| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
   |
Posted - 2007.07.18 15:01:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Hannobaal
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?
Well, you're right, but I don't think people particularly made the distinction in this discussion between constructed or conquerable outposts.
------------------------------------------------
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 15:10:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Hannobaal
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?
Well, you're right, but I don't think people particularly made the distinction in this discussion between constructed or conquerable outposts.
Conquerable stations are not outposts. The term 'outpost' refers exclusively to player created stations. In the new regions (unlike the rest of 0.0) the outposts are the only kind of stations we have.
------------------
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 15:18:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Hannobaal
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Hannobaal
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?
Well, you're right, but I don't think people particularly made the distinction in this discussion between constructed or conquerable outposts.
Conquerable stations are not outposts. The term 'outpost' refers exclusively to player created stations. In the new regions (unlike the rest of 0.0) the outposts are the only kind of stations we have.
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 also think it would serve the discussion if we just focus on whether or not we would want playercontrollable stations in 0.0 to be destroyable or not, and keep the distinction between outposts and conquerables for another day?
------------------------------------------------
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 15:38:00 -
[64]
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.
------------------
|
Lhiannon
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 15:45:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Hannobaal
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Hannobaal
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?
Well, you're right, but I don't think people particularly made the distinction in this discussion between constructed or conquerable outposts.
Conquerable stations are not outposts. The term 'outpost' refers exclusively to player created stations. In the new regions (unlike the rest of 0.0) the outposts are the only kind of stations we have.
As I have understood it, there is no difference in the database between a "conquerable" station and a player "outpost."
Why aren't they destroyable? What are you going to do with all of the player, hangar, clone, item, ship, etc.. objects in the database? Where are they going to go? Are players going to 'magically' be transported to another station if the station that they are docked at gets popped?
Sure, destroyable stations could be in following with the atmosphere of EVE, but- I don't think we need another way for the big-dog alliances to cement their positions as *The Overlords* of 0.0 space. |
Draekas Darkwater
Moons of Pluto
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 15:47:00 -
[66]
As an alternative to destroying it, as others have suggested, why not just let the owner destroy or salvage station services of outposts?
Just make it so that you have to have sovereignty of the system. Then, you can select a salvage outpost option, which would then slowly start to salvage/destroy station services one at a time, starting with the least critical systems.
Perhaps it would take a day or so for each one, after which the salvage materials would appear in the owning corp's hanger.
Repairing such services would cost isk and materials, and take twice or three times as long as it would take to destroy/salvage them.
Only the hanger would be the only service you couldn't destroy in this way. Still, this would allow for some scorched earth compaigns by warring alliances.
As an alternative, you could salvage the station down to it's egg eventually, and then move it back to your territory as spoils of war, sell it, or blow it up if you really wanted.
|
Frygok
Minmatar
Mean Anglo-Danes
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 15:57:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Draekas Darkwater
As an alternative to destroying it, as others have suggested, why not just let the owner destroy or salvage station services of outposts?
Just make it so that you have to have sovereignty of the system. Then, you can select a salvage outpost option, which would then slowly start to salvage/destroy station services one at a time, starting with the least critical systems.
Perhaps it would take a day or so for each one, after which the salvage materials would appear in the owning corp's hanger.
Repairing such services would cost isk and materials, and take twice or three times as long as it would take to destroy/salvage them.
Only the hanger would be the only service you couldn't destroy in this way. Still, this would allow for some scorched earth compaigns by warring alliances.
As an alternative, you could salvage the station down to it's egg eventually, and then move it back to your territory as spoils of war, sell it, or blow it up if you really wanted.
Doesn't sound too bad, really.
I am fully aware of the fact that larger alliances can destroy smaller alliances Outposts. But as it is today, larger alliances can destroy smaller alliances aswell, but they have to either take over the Outpost themselves and defend it and the system/region, or get some renters in. I find the third option of destroying the Outpost would be a sign that the alliance don't want said area, and it can become a "wild region", where enemies have to put up their own stuff if they want it, and people can roam freely. That would be a bit refreshing, if you ask me.
However, claiming that the larger alliances would just dominate the smaller ones is a bad thing, sounds a bit hollow, since it already is that way. And perhaps, it should?
|
Brox alDragoran
Caldari
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 17:12:00 -
[68]
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.
It is much more likly that a big alliance will squish a small alliances outposts, however that is no reason to make them indestructable. If you extend your arguement to its next logical step, then ccp should make pos indestructable.
My point as previouusly stated is the simple "what go's up must come down arguement" If it can be built then we should be able to destroy it.
The Establishment has often done things that other people cosiderd to be only open to people with an alliance behind them (Yes we do have an alliance but its just us and another corp we invented). Who would we hit if we could ? well tbh we would hit any target of oppertunity that presents its self. That is what we have done, do now and will continue to do in the future.
|
Brox alDragoran
Caldari
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 17:19:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Brox alDragoran on 18/07/2007 17:24:21
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.
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.
|
Hannobaal
Gallente
Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom
Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 17:33:00 -
[70]
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. 
------------------
|
Brox alDragoran
Caldari
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 18:43:00 -
[71]
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.
If that is the way the game gos natrually then that is the way it will be, however atm the development of 0.0 is not able to develope freely because the outposts can not be popped. They are permanant structures, when everything else player built is not permanant. This isa the problem. Do you see the diffrence?
one is free flowing evolution. the other is guided.
|
Ange1
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 20:10:00 -
[72]
I'm more concerned alot of 0.0 space will end up cyno jammed atm... 
The Establishment is at your service...
|
Tecam Hund
The Buggers
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 21:22:00 -
[73]
I don't think that argument "if you can build, then why can't you destroy" is valid here. Neither does comparing outposts to POS makes sense.
Outposts on their own are harmless unlike POS, and provide services that help to colonize 0.0 turning it from uninhabitable wasteland into a populated area. Even if every system in 0.0 has an outpost, I don't see how it would make 0.0 any safer. Sure, you can dock, but then you can also take cover behind the POS shield or just cloak at safe spot; and while POS can be destroyed, they are also relatively cheap to put up.
The more outposts there are, the larger the population of 0.0 will become, and the more dynamic will the game play become. It will benefit both, the alliances who built them, and pirates/raiders who are looking for targets.
If you allow outposts to be destroyed the only thing you will see is formation of 2-3 powerblocks, the outpost syndicates, who will control every outpost out there. And if we think that EVE is becoming dull right now with its massive fleets, super blobs and POS warfare, then we ain't seen nothing yet should outposts become destroyable.
Maybe at some point game mechanics will change drastically, and it would allow smaller entities compete with larger ones more effectively. It is possible that then making outposts destroyable would benefit the game, but with how things work now it will only lead to the boredom meter go off the scale. Not that its far off...
P.S. As for cyno jammers... I think that new sovereignty system has to be rolled back completely. Nobody needs 0.0 to become an empire. But this is a whole different topic. All I can say, that even with destroyable outposts there is nothing stopping large alliances from cyno jamming.
|
Moon Kitten
Gallente
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 21:32:00 -
[74]
2. Don't bring a capital ship 
|
Sean Dillon
Caldari
Naughty 40
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 21:34:00 -
[75]
0.0 should stay as it is now, with not to many outposts per region. Imo for an small alliance its incredible hard to lay claim to a region that has over 10 stn's. They would be constantly threatened. ANd only lead to the large dudes being the most powerfull, encoureging blobs and lagg.
With destructeble you would see the formation off smaller raiders alliance, solely to pillage outpost whenever they get their hands on one.
|
Tecam Hund
The Buggers
|
Posted - 2007.07.18 21:45:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Sean Dillon
0.0 should stay as it is now, with not to many outposts per region. Imo for an small alliance its incredible hard to lay claim to a region that has over 10 stn's. They would be constantly threatened. ANd only lead to the large dudes being the most powerfull, encoureging blobs and lagg.
With destructeble you would see the formation off smaller raiders alliance, solely to pillage outpost whenever they get their hands on one.
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 
|
Brox alDragoran
Caldari
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.07.19 13:44:00 -
[77]
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
Just beacause you dont believe a small alliance could fight a big alliance does not mean it's not possible, certainly it does not mean it should be made impossible by preventing outposts from being destroyed. About a year ago the Establishment and a few friends very nearly took the 9UY outpost. IF it had not been for the number of other alliances that UK called in to help and had the game at that time been able to handle a conflict of that size who knows what might have happend. Difficult is not the same as impossible.
You might think trying to take down an outpost might be boring but i can tell your from expoerience it was a huge amount of fun.
|
Ange1
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.07.19 14:59:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Brox alDragoran
You might think trying to take down an outpost might be boring but i can tell your from expoerience it was a huge amount of fun.
Severe lag and node crashes not withstanding 
The Establishment is at your service...
|
Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.19 15:24:00 -
[79]
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?
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori. |
Joshua Foiritain
Gallente
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.07.19 15:30:00 -
[80]
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?
Heres an idea; Fight and defeat Bob rather then surrendering before trying?
-----
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Brox alDragoran
Caldari
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.07.19 15:45:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Brox alDragoran on 19/07/2007 15:45:56
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?
So what your saying is, give up and just make them indestructable?
The last thing i want to see is anyone owning all of 0.0 however i dont want a game mechanic in place to artificaly stop them.
|
Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.19 15:56:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Brox alDragoran
Edited by: Brox alDragoran on 19/07/2007 15:45:56
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?
So what your saying is, give up and just make them indestructable?
The last thing i want to see is anyone owning all of 0.0 however i dont want a game mechanic in place to artificaly stop them.
They're already indestructible
It's not about giving up, it's about being able to build up a power base to take on larger powers without them squashing you before you've even started.
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |