EVE Search - Sovereignty and starbases, the future!

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Features and Ideas Discussion

Sovereignty and starbases, the future!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 10 post(s)

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.13 14:49:00 - [1] Greetings fellow EVE players. We've come to you for some constructive discussions and suggestions. From player feedback both on the forums and multiple rountables at the fanfest and personal experience in game, we've come to the conclusion that the sovereignty and starbases system needs a serious look at. Claiming and disputing sovereignty is very time consuming, and some people might even say it's boring gasp. We want your ideas to make this system better, or even ideas to make a completely new system. WeFve already come up with some ideas ourselves, but weFre concerned that posting them here and asking for feedback would force you too much onto a certain path. We want to hear your ideas without constraints. Please bear in mind though that they have to be realistic implementation wise. Considering that many players have far more experience than we in dealing with the current system, we will gain a lot from your feedback and ideas. We realize that a change like this would have a huge effect on alliance warfare and if we do a change we have to do it properly. Help us make a system that the majority (or with luck everyone) will be happy with. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:06:00 - [2] Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 13/11/2007 15:12:37 Nevermind, Gestapo got me. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Awox Advanced Logistics	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:12:00 - [3] UT2004 Objective mode.. Make all outposts/conquerables nodes. Stations can be taken in a day. Make this service disruption possible with small gangs, i.e. 10 man cruiser gang can do this if they sit there for an hour doing so. That's all for now.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:14:00 - [4] Originally by: Awox UT2004 Objective mode.. Make all outposts/conquerables nodes. Stations can be taken in a day. Make this service disruption possible with small gangs, i.e. 10 man cruiser gang can do this if they sit there for an hour doing so. That's all for now. Could you explain this idea further please?

Dianabolic Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:17:00 - [5] Can you give us some guidelines as to the kind of stuff you're willing to change? Do you still want POS to be the deciding factor, or can we open up other ideas? (ie based on pilot presence, or whatever) Personally, the best idea I've seen was one where you fought over sovereignty of a planet (most moons covered on a planet = sov of planet) and then planet sov applies to the system. This would drastically reduce the number of towers required to "solidify" a system. The problem is that this still requires POS warfare to break, but limits the tactic of "spam". So, really, is it sovereignty you want to change, or is it starbase warfare? Reikoku Diplomatic Forums

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:26:00 - [6] Originally by: Dianabolic Can you give us some guidelines as to the kind of stuff you're willing to change? Do you still want POS to be the deciding factor, or can we open up other ideas? (ie based on pilot presence, or whatever) Personally, the best idea I've seen was one where you fought over sovereignty of a planet (most moons covered on a planet = sov of planet) and then planet sov applies to the system. This would drastically reduce the number of towers required to "solidify" a system. The problem is that this still requires POS warfare to break, but limits the tactic of "spam". So, really, is it sovereignty you want to change, or is it starbase warfare? Starbases don't need to be the deciding factor, as long as the ideas you come up with are viable for implementation. We want to change sovereignty, whether or not the starbase is the deciding factor, I'm sure starbase warfare will be effected either way we go. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Hellcore Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:31:00 - [7] Just a few (personal) thoughts... Why are glorified moon mining towers the basis for territorial control? Why does the number of moons in a system relate directly to how mind numbing it is to take a system? Why do we have to spend weeks waiting for a user-error in stront management for some sieges to actually come to a conclusion? Why do player timezones dictate siege outcomes to the degree they do currently? (yes I am aware you need to consider tz differences but see the above re: stront management) Why are we forced into node grinding failures of fights to attack or defend, what mechanics ideas do you have to reduce the need to bring such numbers so often? Why are outposts not destroyable or at least able to be dismantled, do you want to see more stations in 0.0 than in empire? Why are we forced to hold space when we wish to simply dominate an opponent and where are the tools for truly destroying infrastructure (see above)? How do you propose to fix "pos spam"?

