These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM7 Summit Topic: Null Sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#481 - 2012-06-27 06:40:04 UTC
Elzon1 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
In which case no one who is not in a megabloc will ever keep anything of value in an outpost, because there will be a huge incentive for that megabloc to pillage every outpost it can. Whilst your position has the merit of philosophical purity, it also has the effect as hugely reducing the utility of sov space for anyone who's not in the current flavour of the year bloc. Within a few months you'd have one mega-empire and everyone else in NPC space.

So: no. Sov 0.0 needs buffing, not nerfing.


Now remember, the CSM has been pushing for destructible stations... they go BOOM and you get nothing.


This is the opposite of the truth.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Elzon1
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#482 - 2012-06-27 12:39:00 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Elzon1 wrote:
Now remember, the CSM has been pushing for destructible stations... they go BOOM and you get nothing.


This is the opposite of the truth.


If you are taking the position that the CSM really doesn't want to see everything in a station permanently destroyed then I would say you have a valid argurment.

If you are taking the position that the CSM never pushed the idea of destructible stations in nullsec then I would have to say you haven't read the previous summit meetings.

Here is the summit meeting in question: CSM December Summit minutes

And a quote from the meeting minutes:

Quote:
Destructible Outposts


The CSM reiterated its desire for destructible outposts. The CSM noted that prior to Dominion, punitive wars of conquest were possible and occurred regularly, yet due to the costs of the Dominion system alliances cannot engage in punitive conquest. (Under Dominion territory must be occupied and paid for, rather than razed and claimed with only a minimal POS footprint, as under the previous sov system.) The CSM believes that destructible outposts would allow alliances to burn each other’s territory down without needing to occupy and inhabit that territory.

The CSM is completely united in its desire to see destructible outposts, and views the question as a “when," not an “if”. The CSM noted that there are a number of ideas about how to best implement destructible outposts, ranging from complete destruction to a repairable wreck to a system that moves the assets in the destroyed outpost to the nearest NPC station.

CCP asked for ideas about how to handle asset distribution from a destroyed outpost. The CSM offered the idea of a ‘forced fire sale’ initially conceived by CSM Two Step, where the assets lost in a destroyed outpost are automatically put up for auction, ensuring that the victim gets compensation for the lost assets as a large part of the auction fee would go to the owner of the items. CCP suggested that as an alternative, the lost items could be impounded in the nearest NPC station, or some equivalent.

The CSM recognizes that the question of lost assets must be handled with sensitivity and that in the modern gaming environment CCP cannot just blow up everything in a station and have it vanish forever.

CCP asked if this feature might be a disincentive that inhibits players from moving to nullsec; the CSM noted that outpost destructibility should not be implemented in a vacuum, but rather as part of a package of other improvements to sovholding nullsec.

CCP and the CSM agreed that the question of asset destruction or distribution must be handled with extreme care.


What I am advocating is an increased ownership of station assets and station deconstruction in place of destructible outposts.

I also want stations separated from sov mechanics so as to avoid having to grind through them when acquiring/holding space.
Midori Amiiko
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#483 - 2012-06-27 18:05:46 UTC
No Local Chat in Null space...I see 2 things happening.

1) I re-develop the d-scan related OCD I got in w-space
2) cloaky camping ceases to be a source of tears

lame

Local intel is no intel at all. Eyes on, with shiptypes, playernames, corp/alliance and so on is real intel.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#484 - 2012-06-27 20:02:44 UTC
You seem to be unaware that I have been interested in the invincibility of 0.0 stations for a while. Consider

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#485 - 2012-06-27 22:36:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
Elzon1 wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
The problem with claiming everything within a station is the 'I just came back from holiday/cancer treatment/Afghanistan deployment/etc and now all my stuff is gone forever' player. CCP are very helpful with assisting returning players to get back on their feet because it encourages them to stick around and keep re-subscribing, and the ability to clear out the personal hangars in stations would run contrary to this.


It's not a responsibility of CCP to give people back anything they lost as a result of going inactive. CCP isn't going to give you back your high sec research POS that someone blew up due to you going inactive and not fueling it and defending it. This is a live game and requires some time investment to get things done in this game that's how it goes. You could have single-handedly fended off an alien invasion of Earth (which doesn't make logical sense) and CCP owes you nothing when you come back to the game.

