These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Station features ~ why cannot a station be destroyed.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nishiki Tekitsu
Pascal Corp
#1 - 2012-07-19 17:39:53 UTC
Stations can be built, hauled out and constrcuted.. fine.

But they cannot be destroyed. (and i'm not talking about POS's).
A station in nullsec should be within the timer of the system being contested, able to be completely destroyed, with all it inhabitants and their assets.

That cause it will make it interesting
1) Manufacturing stations, like Titans - and therefore create a branch of manufacturing today exclusivly used by big coalition.

2) This will make, "Staging stations" a bargain chip if the holding alliance cant manage to fight off their enemies properly, ergo they can sit in the station and just role their thumbs until they lost the system. They would be forced to try to defend and make a last stand. In NPC space, would a station be replaced overtime with a new one spawning and its services be restored slowly overtime. Thus making nuking npc nullsec stations not a fun thing just for teabagging everyone living out of that system.
BUT should be able to.. Cause alliances tend to withdraw and stage out of npc nullsec to be somewhat "safer".

3) But basicly this would change how large slow, stagnated alliances work.

4) This should require, ridicoulus amount of DPS and HP.. and involve several timers before it actually get destroyed.

And last, to be able to properly "siege" a system, introduce a new item let us call it "Jumpgate disruptor", a stationary item that can be anchored like a SBU, in proximity to a gate, like 10-30km. That will disrupt the operation of that gate. Once onlined it will not be turned off, it could be refueled, but fuel shouldnt be able to be withdrawn, AND you shouldnt be able to remove it by "offlining" it again. This will serve this purpose.
1) your cutting off reinforcements.

2) cynos would be required for the only way in and out of the system.

3) If the attacking forces would fail their siege attempt ~ they would be trapped withing the system with the very people they are
trying to kill. Creating a.. well backfiring effect.

4) This item shouldnt affect jumpbridges, thus reinforcements could come in that way, and thus making it backfire again on those gambling with it.

5) make it large.. like 4000m3 large.. so it required a hauler to position it at least.

6) And this would benefit indy corps being able to "lock them selfes in" a system mining in peace. Void of cloaky campers and such. BUT if they werent paying attention could have locked them selfes in with a offline cloaky - or station resident with pew pew ships. Gerilla mining / stealing in other peoples space would be a viable way of doing indy work as well.
FireT
Venom Pointe Industries
#2 - 2012-07-19 17:53:47 UTC
Short answer: Because stations do not have any real defense to begin with.

Long answer: Yes stations in zero zero space should be destructable. But before you can do that there would have to be MASSIVE reprogramming done:

1) Allow them to be destroyed (as you mentioned) or rather the option of destruction.

2) The starbases would need the same benefits (guns, shield and such) as a privately owned POS but at least doubled. They are after all on the grid and visible from the beginning. Also they are NPCs and not alliance guarded.

3) How would they rebuild? NPCs over time or players?

4) If not destroyed, who would repair them?

Questions you failed to answer. But a great idea, though the programming nightmare....... ShockedUgh
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#3 - 2012-07-19 20:27:03 UTC
What happens to characters who die and have their medical clones destroyed in the blast? Do they meet the true death?

Do not run. We are your friends.
FireT
Venom Pointe Industries
#4 - 2012-07-19 20:39:13 UTC
Tyranis Marcus wrote:
What happens to characters who die and have their medical clones destroyed in the blast? Do they meet the true death?


Hmmm, this would make jump clones not just strategically important but also for survival.

Though in fairness I would say 'starbase pods' would exist that automatically jettison any active players from a destructing starbase. Preferably with a heads up warning so lag can be combated. Unused jump clones would perish without any other consequence..... maybe have jump clone insurance?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#5 - 2012-07-19 22:10:52 UTC
From a gameplay perspective, you need to make it absolutely clear to players that assets in station are at risk first.

Bobby left the game before this change. He is considering returning, but if all his ships and hangar items are gone he has nothing.

As an option, like med clones get relocated, offline player assets could be relocated too.

The primary point is that if players do not understand they can lose everything in a station, they have a good chance of leaving EVE if you drop this on them as a surprise.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nishiki Tekitsu
Pascal Corp
#6 - 2012-07-20 08:24:53 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
From a gameplay perspective, you need to make it absolutely clear to players that assets in station are at risk first.

Bobby left the game before this change. He is considering returning, but if all his ships and hangar items are gone he has nothing.

As an option, like med clones get relocated, offline player assets could be relocated too.

The primary point is that if players do not understand they can lose everything in a station, they have a good chance of leaving EVE if you drop this on them as a surprise.


This is true, so a "grace period" where the first time a station is killed, it assets should be relocated.

Ah form av ejection of medclones into space is a great idea as well.

And for the reprogramming part.. Weeell, there is a timer system for stations in play already. Based on massive amount of HP.. use it.. But just let the last timer have a ridicoulus amount of HP, and repping power. Like some of the towers in NPC missions. (that are ******* huge, and reps like a mofo).

And in NPC station an automatic "Repair / Rebuild / Upgrade of services" would occur, in Faction warfare, well players.. in nullsec, DEFINITLY players.. The aspect with this is the fact that players can build stations.. but they cant destroy stations, that i feel is a bit unbalanced.. and well yeah station camping it out , we cant be hurt in this npc station - warfare would go out the window. ;)
N'Kal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-07-20 08:47:31 UTC
I think nullsec alliances would find this really unfair.. like the titan nerf. ;)

For one thing, nullsec would finally become more unsafe than lowsec systems. And that seems reasonable.
Today nullsec alliances tend to have quieter and much safer systems than lowsec pirate systems.

But yeah, nullsec alliances would whine.. alot.. ;)

Miner/PVE Pilot with some required PvP skills
Angelica Khan
Opus Legion
#8 - 2012-07-20 14:51:28 UTC
FireT wrote:
Questions you failed to answer. But a great idea, though the programming nightmare....... ShockedUgh


From a programmers perspective I cant not conqure that it would be a nightmare. Scripts are already running for several things at DT startup and this would be a simple task of checking for timers aswell having in-game NPC AI making graphical improvements overtime. I can not see that its an overhaul in programming. And yes I have a masters degree in programming so I do know what im talking about.

As for the the other parts:

1. Medclones placed in nullsec station that has the possibility of being blownup should have the option if the station is blownup that the clone is returned to the last used jumpclone if availble or have a medclone at a fixed location eg were the character was borned. There are several ways to fix this.

2. The strategic value of having stations being able to be blown up makes up for the nullsec risks and adds more strategic value and strategic tactics of actually having to defend the station since being destructable would add more fun for: mercs and other "i just want to make your life in eve miserable" types =) But it would also make players whom live in nullsec wanting to be there to defend their space as for the jumpgate disruptor concept would a major task force be in this position:
* Once the jumpgate disruptor is anchored, fueld and onlined it will act as the same principal as a triage on carrier, you have to be in there until the cycle is done.
* The task force would have to guard the gate as well as having to pound the station but they would also suffer from being stuck in there since they will not be able use the gate or the enemy Jumpbridge. This will put more tactics of having carriers actually jump in with ships in cargo and having clone vat bays for having jump clones installed so characters and use the ships. If the planned is correctly done the station is down when the cycle ends and they can escape/run/soar the sky in thruimph.
* Defenders will have to use the Jump bridge to get in and from here there are several options to assemble a defend force.

As always there must be a balance between attacking bonuses and attacking drawbacks thus making correctly balanced. As it is today, much of the nullsec wars are dealt with old warfare tactics meaning "take the capitol, the region falls" this has been seen several times: BoB, IT, Raiden, RAZOR, Goons and most recent with TEST invading Delve/Q and Period Basis.

Most of these changes are also in line with the old forum horse of changing the POS system to be more modular. And this can be applied to station aswell: increase the number of sizes to 3 as with POSes, have different types such as warfare stations, manufacturing stations and command centers just for examples. The model of today will eventually have a station of every system in nullsec and YES there are MANY system without stations but how will it be in 3-5 years from now?

Since CCP wont be able to make walking-in-station come to life for atleast some years, yes CCP i am mooking you because this has been epicly delayed.

POSes goes boom. So should stations =)
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-07-20 22:13:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
Yeah, I was the guy who bought this up in the Ask A Dev session at Fanfest, basically (from what was said there and from reading between to the lines a little) there's general agreement that CCP probably want to do this eventually but that its a gigantic pain in the ass to rewrite the existing code to allow it, and there's much discussion to be had about how it would work in gameplay terms with what would the consequences be for assets, med clones, returning players etc.

Expect it one day but not any time soon.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#10 - 2012-07-20 22:44:20 UTC
because of falcon

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Captain Presario
Doomheim
#11 - 2012-07-21 11:12:53 UTC
Never gonna happen

1 reason

Players have assets, players will cry so loud and nerd rage quit if a station got owned with three of there carriers inside

I like the idea

but the pvp base of eve is made up of rejects from other games who have been banned left right n center from other games and come here because here they can be bastards non stop n ccp wil do nothing

Trust me

It will never happen.
Angelica Khan
Opus Legion
#12 - 2012-07-21 17:55:47 UTC
Captain Presario wrote:
Never gonna happen

1 reason

Players have assets, players will cry so loud and nerd rage quit if a station got owned with three of there carriers inside

I like the idea

but the pvp base of eve is made up of rejects from other games who have been banned left right n center from other games and come here because here they can be bastards non stop n ccp wil do nothing

Trust me

It will never happen.


Thats the whole point of it. Assets in nullsec should be at risk at all times due to that sov can actually be taken at any time and there is a point in the future were station building will be a thing to remove due to the fact that there will not be any systems left(eventually..) to build in if they continue to be indestructable and just make it a big glory hole for ... well what for?

Also when reading about cleaning up code, thats just make me sad. If client optimization is a prioritezed task at CCP to some degree just states the fact that they do not know how station management code wise is somewhat know to them. It also makes it clear that the epic failure "CCP can not make walking-in-stations" come to life just shows they cant not bring more casual players into EVE. Sounds harsh? Just my personal oppionion.

As for medclones there are several options available, as for assets its up to players willingly to risk them in stations, as for CCP being afraid of brining more FPS thinking into EVE is also questionable. Im going hard on CCP and for me its for their own faults since they start more projects rather than making the one they actually make a living on even better and not just making players have 3-10 accounts per player.

There are more things to a station being destructable, its what one could to destroy it. New modules for space and ships to have sieges and disrupting an alliance territory which goes beyond station destruction but its essence is around having better stations, more types and more roles.
Nishiki Tekitsu
Pascal Corp
#13 - 2012-07-23 09:15:55 UTC
Yeag well the basic thought here was..

Assets in nullsec shouldnt be safe.. Nerds rages all the time anyway over stupid things.
But when push comes to show - lowsec is harder to survive in than nullsec.. and thats a bit stupid.

The ability to blow upp assets in stations in nullsec and/or faction warfare systems (lowsec) would make it
a large game changer.. People would need to rethink how they hold sov. and how they manage their assets.
Most large Alliances have jump freigheter programs. Keeping assets in hisec and having em jumped in when
needed is still in practice.

Cause getting billions of stuff tied up in a station u lost sov for is more or less the same as loosing those assets
alltogether. (have like 1.2B worth of ships tied up in middle of fuckin nowhere). So how would that differ from
loosing em in a big glorious station explosion?

But i gotta agree with Khan here, CCP has a long standing tradition of making sad, bad decision. And start projects
without finishing em or well empty promises.. The captains quarters was like microsoft pushing out windows vista
to early cause stock holders wanted to see a new product. Then it sat there for years and just made life miserable
for everyone teasing and stating "this could be done, but we dont.. cause we need to do other **** first, like code
management".

And gotta agree with, pvp players in EVE are mostly mmo rejects from other games. Griefers that are banned from
every other damn game - and CCP havent enforced a griefing policy in anyway. BUT.. isnt that whats make eve
so damn interesting.. this huge frickin sandbox.. with asshats to blow up? And their assets hidden in stations ;)
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
#14 - 2012-07-23 09:34:37 UTC
Well, as a different approach of the problem, i think the root of the issue is, you can't have multiple or different outposts in a system. We've been faced with the issue several times, that a system has a given type of outpost in a system, but the new sovholder would prefer a different layout of the outpost facilities in his system, than the previous ones.

Therefore i think the solution would be the ability to build multiple ones in a single system. It can be done by NPCs anyway, what can't it be done by players?...
Goremageddon Box
Guerrilla Flotilla
#15 - 2012-07-23 11:03:58 UTC
Magic Crisp wrote:
Well, as a different approach of the problem, i think the root of the issue is, you can't have multiple or different outposts in a system. We've been faced with the issue several times, that a system has a given type of outpost in a system, but the new sovholder would prefer a different layout of the outpost facilities in his system, than the previous ones.

Therefore i think the solution would be the ability to build multiple ones in a single system. It can be done by NPCs anyway, what can't it be done by players?...

i read this thread and am not really flipping either way, but would defntly suggest a limit on how many per system. icould see goons putting 700 stations in a system just for the lulz, cus i would too.
leviticus ander
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2012-07-23 13:37:04 UTC
nobody's actually answered why outposts are indestructable, and why there can only be one right now. the reason is that when it was first introduced, they were supposed to be destroyable, but whenever it was destroyed and there were people docked in it, the database would **** itself.
it's a similar issue with having multiple variable points in a system (outposts) that are that database intensive.

they are working on getting it so they can be destroyed and so that you can have more than one station in system. but it will take a little bit.