Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
CCP Wrangler
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 13:54:00 -
[1]
CCP made it clear that there are technical issues in the way of destroying outposts (running science/industry jobs, market, players and property in station, etc), and that it would require a major overhaul to a lot of aspects of the game to make destructible outposts possible. Therefore it will not be feasible to destroy outposts.
Andrew (CSM Jade Constantine) said that there should be more risk associated to 0.0 presence, and that it currently is too hard to remove an established 0.0 entity. It is too hard to inflict lasting damage.
CCP replied that the CSM should look at other ways to accomplish what destructible outposts would.
Andrew (CSM Jade Constantine) continued that instead of a total removal of outposts, they could be put into a 'derelict' mode, where normal processes would finish and all items and players would remain onboard, but no new services could be initiated.
Various CSM members said that there currently are a lot of useless outposts littering 0.0, and that it would be nice to destroy or disable the outposts and raid them for supplies, so that land could be left fallow, and a reward is gained from pillaging these outposts.
Wrangler Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Email
"It's not worth doing something unless you are doing something that someone, somewhere, would much rather you weren't doing." |
|
Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 16:54:00 -
[2]
Victory in 0.0 wars is never 'partial' victory. One side is completely beaten and kicked out. If you allow Outposts to be destroyed, then a super-blob (such as MAX or MC's Northern Adventure) will simply destroy all the infrastructure over entire areas.
Picture Bob's 300+ Capitals making a round-trip of 0.0: There would be NO stations left in 0.0 when they were done, and no reason to be in that 0.0 space. That's bad.
I would support, however, the repair of the station and station services via NPC consumable items instead of just remote repairers. For example, a damaged Outpost might need goods like Hydrogen Batteries or Electronics to be returned to operation. This would prevent free repairs of stations once the big bad blob moved on, and provide a market/small gang opportunity to supply/interdict the needed repair items.
In extreme cases I could even see people abandoning stations as the cost/ease to repair becomes prohibitive.
|
Josef Amerentev
Gallente E.M.P. Industries Malum Exuro
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:23:00 -
[3]
just curious, but what about the limit on one per system. this would allow some outposts to be abandoned and new ones built. perhaps a system to allow an outpost to fall apart over time and be salvaged. I remove adding an unanchor function to them because I think it would be too prone to abuse.
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 19:46:00 -
[4]
Outposts (OP) destroyable by players is simply too prone to abuse (see above posts).
The ideal (but most likely impractical) solution would be dismantling it due to dis-use - Same as vacant buildings eventually fall in on themself. The ways to meassure OP dis-use is definatly not trivial though - and probably moot for that reason.
A "quick-fix" to ensure that space doesnt end up with OP's all over the place would be to simply put in a hard lilmit on how long an OP stays in space. Say two years as an example.
An OP is an investment, and if you can't see it paying of in two years, don't build it in the first place(*) That might in itself cut down on the numbers build?
(*) Theres of course other reasons than just ISK to build outposts - But the argument still holds. Are those reasons worth the outlay? If yes, it'll get build, else not.
BIG Lottery |
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 07:53:00 -
[5]
Allow people to destory station services rather then just disabling them.
Disabling a service would be the first step in a process to destory it, a second step might/should include some minigame or somthing basically somthing that wasnt based on firepower but some other form of skill where the people holding the station wore still able to counter the actual atempt. Once the technical disabling step have been completed the station service should like undergo something similar to a reinforced timer maybe and after that the service could be "dismantled completely" firepower.
Once all services are destroyed the station would be fully inactive the only thing you would be able to do was to undock from it and leave it in space "maybe change the station GFX at this point" similar to when the evil Gallente flew a Nyx into a Caldari station.
Outposts should be reparable with a process similar to that of upgrading the outpost - thus spending all this time disabling and destroying the services would actually impact on the holders of the outpost.
Assets in the station would be all but intact but they would be inaccessible.
I know this is kind of a compromise but what you should remember is that the game mechanics for this are mostly already in place.