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:34:00 - [8] Originally by: Hellcore Just a few (personal) thoughts... Why are glorified moon mining towers the basis for territorial control? Why does the number of moons in a system relate directly to how mind numbing it is to take a system? Why do we have to spend weeks waiting for a user-error in stront management for some sieges to actually come to a conclusion? Why do player timezones dictate siege outcomes to the degree they do currently? (yes I am aware you need to consider tz differences but see the above re: stront management) Why are we forced into node grinding failures of fights to attack or defend, what mechanics ideas do you have to reduce the need to bring such numbers so often? Why are outposts not destroyable or at least able to be dismantled, do you want to see more stations in 0.0 than in empire? Why are we forced to hold space when we wish to simply dominate an opponent and where are the tools for truly destroying infrastructure (see above)? How do you propose to fix "pos spam"? We know what the problem is, what we want to hear from you guys is how you would have it. You don't like sovereignty being tied into starbases? Cool, what would you like to see instead? How would you like it all to be?

Hellcore Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:41:00 - [9] Originally by: CCP Zulupark We know what the problem is, what we want to hear from you guys is how you would have it. You don't like sovereignty being tied into starbases? Cool, what would you like to see instead? How would you like it all to be? I know, was just trying to prompt thinking and discussion
Awox Advanced Logistics	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:47:00 - [10] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Awox UT2004 Objective mode.. Make all outposts/conquerables nodes. Stations can be taken in a day. Make this service disruption possible with small gangs, i.e. 10 man cruiser gang can do this if they sit there for an hour doing so. That's all for now. Could you explain this idea further please? Well, UT2004 teams work to capture nodes. Nodes are linked together in a way that it makes the inner-nodes invulnerable to attack until the outer-nodes are taken (Like Sov Capitals) The teams work to attack & conquer the outer-nodes first, then go to work on the inner nodes.. and then they take out the enemies "core". To take the nodes all they need to do is light it up with a special weapon for a short ammount of time.. taking EVE outposts could be like this, you just rock up and hang around for a few hours. Instead of year long battles that kill alliances, you have week-long wars. Hell, smaller territories mean possibly a weekend war..

Dianabolic Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:49:00 - [11] OK, how about making sov in a system all about control of a station? Make stations shootable again, but for "your" sov to apply you have to hold the station for X amount of time (a week?). Sov would only then be useful for the fuel bonii and cyno jammers / bridges etc. 1 stn = sys sov 51% of sys in a cons = cons sov To gain the initial sov to drop the actual tower would require a "sov module" to be placed on a tower for the requisite time? Reikoku Diplomatic Forums
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:49:00 - [12] One thought is to give stations a 'reinforced mode' of their own and get rid of POS sov claims entirely. This would work pretty much like taking down a POS does today, except the station is captured instead of destroyed. You'd probably have to tweak station stats; You could also consider giving the station fitting stats so that it can fit POS modules, etc. This isn't a radical departure from today's system and will probably not be fun unless the owners of the station show up to defend. If they do, that can be great fun. If they don't, well, at least it's just one POS that needs shooting instead of a dozen or more. ----- "I like to loot, especially going to the can of the battleship, sometimes there is a surprise inside, sometimes there is only carp..."
Dianabolic Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:50:00 - [13] Originally by: Awox Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Awox UT2004 Objective mode.. Make all outposts/conquerables nodes. Stations can be taken in a day. Make this service disruption possible with small gangs, i.e. 10 man cruiser gang can do this if they sit there for an hour doing so. That's all for now. Could you explain this idea further please? Well, UT2004 teams work to capture nodes. Nodes are linked together in a way that it makes the inner-nodes invulnerable to attack until the outer-nodes are taken (Like Sov Capitals) The teams work to attack & conquer the outer-nodes first, then go to work on the inner nodes.. and then they take out the enemies "core". To take the nodes all they need to do is light it up with a special weapon for a short ammount of time.. taking EVE outposts could be like this, you just rock up and hang around for a few hours. Instead of year long battles that kill alliances, you have week-long wars. Hell, smaller territories mean possibly a weekend war.. Nice idea, but week long wars, imo, is too short. Reikoku Diplomatic Forums
Smith Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:54:00 - [14] I believe we should keep the large, medium and small starbases but introduce a new Starbase that is a Sovereignty Starbase. These SS's would be what actually control the system. SS's can only be deployed at Planets. SS's must cost alot more than what Large towers cost. These SS's are purely for Sovereignty...no idustry etc. Once the tower is under 95% Shield Strong timers can no longer be set? Limit the ammount of SS you can have in one System. These are just rough ideas. In short Moons = Mining, Planets = Control.
