| 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) |
Erotic Irony
0bsession
   |
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:06:00 -
[241]
Edited by: Erotic Irony on 06/06/2008 06:06:47
 Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Ikar Kaltin
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?
Destructible station services is largely a joke. Nothing that can be done in a reasonable timescale by anything other than a full POS sieging gang. Outposts are unbalanced because they cannot be destroyed. Its that simple. Everything else in Eve 0.0 can be. Outposts can't. Now perhaps you can tell me in return why an Outpost should be the exception to the rule given that players are currently flying and risking super capital ships that represent far more isk investment and construction difficulty every night in eve?
Same reason they didn't emulate restricted docking in the FW model, presumably they are making this decision informed by the experience of 0.0 and with an eye on enhancing the 0.0 experience.
The vision of Eve four years ago and the real Eve today are very different, CCP has grown more pragmatic and interested in preserving a threshold of basic playability rather than committing to some rhetoric of harshness that is largely untapped and exhausting--see 0.0 roaming and all POS gameplay. I'm all far more concrete victory conditions but I suspect the real effect of this is unpredictable. Doing away with that in the form of destructible outposts seems like it serve more rhetorical interests than it would genuinely enhance gameplay at the sovereignty and territorial level especially when alliance spies can more or less undermine POS and sovereignty within existing gameplay mechanics.
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:09:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Erotic Irony
Same reason they didn't emulate restricted docking in the FW model, presumably they are making this decision informed by the experience of 0.0 and with an eye on enhancing the 0.0 experience. The vision of Eve four years ago and the real Eve today are very different, CCP has grown more pragmatic and interested in preserving a threshold of basic playability rather than committing to some rhetoric of harshness that is largely untapped and exhausting--see 0.0 roaming and all POS gameplay. I'm all for more concrete victory conditions but I suspect the real effect of this is unpredictable. Doing away with that in the form of destructible outposts seems like it serve more rhetorical interests than it would genuinely enhance gameplay at the sovereignty and territorial level especially when alliance spies can more or less undermine POS and sovereignty within existing gameplay mechanics.
You might be right. So lets ask them. Then we can settle the matter of this discussion and get on with other topics.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:14:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Dani Leone
a) is debatable
b) is wrong because there are plenty of nurseries for minor powers to learn their trade,
A) Not really. Unless you believe that making it harder for smaller alliances to gain footholds and become powers will somehow increase the amount of times that lines are redrawn
b) Plenty would be fewer than there are now.
Originally by: Kelsin
Currently if an Alliance loses an Outpost only to regain it later, there's no financial loss, because the initial investment of the Outpost was regained.
Besides POS, Fuel, Guns, Capitals, Time, Effort, Planning. Yea, that is "nothing".
Quote:
For the same reason that on a smaller level POSes can be destroyed instead of simply captured, it makes sense for Outposts to function the same way - the stakes are just higher.
Except there is no mechanic by which we can capture POS. Imagine if you could capture POS. When conquering a region you wouldn't have to put your own infrastructure down. It would be a lot easier and the only expenditures would be in time, effort, and possibly capitals. It would be easier to attack a region.
But in the end, POS are not nearly comparable to stations, they have no personal hangars, they are not buffered by a siege, they offer no repair facilities and no true sanctuary from enemies. You can not easily manage fititngs, ships, and assets. You cannot trade materials, there are no contracts, no market, no offices, no clones.... You cannot only have one in a system.
It might make sense if POS were that type of asset, but they aren't and no comparison to their destructibility and inability to be captured can be made.
Originally by: Kelsin
I don't think you can make that blanket statement - after all, does it not come down to risk vs. reward? If a 0.0 organization reaches a point in it's rise to power at which it feels it can both benefit from an Outpost and defend it against attack/recover from its loss, it would be rational to build one. If Outposts were destructable this point would still be reached, it would simply be another factor in the calculations of risk vs. reward.
