These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123Next page
 

Destructible Stations - A Thought

First post
Author
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-01-19 04:18:42 UTC
Sniping a station out from under someone would be hilarious.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

Elessa Enaka
Doomheim
#22 - 2012-01-19 04:19:59 UTC
Hired Assasin wrote:
Atticus Lowa wrote:
Intar Medris wrote:
Elessa Enaka wrote:
Colonial Burton wrote:
I'm all for this idea. I mean, look at 0.0 currently. A new station is deployed each week. Back in 2008 you could roam through Vale of the Silent and you'd only come accross a couple of stations, now there is a station in half of the systems in that region. Soon they're going to be completely filled with stations and there will be no further use for station construction.

Once a station is deployed, it is a permanent fixture. What if the new residents want a different station in that system? What if they want a Minmatar Refinery but there is a useless Caldari Research outpost? It cannot be changed. Unless they become destructable!


Unless of course, the rules were altered to allow 1 Outpost per X planets....


Perhaps the best Idea int this thread. If empire can have a station at every moon why not null.


cool idea, maybe you need strategic upgrades to allow for more outposts... but yeh maybe an option to recycle outposts at least?
there its the corp/alliance's decision, and anyone who owns stuff there is liable to the rulership of the owner anyways...


and then 1 director gets pissed of and recycles their main home system station losing trillions of worth assests


TBH, the tears that would cause on the forums would be both hilarious and priceless

Devour to survive, so it is, so it's always been Eve is a great game if you can get past all of the asshats....

Covert Kitty
SRS Industries
#23 - 2012-01-19 04:42:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Covert Kitty
I love this totally brand new idea!

Seriously though, it's getting too much, there should be far fewer stations in nullsec than there are now and its getting worse all the time. The whole system needs to be replaced with a new modular system that encompasses both stations and pos's, adds an ACL right system, more options, and more ways for smaller gangs to harass enemy targets.



Why should there be tears though seriously? Even now it's a bad idea to keep all your assets in a nullsec station as if you loose control of it you would have to firesale or reconquer to get any value back out.
seany1212
M Y S T
#24 - 2012-01-19 04:55:34 UTC
I don't see what all the tears are for, titans cost just as much if not more to produce and yet can die faster than stations if its to do with monetary gain. There's reinforced timers in place to give adequate time in order to get stuff out of a dying station but perhaps extend the timers total by another day in order to not make it too easy to take down Roll, make alliances work for the stations they live in rather than grind one out from the last person who owned it.
Elessa Enaka
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-01-19 05:02:33 UTC
Elessa Enaka wrote:
Hired Assasin wrote:
Atticus Lowa wrote:
Intar Medris wrote:
Elessa Enaka wrote:
Unless of course, the rules were altered to allow 1 Outpost per X planets....


Perhaps the best Idea int this thread. If empire can have a station at every moon why not null.


cool idea, maybe you need strategic upgrades to allow for more outposts... but yeh maybe an option to recycle outposts at least?
there its the corp/alliance's decision, and anyone who owns stuff there is liable to the rulership of the owner anyways...


and then 1 director gets pissed of and recycles their main home system station losing trillions of worth assests


TBH, the tears that would cause on the forums would be both hilarious and priceless


The bolded and underlined part is what I would assume would cause tears, since it would be totally unexpected and likely to occur without a single shot fired or potentially not even at a time of war.

That-- is why tears would be had.

Devour to survive, so it is, so it's always been Eve is a great game if you can get past all of the asshats....

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2012-01-19 05:03:02 UTC
seany1212 wrote:
make alliances work for the stations they live in rather than grind one out from the last person who owned it.
lol wut
seany1212
M Y S T
#27 - 2012-01-19 05:58:55 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
seany1212 wrote:
make alliances work for the stations they live in rather than grind one out from the last person who owned it.
lol wut


you know, that thing other than sitting 50 titans on a station until it hits reinforced or you capture it...
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#28 - 2012-01-19 07:29:57 UTC
Destructable stations - make it so.

I look forward to a day when everybody has to be nomadic.


Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Valei Khurelem
#29 - 2012-01-19 07:40:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Valei Khurelem
You know what? I immediately thought this would be an awful idea since no one in 0.0 space would be able to dock if they're up against a vastly superior force.

However, this would actually send gankers running back to high sec and would make gatecamping by people who just want to gank solo players fruitless, why? It would mean whenever people try to fight back they wouldn't be able to immediately warp away and station dock if you chase after them. I do think though that for the sake of game replayability high sec should remain the same, but if 0.0 space stations can be destroyed, even NPC ones, you should have them on a reasonably fast respawn time, say half an hour or an hour.

One thing you could also do with this is take inspiration from Freelancer, that game had it where you could blow up storage canisters next to a factions station and you could grab the loot and make a run for it, I think something similar should be put in or when you blow up the station you have typical jet can cargo containers filled with whatever items per player that they were carrying.

This is actually a brilliant idea that would make 0.0 alliances feel a lot less safe if they're on the receiving end of an attack, it would also mean that them hoarding tons of ships would be absolutely useless if you could just come and wreck it all. This is going to be far more damaging to gankers and 0.0 alliances than anyone else so I really approve of this. You would also have a way to damage their infrastructure because if you can make a hit and run attack on one of their stations and steal their ships then they'll have a lot less to hit you back with.

Now if only we could turn this around so EVE has equal PvP that isn't just a giant rock/paper/scissors game then it would be perfect.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium

Othran
Route One
#30 - 2012-01-19 07:50:59 UTC
Destroying outposts is one thing, destroying npc stations is quite another.

There should be a mechanism to destroy outposts but not npc stations.

There are significantly greater rewards from sov null when compared to npc null, there should be significantly greater risks. At the moment the risk is limited to losing sov - it should be significantly greater than that, or the rewards should be significantly less.

Make npc stations destructable and you may as well remove all npc null and turn it to sov.
Valei Khurelem
#31 - 2012-01-19 08:02:29 UTC
Well it's not as if we can do mission running for the pirate factions with all the gankers around anyway so I say it's a worthy sacrifice if it means the assholes actually have to take some losses once in awhile.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#32 - 2012-01-19 08:03:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Elessa Enaka wrote:
Colonial Burton wrote:
I'm all for this idea. I mean, look at 0.0 currently. A new station is deployed each week. Back in 2008 you could roam through Vale of the Silent and you'd only come accross a couple of stations, now there is a station in half of the systems in that region. Soon they're going to be completely filled with stations and there will be no further use for station construction.

Once a station is deployed, it is a permanent fixture. What if the new residents want a different station in that system? What if they want a Minmatar Refinery but there is a useless Caldari Research outpost? It cannot be changed. Unless they become destructable!


Unless of course, the rules were altered to allow 1 Outpost per X planets....


I think this is the opposite of the correct solution. Allow an outpost at every planet, but make them wreckable.

Half the reason that there are so many systems with outposts is that you can only put 1 in a system. Sov alliances would far prefer to put several outposts in one system, than have several systems with one outpost.

EDIT: this is the proposal that I made which the CSM5 passed: http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1399927/page/1

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#33 - 2012-01-19 08:04:26 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:
Well it's not as if we can do mission running for the pirate factions with all the gankers around anyway so I say it's a worthy sacrifice if it means the assholes actually have to take some losses once in awhile.


Where do you think all those Dramiels on the Jita market come from?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Valei Khurelem
#34 - 2012-01-19 08:07:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Valei Khurelem
Malcanis wrote:
Valei Khurelem wrote:
Well it's not as if we can do mission running for the pirate factions with all the gankers around anyway so I say it's a worthy sacrifice if it means the assholes actually have to take some losses once in awhile.


Where do you think all those Dramiels on the Jita market come from?


0.0 alliances who roam around empire space ganking anyone they can get their hands on while their friends run missions to get loyalty points and yes, I saw one group popping into local once.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium

Othran
Route One
#35 - 2012-01-19 08:14:25 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
EDIT: this is the proposal that I made which the CSM5 passed: http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1399927/page/1


Looks OK but I'd remove the "No Sov" requirement.

Make it harder to destroy/wreck if there is sov. However if someone has taken sov from the previous alliance its extremely unlikely they would then wreck the outpost. I suppose the sov losers may decide on a "scorched space" policy but otherwise it'd be business as usual.

Apart from that it should be done. Sooner than soon too Lol
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#36 - 2012-01-19 08:48:55 UTC
Destroying outposts and everything in them would be moronic. It actively discourages the building up of assets and strength in null, as all it takes is a few supers dropped on your home system over the course of a week and bam, everything gone.

As it is now if your outpost gets nuked you have the chance to re-take it at a later date, in fact, it gives you something to work towards.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2012-01-19 10:46:42 UTC
seany1212 wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
seany1212 wrote:
make alliances work for the stations they live in rather than grind one out from the last person who owned it.
lol wut


you know, that thing other than sitting 50 titans on a station until it hits reinforced or you capture it...

lol wut
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2012-01-19 10:54:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
In reality, with POS mechanics and supers as is, destructible stations will quickly reduce nullsec into a few supercap-heavy coalitions with a rich, nougaty station-filled core area surrounded by dozens of jumps of barren, lifeless systems in every direction (neighboring/newcomer stations are liabilities, after all). Which I suppose is great if you fit the profile of "coalition leader with access to a lot of supercaps" like, well, a lot of the CSM do.
octahexx Charante
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2012-01-19 11:10:17 UTC
i dont understand how this will not make ppl leave null.
alot of null is just empty systems.
if stations would have been destructable and something like branch would happen and 52 stations would be blown up all assets destroyed.


who in their right mind would even use the effort to restart? why bother?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#40 - 2012-01-19 11:23:27 UTC
Othran wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
EDIT: this is the proposal that I made which the CSM5 passed: http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1399927/page/1


Looks OK but I'd remove the "No Sov" requirement.

Make it harder to destroy/wreck if there is sov. However if someone has taken sov from the previous alliance its extremely unlikely they would then wreck the outpost. I suppose the sov losers may decide on a "scorched space" policy but otherwise it'd be business as usual.

Apart from that it should be done. Sooner than soon too Lol


I think it's much more likely than you think that alliances would destroy captured outposts. If there's one thing that defines nullsec wars at the moment it's the bitching about having to grind through dozens of outposts to formalize a victory won in practice long before. Clearing out the excess outposts would be very popular indeed.

In fact I think you'd find that with my proposal, alliances would be willing to destroy quite a few of their own outposts just to be rid of the cost of the sov bills for them, especially if they could also concentrate more outposts in a single or few systems.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Previous page123Next page