Originally by: Dinique

---

The OP's opinion on what effect it would have has no bearing on whether this is a good idea or not.

---

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

---

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: Garreck

---

Originally by: Dinique

---

The OP's opinion on what effect it would have has no bearing on whether this is a good idea or not.

---

Fair point. Why do you think it's a good idea, then? What benefit to the game would be brought about by making outpost destruction a reality?

---

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.

---

Originally by: Dinique

---

Originally by: Garreck

---

Originally by: Dinique

---

The OP's opinion on what effect it would have has no bearing on whether this is a good idea or not.

---

Fair point. Why do you think it's a good idea, then? What benefit to the game would be brought about by making outpost destruction a reality?

---

Outposts are an exception to the rule in EVE. Loss is an important factor of what makes EVE tick. I see no reason for this exception to exist. Its not a sandbox if the sandcastles can't be stepped on

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

-snip-

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?

-snip-

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

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: Dinique

---

Outposts are an exception to the rule in EVE. Loss is an important factor of what makes EVE tick. I see no reason for this exception to exist. Its not a sandbox if the sandcastles can't be stepped on

---

Originally by: Pezzle

---

This process is to decide what we feel is important for CCP to look at, not something else. Many have said no and given reasons. Do not turn this into something it is not.

---

Originally by: Garreck

---

Jade, I think Hardin addressed your question quite directly in his far more thorough post: there are hotter issues to the balance of the game. For instance, if sovereignty and seige mechanics can be addressed to a point that seige warfare is a lot more fun/playable, then 0.0 would become more dynamic without introducing a new mechanic that could be far too easily abused (and make 0.0 a lot less dynamic) as things currently stand.

---

Originally by: Garreck

---

I think a big concern is that outpost destruction would make sand-castle stepping a much more attractive alternative to sand-castle building...which can be equally destructive to the fun-factor of a sandbox.

---

Quote:

---

Jade, I think Hardin addressed your question quite directly in his far more thorough post: there are hotter issues to the balance of the game. For instance, if sovereignty and seige mechanics can be addressed to a point that seige warfare is a lot more fun/playable, then 0.0 would become more dynamic without introducing a new mechanic that could be far too easily abused (and make 0.0 a lot less dynamic) as things currently stand.

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

I agree with Jade's point that there's nothing to be gained by NOT asking about it.

---

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: Jade Constantine

---

Yep and many have spoken and said yes. I guess ultimately it'll be good to ask CCP the question right?

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

I believe Destructible Outposts could go a long way to redressing this imbalance...

---

Originally by: Garreck

---

Originally by: Dinique

---

Outposts are an exception to the rule in EVE. Loss is an important factor of what makes EVE tick. I see no reason for this exception to exist. Its not a sandbox if the sandcastles can't be stepped on

---

I think a big concern is that outpost destruction would make sand-castle stepping a much more attractive alternative to sand-castle building...which can be equally destructive to the fun-factor of a sandbox.

---

Originally by: Ikar Kaltin

---

Current outposts should not be destructible. My main issue is that it is not fair on outpost owners to have the rules changed on them after they have weighed up all the pros and cons and decided to go ahead with it.

---

Quote:

---

Can you honestly think of a fair way to make current outposts destructable without screwing up hundreds of billions of isk invested by people in something which CCP says "These cannot be destroyed".

---

Originally by: Garreck

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

I agree with Jade's point that there's nothing to be gained by NOT asking about it.

---

CCP has enough problems distracting themselves with new features before fixing old ones. Let's not complicate things with CSM also throwing in new feature ideas.

What I'd like to see CSM approach CCP with is a unified front of "the playerbase wants you to fix your game FIRST."

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Destructible outposts would be in my opinion, a reasonable counterbalance for a situation that has been skewed in the favour of the defender for far too long.

---

Quote:

---

risk, threat and danger to balance the advantage and profitability.

---

Originally by: Garreck

---

Now let's turn the tables and say Star Fraction had an outpost or two (not talking ideology here, just size comparison) and CVA wanted to come knocking. Now, CVA have plenty of crap to take care of in our own space...but it sure would be nice to take out some SF outposts, yeah? If we don't have to hold on to those outposts, if we can just roll in, execute a month-long campaign, push a button and it's all gone...we're gonna be a lot more likely to execute that campaign than if we have to try and figure out a way to include 2 new outposts into our logistical scheme as well as provide adequate protection. Destructable outposts allows us to take on a campaign that, under current mechanics, isn't worth the trouble (or, more to the point, would over-stretch our capabilities.)

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

Sounds great!

---

Originally by: Ikar Kaltin

---

When outposts were introduced and Soverignty was introduced based on POS warfare, how long did it take to destroy a single POS? How many capital ships were around, how many dreadnaughts were around? They were a limited factor designed to help pos warfare.

Now, it is possible for 100 dreadnaughts to be fielded against a POS. It is now faster and easier to destroy poses than ever before, and harder to defend against.

To combat this and help alliances stop being steamrolled new mechanics were introduced. Did this make living in 0.0 easier. Possibly. Were they intended to be used as an outpost buff? No, they were introduced to make POS warfare more managable.

New features should not be looked at in stand alone situations. "Cyno jammers and jumpbridges make logistics easier". Lets Remove them shall we. We now have a system where dozens of dreadnaughts enter a system at will, reinforce all towers in very feasibly under an hour, to reinforce as many POSes as seige cycle allows. Then 2 and a half days later, they return, and destroy those poses even faster (Whats the record for a POS being destroyed out of reinforced, i believe its under 5 mins).

So an alliance does this and next down time sov drops. Lets look at the time scale on this, 3 days from initial suprise strike to sov dead.

Outposts have not changed, their value has not changed, the effort in putting one up may gotten easier but this is in balance to the effort neccessary to defend them. The Mechanics surrounding their defence has changed in a response to the changing circumstances of the EVE environment in which those mechanics apply.

Your argument is flawed becaused it is basing the argument to make outposts destroyable based on the development of POS warfare, which developed in a way which was NECCESSARY, and although not neccesarily balanced, has not impeded 0.0 warfare to a great effect, in a way which was not intended to boost outposts.

Cyno Jammers and jump bridges are not restricted to solely outpost systems, reliant upon the existance of an outpost. If they were, then I might just let you look at outposts in relation to these mechanics in isolation to the rest of EVE. However, just because YOU cannot drop 100 dreadnaughts and destroy a system, does not mean that someone, or hell, even everyone else in 0.0 cant do that.

Give outposts defences, give them a major major major boost, i.e. 20 corp offices each, all services at a good quality and then you can trade off these boosts against it being utterly destroyable.

What annoys me most about this is that you are looking at these mechanics and how they compare to other mechanics in isolation of the wider circumstances.

Simply answer this question: Considering that outposts were given destructible station services which means they can be effectivly made useless which in essence for outposts was a nerf, in what way are outposts unbalanced and needing to be made destructable? How have they recieved any buffs that are not simply in response to another issue, where any bonus they recieve is a side issue of the bigger picture.

When they were introduced they had a purpose, and have the exact same purpose today. They have not changed, you say they are cheaper in relative terms, how are they? Just because time has gone on and people have made empires the way ccp intended, using the mechanics they intended to make living in the valuable parts of 0.0 profitable doesnt means things are any cheaper.

What concerns me most though is that if you, the person making this thread, had any experience in POS maintanence, POS networks,building and owning and operating outposts, then you would not be making this thread. You are looking at 0.0 mechanics and saying "This is how this works and this is unfair rabble rabble rabble" instead of actually going out and experiencing all these things you are complaining about.

---

Originally by: Garreck

---

Sounds like something that will further encourage naptrains and blobs and discourage smaller alliances from participating in 0.0 at all.

---

Originally by: Kelsin

---

Originally by: Garreck

---

After all if what you suggest about the fate of destructable Outposts were true, why haven't the Goons swarmed across Eve destroying every POS a smaller alliance has out there?

---

I've just skimmed the thread before reading this post...POS don't provide the same logistical benefits as an outpost and are generally not worth the time and effort as they are VERY easy to replace when compared with an outpost.
-----------------------

Auctoritan Syndicate Director