No, it may not be reached. Whether or not it is reached is determined by the ralative power of the institutions which it borders. But even if it is reached it will be reached later and less often. Its a matter of risk and reward and you reduce the reward and increases the risk. This doesn't produce more action to make sov change hands it produces less.
Quote:
This is an interesting point - however does this not also apply to POS? An Empire organization can currently strike at 0.0 POS and the POS owner is in an identical situation. If it is okay for POS why not for Outpost?
Because an outpost is an operational goal and a POS is a strategic goal. Just as we don't have the ability to destroy dyspro moons. The static resources give structure and goals to be achieved.
Originally by: Dinique
Would you think it fine if Capital ships or just Super-capitals or just Titans were indestructable? Why have assets that can be destroyed at all?
Capital ships are not captureable operational goals. They are tactical goals. Something you must remove in the way to achieve strategic and operational goals.
Originally by: Dinique
What does that matter? They certainly should be able to burn the rest. It changes nothing for the little guy.
The fact that parts of 0.0 are entirely worthless is a whole different problem altogether, and has nothing to do with Outposts. Space of value will be taken and not left to whomever. The independant "little guy" is every bit as much out on his ass.
If they burn the rest there is even less space and less valuable space. The little guy thrives by keeping these less valuable spaces as it grows in power. Fewer places to go the more often they are out on their ass. Your argument is akin to saying "we should get rid of the homeless shelter because it sucks to be homeless"
|
Alex Shurk
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:18:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
So lets ask them.
Or, let's not and let's ask them about far more pressing issues. Say, for example the removal of 30/90d gtcs, or the abandonment of the API development, or the gashtastic UI, or the constant prevalance of desync, or the seeming lack of accountability for GMs, or the absolute lack of working bounty system, or the constant disparity of speed, or the sub-par nature of minmatar battleships, or the farmer infestation of empire, or the imbalance between mission and ratting rewards, or the fact cloakers are still invulnerable or maybe even cyno jammers.
So there's a round dozen issues that are all far more important and far more pressing than your personal crusade against territory holders. You'd be failing in your role as a CSM member to present this petty crap before those other issues.
And also, still haven't responded to the questions i posed pages ago. Why is it that you want to implement a system that will allow effective denial of control of space (as important as control of space) without a physical presence. Despite the fact you're opposed to people exerting influence across the game without pilots there.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:22:00 -
[245]
You may try to twist my words in whatever way you like. My track record is actually FOR the little guy. The 5 man corp that wants to try 0.0. The individual who wants to mine. The 30 players wanting pvp. I want others to thrive. Exploding outposts is bad for everyone save except those who do not want space. We have demonstrated through all methods available why this is so. The groups most capable of such path have said we are right. Continue the personal agenda if you must, but at least answer the challenges. You are failing to defend your position against valid points.
|
Ikar Kaltin
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:34:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Ikar Kaltin
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?
Destructible station services is largely a joke. Nothing that can be done in a reasonable timescale by anything other than a full POS sieging gang. Outposts are unbalanced because they cannot be destroyed. Its that simple. Everything else in Eve 0.0 can be. Outposts can't. Now perhaps you can tell me in return why an Outpost should be the exception to the rule given that players are currently flying and risking super capital ships that represent far more isk investment and construction difficulty every night in eve?
Quote:
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?
Everyone has more money, 0.0 especially. The cost in real terms is much lower. The cost in effort is much lower. There are significant infrastructure advantages that make outpost establishment today much easier.
No, what your failing to see is that yes is everything in eve is losable (not neccesarily destructable). Outposts do not in themselves provide the ability to attack and destroy your enemy. Super caps are offensive tools, and can be used to kill other players. Outposts cant, they can barely even be called a defensive mechanism as once they are deployed you can still lose them based on mechanics that have nothing to do with outposts.
As I have said before, I have nothing against destructible outposts being introducted. People will have the ability to make an informed decision based on whether they want to deploy them on that basis. But outposts in their current form should not be destroyable because you are essentially talking about undermining hundreds of billions of isk investment in unmovable assets which require hundreds of man hours to build and even more to defend and in maintanence. CCP has NEVER made a decision which can affect the player base on such a massive scale.
