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

BuRniZZ
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.16 00:50:00 - [31]
 

Got my support. Say no to Stationshooting online!

Trelayne
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.16 02:47:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Trelayne on 16/10/2010 02:47:55
Nice idea malc big thumbs up from me! Like the idea of it being tied to incarna and saboteurs too Twisted Evil

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute

Posted - 2010.10.16 05:01:00 - [33]
 

I don't like the idea of destroying a station just by pressing a button, but I do like this idea. I would like it to be more of a death star type thing. You build a death star and its a one shot deal, it travels to its target system slowly and then takes a few days to power up its main gun and then wrecks the station. Should be a way to cause some more fights as well.

It could even be the basis for a new expansion, an expansion based on a giant death sphere that wrecks stations is about 100x more interesting then some more sansha rats.

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2010.10.16 05:44:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: BuRniZZ
Got my support. Say no to Stationshooting online!

what part of the following did you not understand?:
Quote:
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).


Cautious support. If implemented, the rate of destruction and consequences should be analyzed for impact on 0.0 population drop. The destruction requirements should then be rebalanced.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.16 07:52:00 - [35]
 

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


~530 outposts, ~3000 sov 0.0 systems.

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

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!


Outposts cost less than an Aeon at market prices these days.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.16 09:36:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Vaal Erit
I don't like the idea of destroying a station just by pressing a button, but I do like this idea. I would like it to be more of a death star type thing. You build a death star and its a one shot deal, it travels to its target system slowly and then takes a few days to power up its main gun and then wrecks the station. Should be a way to cause some more fights as well.

It could even be the basis for a new expansion, an expansion based on a giant death sphere that wrecks stations is about 100x more interesting then some more sansha rats.



Oh yes! A ship that flies something like a freighter, huge and slow, you fly it to a station, and activate destruct mode, like a 10 minute seige timer or something. Replace the 12 hour wait with a slow vulnerable ship that has to be physically moved in to place. Nice, that's much better than a boring anchorable module.

Pascal Almaric
The Solipsist Nation
Posted - 2010.10.16 11:32:00 - [37]
 

Thumbs up.

I think the wrecking module should be more expensive, costly enough that people will (mostly) only use it if they have a strategic reason rather than for lulz.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.10.16 14:39:00 - [38]
 

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


~530 outposts, ~3000 sov 0.0 systems.

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

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!


Outposts cost less than an Aeon at market prices these days.


Aeon's "at market value" are over double what they cost to build because people are stupid. Anyone paying 20b+ for a Supercarrier is getting swindled.

I also notice you fail to provide a link or source of data for your outposts to system ratio. You simply provide a number that is mysteriously the exact ratio you suggested earlier.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.10.16 18:34:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Pascal Almaric
Thumbs up.

I think the wrecking module should be more expensive, costly enough that people will (mostly) only use it if they have a strategic reason rather than for lulz.


You mean like how when Titans were originally introduced they were designed to be so expensive that they'd be a rare sight and surely no alliance would be able to afford more than 1 or 2 of them?

Cost based restrictions never work in EVE. At all. Ever. Attemping to introduce one will simply give the rich superpowers another tool which they can wave around when they need to keep smaller alliances in line.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.16 18:48:00 - [40]
 

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


~530 outposts, ~3000 sov 0.0 systems.

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

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!


Outposts cost less than an Aeon at market prices these days.


Aeon's "at market value" are over double what they cost to build because people are stupid. Anyone paying 20b+ for a Supercarrier is getting swindled.

I also notice you fail to provide a link or source of data for your outposts to system ratio. You simply provide a number that is mysteriously the exact ratio you suggested earlier.


http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.10.16 18:52:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Glyken Touchon on 16/10/2010 18:55:22
Supporting the principle, as it would introduce a new mineral sink.

Make it a capital only module (dreadnaught?).


Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.10.16 21:00:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance


That list seems to count conquerable stations which were spawned from day one of EVE, not just player-constructed outposts.

Xianthar
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.17 08:14:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Malcanis
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance


That list seems to count conquerable stations which were spawned from day one of EVE, not just player-constructed outposts.


Yea it does, but there are only like 50 something conquerable stations, for example 8 of IT's 67 are conquerable stations.

Not that it matters, they can abide by the same rules as outposts IMO.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.17 09:16:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Malcanis
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance


That list seems to count conquerable stations which were spawned from day one of EVE, not just player-constructed outposts.


Why should these be treated differently?

Taudia
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2010.10.17 09:49:00 - [45]
 

Supported, though I have a few gripes with the proposal.

1) If the station wrecks are permanent fixtures, wouldn't we just end up cluttering space with station wrecks instead? Surely a rebuilding mechanism is sensible.

2) I am not sure I understand the mechanic you propose for accessing items in a wrecked station. Is the idea that anyone now has access to everything, in terms for ships and/or items, in that station? if that is the case, the load this would place on the server is completely unjustifiable.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.10.17 10:47:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Malcanis
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance


That list seems to count conquerable stations which were spawned from day one of EVE, not just player-constructed outposts.


Why should these be treated differently?


They probably shouldn't, but you included their numbers in your OP when talking about the amount of outpost systems and rate at which new outposts were being built, which distorts the actual figures somewhat.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.17 11:32:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Malcanis
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance


That list seems to count conquerable stations which were spawned from day one of EVE, not just player-constructed outposts.


Why should these be treated differently?


They probably shouldn't, but you included their numbers in your OP when talking about the amount of outpost systems and rate at which new outposts were being built, which distorts the actual figures somewhat.


At the current rate of outpost creation, a few dozen conquerables are barely a couple of month's worth of building - 30 outposts have been built in the last 35 days, and as it is, player built outposts outnumber them 10:1.

When new outposts are being created at the rate of almost 1 per day, then we have to consider that they're no longer special enough to be immune from destruction.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2010.10.17 13:32:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
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.


Balancing game mechanics purely by cost is seldom a good idea. I'd suggest making it of negligible cost, but tricky to deploy (freighter required).

Quote:
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.


I think a 24-hr timer would be necessary, as any significant changes to outposts would probably need to be done over downtime, as with outpost deployment.

Quote:

Wrecking a station has the following effects:

(1) All station upgrades are irrevocably destroyed




How would this work if all the offices were occupied and removing the upgrades reduced the number of offices?

Quote:

(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.



Presumably R&D jobs in progress at the outpost would be cancelled. What about jobs taking place at starbases elsewhere in the system with the BPO in the outpost?

Also, re medical clones: The default location should transfer back to corp HQ (which is always a station in Empire).

I think making the transition Outpost -> non-Outpost with the remaining conditions you suggest would be quite a lot of work to implement. I think there are 2 other options which would work better:

1. Leave an intact outpost in a permanently crippled state, with all services disabled, all corp assets irrevocably impounded and all docking rights revoked. The owner of the outpost should have the option to rebuild it by deploying a similar device in a similar way, costing maybe half what an outpost costs to build.

2. Remove the outpost entirely, along with everything (items, clones and all) inside it at the time of destruction. I think this is the better option YARRRR!!

Lykouleon
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.10.17 13:40:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Lykouleon on 17/10/2010 13:41:58
Holy F*** someone else in this world that knows how to make a motion based on Roberts Rules of Order. MARRY ME!!!! Shocked

Other than that, supported...but I seriously hope CCP gives it a much cooler name.

edit: stupid support button...

Orb Vex

Posted - 2010.10.17 14:32:00 - [50]
 


Sotemnus
Minmatar
Starkstrom
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.17 15:24:00 - [51]
 

Great idea Smile

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.10.17 15:41:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 17/10/2010 15:49:10
this is very similar to the pillage idea I've heard about outposts.

I agree with the general concept, except that I disagree with destroying medical clones. I think that can create a lot of problems for people. I also think it's not necessary if you keep jump clones alive anyway, why not med clones too? Considering people wont be able to resupply (fit ships, bring in new stuff, etc), people wont want to keep their med clone in a destroyed station anyway. I'm also not sure about treating it as a big corp hangar array, as it would suddenly leave a lot of people's personal items vulnerable for theft (who has access to the container contents, etc).

I have one suggestion: allow people to rebuild the outpost in the same way you build one in the first place. The outpost is wrecked but you can put raw materials into it (like you put in an outpost egg). Once you've filled it up, the outpost can be repaired/rebuilt and once again open for business. This should be a significant cost, of course - but not quite as much as a new outpost. Allowing this mechanic also justifies keeping people's stuff "trapped" in a destroyed outpost. Want your crap back? Rebuild the outpost! This should require sov in the system, obviously.


K'racker
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.10.18 02:58:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: K''racker on 18/10/2010 02:59:47
you want to be able to destroy stations you're losing, while still being able to get your stuff out, at your convenience.

like self destructing a ship, and the modules aren't destroyed, but go into a permanent wreck, that only you can loot.

not supported. if you're that spiteful to deny a station to those who've beaten you, be ready to lose everything, when you pop the station.



EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.10.18 03:18:00 - [54]
 

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


~530 outposts, ~3000 sov 0.0 systems.

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

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!


Outposts cost less than an Aeon at market prices these days.


Aeon's "at market value" are over double what they cost to build because people are stupid. Anyone paying 20b+ for a Supercarrier is getting swindled.

I also notice you fail to provide a link or source of data for your outposts to system ratio. You simply provide a number that is mysteriously the exact ratio you suggested earlier.


http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance


Here is where I point out your "data" only shows the number of player owned outposts vs player owned systems. It does not in fact show the hundreds upon hundreds of completely unconquered space because let's face it, it's largely worthless.

Wenoc
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.18 06:19:00 - [55]
 

Excellent.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.18 06:26:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: K'racker
Edited by: K''racker on 18/10/2010 02:59:47
you want to be able to destroy stations you're losing, while still being able to get your stuff out, at your convenience.

like self destructing a ship, and the modules aren't destroyed, but go into a permanent wreck, that only you can loot.

not supported. if you're that spiteful to deny a station to those who've beaten you, be ready to lose everything, when you pop the station.





Note that wrecking a station would imply having system control for at least 8 hours. That's an odd definition of "beaten".

But even if it weren't what of it? I can self destruct a ship; why not a station? The basis of my proposal is that outposts just aren't that special any more.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.18 06:29:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources


Here is where I point out your "data" only shows the number of player owned outposts vs player owned systems. It does not in fact show the hundreds upon hundreds of completely unconquered space because let's face it, it's largely worthless.


Here is where I point out that you should learn both to read and to count. Maths is really pretty easy once you try to learn it, and there are lots of good people willing to help you start.

After that, you can make a start on basic logic - which will perhaps enable you to explain why the number of claimed systems is in any way relevant.

Once you have done that, then you'll be in a position to possibly make a useful contribution to this thread.

Enlat
Posted - 2010.10.18 09:21:00 - [58]
 

I like that Idea!

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.18 16:52:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 17/10/2010 15:49:10
this is very similar to the pillage idea I've heard about outposts.

I agree with the general concept, except that I disagree with destroying medical clones. I think that can create a lot of problems for people. I also think it's not necessary if you keep jump clones alive anyway, why not med clones too? Considering people wont be able to resupply (fit ships, bring in new stuff, etc), people wont want to keep their med clone in a destroyed station anyway. I'm also not sure about treating it as a big corp hangar array, as it would suddenly leave a lot of people's personal items vulnerable for theft (who has access to the container contents, etc).

I have one suggestion: allow people to rebuild the outpost in the same way you build one in the first place. The outpost is wrecked but you can put raw materials into it (like you put in an outpost egg). Once you've filled it up, the outpost can be repaired/rebuilt and once again open for business. This should be a significant cost, of course - but not quite as much as a new outpost. Allowing this mechanic also justifies keeping people's stuff "trapped" in a destroyed outpost. Want your crap back? Rebuild the outpost! This should require sov in the system, obviously.




I'm not sure that it's really needed to make them recoverable. It's not like it's that hard to build them. However if they are recoverable, then the upgrades should not be.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.10.18 17:20:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: darius mclever on 18/10/2010 18:07:55
to get some real numbers behind the discussion:
SELECT count( `solarSystemID` ) FROM `mapSolarSystems` WHERE `regionID` IN (SELECT `regionID` FROM `mapRegions` WHERE `regionID` < 11000000 AND `factionID` IS NULL) AND `security` <= 0.0;

that returns 2858;

regionID greater than 11000000 are wh space.

Station ( Conquerable 1 ) (typeID=12242) => 23
Station ( Conquerable 2 ) (typeID=12294) => 23
Station ( Conquerable 3 ) (typeID=12295) => 22

total: 68

Caldari Research Outpost (typeID=21642) => 40
Amarr Factory Outpost (typeID=21644) => 174
Gallente Administrative Outpost (typeID=21645) => 60
Minmatar Service Outpost (typeID=21646) => 172

total: 446


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