These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[New structures] Item safety mechanics on structure destruction

First post First post
Author
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#61 - 2015-03-23 20:18:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
The original attacking party should have the option in there in rights for "recovery" fees - this could also open up the potential for salvage/recovery opportunities (missions) to 3rd parties even if it had to be done in a bit of a gimmicky fashion.


EDIT: I guess this could also make scanning WHs and stuff a little more rewarding if those recovery opportunities are around to collect.
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
#62 - 2015-03-23 20:29:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Lil' Brudder Too
CCP Nullarbor wrote:

Dedicated aggressors could also attempt to camp out the system to prevent collection of assets from safed cans, especially in nullsec or wormholes.

Evac ops where big fleets form up to collect their stuff later on could also be a thing.

This will only happen in Null/Low, unless the aggressors perma dec the victims until they eventually log in to try to obtain their loot. Personally i'm not excited at the prospect of keeping each victim perma dec'd waiting for them to eventualy try to get their stuff. Which they likely won't do while the dec is still active and the aggressors are online and nearby.

There NEEDS to be a better looting system for those of us who follow very inactive players (research/indy alts) and their POS's to get nice loots. As it stands we would lose the incentive to grind through the structure in the first place.
1Robert McNamara1
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2015-03-23 20:32:30 UTC
Let's turn this on its head a bit.

Attackers want spoils, Defenders won't ante up anything if the risk is viewed as too great, and we have lots of legit reasons to not be at the game for months at a time.... Also the end goal is to drive conflict and encourage fights, perhaps even sure to lose fights.

Have a capture event, lead to a loot event, which finishes with all un-looted items going to the nearest NPC station.

How it could work:
A structure with spoils is in the capture event. Depending on how one sided the event goes to the attacker determines their 'loot event' duration. Say the attacker barely won, the loot duration is only N minutes. If it's a total route, then the loot event will last N*N minutes.

The loot event is a window of time where anyone can hack the wreck with either Entosis links or Data/Relic modules and gain access to a few items to loot, say 5-10 items each hack. Don't like the draw? re-hack it. love all those BPOs? loot all and go again until the loot event is over.

Anything not nailed down after that goes to the nearest NPC station. Players/corps/alliances who lost goods get a notification of which character took which parts so revenge and back room deals can be brokered.

Strengths:
Gives Attackers real intensive to maximize their gains, and defenders reasons to show up even if they know they're going to lose.
Plays on player's optimism vs. pragmatism and requires both sides to make conflicting decisions in order to maximize any given part of the event.
Allows Defenders to retrieve un-looted stuff after the event, no timers or weird stuff. Defenders or 3rd parties could re-take the field during the loot event and gain or protect the spoils.

Weaknesses:
Complicated approach with some fuzzy hand-waving in there to get the bones out.
May still be too much risk for null players, the loot event window may need to be carefully tweeked.
Hacking mini-game.


Other thoughts:
I kind of like the Data/Relic modules and the hacking mini game as it requires split attentions, faster module cycle time, allows for interdiction, makes attackers decide what kind of 'loot fits' they need in reserves as hacking strength and pvp strength are opposing forces.
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
Get Off My Lawn
#64 - 2015-03-23 20:35:21 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
John McCreedy wrote:
My Alliance has eight doctrines. That's probably about average for coalition-based alliances. Of those doctrines, four have alternate fits. Two are Caps. I also own a Dreadnought (like many null sec people).

- I go on holiday for two weeks, lying on a beach somewhere. I'm still subscribing to the game therefore I'm still technically an active account but I'm away from the game for legitimate real life reasons. I get back, I log on and everything has gone boom, and the timer has expired. All my stuff has gone. Billions of ISK of assets are gone because I wanted to go on holiday with the wife and kids.

Why would I live in Sov-null?

- I am on deployment with my Alliance somewhere, taking the fight to enemy territory. Our stuff is attacked and we loose the timer. It goes boom. I've now got to bring in a freighter to haul my Caps, my Battleships, my Cruisers, my Frigates plus whatever roaming and ratting/mining assets I have in the area back to the nearest station/structure. Rather than being on deployment, having fun with my space-friends, I'm sat hauling my stuff day after day because I need an escort and/or scouts to reclaim my stuff. What happens if I don't own a Freighter? Can't move my Caps.

Why would I live in Sov-null?


