These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Surrender or Die! (destructible stations)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#21 - 2013-12-03 10:29:52 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
There should be mechanic to prevent destruction
There is. Just don't lose the fight over your station and it can't be destroyed. As a corollary: Don't have more stations than you can defend.
Radhe Amatin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-12-03 12:05:24 UTC
here's another idea...if you want player build outpost to be destructible make npc station destructible as well(that means all of them) to balance things out.
If u only make the outpost destructible u can stage from npc space and take out enemy stations destroying their assets without any risk of losing yours besides the ships u field.Thats sounds like a broken mechanic to me.
You either make all to be blown to hell and back or neither.
If u want the ability to destroy other players long time work you need to risk your own in the same manner.
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#23 - 2013-12-03 12:22:13 UTC
Radhe Amatin wrote:
If u only make the outpost destructible u can stage from npc space and take out enemy stations destroying their assets without any risk of losing yours besides the ships u field.Thats sounds like a broken mechanic to me.
Yeah, but that's not going far enough! If you only make nullsec NPC stations destructible people can stage out of hisec without any risk of losing their station! SCANDAL!

Quote:
If u want the ability to destroy other players long time work you need to risk your own in the same manner.
Except that NPC stations are not any players' work and neither do they belong to any players or are under the control of any players. In other words: your argument doesn't make much sense.
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-12-03 14:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: LUMINOUS SPIRIT
there are too many stations in null-sec that are perma-empty.

I am in favour of destructible null-sec outposts (including in NPC space - presumably NPCs would just rebuild a station after a week). There should be no loot. Everything just explodes, market stuff and contracts are forfeited, whoever is docked or logged off there dies, clone contracts are moved to empire.

As to going away for months at a time and coming back to see your suff exploded - you get no mercy from me. Same principle as wormholes applies - whatever you bring into the hole/nullsec, treat it as lost. In other words, only keep what you need in destructible stations.

+1
Naomi Anthar
#25 - 2013-12-03 18:02:39 UTC
Jint Hikaru wrote:
That would REALLY suck for people who have a lot of stuff stored in those stations.


Welcome to EvE ... that is how things should be.
Not garden of roses over there.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#26 - 2013-12-03 19:31:15 UTC
Well, this would be a wonderful way to make absolutely certain that no-one who lives in nullsec EVER reups after they let thier sub lapse for a while.

And also make certain that no-one ever actually lives in nullsec, at least with anything bigger than a single ratting ship.

And raise the entry requirements for nullsec groups to 'Must own a carrier plus a cyno alt', since you can't actually live there full time.

And push what little nullsec industry exists back to highsec.


I suppose the sudden explosion of cyno alts in lowsec would count as revitalising, since everyone is going to need to carrier jump their stuff in and out every time they want to take a week off.


Tell me, do any of the people supporting this kind of idea actually live in nullsec?
Karma Codolle
Chimera Research and Development
#27 - 2013-12-03 23:53:22 UTC
Naomi Anthar wrote:
Jint Hikaru wrote:
That would REALLY suck for people who have a lot of stuff stored in those stations.


Welcome to EvE ... that is how things should be.
Not garden of roses over there.


ya because i want my game life to be even more dictated by some CEO.

"oh hey guys im in a mood, so you got 7 days before all your universal possession get blown up. Oh btw um defecting so your going to be hell camped by reds for those 7 days. Have fun!"


So what happens if i'm away from the game for a few weeks? You know i got a life outside of eve. I live in deep nullsec and my corp is fine with my busy work life. I get some free time to come back and find i lost 10billion in assets. Everything gone, all that's left is my personal wallet


It sucks enough having a station turn to hostiles, but at least you still have chances to recoup your losses or get it back.

I don't want a game that demands i come play it or everything i own will be trashed. That's not a game.
Praesus Lecti
The Terrifying League Of Dog Fort
Deepwater Hooligans
#28 - 2013-12-04 01:53:22 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
New Eden is supposed to be a hard, unforgiving place.


And yet we have high sec empire space where everything is easy and forgiving.

Your idea is idiotic at best, massively stupid at worst.

Tell you what though, transform Empire stations into exact copies of player own outposts and open up NPC corps to war-decs then we'll have a deal. Think about it...no more systems with dozens of stations, extremely limit number of production/research/copy lines, kick-out station undocks all topped off with the possibility that some 0.0 alliance will war-dec Caldari Navy and blow up Jita 4-4.
Sigras
Conglomo
#29 - 2013-12-08 10:08:20 UTC
I would actually like to see the mechanic become more of a self destruct feature.

How it would happen would be the CEO of the corp holding the station could hit self destruct. This would start a 48 hour + however long until the next downtime counter which would pause when in reinforced mode.

The CEO of the corp holding the station could stop the countdown at any time. This way you would have to hold the station, uncontested for 48 hours to blow the stations up.

This would allow alliances to run a scorched earth campaign and destroy all the stations as an invading force comes in forcing the invading force to either split up and try to capture all the stations quickly or lose the majority of them.

You could also attempt to take a sherman's march to the sea approach and capture a station you know you cannot hold in hopes that you can keep control of it long enough to self destruct it.

Thoughts?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2013-12-08 13:19:26 UTC
Sigras wrote:
I would actually like to see the mechanic become more of a self destruct feature.

How it would happen would be the CEO of the corp holding the station could hit self destruct. This would start a 48 hour + however long until the next downtime counter which would pause when in reinforced mode.

The CEO of the corp holding the station could stop the countdown at any time. This way you would have to hold the station, uncontested for 48 hours to blow the stations up.

This would allow alliances to run a scorched earth campaign and destroy all the stations as an invading force comes in forcing the invading force to either split up and try to capture all the stations quickly or lose the majority of them.

You could also attempt to take a sherman's march to the sea approach and capture a station you know you cannot hold in hopes that you can keep control of it long enough to self destruct it.

Thoughts?



And how do you avoid screwing over thousands of players?
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#31 - 2013-12-08 13:21:08 UTC
By warning them in advance of pending changes to game mechanics and advising them to gtfo if they dont want to risk their assets.

You talk like thousands of people don't get screwed every day in Eve.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#32 - 2013-12-08 13:56:06 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
I clearly stated that the choice of making the station destructible would belong to the defenders. I'm not suggesting that any large alliance should be able to go around destroying everyone else's stations.

What I said was that defenders should have the option to make their stations destructible rather than just surrender them to attackers. That way you could prevent your enemies from claiming a key staging point in a war.

It would be up to the defenders to weigh up the pros and cons, and it would be a huge strategic decision. I imagine it would lead to alliances choosing a handful of home stations that they would never think of destroying, using the rest of their stations as FOBs from which to launch patrols etc...

In the end there would be no stations in null because of "scorched earth" tactic: you capture station (if defenders choose not to destroy it), set it to destruction on next recapture and just leave system. No fun. There should be mechanic to prevent destruction/retake it safely back.


It would only be a scorched earth policy if the CEO of the corp thought there was zero chance of his group every winning back the station. If a CEO, on the other hand, thought there was a remote chance someday that the station could be recaptured, the prudent CEO would just surrender it, with the same results as today when a station changes hands.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#33 - 2013-12-08 15:30:11 UTC
Seranova Farreach wrote:

tier 4. supers able to dock (so people dont have to be superglued in the cockpit of a super) + extra research and manufacturing slots + reactions (or something)

tier 5. Supers able to be built in station. + station acts like a cyno for NON HOSTILES


Nope. No, no, no. No.

No supers in stations, the most common way of killing a super is player error, and letting supers into stations would scrap lots of the errors that get supers killed.

And supers NEED to be killed, there's far too many of them out there.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Motoko Innocentius
Domus Dei
#34 - 2013-12-08 18:17:50 UTC
For station destructions awckward side, i suggest ccp do the same as with pocos, if station destroyed, all stuff is dropped to nearest npc station. With time ccp could move out of this when people get used to **** blowing up really, and letting everything in stations while being destroyed to be lootable.
ExookiZ
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#35 - 2013-12-08 18:52:46 UTC  |  Edited by: ExookiZ
Im not sure how you would best go about it, but I would think that in order to promote people choosing the "fight to the death" option it should provide them some defensive bonus? If theres no benefit to risking the station no one is going to.

I dont live in nullsec, but I would imagine that if I had the option to just use status quo, if I lose no biggie, as opposed to the gambit of "get X advantage during station fight, but if I still lose staion goes boom." very few people will choose option B.

I think many of you are far too spoiled in regards for being able to leave the game for ages and come back to all your gear safe and sound. As is nullsec is safer than highsec, and you all complain its still not safe enough, such carebears.

Event Organizer of EVE North East
Malphas Inanis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-12-18 02:43:00 UTC
I like stations that are destroy able but I do worry about all the stuff lost I read a thread where someone suggested a % of the items were saved by NPC's and transferred to the station your clone goes to similar to loot! which I think would be a good solution to the issue you wont loose everything but you should still try and evacuate the good stuff!

This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous – indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.
Previous page12