Hellcore Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:57:00 - [15] Maybe the station or outpost itself should be the mechanism for deciding sovereignty? A mighty battle station in itself, able to be slowly chipped away at by an enemy force over at most 2 days, no prolongued reinforced modes (certainly nothing more than 8 hours or so). You could force a choice of industrial services (like currently with refining and factories etc) or defensive services, aka massive turret batteries. In fact I quite like the swap and change station services, given a suitable deployment timer you could prepare for lockdown. In "peace" time you can be more relaxed, keep the factories running but run the risk of your miners getting ganked when undocking. While it might not fix blobs, it would certainly be a lot more fun to attack or defend. Again, just a thought, I'll keep them coming.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2007.11.13 16:10:00 - [16] One POS in system should be enough, as soon as you push for sovereignty this POS must be destroyed for another to make a claim no matter how many more POS' you or the enemy spam, the POS staking the claim should be the deciding factor/battle. This may sound odd that someone having 1 POS in a system retain sovereignty over someone having 10 there but the 1 were there first and were not routed, this being the mechanics the intruder would seem to be content with co-existing under the rule of the former party or put their POS' to better use, like consolidating their previously claimed systems to the point where a POS had to be taken out to even make the 1 POS contest possible perhaps. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 16:11:00 - [17] Not to long ago, i put togther another guys idea http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=530688 This is a link to the thread. Its not a perfect idea, but its a fast and easy idea that could run in the interim. As well, the base mechanic, where moons are contested in order to hold planets in order to hold systems can lead to interesting situations. Other than something like that i dont see how you could really change the sov mechanic without completly upsetting the game in a massive manner. The only things exclusivly i can think up for changing how sov works other than just reducing the nubmer of POSs involved would be to base it on what you are producing [ratting, mining etc] in the area. The other thing i looked at was factional warfare based. Which can be described in short at: Alliances set standings towards single NPC faction to + Alliances gain: Kill Mission of Appropriate Type and of Various Levels and Qualities Spawn in owned stations NPCs of Apropriate type spawn on friendly gates. They will guard alliance forces on grid LP Store of faction appears in each station Friendly NPC Haulers buy items listed where a profit can be made then haul them to the sale Friendly NPCs spawn in belts and mine- listing the product on the local market Secondary Effects Hostile faction NPCs appear in belts Hostile faction NPCs create exploration plexes How it works When enemies kill friendly NPCs the alliance loses standing with the faction when friendlies kill enemy NPCs the alliance gain standing with the faction More standing = More haulers NPC haulers actually hold the items bought/sold. So if you kill one, and they were hauling t2 items, your gang can loot the t2 items So now people are encouraged to both go into space to kill NPC haulers that have bought materials from the enemy and were going to sell them back to them. And people are encouraged to protect those haulers. And there are rats on the gates for enemies to kill to make it harder for alliance enemies to gain cheap minerals through NPC mining ops. And mining ops to kill to do the same. This means enemies have less access to faction gear and it hurts them. Yadda yadda yadda, its not fleshed out. But the whole hold moon=planet control point is a good idea.