Just a couple of scenarios. I can think of others. Let me be clear. I do not want total safety of our investment but having anything you dock in and store assets in being able to be destroyed is a unimaginably bad idea. The system works perfectly fine right now. I can blow up POS, POCOS, iHubs and TCUs but I cannot blow up Stations/Outposts. Why do you have to change this dynamic of the game? It works perfectly fine. In the new system we could blow up moon miners, scanning arrays, billboards, monuments, administration hubs and it will be no different to how the game is played now.

If you persist in this ridiculous idea of making people's assets vulnerable to ejection then forcing them in to a gameplay element they find about as fun as a poke in the eye then people will simply cease to store their assets in destructible structures and use NPC stations (where available) or simply move out of null sec altogether (where NPC stations are unavailable). These plans are ill advised and will drive people out of sovereign null. Leave the dynamic as it is, please.

Finally, what if you're sat in the Captain's Quarters when the thing blows up? Honestly, CCP, for all the world this sounds like someone had an idea and you've posted it as a proposal without thinking things through.


Really? You think a strategy game where you can literally never lose anything is a good thing? What is the point to playing if there is no risk of losing things, and no reward for taking something?



I think you misunderstood me, friend. Let me explain. I'm talking about the XL housing structure and possibly also the market structure but I'm waiting for CCP clarification on that so for the time being, assume only the housing structure. All other structures should be destructible. The reason for this is because for the most part, CCP are not changing anything, we'll still have moon miners, we'll still have manufacturing services, we'll still have laboratories and all of these structures be they on a POS or a service on an Outpost can be killed or 'incapped'. So nothing should change. The only structure that should not be destructible is (for now) housing structure.

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.

Chad Wylder
Rusty Bucket Bay
#65 - 2015-03-23 20:36:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Chad Wylder
Really like the idea of having items emergency warp away in cans similar to planetary launches, and I like the thought of the journal entry only counting down on the player's next log-in (so if they're already logged in when stuff goes ker-blammo, then it starts counting down immediately)

Maybe introduce some new emergency cans at various sizes and build costs that:

A) Have less storage space than the size of the actual can (a 100m3 can that can hold 50m3 inside of it for a small container or something like that).
B) Have varying timers based on the size of the can (so the countdown timer after a small emergency container warps off is less than the countdown timer for a large or even station sized emergency container)
C) Becomes scannable and lootable by anyone when either the owner warps to it for the first time, or the timer runs out.
D) Can NOT be re-scooped after it goes to its emergency warp spot (you can get the items back, but not the can)

And then, to shake things up, allow them to be put in ships and go into emergency warp on ship destruction. :D (I foresee rotten vegetables being thrown my way). In the case of ship destruction however, I'd say start the can's timer if the pilot is online OR there's an active aggression timer on the ship (to avoid logging off in combat and having a decay timer that never starts). Having these in ships would be super powerful so maybe it could be balanced by the timer for the cans. Like, maybe 5 or 10 minutes for a small can so the pilot has to scramble to get there stuff back before it's open for anyone to scan and loot.


As far as docked ships go... not really fond of the structure wreck idea simply because it seems bad to have giant wrecks that never go away. I think insurance may be an alright solution, where you get insurance for the ship, rigs, and any destroyed modules/items (but not for dropped items. Those go to whoever exploded the station)


[EDIT] And just to be clear, any items not in emergency cans upon station destruction follow normal drop rules. (Maybe insurance could cover destroyed items in the station hangar as well)
Kenneth Skybound
Gallifrey Resources
#66 - 2015-03-23 21:37:25 UTC
OPTIONS is the key thing imo.

Whether through use of fittable modules, dedicated rigs or something else, players/corporations/alliances should be able to CHOOSE the result of destruction of their station, and have bonuses or debuffs as a result of that choice.

In order of protection, from least to most.

0) Everything is destroyed, gone. I rate this option 0 as it gives no one anything, so doesn't serve a good mechanic.

1) Starbase style wreck - total access for everyone to loot freely. This option would be the least protection for your assets, but would come with no cost in terms of fitting, upkeep or whatever other metric. (In terms of cost, one that cannot scale infinitely is required. Powergrid is limited, as would be a new "fitting" such as personnel. Money is not limited, so an ISK cost would not suffice in terms of limitations). As it'd have next to no fitting cost, this would leave room for additional benefits like better defenses or better utility etc.

2) One wreck - limited access for everyone. This option means the station or container becomes a lootable container of whatever diameter for anyone to retrieve their stuff. Additionally, thieves can use salvaging modules or some other extraction means to begin siphoning off stored loot. Such an option would be perhaps reinforced warehouses, with little cost.

3) One wreck - individual access only. Only those who own the items can access them. Being in one spot, getting there can be an issue. Such an option would be perhaps strontium activated warehouses, with moderate cost.

4) Multiple journal locations - individual access. Gives very high means of securely re-obtaining one's assets as they are distributed across the system. Such an escape-pod deployment perhaps would come with moderate cost to fitting.

5) NPC export - NPC ships begin retrieving the items to accessible locations. Their delivery would be to the character's current clone location unless otherwise specified. Such exports could be made targetable by various means, such as on wrekc appearance (low security design) or as random cosmic signatures with spawning weighted towards the wreck system area, the signatures only lasting an hour each and randomly spawning across the next X time period (high security design).

6) Instant delivery to new station - single most secure option, would require extreme cost to install (and spool up time I guess to prevent abuse). Such would use perhaps compact jump gates and require pairing with another such station. Some contents may get lost in the emergency jump tunnel.

ALL options should include some form of loss for subscribed players (the cost of failure), with the ability to determine the level of that loss or risk of loss through player choice. Each option can come with bonuses, debuffs or fitting requirements of some kind in order to make each preferable to a group of a certain persuasion.

For example, those with the instant delivery to new station (6) may come with significant fitting issues, but then may also allow for reduced jump clone cooldown between paired stations. Option (3) could come with reduction costs for industry, as the very private warehouses means the owner can hide their jobs in bureaucracy to reduce the apparent value (and thus fee). Option (1) could mean the lack of asset-defense modules lead to more space for mooring options.



In instances where someone chooses to be subscribed, but cannot play (aka skill training online for our deployed friends etc), an option to put one's account into protected mode would be nice.

Choosing such an option would have a 48 hour spool up (to help prevent abuse). Once activated, any assets the player personally owns in structures with asset protection (ie, the structures in question for this discussion) would become entirely invulnerable, but also inaccessible. Any location under attack at the time (eg a station going to stage 2 of a contest) would not be protected until back to the safe idle state. Coming back out of the protected mode would have a 24 hour spool down (again, to help prevent abuse) and result in the unlocking of the player's assets. Any which would be located in no longer extant locations would be transferred to the character's medical clone location (if storage provides), or a random low sec station proximal to the destroyed storage location.

**This is designed to help skirt the problem of differentiating between someone who has just been logged off for a couple days and someone who is utterly incapable of defending their assets, but wishes to remain subscribed**
Sol Ferrum
Fafnir's Task
#67 - 2015-03-23 21:54:18 UTC
For XL stations only anything smaller should be looted as normal

I feel like any mechanic has a chance of destruction of property stored assets does Three things.
Further encourages the formation of larger groups for the protection of those items.
Discourages smaller groups from placing a stake in null due to the constant risk of larger groups burning everything they have built to the ground just because they can or for profit.
Punish players who have to take long hiatuses from the game.

Additionally anything that would move your items out of the station for you feels against the nature of eve.

I think what happens currently with the access to the station and the assets within is actually the best system that just needs to be modified to keep up with new changes. As loosing access to the contents but being able to fight for access would be desirable.

Proposition

  • Destroyed XL stations become Station ruin
  • All assets inside remain where they are, but the cargo bays they are inside have their allowed volume set to zero. This should create the situation where items can only be removed
  • Becomes a contestable piece of terrain with the entosis module, owner can control who can and cannot dock. This creates conflict drives for control of, and access to the assets
  • It has no services, only allows the ability to dock and remove items from the cargohold
  • Maybe has some sort of debris field surrounding it station to prevent warping within certain range.
  • The ruin can be “rebuilt” by building a new XL station on top of it
  • If a second XL station gets destroyed while a ruin is already active the contents of the second merge into the first.
oohthey ioh
Doomheim
#68 - 2015-03-23 22:17:20 UTC  |  Edited by: oohthey ioh
How about it's not retrievable until a new structure is build to replace it.

Edit: this will save on the sever load when it goes pop
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#69 - 2015-03-23 22:17:37 UTC
Debates seem to be already in circles.
However I'm in favour of a mix of 1 & 3.
50% of the assets (or some percentage), with priority given to ships (or all ships) since they can be flown wildly by a skeleton crew, get moved to a nearby station that is npc, or alliance owned. If there isn't an alliance owned station this should be the nearest NPC station regardless of inconvenient location surrounded by enemies.
The rest can be salvaged back from the wrecks of the stations.

