open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Convert Stations
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2004.12.06 05:24:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 06/12/2004 05:27:53
Now that we have POS' it's high time for the conquerable stations to be converted into such and becoming destructable. There's really no reason for them to be allowed to remain when the next step has been reached now is there!?

Lygos
Amarr
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2004.12.06 06:04:00 - [2]
 

Agreed. But only when POS are able to field all of those functions.

Market, Escrow, Repairs, Trading, Fitting, Storage, Research, Manufacturing.

POS deployment and maintenance needs some serious tweaks though.

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2004.12.06 06:22:00 - [3]
 

Conquerable stations didn't really have all those functions now did they.

They were a hotfix and now the real deal is here, begone bastard stations!

Lygos
Amarr
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2004.12.06 09:20:00 - [4]
 

It's probably more of a coding issue at this point than anything else. Stations that can be destroyed are alot like fancy jetcans. It probably will take quite a few more patches before the server can recognize the possibility of laboratories and markets inside non-permanent structures.

Also, conversion will undoubtedly require shutting down the servers for a few hours, unless the developers take a hardnosed stance regarding those that don't heed their warning to remove everything of value from the PCS before they become POS.

I just hope there is POS specialization, and necessary adjustments to control tower care and feeding to allow the possibility of specialization of POS.

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2004.12.11 23:18:00 - [5]
 

I believe they should give ample warning before conversion but they need to go.

Why should some people whos only attribute is firepower be able to operate indestructable stations while others have to work their asses off to get it to blink even?

MaiLina KaTar
Posted - 2004.12.15 13:35:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 15/12/2004 13:41:18
Quote:
There's really no reason for them to be allowed to remain when the next step has been reached now is there!?


I'd rather leave them in game and have them require upkeep like POS. Of course you should be able to anchor some amount of sentry guns around them when you do that... and their shields will probably have to be buffed aswell.

Maybe you could turn them into something like a Control Tower or something? With a limited amount of grid and CPU so you can anchor some sentries around them to increase their defense.

Sphalerite
Applied Eugenics
Posted - 2004.12.15 21:34:00 - [7]
 

the conq stations are a backstoried, essential part of all 0.0 economics. A POS doesn't have a market or escrow, don't have a fitting option, and can't currently be set to be usable by anyone without them being able to disable and cart off the whole base. The stations need to stay.
Quote:
There's really no reason for them to be allowed to remain when the next step has been reached now is there!?

CCP, delete all tech 1 blueprints. We have Tech II now.

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2004.12.15 22:20:00 - [8]
 

Essential to whom? Hardly anyone is allowed to dock at these stations how then can they be essential to anyone but the alliance clique?

Cypherous
Minmatar
Lions of Judah Incorporated
Posted - 2004.12.16 11:10:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Sphalerite
the conq stations are a backstoried, essential part of all 0.0 economics. A POS doesn't have a market or escrow, don't have a fitting option, and can't currently be set to be usable by anyone without them being able to disable and cart off the whole base. The stations need to stay.
Quote:
There's really no reason for them to be allowed to remain when the next step has been reached now is there!?

CCP, delete all tech 1 blueprints. We have Tech II now.


Errr yes POS do have limited fitting options as you can use a ship maintenance array to refit your ship with the mods in your cargo.

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2004.12.20 03:21:00 - [10]
 

Make the alliance people work for their money, convert now!

Psionist
Posted - 2004.12.20 03:42:00 - [11]
 

OMGWTFBONGO WE R TEH MUST CONVERT!

Seriously, calm the hell down. Why should they take something unique and useful out of the game just because you've suddenly decided its old and outdated?

Pandora Panda
Caldari
Posted - 2004.12.20 04:13:00 - [12]
 

Please, lets. Lets give the established big 3 alliances with the large numbers of NPC stations under thier control an absolutely massive advantage over the newer, smaller alliances struggling to hold PoS and mine in 0.0.

You want alliance-free 0.0? Head into southern syndicate. Have fun getting your ass shot off by pirates.

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2004.12.20 04:13:00 - [13]
 

STFU leetboy.

They were lame when introduced and as explained they're only giving an advantage to corporations going all out on firepower, favoring them over wellrounded corporations.

Lygos
Amarr
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2004.12.23 04:36:00 - [14]
 

Ooh. Forum necromancy.

Anyhow, conquerable stations are bad for non-teetotaler pvpers. It often sidelines their presence in favor of those who just can't wait to get out there and sit in a safespot for the next six hours.

