Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

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.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

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.

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?

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

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.

---

Originally by: Ivor Gunn

---

Edited by: Ivor Gunn on 05/06/2008 23:40:10

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

why are you against the principle of simply discussing this?

---

Because this is not what you were elected for.

You were elected to be a check on CCP. A way to bring actual issues to CCP and force them to respond on a personal level. This is entirely something you want that will further your personal agenda.

You have not established how this would help the game, nor how it would help the common man. You're abusing your ill-gotten position as CSM chair to bring your personal agenda into something that should have absolutely nothing to do with what you think.

I don't understand how this has 7 pages of discussion. Are outposts an "[ISSUE]"? No, they're not. They're a point which causes and promotes extreme levels of combat in deep 0.0. If that's an issue in this game, then **** me what've we been doing for 4 years?

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

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?

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

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

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

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.

---

Originally by: Ikar Kaltin

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

Originally by: Ikar Kaltin

---

Ok, I have alot of better things to do right now so Ill point out. Less than 50 votes, no other CSM support other than the OP and its on the CSM agenda.

---

Every issue on the CSM agenda is there because a CSM rep supported it. That's how it works.

---

So because a CSM decides to push his/hers opinion despites the general opinion, lacking even the support of other CSM members (and drawing the oppositiion of some) should mean that their opinion is more valid than anyone else? They suggest an issue then they should have to go through the same process as everyone else. OP should not be enough validation for prpgressing to agenda.

---

Originally by: Maitsu

---

When was the last time you held space in 0.0?

---