And I dont see your point with isk. Everyone has more isk? I dont, my wallet is consistently under 300mil. What your saying is that due to the investment made earlier on its now easier for entities in deeper 0.0 to make isk easier (though still not in a safe way, well apart from dyspro and prom moons). Outposts still require a major investment, and by your logic it means that the more isk people have the more expensive outposts get to build. Well if that were the case then people would complain "why should they pay less for the same thing". People build on what they invest, its how life works. Just because they have put their own isk forward and put in the effort doesnt mean you should undermine their value now.
You mentioned outposts have recieved over a dozen buffs in an earlier post, please can you list some of these with a reason why they were introduced as an outpost buff.
And furthermore have you even considered how easy it will be to destroy outposts under your system. You can with relative ease destroy an outpost in under a week. Especially if your other suggestions put forward in your manifesto come to the fore (which I somehow think they will).
What really matters is what is eve? Should it remain what it is now or will it become something where it is impossible to make a tangible effort to build up your own territory, and simply became a "destroy everything that everyone has" game. Thats an issue that should be raised, what is the future of eve. IF you want to destroy the very essence of eve then what your suggesting is a good way to go.
|
MrZYD
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 09:11:00 -
[247]
In my opinion the cons outweight the pros 90-10 on this issue. I can't support an idea that will make it harder for the little alliances to get their own space in 0.0.
|
Zeknichov
Dark Prophecy Inc.
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 09:19:00 -
[248]
Edited by: Zeknichov on 06/06/2008 09:21:04
When outposts were first introduced it struck me as odd that they weren't destructible. I support giving the players the choice to destroy the outpost. I also support giving alliances the choice to self-destruct the outpost as well.
For all those saying it will be worse for little alliances. If you truly believe little alliances should be able to compete with larger alliances than sure this change would actually be bad but implementing this change and then other changes to correct the "problem" of small alliances competing with larger alliances is the best direction to take.
|
Dani Leone
A Dark Cloud
Unaffiliated
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 10:21:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Ikar Kaltin
And furthermore have you even considered how easy it will be to destroy outposts under your system.
Look at the op, Jade gave that system as an example only, not as a fixed and final consideration of how outposts should die.
The distilled question is this, should players be able to construct things that cannot be de-constructed no matter who later controls them?
Outposts are merely one facet (though a large one) of that question.
If CCP were to consider that yes all player constructable items must be destructible in keeping with the sandbox principle, then, what sort of balancing that would be needed to take place in order for it to be reasonable that outposts could be destroyed, given the costs and efforts of construction, would need to be thrashed out in detail.
-----------------------------
|
Dani Leone
A Dark Cloud
Unaffiliated
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 10:34:00 -
[250]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Dani Leone
a) is debatable
b) is wrong because there are plenty of nurseries for minor powers to learn their trade,
A) Not really. Unless you believe that making it harder for smaller alliances to gain footholds and become powers will somehow increase the amount of times that lines are redrawn
b) Plenty would be fewer than there are now.
A) Doesn't necessary follow.
Allowing player built infrastructure to be destroyed will not automatically prevent smaller alliances from gaining footholds. The fact that something is destructible does not ipso facto result in it's destruction.
It will be more difficult in some but not all cases and I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing anyway.
b) How? Allowing outposts to be destructible would not shut down entire regions where pre-exisiting NPC built controllable structures still exist.
Goons or Bob or [insert favourite large villainous alliance] crushing alliances nearby to their controlled space would not empty out Syndicate or other Alliance nurseries.
If anything it would simply ensure that those who do move out to the now empty regions would need a greater degree of preparedness than they do today and that the new breed of Alliances would probably be a tougher existential challenge to the sprawling existing powers than is currently the case.
-----------------------------
|
|
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 11:04:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Dani Leone
A) Doesn't necessary follow.
