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 [?]

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)
Vinata GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.14 04:15:00 - [481] Originally by: Jade Constantine 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. It makes a good point. Goons can have fun our way, and it can have fun its way.
Flodarian	Posted - 2008.06.14 08:24:00 - [482] Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 14/06/2008 03:22:25 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. If so at least we tried. Can't say fairer than that. Asking the question was a decent idea and while a couple of dozen frenzied anti posters and their alts here disagree a couple of thousand actual voters agreed during the election and 7/9 CSM reps confirm the validity of the issue. Shows the process works. / That being the main reason you do not want to mess with T2 BPO's you only have what around 86?
Itzena GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.14 09:09:00 - [483] Originally by: Flodarian That being the main reason you do not want to mess with T2 BPO's you only have what around 86? Yeah, there's just a slight logical disconnect there: "Outposts are unfair because they hinder the ability of new players to break into 0.0" "Nerfing T2 BPOs is unfair because people have worked hard for them and taking that away to help out newbies with Invention is a bad idea" So Jade, you want to help non-power bloc players into 0.0 (not being part of a territorial power yourself) but you're happy with the advantages of the T2 BPO holders (being part of an economic power yourself). Seems awfully selfish to me.
Anigav Atolla	Posted - 2008.06.14 11:08:00 - [484] Horrible idea. How does making it harder for empire players to move out to 0.0 serve the EvE community? I hope that all members of the CSM give Jade a napalm enema for proposing this moronic idea. Further more I'd suggest that matters regarding 0.0 come from players who have actual 0.0 experience.
TWD Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.14 11:36:00 - [485] Originally by: Hardin 4) It will increase barriers to 0.0 use As already highlighted the introduction of Destructible Outposts could have some seriously negative consequences - particularly in limiting the ability of newer, smaller alliances to establish footholds in 0.0. Newer, smaller alliances trying to get a foothold will be in trouble at one point anyway if they don't align with one of the current power blocks. I think this is an excellent idea.
FastMoJoe	Posted - 2008.06.14 12:07:00 - [486] Originally by: TWD Newer, smaller alliances trying to get a foothold will be in trouble at one point anyway if they don't align with one of the current power blocks. I think this is an excellent idea. [/quote Remove the power block structure that is currently in place instead of destroying the only permanent feature in the game. I don't see how removing stations would add anything to the game. If you really want to make a difference make it so that each alliance can only control a set number of stations.
RDevz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 03:37:00 - [487] I'm torn. On the one hand, I want to raze Geminate to the ground, and turn it into a nature reserve where rats can roam free, just as God intended it to be. And let's be frank, the region's not much good for anything else. On the other hand, this is an idiotic idea, and will only make it even harder for new groups to get into 0.0, because noone is going to expend much energy in saving the outposts in crap space. Besides, investment decisions have been made on the assumption that these outposts won't be destructible. Changing this is fundamentally unfair to the people who built them in the first place. Moreso, there's still the risk of losing all your space, and access to the outposts in it - just look at what was once owned by -V- and LV, and the rest of the old southern coalition. They lost all of their space, without giving people the opportunity to play a game of Damage. However, I support this idea being escalated to the meeting with CCP, just so Jade can be shot down and informed how stupid this idea is in person by both CSM reps who have some experience of life in 0.0 and CPP themselves, in a setting where {,s}he doesn't have the opportunity of the Wall of Text defense that we so love to navigate.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 05:52:00 - [488] Originally by: TWD Originally by: Hardin 4) It will increase barriers to 0.0 use As already highlighted the introduction of Destructible Outposts could have some seriously negative consequences - particularly in limiting the ability of newer, smaller alliances to establish footholds in 0.0. Newer, smaller alliances trying to get a foothold will be in trouble at one point anyway if they don't align with one of the current power blocks. I think this is an excellent idea. The difference is how much trouble. Just because its hard doesn't mean we should make it harder.
Inanna Zuni	Posted - 2008.06.20 11:25:00 - [489] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CSM and CCP / Devs are currently discussing this issue and an announcement regarding the outcome will be made in the near future. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ IZ My principles
Wolf Soldier Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.26 15:01:00 - [490]

Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.26 15:54:00 - [491] 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!
Nex Adveho AbChao	Posted - 2008.06.26 19:30:00 - [492] I'm slightly disappointed that I didn't find this thread earlier, but there is a better way to change 0.0 stations in my opinion. Making them destructible isn't the course of action I'd take. Instead, I'd prefer to see all assets in the station lost, and the conquering corporation able to run off with the spoils. I will not deny that is more and more difficult for small alliances to get a foothold in 0.0, but that could be dealt with in other manners - more space, removal of the dreaded local, or congregation with other small alliances. The idea of blowing up stations would bring meta-gaming to a whole new level. Instead of "haha I stole your titan" it might be "haha I stole your station, all your assets and then blew it up." Further more, destructible stations makes reconquering space much less desirable, and leads to less pew pew. This is good if you like the idea of the superblocs continuing to spread like a plague, but it gives small alliances even less of a reason to settle permanently in non-NPC controlled 0.0. By allowing conquering corporations to pillage all the assets of a station, I think you'll achieve the desired high-risk EVE gameplay, without risking the further 0.0 foothold the superblocs maintain.
Zaran Darkstar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.06.26 21:41:00 - [493] 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. That is why i disagree with the idea of this topic. It would permit the very strong alliances to just go and wreck everything the smaller ones have build so that would be very hard for them to get back the lost areas since to built outposts is a huge investment. On the other side the very rich alliance would hve no problem after devastated the weaker alliance outpost and lead them to go back to empire out of frustraion would have enough funds to rebuild everything at a later time. It generally favors the destructive/non-constructive way of playing. So, not supported.
Zarlis The Scope	Posted - 2008.06.27 01:59:00 - [494] Both thumbs down (vote here) One of CCP design directions is walking in stations. The more stations there are the more this expansion will be for everybody.
Vendrin APEX Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.06.27 03:54:00 - [495] Supported
Felix Dzerzhinsky Wreckless Abandon Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.06.27 05:46:00 - [496] Edited by: Felix Dzerzhinsky on 27/06/2008 05:51:56 No way, 0.0 needs more infrastructure, building POS' is a way to allow for regions to remain populated. To allow POS' to be destroyed would mean when an alliance pulls out of a region, all the infrastructure would go with it. . .as it stands, 0.0 needs more infrastructure, not less. And when we take a region and over-extend ourselves in the name of pvp, do you think we would leave anything behind except Promo/dyspro deathstars and cyno-networks to have the ultimate advantage? Do you think BoBwould have left all those stations the Goons and Reds are living in now if stations were destructable? 0.0 would be a constant state of build and destroy, build and destroy. The only way I think this should be allowed is if you can have lots of stations guns and be able to man them from inside the station. . .but it would have to be amazingly well defended. ---- GO BLUE!!
Zaran Darkstar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.06.27 07:51:00 - [497] Edited by: Zaran Darkstar on 27/06/2008 07:53:09 Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky And when we take a region and over-extend ourselves in the name of pvp, do you think we would leave anything behind except Promo/dyspro deathstars and cyno-networks to have the ultimate advantage? Do you think BoBwould have left all those stations the Goons and Reds are living in now if stations were destructable? 0.0 would be a constant state of build and destroy, build and destroy. The only way I think this should be allowed is if you can have lots of stations guns and be able to man them from inside the station. . .but it would have to be amazingly well defended. Exactly. And moreover lets see what would have happened if that idea was already implemented. Lets suppose this situation. A big bad strong alliance of the SW invades the Northwest. HE has the best means of destruction and manages to conquer one system after another with ease. The problem is to manage to hold all these areas. Becasue there is a problem in that. You can't posess so many players to control effectivly all the space you want. And Jade came here and proposed something to remediate this. Now BoB can just go and destroy the outposts of the other alliances then retreat back. The next week the alliances manage to make new outposts but guess what BoB returns and destroys them again and again and again till everyone pays large tribute to BoB for a non aggression pact. BoB wins EvE and gets big trophy cup. A week later everyone leaves EVE to go play something else As it is now BoB has harder job to do. If they declare war to some other alliance they need great efford to conquer systems because as things are no they give the weaker guys a chance to fight back. With the new system BoB and any BoB like alliance can grief any smaller alliance by simply enter the system some day that the alliance guys will be not logged and destroy the station, then retreat. Till everyone except them gets back to the empire or back to WoW out of extreem annoyance.
coeathal vega Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.06.27 09:41:00 - [498] Edited by: coeathal vega on 27/06/2008 09:44:53 Supported. I think this would make 0.0 combat much more rewarding and exciting. also, give the ability of deploying mannable sentry guns around stations. ----
MentaFox The Chaotic Order Void.	Posted - 2008.06.27 09:44:00 - [499] yo ----------------------
Ryoji Tanakama Daikoku Fleet Shipyards	Posted - 2008.06.27 12:48:00 - [500] <---- Thumb ~Ryoji Tanakama

Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.27 12:48:00 - [501] 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 - [502] 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!
Zaruda Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2008.06.27 13:59:00 - [503] Originally by: Jade Constantine 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. This is a good compromise. I like this. As Eve gets older and ISK because more and more readily available, more outposts will just keep popping up on a whim. All these 'expensive' toys are becoming old hat and far less special. I hope they make it sufficiently expensive enough as well as difficult enough so it isn't too easy either way.
Zaran Darkstar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.06.27 16:57:00 - [504] Edited by: Zaran Darkstar on 27/06/2008 17:00:49 Edited by: Zaran Darkstar on 27/06/2008 16:58:38 Originally by: Jade Constantine 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. Points taken Jade. One more thing though. You mentioned that you got elected for to advocate small unit pvp, dynamic outcomes and entertaining mayhem in 0.0 space. Which is what happens in real life too. Politicians use mild or words to describe much harsher changes they have in mind. And when they get elected with a vast majority of votes they claim that they have the big majority and promote their plans but the truth is that if the people who voted for them knew in advance the whole package of changes things would go much differently. You mentioned that you got these many votes and i can't deny it that if that is the case and you got all these votes of course typically it is as if your vote = 11.000 people. But what i suspect is that you didn't tell them your whole idea of how exactly you were planing to promote small unit pvp, dynamic outcomes and entertaining mayhem in 0.0 space. Because the terms you used could mean anything and it was very smart of you to use these words. I mean i would have voted for you if i had read these promises. But as you see when i read the whole package of your idea i disagree with it. And i bet that every single of the 11000 people that voted for you for this exact thing had a different initial suspicion in their mind on how this would be achieved. Lets see what one would get out of your words. 1) Promote small scale PvP. People would think that you would help so that things would change so that a small alliance composed of small corps can have a chance against big alliances. What happens with your idea is the exact opposite. 2) Dynamic outcomes and entertaining mayhem That could be anything but for certain sounds nice. Would i vote for you if i had read that? Probably yes, because with the words you used it seemed very cool but whaen i would get to find out what you really meant to do i would disagree. But now it is too late. I still don't know if all these people suspected what your were planing or if they got deceived by your very cool sounding terminology. 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" ? I won't get back to it, i am just curious. And that doesn't mean that i don't agree in many other matters you proposed.
Phroneo Southern Cross Incorporated Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.27 17:44:00 - [505] Only makes sense... -- It may be that the old astrologers had the truth exactly reversed, when they believed that the stars controlled the destinies of men. The time may come when men control the destinies of stars. ACC
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.27 17:48:00 - [506] 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!
Zaran Darkstar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.06.28 00:12:00 - [507] Originally by: Jade Constantine .... Matter solved then. It's relieving to see the people were not deceived in any way. I submit myself to the majority then... Perhaps the destructable outposts is not so bad idea after all and the way CCP thinks of it is a milder compromise. If it was implemented and if supposingly an alliance would raid an outpost and strip it from it's services what kind of isk would be needed so that the outpost be restored to it's former state?
Futchmacht Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.07.06 09:20:00 - [508] Edited by: Futchmacht on 06/07/2008 09:24:36 Quote: 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. This is what i see happening.. in the future. 0.0 is like Empire. With Outposts in every system. They are all controled buy the super alliances.. the EVE USA, CHINA, RUSSIA. And all the rest.. well they stay in true empire where they belong... How does a new alliance stand up to the old ones when the new alliances will be backed up buy 10 carriers and the old alliances who have sucked 0.0 for years with outposts everywhere will be backed up buy 1000 titans
Apple Boy Wyverns of Dionysus Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.07.27 15:56:00 - [509]
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.07.27 16:42:00 - [510] For destructible, mobile outposts. Solves a lot of problems that each one would bring by itself.



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.