- You can lock and disable a station service - just need to make the station service unlockable when it have been "destoryed"
- The upgrade system is already in place and the features and mechanics of this system can thus be used to implement the repair process of a station
What needs to be implemented is a way to prevent people of lets say using a item in a disabled station. I can only find a record few places where it would actually make sence but still. BPO research, copy, factory would all be posible at a pos with in the same solar system as the outpost was located even though it was disabled. Scammers would have a field day selling items that wore available in a disabled station that go go both for escrow and the general marked.
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 09:33:00 -
[6]
We have a war dec system that has no victory conditions, entire ship classes that are broken and useless and you want destructible outposts? ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Dihania
Gallente SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 09:39:00 -
[7]
1. total destruction: --- 2. boom boom and pillaging: +++
. EVE: "The Hand-holding Age". I need isk!Accepting donations. Renting sig space.Taking various jobs. |
SilKKZ the3rd
Caldari Gh0stbusters Nocturnal Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 11:51:00 -
[8]
Edited by: SilKKZ the3rd on 11/07/2008 11:52:14 being able to pop outposts will stop alliances building them what would be the point in having a major asset poping when a pos does allmost the same thing
|
Crazy Diamonds
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 17:40:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Crazy Diamonds on 11/07/2008 17:41:50 On my mind, Outpost should be destroyable (some but not all asset in the Outpost can even be destroyed or simply dammaged). But Wreck should not (as Titan's are actualy). Moreover it should be possible to repair an outpost wreck : by using components required for the Egg, an Outpost should be recontructed back.
Off course you'll need sovereignty as if you build a new outpost but cheaper.
|
greeny knight
Amarr Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 19:51:00 -
[10]
outpost destruction is out of the question you rent offices out to corps and entire corps have there assets in there or there must be a way that all assets are transfered to empire to a npc station , because i tought that ccp goal whas to get more people in 0.0 not to get a 0.0 dessert where there are no people left or just 1 big alliance rampaging 0.0 as soon a alliance try to get an outpost in a 0.0 system
destructible outposts is the end of 0.0 and the end of eve jita is bad but whatto think if you in empire with 20.000 people in that heap
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected]) |
|
Zothike
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.11 23:09:00 -
[11]
As said Greeny knight, if ever outpost become destroyable, the asset inside would not be Destroyed, pillaged, otherway you can be sure : 0.0 will be much more less tasty for player will make Lot of player leaving the Game (i dont think CCP would be ok...) btw it's true that doing a 'derelict' mode where no service are available and should be re-build (a major task which cost money and need to bring lot of stuff to repair services by services would be cool)
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 01:15:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Erotic Irony We have a war dec system that has no victory conditions, entire ship classes that are broken and useless and you want destructible outposts?
What is worse is that Jade ran on this as his main issue and won a lot of votes.
While blowing up stations would be cool, there is a glaring, HUGE problem with this. It is extremely biased towards people who live out of or near NPC stations, since they cannot be blown up. So you sit in Curse or whatever and mow down stations with your uber capital blob and blow up enemy stations all while laughing as you dock in risk free NPC stations. Right.
Derelict mode is interesting, but still wholly un-needed. --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Ralara
Caldari Vivicide
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 05:46:00 -
[13]
I like the idea of the OP - I think if something like that was implemented, perhaps stations could deploy guns? Similar to pos guns but they couldn't be controlled by players. They'd work like sentry guns but they'd have the hit points of a pos gun - they'd be destructible and to make a new one would cost X in isk, paid by the corp that runs the station. A Maximum of 6 could be implemented (like in high sec) and they'd have similar firing mods to pos guns - fire on aggression, fire on anyone less than 1 etc.
