Player Features and Ideas Discussion

the one major problem that we have to acknowledge is that entities DO exist that will headshot major systems just to get tears. not for any other reason.

this creates several problems in nullsec environments that wormholes currently mitigate to some degree by nature. for wormholes, there is a limit to how much of an attacking force can enter the hole and threaten your stuff, no such inherent protection really exists in null, if someone who wants to watch your system burn feels inclined and has them available, they could drop 300 caps in your system and destroy everything you own.

the scenario above would give people even more reason to blob together with the most powerful single entities (or get held hostage by them); precisely the scenario that CCP has openly stated they're working to prevent.

personally I have loved WH space since its creation because it represents the ultimate risk/reward system in eve that actually has an artificial limiter to give the defender a decent advantage (unless you plan poorly then its your own damn fault). null doesn't have that by it's nature as a static system and the existence of blops/jump drives/null T3s/etc.

null does get some things wormholes don't, mostly the ability to create region markets and have actual supported economies, but both of these rely on some level of protections for the assets involved given the timescales. market hubs aren't just something you can "pack up" and move when threatened. these would disappear entirely as the risk would be so ridiculously out of proportion to the reward, or markups to mitigate risks would be so severe no one would buy anything anyway. nullsec heavy industry would be completely FUBAR aside from supercap production by necessity.


there is a middle ground to be found somewhere, as destructible stations could be done (and proivide loot) without unduly damaging the individual player.

Of course there are vast differences between running a wh corp and a null empire.

I think an underlying problem in eve right now is that currently there is no real incentive for the leadership of large organisations to actually play the game. Folks play other games until a ping of sufficient value comes up. I know CCP is working to change that. I think the destruction and looting of stations would be a great way to reach that end.

I think it would be a great set of options if stations were destructable and lootable. Here's just one idea that could create both a measure of security and a possibility for loots. I'll call it an 'evac button' but you can call it whatever you like. Here's how it might work.

Blob A wants the station belonging to Blob B.

1. Blob B is a bunch of risk averse ninnies, so the CEO owner of the station agrees w/ the agressor CEO to negotiate a withdrawal from the system. CEO B enters the evac option. This allows the agessor CEO to confirm they have a deal. The station becomes invulnerable for a set period of time (48 hours, 3 hours, a week - whatever the reasonable time is - the actual value has little meaning in this discussion). So the station is safe and the evac is on. The retreaters have some time to get their stuffs out. Once the timer times out, then CEO A now owns the station. He can loot what's left. He can flush clones down the vat bay drain. Whatever. It's his station now.

2. Blob B decides to fight it out. Pew pew pew. Pew pew. On no! Blob B is losing. CEO B enters into an evac situation as above. If CEO A agrees, then the timer starts. Evac happens. The new owner gets a broken station at the end of the timer and has some form of activity to repair the station back up to fully operational.

3. Blob B is HARD CORE. Screw you Blob A, we're goning down with the ship. Pew pew pew. Pew pew. Blob B either fights off the attackers or the station is in ruins, gets looted and is gone forever.

Link this to the entosis mini game and much fun will be had. Stations will go from something you build everywhere to a strategic asset you have to think about before you put it up. Sure folks will pull stuff out of stations. So what? If I lived in deep null and had assets in a poorly defended station I didn't trust, then I'd put up a POS or maybe 3 to split out my stuff.

I understand that POS will be a thing of the past, so think of it as moving my booty out of the XL alliance loot pinata structure and spreading it around in several large/medium/small structures. You can spread your loots over several small structures over several systems in your home constellation.

And a final note. I really truely deep deep down could give a ratsassafrass about the stuff that belongs to a guy that hasn't logged in for 2 years. Really - I don't care.

Making stations destructible is a mistake. All stations belonging to smaller alliances will be shortly destroyed by trolls with super fleets that nobody can defend against except for the strongest alliances, and it will not be worth the investment to build them anymore.

Also, the solution to whether or not to build stations is to make stations less expensive (time/isk/operations) to build perhaps? Then the cost of taking one down (wrt time needed) will be weighed against how easily one can be deployed.

Why does there need to be any loot?
There does need to be an option to capture rather than destroy (that castle you just reduced may be pointing in the wrong direction but it's still a castle) and it makes sense to allow some of the infrastructure to be salvaged if destruction is chosen but I don't see a reason to add incentives to destroy structures (at least with regard to those too large to scoop and run away with) beyond destroying the structure. If it's in the wrong place, if it's an Amarr Outpost and you really want a Caldari Station...etc. then what you can do afterwards is the motive for destruction; if you don't think you can hold the system when the original owners turn their attentions back to you and you don't want them using that station as a stage for their counterstrike then that is the motive for destruction.
Although we all like explosions I would also suggest that we need an alternative method of destruction. You can plant charges or bombard it to the point of unusability of course... But could you not also send in a bunch of guys with plasma cutters and lifting equipment, spanners and serious demeanours to slowly break it up, salvaging all of that useful material for use in another, nearby project?

