| 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) |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
   |
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:17:00 -
[331]
 Originally by: Spoon Thumb
I get exactly where you're coming from with the problem of 0.0 and the sov system as well as the impact smaller organisations can have on an area of space
But this just ain't the right solution, because it has a lot of unintended consequences.
The most important is that lack of security. When someone logs off to go on holiday for two weeks, they want to know that when they come back, even if their alliance collapses and they lose all their POS, space etc, their assets will still exist in game.
Because it is just a game. Even if you lose an outpost and docking rights, you still have the opportunity to recover those assets you have stuck in station through hard work or whatever
This change basically completely devalues outposts. There isn't much you can't do cheaper with POS, but guarantee security is one thing, and security is one of the cornerstones of any civilisation.
Security is already a lot worse in Eve than IRL. It'd be even more unrealistic to make it worse.
A better idea would be to improve the system whereby outposts are damaged and subsequently repaired
Spoon this is both a great idea and actually already part of the OP:
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:17:00 -
[332]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
...Your second point was covered also in responses to other posters...
Except your responses were invalid. Consistent references to ISK and no references to force projection, strategic importance or denial of space.
Though, if that's the only response you're going to give, it's the only response i can in turn respond to.
Quote:
Disagree, balance in 0.0 is a very important issue,...
Absolutely. So, if you could clarify, which aspect of outposts is currently unbalanced that would be rectified through addition of destruction.
As far as i can see you need to take the outpost to exact destruction on it, so nothing would really change for the original holder - rather there are now more advantages to taking it.
Quote:
Disagree; it will definitely enhance the game by introducing more options for the disposal of conquered territory....
This isn't necessarily a good thing. Most of the things you've listed probably wouldn't happen. For example outpost ransoming. Outpost "sales" have happened in the past. They cannot be guaranteed. You've already taken the outpost once, there's nothing stopping you to do it again.
Countdown battles already exist (ref: INSRG vs. NC was decided by a to-the-minute fight to take sov before sov 3 kicked in). Adding a secondary post-sov countdown battle wouldn't do much. If someone has taken the outpost and sov, you aren't going to take it back inside the same theatre of battle. And if you've got sov, outpost construction is a doddle, so it simply adds more risk for the defenders, and more offensive options for the attackers.
Outposts are not large losses ISK wise, they're large losses only in terms of strategic control and territorial denial. The attacker is fighting to remove the outpost, the defender to stay in the outpost. Adding the ability to remove the outpost outright, again, gives more advantages to the attacking side. (remember fights are rarely over a single outpost).
Scorched earth retreats would be interesting, but if you're at that stage, you've already lost, your opponent has sov and reconstruction is no major barrier. However reconstruction for the defender after a forced scorched earth (i.e. goons scourging geminate) would be near impossible. Again, the advantage lies with the attacker.
And showdowns at HQs? Why would that happen? The station has no tactical importance. Fighting occurs at POSes because theyre the only static combat point with tactical and strategic importance.
There's a consistent correlation between all of those scenarios that enhance eve in your mind. They all give significant advantages to the attacker once the fight has done.
This moves away from eve's current balance where the attacker must hold the territory. If you remove that aspect, the requirement to hold the territory no longer remains. You can enact a "scorched earth" policy, and effectively hold the space without the requirement to defend any static points - taken outposts are as much a vulnerability as an advantage. That is an extraordinarily big bias in favour of the attacker, and something that if implemented and enacted upon would be the territorial equivalent of having HG snakes, +mwd boost rigs and istabs while your opponent is ****ing about in battlecruisers.
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:19:00 -
[333]
Quote:
Disagree; it still costs more isk on the line...
ISK is irrelevant. Remember? Eve is "isk rich". The only scarce resource (i'm sure this has been said) is pilot time. The time to defend a conquered outpost is comparable to the time your opponent expended defending it. If you don't expend that time, you're going to lose the outpost, which is fair. If you can destroy the outpost, you accomplish the objective of denying your opponent the outpost, without expending anywhere near the same amount of pilot time. How is that balanced?
Quote:
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.