CCP likes it when old players return to the game and start giving them money again, and being able to retrieve all their old stuff is a strong incentive for them to do so and a strong reason not to hand inactive assets over to the next alliance that blows up their old home.

If you can't see that very basic point, I'm not sure what more to tell you.

Quote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Additionally, a staggeringly vast amount of wealth is locked away in the hangars of unsubscribed accounts, and allowing these mountains of ships, modules, minerals etc to be recovered and returned to the market may have wide-reaching consequences.


There are NPC stations one can store their valuables in to avoid loss.

A system which encourages every member of a 0.0 alliances to store all their junk in the nearest NPC station is another disincentive to going to live in 0.0 in the first place. Destroyable stations would mean, since I'm not stupid, that the first thing I, and most other members of my coalition would do is transport 99% of my assets to Torrinos and ferry in the bare essentials (ratting ammo etc) to VFK once every few weeks or so. Or, we'd just outright abandon VFK entirely and make Torrinos our new home, with all of our sov space being a desert wasteland but for the occasional tower logistics alt and ratting tengu or ishtar.

Since CCP is trying to encourage 0.0 sov space to be a place where people actually live, put down roots, and exploit the space they have, any proposal which encourages the exact opposite isn't going to go far.

Quote:
I have already lost access to things I left out in various nullsec stations (nothing big, but it all adds up). It is a fact of the game that you lose things and no one has a right not to. There may be fairly interesting effects upon all those items hitting the markets and hey that's what makes this game interesting.

You haven't 'lost access' to those items, you just haven't yet expended the effort to recover them. When Goonswarm lost Delve and the vast bulk of my assets were trapped in NOL-M9, the lengths I went to so I could get it all back or at least make good my losses included sneaking a neutral market alt in a nearby station, running legacy jumpclones to ninja out a couple of industrials full of several billion ISK's worth of modules (one through Querious, another on a particularly nerve-wracking trip through a wormhole), and secret communications with a member of a hostile alliance on ways to retrieve my remaining hulls. That is what makes this game interesting. Megabloc leaders blowing up every station in the game with 1000-player fleets to see what falls out of the piñata isn't nearly as fun or notable other than a way to further separate the have's from the have not's and a few smugpost threads on CAOD.

I'm in favour of some level of destructability for outposts, but there are more interesting ways of implementing it than 'CFC conquers Branch; all assets formally belonging to White Noise fall drectly into The Mittani's hangar'.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#486 - 2012-06-27 23:38:24 UTC
And when every 0.0 system is filled with outposts thus making outpost blueprints redundant? What then?

If you don't want to lose something then in my view you should just stay in empire space in an npc station.
Loss and gain is part of what makes eve. PoS's can be destroyed , ships can be destroyed, I think its foolish if
something player made cannot be destroyed. Adding more things that can be interacted with, can only make
eve better.
Temba Ronin
#487 - 2012-06-28 04:52:10 UTC
Terranid Meester wrote:
And when every 0.0 system is filled with outposts thus making outpost blueprints redundant? What then?

If you don't want to lose something then in my view you should just stay in empire space in an npc station.
Loss and gain is part of what makes eve. PoS's can be destroyed , ships can be destroyed, I think its foolish if
something player made cannot be destroyed. Adding more things that can be interacted with, can only make
eve better.

This seems so easy on the surface to agree with ..... everything players make in EVE should be able at some point be able to go boom at the hands of some other players.

I do understand that from a business point of view it is advantageous for CCP to have players return after taking a hiatus and still find their stuff when they resubscribe, it is after all a business for them and a game for us.

I find the proposal of Malcanis back in 2010 to be fairly well balanced allowing players to make things even outposts go boom without gutting the belongings of players.

I am also moved by the stories of the efforts players make to retrieve valuable assets from former bases of operation that are now controlled by hostile forces. Stealth, bribery, & spying could all generate from this scenario and that makes for better gameplay.

Power To The Players!

The Best Ship In EVE Online Is "Friendship", Power To The Players!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#488 - 2012-06-29 02:55:40 UTC
Temba has nailed it: changes to the game should promote gameplay. There's not a whole lot of gameplay in a "loot drop" scenario. My proposal was constructed from start to finish to provide gameplay opportunities at every point, up to months, even years, after the event.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#489 - 2012-06-29 22:54:30 UTC
What if, after a station was wrecked, the only way to retrieve your assets was by infiltrating it in a WiS mission, negotiating the irradiated and vacuum-exposed sections and the malfunctioning automated security systems and the NPC pirate scavengers to locate your hangar?

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#490 - 2012-07-01 07:39:23 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
What if, after a station was wrecked, the only way to retrieve your assets was by infiltrating it in a WiS mission, negotiating the irradiated and vacuum-exposed sections and the malfunctioning automated security systems and the NPC pirate scavengers to locate your hangar?


That would be ultra awesome! Someone go get CCP Bayesian right now!

(But after you've liberated said assets, you'll still need a ship to get them out of a system)

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#491 - 2012-07-01 16:51:15 UTC
With POSs the way they are there's no way I can really support making stations destructable. What will happen will be exactly what happened with supercaps except more pronounced - a total centralization where eventually one alliance/coalition having all of the stations and pouring on supercaps upon anyone else who attempts to put one up. Naturally the alliances with stations would be the preferable choices for future corps, and EVE will be lockedi n a static hegemony, which is bad.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#492 - 2012-07-01 18:09:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
Malcanis wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
What if, after a station was wrecked, the only way to retrieve your assets was by infiltrating it in a WiS mission, negotiating the irradiated and vacuum-exposed sections and the malfunctioning automated security systems and the NPC pirate scavengers to locate your hangar?


That would be ultra awesome! Someone go get CCP Bayesian right now!

(But after you've liberated said assets, you'll still need a ship to get them out of a system)


Locating the position of your hangar within the wrecked station and deactivating the personal security fields (I'm making this bit up but you get the idea) could also give you information on where to carve holes in the side of the structure so you could lift the contents out when you came back on the ship-based recovery part of the mission.

This would need a new module or two and maybe a new type of non-combat ship.

Edit: I'm also of the opinion, as backed up by the game-fiction, that the way to wreck a station should be by crashing a supercap into it. Two birds with one stone.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#493 - 2012-07-01 19:23:19 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Edit: I'm also of the opinion, as backed up by the game-fiction, that the way to wreck a station should be by crashing a supercap into it. Two birds with one stone.


whoa, do you really want our supercapital fleet to decimate itself within a week

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#494 - 2012-07-01 20:45:48 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
whoa, do you really want our supercapital fleet to decimate itself within a week


yes

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#495 - 2012-07-02 11:34:05 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:

Edit: I'm also of the opinion, as backed up by the game-fiction, that the way to wreck a station should be by crashing a supercap into it. Two birds with one stone.


That has a certain glorious aptness to it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Cyprus Black
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#496 - 2012-07-02 15:07:28 UTC
Nerfing highsec with the hopes of driving the masses into nullsec is not an acceptable option. They're in highsec because of all the perceived negatives surrounding null and lowsec. Ask any highsec player and they will tell you this.

For many highsec players, low and nullsec is simply not an option. If you nerf the only place they're willing to live, you might as well save them the trouble and cancel their account for them too.

Buffing nullsec isn't really a good idea either. Nullsec players already make money hand over fist. The real problem is the excessively high barrier to entry. Players have very few options for getting into nullsec. Become subservient and a meat shield for the major nullsec alliances or struggle in vain to charge out their own place.

The latter typically results in bored nullsec alliances rolling out their capital fleets and smashing the newcomers into oblivion.

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#497 - 2012-07-02 15:39:57 UTC
Cyprus Black wrote:
Nerfing highsec with the hopes of driving the masses into nullsec is not an acceptable option. They're in highsec because of all the perceived negatives surrounding null and lowsec. Ask any highsec player and they will tell you this.

For many highsec players, low and nullsec is simply not an option. If you nerf the only place they're willing to live, you might as well save them the trouble and cancel their account for them too.

Buffing nullsec isn't really a good idea either. Nullsec players already make money hand over fist. The real problem is the excessively high barrier to entry. Players have very few options for getting into nullsec. Become subservient and a meat shield for the major nullsec alliances or struggle in vain to charge out their own place.

The latter typically results in bored nullsec alliances rolling out their capital fleets and smashing the newcomers into oblivion.


Maybe read the actual suggestions being made....?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Cyprus Black
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#498 - 2012-07-02 16:24:34 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Maybe read the actual suggestions being made....?
Shoo! Go away forum troll.
Go stink up some other thread.

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33