--
|
Taizu Lilith
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 07:17:00 -
[14]
Sounds interesting... there should be a penalty however. Like the person raiding it doesn't get anything, so if you built an outpost you can't use this as a method to get some of your resources back.
|
Dryxonedes Sae
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 07:37:00 -
[15]
Would it be viable to have a long term "decommissioning" system? Something like the magic button is pressed, and an eve-mail is relayed to all players having ANYTHING at all in the station, containing information of "ABC Station is being decommissioned as of XX day, XX month, please remove your equipment from here (insert more RP fill here)". I'd suggest the timer be several months, as that gives people time to remove remaining items, but also feels 'realistic' from an RP point of view, to pack up a station. As per another idea stated here, it'd be nice to have it sit in space still, so that someday if someone decided to, they could bring the goods and people, repair it, reinstall modules, and get it operating again. It'd also serve as a nice relic. My thoughts. **** Where's the problem? It's called natural selection - The bottom of the ****ing food chain. -Denis Leary |
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 10:26:00 -
[16]
I'm with CCP on there being way too many issues with destroying an outpost.
Disabling all the services maybe for a cost rather than time to repair might be worth doing, but the offices/hangars/facilities etc pretty much have to remain there.
I can't really see though that this is all that much different from today, where POS's are destructible and are require to hold the station. The same thing essentially (isk) is on the line when you have an outpost. I think this mainly comes from people that don't want the outpost, but they don't want anyone else to ever have it either. This isn't likely to happen, you would always have squatters, and removing something as large as an outpost shouldn't be possible.
|
ceyriot
Entropians on Vacation
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 12:26:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Dryxonedes Sae Would it be viable to have a long term "decommissioning" system? Something like the magic button is pressed, and an eve-mail is relayed to all players having ANYTHING at all in the station, containing information of "ABC Station is being decommissioned as of XX day, XX month, please remove your equipment from here (insert more RP fill here)". I'd suggest the timer be several months, as that gives people time to remove remaining items, but also feels 'realistic' from an RP point of view, to pack up a station. As per another idea stated here, it'd be nice to have it sit in space still, so that someday if someone decided to, they could bring the goods and people, repair it, reinstall modules, and get it operating again. It'd also serve as a nice relic. My thoughts.
I like THIS idea.
Faction Store - Killboard |
Lrrp
Minmatar Drahathinar Tribe
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 12:37:00 -
[18]
There is a possible impact you are all forgetting about and that is "Ambulation". Just how far reaching will ambulation be? Will it extend to outposts? If so what happens to the potential business you have there? Just a interesting aside to the topic at hand.
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 13:02:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Barbara Nichole on 12/07/2008 13:05:03
Quote: "and that it currently is too hard to remove an established 0.0 entity. It is too hard to inflict lasting damage."
Speaking as a victim of an outpost ousting a mere 4 days after construction was complete, I take offense to this suggestion that it's too hard. It's all fine to make removal easier ..til you're the alliance being removed.
|
Princess Alexii
|
Posted - 2008.07.12 17:16:00 -
[20]
I do not agree with making outposts destroyable. That would seriously discouarge people from venturing into 0.0. There are enough destroyable assests in Eve and I do not support including outposts to that list. People work hard to get the standings and assets to even have an outpost and if you want to run people out of this game, make it where all their hard work goes down the drain with their homes being destoryed- not to mention all their corp assests and ships. I admire these corps that have worked together to aquire an outpost and to sustain it. I do not want to see that be threathened in anyway.
In my opinion this would undo a lot of work CCP has put into getting people out into 0.0.
|
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 03:05:00 -
[21]
I believe there to be a problem in that outposts serve too many functions to the player, complicating the subject of allowing their destruction.
1) Offline location. Nobody plays 23/7. Without a mechanism for logging in and out safely in 0.0, there is nobody living in 0.0. 2) Storage overflow. Need a place to stash player high-value goods and provide a place to put large amounts of goods that have no immediate avenues of consumption or sale. 3) Station services. 4) Markets. 5) Operational Storage. You need a place for your ships, ammo, fittings etc. Loot. Minerals. So on and so forth.
There is some overlap with caps and POS's in operational storage and cloning. The most critical function is as an offline location buffer.
Will look at methods of separating these roles out to achieve desired behavior/enrich eve universe.
|
Kweel Nakashyn
Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 14:35:00 -
[22]
Creating an outpost is big acheivement for one corp or a small alliance. But there is only 5000 systems in Eve.
I don't see a problem when an outpost is shot. It is the same problem when you shot POSes. All stuff in the pos is lost. Outposts are now havens, you can profit them even if you don't have docking rights, with a jump clone, accessing the market.
This is not realistic. I guess when an alliance captures an outpost, the alliance ask his military infantry to get rid of all the lasting guys in the outpost too.
What about teleporting stuff in a random Low-sec/NPC stations when you loose an outpost AND allowing to capture OR destroying it ? The problem would be capitals ships owned by the beaten alliance ? What about packaging the ships then ?
What is the problem with this ? Fetchez la vache !
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.07.13 15:20:00 -
[23]
Small alliance builds outpost.
Bigger alliance wants outpost.
Bigger alliance takes outpost, causing catastrophic loss of investment to smaller alliance and 100% gain of asset to larger alliance.
How is there not a problem with this?
If you want to know why there isn't more activity in 0.0, this is why. An outpost is your offline presence, but not only can you not protect sovereignty from a major alliance, but they also seize the entire asset, making a much, much higher propensity to gank.
It would be like all modules, rigs, and minerals used to construct a ship dropping 100%.
I might have said, "Well tough, that's eve. At least you can try to take it back," when I first started playing. I'm seeing now though how this situation works completely in favor of established powers, gives them all the reason in the world to go after nascent 0.0 powers, and provides no capability for gaining valuable experience through measured losses.
I can insure a ship and limit the pain and get better at being a pirate. The step to 0.0 is the plunge that requires a huge investment that is likely to become somebody elses asset. An alliance that's trying to get off the ground and loses that kind of asset will probably just crumble instead of getting better. Since an outpost is currently 100% for the taking and a 100% loss, you see a lot of alliances coming to their first test and getting destroyed. What it means for the empire kids is that moving to 0.0 permanently is probably out of reach and likely to just wind up giving someone else an outpost.
I've proposed a new asset to try and fix these issues and the ones of allowing a destructible outposts. Please contribute.
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 19:05:00 -
[24]
Disabling services should also apply to 0.0 npc stations in my opinion.
How can you reliably stop an alliance using npc station services? Currently, you cannot.
|
Virida
Mindstar Technology The Kano Organisation
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 22:13:00 -
[25]
CCP, if my view is of interest, the problem isnt that they cannot be destroyed, but:
- They cannot move, be moved. And thus, since a station dont fly anyplace, the system cannot be made free of the station. If the placement of the station was extremely badly planned, in some guys view, the constellation just got messed up and blown for eternal time.
Its like making a Command&Conquer base in a bad place, and get it flooded with engineers, who take it, bad.
Id settle with kicking it as a football into Tau space so a titan would be needed to cyno it out again(f.ex in different system, same constellation). Or, a destroyable outpost where its content would be shipped to closest constellation outpost, as, a fleet of SCC and concord ships depart and simply head for closest station.
The destruction of assets, are not, imho, a desired outcome, but outposts as non destructible parts of 0.0 might be undesired in someone's view.
And, i have to add, i understand its a LOT of designs who would need re evaluation if these lines of ideas was done, touching upon database, sql, design of features, and, not in the least "safe" stuff as stations.
my idea with kicking the station into limbo, tau space, 5. dimention of nether zone, or whatever, would work best mechanically, but then you get ppl logging on to find they cant undock until someone bring the station BACK into eve's world again.
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.07.20 17:55:00 -
[26]
Promise I'm not just plugging posts. I've reread this and a lot of you are in favor of a new system where you can break an alliance you hate or just mug an alliance who has something you want.
Limited capability mobile outposts. Costly refugee conditions for empire retreat. POS-like system of vulnerability/operability/capability to move balanced against whether you're winning or losing the big-picture struggle.
