Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Hey,

First of all sorry if this has been brought up already. I got bored after the first 3 pages of search results.
The other day we were discussing on alliance ts about how soon we'll have a station (or two) in every null system. I don't think that would be desirable, I'm sure people can list many reasons, but:
- Having an active station in every system would mean it's even harder to gank ratters / miners - currently there is a healthy diversity, station systems have much more people making isk, systems with no station having more room but a bit risky for not having station. As it is it's not easy to find targets when you're on a small roam, no need to make it even harder. There should be a chance to catch people off guard in non-station systems. Having the possibility to docuk up in any system would be bad for pvp.
- Too many stations would make the map much less challanging strategically when chosing a destination for a deploy or for a new home or whatnot. I know a big alliance can just build a station wherever they want, but even that requires some thought and planning. If in the future we'll have stations readily available everywhere, that would be kind of unrealistic and would make things a bit more boring.
- Having too many stations currently means more and more grind in sov war... there is enough grind as it is.

Now I don't want afk people losing their stuff but I was thinking if there is a workaround.

Instead of occupying, at the final timer one could destroy a station to a state of wreck that would remain there afterwards. You could not dock, use trade / contracts etc. there and it would not appear on overview when normal stations do (so it doesn't clutter it up - perhaps a new kind of overview object). Perhaps you could see your stuff in assets list (just so we don't have to write it down :) ).
Repairing the station would be possible, perhaps in a 3 step job (like reinf timers just reverse) where one would need 3-6 days to fix the station. Would cost some materials, at least half the cost of a new station. The effort / cost should be high enough so people think twice before doing it to any station wreck in their new region.
This would add a new gameplay element, you don't just hellcamp a station :) but you can also make it even more difficult for the enemy to recover it. We could have a new definition for MAX campaigns :P
Still, assets would not be lost forever, at some point someone may think the station is worth the effort and would rebuild / repair it (there's always hope.. :p).

ps. Who can repair the station - I don't know, maybe anyone and would become theirs?

All essential stations would be wiped from the map within a very short time, it would destroy massive amounts of assets of small opposing parties in a war and cripple them even further, which in turn leads to even more focus on biggest coalitions.

With the current state of things and current overall mechanics: A solid no.

It is in itself a good idea and I'd like to see that implemented at some point, but it simply does not work at the moment you like to want it to.

Ctrl+A --> Ctrl+C

Never not do it before clicking "Post".

The best way I can see to solve the problem of destructible stations is to have the stuff within one moved when the station is destroyed. Like when clone contracts are canceled and moved to some nearby high-sec station. Maybe stuff can be moved there also. Maybe with a month delay for shipping and handling.

The problem with that solution is that it provides a way to move a stupendous amount of stuff without actually having to fly through space.

I think everything player generated needs to have some method for players to destroy it. By having player owned stations non destructible you create a more static environment where big blue doughnuts flourish and its impossible to disrupt big power blocks because you can't directly attack at their assets. If you want people to fight and really care about if they win or lose a station then make them destroyable otherwise sov will continue to be the back and forth system trading game.

As to the argument that of those that go afk for 6 months and find their stuff blown up. I think a system wide evemail with ample lead time and an auto-move for anybody that's been away for more than 4 months to a the nearest NPC null space is plenty of precaution.

Ultimately null sec shouldn't be safe it should be a violent world of dog eat dog. If your concerned about big power blocks popping all the other stations in eve... well nothing unifies an opposing force more than the threat of total destruction of all their personal assets

definitely need destructible stations

If anything, it could decentralise the market away from Jita 4-4 a bit.

You read the post too not just the title right?



Since you can't occupy npc stations it's actually out of the scope of my idea.
I'm not proposing a fundamental change like that.

I think that Stations should be seen more like a spaceport linked with the planet it orbit. Player could have a part of his assets in the station and the rest would be on the planet. Moving assets from the planet to the station and from the station to the planet could cost ISK and take time. The Stations hangar could have a quantity restriction for each player (in m3). So the player would have to stock on the planet things.

If a Station is destroyed or if the Station becom unaccesible, assets on the planet are safe but not accessible.

If the station is destroyed assets in the station is destroyed at 90% the rest is lootable.

Their isn't anything really wrong with having a station in system.. its rather like having a pos in system where roams are concerned. What is important is that loss and risk exists in null so i'm not really in favor of stations wrecks you can stull pull your stuff from.. On another note I think null needs a boost in income potential.. you can make more isk running incursions in high sec than you can running anoms in null, but that's really a whole other thread