With regard to people's stuff...
I feel that the scale of the "stuff" many people are likely to be dealing with is such that One-time undocks or planetary launches (particularly in what is now hostile space) are insufficient to the task. Not only that but the timeframe involved is far too short given that we're not looking at months of siege but a terrain which can change completely in a few weeks.
However, we also don't want to create a situation where capsuleers do stuff which is completely incompatible with the world in which they reside - like blowing up their own stations to save their logistics guys from having to transport the stuff within it...

The prevailing philosophy for nullsec is "bring everything I own out to one virtually impervious location, and in the off chance we lose the station, I may have to sell all my stuff but I won't actually lose any of it so it's all good."

Why? Even with the current mechanics why bring all your stuff out there? Other than a few PvE ships aren't most of what you fly doctrine ships provided by the alliance? So why bring all your personal assets out there?

Instead of adapting the mechanics to continue supporting this mentality, perhaps adapting one's mentality to the new mechanics would be a better solution? CCP wants to distribute fights. If station loss resulted in asset loss I think that not only would people fight harder to defend their space, but also would distribute assets so as to not lose everything if they lose one station. Distributed fights would reduce TIDI, blobs, and would make nullsec wars much more dynamic.

CCP has an opportunity to really shake things up for the better, but I don't think they will because of the outcry of so many nullsec residents who are stuck in the old paradigm of having all their eggs in one basket in complete safety. Complete safety. In nullsec. Wasn't that supposed to be risky, dangerous space?

I honestly think it should all drop and be on a first come first serve bases. There is plenty of isk to be made in null sec and if you have the isk to put up your own station then you should have the players and isk to defend it. At this point you should own enough space and make enough income to replace your assets 3 times over. If not then that's bad planning and financing on the players part.

My 2 cents

people would start hiding things in actually safe locations like NPC space is what they would do. the idea of risk vs reward needs consider that the other options comparably. Free station that I can never lose my stuff or access to sounds much better than "I will lose everything here if I lose two fights, while the winner takes the loot back to his safe NPC station.

You won't encourage more anything so long as better options are available.

If you start comparing suggested options with current options, simply taking away benefits without any real return devalues the option entirely.

First of all I haven't read through all the pages, so this may have been suggested before.


So, about the risk/reward ratio of using those new structures vs NPC stations for safety could be kept in check by a simple feature:

Just limit the overall storage capacity of any station, even the biggest ones. If mooring slots are finite, so should the items and ship hangars be finite.

This way, if an alliance has enormous storage needs, they would just have to use multiple stations. Those could even be on the same grid, so that their combined firepower would provide additional safety and the assets would be protected by more EHP as well.

Fuel costs would decentivize abusive station spamming on a same grid. Actually, fuel needs could be increased by nearby structures (additional maneuvering required to prevent collisions). Maybe a function of total structure mass on the grid (using a 250km radius as grid, since it's the hard limit for locking range anyway), so that smaller structures wouldn't increase the cost as much. Distance could also decrease the fuel need increase.

This would also be a step towards the idea of cities in space. You could have an XL industrial structure surrounded by M and L military structures to protect it. The synergy created increases fuel costs, so that players have to decide how much - if any - military presence they need and/or can afford.

On grid distance would also be a tactical element, considering that the minimal warp range is 150km. Do you want your structures packed for a maximal concentration of firepower, or do you spread them out some more for decreased fuel usage and easier warping around?

---

That being said, the proposed mechanic, inspired by planetary launches, seems fine to me. The above is just an idea to mitigate the increased risk when compared to npc stations.

This is not how Alliances operate. Alliance's define doctrine ships which outlines the ships each member must own and the exact fitting that the ship has to have.

The ships, modules, etc are all supplied by individual members importing the items or manufacturing in null sec. The alliance doesn't just say, "here have these ships". They are paid by the individual and owned by the individual.

Why would you just not bring out some PVE ships?

Well because you have to own at least 10 PVP doctrine ships then if you have a captial pilot, 2 - 5 captial ships as well. This is before you have your PVP ships for roams and fun PVP.

When you lose these ships, they must be replaced immediately, larger Alliances run a Ship Replacement Program for alliance run ops, and this pays for a % of the ship. Never 100%.

Manufacturing

Any real industrialist has all their BPO's in null sec as this is the only way to manufacture effectively. No one keeps them in low or high sec, makes copies and ships them out. This is only done with capital BPO's due to the expense of the BPO.

Living in Null

Stop thinking that this is a day trip out to null sec. When people move to null sec, they live there 24/7. Everything they own is in their null sec station.

There is trillions of isk sitting in stations that you want at risk to destruction. Why are large Alliances moving now to low-sec to be merc's for hire. Because they see the risk of assets will be too high with fozzysov, and they will just deal out tears like PL just did to HERO.