Dianabolic Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 16:12:00 - [18] Edited by: Dianabolic on 13/11/2007 16:13:13 To further expand on the "stations = sov" idea: Keep the timers for sov the same. To "flip" or "break" sov you have to hold the station CONTINUOUSLY for 7d. A station that is holding sov should use FUEL (Heavy water? Give it some value :p) Allow pos guns to be anchored on stations, gunners can dock (we don't want invul shields at a stn ty) and "man the guns". Guns can ofc be incap'd etc (this will make repairing them with super caps etc dangerous as there will be no shield you can run inside). The SOV module can only get sov 1 (for outpost deployment), to get anything over that will require a station. If you were to implment this I would say give us 2 months notice that it WILL happen, to allow people to put stations where they want them. Upon implementation if a station is present then it will retain the sov, otherwise sov will drop completely (unless there is the good old sov module). Reikoku Diplomatic Forums
violator2k5 Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 16:14:00 - [19] what happens once sov is finally claimed it would be nice to finally have some sentries placed on the gates / stations. I mean when the station is under attack it would allow for it to defend itself plus it would also give the logistic ships something to do besides sit there and wait for a on-coming hostile fleet. if sov changes hands then the guns will also do the same and only shoot anything that does not have positive standings. ---------------------------- BOB 4 LIFE NOT JUST 4 A DAY ----------------------------
Angelus Custos Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.13 16:17:00 - [20] First off, I have limited 0.0 experience. When i tried it node deaths was the flavour of the month and coupled with lag it drove me away. I did get the wonders of horrible lag still. The main problem is the advantages of focusing an attack. Attacking more than one POS in one system is bad, and many systems at the same time is stupid. So the attacker assemble at one point and the defender have to do the same. I want to move fighting from one moon, to one constellation. Proposal: * Make it easy to disable a POS, how tough need to be balanced with someone with experience, but say It should be doable with 10 BS in 1 hour. * A disabled POS is not possible to destroy but will slowly recharge and reactivate all by itself in say B hours. * A defender can also recharge the POS actively activating it much faster. * Once less than X POS are active in same system AND Y in bordering systems AND Z in constellation, the POS can be put into reinforced (much easier then today), making it untouchable to both sides for a fixed timespan, say 3 days. * Once too few POS are left unreinforced the constellation becomes "deactivated", starting a constellation stront timer (stront is not stored in all POS, but rather in one POS designated as the HQ one or whatever). * While the stront timer tics all POS behave as they always do, reactivating as they should and still possible to reinforce. * Once this timer is up all POS are destroyable. That is they dont enter reinforced, if they are in reinforced they leave it (or maybe they dont... perhaps that would make it too easy to reactivate the const). How hard they are to destroy once deactivated is up to balancers. Perhaps they enter emergency mode and keep defending themselves instead of reinforcing or whatever. * The preassure is moved to the defender to achieve a certain ammount of activated POS at the same time to reactivate the constallation. Once that is done we are back at square one. Or the defenders destroy the POS and put up their own. * I'm thinking deactivation occurs when equal to or less then 20% of the POS are left active, and reactivation when 80%+ are activated. * With less then 5 POS they are always destroyable. * Sov rules are not affected by this, only the way to pop POS. Many factions can activate the same constellation with different setups of POS at the same time. * POS defences need to be nerfed, as do their HP to allow a small force to both survive and disable the POS. * Reactivation should be easy, if you dont leave guards/put up blockades a small defending ninja force will just reactivate the POS. The goal is to force an attacker to attack many systems at once, and keep patrolling them to prevent the defender from reactivating the POS again. It should be impossible to achieve anything without splitting the force if there are even one defender in a basilisk. I think this is in the right direction, but obviously it need tons of refining. Imagine 30 skirmishes all over a constellation with squads hunting other squads while deactivating and reactivating POS all over the place

Two step Amarr Chosen Path	Posted - 2007.11.13 16:45:00 - [21] Make stations shootable. Give them a ton of HP, enough that it would take say 20 dreads 8 hour to take them down. Once they are shot down to 0, they require a large number of parts from empire to repair them. The key to this is that the parts should not be available until the station is at 0, so you cannot stock up in advance. Perhaps have a contract automatically issued to the executor corp of the owning alliance. The parts should be expensive, like 5 billion or so. They should only fit in freighters, and should not be able to be jump bridged/titan bridged up (ideally you wouldn't be able to log out in space with them too). If the parts are not brought to the station in a fixed time period, sov is lost and anyone can capture the station (same mechanics as currently, but refill its HP to the levels they have currently (not the super high new levels)). If the station stays captured for a couple of DTs, the owning alliance gets sov. The reason I like this is because it making claiming sov not just one or two big battles, but a bunch of battles spread throughout a week or so. It also gets some isk out of the system and forces alliances to spend money to hold space. It also has a fun find the freighter convoy phase, which would be a nice opportunity for spying and whatnot to come into play. Do this, leave POSes alone (they would only be for safespots/moon mining anyway) and I think people would be happier.
Kublai Khan Caldari TAOSP Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 16:53:00 - [22] Edited by: Kublai Khan on 13/11/2007 16:54:35 http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=391410 Thread describes modular poses and what poses should have looked like. I hope there is a chance for changing how POS'es are built and what they could do while you do the other changes. With regards to POS changes: different towers for claiming Sov (expensive, requireing lots of fuel, deathstars with lots of guns), logistic towers (to fit cyno towers, jump bridges, cyno jammer and some guns) and industrial pos'es (can fit moon mining arrays and storage modules etc). Another idea: If there was a "outpost tower" implemented: A self sufficient tower that requires no fuel. This is the bast structure for claiminig sov. And it could work in a way similar to the modular pos that was explained in the post i linked above. Once deployed it could have a hangar, but nothing more, and it claims Sov. Only one per system can be built. This structure could then be expanded by building additional modules on it: Repair, Refitting, Cloning and a small factory (just a few slots). It should also be able to construct gun slots on it. Different gun slots (small, medium, large, extra large, ew), and you should be able to construct a whole deal of slots. In addition to the guns we have today there should be some super heavy guns that should only be able to hit capital ships, but with a bunch of these constructed on the outpost, one shouldnt want to drop capitals on it. Would also be win if these guns were mannable from the inside of the Outpost, and possibly have an AoE weapon likewise to the stealth bomber's bombs. A AoE weapon that that would do increasing damage the more ppl on the grid (aka what many have suggested the DD should work like) could be built, to prevent blobbing, damageing friends and foes alike if set off. It could also be an EMP blast or something that disrupts warp drives of all ships around for a certain amount of time (huge HIC bubble around the stn). It could also have remot ECM guns aka to the MS one. There could also be built a layered defence into this so that it wont be just shooting it to reinforced and then to take it. But for instance be so that to kill it half the "Outpost towers" in an constallation would have to be put into reinforced before on can nuke them & let reinforced state last up to a week, where the defender can set the reinforced states. These new "outpost towers" could come in addition to normal outposts that wouldnt be destroyable. Only the real outposts that we have today could have Refining, Factory, Research and Market. Services should be killable like they are today. The real outpost cant be conquered untill the "outpost tower" has been killed and a new one has been built. The ones owning the outpost tower is the ones who can claim the stn. Could say that the "outpost tower" is the powersource of the Outpost or whatever... The real problem here would be to find out how to make the attack of a Outpost tower layered and to not make it into a uber blobfest that poswarfare is today and a battle that happens twice, at reinforcing time and to kill it. Oh and: Remove insurance! Make PvP in 0.0 expensive and help the economy not overheat like it does today! At least for everything bigger than a cruiser!
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar	Posted - 2007.11.13 16:56:00 - [23] Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 13/11/2007 16:57:04 I'd like to suggest just a small change to stront management - make people set off-reinforced hour directly, not micromanage strontium amounts. As far as I understand, stront is there to balance timezones. Commonly, fighting parties are timezone dependent like European or US or Asian alliances. The attack always happens in attackers prime time and/or possibly worst time for the defender. Defenders only hope is stront, before the stront goes off, they have chance to get back from work, ask their wifes for allowance to play whole night, and gather a defense fleet. If they had an alt to micromanage stront, they can set the second battle time to their prime time. But instead of balancing timezones, stront micromanagement makes POS wars take ages by getting POSes in and off reinforced repeatedly. So maybe it would be better, if an Euro alliance was able to simply setup their off-reinforced hours to 20:00 PM GMT. It would requiret 3 days on 100% shield to change this setting. So, defender no longer needs a sleepless guy in POS watching alt, there is no human mistake in setting Your prime time, and there are 2 battles (attackers chosen time and defenders chosen time), rather then ping-pong. Stront would still be required, it would just be used untill the set hour or until it runs out. Second thing that I think would be just amazing but is not a polished idea - have conquerable deadspace zones to fight over and set up player owned plexes. Deadspaces are wonderful tactical enviroments. They enforce maneuvers (no warp in warp out tactics, if You warp out, Your back to the first gate), they can limit ship size (AF useful again!), they can hold instalations that look cool and have meaningful 3D layout. They would be perfect as hard to find covert bases on enemy territory or semi safe low-end carebearing heavens (ah they joy of mining veldspar in deep 0.0). Last but not least - BRING HAULING BACK. What made modern POS wars so boring are really jump logistics. People can hold 100 POSes using fuels from empire bought for money from empire. You cannot kill their Mackinaws (there are none), You cannot kill their supply lines (because they are carriers jumping directly from empire borders), You cannot lay siege by blocking gates (because defenders can operate quite well without gates), You cannot disrupt their operation hunting them on 0.0 entry (because they jump all important stuff anyway). It does not really make a logistical difference if You're keeping a POS in lowsec, deep 0.0 or in the middle of enemy territory. Thats quite bad. POS spam is limited only by finances and people are rich. So, make POS wars limited by ability to fuel POSes with haulers and freighters again. Just make some fuels unable to be jumped or something. This would change everyghing.