Refugee status proposals:
- Outpost is charged with a large fee of ~25-50% outpost cost. This is in the form of a loan to a special account that must be paid off before the outpost can be moved again.
- Protection of Concorde to the outpost only.
- Cannot move ships or goods from the outpost while still in owning alliance. Must use a free noobship to even undock
- If leaving the alliance, cannot move ships or goods from the outpost without paying a certain percentage of their value to the empire. Customs fee. ~50% of item market value as a goal.
A defeated alliance in retreat, upon successful defense of their mobile outpost during retreat, enters a state where they can reorganize and recuperate, but must pay a very heavy toll for this privilege and have very limited ability to function as a 0.0 power during this period. Going back to 0.0 will be more feasible than abandoning the outpost. Leaving corps will have to claim their assets or contribute to the rehabilitation before disbanding.
Loot from a destroyed mobile outpost should be very low if any at all to limit what can be gained from complete defeat to destroying an alliances core. If you want to move an enemy, you force them to move. If you want to annihilate an enemy, you don't let them escape and crush them. This way, it will be advantageous during casual transgressions for the winners to ransom the vessel heftily and advise them to not come back. A peace treaty style contract would be a very, very useful tool in creating necessary framework for this to actually happen.
More details here. Please contribute.
|
NeverL
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 06:57:00 -
[27]
i support destruction of outpost with the fact that the attacker doesnt recieve anything(maybe some salvage)!
just make it so that when alliance clicks "terminate button" on an outpost it should let all the processes in it finish and then he has to click that button again to finalize it. sov may not change hands during that time. __ We are not retreating - we are advancing in another direction - General Douglas MacArthur |
Mos7Wan7ed
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 19:54:00 -
[28]
how about a compromise..
Outposts can be "razed" and left to ruin or rebuilt. Kind of a extension of the incapacitation but requiring a different more difficult way to repair.
if a outpost service was left incapacitated for more then (some set time period) then it would be considered Razed. Razed services would be unable to be repaired by conventional means and be a semi-permanent incapacitation of the outpost services. Enough of the services razed the outpost would eventually be lade to waste unless they were derazed. until then the only thing one could do was dock in the station and access the market.
Services could be derazed after the outpost has been taken over or the hostiles have been beaten back. Razed services would be unable to be repaired by anything less then a new platform designed to repair razed outpost services. The new platform would cost and work like a service upgrade. The cost of repairing multiple razed services and possible attempts to attack the egg holding the platform and or destroying it could prevent services from being derazed.
Derelict Mode? Maybe if all services were left razed for a period of time the outpost would turn derelict. When the outpost goes derelict then the assets remaining in the outpost's hangers and on the market could be looted. All jump clones moved or destroyed.
|
Seeing EyeDog
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 20:04:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Seeing EyeDog on 23/09/2008 20:05:15
Originally by: CCP Wrangler it currently is too hard to remove an established 0.0 entity.
the only thing too hard about eliminating 0.0 Alliances is the POS warfare associated with said action of removal. 0.0 stations pose no imminent obstacle, sorry Jade. _____________________
Originally by: Locus Bey Intelligence isn't a prequisite for being a Goon, in fact its a deficit.
|
Jason Edwards
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 05:35:00 -
[30]
Quote: CCP made it clear that there are technical issues in the way of destroying outposts (running science/industry jobs, market, players and property in station, etc), and that it would require a major overhaul to a lot of aspects of the game to make destructible outposts possible. Therefore it will not be feasible to destroy outposts.
How about introducing a new outpost in of itself which is dockable and such. A tactical outpost which would have no sci-industry and market. The players and property that is inside automatically is destroyed upon the destruction of said outpost. Or perhaps an outpost wreck which stores all of that in it.
Link these destructible outposts to sovereignty instead of POS. Price them accordingly. ------------------------ "There was this bright flash of light - and now this egg shaped thing is on my screen - did I level up?" |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |