EVE Search - Outposts Destructible?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Outposts Destructible?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Satav Latinum Exports 3	Posted - 2011.09.13 16:10:00 - [1] - Quote Anyone else think that outposts should be destructable? or at least have the consequences of having the Outpost RF'd much higher. I understand that it maybe shouldn't be completely destructible since everything inside would be destroyed as well. (loot heaven!). But perhaps make it so you have to rebuilt the platform from scratch with an egg. Mainly looking for possible scenarios/outcomes from being for or against this from the eve community. I thank you in advance for your opinions and constructive input.
Florestan Bronstein United Engineering Services 39	Posted - 2011.09.13 16:13:00 - [2] - Quote Satav wrote: Anyone else think that outposts should be destructable? or at least have the consequences of having the Outpost RF'd much higher. I understand that it maybe shouldn't be completely destructible since everything inside would be destroyed as well. (loot heaven!). But perhaps make it so you have to rebuilt the platform from scratch with an egg. Mainly looking for possible scenarios/outcomes from being for or against this from the eve community. I thank you in advance for your opinions and constructive input. (1) use eve-search (2) find over 9000 other threads on the same topic (3) consider what new points you are going to bring to the discussion (4) post bad memes on 4chan instead
Rodj Blake PIE Inc. 201	Posted - 2011.09.13 16:14:00 - [3] - Quote Destructable outposts would make it harder for small alliances to gain a foothold in 0.0 space. Why? Because a large alliance could move in, destroy the outpost and then not have to worry about holding the space. Subsequently the only people with outposts would be the large blocs and thier pets. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Sir HappyPants Phantom Squad Atlas. 1	Posted - 2011.09.13 16:17:00 - [4] - Quote Destructible outposts is the single worst idea for 0.0 that keeps getting brought up over and over. What's to keep the superblobs from just wrecking everything in one fell swoop? It would make it exponentially harder for smaller alliances and independent alliances to live in 0.0. Member of the #TweetFleet@thisurlnotfound
Satav Latinum Exports 3	Posted - 2011.09.13 16:22:00 - [5] - Quote Florestan Bronstein wrote: Satav wrote: Anyone else think that outposts should be destructable? or at least have the consequences of having the Outpost RF'd much higher. I understand that it maybe shouldn't be completely destructible since everything inside would be destroyed as well. (loot heaven!). But perhaps make it so you have to rebuilt the platform from scratch with an egg. Mainly looking for possible scenarios/outcomes from being for or against this from the eve community. I thank you in advance for your opinions and constructive input. (1) use eve-search (2) find over 9000 other threads on the same topic (3) consider what new points you are going to bring to the discussion (4) post bad memes on 4chan instead Thank you for your input friend.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 154	Posted - 2011.09.13 16:22:00 - [6] - Quote fix yr forums CCP, srsly Malcanis' Law: Any proposal made on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 154	Posted - 2011.09.13 16:23:00 - [7] - Quote Rodj Blake wrote: Destructable outposts would make it harder for small alliances to gain a foothold in 0.0 space. Why? Because a large alliance could move in, destroy the outpost and then not have to worry about holding the space. Subsequently the only people with outposts would be the large blocs and thier pets. What a load of tosh. Large alliances don't have to worry about holding space anyway. They can kick out the current incumbents and install whoever they choose right now. It makes no difference whatsoever to the small alliance that gets kicked out what happens to that station. Destructible stations are actually much more of a problem for large alliances. Currently they can easily get complacent about losing a station or two -no big deal, they can take their time with spinning up their war machine, assembling coalitions, and just generally waiting for small invaders to get pissed off with grinding endless multi-million hp structures. If stations were destructible, then incursions by smaller entities could actually do some damage. In any case, a proposal created by myself has already been passed by the CSM and forwarded to CCP: See here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Wreck_outposts_%28CSM%29 Malcanis' Law: Any proposal made on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Monstress Fudo Logistics 0	Posted - 2011.09.13 16:26:00 - [8] - Quote Yes, I believe outposts should be destructible. If you think they shouldn't be because small alliances would have difficulty gaining foothold, well that's a problem CCP needs to work out with the winter expansion IMO with the re-balancing of sov null. It's silly to have something you can build but not destroy and goes against the fundamentals of the game. Fix it CCP, please.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction 199	Posted - 2011.09.13 16:27:00 - [9] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Rodj Blake wrote: Destructable outposts would make it harder for small alliances to gain a foothold in 0.0 space. Why? Because a large alliance could move in, destroy the outpost and then not have to worry about holding the space. Subsequently the only people with outposts would be the large blocs and thier pets. What a load of tosh. Large alliances don't have to worry about holding space anyway. They can kick out the current incumbents and install whoever they choose right now. It makes no difference whatsoever to the small alliance that gets kicked out what happens to that station. Destructible stations are actually much more of a problem for large alliances. Currently they can easily get complacent about losing a station or two -no big deal, they can take their time with spinning up their war machine, assembling coalitions, and just generally waiting for small invaders to get pissed off with grinding endless multi-million hp structures. If stations were destructible, then incursions by smaller entities could actually do some damage. In any case, a proposal created by myself has already been passed by the CSM and forwarded to CCP: See here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Wreck_outposts_%28CSM%29 Lol I feel quite nostalgic to find an issue we're still utterly opposed about Rodj :) The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction 199	Posted - 2011.09.13 16:34:00 - [10] - Quote Satav wrote: Anyone else think that outposts should be destructable? or at least have the consequences of having the Outpost RF'd much higher. I understand that it maybe shouldn't be completely destructible since everything inside would be destroyed as well. (loot heaven!). But perhaps make it so you have to rebuilt the platform from scratch with an egg. Mainly looking for possible scenarios/outcomes from being for or against this from the eve community. I thank you in advance for your opinions and constructive input. I actually ran on this issue amongst many others on CSM1 and became the chairman on that occassion. It was raised to CCP and at the time the feedback was that it was unfeasible to completely destroy outposts because of impact on the database/market functionality. But we were told that wreckable outposts were technically possible in the future. I understand that developments with the game engine in recent years have improved the situation and its far more likely that we could see wreckable outposts in the future if and when CCP are convinced to return appropriate significant resources to the core content of the game. With regard to rodj's counter argument which remains the same as it was then (years ago) I can only echo Malcanis' response. The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom.
