open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Multiple Outposts per system in Null Sec
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Mr LaForge
Posted - 2010.09.12 23:08:00 - [1]
 

Right now I believe the limit is one per system. I would like that cap taken off or at least raised to 3-5 depending on the size of the solar system. We have hundreds of systems in eve with more than 2 or 3 stations in empire and low sec so we should expect to have the same in null sec if an alliance is willing and wants to do it.


Darveses
Fantastulousification Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.12 23:44:00 - [2]
 

What for?

Mr LaForge
Posted - 2010.09.13 01:59:00 - [3]
 

For the possibility of having every outpost type in 1 system instead of 4 systems.

Jita Bloodtear
Posted - 2010.09.13 11:38:00 - [4]
 

I completely agree with this idea. There's no reason we shouldn't be allowed to create refineries in the same system as a factory. The game mechanics obviously already exist. It's a completely arbitrary limit that holds us to one station per system, and it doesn't make sense. Although people are always opposed to change (for no reason), this change would only improve the game, and increase the value of certain systems. If your alliance is willing to lay more cards on the table, then why should they be held back from doing so?

Mr LaForge
Posted - 2010.09.13 15:29:00 - [5]
 

Supporting my own topic.

Gunnanmon
Gallente
PURPLE.
Posted - 2010.09.13 18:46:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Jita Bloodtear
I completely agree with this idea. There's no reason we shouldn't be allowed to create refineries in the same system as a factory. The game mechanics obviously already exist. It's a completely arbitrary limit that holds us to one station per system, and it doesn't make sense.


But how would more than 1 structure fit in an entire star system? There just isn't enough space.

Mr LaForge
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:11:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Gunnanmon
Originally by: Jita Bloodtear
I completely agree with this idea. There's no reason we shouldn't be allowed to create refineries in the same system as a factory. The game mechanics obviously already exist. It's a completely arbitrary limit that holds us to one station per system, and it doesn't make sense.


But how would more than 1 structure fit in an entire star system? There just isn't enough space.


Right, because all star systems only have 1 moon or planet in eve right?

Uriel Winston
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:53:00 - [8]
 

It will mess up with sovereign take-overs.

More stations to reinforce = more timers to go off = more time to take a system = more lag fights = more rage/QQing/Drama = worse Eve.

i hope you got my point... if they manage to find a way to "reinforce" systems and not stations then we could perhaps work something out.

Last thing we need is more things to destroy in order to "capture" a system....Rolling Eyes

Jita Bloodtear
Posted - 2010.09.15 06:16:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Uriel Winston
It will mess up with sovereign take-overs.

More stations to reinforce = more timers to go off = more time to take a system = more lag fights = more rage/QQing/Drama = worse Eve.

i hope you got my point... if they manage to find a way to "reinforce" systems and not stations then we could perhaps work something out.

Last thing we need is more things to destroy in order to "capture" a system....Rolling Eyes


This logic doesn't make any sense. This is like saying "we shouldn't allow more than 1 POS per system because destroying them all could take time." Stations don't need to be conquered to conquer a system regardless. The fact is, if more stations exist in a system, the system is worth MORE, and SHOULD take more time to conquer.

I'd like to reiterate my point that arbitrarily limiting nulsec system counts to 0 doesn't make sense.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.09.15 10:37:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 15/09/2010 10:39:12
Originally by: Uriel Winston
It will mess up with sovereign take-overs.

More stations to reinforce = more timers to go off = more time to take a system = more lag fights = more rage/QQing/Drama = worse Eve.

i hope you got my point... if they manage to find a way to "reinforce" systems and not stations then we could perhaps work something out.

Last thing we need is more things to destroy in order to "capture" a system....Rolling Eyes


Or only one of these stations would be tied to sov as designated by the sov holders. You would of course be unable to change the station once SBU's have been anchored. Would need a way to flag it on the system view though so the attacker knew which was tied to sov.

Supporting the **** out of this

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles

Posted - 2010.09.15 18:06:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 15/09/2010 18:06:24
Sounds like a good idea, as long as only 1 can affect sov and it has a big sign saying 'this station controls SOV for this system' painted on it somewhere all can see it.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.09.15 18:16:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 15/09/2010 10:39:12
Originally by: Uriel Winston
It will mess up with sovereign take-overs.

More stations to reinforce = more timers to go off = more time to take a system = more lag fights = more rage/QQing/Drama = worse Eve.

i hope you got my point... if they manage to find a way to "reinforce" systems and not stations then we could perhaps work something out.

Last thing we need is more things to destroy in order to "capture" a system....Rolling Eyes


Or only one of these stations would be tied to sov as designated by the sov holders. You would of course be unable to change the station once SBU's have been anchored. Would need a way to flag it on the system view though so the attacker knew which was tied to sov.

Supporting the **** out of this


If only one was tied to sov, I would agreed. The problem I had raised the last time this was proposed was that dumping 10 stations, each tied to sov, into one system could make that system an impenetrable fortress.

Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Shadow Confederation
Posted - 2010.09.15 19:28:00 - [13]
 

Not supporting until CCP allows destruction of said outposts to be possible.

It's bad enough that they can never be removed... but allowing them to exponentially increase is just not a good idea in my book.

Don't get me wrong... I'm all in favor of such an idea due to the obvious fact there are multiple stations in various high sec systems throughout the cluster.

But there's gotta be a balancing mechanism here.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.09.16 00:36:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Drake Draconis
Not supporting until CCP allows destruction of said outposts to be possible.

It's bad enough that they can never be removed... but allowing them to exponentially increase is just not a good idea in my book.

Don't get me wrong... I'm all in favor of such an idea due to the obvious fact there are multiple stations in various high sec systems throughout the cluster.

But there's gotta be a balancing mechanism here.

Destructible outposts would make it beyond impossible for anything but the largest 0.0 entities to ever own space with an outpost in it. Why simply move out of your space when you can burn everything down THEN move out to make sure its completely unlivable for anyone in the future?

Large alliances would routinely destroy outposts of up and coming alliances to keep them out of 0.0. Destructible outposts would end 0.0 permanently. It would become stagnant in a way we have never seen.

Hinata
Posted - 2010.09.16 02:19:00 - [15]
 

Easy enough just link all the stations to 1 reinforcement timer or as said before 1 sov holding station and rest irrelevant

wr3cks
Reliables Inc
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.09.16 02:39:00 - [16]
 

Supported -- look at Providence, they already have 50+ outposts for 80ish systems. Seems to me that it's inevitable that almost all of them eventually will, when the better gameplay solution would be to allow more stations in the more central/conveniently located systems.

Related: sov warfare mechanics are terrible and also need to be changed. Looking forward to that happening in 2012!

Lykouleon
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.09.16 02:45:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: wr3cks
look at Providence


...thats exactly why this is a bad idea

you know how hard that was to grind through? The sleepless nights...the cries of Manfred and obiwand over TS...I have PTSD from it still Sad

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.09.16 09:23:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Lykouleon
Originally by: wr3cks
look at Providence


...thats exactly why this is a bad idea

you know how hard that was to grind through? The sleepless nights...the cries of Manfred and obiwand over TS...I have PTSD from it still Sad


And not only has that already been addressed in this thread but if you allowed multiple stations in one system we could easily create self sufficient hubs that only require you to grind through ONE station not 3-5

Jita Bloodtear
Posted - 2010.09.18 17:27:00 - [19]
 

I'm still very much for this idea

ImmaSplodeYou
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.09.18 23:43:00 - [20]
 

yeah, why not ; provided the so mechanic ed mentioned or something like it was in place this would be nice. Would save people hauling precious cargo from Refinery A in system A to to Factory B in system B - people would have to actually go further into the system than the gate to get any hauler kills and that would be nice

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.09.19 08:14:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: wr3cks
Supported -- look at Providence, they already have 50+ outposts for 80ish systems. Seems to me that it's inevitable that almost all of them eventually will, when the better gameplay solution would be to allow more stations in the more central/conveniently located systems.


Yeah, I see what you did there - so, we have too many outposts - hm, what to do... - hell let's allow people to build EVEN MORE! Brillant idea!

Ben Johnson
Gallente
Deep Space Constructions
Posted - 2010.12.18 18:48:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Ben Johnson on 18/12/2010 19:02:40
im all for this, as long as the current sovereignty mechanics apply for only 1 station, or they somehow change the system.

also:
Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
Yeah, I see what you did there - so, we have too many outposts - hm, what to do... - hell let's allow people to build EVEN MORE! Brillant idea!

if outposts were destroyable or maybe even just letting people wreck them this wouldn't be a problem.

Mihai1
Caldari
Heaven's Army
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.12.18 19:07:00 - [23]
 

Supported why ccp can have 10+station in some empire systems and in 0.0 players don't and i support the thing with sovereignty only one station to keep the sovereignty or remove the sovereignty from station to move it on ihub only and after soveranity is drop to can take a station in only 1 ref mode or even without ref

Cid SilverWing
Gallente
The Scope

Posted - 2010.12.18 19:13:00 - [24]
 

Supported.

Saidin Thor
Posted - 2010.12.18 19:57:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Jita Bloodtear
Originally by: Uriel Winston
It will mess up with sovereign take-overs.

More stations to reinforce = more timers to go off = more time to take a system = more lag fights = more rage/QQing/Drama = worse Eve.

i hope you got my point... if they manage to find a way to "reinforce" systems and not stations then we could perhaps work something out.

Last thing we need is more things to destroy in order to "capture" a system....Rolling Eyes


This logic doesn't make any sense. This is like saying "we shouldn't allow more than 1 POS per system because destroying them all could take time." Stations don't need to be conquered to conquer a system regardless. The fact is, if more stations exist in a system, the system is worth MORE, and SHOULD take more time to conquer.

I'd like to reiterate my point that arbitrarily limiting nulsec system counts to 0 doesn't make sense.


This is exactly right. If this idea were to be implemented, the whole "it will take more time to completely take over a system" argument is foolish. It should take more time to completely take over multiple stations than it does to take over one station. Whether that means each station would have to be attacked/reinforced separately, or each station has a shared HP that rises with the number of stations, or whatever.

In any case, I think this is an very good idea. This feature wouldn't be overly burdensome to implement, as far as I can tell (although I'm by no means an expert on the eve architecture, so maybe it does), and, if that is the case, it should be seriously considered. The benefits of being able to deploy more than one station would be extremely significant.

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.12.18 23:46:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Uriel Winston
It will mess up with sovereign take-overs.

More stations to reinforce = more timers to go off = more time to take a system = more lag fights = more rage/QQing/Drama = worse Eve.

i hope you got my point... if they manage to find a way to "reinforce" systems and not stations then we could perhaps work something out.

Last thing we need is more things to destroy in order to "capture" a system....Rolling Eyes

Yeah, let's remove gates and belts, so people have nothing to fight over, so tehre is no lag, and there is better.. OW, wait, no, so there is no eve, only carebares in high-sec will stay.

You don't get outposts for free, you have to build them. As long as that is the case, being able to deploy several outposts makes perfect sense

Bobbeh
Minmatar
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2010.12.19 03:20:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Bobbeh on 19/12/2010 03:22:00
Why is everyone worried about the Stations and Sov, Because as far as i checked Stations werent tied directly to sov, and you could destroy the TCU after the Ihub and Take the system even if you didnt take the station, or you could take the station even if the ihub was saved.

I may be wrong but isnt that why its soo terrible to have a corp owning a station and a different corp owning the tcu and ihub? Because essentially the station can be shot at any time and flipped due to different corp?

I think i am confused tho, i know that applys to Different alliances such as all the init stations down south that have INIT sov and are owned by INit associates these can be shot without sbus and flipped.

With that aside. I truly support this idea i think tho that the top limit should be three per system this would allow for all but one of the stations to be dropped into a system. Still creating more statons but at the same time creating the option for strategic deployments of stations

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2010.12.19 07:27:00 - [28]
 

Sounds good to me. And to further the idea, limit the total number of systems an alliance can have, it would encourage more concentrated development, perhaps create more room for all the "emergent" alliances that Dominion was supposed to enable.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2010.12.19 10:27:00 - [29]
 

I have argued for this in the past. There should be reasonable length thread with cons and pros about this in the Features and Ideas buried somewhere. I do support lifting this artificial barrier from my sandbox. If I so desire I should be able to build as many outposts in my system as I desire.

In that discussion main arguments were about sov warfare, but they are relatively easily sorted. For example by dividing the hp one has to dig through between all the outposts in the system or making the first outpost in the system built a 'system capital' outpost and only one counting in the sov warfare - so if that falls so would them all. To name 2 most obvious solutions.

Supported!


 

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