@pirren well girlfriend, next time you need help taking a station don't bother asking me again. You asked for my definition of anti-social, go look in a mirror.

Evidently your reading comprehension skills are right up there with your social skills, did you not read the OP, until a minimum of 36 hours after a razing, station is unusable for repair.

Omniwhore61, so you agree that I am your boyfriend, don't you?

And sure, OP is for the win, so don't ask me to repeat it again.

Next time, post your offtopic here, please:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/8

I like this. It levels the playing field, small groups have a goal. Let's face it, no matter how good we are we're never going to have the numbers the non pirates have, we won't be able to hold a station until we get options for adding and automating defenses.

This idea gives us a reason to spend time and credits trying to take over a station, because as it stands we know as soon as we log off we'll lose it again. If we had this implemented we'd have a reason to attack and player interaction would go up.

Win/win.

But hay that means TGFT and friends couldn't log-in during odd hours to take stations when normal people are either sleeping or working!

+1 to OP. Lecter always has a terrific sense of balance and it looks all good to me.

It shouldn't be right to live in an unheard of timezone and just take a station with relative ease while everyone sleeps.

It shouldn't be right to live in an unheard of timezone and just take a station with relative ease while everyone sleeps.

But it's okay to live in an unheard of timezone, log on for a few minutes, and completely ruin a station for hours or days, and then rinse and repeat? This sounds like people who can't hold on to stations wanting to ruin conquerable stations for everyone else. "If I can't hold a station, then no else should be able to either". I don't think so. This would be way too hard to defend against, for anyone. All the stations would be in a constant state of uselessness and it would be nearly impossible to prevent.

If you don't have the numbers to hold a station, you can't hold a station. That's it. There are advantages to having allies and greater numbers, as it should be.

I think the point is being missed by a few here. The goal is to give groups who can't hold the station a reason to try their hand at Conquer the Station anyway as it is in the contesting not the holding that the game delivers fun to its players. It might be better if the disabling effects were shorter than in the OP, though.

Then I suggest a benefit to temporarily capturing a station for the attackers as opposed to just a punishment for those who lost it. Even if the intentions were good, this current suggestion is way too exploitable. Conquering a station for a few minutes is really easy, and this suggestion would make it so that conquering a station for just a few minutes every other day or so would be enough to do incredibly serious damage.

Maybe once the stations are worth more and have crafting and stuff tied in, successfully capturing a station would give the attackers x percent of the monetary value of the station that had been earned by the previous owners. Then, even if a small group couldn't hold the station very long, their short conquest would have a real benefit. It would also hurt the previous owners too because they'd lose some of the money/resources/assets they worked to earn. Obviously the content required for this idea to work isn't in the game yet, but hopefully it will be soon.

I like something close to that, but:

Once conquested, an Option is offered to conqueror, to keep station or 'razor' it, when:
1) Station becomes not owned by anyone
2) All stored goods are 'kicked' outside station
3) Stored ships are scraped
4) All defenses goes offline - turrets and guards - except ONE turret, to permit reconquest.
5) Whoever conquers station next will have to resupply it to have defenses and repairs. Only missions requesting turrets, repair kits, hull plates, etc, are offered then.

This suits very fine with the proposed "Limited Station Reserves". No time limits imposed, once station is reconquest and ressuplied it resumes operational.

So it makes more sense, and foster the 'production based economy' since, to have 10 defense turrets one must bring in 10 gauss turrets and 10 targeting systems, for example.

An addition to the game where the purpose only serves to make someone else's day miserable just won't make it into the game.

I think the dynamic economy (with blockades of needed goods to stations, etc.) will prove a far more effective and engaging multiplayer tool to bring those who feel incapable of taking and holding a station into the mix than a "feature" which boils down to the following: "you know what? I don't have the manpower to take and hold a station, so I'll just ruin the station for others." Real-world analogs aside (remember, people, that this is a GAME), it just isn't going to happen.

