [57] While we are at it let's make ships and POS's indestructible. This is Eve, if it is player made it should be subject to capture, destruction, and self-destruction. They should also be capable of being defended by weapon systems mounted on and around the POS. The fact that they are indestructible is exactly why I am no longer interested in building one. Without risk, the reward is worthless.
Tecam Hund The Buggers	Posted - 2007.07.18 14:21:00 - [58] 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.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.07.18 14:28:00 - [59] 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. Good point, the OP is worried about big alliances dominating everything, but making outposts destroyable will only add to the attractiveness of big alliances, who have the best chance of keeping outposts alive. ------------------------------------------------ Murphy's Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.18 14:58:00 - [60] Something several people in this thread seems to not understand is that outposts are simply stations that happen to be created by players. When you're asking "why can't outposts be destructible?", you're asking "why can't stations be destructible?" Let's say it is possible to destroy outposts. Then, in that case, why shouldn't at the very, very least 0.0 conquerable stations also be possible to destroy? ------------------

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.