Allowing player built infrastructure to be destroyed will not automatically prevent smaller alliances from gaining footholds. The fact that something is destructible does not ipso facto result in it's destruction.
It will be more difficult in some but not all cases and I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing anyway.
Yes it does necessarily follow.
Here is one example of how it must necessarily follow; Any station that is destroyed will increase the value of all other stations. More value means more competition. More competition means costs increase. Costs increase means its harder for smaller alliances to gain footholds. Just as in any situation when competition forces out the inefficient its the small that get pushed out first unless there is some major failure in a larger system[See: Triumvirate]
Here is a second way:
Its to the benefit of large alliances to consolidate space and remove stations, which are strong logistical tools, near their space. Stations facilitate player activity and player activity is the main thing that allows alliances to push into areas where another entity is over-extended(or well any push at all).
This scenario is not beneficial to the larger alliances, especially since density is an advantage for alliances. Such, currently its in an alliances interest to hold as much space as possible to create a buffer that must be sieged through(or set with friendlies/pets). If alliances can instead remove the infrastructure that buffer becomes even better.
Power is a Zero sum game, and so anything that increases the power of the larger alliances by giving them better and larger buffer zones must necessarily reduce the power of smaller alliances who do not have that advantage and must overcome it.
To put it simply. Rational play on the part of large alliances mean that if a small party wants to get into the game they have to build their own station.
Quote:
b) How? Allowing outposts to be destructible would not shut down entire regions where pre-exisiting NPC built controllable structures still exist.
Goons or Bob or [insert favourite large villainous alliance] crushing alliances nearby to their controlled space would not empty out Syndicate or other Alliance nurseries.
Irrelevant. What is relevant is that the number of possible nurseries increases. Lets imagine for a second that we could destroy stations for the past year. If this were true, fountain would have been purged of stations as well as Geminate. Why am i mentioning Fountain and Geminate. Well, instead of Smash/RK/Atlas trying to make their way in Geminate they would have tried it in Syndicate. Bruce would have been unable to move into Fountain in the wake of one of BoBs pets failing and would still be in syndicate. Now instead of alliances growing in alliance nurseries we have alliances competing for the ability to grow in nurseries. This reduces the ability of those alliances to compete against the larger(and again, as above, more powerful) established alliances.
Less nurseries is still less nurseries, whether or not you think its "plenty". And less nurseries mean less alliances getting to the point where they might be able to make a move. Less alliances getting to the point where they might be able to make a move against established alliance means more stagnation.
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:28:00 -
[252]
An interesting read.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=790306
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:47:00 -
[253]
Originally by: Ikar Kaltin
No, what your failing to see is that yes is everything in eve is losable (not neccesarily destructable). Outposts do not in themselves provide the ability to attack and destroy your enemy. Super caps are offensive tools, and can be used to kill other players. Outposts cant, they can barely even be called a defensive mechanism as once they are deployed you can still lose them based on mechanics that have nothing to do with outposts.
Actually Ikar what I'm failing to see is your answer to my question. I answered all the questions you asked - I asked one question in return, it would be simple politeness for you to reply.
Quote:
And I dont see your point with isk. Everyone has more isk? I dont, my wallet is consistently under 300mil.
Your alliance does though. Your individual wallet is irrelevant to this discussion.
Quote:
...and by your logic it means that the more isk people have the more expensive outposts get to build.
Incorrect, I'm saying that since alliances have much more isk available and establishing outposts is a less significant effort today its reasonable to increase the risk of their use.
Quote:
And furthermore have you even considered how easy it will be to destroy outposts under your system. You can with relative ease destroy an outpost in under a week. Especially if your other suggestions put forward in your manifesto come to the fore (which I somehow think they will).
I'm proposing a rough example where you need to take sovereignty in order to conquer a outpost and rather than holding that outpost you have the option to initiate a self destruct after x period.
Quote:
What really matters is what is eve? Should it remain what it is now or will it become something where it is impossible to make a tangible effort to build up your own territory, and simply became a "destroy everything that everyone has" game. Thats an issue that should be raised, what is the future of eve. IF you want to destroy the very essence of eve then what your suggesting is a good way to go.
Same straw man argument repeated many many times through the course of this (and every other discussion between outpost holders and would be outpost attackers) on the issue. It is certainly not established that destructible outposts would make it "impossible" to build up territory. I understand its a convenience "scare tactic" to filibuster the debate, but really, neither the proposal on the table (nor the example resolution) support this rather extreme conclusion. At some point we have to accept that CCP will take a look at the problem with 0.0 warfare and make a decision on whether its currently too hard to actually impact existing 0.0 alliances and whether this is good or bad for the future of the game.
I got elected in first place in a popular election on a platform of promising to ask CCP about the introduction of 0.0 outposts Ikar. I'd like to do that. Thats what this thread is about.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:56:00 -
[254]
Originally by: Pezzle
Continue the personal agenda if you must, but at least answer the challenges. You are failing to defend your position against valid points.
As far as I can see of this thread Pezzle ALL counter arguments have been answered in a robust and engaging discussion. The fact you may not LIKE the answers doesn't mean they haven't been answered and offered to you.
Quote:
And you know what? Even if you swindle enough csm into the proposition we will still take our case right to ccp. Current mechanics do not support this idea. It is bad for every catagory of player except those wishing to impact 0.0 without investing in it. That is the bottom line and it will be realized.
Don't you think the word SWINDLE is a bit ridiculous in this context? Lets look at the result of the popular vote in the recent election. Hardin and I came top of the polls, he is resolutely status quo on the issue of outposts, I'm arguing for re-balance and dynamic consequence. I topped him by 43 votes (yep thats tiny) but it represents the fact that the informed and passionate voting community is split 50/50 on this issue and the way to handle such splits is not to muzzle and stifle the debate by refusing point-blank to have it on the agenda. It would be very silly to disenfranchise a large slice of the voting electorate by stopping this question being raised at the CSM level. Lets table the question and ask the question.
I phrased the question in the op in a particular way, I would like to hear the answer to that question from CCP so I can report the outcome to the community. If they don't see a role for destructible outposts in 0.0 then fair enough, I'm not going to sulk or stamp my feet about it, but its a question that needs to be asked and attempting to prevent the asking of that question when thousands of players have voted for a candidate advocating that question is short-sighted and pretty anti-democratic.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Dani Leone
A Dark Cloud
Unaffiliated
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:04:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Dani Leone
A) Doesn't necessary follow.
Allowing player built infrastructure to be destroyed will not automatically prevent smaller alliances from gaining footholds. The fact that something is destructible does not ipso facto result in it's destruction.
It will be more difficult in some but not all cases and I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing anyway.
Yes it does necessarily follow.
Here is one example of how it must necessarily follow; Any station that is destroyed will increase the value of all other stations. More value means more competition. More competition means costs increase. Costs increase means its harder for smaller alliances to gain footholds. Just as in any situation when competition forces out the inefficient its the small that get pushed out first unless there is some major failure in a larger system[See: Triumvirate]
Guo, I don't see how increasing the value and consequently the competition for something like an Outpost makes it more likely that the borders around it will change only once unless they are forced back to the previous state by other great powers.
I may be being dense, but I really need a better explanation for that because I think what you are saying does not make sense.
If anything it should make Outposts continuous sources of friction. Even more so if destruction leaves a shell that can be rebuilt at a lower cost than a new build.
Second point you seem to be agreeing with me by disagreeing with me :S
I said 'If anything it would simply ensure that those who do move out to the now empty regions would need a greater degree of preparedness than they do today and that the new breed of Alliances would probably be a tougher existential challenge to the sprawling existing powers than is currently the case.' Which is not to dissimilar to the point you made though we seem to disagree about whether this is a good or bad thing I suppose.
