EVE Search - [issue] The feasibility of destructible player-built outposts in Eve

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[issue] The feasibility of destructible player-built outposts in Eve

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 16:30:00 - [1] Nothing really to add to what Hardin said, but to agree; destructable outposts does nothing to improve the situation in 0.0. It does nothing to help the smaller organizations succeed (over the status quo) in capturing outposts, it does everything to help larger organizations bail out of having to secure captured space. With current seige mechanics, there's little a smaller alliance can do in the face of a larger alliance once a larger alliance decides to conquer that smaller alliance. "Skill" is rarely a factor in the inherently laggy environment of seige warfare, so sheer numbers tend to rule the outcome. With that in mind, the best a smaller alliance can do is maintain a powerful enough presence to fall into the category of "not worth the trouble." The "trouble," in this case, is not just taking space...but retaining space. Take away that "retaining" requirement, and there's nothing stopping a larger alliance from rolling right over a smaller alliance...just because. Smaller alliances being forced out of 0.0 because larger alliances can blow in and wreck outposts for no real reason other than to just do it doesn't strike me as a dynamic result. Maybe dynamic for the couple of months it takes for all the smaller alliances to lose their outposts to the current powerblocks...but then a static pattern of smaller alliances trying to set up in unclaimed space, meeting the requirements for constructing an outpost, constructing said outpost, and then getting beat down by the first large alliance to notice and going back to whatever it was they were doing before they decided to take part in 0.0 politics (that they heard were now dynamic because outposts are destructible!) Now, going back to another point Hardin made: address other issues first! If the current state of seige warfare (he who brings the most caps/supercaps wins) can be altered somehow...maybe this is something that could be re-addressed. But seriously...if the only feasible means to keep an outpost alive is the ability to tactically defeat (rather than strategically deter) whomever the current superpower(s) might be, then folks are just gonna stop building outposts to begin with, and 0.0 will become more static than ever.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 16:49:00 - [2] Edited by: Garreck on 05/06/2008 16:50:08 Originally by: Kelsin What am I missing there? You're fudging in a part of the equation that is highly unlikely: Originally by: Kelsin But if an Outpost is destroyed and rebuilt, ISK has been drained from the economy. Nobody is going to build outposts if the only way to stop them from being blown up is to have the most capable capfleet. If there's no "path to power" simply because the current powerblocs have any easy way to prevent anyone from taking that path...then nothing will change. The only way to compete on a 0.0 level will be to have the same level of power as the current powerblocs who have been building that power in 0.0 for years...power that was gained because they were actually able to start from scratch without having their efforts erased by somebody else without consequence. Nobody will have the desire to build (and certainly not REbuild) an outpost just to see it blown up because "x" powerbloc was bored and decided to do it, knowing the only responsibility tied to conquering the outpost would be blowing it up.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 18:31:00 - [3] Originally by: Kelsin If the cost of Outposts were rebalanced along with the introduction of self-destruct capability, what objections would there be at that point? The objections would then likely change to "flavor of the game" type objections. Eve becoming fast-paced capture the flag in space or whatever instead of a political/strategic/economic simulator where building something that lasts actually matters. But, yes, what you propose would at least be "balanced."
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 18:41:00 - [4] Originally by: Kelsin When outposts are destroyed and rebuilt, economic/political/strategic factors come into play - when they are invulnerable it's just a game of king of the hill. Currently, the considerations for taking an outpost are "can we take it" and "can we hold it." The former is usually a more tactical consideration, the latter bears almost all of the economic/political/strategic weight. Your proposal removes the "can we hold it" consideration. How does that make the game more economic/political/strategic? If we have learned anything with Eve, it's that there are a whole lot of players and organizations who do stuff for no better reason than "because they can." If people are given the option to take out outposts "because they can" without having to consider much else at all, how does that improve gameplay and atmosphere?
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 19:20:00 - [5] Originally by: Kelsin Eve is not like that, it needs to live and breathe and grow and crumble and grow again. The case most folks are making that do not support Outpost destruction is quite simply that destructable outposts will not serve this function. The reason doesn't change: if people can blow up outposts without having to plan for any considerations beyond the destruction of the outpost itself, then no rational person not belonging to a powerbloc is ever going to build an outpost again. One particular function destructable outposts would serve is for empire based organizations to potentially cause crippling economic and strategic damage to a 0.0 based organization...while leaving the 0.0 organization completely without strategic recourse (taking out the stations the empire based organization stages out of.) That might also strike people as a problem.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 19:29:00 - [6] Originally by: Dani Leone Yes the lulz crowd certainly exist, but every age has had its barbarians, I would expect though that an organized alliance would be both better able to defend itself against such and better able to recover from their assaults. One of the most well known lulz crowds currently in existence is, love 'em or hate 'em, one of the most powerful organizations in the game. I suppose when Goons start knocking over outposts because they can now do so without having to care what happens to the system, it will be the fault of the victims that they were badly organized and unable to better defend themselves against a 5000 strong alliance...
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 19:41:00 - [7] Edited by: Garreck on 05/06/2008 19:42:38 Originally by: Kelsin This is an interesting point - however does this not also apply to POS? An Empire organization can currently strike at 0.0 POS and the POS owner is in an identical situation. If it is okay for POS why not for Outpost? Partly because the comparison between an empire station and a POS is a weak one, and partly because a lot of empire based folks can and do have POSes anyway. At least that possibility for recourse exists. Or, perhaps more clearly, if you take out my POS in 0.0 and you have one of your own in lowsec, I can take it out. If you take out my POS in 0.0 and don't have one of your own in lowsec...you're not benefitting from it anyway. However...if you take out my Outpost and don't have one of your own, it might be because you're based out of an Empire station and are benefitting from having "an outpost" without actually risking one.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:07:00 - [8] Originally by: Dinique Would you think it fine if Capital ships or just Super-capitals or just Titans were indestructable? Why have assets that can be destroyed at all? Make every strategic staging location destructable and I'm out of arguments, frankly. As it stands, everybody who does pvp risks something in the fight. However, zooming out to the strategic picture, not everybody capable of destroying an outpost, were it possible, risks an outpost themselves. Originally by: Dinique Would you think it fine if POS were indestructable? Or only capturable? That might be an interesting concept, actually, but a whole other discussion. Originally by: Dinique Big fat bloated powerblocs are already happening, and adding Outposts to the list of things that might explode if you use have them will not change this one little bit. Right you are. Contrary to the OP's opinion that it might. Originally by: Dinique Superpowers "griefing" smaller entities will happen anyway, they don't need to hold what they conquer. They can choose to sell it, abandon it or install a pet. They need to do something with what they conquer. They need an ally, a customer, a plan to hang onto it themselves, something. But if they can just choose to blow it up...then they need nothing. They don't need to consider anything. They can just do it. And then suddenly instead of fighting for outposts and space for strategic/economic/political considerations, you have people blowing up outposts "just because." The current considerations for strategic conquest in Eve is a fairly defining part of the game I figure.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:30:00 - [9] Originally by: Dinique The OP's opinion on what effect it would have has no bearing on whether this is a good idea or not. Fair point. Why do you think it's a good idea, then? What benefit to the game would be brought about by making outpost destruction a reality?
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:52:00 - [10] Originally by: Dinique Outposts are an exception to the rule in EVE. Loss is an important factor of what makes EVE tick. I see no reason for this exception to exist. Its not a sandbox if the sandcastles can't be stepped on I think a big concern is that outpost destruction would make sand-castle stepping a much more attractive alternative to sand-castle building...which can be equally destructive to the fun-factor of a sandbox. Jade, I think Hardin addressed your question quite directly in his far more thorough post: there are hotter issues to the balance of the game. For instance, if sovereignty and seige mechanics can be addressed to a point that seige warfare is a lot more fun/playable, then 0.0 would become more dynamic without introducing a new mechanic that could be far too easily abused (and make 0.0 a lot less dynamic) as things currently stand.

Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:57:00 - [11] Originally by: Kelsin I agree with Jade's point that there's nothing to be gained by NOT asking about it. CCP has enough problems distracting themselves with new features before fixing old ones. Let's not complicate things with CSM also throwing in new feature ideas. What I'd like to see CSM approach CCP with is a unified front of "the playerbase wants you to fix your game FIRST."
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:59:00 - [12] Originally by: Jade Constantine I believe Destructible Outposts could go a long way to redressing this imbalance... How? Seriously. Reasons have been given why this would very likely lock out a lot of folks from 0.0. How do you think destructable outposts will fix the "stagnation" of 0.0?
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 21:21:00 - [13] Originally by: Jade Constantine Destructible outposts would be in my opinion, a reasonable counterbalance for a situation that has been skewed in the favour of the defender for far too long. Again, how? Just to use an example: what would you have done differently against, say, Sever3nce if right now Outposts were suddenly destructable? How would that have changed the situation for Star Fraction and Ushra'Khan at all in that war? Now let's turn the tables and say Star Fraction had an outpost or two (not talking ideology here, just size comparison) and CVA wanted to come knocking. Now, CVA have plenty of crap to take care of in our own space...but it sure would be nice to take out some SF outposts, yeah? If we don't have to hold on to those outposts, if we can just roll in, execute a month-long campaign, push a button and it's all gone...we're gonna be a lot more likely to execute that campaign than if we have to try and figure out a way to include 2 new outposts into our logistical scheme as well as provide adequate protection. Destructable outposts allows us to take on a campaign that, under current mechanics, isn't worth the trouble (or, more to the point, would over-stretch our capabilities.) So the way I see it, destructable outposts does nothing to strengthen smaller alliances in the face of larger alliances and does everything to allow already powerful alliances to actually over-reach their grasp and improves their ability to push around the smaller alliances. How does that improve the situation at all?
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 21:51:00 - [14] Originally by: Kelsin Sounds great! Larger alliances being able to take and destroy smaller alliances' outposts simply because there's no longer any political/economic/strategic reason not to doesn't sound so great to me. Doesn't sound like something that will stimulate dynamic 0.0 either. Sounds like something that will further encourage naptrains and blobs and discourage smaller alliances from participating in 0.0 at all. Except, of course, those that exist solely to destroy outposts from the safety of Empire.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 03:32:00 - [15] Originally by: Jade Constantine Why should anything in 0.0 space be indestructible? Can people who oppose raising this discussion issue answer that question please? Because the status quo is far more balanced than the proposed change. That's the short version. The long version is the pages and pages you continue to ignore, probably hoping that the short attention-span audience hasn't read those pages and you can paint the picture that we're not answering your questions.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 03:45:00 - [16] Originally by: Jade Constantine You think its reasonable that out of everything in 0.0 outposts should continue to get a free pass from destructible status because the status quo is better than the alternative? Yes, actually. I think a proposal that will fix none of the problems it's proposed to fix and indeed makes those problems worse is a bad proposal. I think the status quo is certainly better than a bad idea. Originally by: Jade Constantine By whose measure? I can really only speak for myself, same as anyone else in here. So I suppose by my measure, as someone who has participated in campaigns to successfully defend and successfully conquer outposts. Originally by: Jade Constantine And better for whom? Better for smaller alliances and the folks your idea supposedly champions, actually.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 03:51:00 - [17] Originally by: Jade Constantine That obviously makes you viewpoint heavily biased and pretty emotive. But that doesn't make him wrong
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 03:57:00 - [18] Edited by: Garreck on 06/06/2008 03:58:49 Originally by: Jade Constantine This is a difference of opinion between equally informed parties who wish differing things for the future of the 0.0 game. I'm not going to get sucked into the personal attack game that a lot of folks who agree with me () seem to be going for...but until you, Jade, and Star Fraction have had to go from zero to outpost to defending outpost to conquering outpost...you are not "equally informed." No moreso than someone who has never flown nanos is "equally informed" as to the capabilities and weaknesses as someone who regularly flies them. Except on, like, a hugely grander scale.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 04:41:00 - [19] Originally by: Jade Constantine You will believe your involvement with an outpost/POS/sovereignty-tool reliant power will give you a special insight into the argument. I'll say that my involvement with roving PVP, attacker/raider/forces gives me a special insight into the argument. What special insight do you have and how is it relevant to the argument? Not a sarcastic snipe. It's well out on the table what special insight I feel I have and how it relates...but a vague claim that you have equal insight doesn't just make it so. I'm seriously wondering what it is you've learned in your roving gangs and patrols that provided you with the vision of destructable outposts fixing the problems you perceive. Originally by: Jade Constantine Its an invalid debating technique to claim that only outpost owners can correctly critique a problem with unbalanced 0.0 outpost mechanics however. In this case I think it's relevant, actually. If an individual who has no history of claiming sovereignty and also has a loudly proclaimed intent of not ever holding sovereignty (for valid roleplay reasons) starts throwing around ideas that will effect those who DO hold sovereignty...the validity of that person's argument needs to be scrutinized carefully. As does, perhaps, the intent. Originally by: Jade Constantine This really isn't just about outpost people. Its also about raider/aggressive alliances that are currently denied the opporunity to hurt outpost people. At the moment the outpost alliances have everything their own way - in order to fight them an aggressor needs to commit to become just like their enemy and transform into a sitting territorial power. Raider/aggressive alliances are not denied the ability to hurt outpost people. They're simply denied the opportunity to force a strategic level of risk on outpost people without claiming equal risk themselves. That's the very definition of balance. Raiders risk their ships to hurt other peoples' ships...in the case of Star Fraction and other raider alliances, quite successfully. However, the status quo forces alliances who wish to hurt folks in a deeper, greater sense...to ultimately assume the same risk themselves.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:34:00 - [20] Originally by: Alex Shurk Originally by: Jade Constantine ISK isk value isk values. Are all irrelevant. You said it yourself. Eve is ISK-rich. The only scarce resource is pilot time. To stop someone re-taking an outpost requires siginificant investment in terms of pilot time over a long period of real time. To stop someone re-taking an outpost via destruction of the outpost requires minimal time in terms of pilot time AND real time. However, to re-secure that space to the point you could re-erect an outpost would take a much more significant amount of pilot and real time than it took to remove it. Also, you'd have to do the re-securing and re-claiming of sov under the eyes of an enemy with an established strategic and industrial base, while you'd end up operating out of POSes in deep space. How that increases "combat dynamism" i have no idea. Another really good way of rewording what I'm trying to get at. This is about so much more than up-front, on-paper isk risk.

Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 15:25:00 - [21] I think, Jade, that Aralis is at least as entitled to his opinion (and that the opinion is every bit as relevant to be posted here) as your opinion that a stunning 36 supports in a 10 page discussion somehow constitutes something that "thousands" of folks are interested in seeing come to fruition. I mean, if we're gonna blur the issues by attacking statements and argument presentation, yeah?
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 16:28:00 - [22] Edited by: Garreck on 06/06/2008 16:28:42 Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Allaria Kriss Lot of CVA, lot of Goons, but hardly all CVA and hardly just a few - I count 33, and that's almost the same as the number of people you have in favor! Even if you take out the 5 questionable cases, you still have 28 people who are clearly opposed and have argued as such. Pretty significant if you ask me, since it's easier to post /signed and click a checkbox than it is to make a credible case against a proposal. So to paraphrase Garreck: A stunning 28 oppositions in a 10 page discussion. Precisely. It's a special interest issue that passionately interests a fraction of a percentage of Eve population. The change would effect everybody. Is that what CSM is really for? To push special interest items to CCP that are important to a vanishingly small number of players but that effect everybody?

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.