At the very least this should apply to L & XL structures. L structures are the current Outposts, M structures are the current POS, so M structures dropping everything is fine. But L & XL structures should be more protected.
But the mechanic should apply in ANY space. Including WH space. There has to be a reason for people to build these structures in other space than Null. We need to reinforce the idea that you can play EVE how you like including in the sec space you like, not that Null is the end game space of EVE, because the idea of an end game space goes against EVE principles.
Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
#70 - 2015-03-23 22:22:43 UTC
Here's another alternative that you might not have considered. Just throwing it out there...


  • Make it a wreck
  • Any jobs in progress have a chance to spawn as loot, all others are lost (and on the killmail)
  • Allow anyone to dock at it and retrieve their items
  • After 14 days, interbus comes and moves remaining items (securely) to a secure facility in highsec and the wreck despawns.
  • Anyone that was still docked in station is ejected randomly in the solar system.
  • Items are put into Probate at 30% market value. If you want those items back, you need to pay off the tax.
  • After an additional 30 days, Probate taxes drop to 20%
  • After an additional 30 days, Probate taxes drop to 10% until they are retrieved by the owner.


This would

  1. Provide a way to get some possible benefit from destroying a used structure
  2. Provide a way for players to obtain their assets normally
  3. Provide a way to safeguard assets for people that are not able to recover assets due to subscription
  4. Provide a way to provide a penalty to people who don't come to claim their assets (either because they are unwilling or cannot)
  5. Provide a significant penalty to people who want to claim their freely transported items quickly
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#71 - 2015-03-23 22:34:25 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Another (potential) issue.

What about people who have unsubbed? If stuff ends up in containers scattered around, you could be adding lots of objects to the servers over time that may never (?) go away.


Not if they only spawn when the owner warps to them, till then they would just be a bookmark entry with a list of contained assets. Wouldn't be 'that' bad.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#72 - 2015-03-23 22:36:51 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Maybe the best of all worlds.

There has to be a benefit to the killer of the structure (aka loot), but you cannot screw over those already inside the structure either (making them poor).

So maybe doing all three of those at once.

You destroy a structure, 10% of it drops as loot immediately, 40% of it remains in space for indeterminent amount of time to be picked up, if not, becomes free for all loot, the other 50% gets moved another structure belonging to the same owner.

Basically, the person loses 10% of their belongings immediately, can recover 40% if they go get it, and has HALF of their stuff moved to the next structure. So you guaranteed lose half of your stuff, with the ability to recover up to 90% of your stuff if you go get it. You aren't spacepoor because you at least got 50% of it.

Evacing stuff out isn't mandatory anymore because you'll at least get half of it back, but the attacker gets some immediate benefit for attacking (loot), and some more loot if they catch or camp the spot of destruction.

The numbers can be played with. 10% seems low, 20% seems high, maybe 15% is the good drop loot rate.


Yay all 2 million of my bullets survived, oh my dread didn't. I kinda like it, but think it could still use some work. I like the idea of at least a little bit being available as loot though.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Siginek
Perun Inc.
#73 - 2015-03-23 22:40:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Siginek
Hi Ytterbium ... i think there is lot of questions from players that doesnt quite fit into any of new structure topics, so could you please create some kind of official thread about structures in general? (something where we coudl ask about limits per system, wormhole availability and so on ...)

and not to talk only offtopick in this thread ... as wormhole player i think that 0.0 should be little risky too ... so if you move there you should be prepared for loses .... so my opinion is simple ... move loot to nearest planet and make it available again when owner regains control over system, until then items will wait on planet ...
w1ndstrike
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2015-03-23 23:30:37 UTC  |  Edited by: w1ndstrike
there are multiple serious problems with this, and as devs you need to realize that your current goals are mostly mutually exclusive.

first of all, EvE is a game about risk, both taking calculated risks and mitigating those risks.

a HUGE amount of effort is put in every day by players to minimize their risk profile against systemic threats (inherent in the game) and player created threats (caused by player use of game mechanics)

a good example of this is freighter ganking, most freighters usually travel well below full utilization (whatever cargo amount equates to 1bn market value) as a response to the player created threat of suicide ganking freighters for profit.

the above works very well as an analogy to your structure goal, because as a dev team you would like to see full utilization of the assets you are pouring time and effort in to create. but as long as there is any significant risk involved to player assets, they will min/max use of structures to reduce the risk profiles to only what is absolutely necessary to achieve a goal; the rest of the assets will be moved to an NPC station.

additionally, there are several forms of emergent gameplay that currently RELY on having a stable, secure place to store assets, most notably region market trading and seeding. as someone who has done high-level region seeding in the past, I can tell you that in the future I would be extremely wary of ever investing in an outpost/null market ever again unless it was from a true station in the region and not an outpost.

there are quite a few people in here saying "give loot" or "htfu" but I don't think any of them actually realize the consequences of that option for the gameplay they actually want.

currently Null space sees decent utilization, because most people can keep assets close by where they want to live and regardless of the asset pool know that when they log off in station it is secure barring the station being flipped in a war, and even then they still have the option to sit and slow-sell assets in a worst case scenario.

in this new model, with only bare minimum assets and ships being used because "give loot" most people will not keep a full stable of pvp ships to fight with, they will only keep exactly what they need to engage in their preferred style of play and no more. (lots of folks will probably keep only as many ships as a carrier will fit) lots of space will be empty as a result of logistics difficulties and ease of attack (assuming the entosis link plan goes through without change)

currently some of null is a PVP wasteland. that percentage will increase drastically as players do exactly what they have been taught for years to do in EvE: minimize all possible risk.


additionally, this change also risks damaging your subscriber numbers, since many players take long breaks from the game, and 99% of them currently have an expectation from years of gameplay that assets in outposts are 100% safe. changing this without offering some kind of out or alternative risks the goodwill that CCP might hope to have with a returning player to reengage them with the game.


the only winners in this scenario are logistics people who are going to make bank whem people evacuate non-essential assets, and the region maps as you have just turned true station systems into the most valuable real-estate in eve.


as an aside, from all the people I have discussed this change with: should this become a thing 95% of the people talking about these changes are of the opinion that even a risk to 10% assets at random would cause them to move anything not essential, and would likely reduce the ships and modules they currently keep around "just for fun", mostly the shiny stuff that roaming gangs love to find and fight.

edit: for those that might see this as a "please no destructible outposts response" I do actually favor outpost destruction, but only with a method for 100% safe asset retrieval so as to not dampen or reduce the availability of targets and other actual fun things/events in null.

one of the better solutions to the "give loot" argument is to make assets that are being actively used in industry/market tasks at risk, and possibly the isk in market escrow for buy orders (this would bring some acceptable levels of risk to the null trading game)
Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#75 - 2015-03-23 23:47:03 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
An option we are considering to provide loot even while having a safety for personal assets would be dropping some percentage of anything "in progress" like industry job build materials for example. So that along with the structure fittings should provide some goodies for an aggressor to take home.

Dedicated aggressors could also attempt to camp out the system to prevent collection of assets from safed cans, especially in nullsec or wormholes.

Evac ops where big fleets form up to collect their stuff later on could also be a thing.


I really dont like Idea that loot is "safe" after blowing up of structures. I'm talking POS-size structures here, not Station-sized ones just to be clear.

Idea of loot removal via cans etc... might be good as a solution to "destructible stations"-like structures, but not to "pos"-like structures that will be used in new mechanics. Remember that today ONLY stations have that full safety of assets. POS'es drop loot just like ship. The only reason people discussed way to deal with personal assets is because of potential outrage of people that will loose them because they are sooo used to safety of stations.

As a WH person I look at my pos just like I look at ships. I dont put anything in it that I would not be ready to loose. What happened to consequences of actions?

There should be loot from new poses, at least in WH (its a meat of any wh siege. How much dropped from this piniata... hundreds of millions? Billions? Tens of billions? Why take that away from us?

Why someone should be rewarded for lack of foresight? If they put that deadspace blingy ship in hangar and log off for weekend they need to take assumption that its not gonna be there when they come back.

Thats why we log off in WH in coverts on a spot and not on a pos. Because once we log on pos may be gone and death-trap bubble pos might be there instead.

WH is not null, people rarely siege other WH to take over the system. They will not stick around for weeks to hount down loot-cans form people logging. Once last structure drops, last wreck is looted and last death-trap setted up, they will go home. Removal of loot is just remowal of WH sieges in general. Many of them at least.
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
#76 - 2015-03-23 23:49:03 UTC
If youre dead set on having loot drop, a 10-20% of building cost of structure should be incentive enough, which with todays station cost is 2b+ in drops.
The moment you put player assets on that line you will force a N+1 gameplay worse than we are seeing today, as people will be forced into even bigger groups than we are seeing to keep their assets somewhat safe under the new sov mechanics.

For contrast, even a light deployment to get some fights will see personal hangars exceed 1b in assets very fast, and if those assets is not somewhat safe, it wont take long before the new mechanics to be counterproductive as people wont deploy more than a ship or two at most.

