open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Proposal: Deployable Module Outpost Demolition Device
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.15 08:42:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 15/10/2010 08:43:33
WHEREAS~ outposts are being deployed in such numbers that almost 1 in 5 systems in sov 0.0 have an outpost in them

WHEREAS~ outposts are no longer a major alliance level project to deploy, but are now easily within the means of any old 0.0 corp

WHEREAS~ outposts are no longer just about economic infrastructure, but are now the basis of defensive sovereignty

I propose that a method of destroying them be put in game. Now simply making an outpost disappear has all sorts of problematical implications, so what I'm actually proposing is a way to wreck them.

The items involved are deployable modules like SBUs or TCUs. I propose an equivalent manufacturing cost of 500 million ISK at today's material prices.

To wreck a station requires that there be no sovereignty in the system, and that the outpost be reduced to zero shields and armour (ie: an outpost that has recently been captured). Once deployed, the module will take 12 hours to activate. Successfully onlining a TCU during this period will cancel the demolition timer.

Wrecking a station has the following effects:

(1) All station upgrades are irrevocably destroyed

(2) All station services are irrevocably destroyed, with the sole exception that ships can be assembled (but not fitted)

(3) All market orders are immediately cancelled, with the ISK and items being returned to wallets and hangars respectively. Market taxes are not refunded. Items and ships in a wrecked station cannot be contracted. The outpost no longer appears as a market location.

(4) Docked ships remain in player ship hangars, but once undocked, they cannot return.

(5) Player item hangars are accessible from space but only by their owner.

(6) The station wreck remains in place permanently.

(7) Medical clones are immediately destroyed. Jump clones remain in place but can no longer be created.

(8) The station wreck does not appear on overview as a station, but as a container. It is no longer a celestial object.

Conceptually, the Station Wreck is essentially a giant Corp Hangar Array that you cant put anything in to, only take stuff out of. Freighters can collect items from Station Wrecks.

I think these conditions allow meaningful infrastructure destruction, and a viable way to counter "outpost spam" as a defensive strategy, whilst at the same time maintaining the "safe haven" for player assets for people who occasionally have to spend more than 12 hours away from the game.

Comments and suggestions welcomed.

Sylar McIntyr
Caldari
Konstrukteure der Zukunft
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.15 08:53:00 - [2]
 

Thats a good idea! Supported!

Gaius Bismarck
Darkwave Technologies
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2010.10.15 09:07:00 - [3]
 

yeah. stop the outpost spam!

Minorius
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.15 09:16:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Minorius on 15/10/2010 09:49:18
Supported!


Originally by: Malcanis
Edited by: Malcanis on 15/10/2010 08:43:33
(7) Medical clones are immediately destroyed. Jump clones remain in place but can no longer be created.



Does that mean you can JC into the hangar? They should be destroyed also.

* What happens to the players who were docked before the station was wrecked?

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.10.15 09:23:00 - [5]
 

Support everything that supports more destruction Cool

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.15 09:29:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 15/10/2010 09:35:21
Originally by: Minorius
Supported!



TY, but dont forget to tick the little button thing

Originally by: Minorius

Originally by: Malcanis

(7) Medical clones are immediately destroyed. Jump clones remain in place but can no longer be created.



Does that mean you can JC into the hangar? They should be destroyed also.



Really it should but clones can be very significant assets (eg: pirate implants), and the idea behind my proposal is to destroy the station, not individual player assets in a way that they cant counter. Obviously it seems inconsistent to leave jump clones intact, but the over-riding principle of the outpost as a safe asset store takes precedence, I feel. And CCP have said they feel this way also - it's a prime reason why we cant destroy outposts right now. If we're going to allow asset destruction then we dont need to monkey about with all the other refinements, we can just go ahead and vaporise the thing.

EDIT: And it's not any more inconsistent than new station owners being able to remove med clones but not jump clones. The principle here is the same.

Also, I'm all in favour of creating gameplay situations. Daring high-risk operations to extract assets from a wrecked station (and sneaky treacherous operations to hijack said loot) seem like all kinds of awesome to me.

Originally by: Minorius

* What happens to the players who were docked before the station was wrecked?


Good question. I'm going to go with "nothing much - except that they suddenly have no access to station services so they cant fit or insure ships, and everything on the market is suddenly unavailable". Being in a wrecked station is much like being in a permanently reinforced POS.

Mr Booger
Amarr
Task Force Zener
Blade.
Posted - 2010.10.15 09:45:00 - [7]
 

Excellent idea, and I hope to see this implemented.

Serpents smile
Posted - 2010.10.15 10:16:00 - [8]
 

*cough* credit *cough*

But I'm all for it.Smile

TazDev
Amarr
DRUCKWELLE Evolution
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.15 10:22:00 - [9]
 

Sounds to me like a proper workaround on the current problem, why outposts shouldn´t be destructable.
For more wrecks in space!

okcerg
Posted - 2010.10.15 10:24:00 - [10]
 

I'd like to see also a proposal "From now on only 1 outpost per constellation"

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.15 10:42:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: okcerg
I'd like to see also a proposal "From now on only 1 outpost per constellation"


Actually I'm all in favour of allowing multiple outposts per system. For one thing, the reason so many systems have outposts is that you cant put more than 1 in a system. For another, conquering (and with my proposal, wrecking) 2+ outposts in one system is much easier than dealing with 2+ outposts (and 2+ hubs and 2+ TCUs and 2+ cyno jammer POS) in 2+ systems.

People want to build outposts. People should be allowed to build outposts if they want to and can afford them (sandbox hey?). But the flip side of that is that other people should be allowed to set them on fire and then gun down the inhabitants as they run out screaming.

Realtef
Caldari
The Capitalist Protectorate
Mad Scientists
Posted - 2010.10.15 10:53:00 - [12]
 

As long as either the cap on Outposts per system is removed or once the outpost is destroyed another can be put in that system. I am in favour of the former not the latter though.

But excellent idea but I think the online time for the module should be longer, say 24 hours.

Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.10.15 11:18:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen on 15/10/2010 11:26:31
I like, solves all concerns without erasing some poor sods entire possessions.

Originally by: Minorius
Edited by: Minorius on 15/10/2010 09:49:18
Supported!


Originally by: Malcanis
Edited by: Malcanis on 15/10/2010 08:43:33
(7) Medical clones are immediately destroyed. Jump clones remain in place but can no longer be created.



Does that mean you can JC into the hangar? They should be destroyed also.

* What happens to the players who were docked before the station was wrecked?


Keeping jumpclones seems a fair idea. Assuming that the destoyed station would not allow you to jump to another clone from it, it gives people one chance to use their JC for a snatch and run op to get their stuff back.

Originally by: Malcanis

(8) The station wreck does not appear on overview as a station, but as a container. It is no longer a celestial object.


I would suggest have the destroyed station remain a celestial object for as long as items remain within it, as it creates a piece of terrain to fight over/set ambushes. etc. Once it is empty, it becomes a large collidable object (becoming merely an intresting bit of scenery)


SikPuppy
Posted - 2010.10.15 11:25:00 - [14]
 

+1

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.15 12:08:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Realtef
As long as either the cap on Outposts per system is removed or once the outpost is destroyed another can be put in that system. I am in favour of the former not the latter though.

But excellent idea but I think the online time for the module should be longer, say 24 hours.


Bear in mind that to capture the station, the attacking alliance has already endured 4 reinforce timers of up to 3 days. The defenders have had plenty of opportunity to save their station, and my proposal would still give them an extra 8 hours.

Have mercy. Even invaders need to sleep eventually.

GalF0rgheed
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.10.15 12:46:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: GalF0rgheed on 15/10/2010 12:47:27
This could give the art department something to do too - re design each station environment with crap thrown everywhere and everything broken down.

You WIS people could even later ask for a "space suit" that would allow you to walk in broken stations - a type of exploration maybe allowing some sort of salvage.

Rexthor Hammerfists
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.15 13:02:00 - [17]
 

i like

Limdood
Posted - 2010.10.15 13:20:00 - [18]
 

2 problems i see with the proposal as stated:

1.) station becomes a container, isn't a celestial anymore, etc. - so...how do people get to the station to get their stuff if destroyed? are people going to be expected to bookmark all their outposts in the eventuality they get destroyed so they can retrieve their stuff from the infinity that is space? Also, as stated, it removes a decent PvP/Ambush location to make them no-longer celestials....however i do understand that the goal is to avoid 17 outpost wrecks in a system with a lot of turnover/value.

2.) ships can be accessed via ship hanger, but not redocked. -and- items are accessed from space. - doesn't this seem a bit inconsistent? in order to get ships, you MUST dock, but, since you can't return to the station you can only do this in a pod. I'd suggest a change to make it always be able to be docked at (and treat items in the hanger like a loot can spawned from salvaging a full ship - you can tae from it, but not put stuff in). OR you can make the station NEVER able to be docked at. Ships would have to be removed via hauler or capital ship (for assembled ships). Though you'd likely have to allow contracts to take place at those wrecked stations if that was the case.

Also, on a final note. Why would anyone WANT to destroy an outpost? if there is no drawback to controlling an outpost, and in order to use the outpost demolisher, you'd have to take the station to structure anyways, then why not simply take control of the outpost? who would want to spend 500m to destroy something that would make you money to keep around?

TazDev
Amarr
DRUCKWELLE Evolution
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.15 13:36:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: TazDev on 15/10/2010 13:37:52
Originally by: Limdood


Also, on a final note. Why would anyone WANT to destroy an outpost? if there is no drawback to controlling an outpost, and in order to use the outpost demolisher, you'd have to take the station to structure anyways, then why not simply take control of the outpost? who would want to spend 500m to destroy something that would make you money to keep around?


Because sometimes alliances just start wars to have some fights and suddenly they end up being huge spaceholders, they never wanted to be ;)
Also it is a nice additional option for merc contracts ;)

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.15 14:02:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Limdood
2 problems i see with the proposal as stated:

1.) station becomes a container, isn't a celestial anymore, etc. - so...how do people get to the station to get their stuff if destroyed? are people going to be expected to bookmark all their outposts in the eventuality they get destroyed so they can retrieve their stuff from the infinity that is space?


Outposts are anchored at planets, not in deep space. Even if you've forgotten at which planet the outpost was anchored, it shouldn't take long to find it.

Originally by: Limdood

Also, as stated, it removes a decent PvP/Ambush location to make them no-longer celestials....however i do understand that the goal is to avoid 17 outpost wrecks in a system with a lot of turnover/value.


I dont see how the ambush potential is reduced. People get ambushed at POS, and indeed even at safespots. And yeah we definitely dont want the overview cluttered with wrecks. I dont want to propose anything that makes EVE's UI more difficult or cluttered.

Originally by: Limdood

2.) ships can be accessed via ship hanger, but not redocked. -and- items are accessed from space. - doesn't this seem a bit inconsistent? in order to get ships, you MUST dock, but, since you can't return to the station you can only do this in a pod.


I envisage the Wreck working like a Ship Maintenence Array in a POS. You dont dock at SMAs, you approach them and board a ship inside them. Another alternative to using a pod would be to fly a disposable ship to get to the Wrecked Station, then transfer to your ship in the Wreck.

Originally by: Limdood

I'd suggest a change to make it always be able to be docked at (and treat items in the hanger like a loot can spawned from salvaging a full ship - you can tae from it, but not put stuff in). OR you can make the station NEVER able to be docked at. Ships would have to be removed via hauler or capital ship (for assembled ships). Though you'd likely have to allow contracts to take place at those wrecked stations if that was the case.


I definitely dont want to see ships able to dock at Wrecked stations because that cancels out half the reason for wrecking them in the first place.

Originally by: Limdood

Also, on a final note. Why would anyone WANT to destroy an outpost? if there is no drawback to controlling an outpost, and in order to use the outpost demolisher, you'd have to take the station to structure anyways, then why not simply take control of the outpost? who would want to spend 500m to destroy something that would make you money to keep around?


There are many reasons to want to wrreck an outpost.

(1) Poorly placed outposts can be a horrible strategic liability.

(2) Revenge, role-playing reasons or just plain spite.

(3) Sabotage - remember, anyone can anchor the Demolition module, so it offers excellent game play opportunities for 3rd parties to mix things up. Imagine ransoming a station!