Zarch AlDain The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.11.13 17:07:00 - [24] First off - if sticking with POS I really like the idea of basing it on planets. It makes moon selection strategic and as a simple change adds a lot of options to the game. In terms of 'fixing the boredom factor' though I think there are two points: 1. POS warfare is boring 2. POS warfare needs big fleets Now if there were an alternative way to defeat POSes / Sovereignty that did not involve the current POS warfare then that would make things a whole lot more interesting. At the end of the day POS work for many of their intended roles - so I would suggest that the move to use planets rather than moons to determine sovereignty should be made but then an additional mechanism to defeat those POS/Sovereignty claims should be added as well. This then gives attackers two choices, attack the POS directly or do it indirectly. The indirect method should encourage multiple strikes and small gang fast response combat. For example: Sovereignty Beacon In a POS when claiming sovereignty rather than ticking 'claim sovereignty' you could tick 'generate sovereignty beacon'. You can now only change this once per week (reason explained later). If sovereignty is being claimed then a deadspace area will form in the system and at the center of the deadspace area (potentially through several gates) is the beacon. For each level of sov in the system a beacon would appear (1 per sov level, not 1 per pos - for example sov 3 maintained by 1 pos still gives 3 beacons in 3 seperate deadspaces). Pirates appropriate to the local area will automatically come to investigate this new deadspace area (no bosses or overseers though, just a few pirates to add interest). The Sovereignty beacon itself will be in the final room of the deadspace and can be attacked. It should have enough hit points that a gang of 5 to 10 battleships take around 20 minutes to kill it. It will use area effect nosferatus on all hostile ships in the final deadspace room and use that to recharge its own shields, so the more hostile ships that are present the faster its shields recharge. Once the beacon is reduced to 0 shield it is disabled and will remain disabled for 13 hours, then its shields will start to recharge and it will be enabled again. Ok, so that is the beacon. You need to run in through deadspace gates (so no capital ships, no instant warping in and out). The area of effect means it is actually counter-productive to bring too many ships, etc. But why attack it? And why defend it? Quite simply - if the sovereignty beacons in your system are disabled the following effects apply: 25% disabled (only possible on sov 3 or 4): No fuel can be added to the normal fuel bay of sovereignty claiming star bases. 50% disabled (possible on sov 2 or higher): No fuel can be added or removed from the normal fuel bay of sovereignty claiming star bases. 75% disabled: No fuel or strontium can be added to sov starbases 100% disabled: No fuel or strontium can be added or removed from sov starbases This is why you can only change sov claiming once per week, to stop you turning off Sov refueling then turning it on again. So how would this work in practice? I have a sovereignty 3 system with 3 large POS. The enemy are trying to make life difficult for me so they have roving gangs in my space. The gangs are spread over time zones so that twice every day they hit the beacons. By doing this the defending alliance is unable to refuel their POS. At first its just an annoyance, but over time it starts to become desperate as they need to defend or repair the beacons. The defenders can mass all their forces at one beacon, but if they do so then I can just hit another. When going in to seige POS then knock out the cyno beacons first, that means the defenders can't change their stront timers. It's a very rough idea, it needs a lot of work - but hopefully something good can be made from the concept. Zarch AlDain
Zeveron Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 17:10:00 - [25] The main problem you have atm are the blobs and the grind needed to conquer a system. 99% of the pos warfare is happening in station systems. Remove the sov from the POSes while a station is in system. Only the station counts for sov to be held. Allow stations to be huge deathstars with guns, mods etc. Allow pos gunners to man those guns. Thats gona solve the grind needed to take over a system and leave most of the current pos system intact, for claiming sov in systems w/o station and moonmining. But its not gona reduce blobs. Atm if alliance A has X numbers of players online its gona bring them all to accomplish objective Y, even if that objective needs only X/10 to be accomplished. Ppl blob with 30 ppl to just kill a recon nowdays. So suggestions like make pos/stations easier to kill its not gona work. And I dont really like the idea of stations changing hands every day or even hours (GNW any1?). My suggestion is that stations should take atleast 24h to be killed. If some1 has 24h to play fair enough. Most ppl dont, so blobs gona be reduced. You also solve the TZ problem. Lets say an alliance B attacks a station on 02:00 EVE time, while alliance C which owns the station is sleeping. Fair enough, but the station shouldnt go down till 02:00 next day. Even if they bring 100 dreads, that station shouldnt go down. They could beat its passive tank, but the station should go down b4 the 24h period. So alliance C has the chance to save the station during their prime time. If they dont manage to save the station then the station should be conquered. Thats gona give a lot more small engagements during off primetime zones and the usual blobs during the primetime at the begining atleast. But while the fight is going on, ppl gona start loosing ships or get poded. Atm in 30-50m which take a medium sized dread blob to kill a pos, the size of the blob its not reduced. But during a day of fighting (at least, bcs the defending alliance can repair the shields) it do matters. The attacking alliance would have a huge blob at the begining but its gona be reduced during the increased fight time. Ppl should go get replacement ships, or come back if they got poded. The defending alliance could camp the routes reducing blobs even more. Dont allow attacking alliance having POSes in a hostile station system. Motherships and Titans could operate in a secured system to give ppl new ships or let them clonejump. They also could operate inside the hostile station system but w/o the security of a friendly POS. Ppl would have to move more. Ppl would have to think more. Ppl would have to make tactical decisions. Atm there is only 1 tactical decision to be made and that is attack when I got more ppl online the the enemy, blob him, fill my objective and over. You have to find a way to make it more tactical while on the same time reducing the blobs, which at the current state of the game, eve cannot handle it.
Angelus Custos Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.13 17:13:00 - [26] Quite a few of those ideas still force two alliances to throw everything they can muster at eachother in one grid. If the sov/pos system is to be reworked, no matter what path you choose, it should really try to force the blob apart to help ease lag. Force the combatants to fight over key elements in multiple systems at once, where failing to split makes victory impossible.
Sir JoJo Minmatar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 17:16:00 - [27] Edited by: Sir JoJo on 13/11/2007 17:18:30 ok what i think most ppl dont like about the system atm is the huge amount of pos spam and such. my idea and its just a roughly one. make a Max limit of Large pos each alliance can have in a system that counts for Sov, my number would be 3 so all alliance who want can place 3 pos if there room for it, though i would change it so u can place as many pos u want at moons but the ones that count for sov should be at planets. this will hugely reduce the numbers need for sov war also i would Increase the cost of large pos that can claim sov to something around maybe 10bill maybe add a new Sov claiming pos so we still can have a large pos as these days for other purpose then sov claiming, so to sum it up. x system have 7 planets. planet 1-7 Planet 1 Large sov pos for Alliance a Planet 2 Large sov pos for Alliance a planet 3 Large sov pos for Alliance a planet 4 Large sov pos for Alliance b planet 5 Large sov pos for Alliance b planet 6 Large sov pos for Alliance b planet 7 Large sov pos for Alliance b after some time maybe as it is today the allaince whit superior numbers claims sov and can attack stations and such. if one alliance have 3 pos up and another add 3. they have lest say a week for each allaince to kill of one sov pos to take over the sov or else the sov will be neutulised. also i suggest a max stront timer on sov pos for 3 days in that case u can have 2 trys on sov poses over a week to rey and kill it. also maybe let normal Large pos be able to anchor at planets that way defending allince have a way to make a buffer for them self because the attacking for will need to kill those before they can add sov poses. whit this way the moons itself will go back to beeing industrial part of the game and planets will be the important factor for taking a system.
Hellspawn666 Minmatar Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.13 17:44:00 - [28] Originally by: Smith I believe we should keep the large, medium and small starbases but introduce a new Starbase that is a Sovereignty Starbase. These SS's would be what actually control the system. SS's can only be deployed at Planets. SS's must cost alot more than what Large towers cost. These SS's are purely for Sovereignty...no idustry etc. Once the tower is under 95% Shield Strong timers can no longer be set? Limit the ammount of SS you can have in one System. These are just rough ideas. In short Moons = Mining, Planets = Control. I like this idea the best so far have less towers but have one tower that is worth A HECK of alot more also they should be able to fit alot more in terms of combat, This would focus attention and also make it feel like we are achieving something when destroying somthing worth alot to alliance whereas atm a large pos isnt all that hurtful yet can take a really long time to take down if they are defending it including a heck of alot of tedious camping. However i would like to develop the idea a little bit more as you say keep the old towers but give them a more industrial spin, boost moon mining so that alliance as a whole can make a decent income(that would make gaining territory more then just e-peen) but also make it so the planet that has the sov tower on it makes the moons around it completly secure while the sov tower is online, thus the moons would be secure and you can invest money in it without too much risk. Since i only really see deathstar pos and placeholder pos in 0.0 alliances atm.
Ztrain Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 17:49:00 - [29] Alright I do like the idea of conquer a majority of the plants in the system by conquering the majority of the moons to hold the planet idea. That'd leave the mechanic basically the same while changing some of the implementation to make if different for each system. Anchor majority if the POSs etc although some moons are now more strategic then others. Reduces the total number of POSs out needed to take a system and reduces the need as well as the effects of POS spamming. Other idea is having a module that would generate sov. You'd have to have a tower anchored for a given time say a week. Personally I'd prefer sooner but keeping current times for simplicity. After that the tower could accept a cyno module. You have a system wide max number that could be anchored as 5 or another odd number preferably the smaller the better. When one of the towers with a sov module is destroyed It locks out Somehow haven't thought about how exactly yet all the allies of the alliance that the module that was destroyed. For a 6 hour period only attacking or agressing parties could be flagged to anchor in the space. That would prevent a race for whom could right click anchor faster. Whom ever has the majority of the modules in system control sov. This 2nd idea would make it so the only need a minimum of 3 POSs in the system to hold sov. And more would just be to have a certain number of POSs ready to accept a module. If there's a bite on this 2nd Idea I'll sit down and actually flesh it out and balance it. The most fun in game I had was when first starting out playing during the ASCN war. There was to stupid station services that take hours and hour to shoot and rep. Sorry but if it's a night of stare at station services or go out with friends to see a movie movie wins turning the game in to a when nothing else is going on thing. The whole POS war fair of taking forever with having to disable modules and crap is kinda poor design from the beginning. The battles should be between players and fleets not with towers. Make the POSs deadly again. Right now POS warfare is nothing more then a ZzZzZzZzZz waste of RL time. Z Originally by: CCP Zulupark That's the rough idea, yes. We still have in no way started thinking about what modules to introduce, what they would do or anything of the likes, but the idea is that.
Vladimir Tinakin Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative	Posted - 2007.11.13 18:01:00 - [30] The proposals based on moons claiming sov over planets, and most planets wins I find problematic, at least inasmuch as relieving the current situation: some planets totally lack moons, and this wouldn't reduce pos spam, just add another layer to it. You're still talking majority pos wins the system for 75%+ of sieges, but theres a slight possibility of an upset for systems with the majority of moons on a minority of planets. ...OK, I can actually see a benefit to it now (thinking is fun!). It's still a bandaid, however--you're still talking stront, extended TZ sieges, etc; just more systems akin to the 6-7 moon "fortress" systems that are valued today. When you come down to it, you have two scenarios for sov: a station system and a non-station system. Solutions to this problem have to take into account both situations. Proposal: a Sov module that is only anchorable at one tower per planet--requiring several hours to anchor, and its outside the POS shield. It could get 95-99% resistances when online and not require CPU--so to remove that tower/planet's sov claim, you could do the traditional route and kill the tower after a reinforced cycle, or just get a ton of dreads together and beat the thing down to incap in one go. A new tower could be introduced that could solely be anchored at a planet to also make use of this for planets with no moons, or simply to cut moons out of the equation. This could work equally well for station systems and non-station systems; however anchorables at a station would be a welcome change to game mechanics, and the station could maybe serve as an additional "sov point" for the defender--either natively or as an "upgrade" to the station. Does this encourage blobbing? No more than standard POS warfare. The fact is, blobbing will remain a viable game mechanic until CCP implements some sort of focus firing limitation/diminishing returns. The big question is: does this streamline sov warfare in a way that doesn't increase boredom?



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.