Cans, please ccp, sometimes i feel you should force your staff to play.. I was one of those advocating more ships to carry assembled hulls a few years back.. We currently have 6 that can, bowhead, orca, carriers, sc, titans, rorqual(indy), any in that list you'd fancy taking on your own into 0.0 to retrive your ships in a warsone?

Even worse will it be for players logged off and players that cant play 24/7 erryday, logging in to find all that they own floating in deep space, that will kill some motivation to play for sure.

A mechanic to "pay" to get your assets out will be equally counterproductive, because when this comes online 0.0 will be torn a new one just for the fun of it, which in turn will force the 0.0 residents to become fulltime iskfarmers to get new gear rather than fighting..

So this is me, opting for C, have it teleported to next station so the fight can go on. As not all of us can grind isk 24/7 or be online for that matter..
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#77 - 2015-03-23 23:53:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
By far the best option, IMO, is to have a limited amount of 'safe storage' and unlimited 'risky storage'.

If the station dies, all stuff in risky storage is up for grabs (50% destroyed, 50% free lootable, Crimewatch considers this theft if relevant to the space).

Safe storage would be fairly volume limited and rigs available to increase it. Structure owners would be able to specify who could use it, and under what terms (e.g. 'Anyone +10 to my alliance can use as much safe storage as they want', 'Anyone +5 to me personally can use up to 2000m^3 of safe storage', 'Anyone neutral to me can use up to 2000m^3 of safe storage if they pay me a once-ever fee of 250m ISK', 'Noone -5 or -10 to me can ever use this facility').

If someone's access rights change (say you mark someone -10 because they are caught stealing from the ship replacement fund), their safe storage rights are revoked and things in safe storage become remove-only.

Stuff in safe storage would, on station destruction, be dumped at a random location within 4 AU of the station and would be safe until collected. Docked players and their active ship would always be deemed to be in safe storage.


Going on holidays for six weeks but not unsubbing? That's fine, pay for more safe storage so your Dreadnought can sit in it.




Edit: Please, for the love of James 315, do not even consider offering an insurance system for items that allows ISK to be recovered from destroyed hangar contents. If you have any doubts why this is a bad idea, research the factional warfare LP exploit of a couple years ago. A 'pay for this to be evacuated in event of station destruction' option is OK by me if (and only if) you have no control over where the goods are evacuated to.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#78 - 2015-03-23 23:56:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
I guess one thing I'm not clear on is the mechanics surround station destruction. I'm assuming that the Entosis Link comes into play for certain sized structures (x-large) for capture, but how (or) would the Entosis Link apply to medium or large structures? Also, is destruction even an option? The new sov proposal seems to allude to capture more than anything else. With respect to the current POS mechanics, it can be attacked 24/7 and then it goes offline into reinforce mode (if strontium is available). I think I would still prefer this mechanic as opposed to a defined 4-hour timeframe - but I really think we need a better idea of how actually combat with structures is going to take place.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Soleil Fournier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2015-03-24 00:37:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Soleil Fournier
A few options I would be in favor of:

*
Asset insurance.

You insure your assets in a structure - applies to the structure, so you don't have to insure each individual item. Covers 90% of assets in that structure. In the event the structure is destroyed by way of naturally occurring space disaster (or bloodthirsty capsuleers set on destruction), your 'secured' stuff gets moved to your highsec station.

Has the added benefit of a huge Isk sink.

*
When you lose your ship or POS, attackers are able to loot some items out of the wreck. I think a similar thing should happen with structures, as players stuff should never be 100% safe on principal alone.

Upon destruction, lets say 10% of a players assets are spawned in a loot can that the attackers have access to, 10% gets destroyed in the explosion, and the other 80% gets put in a secure can that only the owner has access to. (owner would then have to loot and transport his assets, assuming he didn't buy insurance of course)

Rewards for attackers and consequences for the vanquished, but the vanquished still keep the vast majority of their stuff.
Schwein Hosen
DuckPus Fightclub
#80 - 2015-03-24 01:20:04 UTC
I think you should consider making some small percentage of the stuff in the station drop as loot available to anyone. That way, no one person loses that much, but everyone can have a fun reward once the station blows up.

I mean, at say 5% people can't complain that much and I feel like they do deserve to lose something since the thing did blow up. 5% would still mean billions in most cases, plenty enough for looting chaos to ensue. Big smile

Also, you better have actual structure killmails that actually show the loot. (unlike most POS modules currently)