(4) Scorched Earth - the defending alliance might want to stop a valuable staaging point falling in to hostile hands.

(5) Complacency - alliances with many many stations are incredibly dificult to invade, and they have become complacent about losing a station or two to smaller alliances, because they can just exhaust their opponents in to submission with reinforce timer griefing. Station Wrecking allows smaller invaders the opportunity to do lasting damage if the defenders try to rely on this strategy.

(6) Gameplay - some people dont like the idea of 0.0 being literally filled with outposts, and would prefer to see empty space

(7) Economics - if you have a station, you also need to pay for a hub, cyno jammer POS etc etc. A station that isn't much used is an economic liability.

Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.10.15 14:29:00 - [21]
 

Although I am more biased towards a 'drop table' kind of solution, any option to destroy outposts is better than none.

Limdood
Posted - 2010.10.15 15:32:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Limdood
stuff
stuff


very well refuted, i like your arguments and reasons and i support this now

/bandwagon Cool

M'aak'han
Posted - 2010.10.15 16:45:00 - [23]
 

Definitely a step in the right direction.

I'm not very fond of the "wrecking module" idea though, I'd rather see some sort of "bring enough explosives, fill up the station, and BOOM !" (this could use a several hours long timer too, operatives need time to carefully place charges at weak spots Twisted Evil)

But maybe this will lead to some complete removal of wrecked outposts someday. Maybe they could slowly degrade and disappear after a year or so (wild dreams... Razz)

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.15 17:25:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: M'aak'han
Definitely a step in the right direction.

I'm not very fond of the "wrecking module" idea though, I'd rather see some sort of "bring enough explosives, fill up the station, and BOOM !" (this could use a several hours long timer too, operatives need time to carefully place charges at weak spots Twisted Evil)

But maybe this will lead to some complete removal of wrecked outposts someday. Maybe they could slowly degrade and disappear after a year or so (wild dreams... Razz)


The precise cinematics of how the station is destroyed aren't really important - heck, rather than make this a deployable module, this could one day be an amazing Incarna gameplay option if CCP so desired, as long as the basic structure is preserved re: sov requirements and timers. Making it a deployable SBU-style object was rather unimaginative on my part, and I'd love to hear more interesting suggestions such as yours.

Shobon Welp
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2010.10.15 18:26:00 - [25]
 

Taking the idea of attackable station services and really giving the idea teeth is something I do like the sound of.

Not sure I'd go quite as far as described here though.

Arklan1
Dunedain Rangers
Posted - 2010.10.15 22:21:00 - [26]
 

hells yea!

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.10.15 22:25:00 - [27]
 

WHEREAS~ Obvious troll because anyone with internet can see there isnt even 1 outpost in every 10 systems in 0.0
WHEREAS~ this plan would make the vast majority except areas held by the same alliance for an incredibly long time complete ****ing wastelends because people would simply get tired of rebuilding. Increasing the population in empire and decreasing that in 0.0 further.

Great plan!

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.10.15 23:29:00 - [28]
 

Some very interesting creative ideas in this proposal...deserves some consideration by CCP, I think!

Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2010.10.15 23:42:00 - [29]
 

Old but awesome idea, and for once very well structured. I would however make it more expensive, so that you elevate it to a weapon of disdain annex mass destruction.

Just one question, what about a possible angle for rebuilding the outpost. There is after all, an empty hulk of transformed veldspar left in space. Could be a nice isk sink.

Fournone
Posted - 2010.10.15 23:47:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
WHEREAS~ Obvious troll because anyone with internet can see there isnt even 1 outpost in every 10 systems in 0.0

*cough*providence*cough*

Quote:
WHEREAS~ this plan would make the vast majority except areas held by the same alliance for an incredibly long time complete ****ing wastelends because people would simply get tired of rebuilding. Increasing the population in empire and decreasing that in 0.0 further.


If you build it, more will come, if you desteroy it, they will rebuild.
If you fought and died fro this space, defending or attacking, ofc you'll rebuild, otherwise whats the point?

Quote:
Great plan!


yep, dominion was an amazing expansion.


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