The major trouble with PCS is that you only need to retake them when it suits you. It shortcircuits non-territorial gameplay objectives and incentives. They don't have a genuine function, they're just an added convenience and a medal on your chest.

Sure, anyone can do whatever they want if they really really want to.. but incentives and pragmatism tend to govern normal people. It's much more sound to take this tack than expect people to be exuberant voluntary participants every hour every day. There's too much on the line for that.

Pandora Panda
Caldari
Posted - 2005.01.02 16:39:00 - [15]
 

God, you people are ****ing stupid.

Get rid of conquerable stations, and you know what changes? The big 3 NPC-based alliances get stronger, and everyone else gets ****ed. I thought you were encouraging the newer corps and alliances to gain a foothold in 0.0, not trying to sabotage them for the alliances that have been around since the beginning of time.

Please be making Stain, Curse, and Fountain stronger (I suppose JQA too, since they have crokite in NPC refinery systems).

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2005.01.02 17:21:00 - [16]
 

When will your medication ever reach you?

My take on the whole POS deal was that the pirate factions would oust their squatters and make them rely on the POS' for base of operations instead. Making Curse or whatnot accessible to those only with a favorable standing towards the Angels.

Defenzer
Fight Club
Posted - 2005.01.02 23:05:00 - [17]
 

Danton, quit being an idiot. First you slam one corp for selling offices when you yourself are selling offices, and now you try to turn capturable bases upside down. You would have much more credibility if it wasn't so obvious that you came at everything with your own personal angle. Give it a rest.

Lygos
Amarr
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2005.01.02 23:17:00 - [18]
 

Danton's position is far more persuasive. I might have an idea of how the rest of you are right.. but you aren't even bothering to offer alternatives to the idea of PCS. You seem to be arguing for the status quo.. and I don't think anyone is really pleased with the status quo.

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2005.01.03 14:01:00 - [19]
 

What personal angle? You obviously haven't read or comprehended anything I've written on either of the threads and only come on here to blanket slam me for not agreeing with your kind.

What angle am I playing again, that of a more open and inviting game with more chances based on hard work and luck over corporate and alliance clique nepotism, if yes then I'm damn proud to be playing that angle.

This is about every last depth of space having some fraghag outfit stationed just a few jumps away, being able to disrupt your operations without any real logistical effort on their own part. Where do you not see that the 'bandaid' stations are bad for deep space ventures?

Defenzer, stop being an idiot, arguement countered and buried.

Lygos
Amarr
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2005.01.03 21:15:00 - [20]
 

It may be the original poster's angle against "large nepotistic alliance." So what? Doesn't matter much. I frankly don't find that to be a position that has any bearing on my experiences with PCS, but the crippling effects of PCS are still in place and obvious for anyone who has had any dealing with them.

The only sensible objection currently is that no player created structures can field the functions they do at this time. Things have a way of changing.

PCS, so long as they exist, will provide a safe haven for those who do nothing but attempt to find PVP all day. They are a counterstrike worshipper's mecca. EVE is theoretically supposed to be a game of economics and politics as well as a overbrief space battle sim. (If you want to talk about "imbalance" look at the amount of time spent mending the ship cannons instead of putting content in the game.)

PCS will always have the following flaws: 1)It's cheaper to retake a PCS than defend it. 2)You don't have to have more industrial focus than necessary for ammo and a few missiles to have a base in 0.0, at least for a day. 3)Players that don't mind spending a third of their time doing something besides sitting in a safespot or a blob can forget it. That sort of activity is so impractical it constitutes treason.

In my view, PCS are one of the main reasons low security space is virtually empty. Without something to lose.. overweaning alliances get the bizarre idea in their head that they can "control" or "own" entire regions or even groups or regions. Meanwhile they haven't even visited 2/3s of their "properties." Control and ownership simply mean the ability to attack industrial efforts that can't be bothered to sit in a safe all day and other impractical activities. With PCS, factions don't need to guard anything, no focused industrial activities.. which helps keep them off their rivals' precious and inane killboards. Industrial activity is just a big target and a liability in the current environment.

The end to conquerable stations will mean that pvp groups will have to have some focus to their activities and will have to put up some kind of unloggable target if they want to make their activities in low security space persistent. This will reduce the effects of other groups adopting the mentality of locusts and focus their peacekeeping efforts on dissuading any impractical activity on behalf of rivals that doesn't involve sitting in blobs or safespots all day.

