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)
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.31 15:59:00 - [1] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 31/05/2008 16:03:09 Introduction It has now been a couple of years since the first year player-built outposts were assembled in 0.0 space by pioneering Alliances and the enterprising players behind them and much has changed in Eve-online. The 0.0 environment has significantly altered by the defence advantage, enhanced POS tools, cyno-jammers, jump bridges, super capital ships and the ongoing profitability of moon-mining as part of the tech2 supply chain. What was once a bold and thrilling endeavour has become routine business, what was once a supreme investment in time and isk and manpower is now hardly remarked upon against the balance sheets of the richest powers on the lawless frontier û Outposts today are just the cost of doing business easily offset by 0.0 profits and made all the easier to establish and defend by sovereignty tools and architecture. I would like to ask CCP if the time to remove the invulnerable status of player-owned outposts has come. We now have a couple of hundred player-outposts in the game and more established each week, the investment has become routine, the advantage of outpost presence completely outweighs the risk of establishment, and 0.0 is seeing an unprecedented program of settlement and taming from the existing alliances. At the beginning I could understand making outposts invulnerable, CCP clearly wanted to encourage the development of player-built empires in 0.0, and felt that IF outposts had been vulnerable there was a risk that the first few might have been destroyed and discouraged others to try. But that time is long past, we have player built empires and the infrastructure to sustain them. Now I believe we need those other consequences of player-built empires û risk, threat and danger to balance the advantage and profitability. For me it seems against the spirit of Eve as a sandbox military/political simulator that we should see such a one-sided bias in 0.0 empire building. There should be a cost to failure and defeat in wars, empires need to fall as well as rise, and in order to keep Eve fresh for new players and future generations of alliance-effort we need to ensure that 0.0 doesnÆt become so secure and dug-in that it disenfranchises all incoming effort and aspiration to overturn existing power structures. IÆm not going to go into too much detail on a specific proposal for Outpost Destruction here (thatÆs CCPÆs job if they decide this is a route they should go down) but one rough idea is below: Example: An outpost destruction model could be introduced into the current game by using the territorial conquest system as is. The occupier of an Outpost (for at least 72 hours say) would have the option to set a self destruct countdown in the Outpost management screen. This would show up on the map as a warning, it would op out of sovereignty protection for the system and remove all docking restrictions during the count. The self-destruction could be stopped anytime up to 2 hours to zero hour by re-conquering the outpost and aborting the process. At the time of destruction the Outpost goes up with the strength of a Doomsday Weapon on grid with snazzy special effects for anyone lucky enough to be watching. The Outpost itself is replaced by a derelict wreck model, all upgrades and services are obviously destroyed. Personal hangers inside the wrecked outpost are still available to their owners however as ôsalvageö and this in itself will lead to future pvp opportunities around the wreck for some time to come. I would be happy to see the wreck grant a certain discount to rebuilding for people wanting to establish another outpost on the same site. (And IÆll repeat, this is just a rough example; itÆs not my job as a player or CSM rep to write specific design proposals for the CCP development team, IÆm simply illustrating one way that the principle of destructible outposts could be implemented in Eve Online) CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.31 15:59:00 - [2] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 31/05/2008 16:03:09 Introduction It has now been a couple of years since the first year player-built outposts were assembled in 0.0 space by pioneering Alliances and the enterprising players behind them and much has changed in Eve-online. The 0.0 environment has significantly altered by the defence advantage, enhanced POS tools, cyno-jammers, jump bridges, super capital ships and the ongoing profitability of moon-mining as part of the tech2 supply chain. What was once a bold and thrilling endeavour has become routine business, what was once a supreme investment in time and isk and manpower is now hardly remarked upon against the balance sheets of the richest powers on the lawless frontier û Outposts today are just the cost of doing business easily offset by 0.0 profits and made all the easier to establish and defend by sovereignty tools and architecture. I would like to ask CCP if the time to remove the invulnerable status of player-owned outposts has come. We now have a couple of hundred player-outposts in the game and more established each week, the investment has become routine, the advantage of outpost presence completely outweighs the risk of establishment, and 0.0 is seeing an unprecedented program of settlement and taming from the existing alliances. At the beginning I could understand making outposts invulnerable, CCP clearly wanted to encourage the development of player-built empires in 0.0, and felt that IF outposts had been vulnerable there was a risk that the first few might have been destroyed and discouraged others to try. But that time is long past, we have player built empires and the infrastructure to sustain them. Now I believe we need those other consequences of player-built empires û risk, threat and danger to balance the advantage and profitability. For me it seems against the spirit of Eve as a sandbox military/political simulator that we should see such a one-sided bias in 0.0 empire building. There should be a cost to failure and defeat in wars, empires need to fall as well as rise, and in order to keep Eve fresh for new players and future generations of alliance-effort we need to ensure that 0.0 doesnÆt become so secure and dug-in that it disenfranchises all incoming effort and aspiration to overturn existing power structures. IÆm not going to go into too much detail on a specific proposal for Outpost Destruction here (thatÆs CCPÆs job if they decide this is a route they should go down) but one rough idea is below: Example: An outpost destruction model could be introduced into the current game by using the territorial conquest system as is. The occupier of an Outpost (for at least 72 hours say) would have the option to set a self destruct countdown in the Outpost management screen. This would show up on the map as a warning, it would op out of sovereignty protection for the system and remove all docking restrictions during the count. The self-destruction could be stopped anytime up to 2 hours to zero hour by re-conquering the outpost and aborting the process. At the time of destruction the Outpost goes up with the strength of a Doomsday Weapon on grid with snazzy special effects for anyone lucky enough to be watching. The Outpost itself is replaced by a derelict wreck model, all upgrades and services are obviously destroyed. Personal hangers inside the wrecked outpost are still available to their owners however as ôsalvageö and this in itself will lead to future pvp opportunities around the wreck for some time to come. I would be happy to see the wreck grant a certain discount to rebuilding for people wanting to establish another outpost on the same site. (And IÆll repeat, this is just a rough example; itÆs not my job as a player or CSM rep to write specific design proposals for the CCP development team, IÆm simply illustrating one way that the principle of destructible outposts could be implemented in Eve Online) CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.31 16:00:00 - [3] Conclusion: WeÆve had player empires and player built infrastructure and outposts in 0.0 now for a couple of years. WeÆve seen the earliest settlements flourish and multiply and vast profits accrued by the pioneers. WeÆve moved past the fledgling stage, these powers are no longer delicate endangered life-forms and its time we took the training-wheels off 0.0. The rich moon-mining aristocracy of 0.0 needs to leave the nest of invulnerability and stand on their own two feet, they have the isk, time to accept the risk. The question I would like to ask CCP and discuss in a formal meeting is: can we restore risk/reward balance in 0.0 and return some genuine threat to empire building? The oldest principle of this game is ôdonÆt fly what you canÆt afford to loseö, can we agree its time to enlarge this wisdom to ôdonÆt build what you canÆt afford to see blown upö and finally bring 0.0 territorial warfare to the risk level of space-combat elsewhere in the game? WeÆve seen npc Stations burning in the Empyrean Age trailer (even on television now) Can we see player Outposts burning in 0.0 now please? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.31 16:00:00 - [4] Conclusion: WeÆve had player empires and player built infrastructure and outposts in 0.0 now for a couple of years. WeÆve seen the earliest settlements flourish and multiply and vast profits accrued by the pioneers. WeÆve moved past the fledgling stage, these powers are no longer delicate endangered life-forms and its time we took the training-wheels off 0.0. The rich moon-mining aristocracy of 0.0 needs to leave the nest of invulnerability and stand on their own two feet, they have the isk, time to accept the risk. The question I would like to ask CCP and discuss in a formal meeting is: can we restore risk/reward balance in 0.0 and return some genuine threat to empire building? The oldest principle of this game is ôdonÆt fly what you canÆt afford to loseö, can we agree its time to enlarge this wisdom to ôdonÆt build what you canÆt afford to see blown upö and finally bring 0.0 territorial warfare to the risk level of space-combat elsewhere in the game? WeÆve seen npc Stations burning in the Empyrean Age trailer (even on television now) Can we see player Outposts burning in 0.0 now please? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 17:35:00 - [5] Originally by: Ethaet lol. So you're a 0.0er who wants less people in 0.0? Well, at least you are being original. Actually quite the contrary. I would like to see more people in 0.0 and that the moment that means more excitement, more dynamic conflict and more motive for being there. At the moment the only reason for taking an outpost is because you want to become a station-holder yourself. And commit to all that means in long term POS maintenance and that style of game-play. But allow these things to be blown up and you have involvement with people who want to hurt their in-game enemies without necessarily becoming what they fight. Destroying a fixed strongpoint should be an option in any wargame, and what is eve territorial conflict in 0.0 if not a grand multi-player wargame on some level? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:14:00 - [6] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 02/06/2008 22:14:58 Originally by: Tycho Straun Jade, I take it you feel the rewards of 0.0 are significantly greater than the risks (currently). Thus you propose to make stations destructible to increase the risk (losing the cost of the station and the stuff in it) to re-balance the equation? Yes and (partially) - if you review the example I cite you'll see I would support a partial destruction solution at least for the initial implementation. ie the outpost goes "boom" but people's personal hangers are still accessible from the wreck. Basically alliance takes a hit - individual players generally don't. Quote: or do you support they be destructible as anything built by a player should be able to be destroyed by another player? This too. Especially in 0.0 space which is the full-pvp zone in eve where everything should be put on the line. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:17:00 - [7] Originally by: Yorda Why would you ever blow up something you could take? It doesn't make any sense. Maybe you want to blow it up simply to hurt a war enemy? But since you don't want to become exactly like the war enemy you're fighting you don't want to be bound by the same mechanics and paradigms they play by. In war sometimes you just want to blow up the enemies base. Doesn't mean you want to live there yourself. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:29:00 - [8] Originally by: Pezzle It is too early for us to consider this topic seriously (and the specific example is, in my opinion, totally out of order with gameplay). Other issues such as changes to cap ships online and the sov system are far more important. I am against this proposal Would you care to explain why you believe it is "totally out of order" (with gameplay) please Pezzle? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:22:00 - [9] Originally by: Pezzle Implementing destructible outposts with the current state of Cap Ships online would lead to outpost griefing. Other groups have said as much already. Well people "say" a lot Pezzle, but surely its not sensible to balance Eve territorial game-play on the boasts of particular alliances and individuals. Specifically to the example proposal I make in the op - it doesn't become any easier to take these outposts than it is in the existing system and you are simply allowing an aggressor to inflict damage on the enemy rather than using the conquests for ongoing income (as happens now). Quote: An alteration of Sov mechanics might well make for more engaging fleet combats. The effects of those changes might also see space change hands more readily, ending what some see as absurd deadlocks. (sov issue impacting gang and fleet combat, logistics, general deployment, super alliance and so on). Thats really another topic and doesn't have a bearing on the discussion of the feasibility of outpost destruction I think. Remember Pezzle, this isn't a vote on "making outposts destructible in one foul swoorp" - this is a question about whether it is fair to ask CCP if they see feasibility for the introduction of destructible outposts in the 0.0 game in the future. Quote: Finally I believe outpost disabling should actually ADD new options to the game rather than remove them. Outpost on/off does no justice to the complex possibilities of EVE. I have to disagree with you there. The self-destruct mechanic and dramatic bids for control/rescue and the tragedy of exploded outposts and ongoing derelicts for people to salvage their stuff from! Thats many new options for the game right there. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:30:00 - [10] Originally by: Rodj Blake As things stand, larger alliances can invade a smaller rival's territory, but once the reach a certain point they struggle to hold on ot it. Well Rodj, at the moment a handful of mega-alliances hold the majority of 0.0 space. That suggests they aren't exactly struggling to hold space. Quote: If you allow outposts to be destroyed, you'll see the larger alliances stamp on their smaller rivals and destroy their outposts before withdrawing. And we'll see smaller rivals striking back on multiple fronts and burning the territory of the larger powers while they are involved elsewhere. Its sauce for the goose. Quote: This will mean that the large established alliances become even more entrenched than they are now and that small up and coming alliances won't be given the chance to grow. I don't believe its actually possible for the large established alliances to become any more entrenched than they are at this moment Rodj. The game has reached a nadir of dynamism in 0.0 right now. I believe the time has come for the training-wheels to come off 0.0 and the space-holders should be expected to seriously protect their holdings once again. Quote: That's why destructible outposts are a bad idea. Well ultimately lets ask CCP what they think. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.03 19:23:00 - [11] Originally by: Rutoo The other option would be have the station out there as a dockable station wreak or something you can interact with to recover your own assets. This is the resolution I prefer, basically having a derelict wreck that people can move close too and access their stuff from. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.03 19:52:00 - [12] Originally by: Goumindong If the stuff isn't destroyed and accessible then why blow up the station? Stations cost money. Upgrading stations costs money. The point is inflicting loss on the owning alliance and ensuring that AFK defense is no longer possible on the alliance territorial scale. Destroying a fully upgraded outpost can cost the owning alliance a lot of ISK, and you can bet that the alliances investing in full upgrades will be the richest alliances not the poorest. Something you need to realize Goumindong, is I want to make Eve harder for alliances, not individuals. I want to increase the risk of alliance loss in 0.0 space, but I don't want to see jonny alliance ratter 101 bankrupted out of the game to no good fault of his own. Increasing the territorial forfeit penalty for over-extended alliances is a targeted measure designed to restore risk and reward balance on the alliance level. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.04 15:04:00 - [13] Originally by: Allaria Kriss I don't support this idea in its current form. Done properly, it might have merit, but letting people just run around blowing up outposts is a sure way to let the big alliances grief the crap out of the little ones. Several Goons have already admitted they'll do it if this gets implemented. There definitely needs to be more debate and less 'yes/no' on this issue before it goes in. I think you need to discount the goons "admitting" they'd use this functionality to "grief" to be honest. I honestly don't think there is any such thing as "grief-play" in 0.0 - its an open pvp area and anybody doing anything in 0.0 is actively inviting other players to oppose them and blow up their stuff. Putting down an outpost is no different from flying about in a pimped mothership - its inviting attack and destruction should be allowed on principle. +seriously. Goon posters complaining that destructible outposts would make "griefing" too easy? Who buys that argument really If destructible outposts really would be a "griefers paradise" then you'd see the goons dancing in the streets in support. The reality is that destructible outposts will hurt the large 0.0 powers a lot because they will have to take each and every territorial challenge to their vast holdings with the utmost seriousness. They won't have the option (they have today) of simply ignoring certain attacks on the grounds they can always take back the outposts later on when they can clear time on the schedules. Real significance to threat means the large alliances will have to make hard choices on resource and military allocation and hard choices are currently completely lacking from territorial empire building in 0.0. The Opposition from the goon-posters on this issue is not on the grounds of some woolly-eve-centric anti grief agenda. Its because they are worried the status quo (where they are amongst the ascendant) will change to their detriment in an environment where they could face multiple territorial challenges simultaneously that resolve in significant loss of fixed holdings. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.04 22:45:00 - [14] Originally by: Merouk Baas You have an existing, actual mega-alliance, with many many players, tell you that they WILL do this if this gets implemented, and you want to discount it? Yep, because what they say will happen is not what will happen. Quote: But when an actual group of players tells you "this is what we'll do", you're gonna discard that? WTF?!?! Yep, just I like discard most boasts made by 0.0 entities on CAOD actually. CSM is for discussing gameplay and Eve ooc issues not getting bent out of shape by nonsense bravado from 0.0 alliance people. Quote: No, I do not want the goddamn Goons to burn my outposts to the ground, Mr. Representative of the Community. Please make sure it doesn't ******* happen. Sorry, its not my job to make your 0.0 holdings invulnerable. Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. Don't build what you can't afford to see burned to the ground. Thats Eve. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 18:10:00 - [15] Originally by: procurement specialist the issue then becomes don't fly what you can't afford to lose but instead don't put stuff where it could be permanently destroyed. at least with current outposts it still exists even if you can't get to it. This isn't an issue with the example solution I proposed in the OP. Personal hangers would still be accessible from the derelict outpost post self destruction. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:33:00 - [16] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 05/06/2008 20:34:16 Worth remembering that while 72hours may sound like a laughably short period of time - this clock doesn't even start ticking until you have won a conventional sovereignty battle and already own the outpost. Further, there is another 48 hours on the clock till it blows up (during which time it opts out of sovereignty and can be recaptured by any friendly fleet that cares too). Now, this was just a rough example illustrating "how" the destructible outpost concept could be delivered. Its not our job as players (or CSM reps) to design this detail - thats up to CCP. But what it is our job to do is to ask questions on the principle here (as I stated in the op). I would like to ask CCP if they see a role for destructible outposts in the 0.0 game? Many players of eve online would also like an answer to this question. (If they tell us in reply they don't see a role for destructible outposts thats pretty much the end of the matter). So I'd like to pose a specific question now of anyone opposing this issue getting a place on the agenda: why are you against the principle of simply discussing this? Why don't you want us to talk about it? Why do you believe that destructible outposts in 0.0 space must be a taboo issue? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:39:00 - [17] Originally by: Pezzle Originally by: Jade Constantine So I'd like to pose a specific question now of anyone opposing this issue getting a place on the agenda: why are you against the principle of simply discussing this? Why don't you want us to talk about it? Why do you believe that destructible outposts in 0.0 space must be a taboo issue? This has been done several times in the thread. Well you've said why you think it would be bad for x,y,z reason which may or may not make sense from your own perspective. But you haven't said why you won't trust CCP to make a sensible decision on this score if its raised as an issue for formal discussion. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:40:00 - [18] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 05/06/2008 20:40:13 Originally by: Dinique Originally by: Garreck 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? 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 And this. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:52:00 - [19] Originally by: Pezzle This process is to decide what we feel is important for CCP to look at, not something else. Many have said no and given reasons. Do not turn this into something it is not. Yep and many have spoken and said yes. I guess ultimately it'll be good to ask CCP the question right? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:56:00 - [20] Originally by: Garreck 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. Well options are better than "no options" right? Because at the moment these is no option beside conquering and becoming outpost holders. A true sandbox game should not restrict gameplay to only one optimal path, it should allow players to use creative solutions and decide how they want to play the game. Why do you think its a good idea to force roving pvp powers to become territorially rooted if they want to hurt their enemies for example? Quote: 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. I don't agree of course. I think at the moment 0.0 territorial warfare and stagnation and lack of balance (ie massive defense advantage) is one of the single hottest issues in the game. I believe Destructible Outposts could go a long way to redressing this imbalance and I would like to hear CCP's opinion on this. And I think a lot of other players would also be interested in hearing this opinion and about CCP's future intentions in this regard. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 21:04:00 - [21] Originally by: Ikar Kaltin Current outposts should not be destructible. My main issue is that it is not fair on outpost owners to have the rules changed on them after they have weighed up all the pros and cons and decided to go ahead with it. Rules change, balance is adjusted, there are winners and losers in this process but the game goes on. I liked double-mwd calvary ravens back in the GNW with the best of them - but ccp decided that was unbalanced and changed the rules. Perhaps Titans will be changed in the near future (they already have been once) - point is that CCP is within its rights (and our interest) to address unbalanced mechanics on the live server. I really don't believe that your argument holds water since outposts today have been buffed immensely since introduction in dozens of ways - simply removing the indestructibility training wheels is not an unfair counter adjustment. Quote: Can you honestly think of a fair way to make current outposts destructable without screwing up hundreds of billions of isk invested by people in something which CCP says "These cannot be destroyed". I believe the example I cited in the OP would be a fair way to go about it. When outposts were introduced you had no jump-bridges, titans, cyno-jammers and all the rest to do the logistics for you. Today erecting outposts is a task many many times easier to achieve that when they were introduced and they are much cheaper in relative terms than the earliest prototypes. 0.0 today is massively more secure for the territorial holder than it was. 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. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 22:34:00 - [22] Originally by: Ikar Kaltin What concerns me most though is that if you, the person making this thread, had any experience in POS maintanence, POS networks,building and owning and operating outposts, then you would not be making this thread. You are looking at 0.0 mechanics and saying "This is how this works and this is unfair rabble rabble rabble" instead of actually going out and experiencing all these things you are complaining about. I'm not picking on you here Ikar, but you'll find it much easier to build a compelling argument if you avoid making it about the person raising the issue. Especially as in this case when your conclusions are so completely flawed as a result. I've told you why I believe this is an issue that should be raised to CCP and why we should seek their answer on the issue of destructible outposts in 0.0. Its your task (if you wish to debate productively in this thread) to tell me why you don't think it is sensible to raise this issue and ask this question. Ill-judged attacks on the eve-experience of the OP won't convince anybody. But to address the point that you're trying to make - no Ikar, I don't believe that boring and repetitive tasks should be rewarded with increased defense bonuses and invulnerability in-game. If POS and outpost management IS a terribly boring gameplay element then by all means raise an Issue to discuss that alongside potential solutions. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.05 22:35:00 - [23] Originally by: Kelsin After all if what you suggest about the fate of destructable Outposts were true, why haven't the Goons swarmed across Eve destroying every POS a smaller alliance has out there? Good question. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 02:25:00 - [24] I'm going to ask people to be a little more respectful in their tone when responding to this thread please. And do make an effort to address the op post. Certainly interested in hearing fresh opinions too - I think we've heard enough from the usual suspects, how about some opinions from other sources on the issue? So lets address the nature of Eve here. Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. Why should anything in 0.0 space be indestructible? Can people who oppose raising this discussion issue answer that question please? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 02:29:00 - [25] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/06/2008 02:36:01 Originally by: procurement specialist i have yet to see how invincible outposts are unbalanced when you can always take them over. it seems to be an idea solely because you think it would be cool and damnit eve sandbox whatever should be that way. your support of your conclusions has been rather poor as well. I consider I'm actually supporting the sandbox here, and promoting alternative methods of warfare beyond simply playing the territorial holding game. I honestly think its a mistake to have invulnerable structures in 0.0 on a fundamental level and its been directly responsible for a lot of the stasis in 0.0 and development of capital-ships-online. (combined with overwhelming defense advantage and broken sovereignty tools of course). As for supporting conclusions: I'm obviously not going to reply to personal attacks or questions of my experience in-game on this issue - these are not constructive posts and I'll simply discount them. Neither is there any point addressing repetitive posts that are simply repeating the same argument endlessly without introducing anything new into the discussion, once I've answered a query I'm not going to repeat myself ad infinitum. Such posts are pointless and a waste of everybody's time. I'm posing questions in the op post, answers to those are what I'm interesting in hearing, and I'm certainly happy to pick and choose through the background noise to reach the interesting points for debate. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 03:38:00 - [26] Originally by: Garreck 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. Thats not really an answer is it though? 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? By whose measure? And better for whom? As for the rest. Yes, I have ignored pages of personal attacks and flames. And I'll continue to do so. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 03:43:00 - [27] Originally by: Garreck And to echo Vant's sentiments, I'd be very interested to see a rebutal to Hardin's post. Or any of our posts where we go into detailed reasoning of our position. Rather than repeatedly asking us for those reasons. Hardin's post while a decent summary of the anti outpost argument brought nothing new to the table. Its all been said and debated before - we didn't agree then, we won't agree now. For an account of the original discussion I'd advise a look at this thread. I am interested in discussing these issues with Hardin face to face and in the context of CSM/CCP discussions as part of the formal agenda, but I don't see a point in re-hashing old debates with exactly the same material as previously presented. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 03:53:00 - [28] Originally by: Garreck 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. You say (in your opinion) it won't fix the problems. I (and many others) say it will. We will agree to differ. Quote: 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. Yep many of us have gotten involved in 0.0 campaigns, many of us know the state of play, the problems and the issues. This is a difference of opinion between equally informed parties who wish differing things for the future of the 0.0 game. Its inevitable there will be disagreements - some of which will never be resolved and we'll have to trust to the good judgment of ccp to make the right call. Quote: Better for smaller alliances and the folks your idea supposedly champions, actually. You say its better for small alliances to keep the status qup. I believe its better for small alliances to break the status quo. Plenty of folks agree with you. Plenty of folks agree with me. Its a hot topic and an emotive issue. All the more reason for it to be raised as an issue so we can get CCP's opinion and statement of intention for the future. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 04:00:00 - [29] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Admittedly, the crap they're claiming about you is just as bad, and just as stupid, but you're the OP here, and your job is to explain why the idea is good, not why the opposition is bad. Do so or give up the debate for lost, because if this is your best defence then it already is. That was the point I was making Herschel. Everyone can allege bias and invested interest. What we have here are people arguing from partisan self-interest. Of course I'm every bit as biased as they are - I would like to see a more open combat environment in 0.0 with territorial alliances taking more risk to claim space. I believe that suits the objectives of enhanced dynamism in the territorial game. I want to see 0.0 alliances taking horrible losses, seeing their outposts burned and being bankrupted back to empire. I want to see an end to indestructible capture the flag gameplay and some real consequence again - I want to see the rise and fall of empires and opportunity for new powers from the ashes of the old. But don't think for a moment I'm the only one biased here This is why I'm saying there isn't much point debating with people who have already made their minds up long ago on the basis of raw self interest. Lets hear what CCP thinks - I'm actually intensely curious as to where they see the territorial wargame of Eve online going in the future. And I know for a fact a lot of other players are very interested too and would not be happy to see the opportunity to ask these questions pass because the pro-invulnerable outpost lobby wish to defend their own position at all costs. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 04:08:00 - [30] Originally by: Garreck 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." Again we'll agree to differ Garreck. 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. We both play the same game, we both know how these things work. Its an invalid debating technique to claim that only outpost owners can correctly critique a problem with unbalanced 0.0 outpost mechanics however. And that is the route that leads to nonsense personal attacks that must be disregarded by all rational people. 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. And I'm saying that I don't think this is right. You can certainly disagree with me. But you can't say I don't have a fair perspective from the point of view of the people I am speaking for in this argument. Ultimately I'd like to hear what CCP think. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 04:25:00 - [31] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/06/2008 04:35:19 Originally by: Alex Shurk Myself, among many others, have brought the argument that disproves this statement. Respectfully Alex, no you haven't. You have argued a point of view. You have told us your opinion. You have made "best guess" assessments of what might happen and you've given an insight into your thought process. You haven't conclusively proved or disapproved anything however. We are all intelligent people here and we can reach our own conclusions and often its sensible to understand that we will agree to disagree. I haven't been persuaded by your arguments. This doesn't mean I think you are "stupid" or "foolish" it just means on this issue I'm not finding your logic compelling. Also, you need to remember that I have proposed consultancy with CCP in the op. I want to hear their point of view and intentions for future 0.0 territorial warfare. I would like to know (as would a large portion of the 0.0 player base) whether they would consider destructible player outposts part of their long term plan. Since I'm asking a question here I'm not interested in the minutiae of "sky-is-falling" eve is doomed if x,y,z happens debate. I'm not interested in endless circular game-theory goons will ruin 0.0 hypothesis. I am interested in knowing whether people think this is a question that is worth asking. Now Hardin has answered "no" - on the grounds that he thinks there are more important issues. Fine, I disagree with him, but I respect his point of view and he has at least addressed the principle. Originally by: Alex Shurk A pity, because judging by the approval count (30 at time of posting, from well over 200 posts) the people you represent do not. It'd be irreseponsible of you to raise this issue as a CSM representitive. Remember you sit on the CSM now. You are no longer Jade Constantine, but a representative. If the people you're representing don't want you to raise the issue, you don't raise the issue. I'm seeing good approval posts, healthy discussion, and its an issue that deserves an answer from CCP. Its my role as a CSM rep to ask the questions that need asking and by consequence I will be asking the CSM committee to recommend this issue for formal consultation. If I'm outvoted I'm outvoted, I'm not going to sulk about it, we've signed up to a democratic process and we'll see where that takes us. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 04:54:00 - [32] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/06/2008 04:54:25 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I guess I've got a few questions here about your fundamental assumptions. I think I know where you're coming from, but just to be sure: 1) Do you believe that it should be possible for the biggest, best-organized power bloc to lose a war under normal circumstances? Assume here that "biggest, best-organized" refers to actual combat-tested strength and ability, not how good they look on paper. Confusing question. I'm going to say yes, because even the biggest and best power should face defeat by a well-worked multiple front attack - they should face loss of holdings certainly. If the cost of war was properly represented in the 0.0 territorial game this would go a long way to breaking the static logjam that plagues the pvp endgame in eve at the moment. Quote: 2) How much are you worried by the prospect of there being fewer stations in 0.0 space, and the space presumably becoming less amenable to residency as a result? Not worried at all. Outposts are far cheaper and far easier to build and defend than they were in the initial roll-out. + for all the bluster I honestly don't believe that alliance officers will (or could) commit to large scale outpost destruction "for the lulz". When a power has been through the hassles of pos warfare required to take these things they will find it hard to simply press the button and deny any potential renter/resale income form the outpost outside of particularly bitter feuds and significant wars. Eve is isk rich today, the population increases, competitive pressure will ensure a steady pattern of outpost settlement. +the same mechanic that prevents wholescale pos destruction for the fun of it exists for outposts, you need to win a pos war, that means you need to deploy a cap fleet, that means you could be counter-dropped. Cap fleets don't do anything "for the lulz". Quote: 3) In a war between a small space-holding alliance with one outpost and 200 members, and a large space-holding alliance with ten and 2000, assuming equal levels of overall competence, who do you think will benefit more from this change? How will the end result of the war(i.e., the small side presumably losing) be different as a result? Difficult to tell, and wars rarely work like that. It'll be the larger power vs the smaller power and its friends (or rivals of the larger power looking to gank capitals) - ultimately it takes POS work to gain sovereignty. In the current state of the game once the pos war is one the outpost will flip and the defenders have lost it forever (along with docking rights) potentially. With destructible outposts? Well, in the example proposal in the op defenders would have recapture possibility if it was being self-destructed and if it was blown at least they'd have access to their hangers. Plus of course, while the large side is committing to bully a smaller neighbour - whats happening to its own outpost systems - are its rivals moving to take advantage? Quote: 4) Would you be proposing this idea if you were a member of a major space-holding alliance? How about if you ran one - and if yes, how would you justify this to your membership? I know I'm stretching the counterfactual a bit far there, given what I know of your play style(something about being a nomadic hooker...), and I'm pretty sure that your answer has to be "yes", but I'd like to see your explanation. If I cared only about maintaining my own "advantage" and nothing about the general health of the 0.0 game in general I'd be utterly against this - it will shake up the status quo and lead to many more exciting and costly wars. If I was counting on stability and a quiet life this would be the worst idea ever. If on the other hand I ran such an alliance and cared more about war and space operatics and hurting my enemies significantly and wanting to change the landscape I'd be for it. I'd much rather play a part in a dynamic campaign setting than be fixed in amber. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:05:00 - [33] Originally by: Garreck 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. I have to disagree again. An attacker risks more ISK in a single POS attack than the average outpost owner stakes in the destructible proposal in the op. Lets be sensible about this Garreck. At the moment to hurt an outpost owner you need to commit to a dreadnaught deployment and campaign of POS replacement to take away sovereignty to make the outpost vulnerable to conquest, then you need to garrison and hold the place and put up your own towers to keep it from being recaptured. That's a huge investment of time and effort and you only hurt your enemy while you are maintaining the conquest garrison. Current situation is entirely slanted in favor of the defender, and the moreso since it is only possible for a raider power to hurt a territorial power if it ceases to be a raider power and adopts the defeated targets ideology. Now, with the example I gave in the op. You still need to conquer the outpost. You still need to deploy all the dreads, you are still putting more isk value into harms way than the outpost owner does. Only this time you have a light at the end of the tunnel - if you successfully siege and conquer the system and make the outpost vulnerable you have the chance to blow it up and make the defender pay a significant cost to balance out the significant risk you have taken in the deployment of capital and conventional ships and expense of your own POS. This represents a rebalancing of a current situation that is badly out of kilter Garreck. But lets not be silly about relative risk and isk values. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:11:00 - [34] Originally by: Alex Shurk There are 63 unique characters in this thread. So less than 50% support. As for how many players, well, i can't say. However, well over 10% of the thumbs up come from SF members, and a fair chunk of the rest from roaming alliances with a vested interest. Oh, and 2 goons taking the **. Discounting those 2 you're left with 28 supports from 63 characters. 44% support. In the "democratic system" that jade has sworn to uphold, that's a no. Sounds high, but considering other threads have a 90% posts**:thumbs ratio, that's pretty damned significant. Come on Alex don't be silly. If you are going to play that game then one could just as easily say that a huge majority of the negative posts are from territorial alliance members with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. We also know how the system of support works here - many posts in the thread shows a robust and interesting discussion, the bigger the discussion the more interesting the issue is, but you aren't going to get away with dividing supports by discussion posts and coming up with funky numbers. We all know this one is a big issue and its an emotive one - it will hurt some 0.0 alliances if this ever came into the game, we all know this. Some people love the idea, some people hate it. So don't act all surprised about it when the discussion attracts extremes of point of view and perspective. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:18:00 - [35] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/06/2008 05:19:30 Alex you are making points and asking questions that have nothing to do with the op post or proposals on the table. Please calm down. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:30:00 - [36] Originally by: Alex Shurk The risk v reward balance in terms of pilot time invested has nothing to do with outpost destruction? eh? And it doesn't take a long time to shoot POS shields down now? Seriously, stop acting like Outpost establishment is a big deal in the effort stakes. It really isn't any more. Takes FAR more effort to successfully siege a system against opposition than it does to establish an outpost in the current state of the game. But like I said, please calm down. Have a re-read of the op post and if you want to address those points feel free. But lets leave all the nonsense partisan politics and accusations of bias and csm faulty procedure at the door okay? We're all biased, your biased, I'm biased, the goons are biased, cva is biased, if we weren't biased we'd probably not care. So accusing this stuff is pretty pointless. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:45:00 - [37] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto .... But they shouldn't be able to win - The Star Fraction should not be able to take the fight to BoB unsupported and do bugger all. Your comments through this thread seem to indicate that you feel differently, and that worries me a little. There is "winning" and there is "inflicting damage". Nobody is saying that a small power should be able to win a war automatically against a larger power, but there should be cost for both sides and if they get involved in asymmetrical offenses its entirely reasonable that some outposts get burned for both parties before the war concludes with the expected consequence. Quote:* More seriously, do you not acknowledge the possibility of an outpost whose potential revenues are lower than the costs of defending it, and as such, where it is worthwhile to pop it instead of keeping it? Yep of course, or maybe it gets ransomed back to the original owners. Maybe we get to see a renaissance of 0.0 piracy with Pandemic and friends flying round the map and conquering outposts and threatening to blow them up unless the original owners pay a bribe. Harsh, scary, but definitely Eve. Quote: As for cap fleets, that's rather irrelevant to your proposal, since you suggested self-destruct only. As such, destruction only comes at a point where you've won, the cap fleets are put away, and you have to decide whether to defend the space. I can't imagine that decision will inevitably be pro-defence. My point was that to get to the stage where you can self-destruct you need to take sovereignty and that takes cap fleets, that means deploying cap fleets against the small alliance and taking on all the risk that entails of one of your other enemies hot dropping you at the POS while you are taking the system. Quote: Re #3, I'm aware that I oversimplified horribly. Unfortunately, such is often required in the realm of thought experiments - the real(or "real") world is too complex for simple analysis. Also, does it worry you that you've just said a destroyed outpost makes a better logistical base for the losing side than an intact one? That's a massive flaw - the defenders actually have a huge incentive to pop the outpost as soon as it even starts looking like it might fall, because it shortens their supply lines for after it falls. That's a really big problem. Well they pay a price for it, and I'm not envisaging corporate hangers and fitting tools, literally the hanger is a giant can and you can lever stuff out of your hanger to a cargo bay or dock with a ship from a pod. Its not exactly optimal and the attacker still gets to deploy large bubbles and camp the place. But I guess if you consider multi billion investment reasonable for a derelict super can base then fair enough. - does raise the question of what happens if the other side decides to rebuild the derelict at a discount with a new outpost though ... thats something I haven't thought of Quote: Re #4, that was pretty much the answer I was expecting - not like you could really have said anything else and maintained your plausibility here. I'm still curious about how you'd justify it to the members, though - "Yeah, you know the outpost you guys just spent a few thousand man-hours mining and building? I'm just going to go ahead and make sure our enemies can take it away from us more easily". Well I guess our goon delegates are going to have that experience with titans soon. Serious point is - there is personal advantage in game, and there is "the good of the game." I want to be successful with my character in game sure - but if the game itself dies then whats the point of that success? Eve needs to be thriving to truly keep my interest. I can't think of anything more sad than to be ruler of a POS empire in a declining Eve that is dying because the 0.0 game is just too static for anyone to enjoy. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:51:00 - [38] Originally by: Alex Shurk How on earth is this game dying? It's only as dead as you choose to make it. The magic of that sandbox you hold so dear. You are going to have to read the context of the reply I made to another person rather than just snipping quotes and asking silly questions Alex. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:57:00 - [39] Originally by: Ikar Kaltin Simply answer this question: Considering that outposts were given destructible station services which means they can be effectivly made useless which in essence for outposts was a nerf, in what way are outposts unbalanced and needing to be made destructable? Destructible station services is largely a joke. Nothing that can be done in a reasonable timescale by anything other than a full POS sieging gang. Outposts are unbalanced because they cannot be destroyed. Its that simple. Everything else in Eve 0.0 can be. Outposts can't. Now perhaps you can tell me in return why an Outpost should be the exception to the rule given that players are currently flying and risking super capital ships that represent far more isk investment and construction difficulty every night in eve? Quote: When they were introduced they had a purpose, and have the exact same purpose today. They have not changed, you say they are cheaper in relative terms, how are they? Everyone has more money, 0.0 especially. The cost in real terms is much lower. The cost in effort is much lower. There are significant infrastructure advantages that make outpost establishment today much easier. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 06:09:00 - [40] Originally by: Erotic Irony Same reason they didn't emulate restricted docking in the FW model, presumably they are making this decision informed by the experience of 0.0 and with an eye on enhancing the 0.0 experience. The vision of Eve four years ago and the real Eve today are very different, CCP has grown more pragmatic and interested in preserving a threshold of basic playability rather than committing to some rhetoric of harshness that is largely untapped and exhausting--see 0.0 roaming and all POS gameplay. I'm all for more concrete victory conditions but I suspect the real effect of this is unpredictable. Doing away with that in the form of destructible outposts seems like it serve more rhetorical interests than it would genuinely enhance gameplay at the sovereignty and territorial level especially when alliance spies can more or less undermine POS and sovereignty within existing gameplay mechanics. You might be right. So lets ask them. Then we can settle the matter of this discussion and get on with other topics. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 12:47:00 - [41] Originally by: Ikar Kaltin No, what your failing to see is that yes is everything in eve is losable (not neccesarily destructable). Outposts do not in themselves provide the ability to attack and destroy your enemy. Super caps are offensive tools, and can be used to kill other players. Outposts cant, they can barely even be called a defensive mechanism as once they are deployed you can still lose them based on mechanics that have nothing to do with outposts. Actually Ikar what I'm failing to see is your answer to my question. I answered all the questions you asked - I asked one question in return, it would be simple politeness for you to reply. Quote: And I dont see your point with isk. Everyone has more isk? I dont, my wallet is consistently under 300mil. Your alliance does though. Your individual wallet is irrelevant to this discussion. Quote: ...and by your logic it means that the more isk people have the more expensive outposts get to build. Incorrect, I'm saying that since alliances have much more isk available and establishing outposts is a less significant effort today its reasonable to increase the risk of their use. Quote: And furthermore have you even considered how easy it will be to destroy outposts under your system. You can with relative ease destroy an outpost in under a week. Especially if your other suggestions put forward in your manifesto come to the fore (which I somehow think they will). I'm proposing a rough example where you need to take sovereignty in order to conquer a outpost and rather than holding that outpost you have the option to initiate a self destruct after x period. Quote: What really matters is what is eve? Should it remain what it is now or will it become something where it is impossible to make a tangible effort to build up your own territory, and simply became a "destroy everything that everyone has" game. Thats an issue that should be raised, what is the future of eve. IF you want to destroy the very essence of eve then what your suggesting is a good way to go. Same straw man argument repeated many many times through the course of this (and every other discussion between outpost holders and would be outpost attackers) on the issue. It is certainly not established that destructible outposts would make it "impossible" to build up territory. I understand its a convenience "scare tactic" to filibuster the debate, but really, neither the proposal on the table (nor the example resolution) support this rather extreme conclusion. At some point we have to accept that CCP will take a look at the problem with 0.0 warfare and make a decision on whether its currently too hard to actually impact existing 0.0 alliances and whether this is good or bad for the future of the game. I got elected in first place in a popular election on a platform of promising to ask CCP about the introduction of 0.0 outposts Ikar. I'd like to do that. Thats what this thread is about. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 12:56:00 - [42] Originally by: Pezzle Continue the personal agenda if you must, but at least answer the challenges. You are failing to defend your position against valid points. As far as I can see of this thread Pezzle ALL counter arguments have been answered in a robust and engaging discussion. The fact you may not LIKE the answers doesn't mean they haven't been answered and offered to you. Quote: And you know what? Even if you swindle enough csm into the proposition we will still take our case right to ccp. Current mechanics do not support this idea. It is bad for every catagory of player except those wishing to impact 0.0 without investing in it. That is the bottom line and it will be realized. Don't you think the word SWINDLE is a bit ridiculous in this context? Lets look at the result of the popular vote in the recent election. Hardin and I came top of the polls, he is resolutely status quo on the issue of outposts, I'm arguing for re-balance and dynamic consequence. I topped him by 43 votes (yep thats tiny) but it represents the fact that the informed and passionate voting community is split 50/50 on this issue and the way to handle such splits is not to muzzle and stifle the debate by refusing point-blank to have it on the agenda. It would be very silly to disenfranchise a large slice of the voting electorate by stopping this question being raised at the CSM level. Lets table the question and ask the question. I phrased the question in the op in a particular way, I would like to hear the answer to that question from CCP so I can report the outcome to the community. If they don't see a role for destructible outposts in 0.0 then fair enough, I'm not going to sulk or stamp my feet about it, but its a question that needs to be asked and attempting to prevent the asking of that question when thousands of players have voted for a candidate advocating that question is short-sighted and pretty anti-democratic. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 13:23:00 - [43] Though I've already handled Hardin's arguments comprehensively in the chatsubo thread on the same issue I'll give a brief rebuttal here for the record too: Potted answer to Hardin: 1) They are not really an issue (we have more important things to discuss) Disagree, balance in 0.0 is a very important issue, and one of the most critical issues in end-game content at the moment. This thread for example is the biggest and most interesting 0.0 gameplay issue thread in the assembly hall, and the issue of destructible outposts attracted a huge amount of discussion and commentary during the election campaign. 2) It will not enhance the game Disagree; it will definitely enhance the game by introducing more options for the disposal of conquered territory. Options for ransoming outposts, exciting new conflict opportunities in nail-biting countdown battles, large wars will have large losses, dramatic scorched earth retreats, and critical showdowns at HQs. These are all enhancements to the drama and beauty of Eve. 3) It completely ignores the risk vs reward balance Disagree; it still costs more isk on the line to siege a defended outpost system than it does to establish an outpost. + With the example on the table itÆs the outpost itself that is under hazard, not the contents of player hangers. Game time (read grind time) is not a good measure of balance. We shouldnÆt be balancing the game by promoting the defence advantage of ôboringö activities û thatÆs just bad design. 4) It will increase barriers to 0.0 use Disagree; and I would say the opposite. Bringing real consequence to war for territorial holders will make them reduce their borders and concentrate defence. A new alliance with a single outpost will find it easier to hold since existing predatory powers will need to take their own defence far more seriously than at present. Contraction in the safe zones and defensible holdings of over-extended powers makes for more debatable space that new powers can colonize and since the buy in for an outpost at the moment is less than the buy in for a properly fitted Mothership we'd see a lot of this happening. Arguably it would be worth even conflict orientated powers putting up destructible outposts simply to "get fights" - would certainly make for some excellent fleet battles around the self-destruction cycle countdowns. 5) It will reduce PvP Disagree; it will increase PVP around the contested stations because there are more options for the victor. At the moment it makes a lot of sense for outmatched defenders to simply go away and come back later and just retake a lost outpost when boredom takes the wind from the aggressor. With increased victory options for attackers the defenders will need to take defence more seriously since there is more at stake. Currently indestructible outposts are a disincentive to PVP because frankly - why bother unless you intend to take the space yourself? Nothing is achieved by the process of sieging an outpost system unless you undertake to hold it long term. Significant portions of the 0.0 pvp community have opted out precisely because of this. 6) It damages the 'history' of EVE Disagree; and since the example being proposed has outposts being rendered down to permanent ôderelictsö (with names) and which could be rebuilt again at a discount by a power so moved to do so, this history is preserved. Adding "reduced by X power at Y time" "rebuilt by X power at Y time" would add to history not remove it. I think you can see that each and every point is fairly easily contested from the other side of the argument. Reality is that we all have ingrained bias and interest in this matter - the territorial outpost powers have become reliant on the indestructible nature of outposts. The roving pvp, raiding powers have become frustrated by the inability to cause lasting harm without changing their playstyle. Its no surprise its a passionate debate. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 14:03:00 - [44] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto This is why I'm starting to worry about your outlook here. What exactly should they be destructible by, in your mind? It seems reasonable to me that outposts should be harder to kill than POSes, but you're saying you need "a full POS sieging gang" like it's a bad thing. What should be able to offline an outpost, in your mind? Well I'm not entirely sure the idea of vulnerable outpost facilities was a very good one in the first place is the simple answer. Damage required was always going to be either so much it rules out meaningful impact from smallish gangs (And here I'm going to cite my 30 Ship tech2 RR battleship force that I once tried to hit station services with and decided not to be bother after seeing the ridiculous amount of time it would take to achieve anything) or so small that anyone could do it and the services could be kept pretty much permanently down by dedicated small gang operators. Point is if you have a full POS sieging gang WHY would you want to be shooting down services when you could be sieging POS? But this is aside from the point really. If you had to ask me to choose between offlining station services and indestructible tag - I'd go with with sorting out the latter. I think there is balance in allowing a force that conquers a outpost through coventional means being able to set self destruct after x period of time and trade its advantage in victory for meaningful damage on the foe. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 14:18:00 - [45] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/06/2008 14:22:04 Originally by: Aralis This is just a whine from the don't haves that others shouldn't. As every sensible person can see this would result in the larger alliances wiping out the smaller ones and prevent any new empires building. Nice that the leader of a large and established outpost owning alliance can so easily dismiss the gameplay aspirations and interests of a large portion of the 0.0 player base Aralis. But there are people out there would like to destroy outposts to inflict lasting fiscal damage on their war enemies through actual hardcore pvp battles and showdowns without being forced through the same hoops and fixed territorial PVE paradigms in the aftermath to make the results "stick" - this is about options, its about open pvp and its about the most dangerous areas of eve actually being dangerous. This is not about making it "easy" to destroy outposts - its about making it "possible". You might be able to justify diminishing the interests and gameplay desires of thousands of eve players in roving pvp alliances/corporations/pirate outfits and mercenary groups in a throwaway pat phrase about "whining" Aralis. I think its unwise and hence I would like to ask CCP the question in the op. I think we've established the partisan lines on the issue. Silly posts about "whining" add nothing to the quality of debate at this point. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 16:39:00 - [46] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/06/2008 16:42:15 Originally by: Vantras Jade why dont you support the conquering alliance actually having to commit real resources and invest real time in holding the asset before they can blow it up? Precisely what they have to do to actually conquer the system and make the outpost vulnerable to capture in the first place. Originally by: Vantras And if we eliminate Jade Fraction votes..well... Can I ask you to explain what you are talking about when you say "Jade Fraction" by the way? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 16:40:00 - [47] Originally by: Garreck I think, Jade, that Aralis is at least as entitled to his opinion ... Yep he is certainly entitled to an opinion. Other people are entitled to discount that opinion if it lacks substantive debate and boils down to an unhelpful accusation of "whining". CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 16:42:00 - [48] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/06/2008 16:42:01 reserved CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 16:48:00 - [49] Originally by: Allaria Kriss Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Garreck a stunning 36 supports in a 10 page discussion Is the ratio of supports:posts really relevant considering nearly the entirety of the opposition is a handful of CVA posters? I don't think you want to go down that line of argument - better to stick to the merits of the issue itself. Quoting for fail. Let's have a look at the opposition (Defined as anyone that's posted against this proposal), in order, from page one. Goumindong (GoonSwarm) Drago Vanguard (Vanguard Corporation) Ethaet (Aliastra; NPC corp) Yorda (GoonSwarm; later retracted, in favor of griefing) Pezzle (CVA) Rodj Blake (PIE) Tarminic (Black Flame Industries; likes idea, but not implementation) Rakshasa Taisab (Ursa Stellar Initiative) SencneS (Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks) Alex Shurk (Not listed) Procurement Specialist (Not listed; Goon alt, in favor of griefing) Waterfowl Democracy (GoonSwarm) Allaria Kriss (Elipse; sadly not one of the more erudite opposition members!) Natalia Kovac (Sebiestor Tribe; NPC corp) Hugh Ruka (Exploratio et Industria Morispatia) telxkiskisrowr (GoonSwarm) Merouk Baas {Not listed) Tycho Straun (Not listed; actually more of a neutral) Herschel Yamamoto (Bloodmoney Incorporated; alternatively supports and opposes various parts) Brmble (GoonSwarm) Hardin (CVA; CSM representative) Vantras (CVA) Garreck (CVA) Ikar Kaltin (CVA) Volir (Deep Space HVAC) Reash (CVA) Ivor Gunn (No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition) Maidel (CVA) Moon Kitten (GoonSwarm) Elmicker (Wreckless Abandon; more of a personal attack than an opposition) Erotic Irony (0bsession) MrZYD (Not listed) Aralis (CVA) 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. Like I said, its an issue that attracts strong emotions because its a big decision and it would undoubtedly make life more difficult for the people currently used to indestructible outposts. Hardin and I pretty much finished neck and neck in the CSM elections on completely opposite viewpoints and aspirations for 0.0. He supports the status quo, I want big changes. He has a very substantial support group behind him, so do I. So its hardly surprising that this thread ends up being split down the middle pro and anti is it? Ultimately though, its going to have stood as a discussion topic for the required seven days and we'll put it before the CSM for voting. Nobody can claim there hasn't been robust debate, nobody can claim it isn't a very important issue - based purely on the level of spirited and passionate discussion it is inspiring currently and in the election campaign itself. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:05:00 - [50] Originally by: Sworn Absent Originally by: Jade Constantine nobody can claim it isn't a very important issue - based purely on the level of spirited and passionate discussion it is inspiring currently and in the election campaign itself. But the way the debate is leaning at the moment is that it is only an 'important issue' because a small(ish) group of people are pushing a stupid idea really hard, and the larger community is trying to make sure it doesn't happen I'm referring as much to anything as the election campaign and results. Opposition in this thread is fairly limited to CVA and Goon interests, and as we've already come to understand - you guys are as biased on the issue as the roving pvp and raiding force players are. Everyone is biased - partisan statements of loyalty to the cause have come to eclipse genuine debate in some quarters - but thats fine, its understandable, this IS an emotive issue and it clearly divides the 0.0 player base roughly 50/50. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:13:00 - [51] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/06/2008 17:14:01 Originally by: Elmicker ... Jade has come in, raised the issue, ignored multiple valid arguments against the issue and against the validity of the issue, and is simply going to raise it at council anyway. What exactly is the point of these forums when there is no obligation to actually follow their recommendations? I stand by my comments on SHC that this entire thing is a farce that will get nothing done. Bring on the third CSM term when we've got unknowns on the council. With respect Elmicker you are not telling the truth here. I will direct you to my detailed rebuttal of Hardin's summary of the anti argument: Reply to hardin CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:19:00 - [52] Originally by: Elmicker Why does this issue deserve to be raised over other issues in the first term? What pressing concerns do you have that outpost saturation will become a problem, and more importantly what evidence do you have? What gives this issue more legitimacy than the 30/90d gtc topic, or the issue of nanoships, which afaik, has not yet been raised? Are you actually aware of which issues have been raised so far? 30/90 gtcs is the first issue on the agenda? You can see a list of topics that have been discussed Meeting 2 topics You can see this weeks topic Meeting 3 topics Nanoships is clearly not an issue that people care about much since nobody has raised it. If you can see other issues on this assembly hall forum that are more important than the discussion of destructible outposts then your option is to go and get supporting them, go convince CSM reps to advocate them. Go get busy. But simply saying "there are more important issues that haven't been addressed/made the agenda" is not currently accurate. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:30:00 - [53] Originally by: Elmicker I wasn't referring to hardin. You've ignored my arguments (both my arguments why the proposals are crap and my arguments for why the issue shouldnt be raised even if the proposal were a good one), and i'm sure there's other quality posts you've ignored in favour of selectively responding to crappy alt posts. I have just read back through your posts on this thread Elmicker and you haven't made any substantive arguments except to say the "op is crap" so there isn't really anything to reply to. The one thing you have said is that this topic is less important than 30/90 gtcs and shouldn't be on the agenda in priority to that. I have replied that that other issue is already on the agenda so your argument is a bit void. Its a bit rich for you to be accusing other people of selective responses when you haven't actually brought anything to the table yourself. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:38:00 - [54] Originally by: Elmicker Yes, i know. That's why i'm asking you what makes this as worthwhile as that topic? Well it was a centerpiece of my CSM election campaign and 2436 players voted for me. I'm guessing quite a few of those players felt it was a worthwhile issue to discuss with CCP. I'm now doing what needs to be done to ask that question. Would you suggest I should ignore all those people that voted for me and sweep the issue under the table because 30-40 enthusiastic detractors are posting against in this topic? Quote: Why should the CSM and CCP spend their time discussing this when the only vocal support for this topic is coming from yourself, one of your corpmates, and dinique. All the other support posts have been contentless. The simple virtue of "csm advocacy" should not be enough. Becuase that gives you carte blanche to put forward whatever tripe you feel like, while ignoring 11 pages of overwhelmingly negative feedback from multiple parties in multiple areas of the game. I refer you to the answer above. Quote: Though, that link's nice. Goum raises very good points. You do have a track record of consistently ignoring arguments (for example you've chosen my questioning of the point here and ignored my questioning of the proposal). You haven't questioned the proposal you said (and I quote) "its crap". That doesn't count as debate round our way old chap. Quote: And then your consistent track record of just ignoring people outright for things like "swearing" in an adult environment. I stand by that stance absolutely. I really don't care about your point of view if you can't express it in an adult and respectful fashion. In my line of work I won't stand for disrespect from work colleagues, and I'm not going to stand for swearing and bad behaviour from fellow eve players either. If you can't behave I will ignore you and discount your opinion. Its my right just as its your right (I guess) to act the fool and swear and shout on an internet forum. Quote: If you were as mature as you're trying to make out, you'd simply ignore them, put down their arguments, then move on. It's a stupid strategy for the chair of a council to have, as you'll end up ignoring large amounts of good argument. I'll restate it for you. I don't believe its possible to have a good argument from a person who cannot control their temper well enough to post respectfully on an Internet forum. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:41:00 - [55] Originally by: Elmicker Absolutely right! Oh, except for this post, the back end of this post, and as i recall, i requested your responses to alex shurk's points on about page 4. Unless i'm missing something you haven't responded to those either. They were all points and arguments as to how destruction of outposts would negatively impact 0.0 space, so all extremely relevant to the argument. Your first point is just repeating what hardin (and many others have already said) and I (and many others) have already responded too. Your second point was covered also in responses to other posters. I have absolutely no intention to repeat myself 100 times addressing identical repetitive points that have already been covered. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:44:00 - [56] Originally by: Elmicker Jade: Outposts are detrimental to 0.0 life, let us blow them up! experienced 0.0 dwellers: No, that's stupid. The problem is Elmicker that is essentially your argument and "no that's stupid" isn't going to convince anybody. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:47:00 - [57] Originally by: Elmicker Colourful language is not necessarily an indicator of anger. Words are words are words. They're simpyl a tool. Respet cannot be conferred via internet spaceships, so what does it matter how the words are framed? It's what's inside the frame that matters. If you can't debate with respect I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say. Clear enough? If you don't like it feel free to vote for somebody else next time. I'm very happy standing as a candidate FOR people who CAN control their emotions and post respectfully in debates on matters of Internet spaceships and the balance issues surrounding them. Sorry if you feel this disenfranchises you Elmicker, but I'm not going to pretend to care about people slurring insults on an Internet forum - CSM rep or no CSM rep CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:52:00 - [58] Originally by: Amarr Holymight I still believe the Head of CSM is pushing his own pet project here I have been saying that since word go, glad so many people agree with me. It would probably be more shocking and an all round better reveal if I didn't have a link to a film showing an destroyed outpost in my siggy line beside an essay on the benefits for destructible outposts and enhanced dynamism in 0.0 Yep of course its a pet project. It just happens to be one that 2436 fellow eve players seemed to agree with. Who else gets to make that claim really? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 17:56:00 - [59] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/06/2008 17:57:05 Originally by: Niding (first part was a leading question and I don't do those) Does Outposts not present a viable/easy possibility for many unaligned to live and prosper in 0.0, where as in the past they had to join/align themselves with established groups in 0.0 to survive? (again, beyond roaming/safespotting/cloaking) I'm going to refer you to another posters reply earlier in the thread there are no unaligned outpost owners in 0.0 CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 18:02:00 - [60] Originally by: Yorda I hear there's these stations in 0.0 space that are owned by NPC corps. Can anyone who actually undocks c/d this for me? He said outposts not stations. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 18:06:00 - [61] Originally by: Pezzle A vote for you means the voter supports all of your ideas? That is very convenient. Hey, here is an idea. Why not skip the discussion of topics all together and just have the reps vote up issues they want to push. After all, they got the votes so naturally that means everyone agrees with everything they say, right? Well Pezzle would you agree a fair degree of the people who voted for me supported a fair number of my ideas? How about that? Otherwise why do you think they voted for me? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 18:33:00 - [62] Originally by: Maus Bailey I think this all needs to be brought back to the guiding paradigm of Eve... If you can't afford to lose it in seconds, don't fly it, buy it or build it. And you ladies say carebears cry about having their factioned blinged Ravens suicide ganked. Absolutely. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 18:36:00 - [63] Originally by: Allaria Kriss Damaging an outpost is already possible by disabling station services. If you want to allow attackers to damage them more (Such as, perhaps, knocking out dock control so ships can't dock there) then I'd like to see an organized, thought-out proposal regarding that, which I could support a lot easier than this. Perhaps something like this: The problem with disabling station services style solutions is it isn't permanent fiscal damage. Attacker is at a net loss on the exchange the moment they spend stront/ammo etc to make it happen. Defender just reps it all up with carriers in the attackers off time and nothing is achieved. If the attacker is going to put the kind of gang together that is needed to kill outpost services in a reasonable timescale they are better off hitting POS because at least if they put those in reinforced they do actually cause (some) fiscal impact and set up the potential for more. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 19:02:00 - [64] Originally by: Allaria Kriss And if you wanted to, you could make subsystems require stuff to be repaired (Other than docking control, since you'd have to get the stuff into the station somehow). If they disable station services but get run off, too bad, no dice. If they take out a few subsystems or totally trash the outpost, then they might have to pay to get it repaired. See how flexible my proposal is? Well you know it sounds crazy - but something that could be considered as a general balancing factor to all kinds of structure warfare would be to actually make it cost isk (some substance in the cargo hold perhaps) to run armor reps on physical structures rather than ships. IE make people pay to repair the damage to their pos guns and kit rather than simply running capital armors reps on them? Just a thought and not really part of this specific discussion. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 19:06:00 - [65] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/06/2008 19:06:07 Originally by: Pezzle Because other issues are more worthy of attention. You say this but we haven't had any examples yet. Pretty much everything "worthy" of getting attention on these assembly halls forums IS getting attention. Quote: In addition it would cause harm in terms of stagnation in 0.0 as we have said. This is contested and definitely not accepted as a universal statement of fact. Its your opinion and the opinion of the anti-destructible outpost people. The other side of the argument views it as an unsupported Canard of deeply questionable value. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 19:11:00 - [66] Originally by: Vantras Make it cost the attacker 30 billion isk in "explosives" and make those explosives actually require some logistics to move in place, make it take 30-60 days and perhaps youd have a proposal worthy of consideration. The current topic as outlined by Jade is built for griefing and for quick blitzkrieg type strategies. You keep forgetting the immense investment in dreadnaughts, carriers and support fleet + aggressive placed POS that are required to actually siege a system in the first place before you can actually conquer an outpost. These assets are placed in harms way at the beginning of the siege and represent the attacker's "investment". Since I've in no way advocated a short cut to existing siege mechanisms as part of my "example solution" in the op - its blatantly untrue for you to present this as a blitzkreig/griefing proposal (even if the term "griefing" did have meaning in 0.0 freefire open pvp - which it clearly doesn't). CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.06 19:23:00 - [67] Originally by: Elmicker Originally by: Jade Constantine ...The other side of the argument views it as an unsupported Canard of deeply questionable value. Generally when one questions another's arguments, they provide evidence and potential scenarios to support it. Simply saying "we think your arguments are flawed" does not mean they are actually flawed. I'm actually heading out for dinner now. But I'll leave you with this: the whole "if this happens 0.0 will be a burning void because Goons (and CVA) say it will" argument is not anything I (or many others) find convincing. I have a lot of experience in 0.0 warfare and alliance management/politics/campaign planning - and while its easy for the footsoliders to talk about a "griefing agenda" (lets burn all those outposts for lulz) it becomes ALOT more difficult for the organizers, FCs, diplomats and planners to commit to an expensive, risky, and time-consuming program of destruction without a payoff at the end of it. Destroying all outposts = no payoff. Ransoming outposts? Maybe, Settling in friendly renters? maybe. But I am assuring you Elmicker that nobody is going to want to commit a large capital fleet night after night in outpost sieging without there being some ISK at the end of the rainbow. Maybe they even do think its a good idea at the beginning? - that idea dies on the vine the moment the first enemy power hotdrops a counter cap fleet on them while they are kicking over the sandcastles of a smaller alliance. People lose caps? That hurts, it'll be a dash of cold water. As I said, this argument is a hypothetical doomsday scenario that doesn't hold water for anyone with a background of alliance management and arranging offensive pacts and maneuvers in 0.0 space. Its being presented here as a children's story to scare people - it doesn't hold water and in my estimation it is absolutely NOT what would happen to the 0.0 landscape should destructible outposts become a reality. You can disagree, (I'm sure you will) and we'll agree to disagree but don't pretend for one minute that the other side of the argument hasn't thought these things through and presented their own opinions and analysis of the impact of this potential change. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.07 12:49:00 - [68] Originally by: Amarr Holymight Although I agree with Ikar I see this being on the agenda an abuse of power thus why I'm not voting. This has had massive amount of response and reads yet only 33 supports I think the OP needs to take a look at themselves its a vanity project. There are a massive amount of responses because people have had an intense discussion - its the nature of how this assembly hall works. Hell, if somebody posts a topic nobody cares about and posts support with their alt thats a 100% record! But its the task of CSM to look at these discussions and cast their support and advocacy on their conscience. This current debate is an issue that will well and truly meet the 7 day public discussion rule and show significant public support (compared to the support received for the other issues on the agenda - seriously go count). Further, it was an issue that was pre-publicised during the election campaign and received support that helped me win the popular vote. Say whatever you like, but one cannot deny that a) this is a hot issue, b) its has significant support, c) it has the direct advocacy of a CSM rep. Your allegation of "abuse of power" is simply incorrect. Its also somewhat ridiculous to describe as a "vanity project" an issue that is very important to the future gameplay of thousands upon thousands of eve players who took the time to vote in the recent election. You might not like the idea, but its insulting to the intelligence of informed voters to pass off the key policy of the CSM election winner as a "vanity issue". As this thread shows, most actual opposition is coming from a couple of people in a couple of particular alliances. But ultimately, the debate is ongoing: I've clearly expressed the question I'd like to ask CCP and the argument as to why this should be asked, what the impacts will be, and why its important to the future development of the Eve 0.0 game are on record. At this stage I'm very happy to commend this issue to my fellow CSM councilors and ask that we move for inclusion on the Iceland agenda where we can hear directly from CCP what their opinion is on the issue. If this really was such a terrible issue and doom and gloom to all outposts and gameplay of those verbally-opposed to the idea in this thread - do you really think CCP would agree to it? Have some faith please, I'm absolutely sure that ccp won't end up cutting their own throats by supporting ideas they think would be bad for the game. Maybe you are wrong, maybe I'm wrong. But enough people gave their support to my election campaign prominently advocating this issue that I have a responsibility to try my hardest to ensure this question gets asked. Thats all thats needed at the end of the day. If CCP say "no thats crazy" then thats that and we have many other issues on the agenda to move onto. I'm not going to sulk and stamp my feet if CCP say "no" to this, but I (and every other player that wants to hear the answer) will be disappointed if we don't get that opportunity. And at this point opportunity to ask the question is whats up for debate and decision at tomorrows CSM meeting. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.08 12:02:00 - [69] Originally by: BiggestT BOOO no way! this idea sucks!! thumbs down. And what happens when an alaince has one station left, has billions upon billions of assets in said station and it gets popped? That allaince (most likley small) gets un-politely skull-f*cked, gets kicked outta 0.0 (almost permanantly for the time ittl take to get back) and many ppl may quit the game as theyve lost everything (including their clones). Ive seen ppl nearly quit over losing a marauder, imagine if they lost several cap ships, t2 ships and modules? NO TO THIS PROPOSAL In the op the solution I suggest as a rough proposal has personal hangers surviving the destruction of the outpost and continuing to be accessible from the derelict that remains in space. (clones would be moved elsewhere obviously). CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.08 12:07:00 - [70] Originally by: Windjammer As long as outposts are conquerable, but not destructable, the losing side can take their time to sell the assets they may have stored in the outpost. Make the outpost destructable and the losing side either faces the ugly end of a fire sale or wholesale loss. The assumption I'm making here is that if the loser lost the outpost in the first place, they're not going to have the fire power to extract their stuff in one piece inside 72 hours or perhaps never. Nor are any of the other people who may have their stuff stored there. And again, the proposal in the op has personal hangers surviving the outpost explosion that will continue to be accessible from the derelict remaining. No docking restrictions - this stuff will be there to be recovered at a time force can be assembled to do the recovery. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 13:37:00 - [71] Originally by: Harik A'ttar Oh yeah, it's already fun wiping out entire alliances - but to be able to destroy everything they've built? Count me in. I want to be on an outpost killmail that details every item that every resident just lost - or has a chance to be dropped and looted like every other kill does. I think every ship should be ejected into space, boardable. It would be a lovely pinata of tears. While I have to admit that idea really makes me smile I did actually get talked into the compromise solution by Hardin's crew of letting personal hangers remain in the wreck. I think fully destructible and everything in the station is lost is within the spirit of Eve pure and simple I have to acknowledge that changing that on the fly and seeing outposts taking out the possessions of people who "thought" they'd be eternal would be a little unfair. Hence the compromise solution espoused in this thread and supported to the Iceland summit by vote of CSM. Now we just need to hear what CCP think about the general principle. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 14:34:00 - [72] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 14:34:40 Originally by: Goumindong Jade, how did you feel when an actual MMO game designer who has studied a game that failed directly because of the type of system you want to implement was telling you the same things that I have been telling you for so long? Heh, I usually make a habit of not getting involved with you but this one is just too funny. I'm guessing your referring to the "game designer" MahrinSkel of Orbis Games right? Well, don't want to burst your bubble but he works for a company that makes Virtual House Ranching simulators now I'm not knocking his professional knowledge goum, but neither am I yielding that this experience counters five years of playing an actual pvp game at the sharp end. Sorry, but if you expect me to doff my cap to the man behind Sand Box Farm its not going to happen. Sure these are GAMES, they are even Online Multiplayer games. But nope they are not Eve, and I'm happy disagree with this guy to exactly the same extent I disagree with you. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.14 01:10:00 - [73] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 14/06/2008 01:12:08 Originally by: Draven Stone This is a horrible idea and it's not surprising that it's received almost zero support outside Jade's space buddies. I ask the council representatives to look at the number of posts in this thread calling the idea stupid vs the number of support votes, and accordingly vote to not escalate this to the CSM platform. Its already been escalated by a 7-2 vote of the CSM. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.14 03:16:00 - [74] Originally by: Maitsu Nothing says trolling like making people quit EVE due to losing all their assets.. While I believe this is one of the dumbest ideas presented by someone who knows nothing about 0.0, goonswarm is known for its griefing... Still going to say this is a horrible idea though, the last thing we need is to scare off more newcomers to 0.0. Why Jade has such a strong opinion of this when his alliance will never come out to 0.0 is beyond me, maybe he's jealous of all that moon mining. Heh, hardly. I think SF has access to more ISK than you'll ever see little goonie. But seriously. Behind your trolling is a real point. At the moment 0.0 is a one dimensional setting. Only way you can upset a territorial power is by becoming a territorial power. Only way you hurt an outpost owner is by becoming one. And thats bad for the game - its a lack of variety in the end-game. Still, CSM voted 7-2 to escalate and we get to ask ccp what they think. Thats what I promised to aim for in my election campaign and I'm very happy that Eve will get to hear the answer to the question in the op. Maybe they'll say "no bad idea" and agree with you little goonie. If so at least we tried. Can't say fairer than that. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.14 04:02:00 - [75] Originally by: baalaagaa Still can't get that bitter taste at failing at 0.0 out of your mouth Jade? Not entirely sure what you mean there. 0.0 for me means "fat territorialist pigs to shoot" - thats why our alliance plays the game. Its hardly failing when every time we come out we shoot some more regressive dogs is it? I think you're taking this game too seriously mr goon. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.26 15:54:00 - [76] Well made the pitch and CCP certainly took the discussion seriously, we had a decent discussion on the topic and debated the pros and cons and motives behind it. There are technical reasons why outright destruction of outposts isn't currently possible given the interdependency of programming and database issues (market, clones, etc etc) and we were asked the question of what exactly we wanted to achieve with this proposal. Answer to this boiled down to: A) A way for non territory holding alliances to hurt territory holding alliances without becoming territory holding alliances (ie more options in the 0.0 sandbox). B) Increased cost of warfare in 0.0 (attrition) making the cost of fighting more significant on the alliance scale. C) Reward for "raiders" who can take outposts. We were offered a compromise solution around the principle of "pillageable" outposts - where forces can take outposts and pretty much strip out the fixtures and fittings (station services) and melt them down into components/minerals etc and ship them out in freighters. This gives a reward for capturing outposts that is useful to roving pvp forces "space vikings" and a penalty for lost outposts - reclaiming owners would need to invest again to restore stripped down services. "Bad" outposts in poor positions on the map could just be stripped out by their owners forcing any enemy groups wishing to utilize them as beach heads to invest isk and materials to bring them up to functional status. I felt this to be a very good compromise solution and was happy that CCP gave the topic all due attention and respect and made the time on the agenda to think through the implications and offer a decent middle ground option in formal debate. Made running for CSM all worthwhile! CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.27 12:48:00 - [77] Originally by: Zaran Darkstar PS And Jade i supported you in other threads but i don't think this idea had enough playerbase support to give you the right to go and present it to CCP On that matter for me it was an abuse of power on your part. Well I appreciate your position on the issue Zaran and also your reasoned debate on various other threads but I'd like to comment on this "abuse of power" point. The long and short of it is that I stood in the CSM elections on a particular manifesto and was presenting myself as a candidate to advocate small unit pvp, dynamic outcomes and entertaining mayhem in 0.0 space. I published in advance the kind of issues I'd be promoting and taking to CCP if I won. I got the largest number of popular votes on that manifesto and felt that gave me all the authority I needed to take the issue to Iceland. What we need to remember here is that the nine CSM's represent different parts of the Eve community and not all those parts will agree with each other or see the worthiness of particular idea. The assembly hall forums is a chance for the general community to express an opinion and make a case - but its not absolutely binding on CSM's unless an issue reaches the voting numbers required to mandate an issue going on the CSM agenda. We have the responsibility to look through these threads and judge popular opinion on a variety of factors. In this my read on the thread is that pretty much everyone who supported the motion in the election campaign posted in support here. Pretty much everyone who opposed it in the election campaign opposed it here. There are reasons against well expressed, but there is a lot of just parotting that position and many many alt posts and one-liners that bring nothing to the table. The principle of these Assembly halls is that we only register supports - we don't allow votes against, and thats because its not really a "vote" per say, its a place to discuss the merits of issues and have them "seconded" by members of the community that feel its a good thing to talk about. Strictly speaking it would be okay for a CSM rep to raise an Issue that got "1" support (seconded!) and 500 posts of "not support" - and it would be for the rest of the CSM to represent their own constituencies at the CSM meeting level and decide whether it was a valid issue or not. In this case (for example) This thread got 48 supports (which places it mid-way in the supports on issues table for the things we took to Iceland) It got 506 responses, of which many were "not support" but you do need to take those with a pinch of salt - we know that each player can post with alts "not support" - we know its easy to just copy the arguments of others and post "not support" for political reasons etc etc. But I'll grant you, it looks on the face of things like a relatively unpopular discussion point. So if that was the case then it would follow that the CSM's would reject it right? But at the CSM level it got 7/9 votes to escalate it. This represents: 11007 votes (the combined electoral support of the pro-escalation CSMs) vs 1671 votes (the combined electoral support of the anti-escaltion CSMs) And that does represent a very different picture I think you'll agree. All I'm saying is that don't assume that we (CSM reps) will always be swayed by apparent unpopularity on these Issue threads. One liner "not supported" really doesn't matter in the big picture. Good arguments do. I'll say absolutely clearly now that my own personal metrics for supporting or denying escalation on Issues has nothing really to do with any number of one liner "not supports" but everything to do with good arguments. One good post with well-reasoned critique is worth thousands of negative posts. And at all points I'm looking at these things as: A) Does this issue benefit the constituency I was elected to represent. B) Will this issue benefit the overall game of Eve. C) Is this something that I think could be done. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.27 12:52:00 - [78] And ultimately look at the outcome. We took the issue to the CCP, had a decent discussion. I now know that removing outposts from the game is not technically feasible (within a reasonable programming budget due to cross-dependency of other in-game systems). But we do have an excellent compromise solution on the table now involving pillageable outposts. If this question hadn't got raised we'd not have discovered that. So I'm very confident that in the long term this was a good topic to raise and I believe the 7/9 CSM vote that represented 85% of the cast votes for the 9 CSM reps shows that the system really is working. All the best! CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.27 17:48:00 - [79] Originally by: Zaran Darkstar So i am asking you. Had you mentioned the whole idea as it is posted here or only these nice phrase about "advocation of small unit pvp, dynamic outcomes and entertaining mayhem in 0.0 space" ? Definitely, here's the paragraph I used in my election manifesto - linked below the sig and here on the jita park forums Quote: 2. Make outposts vulnerable to destruction. For some this is a taboo subject. The idea that a multi-billion ISK investment in fixed infrastructure in 0.0 should be destroyable in some fashion frankly horrifies some residents of nullsec and the alliances there, but really, isnÆt it contrary to EveÆs nature that its possible to build something in open space and have it stand as an indestructible monument forever more? Where is the accomplishment in building a station if it cannot be destroyed if your forces are defeated? Where is the drama and the grandeur of a desperate defence if the aggressors cannot burn and pillage your possessions and obliterate your dreams in a cataclysm of fire and fury? And, less poetically û what happens to Eve when all of 0.0 is covered in indestructible outposts at some point in the future? When there are so many of these structures that nobody considers them worth defending and they remain as empty shells bereft of purpose or emotional meaning. My point is that for something to have value, it has to have vulnerability û to build and maintain an outpost should be an accomplishment and defending such things should be a major endeavour and never involve ôletÆs go to empire and bore the aggressors and return and put up more towers to get it back in 3 monthsÆ time when theyÆve gone away again.ö Players risk more total ISK loss in the hull and fittings of Motherships and Titans, the game of Eve doesnÆt need indestructible capture the flag gameplay in 0.0 space. I was entirely honest about the things I was going to be promoting well in advance. I don't think destructible outposts came as a surprise to anyone who read the election manifesto CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

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.