You're half right, half dead wrong. You're right that alliances will concentrate their defence, but not through any requirement enacted from warfare, but rather through personal preference. As it stands you must hold the space to stop your opponent re-taking it and being in a position to assault your own space (why do you think bob and goons have bothered to each conquer Omist? it's a terrible region.). If they could wipe that space clean of outposts, there's nothing for your opponent to base from. You've got your concentrated defence.
THowever, you are wrong in that a "new alliance putting up a single outpost" (a situtation that wouldnt happen at this point in the game) would find it easier. Let's use BoB as the example and Fountain as the region. Assume fountain is empty - bob have rolled in, kicked out PL, Bruce and SoT and destroyed all their stations. Young alliance comes in and starts claiming sov to the north of bob's borders. What do you think bob are going to do? Say "what ho good chum! have fun up there!"? No, they're going to roll on up and clean the space again, re-enacting the scorched earth policy. No one, nothing, will be allowed to build up in the vicinity of the larger alliances, because they'd pose a massive security risk. Putting up a new outpost under fire with no sovereignty backup is near impossible compared to simply taking the space from a dying alliance like bruce, or like tri in the north, or like the dozens of nameless pets in the south.
Quote:
Disagree; it will increase PVP around the contested stations because there are more options for the victor.
I disagree with both of you on this point. It won't change the amount of pvp initially. The process for taking the outpost is the same; shoot jammer, shoot pos, shoot station. All you're doing is appending "hit button, receive wreckage" on the end of that. Bearing in mind once sov has been taken from the defender pvp generally reduces to a minimum, this won't change the level of combat over outposts.
However, once the outpost has been destroyed, you've removed the ability of that system to effectively support pilots. In the future, you would not get roaming gangs basing from that system, you would not get ratters there as a target for roaming gangs. So while hardin is initially incorrect, he's right in the long term.
Quote:
6) It damages the 'history' of EVE
Couldn't care less about this aspect, history is written by the victor.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I'm going to refer you to another posters reply earlier in the thread there are no unaligned outpost owners in 0.0
I suggest you read my response to that. Un-natural selection is unaligned and holds the outposts in cloud ring. There are others, also.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:20:00 -
[334]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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?
The only measurement tool we have for support of specific ideas is the support check box (or people posting on the specific issue thread and saying yes or no, I suppose).
At this time the centerpiece of your campaign has less support than monster truck titans. That seems clear and measurable. You do not have the support of those voters on this issue.
So I am going to have to disagree =)
|
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country
Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:23:00 -
[335]
Edited by: Amarr Holymight on 06/06/2008 18:23:11
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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?
2436 is about 1.2% of the player base go team Jade.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:24:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Pezzle
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?
That's actually the way it works Pezzle, check the CSM document - if a CSM member supports a topic it goes up for a vote.
|
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country
Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:25:00 -
[337]
Why don't you change the OP I want to crash my MOM into an outpost causing irreperable damage cause I saw it in a CCP promo video, so therefore it must happen.
|
Vantras
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:26:00 -
[338]
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
|
Maggot
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:29:00 -
[339]
Originally by: Vantras
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.
Sure, half of the alliances made are for pirate types which would be enemies anyway, and the others are potentially new buddies. |
Maus Bailey
Maus Bailey Trucking
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:30:00 -
[340]
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.
|
|
|
Allaria Kriss
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:31:00 -
[341]
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:
********Ten-Minute Outpost Proposal********
Outposts will be given four additional subsystems: Communications, Power Core, Hangar Bays, Docking Control. Each one does something.
Communications: Enhances POS attack mails - They will tell you the identity of the attacker as well as the number of people who are in Local at the time.
Power Core: All POS's in system get bonus powergrid, say, 10%.
Hangar Bays: POS's will draw a small portion of their required fuel, say, 10% again, from a special hangar on the outpost, reducing POS refueling runs. If the hangar is empty, they will use fuel as normal.
Docking Control: No benefit.
At the beginning of the attack, everything is as it is now. Attacker begins disabling station services, which generates a 'Help, I'm under attack!' message to the outpost's owners.
Once all station services are disabled, station subsystems will appear and become vulnerable: Communications, Power Core, Hangar Bays. These subsystems are more durable and difficult to disable than station services are, and destroying each one has certain benefits:
Communications: POS's in the system with the outpost will not broadcast they are under attack if outpost communications are offline.
Power Core: All POS's lose their power bonus, and get a penalty to their power output equal to the bonus (So if the bonus were 10%, that bonus would be removed and a -10% penalty applied instead).
Hangar Bay: If the Hangar Bay is disabled, items in the outpost cannot be moved until it is repaired. POS's can no longer take fuel from the hangars and must supply it all themselves.
Once these three systems are offline, Docking Control will appear as a target. Disabling Docking Control means that ships cannot dock at that outpost until it is repaired. Docking Control is the toughest subsystem to destroy.
After this, station capture will work as normal. I haven't done enough research on how to flip an outpost to know how it actually works, because it's never something I've had to worry about.
This will effectively render the outpost useless, and even make it a liability to the people that control it, as now their POS's are penalized. However, the outpost is still there and can be repaired back up to operability if the controlling alliance still controls the system. If an alliance doesn't want to deal with controlling the outpost, they can always leave it in its wrecked state, but their POS's will be penalized for doing so, making the system easier to take.
********End Proposal********
In my opinion, that proposal makes 0.0 more dynamic, to use a favorite word in this thread, than the one we're arguing over. It gives a conquering alliance a choice - Scorch the outpost and render it useless, but suck up some nasty penalties and risk losing their system a lot easier, or repair and defend the outpost, thus possibly overextending themselves?
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:33:00 -
[342]
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! |
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:34:00 -
[343]
Edited by: Pezzle on 06/06/2008 18:34:58
for you Maggot, buddy =)
Stay on Target!
|
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:36:00 -
[344]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Spoon Thumb
I get exactly where you're coming from with the problem of 0.0 and the sov system as well as the impact smaller organisations can have on an area of space
But this just ain't the right solution, because it has a lot of unintended consequences.
The most important is that lack of security. When someone logs off to go on holiday for two weeks, they want to know that when they come back, even if their alliance collapses and they lose all their POS, space etc, their assets will still exist in game.
Because it is just a game. Even if you lose an outpost and docking rights, you still have the opportunity to recover those assets you have stuck in station through hard work or whatever
This change basically completely devalues outposts. There isn't much you can't do cheaper with POS, but guarantee security is one thing, and security is one of the cornerstones of any civilisation.
Security is already a lot worse in Eve than IRL. It'd be even more unrealistic to make it worse.
A better idea would be to improve the system whereby outposts are damaged and subsequently repaired
Spoon this is both a great idea and actually already part of the OP:
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
Damaged =/= destroyed
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:36:00 -
[345]
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! |
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:38:00 -
[346]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Maus Bailey
And you ladies say carebears cry about having their factioned blinged Ravens suicide ganked.
Absolutely.
You have a policy of not responding to anyone who makes a personal attack, the least you can do is distance yourself from the support of those who do the same.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:38:00 -
[347]
ISK is not a balance factor. This is not a fiscal issue.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:41:00 -
[348]
Originally by: Spoon Thumb
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Spoon Thumb
I get exactly where you're coming from with the problem of 0.0 and the sov system as well as the impact smaller organisations can have on an area of space
But this just ain't the right solution, because it has a lot of unintended consequences.
The most important is that lack of security. When someone logs off to go on holiday for two weeks, they want to know that when they come back, even if their alliance collapses and they lose all their POS, space etc, their assets will still exist in game.
Because it is just a game. Even if you lose an outpost and docking rights, you still have the opportunity to recover those assets you have stuck in station through hard work or whatever
This change basically completely devalues outposts. There isn't much you can't do cheaper with POS, but guarantee security is one thing, and security is one of the cornerstones of any civilisation.
Security is already a lot worse in Eve than IRL. It'd be even more unrealistic to make it worse.
A better idea would be to improve the system whereby outposts are damaged and subsequently repaired
Spoon this is both a great idea and actually already part of the OP:
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
Damaged =/= destroyed
Weren't you suggesting it would be great if assets in the station were recoverable?
|
Allaria Kriss
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:41:00 -
[349]
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?
|
Vantras
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:43:00 -
[350]
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.
|
|
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:46:00 -
[351]
Originally by: Vantras
If we are making it about the isk (i thought it was about dynamism) then lets set the definition for cost.
Can't it be about everything? Why put blinders on the discussion?
In the end the big picture is that every player-built object in the game can be destroyed - except Outposts. Why not look into bringing them in line with the spirit of Eve?
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:51:00 -
[352]
Edited by: Elmicker on 06/06/2008 18:51:11
Originally by: Kelsin
Why not look into bringing them in line with the spirit of Eve?
Because when the spirit of eve makes for a crappy, biased and boring game, it should be secondary to actually having fun. Fun in 0.0 requires combat. To guarantee combat in 0.0 requires static combat points. As it stands, those are outposts and high end moons (and to a lesser extent, choke gates). The ability to remove outposts removes static combat points. Logic dictates that this also reduces fights in the long term.
There is no way reducing static points of strategic value can increase combat, that's backward logic. There should be more static points, not fewer.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:53:00 -
[353]
Originally by: Kelsin
In the end the big picture is that every player-built object in the game can be destroyed - except Outposts. Why not look into bringing them in line with the spirit of Eve?
Because other issues are more worthy of attention. In addition it would cause harm in terms of stagnation in 0.0 as we have said. The big picture really is getting more people to fight. Less outposts = less people, less people = less fighting.
|
Vantras
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:55:00 -
[354]
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.
|
Maggot
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:55:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Pezzle
Edited by: Pezzle on 06/06/2008 18:34:58
for you Maggot, buddy =)
Stay on Target!
Okay :)
Well if allowing them to be destroyed causes an huge devaluation of an existing asset then the solution is simple - give them additional bonuses with value.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:02:00 -
[356]
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! |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:05:00 -
[357]
Originally by: Allaria Kriss
********Ten-Minute Outpost Proposal********
Outposts will be given four additional subsystems: Communications, Power Core, Hangar Bays, Docking Control. Each one does something.
Communications: Enhances POS attack mails - They will tell you the identity of the attacker as well as the number of people who are in Local at the time.
Power Core: All POS's in system get bonus powergrid, say, 10%.
Hangar Bays: POS's will draw a small portion of their required fuel, say, 10% again, from a special hangar on the outpost, reducing POS refueling runs. If the hangar is empty, they will use fuel as normal.
Docking Control: No benefit.
At the beginning of the attack, everything is as it is now. Attacker begins disabling station services, which generates a 'Help, I'm under attack!' message to the outpost's owners.
Once all station services are disabled, station subsystems will appear and become vulnerable: Communications, Power Core, Hangar Bays. These subsystems are more durable and difficult to disable than station services are, and destroying each one has certain benefits:
Communications: POS's in the system with the outpost will not broadcast they are under attack if outpost communications are offline.
Power Core: All POS's lose their power bonus, and get a penalty to their power output equal to the bonus (So if the bonus were 10%, that bonus would be removed and a -10% penalty applied instead).
Hangar Bay: If the Hangar Bay is disabled, items in the outpost cannot be moved until it is repaired. POS's can no longer take fuel from the hangars and must supply it all themselves.
Once these three systems are offline, Docking Control will appear as a target. Disabling Docking Control means that ships cannot dock at that outpost until it is repaired. Docking Control is the toughest subsystem to destroy.
After this, station capture will work as normal. I haven't done enough research on how to flip an outpost to know how it actually works, because it's never something I've had to worry about.
This will effectively render the outpost useless, and even make it a liability to the people that control it, as now their POS's are penalized. However, the outpost is still there and can be repaired back up to operability if the controlling alliance still controls the system. If an alliance doesn't want to deal with controlling the outpost, they can always leave it in its wrecked state, but their POS's will be penalized for doing so, making the system easier to take.
Now this is an idea that has some merit. It's certainly not complete, but it's a good start, and I think something that faces few, if any, of the problems outlined in this thread.
One amendment I'd make, however. Don't make docking rights destructible, make hangar access destructible, and say that everything has to be repaired with nanite paste. This means you can have a bunch in hangar for repairing ancillary services, but you need to have it in your ship's cargo hold to repair hangar access, which means it'll take a fair bit of work and solid control of the space in order to restore the station to good working order. And if you like, put a reinforcement timer on that - some period of time where you can use items in hangar and remove them, but not add any more. It gives attackers the ability to inflict real cash and time damage on defenders, without depopulating 0.0 of outposts.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:06:00 -
[358]
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 -
[359]
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! |
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:11:00 -
[360]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |