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)
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.17 15:08:00 - [1] 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.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.17 15:11:00 - [2] I believe several years from now, when outposts are common enough to be a limiting factor to 0.0 warfare, CCP will develop a new class of ship that is capable of destroying them. Like a super-dread that can only target outposts, but from anywhere in the system. ------------ ULTIMATE LAG SOLUTION IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
J'Mkarr Soban Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.17 15:20:00 - [3] I like it this way. It feels like expanding, making new factions and alliances to rival the larger ones.
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.17 15:27:00 - [4] Yes it must be fun, but there is no way they can be removed. Do you see how that just does not make sense. I understand how cool it is for people putting them up but it if players can build it why cant it be destroyed ?
Torquemanda Corteaz Gallente Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.07.17 15:33:00 - [5] because you may have 50pilots inside the outpost each with 10 ships, maybe a dozen corp offices with their millions of m3 of assets and stuff on the market in the outpost the factory slots etc. what happens to all of that stuff when the OP goes pop? theres just too much stuff in an outpost for it to be destroyed... plus theres no ships with guns big enough to destroy one.. the destructible upgrades are a step in the direction you want, but it will be a very very long time before outposts can be destroyed
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.17 15:48:00 - [6] I understand it would be a programmers nightmare to it all out I hope if thats the reason, CCP will find a way to deal with it. I think it would be good if you could damage an outpost so much pilots could not even dock untill a good deal of isk and time is spent to fix it.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.17 15:51:00 - [7] Originally by: Brox alDragoran I understand it would be a programmers nightmare to it all out I hope if thats the reason, CCP will find a way to deal with it. I think it would be good if you could damage an outpost so much pilots could not even dock untill a good deal of isk and time is spent to fix it. That would be kind of interesting...make an outpost too unstable to use until it's fixed as a stopgap between disabling services and blowing them up entirely. It wouldn't be TOO horrible to deal with an entire outpost being destroyed, just somewhat lagtacular from the database end of things. ------------ ULTIMATE LAG SOLUTION IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.17 16:03:00 - [8] Also it just seems a little lame to have outpost changing hands at no real cost to anyone involved, obviously people lose ships etc in the fighting however i think losing an outpost should be a disatster not just a tempory set back untill you can get your alliance to muster enough people. Writing this makes me think of DS9 nothing worked when they first took it over and when they lost it they made damn sure nothing worked.
gfldex Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.07.17 16:40:00 - [9] Originally by: Torquemanda Corteaz what happens to all of that stuff when the OP goes pop? The same that happens when a POS with stuff in it goes pop. -- There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
Chewan Mesa coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.07.17 16:42:00 - [10] 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?
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.17 17:11:00 - [11] Edited by: Brox alDragoran on 17/07/2007 17:13:41 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? I will explain using an example. About 14 months ago I was in a roaming Est gang we jumped into an outpost system to kill someone and one of our more cunning members realised the owners had lost sovrienty (i dont know how) all we needed to do was to dish out some damage, get in and claim the out post as ours. We knew we had no chance of holding it but we decided to try for a laugh and to get some cool fraps of our outpost with our name on it. No one showed up to repel us and we achieved our goal. After the laughing trailed off we sat there tryinging to think of ways to take advantage of the situation and this is the issue, apart from messing with the clones there is nothing you can do. It would have been cool if we could have said " ok boys pay us úúúú or we will destroy the refinery, clone bay etc...". I think it would add an extra dimension to alliance warfare if when you take a staion you can wrek it so that in order to makje it work again after taking it back the owners have to haul xxx amounts of xxx and wait time for repairs to happen. As i understand it atm there is still not much you can do to an outpost. Er i hope that ramble attempt at an answer helps.
Thoric Frosthammer Fallen Angels Inc INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.07.17 17:18:00 - [12] There's no real percentage in putting up more outposts than you can defend. There's no percentage in putting up outposts that don't provide you an isk stream. As the useful places in 0.0 are pretty rare, that means as a practical matter, 0.0 isn't going to fill up with outposts anytime soon. On the other hand it would be nice if say, they invented regional sov, where you held a certain amount of systems in a region, and it allowed you to pick up outposts, or destroy them. There are more than a few outposts in 0.0 that weren't very well thought out when they were placed. More important issue with outposts imo, is that owners should be able to remove jump clones and ship people's hangars back to empire, thus ejecting people from their station. It would end the vast numbers of "i was blue once, but it was just so i could dock, leave a jump clone and manipulate your market" jerkoffs. Should just be able to hit a button, possibly pay a fee for interbus to haul the goods back to Yulai or something, and the guy can just pick up his stuff there. Good way to prevent incidents when a corporation moves out of an alliance too.
Karunel Princeps Corp YouWhat	Posted - 2007.07.17 17:31:00 - [13] Because it'd discourage people from moving to 0.0 and there's enough people in empire as it is. Note that I personally would like to be able to destroy outposts, I'm just pointing out why I don't think it's going to happen. ____ Originally by: elbenito The problem with large fleet engagements is that the hamsters stop to watch.
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.17 17:56:00 - [14] Why should it be possible to destroy them? If you want something to change, you have to give a little more of an argument than "why shouldn't it be this way?" Right now it seems pretty clear CCP wants 0.0 to be colonized by alliances carving out little (or large) empires out here. The number of stations you have in 0.0 are still extremely few compared to what you have in empire space. So, what's the problem? ------------------
Chewan Mesa coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.07.17 18:02:00 - [15] Originally by: Hannobaal Why should it be possible to destroy them? If you want something to change, you have to give a little more of an argument than "why shouldn't it be this way?" Right now it seems pretty clear CCP wants 0.0 to be colonized by alliances carving out little (or large) empires out here. The number of stations you have in 0.0 are still extremely few compared to what you have in empire space. So, what's the problem? Did you read his posts at all? He gives plenty or reasons why they should be destroyable, or why it might cause problems or already does atm cause they are not.
MrTripps Gallente	Posted - 2007.07.17 18:03:00 - [16] Outposts can't be removed yet because it would slow down the build up of 0.0 space. Everyone wants to speed that up instead of slowing it down. Placing an outpost in a choke point system is a very dangerous thing for an alliance to do. If your enemies take it over it cuts you off from empire and gives them a great vantage point to stage other attacks. The only alliances that would do so already have a lock on those systems anyway. "Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim." - Bertrand Russell
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.17 18:13:00 - [17] Originally by: Chewan Mesa Originally by: Hannobaal Why should it be possible to destroy them? If you want something to change, you have to give a little more of an argument than "why shouldn't it be this way?" Right now it seems pretty clear CCP wants 0.0 to be colonized by alliances carving out little (or large) empires out here. The number of stations you have in 0.0 are still extremely few compared to what you have in empire space. So, what's the problem? Did you read his posts at all? He gives plenty or reasons why they should be destroyable, or why it might cause problems or already does atm cause they are not. What? That one day there might be a very large number of them? So? ------------------
Qalten Elite Storm Enterprises Storm Armada	Posted - 2007.07.17 18:47:00 - [18] I predict that eventually as 0.0 fills up that... 1) Alliances will be able to build multiple outposts in one system with the appropriate sov. beforehand 2) They will implement some method of either destroying an outpost or damaging it severely. Maybe a Titan module called "Death Star Laser" :P Speculation is fun! ~
picchiatello	Posted - 2007.07.17 19:30:00 - [19] ehm? what wrong how work now? if hostile claim system -costell they take outpost.. so owner need make POS warfare / sov for take it back... hostile can shoot at medical bay -at refining bay,at fitting bay etc.... and for repair you need many ship out of outpost for repair it ( and need time )... so what wrong with it???? why you want destroy it? conquerable way like is now work perfect.
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 09:49:00 - [20] 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. Already in the north a considerable number of those choke points are now outpost systems. From the owners point of view thats a good thing becvause you can lock down an area and keep eveyone you consider to be bad out. Looking at the bigger picture you realise that no hostiles or competitors = no fun, except the fun of sitting on your isk and laughing, wich i suppose is good for a while but tbh i need more from a game than that. Why fight to the death to protect your out post from an enmy assult when losing it means you just have to wait for your alliance to get enough people togher to take it back? ok you lose face but the outpost is still there and youve not really been set back too much. IF outposts could be destroyed, IF there was a self destruct button that you needed to hold the station for a week to active, then outpost would be worth fighting and dieing for.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:01:00 - [21] I wouldn't mind the ability to blow up an outpost. I'd make it so that you require to hold an outpost for say 30 days, then you can set it to selfdestruct with a 1 hour timer. That also gives defenders the option to deny an attacker the outpost by just blowing it up instead. ------------------------------------------------ Murphy's Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:19:00 - [22] 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.
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:19:00 - [23] 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. Already in the north a considerable number of those choke points are now outpost systems. From the owners point of view thats a good thing becvause you can lock down an area and keep eveyone you consider to be bad out. Looking at the bigger picture you realise that no hostiles or competitors = no fun, except the fun of sitting on your isk and laughing, wich i suppose is good for a while but tbh i need more from a game than that. Why fight to the death to protect your out post from an enmy assult when losing it means you just have to wait for your alliance to get enough people togher to take it back? ok you lose face but the outpost is still there and youve not really been set back too much. IF outposts could be destroyed, IF there was a self destruct button that you needed to hold the station for a week to active, then outpost would be worth fighting and dieing for. The "problem" you're pointing to is alliances preventing outsiders from entering their space, and I don't see how that is related to outposts except that (as convenient bases) they make rallying defense gangs in a certain area easier, but you don't necessarily need an outpost for that. Also, the number of enemies you will have to fight as an 0.0 alliance doesn't really seem to be the issue here, since you're talking more about lone players going to rat in deep 0.0. I think it's pretty clear CCP wants 0.0 to be colonized by players, not have it remain a wasteland. That means lots of stations. In empire almost all systems have stations and many have several. Anywhere in 0.0, you have to travel many jumps to get from station to station. If anything, there's really way, way too few outposts right now. ------------------
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:22:00 - [24] 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. ------------------
Chewan Mesa coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:28:00 - [25] 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...
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:29:00 - [26] 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. Sometimes you can take somthing but not work it yourslef because it is beyond your capabilities to run, so rather than just leave and give it back to your enmie, you destroy it. Also, some of us like to play this game as "bad guys" we do naughty things and sometimes VERY anughty things. It would be nice if there was a way for those of us who like things lawles to fight back against the expansion of empire style space.
Brox alDragoran Caldari The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:31:00 - [27] Edited by: Brox alDragoran on 18/07/2007 10:32:02 Edited by: Brox alDragoran on 18/07/2007 10:31:34 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... You see, Triumvirate understand the value of jabbing a finger in the eye of the enmy.
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:33:00 - [28] 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. ------------------
Deacon Ix Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:38:00 - [29] This may (probably) be an urban rumour, so the validility of it is in question but... In the early days of EVE, Stations (no Outposts in those days) and Stargates where destroyable this lead to a) players logging in and finding the station they had logged off in was no more (I won't even speculate as to what did happen when they logged in) b) players being completly cut off from the rest of the Eveverse. This was before my time, so I can't vouch for the truth in it. Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
Chewan Mesa coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.07.18 10:40:00 - [30] Edited by: Chewan Mesa on 18/07/2007 10:41:02 Don't confuse Value with Cost of setting up. Of course it costs a definit amount of Isk and manhours to set up. However the "value" varies greatly for whoever owns it and how much they need it. Hence the last post I made...
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? ------------------
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]

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.