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)
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 15:49:00 - [1] Destructable outposts quite simply will lead to far far fewer alliances and corps in 0.0 and not more. Super alliances will roll into an area and destroy thier enemies and destroy the outposts. They do not have to consider securing and defending the space they conquer. This change in mechanic would introduce an entire new concept of outpost griefing to EVE. This griefing wont be done by small corps and small alliances as they currently cannot do it and changing this mechanic will not alter that particular aspect of gameplay. Outpost griefing will be propogated by the very alliances that this "change" is intended to make life in 0.0 harder for. Small Alliances who spend weeks and months building outposts and setting up a defense network will see thier assests elimintated by the swarm or BOB or AAA and will never again return to 0.0 and never again attempt to build something in null space. I find it terribly amusing that the most vocal and rabid champion for outpost destruction is from an Alliance leader that has never built one, never defended one, never maintained a defensive network and never been a part of a corp or an alliance that was even remotely capable of destroying one. I support dynamism in 0.0 but unforutnately we have a zealot with a pet project with no actual experience trying to force feed a "solution" that doesnt solve anything on the EVE community.
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.05 21:32:00 - [2] Lots of the folks that "agree" with Jade's obsession site the "if you can build it it should destroyable". If that is the reason for a "yay". Than I reckon the reasoned approach which balances the builders investment with the destroyer's investment is fine-as long as in the end you can still make it go boom! I propose a modification to Jade's proposal to reflect Hardin's point of making it cost as much to destroy as to build. And/or a modification that after holding the outpost for 60 days you can at any time make it go boom! If the driving force behind support for Jade's obessision is the fundamental principal that that which shall be built shall be destroyed-I suspect that many of the Yay's would favor such a "price" for destruction. And I certainly echo the sentiments of many of the Goonies and others that there are more pressing, game breaking issues in EVE than taking outposts and making them destroyable. But alas! our chairman is more interested in shaping EVE to Jade Fraction's vision than he is in improving the game. Or more likely-he is so convinced that Jade Fraction's play style is the right and proper way to play and therefor we should all be forced to play as he and his merry men do. A very big - although not surpising disappointment in the CSM process. Rather fascinating to me that the two alliances that outpost destruction would benefit most BOB and Goonies more or less oppose this. Certainly thier members on the committee are responsible enough to the CSM program to put the good of EVE ahead of thier indivudal agendas and play styles. Can you imagine this process if each member was vigorously and self servingly proposing and defending agenda items that only served thier corporation and alliance interests as Jade continues to do in virtually every post and thread?
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 03:30:00 - [3] Aye I will try and keep it simple. I completely support Hardin's post. I can cut and re-paste it if it makes you feel better. You have yet to respond to Hardin. And since this is your pet project and as your defenders say-this was what you ran on-I do believe that the burden is on you to represent your case. I dont think the burden is on the EVE populace to convince you why you shouldnt. The position of CSM and chair dont carry with it the mandate to champion your own personal, poorly presented issues to CCP. So as my official position I say NO to your proposal. And I reference Hardin's well thought out and well presented posts as my official position. I will further reference various Goonie posts as my secondary and tertiary positions. You ran on a populist platform of dynamism, anti-large alliance-your poorly thought out proposal runs counter to that. It will help the huge alliances and hurt the small ones. And interestingly enough-whether its accepted or not Jade Fraction will still never dock in station that they siezed and will never enjoy the thrill of pushing the destroy button if by some horrible turn of events the current insanity sees daylight. The Fraction lacks the vision, leadership, organization and ability to achieve this-changing the game mechanics wont solve that problem.
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 15:14:00 - [4] Edited by: Vantras on 06/06/2008 15:15:43 If the Alliance that takes over the outpost invests as much isk in blowing it up and shows that they can hold it for 30-60 days I think this would be a more reasonable argument. As it stands now there is no extra investment in eliminating a 30 billion isk asset (and months of work) required and 72 hours is comical. 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? Your solution seems customed designed for griefing. Blitzkrieg the space, take the outpost, lock it down for three downtimes and blow it up. Hard to envision a system more built for griefing. And interestingly enough your corp mates are on record calling for changes to sov. to make it actually easier to take Sov. from the holding alliance. So if we combine Jade's current "lets blow up outposts in 72 hours" with Jade and his corpmates calls for "making it easier to take sov-removing pos's from sov equation" posts. We have a bit of a trend here. Jade Fraction is doing everything it can through Jade's unforunate term on the CSM and his corpmates vigorous support for other <issues> to break sov and break outpost holding. I dont think Jade's agenda should be looked at in isolation. It must be looked at in totality. There is a steady march toward eliminating empire building, outpost building, region building in 0.0. Jade's play style doesnt match it, and his alliances repeated failures to make an impact in the grand political stage have led to this frustration. I ask you to take a peak at the chatsubo forums. Over the past two years-after each Jade Fraction failure-you will see a manifesto emerge from Jade regarding how broken EVE is. Most of these were either debated out of fun or ignored-as after all it IS jade. However now..we have him as CSM Chair. Admitting in this post that he will take HIS issues to CCP regardless of votes, regardless of process...look into the man's history before you support his propoganda. And despite how you chose to spin it Jade-it is about YOU. You indicated in this very thread that YOU got elected on this platform and YOU will take this issue to CCP. So as painful as it is..we have to focus on YOU and your motives as you have stated on several occasions that your term on the CSM is designed to foster your agenda and not the will of the players in EVE. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777906 (another suggestion by a Jade Fractioner-that Jade supports)
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 15:44:00 - [5] Apparently it doesnt matter. Jade has indicated that he wants to and will take this to CCP regardless of support. He seems to believe that since this was a part of his platform and since he received X number of votes it is both his right and mandate to carry his specific election agenda to CCP. I suppose we could eliminate this and all other <issue> threads and run the council based on Jade's overwhelming mandate to carry forth his election platform to CCP. I do believe, as evidenced by his own words, that Jade believes this to be the proper course. And if we eliminate Jade Fraction votes..well...
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 15:55:00 - [6] Well Pezzle if you combine the destroy outposts agenda item with the make Sov. MUCH easier to break..you begin to see where Jade is coming from. What Jade Fraction could never do on the battlefield (a record of repeated failures is available on various campaign threads) he is attempting to do with his role as CSM chair. One way or another this is an attempt to make 200 roaming nano pilots somehow as relevant as 5,000 folks who have committed YEARS and 100's of billions of isk to a region. What cannot and should not be doable on the battlefield Jade is attempting to alter from a mechanics perspective. We have all watched this position evolve over the years-its just a bit more obvious as he force feeds unpopular and poorly thought out agenda items into the CSM/CCP process. Stand by for the "speeding up nano-ships my fight for the little guy" <issue> followed by "cloaking-why it needs to be buffed-fairness on the battlefield for all" .
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 16:52:00 - [7] You can ask Jade, but with imitation being the best form of flattery, I will not answer. And...if you succeede in your other agenda item and reduce the "cost" of taking Sov. that will decrease the cost. And assuming the system's are defended the cost to the attacker should be roughly the same as the defender in terms of ships lost. This still doesnt factor in the 30 billion isk and months of work to build and protect the station-never mind maintaining the post network, pos fuel etc. I understand, having never realistically attacked a station, built a pos, built a pos network, fueled a pos, defended a pos, defended a station, transported an egg, filled an egg, defended an egg, defended a region, patrolled a region, shuttled supplies to a region, held space, defended space, conquered space-that this stuff might be new to you. But please if you dont mind, as Chairman and champion of wholesale changes to Sov. and outposts please-please do some reading on how its done and the effort and expense required.
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 16:55:00 - [8] And fwiw I dont see Hardin supporting the status quo in his well reasoned response to your poorly reasoned topic. I can understand that it is important to paint this as a change vs. status quo issue but just stating it over and over doesnt make it so.
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 18:15:00 - [9] Originally by: Maggot CVA, Seriously dont make arguments that CVA "fights for the little guy" because you encourage them to setup in Providence. Everyone knows you do this because it increases your power and influence, as does Hardin's alliance creation scheme, and thus increases the numbers of potential allies when a fight comes. This post wins the thread war! It is one of our longest running jokes in the CVA that if Hardin makes an Alliance prepare for the war dec, pirate infestation, move to red on the settings board. Someone can probably take the time to make a list but its quite shocking how many Hardin created Alliances are our enemy.
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 18:26:00 - [10] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Amarr Holymight 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? Every time I read ^^ I am reminded of: "I haven't had an orthodox career, and I've wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time I didn't feel it, but this time I feel it, and I can't deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!" Sally Field-Academy Award Acceptance Speech 1985

Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 18:43:00 - [11] Appears as though we are back to the actual isk exchange of attacking vs. defending. Can we factor in the cost of maintaining and fueling pos' networks to the cost of a station? Can we factor in the build cost, transporation costs and defense costs? The CVA has had an outpost in XR for over a year-I reckon the cost there is in the 100's of billions of isk when you consider the pos's have been fueled non stop, 100's of ships have been lost patrolling and protecting the area-allowing for that fuel to be hauled. If we are making it about the isk (i thought it was about dynamism) then lets set the definition for cost.
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 18:55:00 - [12] 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. If Jade's reason for being so passionate about this and/or the reason many of his supporters are voting yes is because they believe in the fundamental principal that everything that is created should be destroyable then I puzzle as to why making it cost 30 billion and take 30-60 days would be objectionable. Interestingly most of the 33 people voting to support Jade would fall into the "everything that is built should be destroyable category" they dont seem to cite that anything is wrong w/ the current system beyond that. I would be more in favor of these <issues> if they were posted as "Does CCP envision a time when outposts might be destroyable". Rather then these obviously slanted proposals favoring specific play styles and specific agendas. The unforunate thing about the entire CSM process is its turning into each CSM championing thier own pet projects. I dont believe this was the intent. Most of us can recall the scandal that spawned this idea-I dont think the purpose at that time was to create a lobbying group of special interests. It was to create a body for the people by the people to interact, provide some transparency and oversight to and with CCP.
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 19:17:00 - [13] Edited by: Vantras on 06/06/2008 19:18:28 Edited by: Vantras on 06/06/2008 19:17:29 Originally by: Jade Constantine 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). So from you "answer" then I am to assume you support the hauling of explosives and the 30-60 day period of time that the station must be held by the aggressor. Also I cite: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777906Another topic which you support and is proposed by one of your members and will be on the agenda. The OP doesnt suggest a change to sov. mechanics but THIS does. And i would suggest that the defender must field the same response team of dreads/carriers/support fleet to defend its assets. Assuming the attackers arent incompetent the defenders are placing the same assets at risk and making the same "investment" in defense as the attackers are. Or does your plan assume that the defenders will remain docked and not place any of thier "immense investment in dreadnaughts, carriers and support fleet+ " at risk?
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 19:20:00 - [14] Originally by: Maus Bailey Quote: You have a policy of not responding to anyone who makes a personal attack No human being could possible supply the string of insults required to balance out this stream of tears... and that's all they are, sweet emo tears. There's no difference between an empire mission runner who autopilots a 3b cnr afk and an alliance profusely delivering the waterworks over the thought of a POS getting blown up in a system they visit only to refuel and restart queues. They are the same thing. I will mock both. I'd even go further and say that suicide gangs of cheap stealth bombers should be able to kill a POS. Were this thread about POS's id find this reply fascinating.
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 19:29:00 - [15] Originally by: Jade Constantine I have a lot of experience in 0.0 warfare and alliance management/politics/campaign planning 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.
Vantras Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.07 14:41:00 - [16] Jade has just done what virtually every new politician does-he has over estimated the meaning of the votes he has received and perceives them as a sweeping mandate. Virtually every politican that first enters office does this. They wake up one morning and say "I won! people like me! people need me! People want to be led by me!" They repeat this to themselves in the mirror as they shave, in the car on the way to work, in the reflection off the elevator door, in the glare off of thier desklamp. They actually begin to truly believe it. They propose vanity legislation, they jam a specific proposal or two through the process all the while believing that if they voted for me-they MUST want me to do this! They damn near demand it of me! Then suddenly the shine comes off the pumpkin a bit. The electorate looks at the egomaniac and wonders "where did the man of the people go". The electorate hears a speech or reads a post or two where the once humble candidate continues to relish in his mandate to lead! and change! and champion a cause! The electorate begins to see signs of meglomania, extreme ego issues. The electorate begins to realize what they have done....and so it goes... Poor Jade here feels that every vote he receieved is indicative of support for his agenda. Unflinching, unwavering, total committment for his specific propsals. Posts, reasoned arguments, evidence to the contrary, JADE cant hear it! "The voters spoke! they believe in me!" The fact that most voters vote with one eye open and one ear listening is lost on Jade (as it is for most ego driven politicians) the fact that folks vote for names they recognize or names that seem familiar or similiar to thiers is lost on Jade. The fact that most folks are disengaged and just vote for the familiar is lost on Jade. Every vote EVERY VOTE! is a vote for Jade and his platform, his agenda! He knows this as he knows his own name! There is nothing that will keep him from fulfilling his obligation to deliver to HIS people! his devotees among the unrepresented, the voiceless, the oppressed. Either way its interesting to watch and witness. I reckon we will have to place our faith in CCP-personally I believe that CCP will not quite view Jades ~2300 votes in quite the same manner as goodman Jade does.

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.