So yes, PCS are bandaids for the implementation of deployable structures and player empires.. and in this case the cure is worse than the two or three year old illness. So consider this a free, and entirely voluntary bump for Mr. Marcellus and whatever his "angle" may be.

Domalais
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2005.01.10 17:19:00 - [21]
 

Remove conquerable stations and you doom the economy to an enormous surge in the market prices for high end minerals, which will only redistribute the power held by 0.0 alliances from military power (stations) to economic power.

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2005.01.11 07:55:00 - [22]
 

What's so bad about that? Why should there be people in control of 0.0 without an economic base, who looks down upon miners and think they should have it all made without any real effort on their part?

Converting these stations corporations like Deviance here gets an oppertunity to run a fully functional POS or realize their limitations and interact with others.

Lygos
Amarr
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2005.01.11 09:04:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Lygos on 11/01/2005 09:08:19
I concur. Cutting the fat isn't very helpful to the long term goal of the development of 0.0 as home territory.

As it is, the notion that groups are "neighbors" to one another is highly, highly conceptual and abstract in nature. A group that claims a region, or its PCS rather, may have 60% of its active members (part-time PvPers and carebears) in empire, and the rest of its PvPers may spend the majority of their time in the adjoining region where the prey reside.

As soon as player built structures can handle what PCS currently are needed to do, PCS need to become destructible. Groups that depend on them for their continued presence in 0.0 will discover just how inadequately they are set up for long term defence of such things even despite the ominous shield boosting CCP gave to them. If it is possible to blow up PCS, they should be.

The other main fault of PCS is they allow relatively small groups to "control" way too much space. Control is a pretty sadly empty term these days. The fact that a PCS can be reclaimed expediently with far less organizational effort than is needed to defend them reinforces this. This lack of defense translates to all activities of an alliance in zero security space. Defense is hard, much harder than launching an attack on others. If your little empire is destructible, your comrades are going to want to stay closer to home plain and simple. This translates to more regular activity and presence in that area. Only a select few areas are currently managing to do this with their PCS setup. FA controls what is described as a rather ideal and defendable space with their nearly adjoining PCS. Pretty much nowhere in the north manages anything like it, it's all gank squads, unorganized economic activity and risk-free highway robbery up here. I can't speak for the south, but what I hear is generally disheartening.

If folks, besides pirates, stay close to home, there will be more varied groups in zero security space, which means that we will have more neighbors, which means that we will have more options for choosing foes. When this happens, logistics concerns will kick in and we will be focused on damaging enemies without leaving ourselves more exposed than necessary.

People are going to continue to want to do everything necessary to expose themselves to danger as little as possible. Or at every instance when they are not prepared for combat, which equates to the same thing. They will sit in or aligned with safespots all day while they bash the eternal carebear target. Is this bad? No, it's just practical, a very human tendency. What has to change is that it has to become practical to have some assets at risk all the time. The ideal is that every person is not simply going to want a fleet of POS.. he is going to need and depend upon the continued existence of those POS. As it stands, PCS do everything necessary to get in the way of this.

People gripe about PvP being optional or other people wanting PvP to be more optional. What people should be griping about is player owned structures being optional. About economics being optional. About increasing the rate of the overturning of the mineral economy being optional. That boils down to having all of our assets tucked safely away in or near safespots or indestructible stations. Getting rid of "safespots" such as these makes a powerful and cunning group of economics-oriented players as dangerous as a pirate fleet outfitted with officer's something or others.

Capitalism and industry help make EVE a dark and spooky place. People sitting in or near safespots all day? Much less so. Long story short, people who favor Player Conquerable Stations are generally cowards no matter how many marks for industrials and lone battleships are etched on their hulls.

The continued existence of PCS signals that each of us are still stuck with remaining as mere visitors to the rim stars. They will never be home as long as a vapor-minded focus on existence rules the day and development efforts.

Domalais
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2005.01.11 15:47:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Danton Marcellus
What's so bad about that? Why should there be people in control of 0.0 without an economic base, who looks down upon miners and think they should have it all made without any real effort on their part?


You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.


There are many mining corporations operating within our space. If there was no way to tax their refines, all of these non-allied mining corporations in 0.0 would be pushed back to empire.

Domalais
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2005.01.11 16:19:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Lygos
As it is, the notion that groups are "neighbors" to one another is highly, highly conceptual and abstract in nature. A group that claims a region, or its PCS rather, may have 60% of its active members (part-time PvPers and carebears) in empire, and the rest of its PvPers may spend the majority of their time in the adjoining region where the prey reside.



Far less defenses will be needed if the PCS are replaced by POS, because hostile forces will be unable to overcome the POS's defenses, thus making it even more difficult to attack an alliance's industrial base or mining corporations. What is currently one of the most vulnerable points (dock/undock) will now become nearly impervious to attack.


Are you aware that the PCS now have POS-equivalent shields? The capture or recapture of one is far from an easy task, and it is impossible for a relatively small group, as you had put it, to control space with them because a larger force can easily take the station and then recharge the shields themselves, making it virtually impossible for a small fleet to recapture.

In addition, you speak of "oh woe is me, very few people are in 0.0 and the rest are just visitors." Well, there will be far fewer people in 0.0 if CCP were to effect your changes, because in addition to stripping 0.0 space of contract mining, you would be completely eliminating the economy in 0.0 space by removing those stations.

Currently there are dozens of corporations which mine in 0.0 space on a contract basis, paying time-based fees or refine taxes to the controlling alliances of that space. Many of these corporations do not have the logistical ability or desire to operation POS in 0.0. What would these corporations do if this change was made? They, who consititute the bulk of the industrial activity in much of 0.0, would be gone.

So instead we should what... create an alliance (a skills nightmare), invite contracted mining corps into this alliance (a security nightmare), and then allow them to build their own POS in our space (just plain nightmare), all so that they can do exactly what they were doing with PCS, with far less efficiency.

You should also notice that the above example gives the contract mining corporations far less incentive to operate in 0.0 because the costs of doing so are much higher. Were the alliances to support the POS at which the contract miners would be refining, then it would give the alliances far less incentive to allow contract miners, simply because the costs of doing so would nearly outweigh the gains provided.



Now what, precisely, would be the benefit to the EVE community generated by such a change, besides fulfilling your dream to see strings of POS aligned into the distance? If you wish more people to be in 0.0, the answer would be in a change of current alliance structure and thought, because PCS are vastly more visitor friendly than the POS.

Vvari
Ygdrasil inc.
Posted - 2005.01.11 18:48:00 - [26]
 


I dont see any reason to remove these conquerable stations. They look prety and most of them arent in uber mining teritory anyways.
Some people say that the big alliances need to work for there money now, but mabey you forget that there are many non conquerable stations in 0.0 aswell. These stations owned by NPC pirates are probably worth even more to most alliances then the conquerable stations.

So removing these conquerable stations will just make it harder for newwer alliances to asteblish themselfs in 0.0 and get a food on the ground there.

There is no reason to remove these stations and mabey you forgot but there is even a story around these stations and as far as I know not a single station can be destroyed.
I even think there are more unreleased stations out there as the story talked about 70-80 (cant remember) stations and there not that many out yet.


Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2005.01.11 21:44:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Domalais


You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.


There are many mining corporations operating within our space. If there was no way to tax their refines, all of these non-allied mining corporations in 0.0 would be pushed back to empire.


You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm talking about you being out there pushing those back who doesn't desire to work with you without any real effort on your part. I don't want all of 0.0 monitored from conquerable stations for easy disruption of our deep 0.0 operations when you pay none of the money or sweat we do in managing our POS.

These stations were admittedly a bandaid when introduced, guess what, the cure is here, take it off.

Lygos
Amarr
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2005.01.12 02:12:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Lygos on 12/01/2005 02:12:59
Originally by: Domalais
Currently there are dozens of corporations which mine in 0.0 space on a contract basis, paying time-based fees or refine taxes to the controlling alliances of that space. Many of these corporations do not have the logistical ability or desire to operation POS in 0.0. What would these corporations do if this change was made? They, who consititute the bulk of the industrial activity in much of 0.0, would be gone.

So instead we should what... create an alliance (a skills nightmare), invite contracted mining corps into this alliance (a security nightmare), and then allow them to build their own POS in our space (just plain nightmare), all so that they can do exactly what they were doing with PCS, with far less efficiency. [/quote



The real trouble I see with all PvP alliances, not just all PvP corps mind you, is that their relationship with their comrades who engage in host of activities besides PvP is frequently parasitic in nature rather than symbiotic. PCS exacerbate the ease of having this policy in place. So long as PCS exist, it will always be easier to attempt raids on others rather than put something at risk. This now universal policy shift dissuades non-teetotaler PvPers from inhabiting zero security space fulltime. We are the people that get bored of sitting in logging on , sitting in safespots for hours, then logging out again. Inreasingly, everybody willing to inhabit zero security space does exactly that. Sure you can go mine whenever you like, but there is unlikely to be any cover save that which you can muster from your own corp. This is not good for more diverse alliances in general. Economic activity increasingly becomes irregular as the vast bulk of the military force the economy players are charitably supplying roams off to go "protect" their alliance by waiting for a fight in the neighboring region.

Have you noticed how many, not all, pure PvP alliances are chronically strapped for cash? For the interests of the development of content in the game, PvPers need to be forced to adopt a focus, or purpose to their efforts. The economic activity they generate by demolishing each others assets needs to be replaced of course. That replacement shouldn't need to be forced to occur primarilly in empire. I believe in encouraging CCP to find a way to narrow PvPer's efforts to be less general, to busilly defend very profitable, very industrious sectors of zero security space. As it is, nearly all Pvp conflict in zero security space is voluntary. Few targets out there have a desperate reason to be out there or to be passing through beyond mere hubris. Hubris is all good and well, but it's undependable and doesn't provide a steady torrent of demand either. When everything revolves around hubris, no one has a reason to stick his neck out until he is good and ready. This engenders gank style warfare and blobbing. When things are at risk all the time, there may be occasions when conflict is different, is more desperate.

I understand what you say about contemporary POS being too focused, too important, and too well defended, too laggy, and still too underdeveloped to replace PCS. What we need from CCP is more destructible structures to supplant the services PCS offer. As much is stated on the first page of this thread.

PCS are not an acceptable long term solution however. They create a bad social climate. They allow opportunistic activity, but they do not encourage it. As you say, they allow alliances and corporations to not need to take risks in associating with one another. As a person involved in groups that have some experience in infiltrating others, you should understand that pretty well. What it means for those groups is that they have to go that extra mile for security to exist within organizations in zero security space.

Having to need to pair up with people who don't do PvP day and night in order to sustain oneself in zero security space is going to really mess up your standings on killboards and other such foolishness. Sorry, but that is the way it needs to become for every group that desires to call zero security space home.

Ideally, a revolution will take place in EVE conflict reminiscent of our own history. In this age, combat is almost chivalrous, primitive, lightning quick, barbaric skirmishes and nothing more. But when carebears are involved, when civilians start plotting each other's demise: attrition. These are the groups bent on preserving their way of life and what they have cultivated in their greener pastures. Combat will no longer be about simply superior tactics and having better gear than the next guy or group of guys(rare) in a single skirmish, it could become about who can replace their fleet with the same quality most efficiently and swiftly on a daily or bihourly basis. With a few other tweaks, CCP could turn this game in

Lygos
Amarr
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2005.01.12 02:15:00 - [29]
 

With a few other tweaks, CCP could turn this game into trench warfare, only without the trenches or safespots. When factories and industrial centers become more critical targets than flagships, EVE will have evolved.

One helpful thing to note is that alliance could become smaller as zero security space populates. When your fulltime pvpers are concerned about not venturing as far, their sphere of concern shrinks. Zero security space may have more people, but the alliances are likely to become smaller as dispute becomes more common and more viable. People won't just look for the best group of fighters with the highest stats to try to join either. They won't hold back their opinions as much for fear of offending the majority or leaders in circumstances where unity seems more important than correct action.

To me, PCS have served their purpose and it is time for them to be rapidly eclipsed. Contemporary POS are pretty halfassed, but I remain confident that they are only a prelude to what CCP has planned.

Domalais
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2005.01.12 04:03:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Danton Marcellus

You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm talking about you being out there pushing those back who doesn't desire to work with you without any real effort on your part. I don't want all of 0.0 monitored from conquerable stations for easy disruption of our deep 0.0 operations when you pay none of the money or sweat we do in managing our POS.


Of course, we simply rule on high from our royal thrones while enjoying palace wenches and having gold piled at our feet.

How precisely would disruption of your "deep 0.0 operations" be any more difficult without PCS?


As for you, Lygos: PCS are vastly better money producers and overall better targets of opportunity than POS. In addition, POS require no defense. So.... how do your theories make any sense at all, when if PCS were entirely replaced with PCS the military force required to hold an area would be reduced to those needed to protect POS logistics? There would be no additional economic benefits of retaining more PVPers in the POS-immediate area, and thus gank squads would be even more common.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only