Alxea U-208 Bacon Fortress Gaming Syndicate 11	Posted - 2011.09.13 16:53:00 - [11] - Quote Satav wrote: Anyone else think that outposts should be destructable? or at least have the consequences of having the Outpost RF'd much higher. I understand that it maybe shouldn't be completely destructible since everything inside would be destroyed as well. (loot heaven!). But perhaps make it so you have to rebuilt the platform from scratch with an egg. Mainly looking for possible scenarios/outcomes from being for or against this from the eve community. I thank you in advance for your opinions and constructive input. In the future ccp has thought of doing this. And allowing stuff to be taken out of it.
Rodj Blake PIE Inc. 201	Posted - 2011.09.13 17:48:00 - [12] - Quote Jade Constantine wrote: Lol I feel quite nostalgic to find an issue we're still utterly opposed about Rodj :) Yes, you being wrong about something certainly does bring back some happy memories Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 158	Posted - 2011.09.13 21:45:00 - [13] - Quote Rodj Blake wrote: Jade Constantine wrote: Lol I feel quite nostalgic to find an issue we're still utterly opposed about Rodj :) Yes, you being wrong about something certainly does bring back some happy memories Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut. (you) Malcanis' Law: Any proposal made on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 158	Posted - 2011.09.13 21:45:00 - [14] - Quote EDIT: In a world full of unemployed web developers, how the living **** are the team at CCP that developed these forums still employed? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal made on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
The Offerer Republic University Minmatar Republic 9	Posted - 2011.09.13 22:02:00 - [15] - Quote Satav wrote: Anyone else think that outposts should be destructable? no
Lord Wiggin Furian Necromongers 1	Posted - 2011.09.14 00:13:00 - [16] - Quote Rodj Blake wrote: Destructable outposts would make it harder for small alliances to gain a foothold in 0.0 space. Why? Because a large alliance could move in, destroy the outpost and then not have to worry about holding the space. Subsequently the only people with outposts would be the large blocs and thier pets. What small Alliances currently hold space? (Without Help/blessing/or isk exchange...)
Rodj Blake PIE Inc. 208	Posted - 2011.09.14 08:45:00 - [17] - Quote Lord Wiggin wrote: Rodj Blake wrote: Destructable outposts would make it harder for small alliances to gain a foothold in 0.0 space. Why? Because a large alliance could move in, destroy the outpost and then not have to worry about holding the space. Subsequently the only people with outposts would be the large blocs and thier pets. What small Alliances currently hold space? (Without Help/blessing/or isk exchange...) It depends upon what you mean by small. Look at it this way... There's often a single 0.0 power bloc that everyone considers to be winning Eve. CA, BoB, the Goons and the Russians have all held that honour. What we have seen is that a dominant bloc can control a part of (or even most of) 0.0 with an iron fist, but they can't control all of it because they simply don't have the manpower. This means that new kids on the block can build up their forces with a little bit of safety. The big boys can attack them, they can raid them, and they can even take sovereignty from them. But they can't hold that sovereignty because it would spread their forces too thinly. When they leave, the previous owners or someone else moves in and can take advantage of the infrastructure. But if you allow outposts to be destroyed, then the dominant bloc can move in, destroy all infrastructure and then move out. This means that the next dominant bloc won't be allowed to develop, and the existing hegemony will be safer. Destructible outposts would have meant that the Goons would have found it more difficult to get into a position to challenge BoB. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Conventia Underking PIE Inc. 12	Posted - 2011.09.14 17:01:00 - [18] - Quote I'd agree with Rodj, unless it's really hard to destroy or really easy to rebuild outposts. For God, Empire and Empress!
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 165	Posted - 2011.09.14 17:58:00 - [19] - Quote Conventia Underking wrote: I'd agree with Rodj, unless it's really hard to destroy or really easy to rebuild outposts. It's already really easy to build outposts. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal made on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20250911/0751
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.