Given the insanity of some of the proposals here, which include attempting to overcome manpower with a simple game mechanic... I'm beginning to think that I've posted below the troll line.

Predictably, those who can only benefit from a grinding stagnation whine the loudest. Get the sand out of your vaginas, [VPR]s.

Atice, one thing made me change my mind.

Consider that one conquers his enemy's station. Why should he respect the stored good there? Or if he is a pirate who steal traders for living, why not make profit from stations stored items?

Also, from a pirate / privateer point of view, the station is just a bigger static ship. Once he conquers it, he wants to loot its storages. So on my previous idea, item (2),instead of ejecting, transfer all goods to stations' conquerors.

That gives 2 alternatives to conqueror:
+Honour trade laws and respect ownership of stored items
-Be a pirate and loot the stored items.

And on my previous idea, it would become:
1) Station belongs to conqueror
2) All stored goods are transfered to conqueror
3) All stored ships are transfered to conqueror
4) All defeses goes offline
5) Conqueror must resupply station to rebuild defenses

Lector, justify why makes more sense 'razor' a station instead of owning its goods?

Alloh, I hear you. But as I said, we're playing a game, not the real world. Kierky was right on the money when he said It shouldn't be right to live in an unheard of timezone and just take a station with relative ease while everyone sleeps... he just didn't know he was supporting my point when it said it.

lecter, as for whining... this entire suggestion is a whine.

edit:
wait for the freaking benefits to owning a station before you starting talking about making owning a station pointless due to silly game mechanics. some day there will be a benefit to owning the stations, and at that time you can sack all the stations, manufacture whatever the hell you want, then let the station be retaken later and you've gotten your benefit. If you look at the history of this game, nothing along these lines (where there is little upside for one side and significant downside for another) has never gotten implemented. And with that thought... I'm stepping out of the thread.

Yeah. I think it's safe to say that this will never get implemented as suggested. Anyone who has a good understanding of the conquest mechanics knows that this would ruin the entire thing. All the stations would constantly be "scorched" or "razed" or whatever and there's nothing anyone could do about it.

My counter suggestion basically allows new owners to pirate from previous owners, and I think that is a much more elegant and reasonable idea. It better accomplishes what this suggestion attempted to accomplish, which is to give a reason to conquer a station when you know you can't hold it for long.

I knew vpr, and tgft would bellyache about this asap, I like the idea, for the selfish reason that it would allow me to irritate the traders.

"An addition to the game where the purpose only serves to make someone else's day miserable just won't make it into the game."

If not being able to dock at a useless station for 12 hours on a video game, ruins your day Atice, then I feel sorry for you.

argh. guess I'm back in the thread.

favrewebelieve: you know what I meant. moreover, what is the point of keeping people from docking in a "useless station", if not to cause annoyance? And if causing annoyance is the only upside... then I stand by my point that there's no chance that it'll make it into the game.

And unless anyone else makes inane comments like that, I'll once again leave the thread.

I wouldn't object to something like this if the timeframes were shortened and/or there was a way players could work together to repair a razed station earlier. Say after it was razed anyone could dock there (with no repairs, ships, inventory yadda yadda) and take a group mission in wich certain items wold be brought to the station to repair it early in wich case the station returns to its normal state... or something. Thats off the top of my head, but it would be cool to see something like the OP just with less severe consequence. However, if players could raze stations, there should be more benefits to players that actually hold the station. Maybe if players held the station for a certain amount of time they could get some specialty item or whatever.

Strats idea is interesting also, in the way that a station isn't totally disabled but you can still gain some kind of asset. (ships credits, whatever).

-Niut

+1 to repair missions, requiring significant amounts of stuff to execute

I think that assets should turn over to the conquerers. If you leave ships, materials and weapons in the station and lose possession of the station, the conquerers should be able to take whatever the hell they want. It's silly that a large group can take and hold a station and not lose anything if another group takes it away.

Perhaps the ransack and time limits and all that are unnecessary. All we really need is for station holders to face a loss if they lose their station, and for new conquerers to have something to conquer for.