And what's more I think to the extent it would be a problem would only be due to the huge standing advantage that presently existing power blocs have and time and combat would erode that or the larger powers would continue to earn their place versus the upstarts.
The temptation to use one's ability to cut a swath through the existing regional infrastructure could be balanced by having a very high cost attached to taking such a path, by implementing costs such as those Hardin has suggested.
Then regional destruction operations might come at such a high price that engaging in them could in itself pose a real problem.
-----------------------------
|
Dinique
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:08:00 -
[256]
All this blubbering about small space holding alliances is a load of bull****. Goum knows it, too.
There are no small independant space holding alliances. They do not exist, because they cannot exist. If they do, provide an example. As I have said before the closest you get are in the utter arse-end of 0.0, and no one else wants it. Destructable Outposts will have obsolutely ZERO effect on whether a small alliance can or can't take space and hold on to it. The entire argument is bull****.
_____
The species has amused itself to death
|
redtalonn
42 Inc
PROBABLE CAUSE
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:17:00 -
[257]
-redtalonn |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:23:00 -
[258]
Though I've already handled Hardin's arguments comprehensively in the chatsubo thread on the same issue I'll give a brief rebuttal here for the record too:
Potted answer to Hardin:
1) They are not really an issue (we have more important things to discuss)
Disagree, balance in 0.0 is a very important issue, and one of the most critical issues in end-game content at the moment. This thread for example is the biggest and most interesting 0.0 gameplay issue thread in the assembly hall, and the issue of destructible outposts attracted a huge amount of discussion and commentary during the election campaign.
2) It will not enhance the game
Disagree; it will definitely enhance the game by introducing more options for the disposal of conquered territory. Options for ransoming outposts, exciting new conflict opportunities in nail-biting countdown battles, large wars will have large losses, dramatic scorched earth retreats, and critical showdowns at HQs. These are all enhancements to the drama and beauty of Eve.
3) It completely ignores the risk vs reward balance
Disagree; it still costs more isk on the line to siege a defended outpost system than it does to establish an outpost. + With the example on the table itÆs the outpost itself that is under hazard, not the contents of player hangers. Game time (read grind time) is not a good measure of balance. We shouldnÆt be balancing the game by promoting the defence advantage of ôboringö activities û thatÆs just bad design.
4) It will increase barriers to 0.0 use
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. Contraction in the safe zones and defensible holdings of over-extended powers makes for more debatable space that new powers can colonize and since the buy in for an outpost at the moment is less than the buy in for a properly fitted Mothership we'd see a lot of this happening. Arguably it would be worth even conflict orientated powers putting up destructible outposts simply to "get fights" - would certainly make for some excellent fleet battles around the self-destruction cycle countdowns.
5) It will reduce PvP
Disagree; it will increase PVP around the contested stations because there are more options for the victor. At the moment it makes a lot of sense for outmatched defenders to simply go away and come back later and just retake a lost outpost when boredom takes the wind from the aggressor. With increased victory options for attackers the defenders will need to take defence more seriously since there is more at stake. Currently indestructible outposts are a disincentive to PVP because frankly - why bother unless you intend to take the space yourself? Nothing is achieved by the process of sieging an outpost system unless you undertake to hold it long term. Significant portions of the 0.0 pvp community have opted out precisely because of this.
6) It damages the 'history' of EVE
Disagree; and since the example being proposed has outposts being rendered down to permanent ôderelictsö (with names) and which could be rebuilt again at a discount by a power so moved to do so, this history is preserved. Adding "reduced by X power at Y time" "rebuilt by X power at Y time" would add to history not remove it.
I think you can see that each and every point is fairly easily contested from the other side of the argument. Reality is that we all have ingrained bias and interest in this matter - the territorial outpost powers have become reliant on the indestructible nature of outposts. The roving pvp, raiding powers have become frustrated by the inability to cause lasting harm without changing their playstyle. Its no surprise its a passionate debate.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:55:00 -
[259]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Destructible station services is largely a joke. Nothing that can be done in a reasonable timescale by anything other than a full POS sieging gang. Outposts are unbalanced because they cannot be destroyed. Its that simple. Everything else in Eve 0.0 can be. Outposts can't. Now perhaps you can tell me in return why an Outpost should be the exception to the rule given that players are currently flying and risking super capital ships that represent far more isk investment and construction difficulty every night in eve?
This is why I'm starting to worry about your outlook here. What exactly should they be destructible by, in your mind? It seems reasonable to me that outposts should be harder to kill than POSes, but you're saying you need "a full POS sieging gang" like it's a bad thing. What should be able to offline an outpost, in your mind?
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:03:00 -
[260]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
This is why I'm starting to worry about your outlook here. What exactly should they be destructible by, in your mind? It seems reasonable to me that outposts should be harder to kill than POSes, but you're saying you need "a full POS sieging gang" like it's a bad thing. What should be able to offline an outpost, in your mind?
Well I'm not entirely sure the idea of vulnerable outpost facilities was a very good one in the first place is the simple answer. Damage required was always going to be either so much it rules out meaningful impact from smallish gangs (And here I'm going to cite my 30 Ship tech2 RR battleship force that I once tried to hit station services with and decided not to be bother after seeing the ridiculous amount of time it would take to achieve anything) or so small that anyone could do it and the services could be kept pretty much permanently down by dedicated small gang operators. Point is if you have a full POS sieging gang WHY would you want to be shooting down services when you could be sieging POS?
But this is aside from the point really. If you had to ask me to choose between offlining station services and indestructible tag - I'd go with with sorting out the latter. I think there is balance in allowing a force that conquers a outpost through coventional means being able to set self destruct after x period of time and trade its advantage in victory for meaningful damage on the foe.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
|
|
Hermia
Steel Daggers
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:03:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Destructible station services is largely a joke. Nothing that can be done in a reasonable timescale by anything other than a full POS sieging gang. Outposts are unbalanced because they cannot be destroyed. Its that simple. Everything else in Eve 0.0 can be. Outposts can't. Now perhaps you can tell me in return why an Outpost should be the exception to the rule given that players are currently flying and risking super capital ships that represent far more isk investment and construction difficulty every night in eve?
This is why I'm starting to worry about your outlook here. What exactly should they be destructible by, in your mind? It seems reasonable to me that outposts should be harder to kill than POSes, but you're saying you need "a full POS sieging gang" like it's a bad thing. What should be able to offline an outpost, in your mind?
its a joke because we have to mount all that metal to take out a "station service" that isnt lasting fiscal damage.
|
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:10:00 -
[262]
1) outposts should be destructible
2) there should be limits on how much space a larger blob can defend but that's quite a different discussion
|
Aralis
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:14:00 -
[263]
How come when there is a silly topic under discussion we can put a symbol for support but not for disagreement?
Disagree!
This is just a whine from the don't haves that others shouldn't. As every sensible person can see this would result in the larger alliances wiping out the smaller ones and prevent any new empires building.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:18:00 -
[264]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/06/2008 14:22:04
Originally by: Aralis
This is just a whine from the don't haves that others shouldn't. As every sensible person can see this would result in the larger alliances wiping out the smaller ones and prevent any new empires building.
Nice that the leader of a large and established outpost owning alliance can so easily dismiss the gameplay aspirations and interests of a large portion of the 0.0 player base Aralis. But there are people out there would like to destroy outposts to inflict lasting fiscal damage on their war enemies through actual hardcore pvp battles and showdowns without being forced through the same hoops and fixed territorial PVE paradigms in the aftermath to make the results "stick" - this is about options, its about open pvp and its about the most dangerous areas of eve actually being dangerous. This is not about making it "easy" to destroy outposts - its about making it "possible".
You might be able to justify diminishing the interests and gameplay desires of thousands of eve players in roving pvp alliances/corporations/pirate outfits and mercenary groups in a throwaway pat phrase about "whining" Aralis. I think its unwise and hence I would like to ask CCP the question in the op.
I think we've established the partisan lines on the issue. Silly posts about "whining" add nothing to the quality of debate at this point.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jekaterine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:33:00 -
[265]
|
Reatu Krentor
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 15:01:00 -
[266]
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 06/06/2008 15:02:43
I can only show my support for this.
(note: I didn't read the full thread)
Eve is a brutal game, anything that corrodes this should be considered as a candidate for change and I believe indestructible permanent assets need to be considered.
As a sidenote, recent wars would've been very different if the defenders could use scorched earth tactics or if attackers could leave behind husks of outposts instead of having to secure another area.
-- stuff -- |
Vantras
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 15:14:00 -
[267]
Edited by: Vantras on 06/06/2008 15:15:43
If the Alliance that takes over the outpost invests as much isk in blowing it up and shows that they can hold it for 30-60 days I think this would be a more reasonable argument. As it stands now there is no extra investment in eliminating a 30 billion isk asset (and months of work) required and 72 hours is comical.
Jade why dont you support the conquering alliance actually having to commit real resources and invest real time in holding the asset before they can blow it up? Your solution seems customed designed for griefing. Blitzkrieg the space, take the outpost, lock it down for three downtimes and blow it up. Hard to envision a system more built for griefing. And interestingly enough your corp mates are on record calling for changes to sov. to make it actually easier to take Sov. from the holding alliance.
So if we combine Jade's current "lets blow up outposts in 72 hours" with Jade and his corpmates calls for "making it easier to take sov-removing pos's from sov equation" posts. We have a bit of a trend here. Jade Fraction is doing everything it can through Jade's unforunate term on the CSM and his corpmates vigorous support for other <issues> to break sov and break outpost holding.
I dont think Jade's agenda should be looked at in isolation. It must be looked at in totality. There is a steady march toward eliminating empire building, outpost building, region building in 0.0. Jade's play style doesnt match it, and his alliances repeated failures to make an impact in the grand political stage have led to this frustration. I ask you to take a peak at the chatsubo forums. Over the past two years-after each Jade Fraction failure-you will see a manifesto emerge from Jade regarding how broken EVE is. Most of these were either debated out of fun or ignored-as after all it IS jade. However now..we have him as CSM Chair. Admitting in this post that he will take HIS issues to CCP regardless of votes, regardless of process...look into the man's history before you support his propoganda.
And despite how you chose to spin it Jade-it is about YOU. You indicated in this very thread that YOU got elected on this platform and YOU will take this issue to CCP. So as painful as it is..we have to focus on YOU and your motives as you have stated on several occasions that your term on the CSM is designed to foster your agenda and not the will of the players in EVE.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777906 (another suggestion by a Jade Fractioner-that Jade supports)
|
Garreck
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 15:25:00 -
[268]
I think, Jade, that Aralis is at least as entitled to his opinion (and that the opinion is every bit as relevant to be posted here) as your opinion that a stunning 36 supports in a 10 page discussion somehow constitutes something that "thousands" of folks are interested in seeing come to fruition.
I mean, if we're gonna blur the issues by attacking statements and argument presentation, yeah?
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 15:29:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Garreck
a stunning 36 supports in a 10 page discussion
Is the ratio of supports:posts really relevant considering nearly the entirety of the opposition is a handful of CVA posters? I don't think you want to go down that line of argument - better to stick to the merits of the issue itself.
|
Vantras
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 15:44:00 -
[270]
Apparently it doesnt matter. Jade has indicated that he wants to and will take this to CCP regardless of support. He seems to believe that since this was a part of his platform and since he received X number of votes it is both his right and mandate to carry his specific election agenda to CCP.
I suppose we could eliminate this and all other <issue> threads and run the council based on Jade's overwhelming mandate to carry forth his election platform to CCP. I do believe, as evidenced by his own words, that Jade believes this to be the proper course.
And if we eliminate Jade Fraction votes..well...
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |