Failing In So Many Ways

Icon

Liang Nuren – Failing In So Many Ways

NPC 0.0 and Destructible Station Services

The CSM minutes were recently released and in it they said:

Station Services on NPC Nullsec Stations
The CSM noted that the most optimal alliance type in terms of income and power projection presently has no sov at all; the so-called ‘Iceberg’ alliances which live in NPC stations, amass supercapitals, and hold high-value moons for income. (This is because the largest sources of income available to alliances are technetium moons, which have no requirement of sov-holding, and these income sources are easily defended by a large supercapital fleet. By contrast, holding sov is a drain on alliance income.)

The CSM noted that if outposts are going to be destructible, it is important for CCP to balance NPC nullsec stations as well. The CSM advocated adding station services to NPC nullsec stations which can be disabled, like the services on a conquerable station. Unlike a conquerable station’s services, which need to be repaired by players, these NPC station services would regenerate over time.  The CSM stated that something like this is necessary so that sov-holding alliances can retaliate against non-sov alliances using NPC stations as risk-free launchpads for invasion against sovholders. The CSM noted that it doesn’t wish to have an entire region of NPC stations disabled, which is why regeneration of disabled services on NPC stations is needed. The CSM is concerned by the use of NPC stations in large-scale alliance warfare, but at the same time does not want retaliatory attacks against the stations to unduly impact small-gang activity.

CCP offered a suggestion of having a capital-only docking service added to NPC stations that could be disabled. The CSM agreed that this might work, as long as the service would regenerate over time.

I contend that the CSM is wholly wrong in this matter.  The way to counter people living in nullsec stations already exists and has been in use for quite a number of years now. You have to remember that just because the rule set governing NPC space – whether high sec, low sec, or NPC 0.0 – is different from sov 0.0 doesn’t make it wrong. Variety in the rules of space is actually a good thing – and I might even argue that raiders attacking sov space from NPC 0.0 is also a good thing.

Sov holders should have access to exactly the same options as anyone else already living in any particular NPC space – and just like anyone else that wants to attack a group of people living in NPC space, a sov holder should have to physically occupy the space in question and deprive your enemies of the opportunity to use that space. Yes, its different… and yes thats ok. Its even a good thing.

I originally formulated this thought here.

Advertisements

Filed under: Eve, Gaming, , , ,

5 Responses

  1. Jenni Concarnadine says:

    If the NPC stations are to be made capable of being disabled, then it is *vital* that provision be made for the regeneration to be accelerated by the provision of materiel from outside. Only in this way will hi-sec carebears be encouraged to run relief convoys down into null-sec to “help their beleagured brothers and sisters”.
    They could be rewarded by the NPC stations gifting them small amounts of low-sec/0.0 resources (which they would, of course, have to fly *back* to hi-sec to use, or sell in 0.0)

    • Liang Nuren says:

      I am personally unwilling to entertain the idea that NPC station services need to be attackable, really. NPC space already has a working dynamic and they need to enhance that dynamic – not destroy it at the whim of sov 0.0 alliance leaders.

      • Serpentine Logic says:

        Seleene has a thing on his blog. It boils down to destructable npc station services being OK because nothing is off the table in the context of sweeping changes to nullsec life.

      • Liang Nuren says:

        Yeah I tried to comment on that blog post but apparently I’m not allowed to. I left my comments on his Eve-O thread.

  2. Lyrrashae says:

    “Yeah I tried to comment on that blog post but apparently I’m not allowed to.” (Liang Nuren)

    Purely co-incidental and un-intended, I’m sure…[/cynicism]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: