Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Drave McClay
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 00:20:00 -
[31]
yes
|
KeratinBoy
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 00:21:00 -
[32]
Makes sense to me. Landlord gets to boot folks and all that.
|
WheatGrass
Silent but Friendly
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 04:46:00 -
[33]
Edited by: WheatGrass on 22/07/2009 04:46:30 supported
|
Hesod Adee
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 05:06:00 -
[34]
|
isqander
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 05:34:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Treelox NOT SUPPORTED
The current mechanic is perfectly within the griefing/pvping spirt of EVE. If it was infinite maybe I would say it should be changed, but 2 months sounds like an sufficent ammount of time to allow the losers get just a tad of revenge on the new station owners.
But it prevents the attackers from benefiting from the "griefing/pvping" of conquering a station. Also, it's a dumb and certainly unintentional mechanic that ties up a bunch of manhours trying to figure out who owns which office.
|
Lucas Avidius
Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 11:44:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Drake Draconis There should be a 15 to 30 day "Eviction Notice" and then all the stuffs get trashed or turned over to the new owner.
Supported.
The eviction notice was when the station was getting shot for the purpose of taking it.
Honestly, station owners should just be able to take everything except the ship a POD is sitting in. Give the owner a list of all player hangers, impounded corp stuff, and corp offices about to be closed, and let them take it all during the first day after they take the station and have system sovereignty.
0.0 is supposed to be rough, and something like this would undoubtedly clean up a bunch of hangers that haven't been accessed in years.
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 12:13:00 -
[37]
Why.
Been like the way it is for years. Countless of people, corporations and alliances have petitioned to change the system.
Having seen the "issue" a bunch of times from both ends all I can say is that it fits with the system. It's like collateral damage, or infrastructural damage in a war, it is not supposed to end that easily. There is such a thing as an aftermath.
Besides, you can always use the interface to both mess with the fees and prevent the continuation of office renting.
Once upon a time I had a little spy alt in a corp which had its outpost captured by Goonswarm, I fondly remember the whining of the CEO for getting his stuff locked up, but I also fondly remember the whining of the members as Goons teased them around in local with it. At the same time on the other alt there was minor *****ing by fellow goonies about not being unable to unrent the hostile offices.
Once upon another time and on yet another goonie alt we had a bit of fun with messing around over an office in an outpost we (as goons) had lost. Preventing the bad peeps to rent an office to continue their campaign and all that. How fun it was to get told how the bad peeps would not see use of the station for another month and a half. This obviously after right before losing the outpost making sure all the slots were rented by friendlies.
So, the proposal really confuses me a bit. Since pretty much everyone has two faces in EVE, is this just a matter of changing faces as the circumstances warrant?
If so, this is starting to remind me a bit of the whole supercapital issue drama, where all that matters is to whine about them when you face them, and to declare them ueber fun when you use them.
But, back on topic. Offices in 0.0 outposts are a part of warfare. Risk, reward, consequences, time delays, infrastructural damage, we all know the drill. I fail to see the reason to change it now that we all have dealt with this for years on end, and as we all have used the current system from all sides of the coin.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 15:26:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 22/07/2009 15:28:04
Originally by: Zastrow J If they sieze an outpost from a hostile alliance, generally the hostile alliance will rent all the office space on the way out to "salt the earth".
So essentially they can sabotage the station so that you can't use all its feature immediately as you seize it?
Unbelievable, no one in RL would do that!
Standard tactic in RL and in most games when you conquer something you need to repair it or rebuild part of the structure.
2 months can be long, but I don't see any reason why you should have access to all the base functions immediately.
Originally by: darius mclever You should be able to deny them renewal. and any forced unrent should have a grace period of 2-4 weeks.
Much more reasonable than the OP.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 15:30:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Lucas Avidius
Originally by: Drake Draconis There should be a 15 to 30 day "Eviction Notice" and then all the stuffs get trashed or turned over to the new owner.
Supported.
The eviction notice was when the station was getting shot for the purpose of taking it.
Honestly, station owners should just be able to take everything except the ship a POD is sitting in. Give the owner a list of all player hangers, impounded corp stuff, and corp offices about to be closed, and let them take it all during the first day after they take the station and have system sovereignty.
0.0 is supposed to be rough, and something like this would undoubtedly clean up a bunch of hangers that haven't been accessed in years.
Rough to rough, the leaving owner should have the option to detonate all the ammo and stuff on leaving, doing an high level of damage and requiring extensive repair from the new owner.
|
Slave 2739FKZ
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 16:27:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Drake Draconis There should be a 15 to 30 day "Eviction Notice" and then all the stuffs get trashed or turned over to the new owner.
Supported.
This.
|
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 16:57:00 -
[41]
Originally by: iP0D Why.
2 months is an unreasonably long length of time
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 17:11:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Zastrow J
Originally by: iP0D Why.
2 months is an unreasonably long length of time
Deal with it. Everybody deals with it, everybody uses it, everybody abuses it.
Goonswarm has conquered outposts, and had fun messing up office fees for the odd idiot still paying them as well as simply using the management interface to lock them out. The timers complicated things, but people worked around it. That is planning and teamwork.
Goonswarm has lost outposts, and had fun messing up people's campaign plannings by locking down all the offices for as long as possible. The timers worked to the advantage, for planning and teamwork.
Everyone active on the playing field of 0.0 has dealt with both sides of the coin over time.
You're a CSM member Zastrow, it is not too much to ask to provide a rationale here, a proper one Yes two months is a long time, but no it is not game breaking, and everyone deals with this the same way. It is a factor in campaign planning, which everybody uses for both sides of the coin. Two months is a neglegible timeframe in the ebb and tide of 0.0 warfare.
So again, why change this? All the argumentation provided simply says "it is too long". That's not good enough, if not for the part of risk/reward/consequences then on a simple game mechanic level: billing & renewal.
|
Verys
Burning Technologies Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 18:10:00 -
[43]
Originally by: iP0D
Originally by: Zastrow J
Originally by: iP0D Why.
2 months is an unreasonably long length of time
Deal with it. Everybody deals with it, everybody uses it, everybody abuses it.
And how is that a good reason, to just deal with it. It's obviously a broken mechanic.
You put time and effort into conquering a station/outpost only to have some corp who used to live there grief your newly acquired station. In my opinion you should have full control over the station as you own it. You put time, effort and isk into it to gain control over the station to claim it as your own and you can still get messed around with in your own station.
Your half-baked reasoning of how much teamwork it is doesn't stand. How is it teamwork to just prolong all your rent times to 2 months just before you station gets conquered? The only thing I see is a broken mechanic being abused to the end.
More control to the actual owners of the station so definitely a support.
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 19:13:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Verys
Originally by: iP0D
Originally by: Zastrow J
Originally by: iP0D Why.
2 months is an unreasonably long length of time
Deal with it. Everybody deals with it, everybody uses it, everybody abuses it.
And how is that a good reason, to just deal with it. It's obviously a broken mechanic.
What makes it "obviously". It's always been the case, and everyone has both suffered and used the timeframe that results from this mechanism.
Originally by: Verys
You put time and effort into conquering a station/outpost only to have some corp who used to live there grief your newly acquired station. In my opinion you should have full control over the station as you own it. You put time, effort and isk into it to gain control over the station to claim it as your own and you can still get messed around with in your own station.
The griefing as you call it, is part of EVE's gameplay. Granted the past year and a half, maybe two, have seen the game get a bit softer, but especially in "endgame content" where the stakes are so high I can't see anything wrong with it.
Quite frankly, if this is griefing, one could even call kiting pos shields griefing. Or shooting station services, perhaps once a station is captured repairing the services you shot should suddenly be repaired by a single quick click of a button on the management interface ...
I do agree that whoever conquers an outpost should get full control over it. That is already the case. But as with everything in warfare nothing (well, almost nothing, you can always disband someone's alliance ) is instanteneous. Everything takes at minimum time and effort.
Now given that everyone who plays the 0.0 game both suffers and uses this mechanism I get confused on why a change would be needed. Taking into account the level of gameplay and how people play it to the best of their abilities it has never stopped anyone from waging war, on the contrary, in many cases it has been used as a strategic tool.
Originally by: Verys
Your half-baked reasoning of how much teamwork it is doesn't stand. How is it teamwork to just prolong all your rent times to 2 months just before you station gets conquered? The only thing I see is a broken mechanic being abused to the end.
It's not half baked reasoning I'm simply trying to get Zastrow to clarify his reasoning, after all this is something which he, and everyone who plays on that level in 0.0 has stumbled into, and both endured and put to use.
The rent times are not "prolonged" to 2 months btw, the timer comes from the billing & renewal mechanism.
The abuse, as you call it, depends completely on where someone stands over time. In the case of Goonswarm for example it has been both something to work around, as something which has been used to hamper the progress or operations of opponents.
It just strikes me as odd, to suddenly put this on the table, where the mechanism has been both endured and put to use. Hence the question to clarify beyond the point of "too long"
It isn't a broken mechanism as it works as intended, it is not even a case of dodgy intended use. The "abuse" element derives from player behaviour. But perhaps it is simply a case of people changing their views depending on their position in game, that I could understand.
|
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 00:00:00 -
[45]
Originally by: iP0D It's always been the case, and everyone has both suffered and used the timeframe that results from this mechanism.
If this is your argument then you might as well disband the CSM and close the feedback forums. The length of time a bad mechanic has been implemented is not a good justification for the preservation of the status quo.
I've stated my position in clear terms: 2 months is an unreasonable time to make a victorious corporation wait for an office slot to open up in a station they now own.
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 00:26:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Zastrow J
Originally by: iP0D It's always been the case, and everyone has both suffered and used the timeframe that results from this mechanism.
If this is your argument then you might as well disband the CSM and close the feedback forums. The length of time a bad mechanic has been implemented is not a good justification for the preservation of the status quo.
I've stated my position in clear terms: 2 months is an unreasonable time to make a victorious corporation wait for an office slot to open up in a station they now own.
As CSM you should do better then one item forum quotes If that is the standard they might as well disband the CSM and close the feedback forums.
The two month timeframe is not a problem. If the timer is to be changed, cool, but it'll have to be for a different and more solid reason then just "we don't like it cause right now for our current and near future in game situation it does not work for us"
Aside of disbanding alliances or people throwing in the towel (cases in which unrenting is rather easily assisted or arranged anyhow), two months is never an unreasonable timeframe for developments to take their course really, warfare goes back and forward after all. We have seen this all over the map over the years.
Since wars always have timeframes attached which are undeterminable and where planning always requires day to day management (and often crisis management in the face of challenges) - and heck, you've used this mechanic to your advantage and had to work around it - why should offices and their renting mechanics be different from any other sort of war processes (or even post war cleanup processes) all of a sudden?
|
Larkonis Trassler
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 00:59:00 -
[47]
I would say refund any bills for outstanding rents that have been paid so that the clock runs out on the current rent. That way instead of waiting a maximum of two months you're waiting anywhere between 1 minute and 1 month after taking the station depending on the remaining rent on the office.
2 months is a bit harsh but equally gaining instant control seems equally harsh. I see no problem with people salting the Earth behind them.
I'm sure everyone is guilty of this tactic at one point or another, just because you happen to be a victim of it now doesn't mean that a change should be implemented.
FOR SALE: ALLIANCE TOURNAMENT 7 SLOT |
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 01:17:00 -
[48]
If your insinuation is that I am only bringing this topic up because of something happening to me in game currently, then you're incorrect. Goonfleet has an office in all of our recently acquired outposts, including JLO- which we acquired a couple days ago. However, it is true that this was the event that brought it to the forefront of my mind, as I've had the same thoughts every time we've won or lost a station in the past couple years.
I've used it myself before too. When Goonswarm abandoned the south to move to Delve, I personally made sure every last office slot in every outpost we abandoned had all of their office space rented out.
I could sit here and tell stories all day but the bottom line is that it's a bad mechanic. The only recourse to a conquering force in the current mechanics is to wait 2 months, renew your eve subscription twice, before you're guaranteed an office. Under my proposal, the recourse for the aggrieved party would be to take their station back, something which could be done in a much shorter timeframe and encourages attacks and space fighting. Which is the better policy?
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 01:47:00 -
[49]
Supported ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic |
Lord Aftermath
The Aftermath.
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 03:13:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Treelox NOT SUPPORTED
The current mechanic is perfectly within the griefing/pvping spirt of EVE. If it was infinite maybe I would say it should be changed, but 2 months sounds like an sufficent ammount of time to allow the losers get just a tad of revenge on the new station owners.
I disagree. I am in full support of this idea.
|
|
Zenhexzen
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 07:51:00 -
[51]
|
Wulfnor
Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 16:33:00 -
[52]
As much as I would like there to be some way to get offices to come out sooner I am not sure this is the way.
Corp A gets rent isk from Corp B. Corp G takes over station and voids rental. Sounds like Corp B has paid isk for something they dont get. Even if you refund the isk are you going to take it from Corp G who never had it or forcing Corp A to cough up isk.
Second why force Corp B to pay impound? Again you are making Corp B pay.
If as you say two months is adequate time to fight to retake a station under the old way Corp B is back in business upon friendly retake because they still have the office. The new way they have no office and have to pay to get their items back.
Third what about a griefer gone mad? Corp G has a spy who suddenly forces all stations it controls to unrent. I see the proposal opening a new area to griefers.
I am sorry but the fact the present system maybe a bad mechanic doesn't make this proposal a better one.
If you want to play with unrenting why not fix another aspect of it that has not changed since day one of eve: to unrent you must be physically present at the station.
Why not champion remote unrenting?
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 17:43:00 -
[53]
Supported if you just remove the ability for the rent to be renewed.
That pairs it down to 30 days which is well within reason. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 18:18:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 31/07/2009 18:18:27 If I was going to take over the station.. I'd gut it... vent the damn thing to space... and repair it.
Frak the offices and there so called renters.
Leave or die.
: O P it now belongs to its new owner.
I have trouble understanding why or how this is acceptable(Inability to evict previous renters) short of blowing the station to hell. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Staplerfahrer Klaus
Gamma Haulers Against Drama GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 06:18:00 -
[55]
____________________
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 09:07:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Drake Draconis Edited by: Drake Draconis on 31/07/2009 18:18:27 If I was going to take over the station.. I'd gut it... vent the damn thing to space... and repair it.
Frak the offices and there so called renters.
Leave or die.
: O P it now belongs to its new owner.
I have trouble understanding why or how this is acceptable(Inability to evict previous renters) short of blowing the station to hell.
Sure, but if I was losing the station I would: - dump all the minerals in space around the station so that they would become a hazard for navigation (damaging the ships every time you dock or undock) and would be almost unrecoverable (needing something like a gas harvesting ship and a lot of time); - detonate all the stuff I can't move away, doing it in the most damaging way possible; - went all the oxygen and water reserves so that the new owners need to replace them; - destroy all the computer and heavy machinery I can destroy.
So that the new owner would get a almost useless wreck and probably would spend less time building a station from scratch than repairing the old station (that probably would be full of booby traps too).
Yes, after all that the offices would be freely available from the first second.
Could be a nice idea for the Walk in Station expansion.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |