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

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 [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page
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!
Mazca Lopez Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.31 16:07:00 - [5] Make me a mom and i shall crash it into any structure you want...
Mazca Lopez Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.31 16:07:00 - [6] Make me a mom and i shall crash it into any structure you want...
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.31 16:17:00 - [7] I think the outpost only being destructible by its owner is a bit strange, and unlikely to ever come up. It needs to be destructible by enemy action if it's going to be destructible at all. Scorched earth tactics feel too much like mass griefing for me to really like them - it doesn't come up often, but when it does all it serves to do is make conquest less valuable. Your timer is too long for a deep strike to steal and kill an outpost, and too long for an alliance to blow it up in response to the tactical situation at the front lines. It'd only be done as part of a major strategic fall-back, and there aren't too many Barbarossas going on last I checked. Frankly, aside from its blob-demanding nature, my first inclination is to make them destructible like a POS is now(and give them guns and such accordingly). Aside from the lag issues, that's the most natural solution you're likely to find. Of course, you'll need to give them enough defensive capabilities that they can defend themselves against dreadnoughts at least somewhat, but that's assumed. Also, it'll give people something to do with all those POS guns if a proper sovereignty system ever gets implemented. It also gives CCP the ability to flog the dead horse without having to worry about whether the guns are outside the shield. That said, I like the principles here enough that I'll give the thumbs-up despite some disagreements on how it should be implemented. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Heartstone Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.31 16:32:00 - [8] I would like to see some sort of response from CCP on this issue so yes as far as the this part goes: Originally by: Some Long Winded Burk I would like to ask CCP if the time to remove the invulnerable status of player-owned outposts has come. I support it. ---
Illrae Pyou	Posted - 2008.05.31 22:25:00 - [9] I shoop-da-whoop it.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.31 22:35:00 - [10] Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 31/05/2008 22:35:33 Originally by: Illrae Pyou I shoop-da-whoop it. This is Eve, not 4chan. English, please. Failing that, Icelandic ------------------ Fix the forums!
Havohej The Defias Brotherhood DEFI4NT	Posted - 2008.05.31 23:08:00 - [11] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 31/05/2008 22:35:33 Originally by: Illrae Pyou I shoop-da-whoop it. This is Eve, not 4chan. English, please. Failing that, Icelandic sup /b/ @OP I'm not really sure what the difference would be between destroying an outpost or just kicking somebody out of it (besides them not being able to jump to their jumpclone in the station months down the line and annoy people). Any way you slice it, the former owner loses the benefit of the space and the outpost. That said, I would like to see more ISK sinks levied against people who have more ISK than I do, and I like tears so much that it would probably be great nourishment for me to read threads about how somebody's outpost got blown up and billions upon billions of ISK worth of stuff that they hadn't managed to get out in time went up in smoke. I shoop-da-whoop dis. Originally by: techzer0 I'm invincible until proven wrong
Czanthria Ad Astra Vexillum	Posted - 2008.05.31 23:38:00 - [12] -- Knowledge is Power!
Thorradin State War Academy	Posted - 2008.06.01 01:25:00 - [13] Originally by: Wall-O-Text Maker 5000 stuff I like the idea. Maybe let the wreck be accessed in space like a POS array, only it's your personal hangar, so you can try to save your stuff, but can't refit or anything. Also could allow the rebuilding of the wrecked startion for 50-75% of the cost. A true, 100% wiped out Outpost idea would be cool, but I can't see it going in simply because lots of players would stick to npc stations when able if it means they could login one day and find their assets gone forever that were in a station. Especially players that come back after a long time.
Unreal5 Malicious Intentions	Posted - 2008.06.01 06:37:00 - [14] yes ASD
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.01 06:53:00 - [15] Nothing would make the largest alliances in the game even stronger than they are today. Now, not only would we get to take your space but we wouldn't have to bother defending it after destroying your stations.
Leneerra Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.06.01 08:49:00 - [16] For me it feels wrong as well that anything a player can build cannot be destroyed by other players. However I think the conqereble stations should be included in the list of destroyeble structures. These were the first iteration of player owned stations and they should be included in the same mechanics. I agree that a station should be taken and controlled before it can be destroyed. I also think that a cost reduction for reconstruction is a good idear. Using the pos based corp hanger mechanic to access your hanger in a destroyed pos also feels right somehow, even including the refit option normaly availeble in this mechanic does not feel immersionbreaking to me.
Drago Vanguard Vanguard Corporation	Posted - 2008.06.01 08:56:00 - [17] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 01/06/2008 07:08:41 Nothing would make the largest alliances in the game even stronger than they are today. Now, not only would we get to take your space but we wouldn't have to bother defending it after destroying your stations. Unless you want to make large alliances even stronger and make small ones even weaker you will vote to not present this to CCP. As horribly painful as it is for me to agree with Goumindong, I do on this issue. Weak alliances are only allowed to exist in 0.0 because taking their space would overextend the powerhouse alliances. If stations were destructible, the powerhouses would mow them over, pop the stations, and move on. It sounds great at first glance, but in reality it simply wouldn't work. Its taken years for 0.0 infrastructure to become what it is, destructible stations would make 0.0 a no man's land with a handful of super-powerful citadels occupied by BoB, -A-, and the like.
Ethaet Aliastra	Posted - 2008.06.01 13:17:00 - [18] lol. So you're a 0.0er who wants less people in 0.0? Well, at least you are being original. -------------------------------------------------------------- Seriously, we need some kind of separation between the post and signature. There you go. Now that wasn't so hard
starbuck1979 21st Escafeld Rangers	Posted - 2008.06.01 13:50:00 - [19]
Maggot Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.01 14:50:00 - [20]
WarheadRex The War-Mongers	Posted - 2008.06.01 14:53:00 - [21]
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.02 17:35:00 - [22] 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!
Tycho Straun	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:30:00 - [23] Edited by: Tycho Straun on 02/06/2008 20:30:40 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? or do you support they be destructible as anything built by a player should be able to be destroyed by another player?
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:45:00 - [24] Originally by: Jade Constantine 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? You can already take space and then enforce neutrality, effectively making the space as ****ty as you want. Hell, you can take space and then let no one dock there, effectively taking the station out of circulation Eve territorial conflict is a grand war game and in acknowledging it as such you need to accept some basic realities. Realities like "allowing alliances to destroy stations allows alliances to constrict space extending the area that they can effectively control" and realities like "Eve is not a game like any other war game since it has no end point". In a typical war game what the board looks like at the end doesn't matter. Because at the end of a typical war game you fold the board up and go home. Not so for eve, at the end of a war in eve, the board is still there for others to play on. Your idea will not put more people in 0.0 it will do the opposite. This is why its so confusing when you state contradictory goals.
Tesseract d'Urberville Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:45:00 - [25] Supported! --------------------------------- Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains.
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:49:00 - [26] Why would you ever blow up something you could take? It doesn't make any sense.
Lo3d3R MAFIA Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.06.02 21:38:00 - [27] Originally by: Maggot ___________________ Sexy Time:
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.02 21:42:00 - [28] Originally by: Yorda Why would you ever blow up something you could take? It doesn't make any sense. Actually, the way it's phrased, you would be blowing up something you already have taken. Wrap your head around that one. As for why you would choose to, even if a different mechanic than Jade's was used, it'd be because it's easier to destroy it than to conquer it. Same reason you shell a city instead of just walking in and taking it - it's not as nice when you finish, but it'll be yours. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Pezzle Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:00:00 - [29] 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
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:05:00 - [30] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Yorda Why would you ever blow up something you could take? It doesn't make any sense. Actually, the way it's phrased, you would be blowing up something you already have taken. Wrap your head around that one. As for why you would choose to, even if a different mechanic than Jade's was used, it'd be because it's easier to destroy it than to conquer it. Same reason you shell a city instead of just walking in and taking it - it's not as nice when you finish, but it'll be yours. Even if it was harder to destroy than hold it would be something we would do. Because its easier to not defend it and come back later when someone puts up a station and blow it up again than it is to expend resources to defend the space.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.